Sukhoi Su-30MKI

[smestarz]

GOM will be giving him the space etc, they wont be fully funding it as its not Govt of Mahrashtra projectl. The govt would not be investing 35000 crore, but would be supporting him by perhaps reducing taxes and giving him land for setting up the unit.
I do not think any govt can invest that much in building transport planes that are not going to help any of the basic needs of indian citizen

He did work hard but the 35000 crore is not worth the price when there is already a readymade aircraft which is fully flightworthy and is much cheaper. SARAS too less than $1 billion to be made developed and flight tested. This $5+ billion for making a new plane with no new addition is really laughable.

 

[smestarz]

I am not sure how much you know about aviation, but overhauling is an expensive and time consuming process,
Even for overhauling Rafale it would that much time. Overhauling and Upgrading require almost similar time, Mirage 2000 upgrade will take almost a year for each plane and this is what IAF calls :maintenance friendly" plane like Rafale, Thus in a way Rafale overhaul will take similar time.

Now we know for a fact
A) Mirage 2000 upgrade did not give it an AESA or SPECTRA or something that really has a cost, and yet, the cost of upgrade of each plane was about US$ 50 million, Please note the no,
On other hand as per what you said Su-30 MKI cost of overhaul is 10-15 million.
YET if you compare the ability or performance, Su-30 MKI can get deep into Pakistan all by itself and return without the need of any aircraft needed to provide it protection.
So, there are guys like you who see plane in terms of value, or how long they can fly. But there are other group of people who see the capability of a plane to perform and to outperform its opponents.
BTW. Where did you get the number of "you can expect another 2000 hours after service life extension..." from a credible source or you just made up the number? hilarious
Do come with credible numbers with source if you can,

Seems you are stretching your imagination way too much dear..

In terms of capability, the Rafales are a massive step up compared to the MKI. We need the Super MKI to keep up, and are expensive. And the Rafales are proven too.

In terms of service life, the Rafales are already at 7000-8000 hours and can be doubled again. MKI's at 6000 hours and you can expect another 2000 hours after service life extension. So I would recommending calculating the LCC based on a per hour flight basis.

The maintenance requirements for MKI are ridiculous. Apart from the extensive downtime due to regular maintenance, the MKI requires 3 expensive overhauls which costs $10-15M each time and takes many months. And that's without counting the 30 hours it stays on the ground for every hour of flight. The Rafale doesn't need overhaul and stays on the ground only for 9 hours for every hour of flight.

There are also a whole host of other advantages like quicker turnaround and greater sorties/day. In the same conditions, the Rafale will fly more than the MKI can. And in case something goes wrong with either aircraft, I can put the Rafale back in the air much faster than the MKI. For example, Rafale's engine can be replaced in 30 minutes, it takes 8 hours to do the same on the MKI.

The MKI is not cheaper than Rafale. The CPFH of the MKI is $12000 according to HAL. Rafale's CPFH is much lower at $10000 when being sourced from France, it will become much lesser once DRAL starts supplies from Indian factories.

You can't compare Russian upgrades with French. We paid almost $1B for the Mig-29s and that's only for 10 years of extra flying time, 1000 hours extra. We paid extra for the engines in a separate contract. We paid $2.5B for the M-2000s and are getting 5500 hours of extra flight time, so we can fly it for another 30-40 years. Mig-29s will have to be retired by 2030, we can use M-2000s until 2050-60 at least if necessary. So they are not the same.

 

[smestarz]

Your MSA is flying anytime soon? Or still a project?
I would be very disappointed if it just remains a dream.

You started a poll about fighters for India. I voted for Rafale. It might surprise you but I have been consistent about my choice that Rafle is best for India. Even to the iN I had stated that combination of SE MSA and Rafale is what they need. 100% rafle fleet or 100% MSA fleet is not the best of the options.

 

[randomradio]

And still MKI built in 2019 will be useless in 2025.

Yes.

You need to remember that even the 2019 MKI was configured back in the 90s. Hell, by those standards, even the F-22's avionics, Rafale F2, F3, Typhoon Trance 2 etc are all approaching obsolescence due to the new technologies and fighters coming up.

Here's some eye-opening quotes.
https://gizmodo.com/the-only-thing-keeping-the-f-35-lightning-relevant-is-t-1515758033
"If you gave me all the money I needed to refurbish the F-15 and the F-16 fleets," he continued, "they would still become tactically obsolete by the middle of the next decade. Our adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade."

So if General Hostage says even their upgraded F-15s and F-16s are obsolete, what's so special about the old MKI?

By 2025 too, the F-22 needs better avionics if it has to remain relevant.

I actually consider the F-22 and F-35 to be obsolete by 2030 and you are actually arguing for the sake of the MKI.

Even with cost, your 1 Ton strike fighter is quite expensive. An MKI will deliver 6 ton (8 500, 8 250's) to deliver the same you would need six of them. Jags still seem more expensive ton.

Nope. The 1 Ton strike fighter has been completely paid for. All we have to do now is pay for upgrades.

But incidentally a bunch of medium and high altitude Air interdiction footage available on youtube for the Rafale. Please do explain to me this low altitude bombing advantage for strike role that cannot be achieved from cruise altitude .

When you fly at low altitude, you are generally aiming to be below radar horizon. So the idea is to avoid detection until the last minute in order to reduce your exposure time.

At high altitude, you are dead.

Just out of curiosity are PGM's , cluster bombs dropped from low altitude? F125N does not just increase altitude, but improves performance at 30000+ altitude. That means it has a better OP and in turn CR than the Adour engines and thus can deliver better thrust at lower barometric pressure.

Depends on the target, the threats being faced, the tactics being employed, the type of weapon being used etc.

1:15

What exactly is a 4.5th gen aircraft?

It depends. There is no hard and fixed rule. If you call the Rafale 4.5th gen, then all other aircraft are 4th gen and below, including the MKI.

Definitions are based on the marketer's wishes. What we need to be concerned about is mission effectiveness. The MKI's mission effectiveness in Jaguar's role is high, but in air superiority, it is very low.

Even in the early 2000s, in the Korean competition, the Su-35 (KNAAPO's competitor to the MKI, not BM) did not do very well against the more advanced Rafale.

So give it time, once the FGFA comes in you will see the IAF converting the MKI into a bomb/missile truck. Like what the US is doing with their F-15s now.

JAPAN AEROSPACE: Boeing promotes F-15 as air-to-air missile truck
In 2015, Boeing unveiled an enhanced version of the F-15C designed to keep the model operationally relevant through to 2040. Called 2040C, the upgrade package included “quad-pack” munitions racks designed to double the aircraft’s air-to-air missile payload to 16 and conformal fuel tanks for extended-range flights.

“For legacy jets, we can increase the missile load to 16, but for new jets we can offer 20,” says Lane.

I disagree with you vehemently in all of it. MKI wont be rendered useless in 5 years, and rafales wont be rendered useless in 10. 4th Gen aircraft in both borders did not leave the 3rd gen Indian aircraft's useless. You over-rate Chinese capabilities and underrate Indian, which is a good thing. Also I haven't seen the literature that conclusively proves that Spectra can defeat all the threats including r77, (remember there is a k77 seeker in development) RVV-PD/MD/SD and especially the SD which will outrange Meteor.
RVV-AE is not my first choice either, but trust me on this and talk to any Pilot about about the R73, you will be quite surprised.

Disagreeing with me is fine. But the IAF disagrees with you also, that's more important.

The difference between 3rd and 4th gen is not very big. The difference between 4th and 5th is way too big. Let's just say two squadrons of the F-35 will be able to wipe out pretty much any 4th gen fleet today.

The R-77, R-73 etc are all good. But they are obsolete today. If you go up against an enemy with better missiles, you may not get the chance to fire off your own missiles in the first place. That's why newer missiles are in development and the Chinese have already begun induction of more advanced weapons than the R-77 and R-73. So India is actually lagging behind, minus the Rafale purchase.

I am not overrating Chinese capabilities. With the J-20 in service, along with more modern weapons, they have at the very least surpassed the Russians for now. It goes back to the difference between 4th and 5th gen. Never has a generation gap been so big.

Try reading the following, and evalaute if HTT40's story was as simple as you present.

Broadsword: Thirteen links that tell the full story of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II

The less you read from Shuklaji's blog, the better.
Broadsword: Capability jump: IAF looks to buy fifth-generation F-35 fighter

No request made to US for F-35 fighter jet, says IAF chief B S Dhanoa

Shuklaji wants gullible folk to click on all his links 13 times.

The PC-7/HTT-40 story is actually quite simple. The IAF bought the PC-7, they were happy with it. Out came HAL with the HTT-40. IAF made a study and decided that the HTT-40 would be more expensive and they wouldn't be going for it, never mind the time it will take to actually finish the project. Parrikar stepped in and pointed out the MoD will be willing to pay more for the indigenous trainers because it is helping build indigenous capability.

But you are getting hung up over a project that has no relevance to what the IAF is actually doing. They are going for 300+ LCAs anyhow.

 

[Milspec]

Yes.

You need to remember that even the 2019 MKI was configured back in the 90s. Hell, by those standards, even the F-22's avionics, Rafale F2, F3, Typhoon Trance 2 etc are all approaching obsolescence due to the new technologies and fighters coming up.

Here's some eye-opening quotes.
https://gizmodo.com/the-only-thing-keeping-the-f-35-lightning-relevant-is-t-1515758033
"If you gave me all the money I needed to refurbish the F-15 and the F-16 fleets," he continued, "they would still become tactically obsolete by the middle of the next decade. Our adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade."

So if General Hostage says even their upgraded F-15s and F-16s are obsolete, what's so special about the old MKI?

By 2025 too, the F-22 needs better avionics if it has to remain relevant.

I actually consider the F-22 and F-35 to be obsolete by 2030 and you are actually arguing for the sake of the MKI.

MKI's, F15, F16's, F22's all go obsolete, But jaguars don't. That has been the crux from the beginning.

Nope. The 1 Ton strike fighter has been completely paid for. All we have to do now is pay for upgrades.

But use Six of them on a strike mission which can be done by one MKI, use Six pilots, use an entire BRD, stores, and inspect 12 engines for a mission. instead on 1.

When you fly at low altitude, you are generally aiming to be below radar horizon. So the idea is to avoid detection until the last minute in order to reduce your exposure time.

At high altitude, you are dead.

Will awacs have a radar horizons similar to your image? you keep touting your enemies technological leaps when it comes to a2a combat, but still assume 70's detection technology? that's odd.

Depends on the target, the threats being faced, the tactics being employed, the type of weapon being used etc.

1:15

that wasn't my question
really cluster bombs and pgms being deployed at low altitude? show me one instance?

It depends. There is no hard and fixed rule. If you call the Rafale 4.5th gen, then all other aircraft are 4th gen and below, including the MKI.

Definitions are based on the marketer's wishes. What we need to be concerned about is mission effectiveness. The MKI's mission effectiveness in Jaguar's role is high, but in air superiority, it is very low.

Even in the early 2000s, in the Korean competition, the Su-35 (KNAAPO's competitor to the MKI, not BM) did not do very well against the more advanced Rafale.

So give it time, once the FGFA comes in you will see the IAF converting the MKI into a bomb/missile truck. Like what the US is doing with their F-15s now.[/MEDIA][/QUOTE]
But that goes against every thing you have been saying since the last 10 pages, MKI's are horrible strike platform? USAF apparently were idiots to do so with their F15's , why would IAF that has done no wrong in it's entirety will ever do something ridiculous like taking a useless platform like MKI and adapting it to strike role? wasn't that the crux of your narrative?

Disagreeing with me is fine. But the IAF disagrees with you also, that's more important.

They haven't till now, MKI numbers got to where I predicted six years ago, three years ago I predicted HTT40 would be a better choice, guess what IAF is doing now, they seemed to have agreed to me fine till now, I will be surprised if MKI's are decommissioned post 2025.

The difference between 3rd and 4th gen is not very big. The difference between 4th and 5th is way too big. Let's just say two squadrons of the F-35 will be able to wipe out pretty much any 4th gen fleet today.

Share an exercise with such results, that would be an interesting read.

The R-77, R-73 etc are all good. But they are obsolete today. If you go up against an enemy with better missiles, you may not get the chance to fire off your own missiles in the first place. That's why newer missiles are in development and the Chinese have already begun induction of more advanced weapons than the R-77 and R-73. So India is actually lagging behind, minus the Rafale purchase.

And in your opinion such advanced missiles will still be mitigated by spectra, Right?

I am not overrating Chinese capabilities. With the J-20 in service, along with more modern weapons, they have at the very least surpassed the Russians for now. It goes back to the difference between 4th and 5th gen. Never has a generation gap been so big.

But not the french, so rafales no matter what still will be safe.

The less you read from Shuklaji's blog, the better.
Broadsword: Capability jump: IAF looks to buy fifth-generation F-35 fighter

No request made to US for F-35 fighter jet, says IAF chief B S Dhanoa

Shuklaji wants gullible folk to click on all his links 13 times.

The PC-7/HTT-40 story is actually quite simple. The IAF bought the PC-7, they were happy with it. Out came HAL with the HTT-40. IAF made a study and decided that the HTT-40 would be more expensive and they wouldn't be going for it, never mind the time it will take to actually finish the project. Parrikar stepped in and pointed out the MoD will be willing to pay more for the indigenous trainers because it is helping build indigenous capability.

But you are getting hung up over a project that has no relevance to what the IAF is actually doing. They are going for 300+ LCAs anyhow.

This is called false equivalency. Read how IAF intentionally gave a stricter parameters for HTT40 to qualify, but diluted it for PC7. Argue on the merits of the case rather that picking up other stray stories.[/QUOTE]

 

[randomradio]

MKI's, F15, F16's, F22's all go obsolete, But jaguars don't. That has been the crux from the beginning.

Jaguars were obsolete long ago. But they have 20 years left in them, so it doesn't make sense to replace them with MKIs.

I already said it, Jaguars are still useful in permissible environments. But the MKI is a waste of time. Yeah, it's better than the Jaguar from a payload perspective, but we bought it to ensure air dominance, not compete with the Jaguar.

But use Six of them on a strike mission which can be done by one MKI, use Six pilots, use an entire BRD, stores, and inspect 12 engines for a mission. instead on 1.

There are some things the MKI simply cannot do due to its 1 hour less flight time, like trying again.

Will awacs have a radar horizons similar to your image? you keep touting your enemies technological leaps when it comes to a2a combat, but still assume 70's detection technology? that's odd.

The idea behind the Rafale is to stay undetected throughout its flight envelope, that's including when facing AWACS.

Even AWACS have issues dealing with ground clutter when trying to find terrain hugging Rafales that's using Spectra to suppress its RCS.

that wasn't my question
really cluster bombs and pgms being deployed at low altitude? show me one instance?

Low altitude penetration is a maneuver tactic, not a weapons deployment tactic.

But that goes against every thing you have been saying since the last 10 pages, MKI's are horrible strike platform? USAF apparently were idiots to do so with their F15's , why would IAF that has done no wrong in it's entirety will ever do something ridiculous like taking a useless platform like MKI and adapting it to strike role? wasn't that the crux of your narrative?

I never said the MKI is a horrible strike platform. I said the MKI is an obsolete AS fighter. The USAF have F-22s, we don't.

They haven't till now, MKI numbers got to where I predicted six years ago, three years ago I predicted HTT40 would be a better choice, guess what IAF is doing now, they seemed to have agreed to me fine till now, I will be surprised if MKI's are decommissioned post 2025.

6 years ago? That's funny. MKI numbers up to 272 were decided back in 2009.

MKIs won't be decommissioned until 2040 or 2050. Obsolescence is not the same as decommissioning.

Share an exercise with such results, that would be an interesting read.

F-22A Raptor Deployments and Exercises
In June, 2006, twelve F-22As of the 27th FW deployed from Langley AFB to Elmendorf AFB for the Northern Edge 2006 exercise. During this exercise the F-22As scored 144:0 in air combat engagements against opposing fighters.

“Red Flag confirmed F-35 dominance with a 20:1 kill ratio” U.S. Air Force says
Indeed, while early reports suggested a 15-1 kill ratio recent Air Force testimony by Lt. Gen. Jerry D. Harris, Vice Commander of Air Combat Command characterized the kill ratio as “20-1” meaning that, for one F-35A “lost” in simulated combat in a high threat environment that the aircraft destroyed 20 simulated enemy aircraft.

During the same testimony, U.S. Marine Lt. Gen. Jon M. Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, related a 24-0 kill ratio for U.S. Marine F-35B aircraft during a different exercise.

Combined Force of 4 F-15s and 4 F-22s achieves 41-1 kill ratio against 14 “Red Air” fighters at WSEP
The last day of the trip we flew 4 F-15s and 4 F-22s against 14 “red air” fighters. For our training, we allowed the red air to regenerate after being killed by a blue air fighter. The final results of that mission: Blue Air killed 41 enemy aircraft and lost just one. While pretty phenomenal, perfection is our goal so the debrief focused on how we could have had a 41-0 ratio.”

And in your opinion such advanced missiles will still be mitigated by spectra, Right?

Yes. To a significant extent. Rafale's electronics are a step up compared to most other aircraft today, I would say all aircraft. And this includes the quality and capability of their decoy systems.

You see, the Rafale won't be seen by the R-77's seekers because of Spectra. And the Rafale will make the kill before the R-73 comes into play.

But not the french, so rafales no matter what still will be safe.

Only for another 10 years, I've already said it. The J-20's more advanced version with newer engines will dominate the Rafale. By then, we should get the FGFA to keep up or surpass the Chinese.

Rafale won't be able to fight a J-20 in 2030, but it will still be capable of defeating SAM sites.

This is called false equivalency. Read how IAF intentionally gave a stricter parameters for HTT40 to qualify, but diluted it for PC7. Argue on the merits of the case rather that picking up other stray stories.

[/QUOTE]

Nothing wrong with what the IAF did there. All development programs have stricter parameters than previous aircraft. If they wanted HAL to develop another PC-7, then they would have given the same parameters and ended up wasting a decade waiting for it.

When HAL couldn't accomplish achieving the trainer requirements at an earlier stage, the IAF went ahead with what was available in the international market. Now that they have, the IAF is going ahead with the HTT-40.

The fact is the IAF went with an aircraft when HAL did not have an alternative available, or had the ability to build one. You see, the PC-7 contract was signed in 2012 and IAF received the last of the 75 PC-7 in 2015. Even in 2018, I don't see the HTT-40. So even if the IAF had supported the HAL project since the beginning, they would never have seen a basic trainer in service for nearly a decade. That's not a good spot for anybody to put the IAF in.

People forget that in the name of indigenous development, they end up putting the forces at risk. The same thing happened with the 3rd gen ATGM deal. DRDO is developing one and they managed to get the MoD to cancel the Spike deal all the while ignoring the immediate need for it. At least they later had the sense to import some Spike in the meanwhile, so that it can offset any delays from the DRDO program.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Su30 MKI is a plane made in 1996 as a modification of Su30 plane initially made. The new Su30 MKI has advanced avionics and changed airframe- addition of canards, improvement of fuel tanks compared to Su30. Su30 MKI is as old as F22. The avionics of Su30 MKI has been undergoing upgrades. As of now, SAMTEL manufactured avionics is being used. Even the jaguars have undergone upgrades to avionics. F16 of USA has got upgrades too.

Planes don't become obsolete because of older avionics or radars. These are upgradable as these are more or less plug and play systems. What is not upgradable is the aerodynamics, engine size, fuel storage and a few other structural aspects.

Jaguar is obsolete because it is hopeless in aerodynamics and is incapable of maneuvering properly which will make it an easy target for SAM and AAM of modern era. Jaguar also has low powered engine and consequently lower speed and lower powered radars. Su30 is extremely maneuverable, has high powered engines and radars with the only drawback being metallic airframe giving high RCS which may be reduced to some extent by RAM coating.

You need to remember that even the 2019 MKI was configured back in the 90s. Hell, by those standards, even the F-22's avionics, Rafale F2, F3, Typhoon Trance 2 etc are all approaching obsolescence due to the new technologies and fighters coming up

 

[Milspec]

Nothing wrong with what the IAF did there. All development programs have stricter parameters than previous aircraft. If they wanted HAL to develop another PC-7, then they would have given the same parameters and ended up wasting a decade waiting for it.

When HAL couldn't accomplish achieving the trainer requirements at an earlier stage, the IAF went ahead with what was available in the international market. Now that they have, the IAF is going ahead with the HTT-40.

The fact is the IAF went with an aircraft when HAL did not have an alternative available, or had the ability to build one. You see, the PC-7 contract was signed in 2012 and IAF received the last of the 75 PC-7 in 2015. Even in 2018, I don't see the HTT-40. So even if the IAF had supported the HAL project since the beginning, they would never have seen a basic trainer in service for nearly a decade. That's not a good spot for anybody to put the IAF in.

People forget that in the name of indigenous development, they end up putting the forces at risk. The same thing happened with the 3rd gen ATGM deal. DRDO is developing one and they managed to get the MoD to cancel the Spike deal all the while ignoring the immediate need for it. At least they later had the sense to import some Spike in the meanwhile, so that it can offset any delays from the DRDO program.

Browne has written to Antony that the HTT-40 would cost Rs 43.59 crore apiece at 2011 prices and, after factoring in forex escalation and inflation, would cost Rs 59.31 crore in 2018 and Rs 64.77 crore in 2020.

The IAF chief contrasts this with the cost of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II, which he claims costs just Rs 30 crore apiece.

That figure of Rs 30 crore is incorrect. The cost of the PC-7 Mark II is derived from the IAF’s contract for 75 PC-7 Mark II trainers, signed on May 24, 2012 for Swiss Franc 557 million (Rs 3,606 crore). The contract specifies that each trainer would cost Swiss Francs 6.09 million. Since payment is linked to delivery, the cost of each PC-7 Mark II is touching Rs 40 crore today. (i.e ACM lying about th figure by 33.33%)

The news reports also reveal that at least 12 changes were made to performance benchmarks for the basic trainer the month after it was decided to buy 75 out of the IAF’s overall requirement of 181 trainers from the global market, while HAL developed the remaining 106.

Surprisingly, the performance benchmarks that were imposed on HAL (in a March 2009 document called the Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirements, or PSQR) were exceptionally stringent. These were subsequently diluted, the month after it was decided to buy abroad, and issued in Oct 2009 in a document called the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR).(Dilution of ASQR for PC7 vs Stringent ASQR for HAL)


In a happy coincidence, the diluted ASQR allowed the PC-7 Mark II to qualify (it did not meet the PSQR requirement, which had been imposed on HAL). Without that dilution, Pilatus would have had to field the PC-21, a costlier trainer that would have been unlikely to be the lowest bidder. Making the PC-7 Mark II technically compliant by lowering the specifications brought a low-cost trainer into contention. (Smells like Augusta)

Meanwhile the other trainers that qualified --- the Korean Aerospace KT-1; and the American Hawker-Beechcraft T-6C Texan-II --- were qualitatively better (meeting the PSQR requirements), but also more expensive. The PC-7 Mark II won the contract as the cheapest trainer that met the (lowered) specifications.

Comments were sought from the IAF before each news report, but it chose to remain silent. Today, the IAF has responded with a lengthy “clarification”.

The IAF’s first response is that the stringent benchmarks in the PSQR that was imposed on HAL in Mar 2009 were only “Desirable” parameters for the trainer, not “Essential” parameters. In lengthy citations of the Defence Procurement Policy, the IAF tries to suggest that there was no dilution of QRs, only a legitimate paring of “Desirable” parameters. (More BS to cover its a$$ )

This is not a valid argument. The PSQR, of which Business Standard has a copy, does not differentiate between “Essential” and “Desirable” parameters. All parameters are listed together, with no differentiation. (WHAAAT?)

HAL officials, speaking anonymously, confirm that, until the parameters were diluted in the ASQR issued in Oct 2009, the HTT-40 was being built to meet all the parameters in the PSQR.

The IAF also suggests that no rules were broken, since the PSQR was revised downwards along with the ASQR, after benchmarks were lowered in Oct 2009. “The amended ‘PSQR’ after ratification by (the MoD) on 01 December 2009 were issued to HAL… Therefore, as on date, PSQR and ASQR are similar. (After ASQR was changed to fit the PC7)

That neatly sidesteps the essential point of the news report --- which was that performance benchmarks were irregularly lowered when it came to a global buy. The PSQR was lowered, as was the ASQR. It matters little that they are similar today. In that respect, the IAF confirms a key point made by Business Standard.

The IAF seeks to validate the selection of the PC-7 Mark II by stating, “It needs to be noted that the (tender) for BTA received maximum responses generating the largest competition in aircraft procurement in recent history, wherein M/s Pilatus was one of the three vendors who met all ASQR and… emerged as the L1 (lowest bid) vendor on the basis of their commercial offer.”

This evades the point that lowered benchmarks appear to have allowed the PC-7 Mark II to meet the specifications, introducing a low-cost aircraft into the contest.

The deal was held up for almost a year after the Korean defence minister wrote personally to Antony requesting him to intercede. An internal MoD investigation eventually gave a go-ahead.

The IAF also suggests that the compromise made in crucial safety specifications, by removing the need for a “zero-zero” ejection seat (which allows the pilot to bail out even while the aircraft is stationary on the ground) was done because “retaining the ASQR of 0-0 ejection seat would have narrowed the competition to only two vendors.” Lowering the specifications “ensured that more than seven vendors remained in the competition.”

On the one hand, this argument accepts that specifications in even “Essential” parameters were lowered. However, the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) nowhere states that important safety compromises can be made to generate competition. And the fact is that the PC-7 Mark II does not have a “zero-zero” ejection seat.

The IAF also tries to justify its dilution of multiple criteria reported by Business Standard by responding that “both the ASQR and current PSQR” do not stipulate requirements for parameters like cockpit pressurization; external vision criteria; in-flight simulation (for simulating failures); take off within 1000 metres; and maximum speed of 450 kmph.

That the ASQR and current PSQR have identical benchmarks does not exonerate the improper dilution of benchmarks in the “current PSQR” after taking a decision to buy the basic trainer from the global market.

In other respects --- as evident from the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II webpage on the internet --- the IAF “clarification” contains outright falsehoods. It claims that “the maximum speed of the PC-7 Mk Il is 555 kmph and not 448 kmph as falsely stated in the news article.”

In fact, as is well known, the maximum speed of an aircraft is calculated in level flight at sea level and the Pilatus website (Pilatus Aircraft Ltd | Swiss Aircraft Manufacturer) states that this is 448 kmph.

The IAF “clarification” admits that the IAF chief gave out false figures in his letter to the RM, since the current exchange rate was not factored in. The IAF now says the PC-7 Mark II would cost Rs 38.3 crore. And it now says the HTT-40 would be 25 per cent more expensive than the PC-7 Mark II.

Browne’s letter to Antony had stated, “As per the contract, the unit price of PC-7 Mk II is INR 30 Cr for the mean delivery year of 2014. The aircraft would be supplied at the same cost up to 2017 under the “Option Clause”. Hence the HTT-40 will be more expensive to the IAF when compared with the PC-7 Mk II by over 89% from 2018 onwards.”

“It is unprecedented for a service chief to present incorrect figures to the Raksha Mantri,” says a senior MoD official anonymously. “And what makes this doubly damning is that the air chief is using incorrect figures to make a case for a foreign vendor.”(Guess when has that happened before?)

 

[randomradio]

Browne has written to Antony that the HTT-40 would cost Rs 43.59 crore apiece at 2011 prices and, after factoring in forex escalation and inflation, would cost Rs 59.31 crore in 2018 and Rs 64.77 crore in 2020.

The IAF chief contrasts this with the cost of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II, which he claims costs just Rs 30 crore apiece.

That figure of Rs 30 crore is incorrect. The cost of the PC-7 Mark II is derived from the IAF’s contract for 75 PC-7 Mark II trainers, signed on May 24, 2012 for Swiss Franc 557 million (Rs 3,606 crore). The contract specifies that each trainer would cost Swiss Francs 6.09 million. Since payment is linked to delivery, the cost of each PC-7 Mark II is touching Rs 40 crore today. (i.e ACM lying about th figure by 33.33%)

The news reports also reveal that at least 12 changes were made to performance benchmarks for the basic trainer the month after it was decided to buy 75 out of the IAF’s overall requirement of 181 trainers from the global market, while HAL developed the remaining 106.

Surprisingly, the performance benchmarks that were imposed on HAL (in a March 2009 document called the Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirements, or PSQR) were exceptionally stringent. These were subsequently diluted, the month after it was decided to buy abroad, and issued in Oct 2009 in a document called the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR).(Dilution of ASQR for PC7 vs Stringent ASQR for HAL)


In a happy coincidence, the diluted ASQR allowed the PC-7 Mark II to qualify (it did not meet the PSQR requirement, which had been imposed on HAL). Without that dilution, Pilatus would have had to field the PC-21, a costlier trainer that would have been unlikely to be the lowest bidder. Making the PC-7 Mark II technically compliant by lowering the specifications brought a low-cost trainer into contention. (Smells like Augusta)

Meanwhile the other trainers that qualified --- the Korean Aerospace KT-1; and the American Hawker-Beechcraft T-6C Texan-II --- were qualitatively better (meeting the PSQR requirements), but also more expensive. The PC-7 Mark II won the contract as the cheapest trainer that met the (lowered) specifications.

Comments were sought from the IAF before each news report, but it chose to remain silent. Today, the IAF has responded with a lengthy “clarification”.

The IAF’s first response is that the stringent benchmarks in the PSQR that was imposed on HAL in Mar 2009 were only “Desirable” parameters for the trainer, not “Essential” parameters. In lengthy citations of the Defence Procurement Policy, the IAF tries to suggest that there was no dilution of QRs, only a legitimate paring of “Desirable” parameters. (More BS to cover its a$$ )

This is not a valid argument. The PSQR, of which Business Standard has a copy, does not differentiate between “Essential” and “Desirable” parameters. All parameters are listed together, with no differentiation. (WHAAAT?)

HAL officials, speaking anonymously, confirm that, until the parameters were diluted in the ASQR issued in Oct 2009, the HTT-40 was being built to meet all the parameters in the PSQR.

The IAF also suggests that no rules were broken, since the PSQR was revised downwards along with the ASQR, after benchmarks were lowered in Oct 2009. “The amended ‘PSQR’ after ratification by (the MoD) on 01 December 2009 were issued to HAL… Therefore, as on date, PSQR and ASQR are similar. (After ASQR was changed to fit the PC7)

That neatly sidesteps the essential point of the news report --- which was that performance benchmarks were irregularly lowered when it came to a global buy. The PSQR was lowered, as was the ASQR. It matters little that they are similar today. In that respect, the IAF confirms a key point made by Business Standard.

The IAF seeks to validate the selection of the PC-7 Mark II by stating, “It needs to be noted that the (tender) for BTA received maximum responses generating the largest competition in aircraft procurement in recent history, wherein M/s Pilatus was one of the three vendors who met all ASQR and… emerged as the L1 (lowest bid) vendor on the basis of their commercial offer.”

This evades the point that lowered benchmarks appear to have allowed the PC-7 Mark II to meet the specifications, introducing a low-cost aircraft into the contest.

The deal was held up for almost a year after the Korean defence minister wrote personally to Antony requesting him to intercede. An internal MoD investigation eventually gave a go-ahead.

The IAF also suggests that the compromise made in crucial safety specifications, by removing the need for a “zero-zero” ejection seat (which allows the pilot to bail out even while the aircraft is stationary on the ground) was done because “retaining the ASQR of 0-0 ejection seat would have narrowed the competition to only two vendors.” Lowering the specifications “ensured that more than seven vendors remained in the competition.”

On the one hand, this argument accepts that specifications in even “Essential” parameters were lowered. However, the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) nowhere states that important safety compromises can be made to generate competition. And the fact is that the PC-7 Mark II does not have a “zero-zero” ejection seat.

The IAF also tries to justify its dilution of multiple criteria reported by Business Standard by responding that “both the ASQR and current PSQR” do not stipulate requirements for parameters like cockpit pressurization; external vision criteria; in-flight simulation (for simulating failures); take off within 1000 metres; and maximum speed of 450 kmph.

That the ASQR and current PSQR have identical benchmarks does not exonerate the improper dilution of benchmarks in the “current PSQR” after taking a decision to buy the basic trainer from the global market.

In other respects --- as evident from the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II webpage on the internet --- the IAF “clarification” contains outright falsehoods. It claims that “the maximum speed of the PC-7 Mk Il is 555 kmph and not 448 kmph as falsely stated in the news article.”

In fact, as is well known, the maximum speed of an aircraft is calculated in level flight at sea level and the Pilatus website (Pilatus Aircraft Ltd | Swiss Aircraft Manufacturer) states that this is 448 kmph.

The IAF “clarification” admits that the IAF chief gave out false figures in his letter to the RM, since the current exchange rate was not factored in. The IAF now says the PC-7 Mark II would cost Rs 38.3 crore. And it now says the HTT-40 would be 25 per cent more expensive than the PC-7 Mark II.

Browne’s letter to Antony had stated, “As per the contract, the unit price of PC-7 Mk II is INR 30 Cr for the mean delivery year of 2014. The aircraft would be supplied at the same cost up to 2017 under the “Option Clause”. Hence the HTT-40 will be more expensive to the IAF when compared with the PC-7 Mk II by over 89% from 2018 onwards.”

“It is unprecedented for a service chief to present incorrect figures to the Raksha Mantri,” says a senior MoD official anonymously. “And what makes this doubly damning is that the air chief is using incorrect figures to make a case for a foreign vendor.”(Guess when has that happened before?)

There's nothing special there.

When you go for something new, you go for the best specs you can get. Because the aircraft will be ready only many years later. If that's not possible, you go for something that already exists, and you dilute specs to make it relevant enough for the time. MMRCA specs were also diluted in order to shortlist Rafale and Typhoon, otherwise none of the aircraft were capable of meeting all the 643 MMRCA requirements. We are designing the AMCA to be relevant after 2030. Are you saying AMCA should have only MMRCA specs because that's the fighter we are looking for today? So should the HTT-40 have the same specs as PC7?

As for the price war nonsense, you are already seeing the deliberate misinformation being spread about Rafale. What's so special about pulling out two different prices when exchange rates are so volatile? 5 million Swiss francs from 2012 can easily be something else in 2015 when you convert. The Rafale's unit price has also increased and will continue increasing due to a strong euro, but that's not the contract price signed.

Finally, stop relying on articles written by someone with no credibility.

As for the PC-7 itself, I would much rather the IAF have their jets in time than wait for an indigenous option that doesn't even exist. A proven PC-7 in 2012 versus an unproven, who-knows-how-late HTT-40. Regardless, the IAF is committed to buy a lot of HTT-40s.

 

[Milspec]

There's nothing special there.

When you go for something new, you go for the best specs you can get. Because the aircraft will be ready only many years later. If that's not possible, you go for something that already exists, and you dilute specs to make it relevant enough for the time. MMRCA specs were also diluted in order to shortlist Rafale and Typhoon, otherwise none of the aircraft were capable of meeting all the 643 MMRCA requirements. We are designing the AMCA to be relevant after 2030. Are you saying AMCA should have only MMRCA specs because that's the fighter we are looking for today? So should the HTT-40 have the same specs as PC7?

As for the price war nonsense, you are already seeing the deliberate misinformation being spread about Rafale. What's so special about pulling out two different prices when exchange rates are so volatile? 5 million Swiss francs from 2012 can easily be something else in 2015 when you convert. The Rafale's unit price has also increased and will continue increasing due to a strong euro, but that's not the contract price signed.

Finally, stop relying on articles written by someone with no credibility.

As for the PC-7 itself, I would much rather the IAF have their jets in time than wait for an indigenous option that doesn't even exist. A proven PC-7 in 2012 versus an unproven, who-knows-how-late HTT-40. Regardless, the IAF is committed to buy a lot of HTT-40s.

Hey if you want to intentionally gloss over indiscretions of IAF that is your choice.Not much to say there. Whether its the Augusta or the PC7, IAF is not at fault.

 

[Bon Plan]

Now we know for a fact
A) Mirage 2000 upgrade did not give it an AESA or SPECTRA or something that really has a cost, and yet, the cost of upgrade of each plane was about US$ 50 million, Please note the no,
On other hand as per what you said Su-30 MKI cost of overhaul is 10-15 million.
,

The indian M2000 upgrade add a new and far much powerfull radar, with MICA capacity and a new electronic defense suit. It's not an AESA radar, but a very potent one. The modernized M2000 is 20+ years ahead the older one.
MKI overhaul is made with less upgrade.

 

[randomradio]

Hey if you want to intentionally gloss over indiscretions of IAF that is your choice.Not much to say there. Whether its the Augusta or the PC7, IAF is not at fault.

The Augusta was obviously a scam. But the PC-7 is not.

As I said, we got all the PC-7s by 2012, but there's no sign of the HTT-40 even being close to ready in 2018. HAL will still build 100+ HTT-40s anyway.

 

[smestarz]

When all over the world people want an AESA on their fighter or MRCA, the Mirage 2000 upgrade does not have an AESA
Is the Radar more capable than the Radar on Su-30 MKI ?
Would Mirage 2000 modernised take down Su-30 in aerial combat?
Mirage 2000 does not come with AESA or with say "SPECTRA" so seems the US$ 50 million a plane for upgrade looks too expensive as in 50 million we can get a new Tejas with an AESA..

The indian M2000 upgrade add a new and far much powerfull radar, with MICA capacity and a new electronic defense suit. It's not an AESA radar, but a very potent one. The modernized M2000 is 20+ years ahead the older one.
MKI overhaul is made with less upgrade.

 

[smestarz]

PILATUS, without an ejection seat is acceptable to you , are you saying that??
Please do elaborate

The Augusta was obviously a scam. But the PC-7 is not.

As I said, we got all the PC-7s by 2012, but there's no sign of the HTT-40 even being close to ready in 2018. HAL will still build 100+ HTT-40s anyway.

 

[smestarz]

Agusta is a Scam and PILATUS is a crime by an Air Chief against his fraternity

The Augusta was obviously a scam. But the PC-7 is not.

As I said, we got all the PC-7s by 2012, but there's no sign of the HTT-40 even being close to ready in 2018. HAL will still build 100+ HTT-40s anyway.

 

[randomradio]

PILATUS, without an ejection seat is acceptable to you , are you saying that??
Please do elaborate

Mk15 Ejection Seat - Martin-Baker

 

[GuardianRED]

PILATUS, without an ejection seat is acceptable to you , are you saying that??
Please do elaborate

Mk15 Ejection Seat - Martin-Baker

@smestarz - Do some research before making BS comments

@randomradio Isn't it the PC7 MkII in the IAF service?

Mk11 Ejection Seat - Martin-Baker

 

[randomradio]

@randomradio Isn't it the PC7 MkII in the IAF service?

Yes.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

SU 30 SM

TU 160

 

[militarist]

Russian Su-30SM crashed near Hmeimim airbase in Syria, all crew members died. Accordind to the first estimantes - due to technical failure