Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[Aryaputra]

My assertion has been in response to the talk of "critical technology" coming our way! For example, how does it matter if USA sells us the inner workings of their ECCM/ECM systems on board the fighters - atleast to IAF. All they would care about is to be able to maintain threat libraries!!!

Don't get fooled by what Janes or US ambassador says. USA says one thing in public, while another in private with GoI.

See ISRO Chief's statement last week where he exposed American double-speak.

 

[DMLA]

Gripen D for flight trials...

$11 bn in the balance, a no-show by Gripen fighter

The high-voltage $11 billion contest to sell India 126 Medium Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MMRCA) is reaching the end of the trials phase in a blaze of potential controversy. Today, the last of the six contenders being evaluated by the Indian Air Force — the Swedish Gripen — will fly into Bangalore for trials. But Business Standard has learnt that the fighters that will touch down are not the ones Gripen International has offered: the JAS-39IN Gripen NG. Instead, two older-model Gripen-D fighters will arrive.
The Gripen NG, a light, agile, ultra-modern fighter built by Swedish aerospace giant Saab, has always been one of the hottest contenders in the fray. Saab’s default on the MoD’s trial directive, which lays down that the fighter being offered must be the one that comes for trials, will delight its rivals — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Dassault, Eurofighter and MiG — since Gripen is now vulnerable to disqualification.

The arrival of the Gripen-D instead of the Gripen NG has a simple cause: the Swedish Air Force, having opted to buy the Gripen NG, has ordered a series of improvements on the Gripen NG prototype. With those under way, Sweden’s flight certification agency, SMV, has ruled that the prototypes require additional flight-testing in Sweden before the aircraft can be sent to India.

Confirming these developments, Gripen International’s Director India Eddy de la Motte told Business Standard, “The Gripen NG prototype cannot come just yet to India as it is required in Sweden for testing and evaluation by the Swedish Air Force which is interested in buying the fighter. Indian pilots have not yet flown the Gripen NG, but we will make sure that they get an opportunity at the very earliest.”

Sources close to the Gripen campaign say IAF pilots will be offered a chance to fly the Gripen NG during a visit to Sweden from April 6 to April 10. Gripen International will also ask for fresh dates for bringing the Gripen NG to India for trials.

Even without having flown the Gripen NG prototype, IAF pilots have been extremely impressed by the fighter’s capabilities. Besides superb avionics and superior flight performance, they say the Gripen NG can land on an 800-metre stretch of highway; and then refuel, rearm and take-off within 10 minutes. This allows each Gripen NG to fly far more sorties per day than any other aircraft today.

The IAF pilots who have visited the Gripen simulators in Sweden have also been impressed by its electronic warfare capabilities and by the training facilities on offer.

The Swedish MoD’s unexpected refusal to allow the Gripen NG to India for trials has blown the race wide open. From a clear front-runner in the eyes of the IAF, the Gripen NG’s very participation in trials now depends upon a decision to be taken by the IAF and the Indian MoD.

 

[DMLA]

That happen in the past, exactly because we were only a simple buyer like anybody else, so they had no need to provide us more than ToT to assemble the fighters in India. But see the difference since the MKI procurement!We not only customized the fighter for our needs, we made the deal with the production of nearly all parts in India, so we are not reliant on Russian supply of spares like in the past. I don't think this would be possible if they didn't provided us with cearly more ToT than before right?
So we already used ToT to improve our situation and my point is that MMRCA must be decided by the package of advantages for IAF/MoD/GoI/indigenous industry and not only to give IAF the best fighter! It is simply not enough for us, to buy the best fighter only, or remain in a simple buyer-seller relation like the Gulf states and as reliant on foreign countries. If we pay for foreign arms, they must not only improve our forces, but also to some extend our industry for the future.


Of course IAF choice will make be amajor factor, but we are not searching for a new main air superiority fighter, MMRCA is just an addition to MKI and a replacement for a part of the Mig 21 fleet. So there are not really many compromises IAF would have to make, because all fighters are clear improvements of the fleet! My guess is that IAF prefers good A2G capabilities and that will be the main difference for them.

How many procurements has the IAF had since mki ? What difference are we supposed to see? We should not consider the last decade when Russia was bankrupt and was willing to sell anyone & anything for dough! In the past few years, we are seeing the true (rather normal) picture where vendor make sure their technology if sold is at a premium. The deal was bound to contain "localized production" looking at the huge numbers in question ! Did I say that we will have somehting different with MMRCA ? I am saying critical technology (such as radar) may not be a part of the offset agreement. For example, BARS (N011M) is NOT made in India !

The equation has changes since the "replacement for mig" mantra of late 1990's. Now, the MMRCA is more about technology. IAF wants the best and could care less if DPSU's get any technology in the bargain. It is the Govt. of India which is (and should) try all it can to get the maximum technology/ incentives/ investments back into the indian defence industry. The realization that no country will give you technology and that we will have to develope the same has finally sunk in the minds of our defence scientists and they are now looking at "co-development " to cater to the requirements of armed forces without 30 year delays !!

 

[DMLA]

Don't get fooled by what Janes or US ambassador says. USA says one thing in public, while another in private with GoI.

See ISRO Chief's statement last week where he exposed American double-speak.

I am not "getting fooled"! I know US MAY NOT part with critical technologies. Have I said otherwise? My point was that IF THEY DO, there is no harm in buying a platform from them as long as we can keep it operational.

 

[sancho]

Gripen D for flight trials...

$11 bn in the balance, a no-show by Gripen fighter

Actually they don't have to come to the trials with the final version of the fighter, because neither the Mig 35, nor the EF could do that now, but at least some of the new techs and capabilities should be shown. This is not possible with normal Gripen C/Ds, because it don't has the new AESA radar, nor the new EWS, not even the new engine with higher thrust, so what exactly should IAF get from testing these fighters in the trials?
Imo, IAF/MoD must disqualify them right away, because this is far away from the requirements!

 

[sancho]

How many procurements has the IAF had since mki ? What difference are we supposed to see?

Mate, before MKI we was only a simple buyer even to Russia, now we got the status of a partner to them (although a minor one), that's why we now get the options to co-develop arms and techs together with them. Pak Fa / FGFA, MRTA, they offered a co-development in AESA radars if we buy Mig 35, they offer co-development for a new helicopter and so on.
I am not that naiv to believe that is only because they like us so much, but also because the lack of money they have to fund these developments alone. But it is undeniable that our defense industry also improved in the last decade too, still not enough to be selfsufficiant, but now it is at a level to be a help for Russians developments too. So instead of just selling arms to us, we are more important to them as a partner now!
This is a whole new level and imo, our aim must be to get the same status at developments of western countries too. If our industry can improves more, we might see co-developed fighters with France, or Germany in future too. They also realised our improvements and also their relation towards us has changed, full ToT and source codes are offered now from nearly all European countries and not only for MMRCA as the official of Thyssen Krupp stated in the navy thread. So we have to take these chances now, instead of limiting ourself by tying to US in a buyer-seller relationship again.

 

[KEETARP]

I think our position has changed no doubt, we are now given TOT and partner status but its just bcoz of money and economy situation.
How others perceive us , still that is where we were 40 years back ie;A country which depends heavily on foreign tech for defence needs.
We cant give any thing substantial, apart from Some Space Launching capability/manufacturing doors,airframe at reasonable price.
Thats why we will partner only in FGFA dev/ while 0% in PAK FA simply bcoz what we can contribute is not good enough
I am sure Israel if had money could have dev Barak alone.
Similarly Russia if had funds Brahmos would have been russian alone.
They came to us for joint dev and mass production bcoz they can cut costs while meantime making profit for their industries also.
We still are struggling with essential tech
Electronics for TANK+HELICOPTORS+FIGHTER JETS are all Israel/Western
Avionics for ALH/LCH/LCA all are from foreign collaboration/manufactured under licence.
Engines powering Dhruv/LCA are foreign partners.

What we have achieved till now will not be considered self reliance until we achieve 100% indigenous tech.
It will take time and bold effort - it could have been easy if we were not forced at war , we easily could have become self reliant like France till now.

Still Gov is more worried abt more indigenous devlopment while Army wants best tech to defend our land- thats where problem lies and delays creep in . Bcoz everyday tech keeps changing.
Gov is doing everything to build up our homeland devlopment- new procurement policy+non stop funds + time even at cost of loosing pilots with every crash.
If we dont take up indigenous dev more seriously countries will always arm-twist us
Now only IAF+ARMY have started supporting home made products so better things will come in future

Whatever we see - ARJUN+TEJAS+ARIHANT+SHIPs+FRIGATES+ AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
still uses more than 50% foreign components but at least products are showing maturation.

This MRCA decision will go long enough in history to determine what self reliance we can achieve in future, any mistake will keep us where we are currently now

 

[Dash]

I think our position has changed no doubt, we are now given TOT and partner status but its just bcoz of money and economy situation.
How others perceive us , still that is where we were 40 years back ie;A country which depends heavily on foreign tech for defence needs.
We cant give any thing substantial, apart from Some Space Launching capability/manufacturing doors,airframe at reasonable price.
Thats why we will partner only in FGFA dev/ while 0% in PAK FA simply bcoz what we can contribute is not good enough
I am sure Israel if had money could have dev Barak alone.
Similarly Russia if had funds Brahmos would have been russian alone.
They came to us for joint dev and mass production bcoz they can cut costs while meantime making profit for their industries also.
We still are struggling with essential tech
Electronics for TANK+HELICOPTORS+FIGHTER JETS are all Israel/Western
Avionics for ALH/LCH/LCA all are from foreign collaboration/manufactured under licence.
Engines powering Dhruv/LCA are foreign partners.

What we have achieved till now will not be considered self reliance until we achieve 100% indigenous tech.
It will take time and bold effort - it could have been easy if we were not forced at war , we easily could have become self reliant like France till now.

Still Gov is more worried abt more indigenous devlopment while Army wants best tech to defend our land- thats where problem lies and delays creep in . Bcoz everyday tech keeps changing.
Gov is doing everything to build up our homeland devlopment- new procurement policy+non stop funds + time even at cost of loosing pilots with every crash.
If we dont take up indigenous dev more seriously countries will always arm-twist us
Now only IAF+ARMY have started supporting home made products so better things will come in future

Whatever we see - ARJUN+TEJAS+ARIHANT+SHIPs+FRIGATES+ AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
still uses more than 50% foreign components but at least products are showing maturation.

This MRCA decision will go long enough in history to determine what self reliance we can achieve in future, any mistake will keep us where we are currently now

However Let me ask all of us a question, iam including myself coz Iam also looking for an answer.
Apologies if this is off topic, but I think its relevant what I am saying.

Now the so called TOT as we all know is a major issue.
What we are trying to do here to foreign firms is as we are asking them to give much with a little or more than what they will get in return.

It seems very much inconvincing to me to ask someone to transfer 50% tech or some tech by just paying intellectual property right. technology is the bread and butter for these companies and they are the big names coz of the BIG technology they have.

1. Look at what happenned to Mahindra and BAE JV in 2008 I guess when BAE wanted a 49% share in a JV.
2. Also Illushin was turned down a share of 49% when it wanted to start the JV with HAL for MRTA.

In late April 2008, MoD had proposed to relax FDI cap of 26 per cent to allow Russia’s Ilyushin Aviation Complex to own 49 per cent stake in a JV with India’ State controlled HAL for co-development of multi-role transport aircraft. If the public sector company is able to get favourable treatment, why the same can not be extended to a reputed private company?

If the MoD’ aim is to treat both the public and private sectors equally, it should have fought hard to see the proposal pass though, or at best deferred the proposal till a suitable redressal mechanism was found. Either way, the MoD’s efforts could have satisfied the private sector which is critical of the government’s protectionism attitude towards the defence public sector enterprises.

Perhaps, the greatest damage caused by this incident is the palpable loss of confidence of the foreign companies in India’s decision makers responsible for defence production. It is to be noted that if the MDS-BAE JV had passed thorough, it would have been the .rst one in India’s defence industry involving a domestic private player and an international partner with near 50-50 ownership rights. A successful passage of this JV would have paved the way for many such ventures in future. By turning down the JV the decision-makers have not only silenced the expectation of a particular case but created a situation where the foreign companies looking for greater Indian presence become more suspicious of the government’s seriousness of attracting higher investment.

Our over protectiveness will not pay us good until and unless MOD and MOF open up and pave doors like GOI did to IT,ITES and health sector. Clearly these sectors are booming and we are seeing a progress.

I am in strong belief that things might change in NEAR future and India might give a 46% cap on FDI in defence sectors.

but these kind of slowness in decisions are only hampering our national security.


and unless and until this happens we will be getting rotten parts and knocked down kits and keep complaining with what we are getting as of now.

We need to take some drastic step now. else we will always talk about TOT, but never get the full advantage of it...


please feel free to comment.

 

[KEETARP]

However Let me ask all of us a question, iam including myself coz Iam also looking for an answer.
Apologies if this is off topic, but I think its relevant what I am saying.

Now the so called TOT as we all know is a major issue.
What we are trying to do here to foreign firms is as we are asking them to give much with a little or more than what they will get in return.

It seems very much inconvincing to me to ask someone to transfer 50% tech or some tech by just paying intellectual property right. technology is the bread and butter for these companies and they are the big names coz of the BIG technology they have.

1. Look at what happenned to Mahindra and BAE JV in 2008 I guess when BAE wanted a 49% share in a JV.
2. Also Illushin was turned down a share of 49% when it wanted to start the JV with HAL for MRTA.

In late April 2008, MoD had proposed to relax FDI cap of 26 per cent to allow Russia’s Ilyushin Aviation Complex to own 49 per cent stake in a JV with India’ State controlled HAL for co-development of multi-role transport aircraft. If the public sector company is able to get favourable treatment, why the same can not be extended to a reputed private company?

If the MoD’ aim is to treat both the public and private sectors equally, it should have fought hard to see the proposal pass though, or at best deferred the proposal till a suitable redressal mechanism was found. Either way, the MoD’s efforts could have satisfied the private sector which is critical of the government’s protectionism attitude towards the defence public sector enterprises.

Perhaps, the greatest damage caused by this incident is the palpable loss of confidence of the foreign companies in India’s decision makers responsible for defence production. It is to be noted that if the MDS-BAE JV had passed thorough, it would have been the .rst one in India’s defence industry involving a domestic private player and an international partner with near 50-50 ownership rights. A successful passage of this JV would have paved the way for many such ventures in future. By turning down the JV the decision-makers have not only silenced the expectation of a particular case but created a situation where the foreign companies looking for greater Indian presence become more suspicious of the government’s seriousness of attracting higher investment.

Our over protectiveness will not pay us good until and unless MOD and MOF open up and pave doors like GOI did to IT,ITES and health sector. Clearly these sectors are booming and we are seeing a progress.

I am in strong belief that things might change in NEAR future and India might give a 46% cap on FDI in defence sectors.

but these kind of slowness in decisions are only hampering our national security.


and unless and until this happens we will be getting rotten parts and knocked down kits and keep complaining with what we are getting as of now.

We need to take some drastic step now. else we will always talk about TOT, but never get the full advantage of it...


please feel free to comment.

But BRO
Opening up of companies for disinvestment and takeover is not that simple.
Suppose When you give 50% stake to Boeing in HAl - and they design weapons which are matter of national interest and security and things turn ugly then what?? US can always create problems for us by virtue of Boeing.
I firmly believe national interest should not be compromised.

And above all we are talking abt 35 billions of dollars for 126 machines not just change.
After all we are paying premium amnt - devlopmental cost of these machines is already accounted.
If we drop TOT we can get every jet in 50-60mill a piece.

 

[Dash]

I think its not that simple that some foreign company will make some weapon, which will be a threat to national security.

We are not talking about 50% share, just increase the cap to a bigger extent.
How many sectors we have seen where investment is 40-46% and things have gone wrong.

You always have a company governed by rules.
countries like Brazil are also waking up to the 46% cap. I dont think they have NOT thought of national security compromises.

We need to drop the mis trust. Things will not go odd.
A company will not develpe a weapon alone, coz you have an Indian and one foreign.
This will simply not happen.

I think from this perspective. We need to open up now.

Somebody needs to have guts to face the truth, the obstacle mainly GOI and then still come up with things done.

I personally feel, we lived in 50 years of mistrust. we opened up a bit now we have a trillion dollar plus economy.

Times change and we need to change too.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[KEETARP]

What i meant was weapon designed for India's defence but bcoz boeing is a partner, its secret being leaked out is a possibility.

There is nothing better than thn self-reliant.
You simply cant trust United states as a strategic ally bcoz our goals will clash at some point of time.

Its to our credit- That we are keeping a safe distance regarding defence business with US like a true professional.
They are interested in our money giving us Nuclear freedom and tech.
We need that tech, but without compromising our position of non aligning and national interests .

We can never compare Health issue to A Defence issue
Defence is a matter of national security and survival ,nothing is bigger than this than this

 

[Dash]

Secret cant be leaked out in 26% FDi cap?

 

[KEETARP]

Very much possible.
Thats why even setting up a new venture with a company it needs nod of gov.
See our SAM JV with MBDA is in hang requiring gov decision to be final.

Dis investing a gov company is simply not only possible solution.
Look at SAAB share holdings - i think BAE had only 10% of share still they produce quality machines

 

[KEETARP]

Gripen D for flight trials...

$11 bn in the balance, a no-show by Gripen fighter

If gripen had a Eu2000 ENGINE INSTEAD OF f114-AE . I can bet no one would have come close to challenge it in MRCA
Plz remember phase2 of trials require only airframe,aerodynamics,environment stress and avionics functionality test.
Sensors+Radar+Weapon firing is to be done in Phase3 in April-june trial.
By the time IAF goes for phase3 in SWEDEN , i am sure it would get NG with new radar+new weapons+new sensors to test.
Only question is whether NG has different airframe design or not?????If yes they are out, if no then green light(similar to fulcrums,viper)

By the way guys any idea regarding number of TR modules on AESA in GRIPEN
My estimate is it wont be greater than 650MMIC module array ,if thats true it wont have a greater range than what gripen c&d has.

 

[sancho]

If gripen had a Eu2000 ENGINE INSTEAD OF f114-AE . I can bet no one would have come close to challenge it in MRCA
Plz remember phase2 of trials require only airframe,aerodynamics,environment stress and avionics functionality test.
Sensors+Radar+Weapon firing is to be done in Phase3 in April-june trial.
By the time IAF goes for phase3 in SWEDEN , i am sure it would get NG with new radar+new weapons+new sensors to test.
Only question is whether NG has different airframe design or not?????If yes they are out, if no then green light(similar to fulcrums,viper)

By the way guys any idea regarding number of TR modules on AESA in GRIPEN
My estimate is it wont be greater than 650MMIC module array ,if thats true it wont have a greater range than what gripen c&d has.

You forget another major point! The flight trials will be held in 3 different areas in India and in different climats, to see how the fighters perform all over the country. How should IAF get a picture of Gripen NGs performance, if not only the same airframe, but moreover not even the same engine is present in India?
The Gripen C/D uses a pretty much the same GE 404 engine that LCA MK1 uses and has similar empty weight, Gripen NG instead should get the GE 414 of the F18 Super Hornet and has an empty weight of around 7t! This performance differences can't be seen if IAF pilots goes to Sweden and test the fighter there and makes this whole test imo totally useless!