MMRCA debate

[sancho]

You have some valid points even the Chinese compromised on the quality front

How did they compromised on quality? They had only very limited access to quality or foreign techs and weapons in the first place! That's why they invested in own development, because they had to, besides that if they had the chance they also procured foreign stuff. Russian aircrafts, engines, support in fighter and helicopter design, most of their helicopters are licence build European once and lets not go to the point of copying foreign techs and designs.
If they had the freedom and access to techs, wepaons and partners, they would import even more stuff, but they are also far more capable than we are on the manufacturing level and far more rational on the development level. They get things done, no matter how and that's the main difference to our industry!

But that is not what majority of posts indicate, the blame more or less is heavy handed towards drdo, or Hal and alike, and seldom is MoD held accountable for any of it's actions.

Not even close, actually I am one of the few that are openly criticizing Indian industry and forces for mistakes, while it is common habit between our fellow country men to blame the government first, for everything that goes wrong, no matter what or how, it must be MoD's or politicians that messed it up. But that exactly is the problem, we are seeing criticism only as a bad point, not that it can be helpful to understand and fix problems. Instead, we divert blame and blindly protect scientists and soldiers / officers, or trying to find excuses (it was the first time, they had too less money...).

Going back to MMRCA, evaluation though however well intention-ed was not properly managed by IAF and MoD

By IAF for sure, since they were in charge for the evaluation and trials. And I often have criticized that too, since they could had done it much faster, if they had shortlisted only 3 or 4 fighters to the trials, since it was clear that some would not fulfill the minimum requirements.

yes LCA delays have been due to ADA/HAL/Drdo and lack of technological base in India, but sqdn deficit is not helped by MoD's extreme delay in approving the MMRCA,

Squadron delay is caused by the delay of LCA in the first place, the only reason for MRCA / MMRCA was that DRDO and Co were not able to provide LCA. The decision to go for M-MRCA was clearly the right one, since more benefits and fighters with more potential could be procured, but that only 18 x will be procured from the winning vendor is indeed a problem, although you might have not an issue with that, since it benefits HAL to have more on their production line. The rest as said, mainly IAF or industial issues, while the only delay of MoD was, the time to reach the shortlisting after the trials (from mid 2010 to mid 2011) and then to the final selection of Rafale (till Jan 2012), but then Dassault needed 1 year to get 50% of the offset requirements done, came up with the contract issue of HAL and delayed verything further towards the election. If they had done their work properly, I am sure we could had sealed the deal last year, but the fact is, they only were able to fix every contract till late 2013 early 2014 and only now all ToT is complying to the RFP, so who is really to blame for the last 2 years?

And lets see some spine in MoD

That's what I am hoping too and what we have seen starting with Antony in the last year and what must be followed by NDA and Modi now too. But since we haven't even a dedicated defence minister now and the one we have now is slowed down by himself, when he is finance minister again, I don't think much spine will be shown at the moment. Modi seems to have other issues than the defence, at least I didn't heared much from him on this matter and the advertised strong hand is not visible at all, when we look at the border issues with Pakistan at the moment. So lets wait and see who will become real DM and what he intents to do.

Do you see the free pass you are giving to MoD in your post, FH77 was not the IA but the MoD then led by the DM and PM Mr Gandhi.

Not really, because that was decades ago and what we saw in the last 2 terms was, several howitzer competitions cleared by MoD including dedicated trials under real conditions in India, but most of them had to be scrapped because of scams within the IA. So today, the Dhanus howitzer will be as tested as foreign howitzers too, but still, developments and off the shelf procurements are different, since they have to fulfill different requirements too.

but IA is happy with VZ58, but not with OFB Ak variant, why?

I don't know about it, not my type of interest, but if you say IA is not happy with it, why do you blame MoD?

 

[ptltejas]

@sancho were you in support of euro fighter? if yes why, and whether idea of india can joint develop amca with israel and france is good or not?

 

[sancho]

@sancho were you in support of euro fighter? if yes why, and whether idea of india can joint develop amca with israel and france is good or not?

No, I always found the Rafale to be the most suitable fighter for our requirements according to the original timeframe of the RFP. But since that timeframe can't be met anymore, I would be open for a re-evaluation of the shortlisted fighters. Under certain conditions, the EF offer can be more beneficial to India and I do believe that the EF can be the better fighter in the long run (with upgrades), but it's cost will remain higher.
France and Israels are no possible partners for such a project, Israel gets F35s and don't has the money, Franc is not interested in stealth fighters and will develop a stealth UCAV next to Rafale. And with out attitude to want to develop everything on our own, I don't see any partnerships, otherwise we could have tried it with Brazil, Japan or S. Korea.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

There cannot be any substantial objective debate on MMMRCA- Rafale period. The simple fact remains that there isn't enough information available on the subject. Objective The objective of mmmrca project (not the original mrca - mig29mki vs mirage 2000-5) was a three pronged strategy. 1> To get a platform that satisfies minimum operational requirements of forces (multi role, aerodynamic performance, detection range, BVR probability, radar resolution and noise, SPS, Sortie rate Engine turnaround time). 2> To obtain comprehensive technology transfer with material to product capability within the Indian manufacturing sense. 3> To select a platform which has the optimal lifecycle cost to performance (both flying and service) Let me disagree with supposed experts fielded in the Indian defense circles by saying all three objectives are ambiguous, amateurish and unrealistic. The reason being objectives need to be "S.M.A.R.T" - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and with a given Time . Lets look at inherent issues with these objectives: Minimum operational conformance: All 6 aircraft went through field trials, from minimum requirements and availability Mig35 was a given deletion as the aircraft did not exist, and gripen deemed not mature enough. There is no transparency why these decisions were taken, Mig 35 was exactly as real as the Su30MKI was when decided to procure, high altitude trials was also an issue for the mig 35 which was a real ding, but still wont be a deal breaker as I am privy to information that it was an easy fix but not allowed by the evaluation committee. It was a russian mistake and a comedy of errors for which russian ground staff was to be blamed, same happened for hot weather trials for the F/A18 SH. From the complete package perspective except the Mig35 Zhuk AESA, F/A 18Sh and F16 IN none of the aircraft's fielded had an operational aesa radar so could be argued as grounds for disqualification, but were given a lifeline. But no such considerations were done for the Mig35 or the F/A 18 SH engine issue. (even though both the test aircraft's had different engines than were offered on the package). why? Comprehensive technology transfer: It is laughable that evaluation of technology transfer was done by the Indian Air Force and Ministry of defense, Which has zero knowledge of the matter. The most experienced entity in the country for technology transfer, HAL was never consulted for scope of technology transfer. Even Tata or Mahindra has comprehensive knowledge of technology transfer paradigms like Vave, PED, PG1-3, etc, when has Airforce done any tech transfer to evaluate the efficacy of the bids and their ToT offer. In a bid I can claim to share Design data, and with-hold any of the following like material properties, or standard part designation or DFMEA data, of level of detail, or drawing standard mismatchs, or comprehensive Jigs and Fixture setup process as undefined in the bid and the evaluation team wouldn't know. The air chiefs of stratpost are having a field day taking digs at HAL, completely disregarding the fact that Material to product transformation transfer has never occurred except probably in the case of Mig21 in the history of modern aviation. Looking at what fokker or samsung or mitsubishi has fone with F16 Subsystems, it is astounding what HAL has achieved in the same paradigm. But which Air chief marshal or Blogger would know that, when they can barely differentiate between a mill and a lathe. Life Cycle Costs: No verifiable data exists for lifecycle cost any of the aircrafts for the MMRCA. the simple fact remains is that US lifecycle costs of F16 CANNOT be applied to India. A Mil std rivet cutter costs $52 in US, the same costs $162 in India. Same applies to theAircraft grade Aluminium stampings, Steel billets, Titanium alloy, hardened bearing, so on and so forth. Also there is no transparency in the lifecycle costs submitted to the Airforce, especially for an aircraft like Mig35 which never existed in the first place. How did Airforce evaluate EFT and Rafale's cost when their respective radar and some of the key munitions did not exist in production? This raises a very big question in authenticity of the evaluation of Life cycle cost. Apart from that when did Air force become credible in evaluation life-cycle costs of capital equipment? I am extremely fascinated with the comparison with Mig29 debate when it comes to life cycle cost, especially when Indian airforce has done nothing to reduce it. Mig29's are a direct purchase from Russia, and maintenance was done by Base repair depot. The actual reason of serviceability of mig 29 is not the aircraft itself but gross incompetence of BRD's to maintain required spares and extremely poor skill level of BRD technicians. As a matter of fact if HAL nasik division stops supporting 11 BRD, it will close doors the next day, this is the real reason why Mig29 faced serviceability issues and in all reality the post UPG program all maintenance and overhaul will transfer to HAL. We like to keep taking potshots at the LCA program and now I have started hearing this new turkey gobble that Funds have never been the issue, which is complete horse $hit. Revenue budget for ADA and HAL has been extremely poor, i wouldn't go into role of HAL in LCA program, as I have roared on and on about it in the past. But IAF and especially by the Ministry of Dufus have deliberately stifled the revenue budget for LCA program which hasn't allowed HAL or the ADA to hire the required numbers of engineers and technicians for all the phases of the LCA program. You do not provide any resources to the Indian agencies, and post useless retired airforce and army personnel to positions in manufacturing who cant read a simple drawing and then expect them to manage and expedite a manufacturing project with more than a million part assembly. What else can be expected from the program then. regards @sancho @Oscar @Capt.Popeye @Dillinger

Hi Sandy; since you tagged me, I've just entered the discussion; albeit a bit late. Also just sighted the Stratpost-Vayu discussion on the MMRCA acquisition program. But need to get another closer and more comprehensive look at that too.

Therefore; some preliminary and (somewhat) stray thoughts from my side:
1. The IAF has never taken ownership of its acquisition programs, apart from just churning out some ASQRs from time to time. Even they have been plagued by a syndrome of "shifting goal-posts" off and on. This problem BTW plagues all the AFs but the IN has mainly climbed out of that kinda hole some years ago esp WRT to Capital Acquisitions. Armed Forces a 'growing mode', even more so in a country that aspires to indigenise simply CANNOT afford such "attitudes". They are not in the position of a consumer who goes to the neigborhood grocer and says "give me some chocolate chip cookies, preferably with dark chocolate chips, and with a density of chips not less than 50%".
2. HAL and similar agencies cannot be absolved of the blame either; because they are Manufacturing agencies but have NO Industrial Ethos incorporated in their activities.
3.Research Labs such as under the DRDO umbrella are NOT "university labs" doing research only on some basic fundamental research subjects totally unrelated to applications. That luxury can be extended only to Organisations like the TIFR etc......
4. MoD has consistently failed in its role as the "Board of Directors" of this huge Enterprise. It has the exact same role as the Board of Directors in a large Industry/Enterprise, but have never performed as such; while the RM/Minister of Defence is cast in the role of the CMD or at least the Chairman of the Board) answerable to the Shareholders (i.e. Govt and the people). Has any RM effectively performed as such? The last one: A.K.Anthony only spent more attention to "teflon-coating" his pristine white dhoti. Thank god that he has been finally cast aside.

Now some (assorted) views on the Stratpost-Vayu discussions:
1.The IAF decided to look for an Aircraft to be cast in the role of "a kitchen knife to peel fruits and vegetables effectively; then ended up selecting a SWISS ARMY KNIFE with attachments like a can-opener, scissors, saw, magnifying glass and even a tooth-pick!!!".
2.That figure of Rafale's availability of 44% to the French AF is IMO a misnomer. Nowhere is it specified whether that is a technical availability OR an availability dictated by financial constraints/limits. Let us not forget that all the European AFs are facing severe budgetary cut-backs. So we will be well advised to know more about the back-ground before firing off some "half-cocked" opinions.

 

[ptltejas]

No, I always found the Rafale to be the most suitable fighter for our requirements according to the original timeframe of the RFP. But since that timeframe can't be met anymore, I would be open for a re-evaluation of the shortlisted fighters. Under certain conditions, the EF offer can be more beneficial to India and I do believe that the EF can be the better fighter in the long run (with upgrades), but it's cost will remain higher.
France and Israels are no possible partners for such a project, Israel gets F35s and don't has the money, Franc is not interested in stealth fighters and will develop a stealth UCAV next to Rafale. And with out attitude to want to develop everything on our own, I don't see any partnerships, otherwise we could have tried it with Brazil, Japan or S. Korea.

Brazil, how it will be helpful. I think we need to get better active things for Search, by Camera, Radar, Infrared, Lidar (Laser), IRST, or DAS like system with long range, give teeth to AMCA lion, or even other fighters. the Experience of LCA would give best to it. well for ordinance Home: Ordnance Factory Board The fight on Ground is more interesting rather to only fly planes hahaha.........