Talk:Indian MRCA Competition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indian MRCA Competition article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments) More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale by the India project. Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force Aviation WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Aviation Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Aircraft WikiProject
This article has an assessment summary page.

The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: User:Sniperz11 This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents 1 Watch speculation 2 Picture of MiG-35 is actually OVT 3 Fighter Depletion not so serious 4 Response to Fighter Depletion 5 Part of Tender 6 Increasing to 200 7 Price of F-16C/D 8 Attirition Issue and other Factors. 9 F-16 IN is in with Supercruise WITHOUT AESA 10 Fighter Comparison Chart needs more specs 11 Numbers of Aircraft currently oparated by the force 12 Gripen Next Generation

[edit] Watch speculation

Please note that this topic is prone to a lot of speculation, as would be obvious and there have been no dearth of rumors and false reports. Hence, I believe that it is especially important to include references to any facts provided. An edit summary would also help in figuring out the reasoning behind an edit. Cheers. Sniperz11 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a request to the unregistered editor who is making the same changes to the page. I request you to kindly give the reasons for the edits, especially considering that you are removing properly referenced information and adding unreferenced information and rumors without proper attribution. Kindly post your edit reasons on this talk page or you could also message me at my talk page. While I agree that I may be wrong with reverting, there is no way to come to a consensus unless you provide reasons for the edit and discuss with other editors on this page. Providing suitable references too would help, since otherwise, it would be hearsay and non-factual. Cheers. Sniperz11 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of MiG-35 is actually OVT

Picture of MiG-35 is actually MiG-OVT. MiG-35 international debut in Aero India 07! not Paris!

Mig 29OVT to be precise Yourdeadin (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)yourdeadin

[edit] Fighter Depletion not so serious

Sniperz11 did you include all these reasons?. I dun think they are necessary. First thing we have to write abt this is, MRCA is a bigger white elephant than LCA. Mirage 2000-5 was the favourite of IAF but due to delays dassault replaced mirage with Rafale.

And Fighter depletion can also be argued. IAF has been stating that induction of Force Multipliers can counter fighter depletion strength and all the depletions is NOT d ue to Mig-21, but because of Mig-23 & Mig-27. Blame Mig-23, Its a bigger Flying Conffin and also was retired so early compared to any other fighter. Its because of Mig-23 IAF is facing problems. And also Check BR Sqn numbers, they are more accurate than Stupid DDM articles . And IAF due to some reason decided to reduce Mig-27 Sqns despite Mig-27 is was procued between 1985 and 1995. Mig-21Bis was inducted between 1977 to 1988, one can no way expect Mig-21s to be immediately replaced. We have purchased 3 different Air Superiority Fighters in 1980s in limited numbers, license produced none of them, slow Su-30MKI Induction rate from last 10 years. Hell all the noise about MRCA, only 5 Squadrons worth MRCA fighters will be inducted at the peak. MRCA CANNOT Solve the Numbers problems of IAF. Su-30MKI & LCA are going do that. Moreover MRCA will be delayed even more than LCA, and probably purchasing second-hand mirages & additional MKIs would reduce the need of MRCA at all.

Export of AESA Radars to India is not approved by US Govt. It has been offered only by their makers Raytheon & NG.

--60.243.161.52 19:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You make some excellent points... I'll surely look into them and take ur advice, especially the Mig-23/27 issues. However, it is important to note that we're not trying to debate the need for the MRCA tender, just trying to collate information about it to keep people informed. I request you and all other interested editors to please join in and help improve this page... I dont want to be the only one updating, especially since I'm just an amateur. The more, the better. Sniperz11 21:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Fighter Depletion

Wow interesting points you make there it would be interesting to see what happens, but having said that I think that this deal is extremely symbolic, it shows India's new economic prowess and also its fairness and competitiveness in the world market. Also with the off-set value of forcing contenders to build aircraft in India and using Indian suppliers it is grooming India in the future to become a manufacturing economy (something they should have done along time ago). This will really help India in the long term, don't expect to see anything in the short term.

Also they are choosing 124 aircraft right, assuming that they will only be fighting a single front high intensity conflict campaign I believe it is a wise choice having a aircraft of this magnitude. It doesn't only help the in the initial stages of the war to achieve air-superiority (with the SU30MKI flying CAP (Combat Air Patrols)) but can also help in the second stages of the war with precision attacks on enemy strategic assets.

The Indian Air Force in my opinion should have chose less MRCA and should look for a dedicated CAS (Close Air Support) aircraft with the types of wars they fight. Traditionally the types of war the Indian military fight is a land based infantry heavy set-piece slow moving battle (the exception to the rule being the -71 war). Why they need a dedicated CAS aircraft is because yet they meet an infantry heavy enemy force, traditionally the enemy heavily concentrate their armour units. These armour units have the ability to force multiply and break through Indian combat lines espically in the deserts of Rajistan making encirclement of forces a serious threat. By employing CAS fighter-craft enemy armour formations can be quickly neutralized minimizing the need for Indian ground forces needing to reorganize their battle lines midway through conflict.

Also forgot to mention that I think it may be wise to add this to the Indian Air Force wiki page as this tender is quoted as a really important tender.

124.190.91.186 12:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part of Tender

I herd rumors that this is the first part of a 2 phase tender. As in the IAF will have a second tender smaller tender for another MRCA. Is there fact to this rumor? Also if not will the IAF possibly split this tender to two aircrafts?

124.190.91.186 14:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Increasing to 200

On Bharat-Rakshak.com they have a news article which says that the tender could be increased to around 200 aircraft, making the total value $16 billion dollars.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=9351

Taught you might want to add it to the article.

124.190.91.186 06:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

220.227.165.120 07:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC) The Economic Times seems to confirm this. Also, the RFP has been issued.

[edit] Price of F-16C/D

In the reference given, the US$18.8M price tag for F-16s, which is way below the others, is indicated as "fiscal 98 constant dollars" (ditto in http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-16_falcon.pl). Is this comparable to the other prices? Especially since Chile bought 10 F-16s (block50) at US$60M each in 2004-2005 (http://www.defesanet.com.br/notas/chile_f16_nl.htm, http://www.clarin.com/diario/2002/01/31/i-02701.htm -- in spanish). 216.244.142.69 17:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attirition Issue and other Factors.

There is no concreae report form verifiable sources as to if the no: has been increased, but Air Chief Tyagi said MRCA requirement will be sourced from a single vendor so no 200 aircrafts at least not officially.

Also , according to the 2006 defence procurement policy, (based on which MRCA tenders will be honoured ) the Offset has been increased to 50% the editor can (should) change this.. See this for reference ^[1]
I certainly agree that (comments of -60.243.161.52 ) the "culprit" is MiG-23 for sure, The very drastic reduction in the SQDN no:s as well as the decrease in Aircraft per se in it is due to the problem with CAS& GA Fighters.And BTW, the answer for your ques as to why MiG-23/27 is retiresd early, SERVICABLITY PROBLEMS.

Also, AN/APG-79 is NOT offered as part of the deal(its just a wishful thinking from the Rayathon's Marketing dept, certainly congress hasn't approved any Tech-transfers and will not without any concrete steps by India) so please try to re-verify that and make a decision (to remove it)

Besides the scope of this discussion, in addressing the MRCA issue in general.. Consider this, With most of the Current service aircrafts designated to be retired before 2020, with only SU-30MkI and Tejas (if it ever sees the light of day) would form the backbone..or so its claimed.

DPSA/SEAD
Jaguar IS/IM will be retiresd in the Mid 2010s, in the absence of which Su-30MKI will be forced to do the SEAD(Suppresion of Enemy Air-defences) mission, should hostilities break.

Which, certainly will leave a BIG gap in CAOs(Counter Air Operations) or denial of airspace(as you mentioned, the precious little resources will be hard pressed in SEAD , so CAP will fall short) Only, MiG-29(Bazz) can fill the hole (assuming that the fleet is upgraded and availabality is met) Tehnically speaking, MiG-29 was designed as an interceptor and later modifications were made to "upgrade" it to a Point Defence Fighter, and it lacks the endurance (fuel capacity) to loiter around, let alone perform an extended CAP. (my guess is the Top-brass will not want the "verylimited" Mid-air refuelrs to be threatened by using em' in hosilities in close proximity to enemy Air defence/air assets)

CAS
Well, i donot need to say more, we(India) don't have a descent 2nd gen CAS aircraft, (Either the US A-10 warthog or Russian Su-25 style FLYING TANK is excatly what is needed in the western theater of operations), so either Mirage (fitted with Lantrin )or Mig-29 (with elta lasers) shud be dispatched, now both the top-performance fighters of the country will actually pressed into the "ground war" (ie. in direct support of Ground forces.

Swraj (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-16 IN is in with Supercruise WITHOUT AESA

Further to the article's reference to AESA Radar (AN/APG-79), its entirely baseless. So, please consider changing this.

According to a reccent press-meet (http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Jan162008/national2008011646924.asp?section=updatenews)^[2] LM spokesman Chuck Artymovich had ONLY EXPRESSED his optimism that congress will give approval.
But, considering the phase it took to approve Saudi orders (7yrs) it is to be noted it will not be a timely addition to the depleting stock of IAF(which , if i could remind is the prime reason for MRCA)

Also, India is Just banking on imaginations(plans and designs concepts) coz' as of now neither MiG-35 nor F-16IN has materialized, which they will be reluctant to pursue until India gives concrete commitment.But the addition of Supercruise in the Spec-list will give a better leverage to F-16 in the RFP process. (besides EF-2000 , which is prettymuch outta question for MRCA now..none of the other aircraft has the supercruise capablity) SO the editor may kindly make a note of it in article appropriately .

(I am a bit edgy with wiki formats , else i'd have gladly made these minoredits, sorry)
beyod the scope of this discussion,
So it all boils down to it,
India Investing and third party developing the tech/proj and probablyy get a few billion xtra bucks by selling a spinoff model to malaysia or venezuvela or whatever...

Swraj (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fighter Comparison Chart needs more specs

Categories like "has trust vector - yes/no" would be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.169.164 (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

done it by myself. please check if correct. if i've looked up correctly, only mig35 has thrust vectoring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.164.157 (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers of Aircraft currently oparated by the force

The article about IAF on this pages says that IAF oparates about 700 fighter planes of which more than 450 are MiG 21s but the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_IAF shows very different numbers.--Nikhil Sanjay Bapat (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gripen Next Generation

It is the Gripen Next Generation that is competing and not the old one... Please see http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FCB6D4D6-8D7E-4824-B674-4B42B761A7F9/0/GripenNewsDemo_080414_final.pdf for the new specifications. It will for example have a new engine (General Electric F414G), a larger fuel tank (+ 40 %) and will also be capable of carrying under wing drop tanks, a new AESA radar, a new avionics system, be able to take more weapons, improved main landing gear and much more... / A proud Swede —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.110.145 (talk • contribs)

That text has been updated with references. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Please also update the comparison chart... / The same proud Swede —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.110.145 (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)