New Indian Air Force Fighter competition

Twinblade

Member
It would make sense to standardize on a common platform so perhaps this willweigh in favor of the winning MMRCA bidder. Has the Indian Navy made any commitment to adoption of CATOBAR capability or will they go for a simpler ski-jump approach?
It is rumored that the IAC 2 would be greater than 65000 tons and equipped with EM-CAT, however neither naval Tejas nor Mig-29K have ever been displayed with front wheel fittings needed for catapult launch. I am not sure whether they can even be modified for a catapult launch.

The Indian Navy chief was heard as saying that they would like to evaluate the IAC-1 design in operations before embarking on the IAC-2 project, which could mean that the IAC-2 might enter service 2022-2024, in time for AMCA perhaps ?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
It is rumored that the IAC 2 would be greater than 65000 tons and equipped with EM-CAT, however neither naval Tejas nor Mig-29K have ever been displayed with front wheel fittings needed for catapult launch. I am not sure whether they can even be modified for a catapult launch.
Front wheel fittings aren't the only way. The RN & USN used to use fuselage attachment points for a bridle. The USN decided there were advantages to integrating everything into the nose gear, but it might (depending on the airframe) be easier in some cases to go back to the bridle system for a land-based aircraft adapted for a catapult.

I expect Tejas or MiG-29 can be modified for catapult launch. The modifications might be so great that it's not worthwhile, though.

EMCAT (or EMALS) should impose less stress on the airframe than steam catapults.
 

Twinblade

Member
Front wheel fittings aren't the only way. The RN & USN used to use fuselage attachment points for a bridle. The USN decided there were advantages to integrating everything into the nose gear, but it might (depending on the airframe) be easier in some cases to go back to the bridle system for a land-based aircraft adapted for a catapult.

I expect Tejas or MiG-29 can be modified for catapult launch. The modifications might be so great that it's not worthwhile, though.

EMCAT (or EMALS) should impose less stress on the airframe than steam catapults.
Thanks Swerve. A retrofit should be out of the question anyway, but it just came to my mind that Su-27K and MiG-29K were designed before the Kuznetsov class carriers were restricted to a Ski Jump. Is there any documentation on CATOBAR abilities of either ?
 

youpii

New Member
Thanks Swerve. A retrofit should be out of the question anyway, but it just came to my mind that Su-27K and MiG-29K were designed before the Kuznetsov class carriers were restricted to a Ski Jump. Is there any documentation on CATOBAR abilities of either ?
Another issue is the catapult itself. Only the USA have that technolology. Even the French buy it from the USA.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The USSR started developing steam catapults, but gave up at the end of the Cold War. The UK invented steam catapults, but stopped building them in the 1960s. British catapults are still in service in Brazil, on Sao Paulo (ex-Foch) & were recently refurbished with technical assistance from one of the two former manufacturers of steam catapults in the UK, which still has the technical drawings & detailed specifications.

The French could have built their own for CdG, or commissioned new ones from the UK, but either would have taken longer & cost more than buying off the shelf from the USA. Buying American also meant they could tap into US logistics, which as a NATO member are fully accessible to them.

But nobody is building new steam catapults now.

The USA is the first, & so far only, manufacturer of full-scale electromagnetic catapults . . . but there's a place in the middle of England where there's a fully working, thoroughly tested EM catapult capable of launching UAVs up to about a ton. They've done a lot of the design work & I think some sub-assembly testing for a scaled-up version. All they need now is more money. It was being funded by the British government, probably as a back-up in case something went wrong with EMALS, but since EMALS is clearly working, it makes more sense to buy OTS, for the same reasons as the French did. For a country in different circumstances, buying that technology from the UK rather than the USA might be preferable.

There are several firms around the world (e.g. in Germany & Japan) with the technology & skills to develop EM catapults, but it'd take them time & money.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
India Clears Fighter Aircraft Offsets, Winner Due in November | Air Force News at DefenseTalk

Just thought i should link this very recent article from DT.

EADS Cassidian has offered its Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault its Rafale to the IAF, which is looking at inducting these aircraft from the beginning of 2015.

The two planes had been shortlisted in April this year after eliminating other competitors -- American Boeing's F/A-18, Lockheed Martin's F-16, Russian UAC's MiG-35 and Swedish Saab's Gripen -- through a rigorous technical and weapons evaluation process that lasted for over a year.
 

Twinblade

Member
Bids for mega fighter deal to be opened on November 4 - The Times of India

It will, however, take two-three weeks to determine the lowest bidder (L-1) after the bids are opened on November 4. "Huge amounts of mathematical and data verification of the lifecycle costs of operating the jets over a 40-year period, with 6,000 hours of flying, as well as cost of ToT (transfer of technology) will have to be done,'' said an official.
As earlier reported by TOI, India is likely to go in for another 63 fighters after the first 126 fighters, which will make the entire project zoom well beyond $20 billion.
I think they should go ahead and patent the process of downselect :), might come in handy for some other unlucky country with massive bureaucracy in case they have to select fighters in large numbers.
 
I really hope they make a decision fairly quickly now they have seen the final bids. I really hope the Eurofighter as we could do with a bit of good economic news right now. Even if most of the aircraft themselves are built in India a lot of the spares will be made in Europe won't they?
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
I really hope they make a decision fairly quickly now they have seen the final bids. I really hope the Eurofighter as we could do with a bit of good economic news right now. Even if most of the aircraft themselves are built in India a lot of the spares will be made in Europe won't they?
I'd love to see the Eurofighter win too, not just because of the boost it would give BAE but from the fact that India are also being offered the chance to be project leaders for navalising the Typhoon (i think) which would be brilliant to see.

The carrier capability isn't as much as an issue as you may think, the Rafale does have a carrier variant but the initial IN carriers won't have CATOBAR capabilities installed and it would have to develop the capability for itself (most probably with French involvement if the Rafale wins) so at least intitially the naval advantage of the Rafale is negated somewhat but most probably will be a moot point in the grand scheme of things.

So as much as i want the EF to win and as much as i think the EF is a superior aircraft (some would argue that besides the F-22 you couldn't ask for a better air superiority aircraft than the EF, but they're looking for a MRCA) i've got a sneaking gut suspicion the Rafale will get it.

Just my $0.02
 
Last edited:

Twinblade

Member
I really hope they make a decision fairly quickly now they have seen the final bids. I really hope the Eurofighter as we could do with a bit of good economic news right now. Even if most of the aircraft themselves are built in India a lot of the spares will be made in Europe won't they?
Quick and Indian defence procurement don't usually go together. There is weeks of number crunching for life cycle costs and cost benefit analysis of the offsets. The process can last well into December.
 

Twinblade

Member
Fighter bid like no other- European rivals sit at long table as offers are read out

The acquisitions manager read out in broad terms the financial terms offered by the two sides. As the executives took notes furiously, it dawned that the formulae for pricing the aircraft presented by each was so complicated that it would take weeks to determine the values.
“There is no such thing as a sticker price,” said one officer. “You don’t buy aircraft like oranges, by the kilo.”



He explained why it could take up to six weeks – may be till the end of December -- to determine the lowest bidder. “It’s a price for the whole package,” he said.



For the first 10 to 12 days, Air Headquarters expects there will be much back-and-forth between the IAF and the companies as clarifications are sought. The meeting determined that the financial bids would be tied to the price of the dollar quoted by State Bank of India’s Parliament Street branch on November 4.



The IAF has sought financial quotes in eight categories, called M1 to M8. M1 is the “unit flyaway cost”, the price of each of the first 18 aircraft to be purchased “off the shelf”.



M2 asks for the lifecycle costs – the price of running the equipment over their lifespan of 6,000 hours – of the different components that make up the aircraft (engines, airframe, weapons pods).



M3 is “operational cost”. M4 asks for the lifecycle costs of spares, fuel usage, a “mean time between failures” (MTBF), and lubricants.



M5 and M6 are the estimated costs of overhaul and mid-life upgrade. M7 is the cost of the technology that the maker will transfer to Hindustan Aeronautics that will set up the assembly line were the Typhoon or the Rafale would be made under licence. M8 is the computation of total costs.



The formula for computing the costs has an escalation cost, net present value and discounted cash flow built into it, a financial expert said.



Air force officers, however, worry that formulae have a way of getting disrupted in the acquisition process because they get complicated by the pressures of diplomacy and/or under-the-table processes. On the other hand, they also say that if India were to award such a huge deal to a country or a collection of countries, it would be foolish to not extract diplomatic and political mileage out of the deal. Compounding all of this is the IAF’s dire necessity for the aircraft as it stretches its assets – such as the outdated MiG 21 that make up a bulk of its inventory -- well beyond their prescribed lifespan.

The first detailed analysis of the financial bid evaluation. I can only imagine the heaps and mounds of data that would be processed, from field evaluations reports, to manufacturers claims and what not.
 

dragonfire

New Member
The first detailed analysis of the financial bid evaluation. I can only imagine the heaps and mounds of data that would be processed, from field evaluations reports, to manufacturers claims and what not.
The field Evaluation reports would not be considered at this stage considering both aircrafts have undergone the exhaustive field and technical trials and evaluation and post which have been shortlisted, what would happen is the process if (a) un-influenced by political and diplomatic considerations then the lowest overall bidder on total cost including, flyaway, lifecycle, upgrade, training and Transfer of technology - will win the contract or (b) the lowest cost bidder is ascertained - the difference of bids is understood and the better competitor in terms of total costs + political / diplomatic considerations will win the bid.
 

colay

New Member
Fighter bid like no other- European rivals sit at long table as offers are read out




The first detailed analysis of the financial bid evaluation. I can only imagine the heaps and mounds of data that would be processed, from field evaluations reports, to manufacturers claims and what not.
All I can say is thank god for spreadsheets.
So when do they input the field evaluation data and would anyone have an idea how much weight this will carry in the overall evaluation relative to the financials.
 

Twinblade

Member
The field Evaluation reports would not be considered at this stage considering both aircrafts have undergone the exhaustive field and technical trials and evaluation and post which have been shortlisted, what would happen is the process if (a) un-influenced by political and diplomatic considerations then the lowest overall bidder on total cost including, flyaway, lifecycle, upgrade, training and Transfer of technology - will win the contract or (b) the lowest cost bidder is ascertained - the difference of bids is understood and the better competitor in terms of total costs + political / diplomatic considerations will win the bid.
In my opinion, several of the lifetime costs would be calculated based parameters verified by field evaluation tests, like specific fuel consumption and lubricant lifecycle.
 

dragonfire

New Member
In my opinion, several of the lifetime costs would be calculated based parameters verified by field evaluation tests, like specific fuel consumption and lubricant lifecycle.
These cost elements would be indicated by the suppliers. Such data/costs supplied would perhaps be cross verified by the committee using data generated during the trials. The M4 cost elements

However the IAF's job was to only shortlist the 2-3 fighters that they felt passed muster in the trials & evaluations and not to select a fighter. That job rests with this committee to be ratified by the CCS
 

dragonfire

New Member
All I can say is thank god for spreadsheets.
So when do they input the field evaluation data and would anyone have an idea how much weight this will carry in the overall evaluation relative to the financials.
As per my post above and Twinblade's inputs.

Field Evaluation for Down-select/Shortlist Fighters which meets its stated expectations

Contract Negotiations Committee's job is to identify the L1 Vendor - Lowest Bidder

This was after the Defence Acquisition Council approved the Offset Evaluations report submitted for both contender.

After the CNC submits its L1 Vendor it would be the Government and in particular the CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) which would finally select the Winner
 

dragonfire

New Member
Has any news leaked out about what way the winds are blowing yet?
Not yet not really

The calculation of costs itself is a very complex affair and would take a few weeks time. However by December the L1 Vendor would be identified. Even then i doubt the process would be transparent enough (for general public) for an announcement to be made on who the L1 Vendor would be. It would be the governments job to act on the input and with all things considered proceed with an announcement of a winner.

What could also happen would be that a further round of price negotiations would be had considering that the budgeted figures would definitely be crossed by both Dassault and Eurofighter
 

Eeshaan

New Member
Not yet not really

The calculation of costs itself is a very complex affair and would take a few weeks time. However by December the L1 Vendor would be identified. Even then i doubt the process would be transparent enough (for general public) for an announcement to be made on who the L1 Vendor would be. It would be the governments job to act on the input and with all things considered proceed with an announcement of a winner.

What could also happen would be that a further round of price negotiations would be had considering that the budgeted figures would definitely be crossed by both Dassault and Eurofighter
So does that mean that it will be well into the first quarter of next year before a winner is finalized ? Or maybe the first half, if the price negotiations take longer than expected ( which is usually the case here lol) ?

I was hoping for a decision to be made by mid 2011. Had similar hopes last & last to last year. Look how that turned out :mad:
 
Last edited:

dragonfire

New Member
So does that mean that it will be well into the first quarter of next year before a winner is finalized ? Or maybe the first half, if the price negotiations take longer than expected ( which is usually the case here lol) ?

I was hoping for a decision to be made by mid 2011. Had similar hopes last & last to last year. Look how that turned out :mad:
The MoD had approved a budget of INR 42000 Crores (1 Crore = 10 Million) or 420 Billion INR, this was sanctioned by the Finance Ministry. Now if those figures have to be crossed (most likely) then (a) Negotiations would be done with the Vendors & (b) Fresh Approvals would be required from the Finance Ministry. Both (a) and (b) would lead to more time consumed before an order is placed.
 
Top