MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

What is your favorite for MMRCA 2.0 ?

  • JSF F-35 Blk 4

    Votes: 28 12.7%
  • Rafale F4

    Votes: 171 77.7%
  • Eurofighter Typhoon T3

    Votes: 3 1.4%
  • Gripen E/F

    Votes: 6 2.7%
  • F-16 B70

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • SH F-18

    Votes: 11 5.0%
  • F-15EX

    Votes: 6 2.7%

  • Total voters
    220

Tatvamasi

Senior member
Jan 5, 2018
1,257
1,300
India

IAF Splits $20 Bn Fighter Jet Procurement Into Two Programmes


MRFA numbers effectively reduced to less than half of the stated requirement of 114 foreign fighters as decision on Phase-II pushed into ambiguity a decade down the road

The Indian Air Force (IAF) Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) programme is being split into two parts under different procurement models to address the stated requirement of 114 jets, high-level military sources told BW Businessworld.

Under the revised procurement concept, the first part or phase of MRFA will involve the procurement of 54 foreign jets under the Buy Global (Manufacture in India) category of the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP), with the contract being awarded to a foreign OEM. Of these, 18 will be procured in a flyaway condition from the OEM while 36 will be manufactured in India by a local partner selected by the OEM. This partner will be from the private sector.

The IAF is pushing for an early Acceptance of Necessity (AON) for Phase-I from the Defence Acquisition Council, and aims at issuing an RFP by the end of 2022.

Part-II of MRFA is not yet a programme but a concept, sources disclosed. It involves procurement of 60 jets from the Indian production partner selected by the OEM for Part-I. The Part-II procurement model will be Buy Indian, with the Indian production agency being the prime for the issuance of contract.

“Part-II is a concept which may translate into a programme after seven-or-eight years,” official sources said, acknowledging the uncertainty and ambiguity which such a time lag could impose on the project.

The IAF has bounced the revised plan off global OEMs interested in the acquisition. Boeing and Lockheed Martin of the US, Dassault of France, the Eurofighter consortium of Europe, Saab of Sweden and Sukhoi and MiG of Russia are in the IAF’s selection pool which involves eight fighter aircraft types.

OEMs which BW Businessworld spoke with have taken a dim view. “There’s no certainty of Phase-II. Which means that costs of setting up an assembly line in India will have to be amortized over just 54 aircraft (instead of 114), only 36 of which will be manufactured in India. This will push up costs significantly and make the MRFA very expensive for India,” said a senior executive of an OEM. “Business assurance is only from Phase-I, and we need to rework our business case for 54 fighters instead of 114,” he elaborated.

The other significant shift in the MRFA programme is the rejection of the Strategic Partnership (SP) Model by the IAF. “This is mainly on account of the unsatisfactory experience in the abortive Naval Utility Helicopter (NUH) programme, and the Project 75 (I) submarine project under the SP Model,” official sources explained.

NUH crashed after prolonged indecision by the Government on whether or not to allow the public sector in a model intended to create an alternate private sector complex in end-to-end manufacturing of a military platform. In Project 75(I), deep reservations were expressed by OEMs on fulfilling deep Transfer of Technology requirements to the Indian Strategic Partner and their relegation as junior associates in the programme.

“The IAF is struggling to define its requirement. It has also struggled to finalise its operating model. This creates uncertainties for creating a business model,” observed an executive from another OEM.

By splitting the requirement, and with ambiguity after Phase-I, India could end up paying many times over for aircraft, reasoned another.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,913
4,710
Bangalore
I will tell you simple maths.

You order all 114 under a single contract. The cost of all fighters+ weapons+ infrastructure+ 5 years initial support at 80% availability rates will cost us 22 billion USD (more or less for Rafale or Super Hornet.). Around 20 for Russian , Gripen and F16 options and around 25 billion for Eurofighter or F15.

You order 54 (18+36) , cost for same package for 54 alone will be 17 billion USD.

And a second package for 60 airframes will be another 15 billion USD and 5 year delay.

Any one who says otherwise is trying to complicate things and fool you.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,913
4,710
Bangalore
The best ToT ever was the Su30MKI deal. The best we can now get is Su30MKI level minus Radar tech and minus engine tech. Anyone saying anything else is fooling you again.

The only reason we are testing new weapons on Su30MKI and not on Tejas is because we paid and got access to backend working of the Bars radar used.

No one, no one else is even willing to talk about that level of acess.

And the way current things are going on, 2025 is the timeline we may see signing of deal. Add 36 months, that's 2028 for 1st imported ones. We need them now. Not in 2030s.
 

Herciv

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
315
277
FRANCE
I will tell you simple maths.

You order all 114 under a single contract. The cost of all fighters+ weapons+ infrastructure+ 5 years initial support at 80% availability rates will cost us 22 billion USD (more or less for Rafale or Super Hornet.). Around 20 for Russian , Gripen and F16 options and around 25 billion for Eurofighter or F15.

You order 54 (18+36) , cost for same package for 54 alone will be 17 billion USD.

And a second package for 60 airframes will be another 15 billion USD and 5 year delay.

Any one who says otherwise is trying to complicate things and fool you.
But it depends if the winner plan to make Plane for IAF only or for other custumers (Indian Navy or Indonesia for example). What I mean is that MRFA could be a strategic move from the winner to put an industrial line for the whole Indo-Pacific and for a very long time to diversify its activity.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,622
11,339
India
Phase II may or may not happen, depending on the circumstances in the future. For now Phase I is possible for just a final assembly line and some additional production, like wings and one fuselage.

What's interesting is it won't make it expensive for Rafale, because we have an IGA signed with the French. But it will make it very expensive for all other Western competitors. So I suspect this split is meant to guarantee a French victory.

And the split makes yearly financial outgo more affordable.

The best ToT ever was the Su30MKI deal. The best we can now get is Su30MKI level minus Radar tech and minus engine tech. Anyone saying anything else is fooling you again.

The only reason we are testing new weapons on Su30MKI and not on Tejas is because we paid and got access to backend working of the Bars radar used.

No one, no one else is even willing to talk about that level of acess.

And the way current things are going on, 2025 is the timeline we may see signing of deal. Add 36 months, that's 2028 for 1st imported ones. We need them now. Not in 2030s.

The ToT requirement is the same as it as for MKI, 50%. The level of access we need is the same, ie, enough ToT to allow integration of Indian weapons.

Tejas is not used to test weapons because it's still WIP. The IAF needs more experience on it. And it's unnecessary anyway, because of MKI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valhalla

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,622
11,339
India
But it depends if the winner plan to make Plane for IAF only or for other custumers (Indian Navy or Indonesia for example). What I mean is that MRFA could be a strategic move from the winner to put an industrial line for the whole Indo-Pacific and for a very long time to diversify its activity.

Possible.

If both choose the Rafale, then the production numbers boost to 80. Adding Malaysia's and Indonesia's potential Rafale orders will further boost numbers.
 

Herciv

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
315
277
FRANCE
I really think the winner has to put a line in India for a very long time since india is becoming a real trade line with several blocks. I Dassault want to sold other plane in Indo pacific then it needs to deploy a whole activity in India to buy at better prices all it needs to manufactures rafales or any other planes at good conditions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Valhalla

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,913
4,710
Bangalore
Phase II may or may not happen, depending on the circumstances in the future. For now Phase I is possible for just a final assembly line and some additional production, like wings and one fuselage.

What's interesting is it won't make it expensive for Rafale, because we have an IGA signed with the French. But it will make it very expensive for all other Western competitors. So I suspect this split is meant to guarantee a French victory.

And the split makes yearly financial outgo more affordable.



The ToT requirement is the same as it as for MKI, 50%. The level of access we need is the same, ie, enough ToT to allow integration of Indian weapons.

Tejas is not used to test weapons because it's still WIP. The IAF needs more experience on it. And it's unnecessary anyway, because of MKI.


Untill we are talking of producing 36 airframe over 10 years, no the financial burden will not reduce.

For Bars we have full access to backend working of the radar. That's why once our weapon is ready it's so easy to integrate and test it on Su30MKI.

For any MMRCA 2 fighter, we will get assembly ToT like we had in Mig29 UPG project. Although eventually we will be able to add weapons, it will be done by keeping the OEM in loop. No such requirement for Su30.

So no, even half of what happened in Su30 project will never be offered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,913
4,710
Bangalore
But it depends if the winner plan to make Plane for IAF only or for other custumers (Indian Navy or Indonesia for example). What I mean is that MRFA could be a strategic move from the winner to put an industrial line for the whole Indo-Pacific and for a very long time to diversify its activity.
Dassault has full capacity to manufacture 33 fighter aircrafts a year. And it needs to keep its own Rafale manufacturing line open for as long as possible. Minimum rates over the year have been 6 airframes just so the line is not idle.

Go figure it out now. Neither Indonesian order is confirmed, nor is Indian order.

And for any viable fighter assembly plant, you will need 10x10 = 100 airframe confirm order. Without it, you can still do it but the cost per airframe.... Oh lala
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,622
11,339
India
Untill we are talking of producing 36 airframe over 10 years, no the financial burden will not reduce.

For Bars we have full access to backend working of the radar. That's why once our weapon is ready it's so easy to integrate and test it on Su30MKI.

For any MMRCA 2 fighter, we will get assembly ToT like we had in Mig29 UPG project. Although eventually we will be able to add weapons, it will be done by keeping the OEM in loop. No such requirement for Su30.

So no, even half of what happened in Su30 project will never be offered.

I don't know what you mean by backend, but whatever's needed for integration of weapons, we have that. And our demand is the same for MRFA.

Mig-29UPG is very different, although it's also going the MKI/Jaguar way.

It's not difficult to offer what the Russians offered, at least for the French. In fact, the French can offer more, the Russians kept raw material supply with themselves.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,913
4,710
Bangalore
I don't know what you mean by backend, but whatever's needed for integration of weapons, we have that. And our demand is the same for MRFA.

Mig-29UPG is very different, although it's also going the MKI/Jaguar way.

It's not difficult to offer what the Russians offered, at least for the French. In fact, the French can offer more, the Russians kept raw material supply with themselves.
When we want to add a new missile (which we have made in India) , we do not need to ring up engineers in Russia to come and sign certification documents that the work done hasn't affected the software or the hardware of the radar.

This cannot be replicated by French.
And we shouldn't expect it too. It's unrealistic.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,622
11,339
India
When we want to add a new missile (which we have made in India) , we do not need to ring up engineers in Russia to come and sign certification documents that the work done hasn't affected the software or the hardware of the radar.

This cannot be replicated by French.
And we shouldn't expect it too. It's unrealistic.

Depends on the numbers, save for Rafale. The Rafale will be in service in enough numbers for that to happen. 36+54 is plenty.

Anyway, 54 or 114, it's just a dog and pony show for the Rafale.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,834
4,447
74
France
When we want to add a new missile (which we have made in India) , we do not need to ring up engineers in Russia to come and sign certification documents that the work done hasn't affected the software or the hardware of the radar.

This cannot be replicated by French.
And we shouldn't expect it too. It's unrealistic.
Simply the integration of a missile on a Rafale cannot impact the hardware or software of the Radar. Because the target that will be designated will not come from a Radar detection but will be on the track that results from the fusion of data from all the local or external sensors that have detected the target.

So there should be an interface provided for the integration of any missile with an already defined dialogue that the missile will have to be able to satisfy. Thus the modification is on the side of the missile only which allows the integration of indigenous weapons.
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,465
1,122
France
Minimum rates over the year have been 6 airframes just so the line is not idle.
No. The miminum production rate is 1/month, ie 11/year. Maybe less were delivered a special year, but the mminimum economical production rate was established by Dassault to 1/month.