Replies

About what I favour-all of the six probably make the cut going by the IAF’s minimum requirements. In an ideal world, the Gripen would be the best best. Affordable, advanced and would keep the Americans and Euros happy.

On a more practical level, it’d probably be the Eurofighter vs the Super Hornet.

By the way thanks for the PDF on the MMRCA. That was quite a good bit of information. As for the price of the F-16 ...that is one really 'weird' mistake. Almost as if they were trying to show that the F-16 is the best bet (very low cost, and capability that is not too bad even though it is not the best by any measure), when it is not the cheapest, not the best, virtually non-existent growth potential after the Blk60/IN, in terms of technology transfer the Indians would probably not to get full sniff at the AESA and the avionics (even though they could muck about pretty much anything else in the Viper, I doubt Uncle Sam would let them know all about the AESA and sensor fusion), and finally the 'promise' that it is a step to the F-35 is a joke. A super-cruising modern F-16 'super' Viper for US$30m ...hah! Even worse marketing than the Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale 'enhancements' in the marketing material.

I can't wait for the darn selection to be over ...at this stage there should be a front runner, but all we know is that it is not the F-16 or the MiG-35. Although, if all pass technicals, isn't it an automatic 'lowest bidder?' In my industry, when a Fund is bidding for a Manager (i.e. a Fund Management company), generally speaking all send in two proposals ...a technical proposal (saying what you can do basically) and a financial proposal (saying how much you will charge for what you can do). At the tendering process, the technical proposals are opened first and evaluated. If a Manager is eliminated from the process for not meeting certain technical factors, their financial proposal is returned without even being opened. However, let's say four Managers make it through, then the financial proposals are opened, and the lowest bidder gets the prize. Now, let's say Fund Company A had perfect service and a perfect track record, and they charge 45 basis points annual fund management fee. And Fund Company B has so so service, and a performance track record half that of Company A, but charges 29 basis points ...but (and this is the crucial part) even that so so service and half performance meets or exceeds the targets set by the tendering Fund, then Company B will win the tender in many cases. It is not about the best, but rather good enough at a cheaper price.

If it works that way in Indian military tenders, and we assume that all vendors passed the technical tests (and we eliminate the F-16 and the MiG-35 for obvious reasons), we have the Gripen NG, the Rafale, the SuperHornet and the Tiffy. Those four are past the technicals, and the financial proposals are opened. Well, we have the NG as the cheapest, and the Tiffy as the most expensive. For Tiffy to win, EADS would have to give the ENTIRE technology transfer, from CAPTOR to PIRATE to Meteor to the small rivet at the tail end, and even then the question would remain if that would be enough to knock out the NG. Same applies to the Rafale and the SuperBug. If it is based on cost, then it goes to the NG. Once other factors (like Sweden not having strong political influence, similarities to the Tejas as it the Tejas evolves, the Europeans and the Americans having far greater influence, etc) then the NG's chances get a tad skewed. However, based on price and price only, and considering the NG will definitely have passed the technicals, it would go to the NG (which by the way is the only competitor that meets the original requirements and is not flown by the Pakistanis).

The question becomes then what is India’s role for the Typhoon when they have Su-30 and will have FGFA? It’s not the bomb truck the others are. That begs the question what India is really after. Tech transfer may be it, then the Eurofighter Consortium has some advantages in this area.