MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 08 Apr 2011 07:18

Arya Sumantra, who all must have been involved in the matter? Air Chief? PM?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Apr 2011 08:18

Sounds like they were desperate to fire an A2G weapon, and could not wait to confirm a friend or foe. Perhaps IAF's pressure saying we are watching the whole ops.

Now, that is poor intel sharing.

--
Ef2K news:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12785746
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-2 ... cture.html

Eurofighter said March 8 that London-based BAE, Europe’s biggest defense company, had released a Raytheon Co. (RTN) Paveway IV laser-guided bomb from a Typhoon test plane, a weapon that Tusa of Defence Analysis said could in theory be deployed in Libya.

“In terms of boosting exports you want Typhoon doing this,” he said. “Having spent the money there’s no reason it can’t.”

Rafale Role

The Eurofighter’s operational scope in Libya is narrower than that of Dassault’s Rafale, which flew combat patrols over Afghanistan as early as 2002 and took on a ground-attack role there five years later. The “omnirole” plane has undertaken a variety of Libyan missions from Saint-Dizier airbase in France and the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean.

“It has been used for air-to-air missions, air-to-ground to hit targets, for reconnaissance and even as a tanker,” said Colonel Thierry Burkhard, a spokesman for the French joint armed forces. “It’s completely multi-functional. You can prepare the plane and choose the mission while you’re flying.”

“I have been little short of amazed about how low-beat the French have been on Rafale’s profile in Libya,” said Tusa, a defence analyst for 15 years. “They are desperate to sell it.”

The French air force bombed a Libyan military airbase 150 miles inland last night, Burkhard said at a Paris briefing, while the New York Post said on its website that French fighters shot down a Soko G-2 Galeb. The plane is a reconnaissance and ground-attack model built in the former Yugoslavia until 1983.

The Saab Gripen, which first flew in 1988, two years after the Rafale and six years before the Typhoon, has racked up 150,000 flying hours and is a proven fighter, despite never having operated a combat mission, spokesman Lasse Jansson said.

“It’s not something we are asked when we’re out marketing the aircraft,” Jansson said by telephone. “Most potential customers know that Gripen has demonstrated these things.”

!!!!!

All are basically trying show off for MRCA!! Gripen just talking, while Ef2K is trying harder and harder to deploy, and blast anything on their way to impress, while the french took the lead to show !! impressive so far from the katrinas.

--
http://weapons.technology.youngester.co ... phoon.html

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/02/13 ... r-typhoon/
multi role typhoon: Italy did not completely rule out the use of Eurofighters for air-to-ground missions, since both T2 and T3 aircraft will have the ability to carry Paveway and JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) that are already used by the Tornado and the AMX, and will be carried in the future by the F-35s (that Italy plans to acquire in 109 examples: 69 conventional take-off and landing F-35As and 40 short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs). Hence, the air-to-ground mission is viewed as secondary for the Typhoon; provided their ability to use the ordnance in inventory for other aircraft, the Eurofighter will be possibly be used as “back up” attack platforms until 2040.

Rushi · Post by **Rushi** » 08 Apr 2011 10:10

I fell we must go for Rafal + Grippen NG......with this we can also satisfied US by 414Engine...

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 08 Apr 2011 10:29

^^^^
From the bloomerg article given above

Still, the jets[i.e. Typhoons] are limited to an air-superiority role, Britain’s Ministry of Defence says, meaning they’ll target enemy planes in the air, rather than attack targets on the ground, a capability the RAF planes won’t have until 2018. Bombing has been allocated to Panavia Tornados, designed in the 1970s.

Britain’s failure to commit fully to a third tranche of Eurofighter orders and an upgraded radar may damp interest from other countries.

“I can’t think of one weapon system in history that was given any kind of boost on the market by one particular conflict,” Aboulafia said. “They need to provide the budget roadmap that guarantees the plane’s long-term appeal as a weapons system.”

That is one of the drawbacks of EFT. It was never meant as a multi-role aircraft from the day it was designed, rather a air-superiority role.

Just to set the record straight, I have always recommended Grippen NG and EFT, in that order, to the other contenders.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Apr 2011 11:34

the fact the EF captor-E is being slowly worked on via company funds and head of EADS is pleading for partner country support to complete such vital export oriented checklists speaks volumes of the level of interest.

germany has the money, but not the intent
UK has the intent , but not a great deal of money - happy with 2018
spain and italy probably have neither the intent or money

france seems to have both the intent and money - looking at the huge bailout given to dassault, ongoing SLCM program , Le troimphant class, lots and lots of FREMM ships, barracuda, M51 SLBM, A2SM.....and I have not heard of them backing away from the CVF program.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 08 Apr 2011 11:54

Good point Shiv, I had not thought about it that way. So after some digging about this topic.
It seems that the smallest thing that you can see is what subtends one minute of an arc (ie 1/60 or 0.016 degrees). when the object itself is not radiating any light.
At 20K meters a 20 m long object will subtend 0.057 degrees or 3.43 minutes. This is without considering the fairly significant wing area that is also visible. So technically it is still possible to view it from 20K meters, Now, the other point he had made was that the bison can usually be only spotted from the air due to the refection from the canopy, which means that the MKI will also have some canopy reflection, which should make it a bit easier to spot.

Again, the one minute of an arc is what is theoretically possible, maybe with air pollution it may degrade.
More on this topic, the ISS (51mx109m) which is orbiting at 384Km is also visible to the naked eye, it is too small to see visually, but, it reflects a lot of sun light so is visible.

shiv wrote:
vcsekhar wrote:I was also surprised about the distance numbers, but, the difference in eyesight is pretty remarkable between civilians and fighter pilots.
Well fighter pilots must have good eyesight and training too. But I recall from when I had great eyesight that there are some things that one can't really see. I think it should be easy to calculate the angle subtended at the eye from a 20 meter long aircraft from a distance of 20,000 meters and the actual size of the image 2 cm behind on the retina. Could someone figure that out? I think that would produce an image that is 20 microns across on the retina. Not sure if that is "pickupable" by any human eye.

brvarsh · Post by **brvarsh** » 08 Apr 2011 12:58

India should not think in terms who it has to make happy. Choosing Gripen to satisfy US for the engine would be a faulty decision. In 5 years time LCA will be as good as NG if not better. Without US giving India any concrete footing in world affairs (vis-a-vis China and Pakistan) its no use to go for any US planes even if its fairly good. Typhoon is a good plane but is not multi-role that India wants. So between the two left it would be anybody's guess.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Apr 2011 13:47

if we want combat ready with A2G bias, then rafale has to win
else Typhoon, if we can wait for A2G

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Apr 2011 13:59

methinks the PAKFA is destined for A2A primary role given its internal aam bays, big aesa radar and stealth...its not too far away..maybe 10 yrs.
Tejas-2 will also be a good a2a bird with some form of aesa radar and astra 1 & 2...maybe 7 yrs away

so perhaps A2G will be deputed to MRCA and MKI and rafale is better choice. the rafale btw has scored well in a2a exercises vs stuff like f15/f16/f18...

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Apr 2011 14:14

the only drawback of rafale will be industrial participation. the french guard their crown jewels almost as tightly as unkil. the brits and italians would have been more open, germans... maybe. politically its the same as typhoon i think

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Apr 2011 15:40

I believe alenia aerospace of italy taught NAL how to build the gee whiz composities for the Tejas and other projects...

Advait · Post by **Advait** » 08 Apr 2011 16:41

There are only four worthy contenders: Rafale , Eurofighter, F16 and F/A 18. Since price is not really an issue here the only criterion should be whether we will be able to reverse engineer the one we choose. This should be done in such a way that 10 years from now, the l100% local versions are rolling out of HAL factories. Doesn’t matter if it’s not better than the original, even if it is 80% of the original that’s enough.

Check out my thread:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5884

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Apr 2011 17:05

reverse engineer is out of question here.. knowledge transformation has to happen, and the sole reason for ToTing.

Though price is not the primary criterion, it automatically becomes the secondary one. This way, the contenders focus on what they can provide, while we can focus on who can give the best for the price.

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 08 Apr 2011 17:51

what needs to be noted is thatIndia wants a 2nd string fighter after the Mki. Various reports are come in that IAf will not choose the f16, now the f18 itslef is an old work horse, they only work in tandem with the Growler. and Boeing cannot provide 126 nos in 10B$, more like 50 nos.
The Eft is a problem with no ground role till a few years more...moreso cuz it will not satisfy Offsets with EU nations themselves bickering..

Mig 35 seems to be a glorified M29, with relations with Russia gng down, also considering Pakfa, IAF doesnt want to tie up more(my guess)

That leaves the Gripen, new 4+ light aircraft at the right price with the Aesa coming soon and a comprehensive offset proposal that is already in place with other countries.

My vote : Gripen Ng or Rafale

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Apr 2011 18:42

vcsekhar wrote: It seems that the smallest thing that you can see is what subtends one minute of an arc (ie 1/60 or 0.016 degrees). when the object itself is not radiating any light.
At 20K meters a 20 m long object will subtend 0.057 degrees or 3.43 minutes. This is without considering the fairly significant wing area that is also visible. So technically it is still possible to view it from 20K meters, Now, the other point he had made was that the bison can usually be only spotted from the air due to the refection from the canopy, which means that the MKI will also have some canopy reflection, which should make it a bit easier to spot.

Good find. Yes 1 minute appears to be the absolute minimum under ideal conditions. Of course the caveats are that any dust/insects on the canopy or a smudge on the visor will obscure an object that size - so I would guess that 20 km would be a lucky find for an alert pilot in clear conditions but still no visual identification/IFF. However by spotting it first he may be able to slew sensors in the direction and ready his weapons. But it works both ways and the time difference between 20 km and 15 km for aircraft approaching each other in the forward hemisphere at a net speed of 2000 kmph would be about 9 seconds giving each pilot enough time to react in some way even if he spots the other plane a second or two later. I guess being "in the sun" would still be an advantage in this scenario.

But combined with an AWACS or other guidance a pilot may be able to spot another aircraft first and fire off something very quickly - being sure that whet he sees in a particular diirection is definitely an adversary.

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 08 Apr 2011 18:59

shiv wrote: But combined with an AWACS or other guidance a pilot may be able to spot another aircraft first and fire off something very quickly - being sure that whet he sees in a particular diirection is definitely an adversary.

Why are we talking about Pilots using their naked eyes to find planes?? is there any
incentive?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Apr 2011 19:36

akshay wrote:
shiv wrote: But combined with an AWACS or other guidance a pilot may be able to spot another aircraft first and fire off something very quickly - being sure that whet he sees in a particular diirection is definitely an adversary.
Why are we talking about Pilots using their naked eyes to find planes?? is there any
incentive?

Yes. I think that your question is related to the "idealized air warfare" that has become the norm with NATO versus Yugoslavia, Western coalition versus Iraq and NATO versus Libya. But if you look at India versus Pakistan or China we are still looking at pilots using eyes.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 08 Apr 2011 20:15

shiv wrote:
akshay wrote: Why are we talking about Pilots using their naked eyes to find planes?? is there any
incentive?
Yes. I think that your question is related to the "idealized air warfare" that has become the norm with NATO versus Yugoslavia, Western coalition versus Iraq and NATO versus Libya. But if you look at India versus Pakistan or China we are still looking at pilots using eyes.

There is a little more to it than that. Even if we were all flying F-22s, visual identification would not be any less important. This is because:
- Enemy a/c may be flying beyond the radar cone. This is a very common technique used by pilots. Generally, if 2 fighters are flying, they would do so at very different altitudes. The hope is that the enemy a/c would focus his attention and radar on one a/c while the other remains undetected outside the radar cone.

- Also the fighters may not always have their radar switched on. The a/cs are generally said to toggle their radars at some intervals. I am not highly certain to the reason behind this. My guess will be to remain passive. Another factor may be power and heat. However, as I have said before, I am not very clear myself regarding this point.

This is the reason why, when selecting fighter pilots, no AF in the world gives even the slightest of leeway in eyesight.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 08 Apr 2011 20:32

akshay wrote: now the f18 itslef is an old work horse,

Are you serious? An aircraft introduced in 1999 is a old workhorse? If you are going to make an argument about it being derived from F/A-18, please read up the history of the development of F/A-18 E/F. It is a murky history that allowed bypassing procedures for development of a new aircraft by keeping the same "F/A-18" designation.

they only work in tandem with the Growler.

Says who?

and Boeing cannot provide 126 nos in 10B$, more like 50 nos.

If Boeing is unable to compete in cost terms (after having defrayed all the development cost already), what makes you think that anyone else would be able to supply 126 MRCA for $10B
BTW, for what it is worth, Wiki quotes the unit cost of SH as $55 million based on recent USN acquisitions. At that cost it would ~181 SH. However, considering the entire package (which we know will be more than just the aircraft), it merits that Boeing will come around the $10B.

My vote : Gripen Ng or Rafale

Your vote is yours with all due respect to it.

My point is simply that your arguments are baseless. Neither Rafale or Gripen NG is going to be less expensive than SH. Rafale for certain will not be less expensive than Rafale. Even the Rafale admirers (including me) will admit that.

Given the penchant of French projects involving ToT to be inordinately delayed, I wonder if the LM and Boeing operating in a timely manner would not be simply worth it because of assured timely acquisitions.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Apr 2011 21:29

Avid. Good Post. The F-18SH (especially the Growler) is an exceptionally good aircraft (especially in the sensors arena). To underestimate it would be at your own folly.

Gaur wrote:This is the reason why, when selecting fighter pilots, no AF in the world gives even the slightest of leeway in eyesight.

I once saw an Israeli Air Force pilot (on TV) wearing prescription glasses and flying a F-15. Given the pechant for secrecy within the Israeli Air Force, I was surprised that they showed that image. They usually blur the faces of their fighter pilots and special forces in photos or TV programs.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Apr 2011 21:33

they have good eyesight when hired, after training if eyesight deteriorates they are allowed to wear glasses... otherwise too much training money is wasted

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 08 Apr 2011 21:36

Avid wrote:assured timely acquisitions.

This IMO is the crux of the matter. MMRCA has "urgency" written all over it, we need a few squadrons right now. SH and Rafale will come fastest in the numbers needed.

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 08 Apr 2011 22:35

Avid wrote: Are you serious?? Says who?
My vote : Gripen Ng or Rafale
Your vote is yours with all due respect to it.
My point is simply that your arguments are baseless. Neither Rafale or Gripen NG is going to be less expensive than SH.
Rafale for certain will not be less expensive than Rafale.
Given the penchant of French projects involving ToT to be inordinately delayed, I wonder if the LM and Boeing operating in a timely manner would not be simply worth it because of assured timely acquisitions.

Firstly Im sure your opinion doesnt match with others, so ofcourse its a matter of opinion. F18 comes in the class of heavy fighters .IF you read when i say its old workhorse it is OLD but not ineffective but US has a history of mark and block upgrades. US doctrine doesnt advise fighter using their OWN radar but rely on the Awac(or Growler).

I did NOT say the rafale is cheaper but i did say what we need is TOT and Joint development which we can expect with the Rafale and Saab.
BTW Australia got 24 SH for 6 billion..you think we get 181 ..maybe let's see.
frankly your welcome to dis-agree w/ all due respect but i dint find any point in ur writeup except no-no .

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 08 Apr 2011 22:48

ramana wrote:Of the MRCA candidates which has the best air superiority role? I think the strike can be handled by the many planes in IAF inventory.
So while the requirement is for multi-role, what is needed is an air superiority fighter.
just my thoughts.

Hi ramana
Why you think is Air superiority imp?? just asking ..i always thought IAF would have a more defensive role hence A2G.
or should I say MRCA ....so my thinking is MKI for A2A and MRCA for Interdiction/A2G roles mainly

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Apr 2011 22:58

^^^^
Admins: We have a troll on our hands. Please handle.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Apr 2011 00:29

The Paki threat is from Babur criuise missiles as I expect they willl be disbursed to all the corps commanders. That is why they are mkaing all those extra warheads. The missiles will be under GHQ controls. To shoot those down you need a good aircraft with very good radar and shoot down AAMs.. Right now air superiority fighters are the ones that have this. So thats my view.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 09 Apr 2011 00:56

ramana wrote:The Paki threat is from Babur criuise missiles as I expect they willl be disbursed to all the corps commanders. That is why they are mkaing all those extra warheads. The missiles will be under GHQ controls. To shoot those down you need a good aircraft with very good radar and shoot down AAMs.. Right now air superiority fighters are the ones that have this. So thats my view.

That logic would have stood well a few decades ago. But the difference between an air superiority fighter and a strike fighter are very vague. In traditional sense, Mig-29 is a air superiority fighter while F-18, MKI, Rafale etc are multirole fighters each having excellent strike capabilities. Yet they fulfill your criteria much better than Mig-29.

My meaning is that all MRCA contenders have exclellent radars (some have better than others) and all the contenders can carry modern BVR missiles. I believe, that for air superiority purposes, each of the MMRCA contender can handle anything that PAF & PLAAF can throw at us for a decade or two.

If by some miracle the PLAAF inducts J-20 in a decade. And if by some even greater miracle, it is all that is is hyped to be, then none of the MMRCA contenders would be used against that. Our FGFA would be more than enough for that role.

IMHO, IAF should be "slightly" more interested in the strike capabilities of MMRCA. I guess this because IAF had initially wanted Mirage-2000. Mirage-2000 is an excellent a/c. It can certainly hold out on its own in the air but the area in which it really shines is in its strike role. That also makes sense to me since we have more air superiority a/c than true strike platforms.

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 09 Apr 2011 01:17

Gaur wrote: IMHO, IAF should be "slightly" more interested in the strike capabilities of MMRCA. I guess this because IAF had initially wanted Mirage-2000. Mirage-2000 is an excellent a/c. It can certainly hold out on its own in the air but the area in which it really shines is in its strike role. That also makes sense to me since we have more air superiority a/c than true strike platforms.

i agree A2G is emphasised considering previous engagements. As far as i read we are looking for Mig replacements not replace the Main MKI fighter.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Apr 2011 03:20

No where I read that MRCA requirement is for replacement. I have read a lot on squadron strength increase plus the new multi-role aspect. Why do we keep harping on replacements? Just leave the old fighters alone.

It is interesting to note to use mrca against baburs, so ideally we could use any AAM that tracks and nail down .5m targets cruising at near mach 1. Akash could very well fit that role, and more suitable btw.

Ideally, we would need an AAM that has a multi spectral sensor fusion seeker that nail even chippanda stealth coated baburs.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 09 Apr 2011 03:28

ramana wrote:The Paki threat is from Babur criuise missiles as I expect they willl be disbursed to all the corps commanders. ......To shoot those down you need a good aircraft with very good radar and shoot down AAMs.. .

True. And, that supposedly is the strong selling point of the F/A-18 E/F with the AN/APG-79 AESA radar: the ability to shoot down cruise missiles. At least that's what brochure says.

Rushi · Post by **Rushi** » 09 Apr 2011 10:44

I to fell that we must not think to make any body happy..by keeping our security on threat, we must select the best....but i belive we must think tactical as it is globilization thats why i said we must go for Rafale+gripen NG.. with this we can get the best fighter plane like Rafale as a striker & Gripen to ,if any of this perform best then we can give follow on order to any one of this ,Rafale is expensive but best & Gripen is Cheaper but it also one of the best and if any more problem happen with LCA in future then we can go for Gripen also..as gripen engine is from US we can satisified them also ...With this we have advantage like their will be good compitation with this two to provide good Service & timely delivary to us at best price to get follow on order & US to will get some jobs at their end...

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 09 Apr 2011 11:31

We cannot have Mig planes and have MKI & MRCA & LCA all together and then Pakfa. This is about M21/23/27 replacement.Of couse GOI will not throw them out but its curtains for them anyways .

paultd · Post by **paultd** » 09 Apr 2011 20:13

IAF set to seal $ 10 bn combat aircraft deal
http://iafnews.nuvodev.com/posts/iaf-se ... raft-deal/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Apr 2011 20:19

many of us in BRF have given up hope we will see this infernal thread closed and down with in our lifetimes. it simply refuses to be over and has 999 lives.

until the deal is signed and first lot of planes arrive, this torture will continue.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Apr 2011 20:26

and we will spin round round round round...
so much better to take the lalchix option...

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 09 Apr 2011 21:32

ha ha ha ...infernal thread indeed.
but does BRF recommend any of the combatants as of 2011.

paultd · Post by **paultd** » 09 Apr 2011 21:35

Obama pushes for ‘MMRCA Jet deal’
http://iafnews.nuvodev.com/posts/obama- ... -jet-deal/

India’s choice of MMRCA to be known by month end
http://iafnews.nuvodev.com/posts/indias ... month-end/

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Apr 2011 02:30

Q: Why IAF worried about losers poking the selection process wheel? Is that not drafted in the RFI that all decision are final unless there exists a scam. I am scared at this worry 'cause scam is something that is easily possible with in our current setup.

Obama is right to pedal for the deal, but he should know that what his legal entities and documents say are much more important than what he says. He sounds like a perfect car salesman now and everything is rosy until we land up in parts, spares and other choke troubles.

Since, this is not a gov to gov deal, things can be easy there.. what IAF says must be final, and MMS con angrez must not overrule.

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 10 Apr 2011 13:52

With the political scene heating up, lets hope this deal and the 22 attack helicopter deal is wrapped up soon.

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 10 Apr 2011 15:03

its not the decision of the IAF that is pending but the Offset deal. With bids expiring in April the offset rules are more important.
IAF has to have submitted the technical report already.