MRCA News and Discussion

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 24 Jul 2009 12:36

The Real Deal : not first End User Pact, is India’s Most Lax
The Indian Express

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 24 Jul 2009 12:36

We see India as a partner rather than just as another prospective market. We want your country to play a role in future EADS programmes.

We’re open to the possibility of India becoming a manufacturing hub for our future exports,’’ Gerwert said.

As a first step EADS will launch its aviation research centre in Bangalore.

“We have already entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with L&T. EADS will recruit 200 engineers in the next two years who will work on avionics and sensors,’’ he said adding that the manufacture of certain critical components could be totally offset to India.

“These parts will come directly to our assembly line like other components reaching us from partner countries UK, Spain or Italy. This will also give India a chance to showcase its technological prowess in handling complex technology,’’ he pointed out.

Sweetening the deal...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Jul 2009 14:16

Guys,view the MMRCA deal in its entirety.As I've emphasised before,the deal does little for the overall health of the IAF,or meeting its requirements in a commonsense and cost-effective manner for the next few decades.As well put in above posts,the deal envisaged by certain vested interests is in two parts,military and political.The huge hype for the F-18SH is understandable in this context,as if its AESA radar is a magic bullet,when it is vastly inferior to the cheaper SU-30MKI-3.The aircraft will do nothing for the IAF in the future,as its DNA is as I've said countles times before is of '70s vintage.Guys,please look at the history of the aircraft ,go into the USNavy's very own website ...

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 Kidder Breese SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/fa18.htm)

..and see how the aircraft IS a '70s vintage one!

Excerpt:
"The Hornet is a direct descendant of the Cobra. In nature's environment, this statement would not make any sense, but in aviation such relationships are not uncommon. Thus, the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet traces its direct ancestry to the Northrop Cobra, a twin engine multimission fighter design developed for the export market in the late 1960s. The Cobra was never built in this form. In 1971, the Air Force requested proposals for a lightweight fighter prototype program; Northrop's entry was derived from the Cobra design. One of the two winners in the Air Force competition, Northrop was awarded a contract in 1972 for two YF-17 prototypes, each powered by two General Electric YJ101 engines. General Dynamics was the other winner, building two single engine YF-16s.

Making the first flight in November 1978 (30 years ago!), the F/A-18 and its two-place derivative have undergone most of their development testing at the Naval Air Test Center, under the new single-site testing concept. ...

Modernization development is underway for the next Hornet series, the F/A-18E/F, which will provide increased mission radius, endurance, and survivability above that of its predecessor while providing the capacity for twenty-plus years of growth that is unavailable in the current F/A-18C/D. There will be extensive commonality in weapons systems, avionics, and software between the two aircraft and the infrastructure for supporting the new Hornet will grow from in-place organizations. The lethality, flexibility, reliability, and survivability of the F/A-18E/F will make it the aircraft of choice to fulfill the majority of missions associated with regional and littoral scenarios"

*Please read the part about "extensive commonality in weapon ssystems,avionics and software between the two aircraft..".I think this proves my point about the F-18SH NOT being a "new" aircraft at all! Capable though it might be today and for the immediate future,the Hornet is a dead-end technogically which cannot compete with the other contenders which have far more growth potential.The evidence I've shown so far is that it is going to be discarded from the next decade,which neither the Typhoon,Rafale or Gripen are going to be .As for the MIG-35,which first appeared in the '80s,a decade after the F-18,here are some facts (WIK).

"In joint USAF-Luftwaffe exercises, the MiG-29 that the Luftwaffe fielded defeated the F-16 in close combat almost every time using its highly practical IRST sensor and helmet mounted display, together with the Vympel R-73 (NATO: AA-11 'Archer') missile."

Anyway,that's my opinion of the F-18 and I know others might disagree with it.So be it.

The urgent need for the IAF to buy the F-18SH is because the key factor here is the need for the IAF to have "interoperability" and "cooperative engagement" capability with US forces.The US wants India to be another two-bit ally of it,another mercenary state like Oz,where Indian soldiers,pilots and sailors will bail out Uncle Sam around the world and do his dirty work in killing innocents for him as in Iraq and Afghanistan.For this to happen,we must be forced away from Russian and European origin aircraft and weapon systems which cannot be integrated into Uncle Sam's NCW spider's web.India will become a major hub and logistic base for the US which will source common weapon systems,spares,etc. in Indian bases.From India the US hopes to dominate the entire IOR,Central Asia,blunt Russia and checkmate China by its future willing proxy,India.There are secret agreements which MMS made when the N-deal was signed,which have become evident with the sell-out to the US over the EUM (which none of the other nations require),that the N-deal was incumbent upon India buying major tkt. defence eqpt. from the US especially the MMRCA aircraft.The F-16 is going to be offered at a very low price to try and kill off the MIG-35 and Gripen and the F-18 will be offered at a price below the Typhoon and competitive with the Rafale.

If MMS & co. have their way,the IAF will be forced to buy the F-18 no matter what the outcome of the evaluation is.What is intriguing about the evaluation is that a major part of it will be done in the country of origin and not in India! This leaves enormous room for manipulation of the evaluation in the testing ranges,etc.,where IAF personnel will be at a disadvantage being in unfamiliar territory.The hugely expensive MMRCA programme is only going to retard the IAF from developing technology for its aviation needs for the future,by reducing funds that could be spent on other vital programmes and cost-effective acquisitions.I've given comparative costs in earlier posts,look them up.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 24 Jul 2009 15:02

Countless time it has been claimed that Mig 35 is not technologically as advanced than other contenders. One of the argument to support this is that RuAF is not fielding it.

Now my point is that are Air staff requirement so low that a SO CALLED OBSOLETE air craft can deliver it.

Also with respect to RuAF not fielding it, Which other country is buying a 4.5 gen aircraft when the world is going gen next. Please don't not include TSP / Small and Third world countries / EU countries - as we know they don't have the threat perception we have and are further protected by umbrella of NATO.

Russians are not fielding it because they don't want to commit funds to 4.5gen aircraft when 5th gen is on horizon.

Many of us question the capability of Russia in developing a 5th gen aircraft. But doesn't the above states of confidence, Russians have in themselves.

I think we are stupid to keep this MMRCA open till now. By the time MMRCA will be available, LCA MK 2 would have started rolling and FGFA (Not Pakfa) in intermediate trials and MCA/NGFA in the prototype / initial flight tests stage.

I don't know what others feel, but I have full confidence that Russian /Indian JV will work out a Finest aircraft which will not be inferior to F 22 / 35 in any respect, if not superior. My belief comes from the fact that Russians have never let us down against all the fancy high tech which our CURRENT STRATEGIC PARTNER supplied to our traditional rivals. Also from the fact that with all hyped high tech, Americans were never allowed to gain any Air superiority (forget Air Supremacy) against the Russians.

my take is - Call off MMRCA, update existing aircrafts / Replace them with Rafale /Mig 35 and release the balance funds in FGFA and NGFA

-Nitin

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 24 Jul 2009 15:39

IMHO India needs to have atleast top quality 1000 combat aircraft to defend against chinese and pakis
By 2020 time frame we will have
230 Su-30MKI 126 MRCAs 120 LCAs
and decent amount of Jaguar+Mirage+Mig-29s along with a few 5th gen aircraft.

We need all the combat aircraft we need. I think India is facing and continue to face a large military threat to its existence. We have to have a lot of aircraft

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 24 Jul 2009 17:16

As far as MRCA is concerned Gripen NG is definately an underdog. It does have chances of winning and to me it is an ideal aircraft if we are looking to fill in numbers with high end technology and lower cost. It may not give political mileage but it can definately improve our image in Northern Europe. Choosing gripen will also keep Russians and Americans at equal distance as I believe that choosing US mrca will definately help US cause of letting them dictate some part of our future. I also fail to see any ulterior motive from Sweden in Gripen offering to India other than purely business. I am also sure pakis will never know anything about Gripen if they are awarded the contract. For me, Gripen should be the winner.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2009 18:17

Cain Marko wrote: I was just refering that the MKI is hardly the final flanker, more is yet to come and even the latest su-35 isn't it. If the su-35 looks so delicious, I wonder what an MLUed MKI will be like.

Sure. BUT, that is my point. The Russians have the brain power to make the next "latest", BUT do not have the need (as much as the US/Israel/India) and have NO funds!!! So, over a period of time, given all three factors, the Russians + EADS + France + Sweden have to lag behind. This is NOT a knock on ANY of them, just an observation and a logical (emotionless) conclusion on my part. (I have no favorites outside of techs here.)

What guarantee that the shornet is going to get the 25000 lb engine? it is in the pipeline but similar is the case with newer variants for the EJ-200, M88, RD-33. At this point the U.S seems to want to concentrate more on the JSF and cut off funding to other programs. And who can blame 'em. It is clearly a gen ahead.

Nothing. The US is also prone to the same natural and economic forces that the rest of the nations face. However, the need of the US and the risk taking nature of the US makes it a lot more probable than any other AC. And, if one were to trace the recent history of ALL these ACs you can witness this trend. The Flanker is making progress, but no buys. MiG is dead as a duck. Rafale will be dead in a few more years - GoFR is very reluctant to fund. Sweden the same - lot of talk. EADS - there is plenty of in-fighting.

Even JSF will face the same stress. I am not as confident as I was, say, a year ago. Plenty of talk. Yes Italy has sanction assembly in their country. Yada, yada, yada. When the "need" reduces, the ROI automatically comes down. And, when the ROI reaches a certain unacceptable level they ALL fold (see UK with their nuke forces).

It is a critical point though - cause the shornet has really suffered in this region. Just as the MiG-35 has weaknesses in NCW and possibly EW.Or the Tiffy in terms of underdeveloped A2G abilities. The design is a crummy one, cause it offers no advantage over the others whatever, it is by far the bottom of the lot. Buying something of this nature will leave the IAF with a mill stone around its neck for the next 30-40 years.

OK. Understood.

I am no tech junkie either but it is apparent that later MESAs such as the Captor or PESA like RBE-2 had something seriously good going for them. Ditto with the russkis (Irbis). I remember these guys insisting that they can do as well if not better than first gen AESA radars on variousparameters. I recall all the above making claims to lpi for instance. One difference that I can think of is FOVs, the RBE-2 sacrifices range for this, the Mechs are normally better at it and the Russians came up with the hybrid (mech/electronic) scanning to get outstanding angles. AESAs, being large are at a disadvantage here, the Gripen does show on innovative solution i think.

Cool. Perhaps the two of us can do some side research on this topic.

But raosaab, how do we know what the others can/can't do, a LOT of stuff seems to be within wraps. That is the biggest problem when discussing EW/ECCM abilities - statements implying a decisive edge for any of these candidates at this point are a bit of conjecture. Secondly, while the ACM did mention NCW as a priority, nowhere was flight performance dissed. BTW, as far as this goes, ultimately won't all of the MRCA candidates have similar datalinking capabilities offered by the ODL that the IAF is working on?.

Your reluctance to accept is understandable.

I am JUST connecting the dots. But, will grant you that I may have better access in some areas. But no proof/URLs.

So, let that slide.

The U.S is embroiled in some v.low intensity warfare scenarios, and their R&D efforts seem to bear out needs dictated by warfare that is essentially one-sided. ............................

The threat matrix is different for the U.S and for india. .............................

Furthermore, with IAF getting AWACS capabilities, flight characteristics gain even greater importance imho. This is an area where the teens lag behind the others.

What I am saying is that the IAF get a platform that has everything as far as possible:
Great EW capabilities
Great NCW capabilites
Great flight performance characteristics (turn rates, climb rates, acceleration, endurance, range, supercruise etc )
Great uptimes
Great sensors
Great sensor fusion and MMI

ALL of the above. The U.S entries are great in some but not in others. The eurocanards bring the best balance, ........

CM.

Sure.

This is where the entire discussion starts and ends.

Part of the problem is "internet". Posts do not do justice. Believe me, IF we were to take GJMan and place him in front of a Paki Gen, end of game. No need for IAF/IN.

I think that mesa/pesa stuff is interesting. Along with what MarcH brought up (in-band .......).

Let us see.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jul 2009 18:44

If one goes by IAF rejecting snecma offer for LCA engine, then Kaveri sure is pushed off or to become a marut companion in the museum if no money gonna be invested in it.

Its important to note, since from that news, the interested top two contenders are EADS and Boeing. If EADS gets, which is a tough job for them to get, and should they do so, then it is highly likely to have a common engine for both MRCA and LCA, since both these a/cs might hit production line the same time., and lot of cost saving can be established for engine manufacturing facilities.

Getting Kaveri upto IAF requirements, and perhaps having Kaveri has the main engine for all light/medium (btw, new IAF requirements, disqualify LCA for light category) a/cs is ideal to have, politics besides.

EADS is doing a good job on the AESA front as well. I am hopefuly they give the super hornets a run for their money.

If IAF chooses EADS, then strategically and technically, India would be well placed for the future.

And, the best filler a/c is always and must be always LCA.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Jul 2009 19:00

nrshah wrote:my take is - Call off MMRCA, update existing aircrafts / Replace them with Rafale /Mig 35 and release the balance funds in FGFA and NGFA

Well which one? Rafale or MiG-35?

I know! Maybe we should have a competition to choose the best one . . .

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 24 Jul 2009 19:06

GeorgeWelch wrote:Well which one? Rafale or MiG-35?

I meant update both mig 29 and M2k and if need be exchange them with Mig 35 and Rafale.

-Nitin

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 24 Jul 2009 19:11

Well, I think the biggest issue with the whole MMRCA circus is we don't know what the selection criteria are and who has the final saying in the selection process.
One can discuss the ranking for certain roles, but we don't know how much weight those criterions have in the selection process.
I will try a rating for certain areas, maybe we can get a discussion started around this.

From good lowspeed handling/agility to good highspeed/supersonic performance:
SHornet<<MiG-35<<F-16<<Gripen/Rafale<<Typhoon.

Purchasing costs:
MiG-35<<SHornet/Gripen/F-16<<Rafale<<Typhoon

Maintenance cost:
Well, no idea. But we can savely assume Gripen wins by a healthy margin.

Avionics:
MiG-35<<F-16/Gripen<<Typhoon<<Rafale<<SHornet

Availability rate:
Well, while a very important parameter, it is exceptionally hard to get numbers to quantify it. The users of the SHornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are full of praise for their new aircraft, while the F-16 set the standard. In general very difficult, since much depends on the user airforce and their operational doctrines.
MiG-35, I don't know, the Russians have claimed advances in this area, but since nobody actually uses the MiG-35 hard to rate. I'm unsure if one would have to include after sales support. Here MiG has earned a very bad reputation, while Eurofighter has no reference at all.

Maturety:
MiG-35/Typhoon/Gripen<<Rafale<<F-16<<SHornet
I gave the SHornet a better rating, since the F-16 on offer to India is mostly based on the F-16E, which provides not the same level of weapons integration and operational experience as the SHornet.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2009 19:15

its certain that major weapons systems we purchase from khan can never
be used against pakistan without attraction severe post war hidden sanctions on the parts. in a platform with lakhs of parts and 100s of a/c our stockpiles will run out sooner or later.

might be better to keep buying less strategic/smaller deal stuff from khan
like P8/C130J/S-92 while running with Eurofighter for MRCA.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 24 Jul 2009 19:24

Singha wrote:pakistan without attraction severe post war hidden sanctions

And who know of sanctions even during the war... system bugs.. bombs on F 18/16 sent on raid mission at Sargodha develops some error and don't get released.....

-Nitin

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 24 Jul 2009 19:33

Singha wrote: might be better to keep buying less strategic/smaller deal stuff from khan
like P8/C130J/S-92 while running with Eurofighter for MRCA.

At least for a2g weapons India would still rely on the US if Eurofighter or Gripen would be selected.

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 24 Jul 2009 19:46

GeorgeWelch wrote:
nrshah wrote:my take is - Call off MMRCA, update existing aircrafts / Replace them with Rafale /Mig 35 and release the balance funds in FGFA and NGFA
Well which one? Rafale or MiG-35?

I know! Maybe we should have a competition to choose the best one . . .

in the long range the Rafale will triumph given its excellent radar and subject to the fact that the Russian's supply the Mig-35 with a not so good radar(Zhuk series). It will also maintain the edge in the BVR scenario given its lethal arsenal of Meteor & MICA (AIM-120C5 if it was ever compatible) againts the Russian RVV-AE & AA-10 Alamo versions which have now started showing signs of falling behind.

in the short range given the TVC capability of the Mig-35 it will be a hard target even for the IRIS-T, AIM-9X & ASRAAM missiles. But in the short range the only worthy weapon from the Russians is the R-73RDM2 version, the AA-8 aphid is now seriously obsolete in a dogfight scenario. However the super excellent ECM system of the RAfale - SPECTRA will make it an equally hard target to get a lock on againts the so-so ECM systems of the Mig-35 (if supplied with any).

Hence my vote goes to the RAfale as the most obvious winner in all respects.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 24 Jul 2009 20:17

MarcH wrote:Well, I think the biggest issue with the whole MMRCA circus is we don't know what the selection criteria are
Purchasing costs:
MiG-35<<SHornet/Gripen/F-16<<Rafale<<Typhoon

isn't it day dreaming f18e being cheaper than f16 and gripen.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 24 Jul 2009 20:55

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote: isn't it day dreaming f18e being cheaper than f16 and gripen.

Well, Boeing said in can offer the F-18 as cheap as $ 50mill. That is in the same range as a block 52 Viper. Additionally, the variant offered to India has so far only seen the small UAE order. Compared to F-18, which is in serial production at the moment.
The Gripen NG has no customer so far, and the new electronic gizmos will come at a price. Add to this the $-SK exchange rate is in favour of the Dollar at the moment. 50 mill should be a realistic price for a brand new Gripen NG.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Jul 2009 20:56

nrshah wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:Well which one? Rafale or MiG-35?
I meant update both mig 29 and M2k and if need be exchange them with Mig 35 and Rafale.

-Nitin

But the Mig-29 and Mirage2k are both being upgraded anyways and if you are advocating exchanging them instead of buying more aircraft, then how do we arrest the current fall in numbers?
I didnt really get the point you are trying to make. IAF's Mig-29s and Mirages will become fairly potent after their upgrades so it makes no sense trying to replace them right now. The rafale and Mig-35 are both in the MMRCA race, so why do you want to scrap it?

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 24 Jul 2009 21:07

MarcH wrote:
Andrew DeCristofaro wrote: isn't it day dreaming f18e being cheaper than f16 and gripen.
Well, Boeing said in can offer the F-18 as cheap as $ 50mill. That is in the same range as a block 52 Viper. Additionally, the variant offered to India has so far only seen the small UAE order. Compared to F-18, which is in serial production at the moment.
The Gripen NG has no customer so far, and the new electronic gizmos will come at a price. Add to this the $-SK exchange rate is in favour of the Dollar at the moment. 50 mill should be a realistic price for a brand new Gripen NG.

f16blk52 cost 60 million even for that air force like turkey which already has infrastructure and trained personnel and has built f16 with TOT .

and boeing sold f18e for 80 million to aussies and how can they sell f18e with TOT at lower price than 60 million which is the price of f16blk52,offering f18e with TOT at 55-57 million seems to be unrealistic.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2009 21:12

At least for a2g weapons India would still rely on the US if Eurofighter or Gripen would be selected.

Rafael. EADS. MBDA.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 24 Jul 2009 21:24

EADS-RR did offer to build a EJ230 for the Grippen NG. Hopefully Grippen International have offered this option in their response to MOD's RFP. With EJ230+TVC suddenly Grippen NG becomes dark horse to win this competition.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 24 Jul 2009 21:28

Gripen NG comes with the F-414 and nothing else. Reason is simple: Volvo Aero is involved in F-414 production, so more national workshare for Sweden.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 24 Jul 2009 22:06

But India could ask for a EJ230 refit can't they

Its all possible. MOD just needs to have the will to ask for it. I even heard that Grippen Intl and EADS even completed a design study of the modification before they went ahead with the GE F414. Eurojet head even said it would be very easy to build the 23100 thrust EJ230.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 24 Jul 2009 23:26

Instead of fighter A vs fighter B, it will be a purely geostrategic decision.

Please note that all birds in the competition (except maybe F16) are a quantum leap over anything our neighbors have. So what do we do with 10 billion ?

A. Forge strategic partnership
B. Make sure we have independence on decision making and are sanction proof
C. Develop local industry
D. Get help with closely (LCA ?) and peripherally (A2A Missiles ?) related projects
E. But (relatively) cheap stuff
F. Make sure our logistics chain can handle it

IMHO, we give the 10 billion to France if they stop selling stuff to the Pakis (Subs, upgrades of Paki Mirages). We give 10 billion to Unkil if we are arm twisted so much that it hurts. We give 10 billion to Russies if we want to re-affirm friendship. Else we give 10 billion to Eurofighter, get as much TOT and local production as we can. Cant see where Gripen figures in the scheme of things (swedes are a step worse than france -- selling erieye to Pakis -- while having less clout than france).

No matter who we give the contract to, we better do a back channel chanakyan by reading out a list of complaints as to why they helped the pakis, cheenis and did not help us in new clear issue and thats why we were hurt.

Interesting times.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 25 Jul 2009 01:15

I think IAF should increase MRCA contract to 400 aircrafts and select 200 single engined F16 and 200 twin engine F18s.

Ask uncle to give us a letter of assurance that we can use these aircrafts against Pakistan in a war.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 25 Jul 2009 02:40

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:
MarcH wrote: f16blk52 cost 60 million even for that air force like turkey which already has infrastructure and trained personnel and has built f16 with TOT .

and boeing sold f18e for 80 million to aussies and how can they sell f18e with TOT at lower price than 60 million which is the price of f16blk52,offering f18e with TOT at 55-57 million seems to be unrealistic.

The Australien F-18's came with spare parts for 10 years.

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3477
regarding the 50 mill

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 25 Jul 2009 02:44

Katare wrote:I think IAF should increase MRCA contract to 400 aircrafts and select 200 single engined F16 and 200 twin engine F18s.

Ask uncle to give us a letter of assurance that we can use these aircrafts against Pakistan in a war.

Ah the wonders of afeem laced gulab jamun's.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 25 Jul 2009 07:13

what do you expect this is MRCA thread

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2009 07:26

MRCA thread will always have time fillers.

The mind has to be kept entertained.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 25 Jul 2009 07:54

The root cause of the problem is the lack of clarity on what was in the rfp's and rfp responses. Once we can get some info on either discussion here could become far more interesting.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 25 Jul 2009 09:33

Now my point is that are Air staff requirement so low that a SO CALLED OBSOLETE air craft can deliver it.

Also with respect to RuAF not fielding it, Which other country is buying a 4.5 gen aircraft when the world is going gen next. Please don't not include TSP / Small and Third world countries / EU countries - as we know they don't have the threat perception we have and are further protected by umbrella of NATO.
Russians are not fielding it because they don't want to commit funds to 4.5gen aircraft when 5th gen is on horizon.
Many of us question the capability of Russia in developing a 5th gen aircraft. But doesn't the above states of confidence, Russians have in themselves.

Lets see we have, Brazil (SH, Rafale, or Gripen), UAE (most likely purchase Rafale) Saudi Arabia (Just started getting its EF). Are these countries developed enough

Russians don' want to field the Mig-35 b/c its not as capable as the Su-35BM being fielded. The Su-35 will be Russias 4.5 gen fighter with the Su-34 being Russia's main A2G aircraft.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 25 Jul 2009 10:08

Dassault should do a 'Boeing' and make a version of Rafale with internal weapons bays. That'd be nice.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 25 Jul 2009 19:34

Cybaru wrote: Ah the wonders of afeem laced gulab jamun's

Cybaruji these sweets are very rare to find in Bangalore. I had to go all the way to Jaipur to taste my first ones. You meant the jamun's with something special in the center right ?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 25 Jul 2009 20:58

Katare wrote:what do you expect this is MRCA thread

Yes, you are right. My bad, I should know better.

pkudva · Post by **pkudva** » 25 Jul 2009 20:58

F-18 should suit india's requirements. Although i love russian weapons or may be if there was any israeli plane then i would be voted for it.

American F-18 is a great jet.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 26 Jul 2009 08:17

MRCA contenders in Popular Mechanics

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 26 Jul 2009 08:58

b_patel wrote:
Now my point is that are Air staff requirement so low that a SO CALLED OBSOLETE air craft can deliver it.

Also with respect to RuAF not fielding it, Which other country is buying a 4.5 gen aircraft when the world is going gen next. Please don't not include TSP / Small and Third world countries / EU countries - as we know they don't have the threat perception we have and are further protected by umbrella of NATO.
Russians are not fielding it because they don't want to commit funds to 4.5gen aircraft when 5th gen is on horizon.
Many of us question the capability of Russia in developing a 5th gen aircraft. But doesn't the above states of confidence, Russians have in themselves.
Lets see we have, Brazil (SH, Rafale, or Gripen), UAE (most likely purchase Rafale) Saudi Arabia (Just started getting its EF). Are these countries developed enough
Russians don' want to field the Mig-35 b/c its not as capable as the Su-35BM being fielded. The Su-35 will be Russias 4.5 gen fighter with the Su-34 being Russia's main A2G aircraft.

russians won't even field su35bm its just for export and its better than aesa equipped f18e,rafale,typhoon.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 26 Jul 2009 08:59

those countries already flying older hornet they can just upgrade their hornets with apg80 aesa radar and all other PGMs which super hornet able to carry so i will say aussies just wasted their money on superhornets

although apg80 will have less radar range compared to apg79 but it is much superior to apg73.
note:- apg79 can't be fitted to older hornets that why apg80.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 26 Jul 2009 09:06

Drevin wrote:Dassault should do a 'Boeing' and make a version of Rafale with internal weapons bays. That'd be nice.

you will see stealthy su30 before this happens with rafale

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 26 Jul 2009 10:13

Whether India goes for Eurofighter or Rafale, they should ask for the following:-

1. Engine for LCA, Engine tech for Kaveri, Future engine tech for MCA like more powerful engine + TVC, developing off shoots of engine like Naval, industrial, Turboprop, Turboprop

2. Help in LCA, MCA, UCAV, LCA-LIFT-AJT including stealth, weight reduction, FBW, designing, internal weapon carriage, new weapon development.

3. Future MRCA developments like conformal tanks, stealth weapon pods, TVC etc

4. Help in developing RTA and its military variant, in LoH, in LCH etc