Bharat Rakshak

Maybe because its fresh in my mind ... but I have to say ... I am really impressed with the Gripen NG. I am in no position to say what the best plane is ... thats for the IAF to decide (I hope), and irrespective of who finally wins, I am in deep admiration of the folks at Gripen for creating a mighty fine fighter jet. I have always wondered why so many felt the Gripen was the dark horse in this competition ... While each company has compelling arguments on why their platform is the best, the Gripen NG is, in no way, an inferior platform. And while it is clearly cheaper than the likes of the Rafale and the Eurofighter, it is by no means a cheap and happy plane. Its packed with state of the art technology and has potential to grow ... While there may be risks in purchasing a jet which is still in prototype form, I do believe being actively involved in the evolution of a product is key ... This, more than anything else, is what the Gripen NG gives the IAF ... a highly evolved platform which can be modified in the future through active technology sharing ... I am also someone who believes that we are far too involved with the Americans for them to deny us access to components to engines etc in the future.

unfrigginbelievable write up. Thanks. I don't yet have that "Vayu" in my hands..

Wohhh.. its a great article. I liked the Mig-35 part.
"Cobra Now"..... Russian pilot sounds amazing !

Incidentally, when will the new Chief of Air Staff will take over?

Very interesting writeup Vishnu.

Repeating a broken record -- it also adds weight to why LCA-MK2 will be making the same transition in engine as the Gripen to Gripen NG. Switching from 404 to 414.

Vishnu,
Most wonderful reading. I wish that the rest of our defence journalists develop half the passion and interest in defence that you have.

A question though. You wrote that the the Gripen NG was refueled with engines on. Is this possible with other fighters too?
Also, is there any particular use of being able to do so. I have read that Gripen has incredible turn around time but does this ability contribute in any way to that? I mean, even if a fighter gets refueled with engines off, does it considerable time for it to turn on the engine and take off?

PS: How would you compare the maneuverability and other flight characteristics of Mig-35, Mig-29 UB, Su-30 MKI, F-16 block 60, Mirage 2000, F-18 and Gripen NG? I know that you were not given control for each of the above. Also may be that maneuverability was not demonstrated in every flight and sometimes it is not easy to compare, but it would be highly appreciated if you would give some comparison of sorts (where you can, of course).
Thanks.

Vishnu, always wanted to ask - Do you keep a logbook? How many sorties have you logged? 'tis a great time to be an Av Journo

Whoa..Just noticed. Mig-35 performing Pugachev's Cobra?
I thought that Mig-29OVT is the only mig capable of doing that!

Vishnu,
Going considerably OT and at the risk of incurring moderator's wrath , what m/c configuration do you use for your flightsim? Was curious as I am buying a new one just for flightsim.

Hello Vishnu, why not a report on submarine journey on one of India's subs then on frigates and destroyers with complete details of it's capability. Also wish to see you inside an Arjun MBT. If you do it it will be of great quality.

Vishnu - great narration. We will seriously consider selecting Gripen if they offer a lucky mango abdul BRFite a joy ride on the NG.

OT: we love Gripen....but dont want it because it will kill LCA.

You don't need TVC to perform Pugachev's cobra. The old Su-27 can do it just as well as the MKI. And I may be wrong but I always believed that the legacy Mig-29 could also perform it. IIRC I had a pic of it doing the same somewhere.

^^
Yes. I know that TVC is not a requirement for cobra but as I have said I did not know that Mig-29 series fighters can perform it (other than OVT). This came as a surprise for me.

Mig 35, Eurofighter typhoon , GRIPEN NG are currently leading the MMRCA race ... the bird with the lowest bid which satisfies the IAF trials will win the contract...

Great Write Up Vishnu ...and I do agree that Gripen-NG is a good aircraft and being single engine its low on maintenance and life cycle cost , would be happy to see it win MMRCA.

The other good buy should be the Mig-35 or F-16IN

The old SAAB J35 Draken could also do the cobra.

Two Draken trainers taking turns doing the "cobra".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiDEcfS ... re=related

Beautiful. That's a "Cobra" alright. But for the nitpickers the difference is the speed and altitude at which the plane is flying. One problem with the cobra (AFAIK) is that it disrupts airflow though the intake and if the engine flames out and the a/c does not have altitude for a relight - then it's curtains for the plane.

Nevertheless - that is a genuine and beautiful Cobra.

Indeed saar jee, on top of the above, the extreme manouvers like the cobra, tailside ityadi were also possible due to the straight no nonsense intakes for the Fulcrum and the Flanker which always let the big bad AL 31s and RD 33s get heaps of air at some weird arse AOAs......

great write up Vishnu ! a pleasure to read it !

I had a question regarding one point you made



This implies that it crossed the sonic barrier with reheat and then the reheat was switched off and the Gripen Demo fighter was able to maintain supersonic flight in full dry thrust. So it does require the afterburner to get over the sonic drag buildup ?

And did they tell you whether it's supercruise capability is possible at lower altitudes than 23,000 ft ? What speeds did you see and for how long in supercruise ?

Hi Kartik ... yes ... we did engage burner to hit Mach 1 ... I asked the same question and was told that all super cruisers need reheat to enter the supersonic regime. We came out of burner after a few seconds and though the air speed did deteriorate ... we stayed WELL within the supersonic regime once it stabilised. I cannot tell you the numbers. Promised not to ... lets just say that the IAF presently has a few fighters which would struggle to reach the speed we were super cruising in ... Its still pretty delicate business. You have to fly straight and level or risk losing airspeed (obviously) ... and altitude, weather conditions and payload clearly have an impact. Still, it is enough of a demonstrable advance to be a game changer in military aviation ... Reaching your patrol zone quickly ... or escaping supersonic without engaging burner has HUGE advantages ... a single seat NG which drops its warload and is kitted with 2 wingtip missiles will be a seriously quick super cruiser ... remember, I did this in a twin seater ... Thanks

Vishnu,I can't remember whether you flew the LCA as well.It would be most interesting to compare the LCA's flight characteristics with the Gripen,since they are so similar in size and role.The only Q mark about the Gripen is as to its payload/range factor,vis-a-vis the larger heavier twin-engined rivals when it comes to the strike role.What did Saab have to say about that?

This just reinforces my point that the performance differences in these aircraft are inconsequential. With the FGFA and then MCA coming online, they're ALL going to be hopelessly obsolete.

It's like arguing the merits of the P-51 vs the Fw-190 when the F-86 and MiG-15 are rolling off the line.

Who cares if the P-51 had a slightly higher climb rate or the Fw-190 had a slightly better dive speed? They were both equally dead.

You can then say that there's no point in the MRCA at all, and while I certainly wouldn't argue with you, I am going to assume that it will move forward as planned with the current crop of competitors (ie no F-35).

So given that the IAF is going to be buying a whole bunch of soon-to-be-obsolete fighters, what should they be looking for to maximize their ROI?

1. Immediate availability

IAF forces have declined dramatically. The LCA Mk II, FGFA and MCA aren't ready yet, but the fleet keeps shrinking. Only the MKI is being added. There is an immediate need to stop the bleeding. If the induction takes so long that the FGFA is coming online too, it just makes the whole endeavor that much more wasteful.

The IAF doesn't need another development project, they have plenty of those. What they need is something that can be ordered 'off-the-shelf' (or close too it) and has a manufacturing line ready to go.


2. Cheap

Given that it will soon be obsolete, it would be wasteful to spend more than you have to. Buying extra bells and whistles won't actually gain you much.


3. Diversification

MKI, FGFA and MCA will all be heavily Russian. No matter how things look now, the political or economic reliability of any country over the next 40 years can't be guaranteed. Also you already have access to Russia's best technology. If you're going to spend the money anyways, it would make sense to acquire someone else's best. Then you can have the best of Russia AND the best of the west.

Besides there is always potential for conflicts of interest. Would they sell the secrets to penetrating the S-300?


4. Future

After all my talk about how the planes will soon be obsolete, it must seem strange to judge them on future capability. Nevertheless, the IAF plans to keep them for 30-40 years. So what will they do in the latter part of their career when they can't be used for frontline work?

Well all sorts of things spring to mind. Routine patrol, COIN, tactical tanker, escort jammer, standoff cruise missile launcher, drone controller, etc.

There are actually two parts to this question, growth potential and guaranteed upgrades

Growth potential

If you look at the F-16, it is clear that it has been plain maxed out. Every subsequent iteration puts a new bump or hump on it's already horribly disfigured fuselage. There is simply no room for new equipment to be added.

Guaranteed upgrades (ie State support)

In a future where stealth is the norm, the non-stealthy will need top-notch electronics to even be invited to the party. Radar, jammers, comm, imaging, etc will all need to be constantly updated to deal with new threats. This is a difficult and onerous task, so it would be far better to have someone else doing all the development work so you can just buy a kit off-the-shelf. If you are the only customer of a plane, there is no one else and you have to create all updates yourself.



Given these considerations, here are some quick thoughts on the contenders:

Gripen-NG - Biggest development risk, likely to be too late. Uncertain market means India could be the only operator.

Rafale - Nice plane, but WAY too expensive. Simply not worth spending that much on a plane that will soon be obsolete.

MiG-35 - Need to keep some eggs out of the Russian basket, it doesn't gain you anything technology-wise, India might be only customer, and it also faces significant development risks and delays.

F-16 - Has clearly been maxed-out and the US will not be funding any future upgrades for it.

Eurofighter - It has no glaring weakness but likewise it has no great strengths. It is somewhat expensive but not outrageous. It is in production now, but there are questions as to when its full capabilities will be available. Its governmental support should be solid, but all the partners are rushing to cut orders and the difficulty even getting an AESA for it does not bode well for future critical upgrades.


In case you hadn't figured it out yet ( ), that brings me to the SuperHornet

It is clearly the most ready of the contenders with a mature design and a full-speed production line.

It is quite cheap.

It is the most flexible to provide the most future capabilities. It is has enough growth potential to handle just about any future upgrade or capability. It can be an excellent tactical tanker. The Grizzly/Growler configuration allows it to be very valuable as an escort jammer. It has a 2-seat cockpit to better coordinate ground strikes or possibly future tasks like drone control. It can operate off carriers. It is big enough to carry even quite large missiles.

It has the most solid backing of any contender. The USN just ordered over 100 more of them and they will remain in service well into the 2030s and probably beyond. The SH is forced to be flexible because it is THE tactical plane available to the USN. Whether it's fighting flankers, penetrating hostile radar, or plinking insurgents, the SH has to be able to do it all. And the USN has shown a very strong commitment to developing and fielding upgrades to keep the fleet relevant.

The SH comes with the most advanced radar of any contender and the SH has also been cleared for most every weapon in the US arsenal. From bunker busters to SFWs that can wipe out an entire column of tanks to future weapons like JDRADM, the SH buys you access to a lot of options.

In light of these considerations, the SH seems to be the best match for India's needs.

While you make some good points, I cannot understand how you can make this one with the F-16, Mig-35 and Gripen in contention. It is quite cheap compared to what? There is no way the SH can be cheaper than the Gripen, 35 and 16. Recent noises indicate that the MoD will stick to "The L1 bidder wins" philosophy.

It certainly can be cheaper than the F-16. The latest prices for the UAE birds was pushing $80 million and the F-16I is likely to be even more expensive. The USN paid less than $50 million for the latest batch of SHs.

The Gripen-NG, I don't think will be as cheap as many assume it will be. It is a big change from the past Gripen and it still has a lot of development work to go.

So I would say the SH is definitely cheaper than the Rafale and EF, possibly about the same as the F-16 and probably just a bit above the Gripen-NG. I don't doubt the MiG-35 will be the cheapest purchase price, on the other hand Russia has been jacking up prices like crazy and always gets you on the back end.

So for a plane of its capabilities, yes it is quite affordable.

Looks like a fairly accurate statement.

However, that is what the 5th Gen machines are meant to do. Planned obsolescence (that is a good thing).

BTW, the MKI is not too far behind either.

And, we have not even considered UAVs in the equation.

Hi George ... I do like the Hornet ... its evolved and mature ... but I think we need to consider the following ...

1. The development risks on the Gripen NG are minimal ... The structural changes to the body of the jet have been validated. SAAB repeatedly makes the point that the changes are NOT profound.
2. The Raven radar has been validated in many modes and is being fine tuned.
3. The engine performance has been validated.
4. The Meteor is battle ready on the Gripen already.
5. The Swedish government is committed to acquiring the NG variant (though it will not be called that)
6. A single engine jet will be considerably cheaper than a twin engined bird.
7. From all accounts, the NG prototye has done very well in trials in India.

I do not think the Gripen is necessarily the "best" fighter out there in the MMRCA competition ... the question is whether it meets our requirements.

As I see it ... the MMRCA is not meant to be your technology cutting edge in the long run ... its meant to fill in numbers ... the FGFA and future unmanned platforms will define the cutting edge of the IAF's prowess, not the MMRCA.

The main complexity/difficulty of fighters today is not the body, it is the integration of the electronics. And my understanding is that the electronics are basically all new.

And while the risk of it not working may be low, the risk of it being delayed is still high.

And with the MRCA, time really is of the essence.



You can pretty much say the same thing for the F-35 (substituting the radar and missile of course), and it has several 'final' planes flying and more working their way down an active production line vs a single prototype yet induction into active service keeps slipping to the right.



How many will they realistically buy?



And a major component of that is quick availability. I know the Gripen people like to gloss over this, but it and the MiG-35 are clearly in the worst shape in this regard.

There is a Gripen-NG prototype flying today? Great! But there's already a PAK-FA prototype flying too, so they better get cracking . . .

If you can't be ready in time, what's the point?

PS: Some of the leaked Brazilian evaluations have been quite interesting.

in that case Mig 35 also fits our bill, so is gripen...in other words, the cheapest will win, given as per engine winning bid, cheapest was supposed to be Eurojet but GE, turned out to be cheapest in rocket science calculations...

best filler is Mig35 then, and gripen...but then MIG doesnt kill our LCA...I'll go for 1 more egg in basket...

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... tcount=819



here, mil means thousand not million

I think the Gripen-NG isn't going to be as cheap as many here believed.


On another point:

so they are advertising there F-22 as well.

vishnu sir did they told you about this in pre flight briefing. that you guys are on some kind of exercise with other fighters . and are you sure all sensors were switched on F18 u were flying.

No Chief ... this was a large test area off Lemoore ... and the pilots in the formation may have been aware of the presence of other military jets in the region ... but probably didnt have a classification on them. Also, to be fair, the Raptor came in from 4 of clock behind our formation ... Thanks

Not a big deal at all, but ....................



IMHO, it was meant to be the best technology, available to India, at THAT point in time.

Technologies that have advanced since the GoI made the decision to induct a MRCA, some will infiltrate into the MRCA.

But what makes the MRCA phikka (tasteless) is the entrance of the PAK-FA.

I feel that we need to drop these silly comparisons. They all have a role to play and as long as they play it well how does it matter?

Yes it will. The SwAF and SAAB have a very good track record when it comes to costs, there is absolutely no argue with that! There is also a very good reason for why it will be as cheap as advertised, roughly speaking the Swedish government demands it.

And you should know by now that the Norwegian evaluation was a farse and a great big lie, and therefore the Netherland evaluation (which was using norwegian figures) is wrong also. How many times does this need to be repeated?

Btw, if you follow the posts on Keypub then you would know that this "Pepe" has repeatedly been proved wrong in his assumptions.

I don't know what the MIG-29K final prices were,but I can assure you that the MIG-35 will not be very much higher than that price.Perhaps a max. of 25%,as it will include an AESA radar and TVC engines.It might even come in at around $45m.This fighter will be in the Gripen range.I don't think that the SH can come down to this price band,unless the US wants to gift us the aircraft.One has to examine prices that Oz have paid in their recent orders.How cleverly the offest costs are calculated will be a crucial factor.I still think that despite the IAF chief's assertions,we might see a split order (east and west),if the MIG comes in at "an offer one can't refuse".Ideally,a western bird with wstern tech appears to be what the IAF want so that the best of east and west can be used for future indigenously designed manned and unmanned aircraft for the next few decades.I simply can't see the F-16s/F-18SHs bettering the Europeans.

One of the biggest disadvantage SH has is the possibility of sanctions or Purely Political pressure that can come up.
Its price I believe will be worth the features it has to offer but...

Russia's price escalation is a recent incident and a lot of things happened after that. It would not be wise to consider this as a deal breaker if the Mig is to be chosen.
Added, I think going for a twin engined fighter doesnt make sence as we already have plans to add around 650 twin engined fighters by around 2020. And the upgraded Mig 29's will also be available at that time.

So, Gripen or F-16IN make more sense.
It would be some 200-250 single engined fighters(say MRCA+LCA I+LCA II+ Mirages)

Combined, 900 Multi-role jet aircraft. A pretty strong and importantly a well balanced air power indeed.

A split order further complicates the inventory management. The AF chief clearly mentioned the operational difficulty the IAF is facing due to multiple aircraft.
The only compromise for a split deal would be a split between Mig-35 and any other AC as the Migs don't add any new logistic or operational tweaking.
But I still believe, a split deal is highly unlikely.

How would HAL/DRDO like the Gripen in IAF colours? Wouldn't they like to shoot it down so that the LCA can survive?! I think that this is the Gripen's greatest enemy in Indian territory,not any marauding Paki fighters.

I'll be happy even if any of teens get inducted, given we have carefully considered the across border aspect...if it goes as the engine went...without much logic...what a waste of bandwidth....I'll sleep for a month or so...

Deleted

Sure price is an important factor, but as I mentioned, it isn't the only factor.

After all, what's the point in paying $'45' million for a plane that won't be ready in time?

If you're going to spend that much, you might as well spend a little more to get a plane that will actually meet your needs plus gives you new technology.