MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[Viv S]

How do you know the Praetorian can't? The SPECTRA features the same set of sensors as the DASS. And even older RWR/EWS systems on legacy aircraft have been able to perform basic ranging on electromagnetic emissions. Compared to them, the Rafale undoubtable is better, using multiple sensors and more sophisticated algorithms. But, its discrimination and range (esp. versus AESAs) is still an open question vis-a-vis IRST and radar.

Hi, Viv S

Haven't we had such a discussion before in the other forum? I will still remain there mainly, just wanted to get more infos on FGFA and the C17 procurement, that's why I registered here too, so sorry for the late reply.

Yep. No problem.

Regarding your question...because the aims of both systems (at least for the actual versions) are different!

EF uses Praetorian mainly for self protection, it detects, identifies and counters threats, by jamming, or using chaff and flare. SPECTRA does all this of course too, but was developed for offensive roles like passive detecting and localising of targets as well.

How? AFAIK the enemy aircraft's position is traditionally located by the radar return off it. IR sensors can passively detect the enemy and also track it at shorter ranges. Alternately, one can track it by triangulating its position from the radar emissions from the target(again passive detection). All of those modes can be employed by the EF. What does the SPECTRA employ that is unconventional?

Btw, Rafale has some more or different sensors than the EF! It also has the TV channel and the LRF of FSO, as well as passive IR MAWS (EF MAWS are active once, that are based on pulse doppler radar techs) and uses even the IR seeker of MICA IR, so except of the radar and the LRF all other sensors are fully passive and provides SPECTRA with infos. These infos will not only add the SA, but also can be used for weapon cueing as it proved during ATLC for example and that gives Rafale a big advantage, because it will be less detectable in A2A and A2G roles.
These features are similar to those that the F35 will have and I'm not even denying that other MMRCA contenders might have them in future too (EF partners has developed PIMAWS IR MAWS similar to DDM NG which might be integrated in T3, Gripen should get an UV based system...), maybe get even the localisation and weapon cueing capabilities, but SPECTRA is an already operational system, which shows the lead of the French in this field!

The IAF can opt for the PIMAWS and LWS if it decides to order the EF. Yes, the SPECTRA is operational but again... how important is it given that every contender is fielding a LPI AESA radar with their entries.

For Indian forces these advantages should be a big point too, because they obviously are focusing on the same roles that Rafale is meant to fulfill in French forces too. Deep penetration strikes, air defense, nuclear and carrier roles, which means we could use the MMRCA competition to get one fighter type for IAF, SFC and IN, which offers maximum commonality (also to the 51 Mirage 2000-5s) and reduced logistics and maintenance. As far as I see it, there is no other fighter than the F18SH that could give this advantage, although it's questionable if the US will allow us to use the F18SH in nuclear role, let alone if we can integrate any nuclear weapon on them (which is more than doubtful, especially without radar source codes and all the restrictions).

Its debatable if the IAF priority is strike missions. Given the Su-30MKI's range, payload and just as importantly, its WSO, the IAF already has its 'Strike Eagle'. But, whichever MRCA is selected (except for the Gripen IMO) will become the IAF's premier air superiority fighter and it needs excel at that role (especially given the numbers of Flankers to our north).

IF (and sadly that's a big if) MMRCA is not political decision, it would be very surprising if the Rafale will not be chosen!

Well as long as the Gripen doesn't win...

[kit]

Just curious about something.The Hawk trainer also came under full 'TOT' and a princely sum paid.Now does HAL make the Hawk in its entirety . When the deal was concluded it was made as if an entire production line would be established for the Hawk in India., and it would be built totally indigenously . Now was that what that happened ?

What if the eurofighter goes along the same route ?.. that is if it gets selected !

[Kronop]

Now I assume these figures include everything, training of crews, fuel, maintenance, spare parts etc.

I'll try to dig out some numbers for Gripen C/D in the Swedish Air Force.

Back in 1998 the semi official Gripen comparison numbers from the SwAF was 1/3 of the cost of f18 (not SH) and 1/6 of the cost of operating Mig-29. The appauling figure of the Mig-29 was mainly a result of a very short life on the engine and some other expensive pieces of equipment.

In 2002 I did see a direct comparison to the JA37 Viggen system. The report claimed a cost per flight hour (personnel, spares, maintenance, fuel, consumables) of SEK 27,000 for the Gripen System compared to SEK 45,000 for the Viggen. Which is about a 40% reduction in operating cost. Incidentally this is what the original design brief for the Gripen system requested. However one have to remember that these figure are based on conscripts performing the majority of all maintenance work but the comparison is still valid for the SwAF.

Depending on what you base the operation cost calculation on, a figure of $ 4000 per flight hour including maintenance, fuel, spares and consumables for the Gripen system sounds about right to me.

For the Gripen NG (or IN if you will) a lot of work is being done to extend service intervals (on condition only etc) to further reduce the cost of operation.

The main problem with figures like ^^^ is that they seem too good to be true, non the less it should be easy enough for IAF to verify any claims from Saab by contacting the Chech, Hungarian or South-African airforces.

On another note,
originally there was plans to jointly develop some systems and equipment for the Gripen with the EF programme. All cooperation had to be scrapped, apparently due to endless delays of the EF programme in its early days...

[Willy]

Dont expect anything before the Russian President comes and goes. Or maybe it would be before the Russian President comes, as if the Mig is dropped as soon as he leaves could hurt Indo-Russian relations.

[Sancho]

How? AFAIK the enemy aircraft's position is traditionally located by the radar return off it. IR sensors can passively detect the enemy and also track it at shorter ranges. Alternately, one can track it by triangulating its position from the radar emissions from the target(again passive detection). All of those modes can be employed by the EF. What does the SPECTRA employ that is unconventional?

As I said SPECTRA uses all it's sensors to do so and was developed to be not only an additional system, but an equal system for detection and localisation like the radar too. EF instead was designed like most air superiority fighters, F15, or the Russian Flanker series for example, with main focus on radar, or IRST.

The IAF can opt for the PIMAWS and LWS if it decides to order the EF. Yes, the SPECTRA is operational but again... how important is it given that every contender is fielding a LPI AESA radar with their entries.

It's doesn't help to speculate, the fact is PIMAWS was never integrated and T3 is still not cleared, which obviously means higher risks of delays for India, see AESA development. The advantage is already proven, as even the Rafale F3 (not F3+ which is offered in India, Brazil and Swiss) with clearly inferior RBE 2 PESA and MICA, was able to beat EF in BVR combats although it had Captor and AIM 120. Now consider the advantage with more improvements and METEOR!
That still doesn't make EF bad in A2A of course, but by the fact that we already have an air superiority fighter, which will offer even higher radar ranges after the upgrade with AESA and are already working on the 5. gen air superiority fighter, these capabilities of EF are not needed for India. Rafale on the other hand offers capabilities that IAF does not have and would suite alongside these air superiority fighters.
Btw, of course most MMRCAs will be placed alongside the northern and eastern borders, because the main threat is PLAAF, not PAF, but with air defense as the secondary aim. As I said above, the air superiority side is already filled and the fact that IAF wants even more MKIs, even at the same time when we produce MMRCA under licence, confirms that air superiority is not the point here.

Imo, the lost engine competition for Tejas was the final kill for EF, because it offers not enough for IAF (or our forces in general), to justify these high costs and a common engine with Tejas would have reduced it. The main points that speaks against it are:

- AESA radar not ready in time and further delays likely (if at all available in 2015)
- limited A2G capabilities, because it is still unkown when and what kind of A2G missiles will be added, not to mention who pays for the integration
- highest costs and on the other side funding problems of the partner countries

[Lalmohan]

so far the french haven't mentioned any industrial partnership that i am aware of...
that will be the deal clincher

[Indranil]

Just curious about something.The Hawk trainer also came under full 'TOT' and a princely sum paid.Now does HAL make the Hawk in its entirety . When the deal was concluded it was made as if an entire production line would be established for the Hawk in India., and it would be built totally indigenously . Now was that what that happened ?

What if the eurofighter goes along the same route ?.. that is if it gets selected !

[Danell]

EF is just 2 years late ...
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 15243.html
India will not choose a winner depending on the number of articles published by medias

[Viv S]

How? AFAIK the enemy aircraft's position is traditionally located by the radar return off it. IR sensors can passively detect the enemy and also track it at shorter ranges. Alternately, one can track it by triangulating its position from the radar emissions from the target(again passive detection). All of those modes can be employed by the EF. What does the SPECTRA employ that is unconventional?

As I said SPECTRA uses all it's sensors to do so and was developed to be not only an additional system, but an equal system for detection and localisation like the radar too. EF instead was designed like most air superiority fighters, F15, or the Russian Flanker series for example, with main focus on radar, or IRST.

That may be the operating philosophy but what does it do that other aircraft can't replicate? If it doesn't use the Rafale's radar, IR sensor or enemy emissions, what's its USP that sets it apart from the EF or Superhornet?

It's doesn't help to speculate, the fact is PIMAWS was never integrated and T3 is still not cleared, which obviously means higher risks of delays for India, see AESA development.

The PIMAWS was tested on the Eurofighter. Which one of the AFs will have it on the tranche 3? I don't know. But, the IAF will have the option of integrating it.

The advantage is already proven, as even the Rafale F3 (not F3+ which is offered in India, Brazil and Swiss) with clearly inferior RBE 2 PESA and MICA, was able to beat EF in BVR combats although it had Captor and AIM 120. Now consider the advantage with more improvements and METEOR!

Did it? If there's something an Indian would have picked up from the widely publicized Red Flag '08 Daedalus briefing, its - never take such things at face value. Until the details of the exercise are available I'll withhold my judgement.

Also, the Rafales were a part of Red Force and were simulating the AA-10C Alamo (range - 130km) not the MICA. MAWS or ECM was not employed either.

That still doesn't make EF bad in A2A of course, but by the fact that we already have an air superiority fighter, which will offer even higher radar ranges after the upgrade with AESA and are already working on the 5. gen air superiority fighter, these capabilities of EF are not needed for India. Rafale on the other hand offers capabilities that IAF does not have and would suite alongside these air superiority fighters.
Btw, of course most MMRCAs will be placed alongside the northern and eastern borders, because the main threat is PLAAF, not PAF, but with air defense as the secondary aim. As I said above, the air superiority side is already filled and the fact that IAF wants even more MKIs, even at the same time when we produce MMRCA under licence, confirms that air superiority is not the point here.

How is air superiority not the point? The Su-30MKI may have descended from an air superiority fighter but it is a multi-role fighter with an unmatched payload and range. In addition the IAF fields over 100 MiG-27s and 140 Jaguars dedicated to ground attack compared to just 63 MiG-29 air superiority aircraft(which will now get multi-role capabilities).

With regard to the PLAAF, how come air defence is a secondary aim when the core of PLAAF (especially at the long range combat likely over the NE and Tibet) is the 300 Flankers in its inventory.

Imo, the lost engine competition for Tejas was the final kill for EF, because it offers not enough for IAF (or our forces in general), to justify these high costs and a common engine with Tejas would have reduced it.

Umm... that point would have held weight if you were talking in favour of the Superhornet. The Rafale has a similarily high cost.

The main points that speaks against it are:

- AESA radar not ready in time and further delays likely (if at all available in 2015)
- limited A2G capabilities, because it is still unkown when and what kind of A2G missiles will be added, not to mention who pays for the integration
- highest costs and on the other side funding problems of the partner countries

- The AESA radar is to be retrofitted to all existing Eurofighters since it employs the same back-end as the Captor-M. Worst case scenario - the first squadron of EFs operates the Captor-M before being upgraded to the Captor-E within two years.

- Integration is not particularly expensive or arduous. The Paveway-series of PGMs has been extensively tested and integrated. And according the schedule the Brimstone and Storm Shadow were to be integrated with the last batch of Tranche 2 fighters (so it may have been done already, I don't know the status). In any case, the IAF will receive its Typhoons with full A2G capability.

- How does it have the highest costs? Please share. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Typhoon costed considerably less than the Rafale because of its vastly higher production numbers. With regard to the funding problems; the fact is the only reason you don't hear about spending cuts in France is because they don't speak a lot of English. France has been going through a major spending squeeze just like the UK and rest of Europe. Yet collectively the consortium members have a far higher budget available to them compared to Dassault.

[Luxtor]

Just curious about something.The Hawk trainer also came under full 'TOT' and a princely sum paid.Now does HAL make the Hawk in its entirety . When the deal was concluded it was made as if an entire production line would be established for the Hawk in India., and it would be built totally indigenously . Now was that what that happened ?

What if the eurofighter goes along the same route ?.. that is if it gets selected !

Kit, that's a good point. Any aircraft especially a sophisticated fighter aircraft has literally tens of thousands of parts if not hundreds of thousands of parts that make it up. Many of those parts are of the electronics variety. No foreign company or government is going to show our manufacturers how to make each and every complex part right down to the individual components, operational technological concept, circuit design etc. We have to have certain amount of capability ourselves to absorb the technology at a certain higher level. I think the products we already make or developing such as the LCA, Arjun, the missiles, Rajendra radar, AWACS systems that are coming online are examples of this. We have a long operational and take apart and look inside experiences with many Russian and some western weapon systems and we have learned a lot from that. But it is still a very difficult process. The only way to move forward is to press on with it despite all the difficulties and setbacks and the ridicule of some. The only way we can develop these capabilities is to keeping grinding away at it until we succeed. No one is going to hold our hands every step of the way. The only reason that all of the MMRCA contestants are willing to give us TOT at whatever level it might be is because that is the strict requirement of the contract. The great amount of money involved is almost irresistible to all these countries and companies.

[Danell]

- How does it have the highest costs? Please share. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Typhoon costed considerably less than the Rafale because of its vastly higher production numbers. With regard to the funding problems; the fact is the only reason you don't hear about spending cuts in France is because they don't speak a lot of English. France has been going through a major spending squeeze just like the UK and rest of Europe. Yet collectively the consortium members have a far higher budget available to them compared to Dassault.

In fact, the overall cost of the EF program for Germany or Uk only is close to the overall cost of the whole French Rafale program ... The EF program has demonstrated that there are sometimes no economies of scale or volume discount but rather an increase in costs when each participating country irrationaly requires to receive a workshare proportionate to its orders book...
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... July06.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/11 ... page2.html

The leaks from the Swiss Competition (EF / Rafale / Gripen) published this year by the Neue Zurcher Zeitung and Avianews revealed that the Typhoon was by far the most expensive of the 3 fighters there ...the Gripen being obviously the cheapest.

Btw when you're talking about the Rafale, it's not Dassault but Rafale International (Groupe Dassault + Thales + Safran > 20 billions euros in annual sales).

[b_patel]

- The AESA radar is to be retrofitted to all existing Eurofighters since it employs the same back-end as the Captor-M. Worst case scenario - the first squadron of EFs operates the Captor-M before being upgraded to the Captor-E within two years.

- Integration is not particularly expensive or arduous. The Paveway-series of PGMs has been extensively tested and integrated. And according the schedule the Brimstone and Storm Shadow were to be integrated with the last batch of Tranche 2 fighters (so it may have been done already, I don't know the status). In any case, the IAF will receive its Typhoons with full A2G capability.

I agree completely, posters hold the lack of a developed AESA against the EF, but it should be ready by 2015ish. The first squardron is supposed to be delievered 36 months after the signing of the contract, so that would be 2014 by the latest. I think the IAF can live without AESA equipped EF for one year. All of the EF's built by India would have the AESA radar. Its not that big of a deal. Also the Captor-M is very capable and has a tremendous range.
Im sure that EADS can integrate whatever A2G munitions India desires within 36 months. The only thing might be the Meteor but that depends when it gets its final clearance.

[aditya.agd]

In July 2007, the Indian Air Force fielded the Su-30MKI during the Indra-Dhanush exercise with Royal Air Force's Typhoon. This was the first time that the two jets had taken part in such an exercise.[121][122] The IAF did not allow their pilots to use the MKI's radar during the exercise to protect the highly-classified N011M Bars.[123] During the exercise, the RAF pilots candidly admitted that the Su-30MKI displayed maneuvering superior to that of the Typhoon but they had studied, prepared and anticipated this. The IAF pilots on their part were also visibly impressed by the Typhoon's agility in the air.[124]

If IAF is preferring to go in for EF then they should decide fast, we do not want India to get defeated in the next war with Chipak.

[SaiK]

EF is just 2 years late ...
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 15243.html
India will not choose a winner depending on the number of articles published by medias

At least one of these two companies has said they would definitely not transfer the software source code that enables the programming of the radar. What this means is that the IAF would have to specify the mission parameters to enable the manufacturer configure the radar.

Defence analysts point out that this could seriously compromise India’s national security as the IAF would not be able to re-programme the radar should it wish to at a later stage.

“This is not an issue with us. We will not only fully transfer the technology for the AESA radar but also provide the software source code so that that the IAF can programme it in the way it wishes to,” Chabriol told IANS

very interesting.. EF2K must be really charged now. BTW please note the comment on Gripen in this article.

[Viv S]

- How does it have the highest costs? Please share. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Typhoon costed considerably less than the Rafale because of its vastly higher production numbers. With regard to the funding problems; the fact is the only reason you don't hear about spending cuts in France is because they don't speak a lot of English. France has been going through a major spending squeeze just like the UK and rest of Europe. Yet collectively the consortium members have a far higher budget available to them compared to Dassault.

In fact, the overall cost of the EF program for Germany or Uk only is close to the overall cost of the whole French Rafale program ... The EF program has demonstrated that there are sometimes no economies of scale or volume discount but rather an increase in costs when each participating country irrationaly requires to receive a workshare proportionate to its orders book...
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... July06.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/11 ... page2.html

Yes, R&D for the EF was very expensive, but overall they delivered a better fighter at roughly the same price (far below potential but that's a different story).

The leaks from the Swiss Competition (EF / Rafale / Gripen) published this year by the Neue Zurcher Zeitung and Avianews revealed that the Typhoon was by far the most expensive of the 3 fighters there ...the Gripen being obviously the cheapest.

The first link you've posted puts the Eurofighter and Rafale at par. That's still not quite accurate -

Rafale - €40 billion - 180 aircraft - €220 million each
Eurofighter - €80 billion - 560 aircraft - €150 million each

€80 billion is a ballpark figure I've taken - Britain has spent €32 billion, Germany €23 billion. Since they own about 2/3rds of Eurofighter Gmbh, the total figure is likely to be in the vicinity of €80 billion. Though these figures are quite a bit on the higher side. Also I haven't excluded VAT from the Rafale; I'm assuming the BAe, EADS, Alenia didn't get get a tax write-off either.



But if we're referring only to production cost -

Eurofighter

Tranche 1(1998) -

148 aircraft - €7 billion - €50 million

Tranche 2(2004)

236 aircraft - €13 billion - €55 million

Tranche 3(2009)

112 aircraft - €9 billion - €80 million (includes R&D costs as well)

Saudi Arabia sale(2007)

72 aircraft - €5 billion - €70 million (includes misc. eg. fight sims)



With regard to the Rafale -

The French MoD puts it at €64 million in 2008(figure excludes dev.)

http://www.senat.fr/rap/a08-102-5/a08-1 ... tml#toc236

In addition,

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 7i%3E.html

If you go through the update, you'll see Dassault charges the French MoD €41 million for a Rafale minus radar, ejection seat, engines, avionics.



That's not quite enough for a flyaway cost specific to the IAF to be estimated but it does give a general idea.

The Indian MoD's requirement is for one squadron to be delivered and six to be produced at HAL. Also the lifetime cost is being used to determine the best bid unlike other competitions. I don't anyone one can assume the Rafale is going to be cheaper than the Eurofighter.

Btw when you're talking about the Rafale, it's not Dassault but Rafale International (Groupe Dassault + Thales + Safran > 20 billions euros in annual sales).

Rafale International it is then.

[Sandeep_ghosh]

Dear friends,

From the discussion of the thread looks like Mig 35 is dead in the competition. I am still unable to see how it lost out to Eurofighter/rafale/f18sh... I was under the impression that the fulcrum was a very agile fighter but by the discussion of all the gurus i read on the thread looks like its going to be Europeans who will win mmrca bid...

[nachiket]

^^What we discuss here has no impact on the IAF's decision. The Mig-35 is by no means out of the competition. Its USP was and still is its price, not its agility. That will always remain hard to beat. If the MoD sticks to the "L1 bidder wins" process, the Russkies might surprise everyone.

[b_patel]

From the discussion of the thread looks like Mig 35 is dead in the competition. I am still unable to see how it lost out to Eurofighter/rafale/f18sh... I was under the impression that the fulcrum was a very agile fighter but by the discussion of all the gurus i read on the thread looks like its going to be Europeans who will win mmrca bid

The problem is the Mig 35 isn't that impressive compared to the other competitors. It is Mig's last attempt to gain significant export orders as Sukhoi is definitely favored by Russia. Its just a heavily upgraded Mig-29. The only thing it has going for it is its low price. The others offer better radars, EWS, ECM, weapons package, TOT etc. That's why it is basically considered out of the running.

[SaiK]

whatever efforts gone into Mig35 is not a waste or dead. We have less than 100 a/c for upgrade to Mig35 standards. Mig corp is not failing at all wrt India. This is a given.

[b_patel]

whatever efforts gone into Mig35 is not a waste or dead. We have less than 100 a/c for upgrade to Mig35 standards. Mig corp is not failing at all wrt India. This is a given.

I'm almost 100% positive that you cannot bring the IAF's Mig-29's to the Mig-35 standard. I'm pretty sure that the airframe was tweaked in the Mig-35. It would be a waste of money to do so anyway, those airframes don't have a lot of years left on them.

[Sandeep_ghosh]

can R77- RVV-SD be a game changer for Mig 35 in the BVR aspect for MMRCA??

[Gaur]

whatever efforts gone into Mig35 is not a waste or dead. We have less than 100 a/c for upgrade to Mig35 standards. Mig corp is not failing at all wrt India. This is a given.

I'm almost 100% positive that you cannot bring the IAF's Mig-29's to the Mig-35 standard. I'm pretty sure that the airframe was tweaked in the Mig-35. It would be a waste of money to do so anyway, those airframes don't have a lot of years left on them.

True. The huge list of structural changes have been listed numerous times in this thread itself. If we try to upgrade Baaz to Mig-29K/35 standard, it will result in replacement of nearly the whole airframe itself. The pointless exercise will result in the upgrade costing more than a new a/c itself.

[b_patel]

can R77- RVV-SD be a game changer for Mig 35 in the BVR aspect for MMRCA??

No the game changing munition in the MRCA is the Meteor. I wonder how much the munitions packages will play into the decision factor. I doubt the US would clear the Aim-120D most likely the C7 version. Russia to my knowledge doesn't field anything equivalent to the Meteor currently. The Meteor with the EF Aesa Radar will definitely be a game changer in a war with Pakistan.

[Austin]

AW&ST reports that F-16IN and Mig-35 will be eliminated and there will be just 4 contenders in the downselect

[Christopher Sidor]

Rafael is a good and capable fighter. But the thing that is holding it back is its price. Even if Rafael offers FULL ToT, and i mean complete ToT, then also its operational cost as well as acquisition cost are high. In Kargil war, IAF modified certain of its French fighters, for certain operations. These modifications were not allowed in the agreement which we had with French. After the Kargil war when we told the French about it, they were cool about it. This freedom will only be available with Mig-35 and not with EFT/Grippen and certainly not with F/A-18. However on a related note, after Kargil war when we went for up gradation of our Mirage fighters, the French conduct was not exactly constructive.

We should also consider the fact that the French are the supreme mercenaries. While they have sold us the Scorpene submarines, they have also sold the pakis the agosta submarines. Further they have been on the fore front of the campaign to lift the Chinese arm embargo. So tomorrow we should not be surprised to see the Chinks having a counter to Rafael's formidable capability. It might very well have been secretly supplied by the French to the Chinks. Or the French might do some training or counter terrorism exercise with the chinks where Rafael is exposed entirely to the chinks. Something similar what the Pakis did with the Chinks w.r.t. F-16.

[shukla]

Eurofighter: Key component of Europe's strategic alignment with Delhi news
Domain-B

Andrew Gallagher, chief executive of BAE Systems India, has said that the deal being offered to India would bring Delhi in as a full "fifth partner." This would include transfer of full technical sovereignty, access to computer source codes with the avowed aim of manufacturing the entire aircraft in Indian factories.

A British embassy statement said that together with Indian defence minister AK Antony, Fox '...will provide senior political leadership to the bilateral defence relationship. This will ensure that the defence aspects of the new UK-India enhanced partnership play their rightful, central role.''

[Singha]

Rafale imho is hurt by its lack of a uber-powerful engine...the kind of engine that even considering 15% loss due to TVC blows away the competition like the big motors on the F22 ..its almost like a small plane wrapped around two engines and huge low-loaded wings and tail control surfaces. all else like sensors and missiles being nearly equal, the guy with the more responsive and fast moving plane has a advantage. this might weight heavily on IAFs mind when thinking about the agile Su27, J10C and chinese next gen fighter the MRCA will come across in its 40 yr service life.

ideally we need something like the Pakfa-mki(internal aams, AL41F engine) to deal with that but in a pinch a uprated Eurofighter at its final tranche level might be the only thing capable of dominating in the air of the current MRCA crop...and also escaping / winning from unfavourable conditions where rafale/f18 might suffer. war is also about who does best when the s*** hits the fan unexpectedly.

need a plane that can stand openly in middle of street and broadcast on open frequency - "I am here and I am waiting; you want a piece of me huh? come and get me if you dare"

[Prasad]

the EF was rated pretty highly by the IAF pilots during the exercise in the UK sometime back. An equal to the MKI would be quite a match to anything that the panda can throw against us. With a powerful AESA radar and a potent BVR missile, the EF can stand its own in a fight.

[vardhank]

Honestly, either the Rafale or the EF would be excellent. BTW, why aren't we linking the IN's RFI for fighters to the MMRCA, at least mentally, if not officially? I favour the Rafale for the IN (my main concern is the navalised J-11). So, would it make more sense for the IN and IAF to have fighters in common, with common weapons, or would it make more sense to have access to different technologies in a broader sense?
I like Philip's idea of a separate line of MiG-35s also. But that's me, I love hedging my bets.

[Philip]

Some interesting points.
Firstly,the MIG-29s cannot be upgraded to full MIG-35 capability.This would require new airframes,etc.,which have a lot of composites.The engines are new,smokeless,with 3-D TVC,and there are a host of other differences where sensors,etc. are integrated with the new airframe that can carry 50% more fuel according to western media reports.The MIG-29Ks of the IN are possibly the maximum std. that older MIG-29s can be upgraded to,and even here from the pics we've seen,the new MIG-29K variant has a lot of composites in its airframe.However,the cost of a new MG-35 with an AESA radar and latest variants of Russian BVR missiles will most probably come in around $45m a piece.If the IAF wants to build up numbers as well apart from any MMRCA acquisition,then this is the best bet,aquiring around 120+ MIG-35s to eventually replace the MIG-29s.As said before,we will need 1000+ aircratf to deal with both China and Pak.

Secondly,as Viv has pointed out,the Rafale cannot come in at $40m.At that price it would resemble the equiv. of a stripped P-8I or C-17, if we do not sign the controversial agreements on logistics/commns. to acquiring all the bells and whistles.The Typhoon appears to have the best offer as far as TOT and other exotics technologies are concerned and the fact that almost the entire EU will be lobbying for it will carry considerable wieght behind the offer.The great unknown is the price.EJ losing the LCA engine replacement is a big setback,for had it been chosen,the engine's commonality with the MMRCA would've been almost irresistible.Can Sarko match his Brazilian offer for a variety of def. goodies also for India.Ou est Carla Pres. Sarko?!

[Kartik]

AW&ST reports that F-16IN and Mig-35 will be eliminated and there will be just 4 contenders in the downselect

IMO, even 4 in the final list is at least 1 more than they needed to have.

[Austin]

AW&ST reports that F-16IN and Mig-35 will be eliminated and there will be just 4 contenders in the downselect

IMO, even 4 in the final list is at least 1 more than they needed to have.

Kartik you never know that "1 more" might just win the day

[Kartik]

Honestly, either the Rafale or the EF would be excellent. BTW, why aren't we linking the IN's RFI for fighters to the MMRCA, at least mentally, if not officially? I favour the Rafale for the IN (my main concern is the navalised J-11). So, would it make more sense for the IN and IAF to have fighters in common, with common weapons, or would it make more sense to have access to different technologies in a broader sense?
I like Philip's idea of a separate line of MiG-35s also. But that's me, I love hedging my bets.

We aren't linking them because the IN and the IAF do not procure their weapons based on what the other has. The IAF's list is based on its requirements and the IN's is based on what are the available carrier fighters out there that can possibly be available when IAC-2 comes out.

the whole idea of having MiG-35s or any other type other than the chosen MRCA is totally against what the current ACM Naik has mentioned earlier too- that too many types of aircraft in the IAF is a headache and that they'll look to have 4-5 types at most by 2025. Adding another one to the mix on a sole-source basis to boost numbers will fly in the face of all logic of having gone through all these extensive evaluations, offset proposals, all this effort.

Best is to back the Tejas Mk1 and put all the required effort and funds into developing the Tejas Mk2 so that it meets all the IAF's expectations, instead of propping up MiG Corp. If numbers are required, look for cheaper used airframes available among the types already serving in the IAF and look to retire them when their useful life is nearing over.

[Kartik]

Kartik you never know that "1 more" might just win the day

Oh it may and if it does on technical and economic merits AND the IAF is happy, then who am I to complain? (the caveat being that -As long as it doesn't derail the Tejas program which is a national priority IMO. If it fails, the ramifications to our aerospace industry will be huge)

[Philip]

Tejas/LCA and now AMCA are in a class of their own.They will continue to be funded for the "national interest" even after the cows come home.Unable to deliver on time a 4th-gen aircraft like Tejas/LCA,the boffins now want to develop a "6th-gen" aircraft (like the US is contemplating,as the Russians are helping us with 5th-gen tech) to succeed it!

However,somehow Tejas must "stagger acrosss the finishing line",having run its course,for as Kartik has said we cannot allow it to fail for the damage it will cause,after the earlier neglect of the HF-24 project,catastrophic across the spectrum and an abandonment of finding the holy grail of the DRDO ,capable,affordable and timely alternatives to foreign weapon systems.When the Sino-Pak effort has paid rich dividends in producing the MIG-21 of the 21st century",the JF-17 apart from other Chinese models,for India to capitulate and admit defeat is unacceptable.
In fact,the LCA has actually "crossed the hump",as far as achieving technological objectives in many areas,apart from the engine,the key factor.It is here where the maximum sustained effort to overcome all obstacles is to be taken,as if we were at war as were the Britis during WW2 facing the Luftwaffe's "blitzkreig".AS said before an "engine tech centre" must be setup with whatever foreign help that we can get to produce a whole range of aero-engines for all classes of aircraft.

The point I am making though is that even with full support for Tejas,given the recent decisions about engine,etc.,we can see that from our track record we simply cannot push up production levels which will be required to meet the 1000+ aircraft inventory by 2020.Even if we can produce about 120-160,that's 12-16 per year from 2011 onwards,when 8 is the max. number possible right now we are told,this will be just 1/10th to 1/8th of the entire combat fleet! Where will the others come from and at what cost? If the Typhoon or Rafale are picked and 180-200 are bought at a cost of $16-20 billion with cost escalation over a period of 10 years,the LCA + MMRCA total will amount to 300-360max.,again just 1/3rd of the required number.270-300 Flankers will give us a total of 600+ and how many FGFAs will we also have by then even if production begins in 2016,100 max? We will then still be short of 300 aircraft.By 2020 the upgraded M-2000s,MIG-29s,21-Bisons,27 UGs and Jaguar UGs will all have to be replaced.

Therefore at least 120+ extra new fighters medium or lightweight have to be acquired and only the Gripen or MIG-35 fit the bill.Having just one extra type will not be too difficult for the IAF which as of now,operates 7 types.Either of them will also be safety net in case LCA development/production meets further delays.

PS:There is a good article in the latest Tehelka about "not fighting the coming war with China",that merits study.The Chinese are waging a relentless effort to change the situation on the ground in Aksai Chin/POK sectors and complete iys road and rail infrastructure through Pak to Gwadar and to the mouth of the Gulf.This will completely alter the strategic picture of the region and by force have the Dragon enter the subcontinent as a "third force" on Pak's side detrimental to India.The dimensions of the Kashmir disute will change once China has "squatting rights" by possession,"9/10ths of the law".The next few years are the most vital when IAF force levels dwindle and our modernisation plans have yet to materialise and mature.A weak centre,crippled as it is with skeletons leaping out of closets daily,is showing signs of further delay in taking decisions on defence as each new scam arrives.Since a final decision on the MMRCA has been announced for 2011,it is not too late for the CoAS to tell the Govt. of the day that even an MMRCA decision will not bring us the required numbers and more aircraft need to be acquired post haste.

[Sandeep_ghosh]

can R77- RVV-SD be a game changer for Mig 35 in the BVR aspect for MMRCA??

No the game changing munition in the MRCA is the Meteor. I wonder how much the munitions packages will play into the decision factor. I doubt the US would clear the Aim-120D most likely the C7 version. Russia to my knowledge doesn't field anything equivalent to the Meteor currently. The Meteor with the EF Aesa Radar will definitely be a game changer in a war with Pakistan.

Patel bhai, I thought R77- RVV-SD out ranges both AIM 120D and the MBDA meteor in BVR combat. Also it is reported to handle target upto 12g's. In BVR game doesn't higer range mean first shoot ability. Also R77-RVV SD is already offered with MIG 35 but Meteor hans't even seen service yet.

Maybe I am not fully aware of MBDA meteor's capabilty... from what I read from wikepedia, and google searches... R77 outranges both AIM and MBDA meteor variants.

I would be pleased to know more about MBDA meteor being a superior BVR missile.

thankss

[chackojoseph]

UK shows support to Eurofighter Typhoon for Indian Air Force MMRCA contract

The consortium members will also provide India access to key technologies in a unique industrial partnership designed to further catalyze India’s indigenous defence sector.

[shukla]

The consortium members will also provide India access to key technologies in a unique industrial partnership designed to further catalyze India’s indigenous defence sector.

This in addition to full technical sovereignty, access to computer source codes with the avowed aim of manufacturing the entire aircraft in India.. They really are going for full throttle.. The EJ loss would have hurt them bad, learnt their lesson the hard way. Leaving no stone unturned..

[SaiK]

EADS is the reason Rafael was offering source code level ToT.
SH & Gripen is the reason every one thinks about right pricing.

good going. If it is between SH-EF-R, then it is an healthy competition here.

[Kronop]

Thailand extends its initial order with another 6 Gripen and one Saab 340 AEW

SAAB recieves order on Gripen for Thailand

A small but steady stream of export orders is better than none i guess...