Hi Viv S, as I said I am not frequently online here, so you might remain the technical, or cost discussion with Danell, so let us discuss about the aims and requirements of MMRCA itself.
Viv S wrote:
- 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.
Mate, the competition has clear requirements right? One of them is, that the fighter has to have an AESA radar when it will be delivered, another one is that the first delivery must be in 2014 and the licence production has to start in 2015.
So if we would not take our own requirements as the most important guidelines for the competition, why should the participating vendors do?
Choosing EF without AESA in time, it would not only mean that the first sqaud will be less capable and costlier to operate than planed, but if the AESA will be available in the partner countries only by 2015, we will not be able to licence produce the radar in 2015 as well. That means further delays in the licence production too and can we afford more delays besides the delays of LCA?
Also the AESA radar development just started and is only pre-funded by the consortium companies only, the partner countries has agreed to the development, but still need to fix the final funds. We all know about the financial situation in the UK, Italy, Spain and Germany, so further delays would not surprise anyone! Interesting in this regard is also this report about it just after the announcement at Farnborough:
Previously, the Eurofighter consortium wanted to add another round of upgrades through the block approach, but determined that it would be too difficult to gain approval for major packages. Instead, the consortium is now looking to phase in improvements every 2-3 years. This strategy also reduced the sticker shock for the four core countries.
The rolling-upgrade path will also likely be seen in how the AESA and weapons are introduced. The initial focus for the radar will be on air-to-air capabilities to support Meteor. About two years later, air-to-ground modes will follow to add Brimstone, Taurus and Storm Shadow ground-attack capabilities, notes a Eurofighter executive. An inverse synthetic aperture radar mode to fire anti-ship missiles would come in another step.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... de&next=20
As you can see, even if we would get AESA by 2015, it might be very pre-mature and only useful in A2A modes, while A2G weapons can be added only years lated!
Talking about A2G capabilities, no A2G missiles are not integrated yet on EF, nor is it clear, when they will be as the article shows, or who will pay for it. That's why I request, if we compare the fighters, let us do it on known facts and capabilities, not on speculations, or PR of the vendors please!
EF Tranche 3 for example is split into T3A and T3B, but although the partners had agreed to fund the T3 upgrade, only 2 things are likely, AESA radar and METEOR missile. All other things like higher thrust for EJ 200 engine, maybe TVC, or CFTs, EW upgrade are all speculations only!
So based on what we really know so far, EF T3A, will be a basic T2 with new radar and BVR missile, while its A2G capabilities still remains basic only (capable of delivering LGB mainly).
Now compare that to what is already available, or cleared for Rafales MMRCA version!
It already can:
- deliver all kinds of PGMs (laser, GPS, IR / Paveway, or AASM)
- deliver anti ship missiles (Exocet)
- deliver cruise missiles (Scalp, for export customers with close to 300Km range)
- nuclear missiles
It will get:
- AESA radar
- spherical IR MAWS
- upgraded FSO
- engine upgrade for more efficacy and reduced costs
- METEOR BVR missile
French forces had funded these upgrades and ordered these new Rafales in numbers as well, so by these facts, there should be a little doubt about which fighter would be more useful for IAF.
Viv S wrote: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.
Simply because
all MMRCAs will be capable additions in A2A "along side the MKI", even the F18SH, that is often called bomb truck! They all feature A2A capabilities like AESA radar, long range BVR missiles, high maneuverability, or latest avionics (some more, some less), but only a few of them will be capable to do low level preemptive-, or deep penetration strikes, to take out Chinese missiles, or destroy key targets behind enemy borders. Also only a few of them offer operational versions for INs IAC2, or SFCs nuclear role!
IAF is phasing out most of the Mig 27 and only a few squads will remain till 2020, the Jags will be upgraded, but are not really useful in modern strike roles, especially against our opponents. They even proved to be not useful during Kargil, where they don't had to go behind enemy borders and had to face AWACS and fighters, as well as ground threats, like they would today. A fighter like Rafale on the other hand, is not only able to do these strikes, but also do defend itself against opponents, the Jags instead has limited defense capabilities only and are dependent on escorts.
MKI is a multi role fighter, but has A2G capabilities only in addtion, the main aim is still air superiority. In strike role it will mainly use its variety of long range A2G missiles like Brahmos, Kh 59, 35 and 31, while it won't be the first choice in PGM delivery, when it has to get way closer to the target. Again, that's where MMRCAs like Rafale and the Super Hornet will give IAF additional capabilities, where they are lacking behind at the moment.
Now consider Rafales with low RCS, passive detection features and MICA / METEOR vs Chinese Flankers, or J 11s, do you really think that it would be not capable enough in the A2A role?
Viv S wrote:Umm... that point would have held weight if you were talking in favour of the Superhornet. The Rafale has a similarily high cost.
Yes, the Super Hornet is the clear winner in this regard, because it is already more cost-effective (but also offers lower techs) and will now be even cheaper. The EF instead is the most expensive MMRCA and missed this chance to reduce costs and to be more attractive for us.
For Rafale and the other contenders, the engine deal makes no difference, because they couldn't offer the same engine for Tejas anyway, which means they have to score with other advantages (source codes, ToT...).
Regards!
I could've understood you disputing its maneuverability but agility? Its quite obvious that the Typhoon is more agile. 
