MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[Lalmohan]

night engagements have usually been more 'bvr' in nature
not much tail chasing going on - the ability to see at night means more chance of tail chasing, but probability of full on wvr dogfight is low i think

[Kronop]

^^^Even with NVG it would be difficult due to limitations in the field of view and stereoskopic performance, i.e. it would be hard to judge speed, distance and position in a good way as well as too easy to loose visual fix on your opponent.

Even though the latest gent NVG is a big improvement on what previously has been avaliable there are still quite a lot of limiting factors for good WVR performance

[SaiK]

DDM is shaming us further. MMS is pitching for EF!?

[Viv S]

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.

Does it? Is the IAF rigid about wanting every aircraft with an AESA with no flexibility like with the Su-30MKI and Su-30K? I haven't seen the RFP so I can't say. But, if it is then the Eurofighter is effectively disqualified from the competition and shouldn't have bothered to invest in the flight trials.

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?

Why will be costlier to operate than planned? And I thought the deliveries of the AESA equipped aircraft and AESA radars for upgrade to AFs were to commence in 2015. That would imply that the production line would start operating somewhat earlier.

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:

Having the first squadron operating for a year with the Captor-M is the worst case scenario. The Eurofighter's proposal is for the sale of an AESA equipped aircraft. The IAF/MoD will probably ensure that the contract penalizes late deliveries of the aircraft or delays in setting up the HAL facility.

The CAESAR demonstrator was flight tested back in 2007. While UK and Germany might dither on their own AFs schedules, if EF claims that they can deliver an AESA within the IAF's timelines, that implies six years of R&D AFTER flight tests of the demonstrator (even if the initial work was industry funded) is sufficient to productionalise it. I tend to agree.

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!

Again, I'm not too worried about what schedule the AFs have, since their aim is to spread out the induction and therefore expenditure, the upgrade itself isn't that time consuming. For £9 billion and an order exceeding that of the Tranche 3A, the IAF will get whatever the delivery schedule it wants.

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!

I think the Brimstone and Storm Shadow have been integrated with the last Tranche 2 lot. (ref)

And that's assuming the IAF will want to order the Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG, since it'll have the air-launched Brahmos by then. Same goes for the Brimstone, the IAF may just to ask for the Nag or LAHAT to be integrated instead.

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).

Like I said the air-to-ground capability has matured on the Tranche 2. I didn't know it had to be revalidated on the Captor-E. Maybe its just with the upgraded aircraft. In any event, if that's the case it applies to all aircraft except for the F-16E/F and F-18E/F.

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 )
- 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.

I haven't seen anything concrete on the M88-3. An IAF order will most certainly be delivered with the M88-2 and all these upgrades are unlikely till at least 2025.

The most important factor here is that as a member of the Eurofighter consortium, the IAF will have a say in the Eurofighter's future. Also, since it comes without an EUMA, the HAL/IAF will have the freedom to upgrade the avionics in the future with domestic or imported components (like something from the FGFA program for eg.).

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!

What prevents the Eurofighter or F-18E/F from being used in the occasional deep strike role or as a tactical nuclear bomber?

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.

If I'm not wrong, the MiG-27 will begin to be phased out by 2020 and Jaguars will serve upto 2040. While they may not excel at deep strike into highly threat areas but they can carry out regular CAS with precision munitions just as well freeing up the Su-30MKI and MRCA for air superiority and when required deep strike.

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.

How can you say that the A2G capabilities are only an addition? PGMs can be employed from upto 40kms away (Paveway IV with wingkits). The JDAM-ER will have a range of 80kms. In addition, the Su-30MKI has an WSO which will lead to a lower workload for the pilot despite having a less sophisticated cockpit. Even the AdA usually designates two seat Mirage-2000s and Rafales to strike roles. IIRC the Rafale-D and Mirage-2000D are two seaters. The MKI provides that luxury without compromises on range.

To top it off, the two seat FGFA should have entered service by 2020 and will be first choice for deep strike/SEAD/DEAD missions instead of the MRCA.

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?

Sure it will. Point is the Eurofighter will be even more capable at A2A while still being able to carry out the high risk A2G missions that the Jaguar isn't suited for.

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.

I'd agree with choice of the Rafale if it were proven that it was significantly cheaper than the Eurofighter. With the information at hand the fairest comment would be that they are roughly in the same range and at a rung higher than the Gripen and SH.

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...).

The Eurofighter is still offering all those advantages, the engine would just have been the icing on the cake. India will get source codes, complete ToT, no EUMA and most importantly will become a member of the EF consortium.

[Viv S]

DDM is shaming us further. MMS is pitching for EF!?

We've gotten so used to every visiting dignitary pitching for their flagship weapons, it does seem that way doesn't it.

[Cain Marko]

Manmohan Singh and Merkel, who enjoy a special chemistry

Ugh, such scenarios are best left unthought!

SaiK, where is the shame? Lula has set the precedent has he not? And so long as it ain't one of the teens I'm not complaining!

CM.

[Sandeep_ghosh]

can someone please explain about high speed agility of an aircraft.....do factors like TWR, Rate of climb and TVC define agility.
-
thanks
sandeep

[Sancho]

To sum it up a bit, you are ready to pay the highest costs for a fighter that is less capable and are ready to wait several more years till it will be mature enough to be really useful for IAF. I hope they see it different!

I think the Brimstone and Storm Shadow have been integrated with the last Tranche 2 lot. (ref)

And that's assuming the IAF will want to order the Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG, since it'll have the air-launched Brahmos by then. Same goes for the Brimstone, the IAF may just to ask for the Nag or LAHAT to be integrated instead.

No it's not and I told you before, that this site shows the plans for upgrades only, but as the timeframe already shows, they are behind schedule.

So far EF has only Paveway LGB integrated and at the moment they are still integrating the latest Paveway IV, but not a single A2G missile is ready yet (no Brimstone anti tank, no ALARM/HARM anti radiation, no Harpoon anti ship, no Storm Shadow/Taurus cruise missles)!
The problem is that the partners still didn't decide about what T3A will have (in time for MMRCA) and what will be delayed to T3B, so as long as that is unsure, EF will offer the least A2G capabilities.
No offense, but please stop these we can integrate this and that if we want, because that all means additional costs! Btw, Brahmos will only be available on MKI and will not be really stealthy in design unlike Scalp, not to mention that Scalp should be cheaper too. I even expect IAF to order Scalp for the upgraded Mirage 2000s, because it is a huge advantage to have different alternatives, that's one lesson we learned in Kargil!

I haven't seen anything concrete on the M88-3. An IAF order will most certainly be delivered with the M88-2 and all these upgrades are unlikely till at least 2025.

I am not talking about M88-3, but about M88-4E:

By the year 2012, the Rafale should have engines with increased availability and reduced maintenance costs. Snecma is currently flight testing the M88-4E.
This new standard, previously called TCO Pack (for total cost of ownership ), has been tested in flight for the first time March 22 at Istres, on the CEV’s (Flight Test Center) Rafale MO2 (development aircraft).
Since then, more than 30 flights were performed on the 70 necessary for the qualification of this new standard. The goal of the standard-4E is to reduce the cost of ownership of the M88 jet engine and to have longer intervals between the inpectiuons of the main modules by increasing the lifetime of the hot and rotating parts. Snecma does not want to specify exactly how much the cost of ownership will be reduced, but it indicates that for some elements of the hot parts, it is possible to remove up to 3 inspections in their lifetime...

And as all upgrades I mentioned, will be available by 2012!

The most important factor here is that as a member of the Eurofighter consortium, the IAF will have a say in the Eurofighter's future. Also, since it comes without an EUMA, the HAL/IAF will have the freedom to upgrade the avionics in the future with domestic or imported components (like something from the FGFA program for eg.)

That's doubtful, if at all India will be a minor partner like Spain and we possibly can issue some points regarding future upgrades, but it is naiv to believe that we will have any real say in the consortium, Germany, UK and Italy will still be the deciding partners!
They already said that they will transfer parts of the productions to India, which is a good offer for sure, but that just means they are outsourcing production to reduce the costs.
Btw, no EUM, full tot and source codes were offered from Dassault 2, or 3 years ago!

I'd agree with choice of the Rafale if it were proven that it was significantly cheaper than the Eurofighter. With the information at hand the fairest comment would be that they are roughly in the same range and at a rung higher than the Gripen and SH..

You are talking of pure price only where the Rafale already is slightly cheaper, but when you add the advantages in terms of weapon integration, A2G capabilites, maturity (fully developed at least 2-3 years before the EF), available in dedicated versions for IN and SFC, commonality to Mirage 2000-5s you simply can't deny that it is more worth the money!
EF is a good fighter, but lacks behind the Rafale in several fields and simply does not suit our requirements as good.

Won't have too much time tomorrow, so have a nice weekend!

[shukla]

Nations vie for India’s combat aircraft deal
Express Buzz

The $10-billion medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal is turning out to be the rallying point for visiting head of states, as almost all foreign dignitaries visiting India are campaigning vigoursly to win the bid which is touted as the “mother of all defence deals”.
It began with US President Barack Obama’s recent visit to India where the defence delegates accompanying him pitched hard for the two US contenders Boeing’s F/A-18 and Lockheed Martin’s F-16.

The US, which is considered to be the frontrunner following the recent defence deals between the two countries, is looking at sealing the pact at all costs as it can generate over 27,000 jobs. Earlier this week, the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox, underlined the country’s support to the Eurofighter Typhoon campaign to win the tender for 126 MMRCA. Along with the UK, other European nations such as Germany, Italy and Spain are also campaigning for the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Next in line is French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who will begin his four-day India visit on December 4 from Bangalore, the headquarters of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will build 108 of the 126 aircraft under licence with a transfer of technology. President Nicholas Sarkozy will visit the space and defence organisations in the city and later call upon the government officials in New Delhi to pitch for the French Rafale. Meanwhile, Russia, the other contending nation offering the MiG-35, is also not left behind as its President Dmitry Medvedev will be in India on a three-day visit starting on December 4.

[Philip]

Viv,are you sure that the Jaguars can soldier on until 2040? They're supposed to go in for upgrades,but I wonder how long they can do duty even after that,perhaps 2025 at the most.

Which of the contenders will be the best partner of the SU-30MKI (and later the LCA)? I think that this is a v. important aspect,as we are to have about 300 Flankers,including upgraded ones with 5th-gen tech. as the mainstay of the IAF until the FGFA starts arriving in numbers.The aircraft that can seamlessly integrate itself with the Sukhoi and IAF's doctrine with the advent of AWACS should be the winner.If costs are going to matter,then the Gripen will lead the European pack.If a twin-engind aircraft is preferable,then even here the price difference between the Rafale and the Typhoon will be decisive.They are very close in capability.sarko will have to throw in an attractive deal on M-2000 upgrades and a quick delivery of Rafales fron the French air force as a sweetener.I frankly doubt that the F-18SH will win in this deal as the impact of any US sanctions in any Indo-Pak war is a definite threat and the F-16 is taboo.Other deals going the US way like the C-17s,Hercules C-130s,P-8Is,light-weight artillery,etc., should keep Uncle Sam quiet.My instincts tell me that Europe is going to win this one mainly because of acquiring European TOT to assist us in furthering our aerospace indigenous capabilities.Russia has been awarded the FGFA deal,far more lucrative and of the highest priority, and we might just buy some more MIG-35s/29Ks as a sop to keep it happy.

[Lalmohan]

its essentially between EF and Rafale, with EF having the strategic edge

[Austin]

Gripen is a good buy and can scale up the number in cost effective manner , plus there is good TOT to boost Tejas project.

[merlin]

Gripen is a good buy and can scale up the number in cost effective manner , plus there is good TOT to boost Tejas project.

IMO, if the IAF has selected the Gripen, they intend to bury the LCA and are only paying lip service to induction. MK2 might as well be shelved if that is the case.

[Austin]

IMO, if the IAF has selected the Gripen, they intend to bury the LCA and are only paying lip service to induction. MK2 might as well be shelved if that is the case.

Merlin , if IAF wants to do lip service on LCA it would do that with any aircraft that it buys with MMRCA , it would just say Mk2 is not good lets build more MMRCA.

Gripen being the closest the Tejas but a far mature and capable aircraft then what Tejas is will just help ADA do a better job in delivering Mk2.

[aditya.agd]

India should induct LCA at all costs. IAF should learn to develop the fighter aircraft instead of being hard-nosed about it's selections .....

At the same time India should go in for Rafale or EF.....

[Cain Marko]

Gripen is a good buy and can scale up the number in cost effective manner , plus there is good TOT to boost Tejas project.

IMO, if the IAF has selected the Gripen, they intend to bury the LCA and are only paying lip service to induction. MK2 might as well be shelved if that is the case.

Agreed. Gripen NG is more or less = LCA Mk2. What TOT does the ADA need to boost Tejas project? It is well past that stage now; consultancy, which has already been awarded to EADS is all about fine tuning the bird (high AOA envelope), and perhaps shedding some weight by losing built in redundancy. Nor is there any similarity in components between the two, of course they both have the GE f414, but that comes from USA.

Merlin , if IAF wants to do lip service on LCA it would do that with any aircraft that it buys with MMRCA , it would just say Mk2 is not good lets build more MMRCA.

Gripen being the closest the Tejas but a far mature and capable aircraft then what Tejas is will just help ADA do a better job in delivering Mk2.

Austin, it is not so easy for a larger MRCA to replace Tejas; IAF needs a lightweight single engined bird that nothing other than the gripen can replace.

The way I see it, buy the Gripen, and kill the LCA, which I don't think is happening - the IAF is already in it for 150 birds. So buying the Gripen is just redundant. The moment the decision for 99 F414s was made, the Gripen went out of the MRCA run imho. Unless of course, they find a reason to stick these already bought F414s into newly bought Gripens (what a nightmarish thought).

CM

[Danell]

First the article is from a French magazine, so I'm going to reach for my salt shaker.

Maybe the credit for these supposed victories goes the Rafale pilots. You may find this interesting -

[...]

http://www.acig.org/exclusives/viraat/viraat_2.htm

Secondly, agility unlike maneuverability is not an abstract quality and doesn't vary with speed or altitude. The Eurofighter has a higher thrust to weight ratio and can supercruise. When the Rafale Inc. International starts at the very least claiming supercruise, one can get around to examining the idea that the Rafale compares with the EF in terms of agility.

Agility is obviously an abstract quality; a combat aircraft unable to take advantage of an higher T / W ratio because , for example, it's losing more energy than its opponent once involved in a WVR engagement, is not a more agile aircraft. Things like design , aerodynamic... and even manoeuverability also affect agility.

Btw i have no problems with your link about rookie Rafale pilots learning their job against experienced Harrier pilots, even if in our case it's not a good example, because i judge a source depending on its credibility, seriousness and reputation, whatever the country where it is published.
Air&Cosmos is an highly regarded magazine which sometimes publishes negative informations about the Rafale .. at the point of being banned from Dassault ads since 2006.

Another extract about "Typhoon vs Rafale" in Solenzara:
"The first skirmish is indisputable. It needs less than 40 seconds and only 3 crossing for the Rafale pilot to have its gun in firing position. However, the pilots flying the two planes are far from beginners. While the English is considered a Typhoon specialist in air-to-air, the "Provence" pilot has also a solid experience in within visual range combat."
Full article here:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ost5016394

But i agree, no definitive evidences here ... just an interesting indication...among others

[Viv S]

To sum it up a bit, you are ready to pay the highest costs for a fighter that is less capable and are ready to wait several more years till it will be mature enough to be really useful for IAF. I hope they see it different!

Well two things I've continually heard from Rafale supporters vis-a-vis the EF - lower RCS and cheaper cost. Neither of which I've seen proven on any thread of any forum. With regard to the second part - its fortunate the IAF doesn't expect deliveries for a few years yet. All the IAF's version needs is an AESA. All the remaining capabilities are available of the last lot of Tranche 2 aircraft.

I think the Brimstone and Storm Shadow have been integrated with the last Tranche 2 lot. (ref)

And that's assuming the IAF will want to order the Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG, since it'll have the air-launched Brahmos by then. Same goes for the Brimstone, the IAF may just to ask for the Nag or LAHAT to be integrated instead.

No it's not and I told you before, that this site shows the plans for upgrades only, but as the timeframe already shows, they are behind schedule.

The site ostensibly shows the delivery period of aircraft. The integration would take place a while before which would put them in the 2009-10 time-frame. But lets assume for the sake of argument that they do indeed get integrated in the 2010-11 region. How does that effect IAF deliveries which aren't expected till 2013 at the very earliest (most probably 2014 or later)?

So far EF has only Paveway LGB integrated and at the moment they are still integrating the latest Paveway IV, but not a single A2G missile is ready yet (no Brimstone anti tank, no ALARM/HARM anti radiation, no Harpoon anti ship, no Storm Shadow/Taurus cruise missles)!

I take it you mean no missile is integrated not no missile is ready? Well I've already shown there's a good probability that they HAVE been integrated but like I said before we aren't expecting deliveries tomorrow. Which should keep it from being an issue?

The problem is that the partners still didn't decide about what T3A will have (in time for MMRCA) and what will be delayed to T3B, so as long as that is unsure, EF will offer the least A2G capabilities.

Fortunately the last batch of the Tranche 2 has a mature air to ground capability. There's nothing to be integrated within the Tranche 3 that deals specifically with air to ground capabilities.

No offense, but please stop these we can integrate this and that if we want, because that all means additional costs! Btw, Brahmos will only be available on MKI and will not be really stealthy in design unlike Scalp, not to mention that Scalp should be cheaper too. I even expect IAF to order Scalp for the upgraded Mirage 2000s, because it is a huge advantage to have different alternatives, that's one lesson we learned in Kargil!

When you say 'additional cost!' how much are we talking? In Euros? Its necessary to see those figures in perspective. For example -

AASM: €350,000 = $450,000
Paveway IV: £30,000 = $46,000 (I believe that's a 2006 British NAO figure)
JDAM-ER: $10,000 (Saudi Typhoon have been integrated with it)

Sagem claims that the AASM's unit price will reduce to €200,000 per unit when it completes its production run. Export units may be cheaper since the development cost wouldn't be factored in (this applies to the Paveway IV as well).


So... roughly how much are we talking about when we say 'additional cost'?


Brahmos: Yes, the Brahmos is not as stealthy as the Storm Shadow but being over three times as fast means, it given enemy aircraft and enemy air defences little reaction time and negligible options to counter it. And yes its more expensive, but i) its price is dropping as the numbers increase, and, ii) the lower Storm Shadow cost is still measured in £ and € i.e. forex, unlike the Brahmos which is paid for in Rupees.

I haven't seen anything concrete on the M88-3. An IAF order will most certainly be delivered with the M88-2 and all these upgrades are unlikely till at least 2025.

I am not talking about M88-3, but about M88-4E:

By the year 2012, the Rafale should have engines with increased availability and reduced maintenance costs. Snecma is currently flight testing the M88-4E.
This new standard, previously called TCO Pack (for total cost of ownership ), has been tested in flight for the first time March 22 at Istres, on the CEV’s (Flight Test Center) Rafale MO2 (development aircraft).
Since then, more than 30 flights were performed on the 70 necessary for the qualification of this new standard. The goal of the standard-4E is to reduce the cost of ownership of the M88 jet engine and to have longer intervals between the inpectiuons of the main modules by increasing the lifetime of the hot and rotating parts. Snecma does not want to specify exactly how much the cost of ownership will be reduced, but it indicates that for some elements of the hot parts, it is possible to remove up to 3 inspections in their lifetime...

Hmm... it doesn't say anything about the crucial factor - what's the thrust?

And as all upgrades I mentioned, will be available by 2012!

Upgrades? AESA radar and Meteor yes but the EF's getting them too. Upgraded engine serviceability or upgraded FSO doesn't really mean much since we can't compare the original or the new variant to the PIRATE/Praetorian. Until the long awaited 90kN enters production - no major change.

And while they're stringing the Emiratis along its clear that the French think an engine upgrade is uneconomical. To quote Admiral Alain Silvy who's involved in the UAE negotiations:

"From my point of view, it depends where. We could be potentially interested by the M88-X with 9 tons of thrust because it would be, in the circumstances, an open field. But, on the other hand, we have not yet reached the stage of maturity - which requires about 150,000 flight hours – with the current M88 with 7.5 tonnes thrust. This means that with the M88-X, even if it should presumptively enjoy a good community with the existing M88, we would have to accumulate even more hours to reach the stage of maturity of the engine.
Very clearly, in my opinion, the M88-X is not for the Air force an immediate need. In order to sell the Rafale to the UAE, the Defense may ultimately be asked to acquire the M88-X in a quantity and on terms still to define. And we'll maybe even happy to use it. But today we have no technical or operational reasons to make it available for us.The gain expected from the arrival of a more powerful engine is lower than the risks we would go with the technical immaturity of new modules and the management in parallel - so complicated in terms of logistics and operational employment of aircraft with different performances –of two relatively different parks of M88. All this must be thorough."

http://www.dsi-presse.com/?p=2010

That's doubtful, if at all India will be a minor partner like Spain and we possibly can issue some points regarding future upgrades, but it is naiv to believe that we will have any real say in the consortium, Germany, UK and Italy will still be the deciding partners!
They already said that they will transfer parts of the productions to India, which is a good offer for sure, but that just means they are outsourcing production to reduce the costs.
Btw, no EUM, full tot and source codes were offered from Dassault 2, or 3 years ago!

The work share in the consortium is in proportion to the order book. India's order will equal the size of Germany's current orders (though the Tranche 3B may change that). In any case, it will give India a significant amount of influence within EF Gmbh. Certainly more than Spain.

We get zilch with the French and judging from the Mirage upgrade its not unreasonable to expect another raw deal when the time comes to upgrade those Rafales.

You are talking of pure price only where the Rafale already is slightly cheaper, but when you add the advantages in terms of weapon integration, A2G capabilites, maturity (fully developed at least 2-3 years before the EF), available in dedicated versions for IN and SFC, commonality to Mirage 2000-5s you simply can't deny that it is more worth the money!
EF is a good fighter, but lacks behind the Rafale in several fields and simply does not suit our requirements as good.

I'm yet to see evidence that its slightly cheaper. One could hazard a guess and say its production cost is comparable but if the French decide to pass on their development costs it will certainly become more expensive than the Eurofighter. Addressing your points systematically -

Maturity (esp. at A2G) - yes the Rafale got here first, but the EF to be delivered to the IAF will be a mature fighter.
IN & SFC - I admit the carrier variant is very attractive but I disagree with the SFC argument. Firstly we don't know if the Rafale-D will be sold (the Mirage-2000D was never exported). And secondly, with the Jaguar, Su-30MKI, Prithvi series, Agni series not to mention the Brahmos I doubt if a nuclear capability is all that sought after. And finally, the French aren't supplying nukes, Indian units will have to be integrated into the aircraft which means that can be done on the EF as well.

Commonality with Mirage-2000-5 - So what's common between the two besides the Magic-II and maybe the MICA (the Meteor looks likely to replace it)? Maybe some minor spares.The cost saving is still doubtful.

Won't have too much time tomorrow, so have a nice weekend!

You too.

[Philip]

Some light about the Eurofighter from Oz.Good read.

Eurofighter Typhoon - Demon or Lemon?
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html

Key Xcpts:

The overall impression resulting from a review of the aircraft's basic configuration, propulsion and fuel package is of a fighter with F-15 class transonic and supersonic agility at optimal weight, instantaneous manoeuvre performance slightly exceeding the teen series, all packaged into an F/A-18 sized airframe with installed thrust comparable to late build F/A-18 models. This reflects very closely the initial EFA design objectives.

The Typhoon's avionic package is built essentially upon the technology base used in the teen series fighters, but employs a higher level of integration against established in service teen series types.

For BVR combat the Typhoon's primary weapon will be the Matra-BAe Meteor FMRAAM, a ramjet powered AAM with a radar seeker evolved from the Matra-BAe MICA. The proposal to use the extended range AMRAAM derived ERAAM, or an ramjet AMRAAM derivative, was rejected in favour of a wholly European AAM. The interim BVR weapon will be the US AIM-120B AMRAAM. Most sources credit the FMRAAM with 80 NMI engagement range against a closing target, about 20% better than the ERAAM. The FMRAAM is to outrange the Russian Vympel R-77M ramjet Adder derivative. Four BVR AAMs will be carried in wing root semi-conformal wells.

For close-in combat the RAF Typhoon will be armed with the AIM-132 ASRAAM, soon to be deployed on the RAAF's F/A-18A+ fleet. Non-RAF Typhoons will carry a single Mauser 27 mm cannon, the MoD having decided to delete the gun from RAF aircraft. Weapon interfaces are compatible with standard Sidewinder and AMRAAM interfaces, it is likely the FMRAAM will use the AMRAAM interface.

The assertion that the aircraft has a “stealth” capability is curious by any measure, since there is no evidence of planform alignment, panel edge alignment, blending or faceting, all established techniques used and proven on US types such as the F-117A, B-2A, YF-23A, F-22A and the JSF prototypes. Indeed the external carriage of stores alone would make the Typhoon's radar signature at least 10-100 times greater than the golfball to insect sized RCS we are accustomed to with US types. Unless the Europeans have invented new laws of radar scattering, the aircraft is at best a conventional fighter with reduced forward sector RCS, comparable to evolved F/A-18, F-16 variants, the Rafale or the B-1B.

The benefits of such limited RCS reduction are marginal, since the detection range curve is fairly steep in this region and modest increases in opposing radar performance can largely offset any gains in such RCS reduction. While every dBSM down is useful, beyond 0.3 of a square metre the payoff is questionable with external stores being carried. Moreover, unless an LPI radar is carried, the emissions of the radar will betray the fighter to an opponent from well outside radar range.

Published detection range performance for the NIIP N-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph (Su-30MK upgrades) and Agat 9B-1103M/9B-1348E R-77/R-77M seekers would suggest that a Typhoon loaded with external stores could be successfully engaged within the 50-65 NMI envelope. The Meteor ramjet AAM is therefore vital to the Typhoon, since the AMRAAM cannot fully exploit the range advantage of the BVR weapon system.

In terms of where to position the Typhoon in the current menagerie of fighter aircraft, it can be best described as an F/A-18C sized fighter with BVR systems and agility performance better than older F-15 models, similar to growth F-15 models with same generation systems and engines, but inferior to the F-15 in useful operating radius. The Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft, despite various assertions to this effect, nor is it a genuine supercruiser like the F-22. Its design incorporates none of the features seen in very low observable types, nor does the EJ200 incorporate the unique design features of the F119 and F120 powerplants.

The Typhoon is certainly not a lemon, although the wisdom of mass producing a high performance conventional fighter of its ilk in a period where stealth is about to hit mass production in the F-22 and JSF programs could be seriously questioned. It represents what is likely to be the last major evolutionary step in the teen series design philosophy.

PS:This cl;aim is best read in full in the full article.

The aircraft's counter air performance is cited as its major strength, and it is frequently cited to be “82% as effective as an F-22”.

The magic 82% number is derived from a mid nineties DERA simulation against a postulated Su-35 threat. The number is based upon the rather unusual metric of “probability of successful engagement” in BVR combat, rating the F-22 at 91%, the Typhoon at 82%, the F-15F (single seat E) at 60%, the Rafale at 50% and the F-15C at 43%.

The probability of a successful engagement can be translated into the more commonly used metric of a kill ratio by making some reasonable statistical assumptions, and doing this yields about 10.0:1 for the F-22A, 4.6:1 for the Typhoon, 1.5:1 for the single seat F-15E, 1:1 for the Rafale and 0.75:1 for the F-15C. So in the most common terms used, the Typhoon is by the DERA simulation about half as combat effective as the F-22A, about three times as combat effective as the F-15F, about five times as effective as the Rafale and 6 times as effective as the F-15C. If we compare this with cited USAF claims rating the F-22A as 10-15 times as combat effective as the F-15C in BVR engagements, this means that the DERA study roughly agrees with USAF assessments of F-22A vs F-15C combat effectiveness. The detailed assumptions applied to this study have not been disclosed.

The validity of this study in today's environment must be questioned. Since its compilation the Russians have developed the NIIP-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph phased arrays for the Su-27/30, the R-77M ramjet Adder, the extended range R-74 digital Archer, 2D and 3D thrust vectoring nozzles, higher thrust AL-31 engine derivatives, and active radar seekers for the R-27 Alamo, as well as fielding an anti-radiation variant of the Alamo. The F-22A is likely to be shooting the ERAAM, and some USAF F-15Cs are being fitted with active phased arrays, with the likely prospect of getting ERAAMs as well, or even a ramjet AMRAAM variant. Therefore it is likely that most of the supporting assumptions used in the study are very stale, if not irrelevant. Until Typhoons are equipped with the AMSAR and Meteor, the projected 4.6:1 BVR kill ratio is by any measure optimistic, against an evolved Su-30 variant.

Clearly the Typhoon is robustly in the BVR lethality class of the F-15C/E, and the principal driver of relative effectiveness between these types will the radar and missile capabilities. Until the USAF field phased arrays and ERAAM or ramjet AAMs on the whole F-15 fleet (some aircraft are currently being retrofitted with APG-63(V)3 active phased arrays), the Typhoon will hold a decisive advantage. US longwave IRS&T technology is available off-the-shelf and would much reduce any advantage conferred by the PIRATE to the Typhoon.

The other important considerations in BVR combat are transonic and supersonic acceleration, persistence and sustained turn performance. While the latter are difficult to estimate, the former can be directly compared by looking at thrust/weight ratios.

[Viv S]

Viv,are you sure that the Jaguars can soldier on until 2040? They're supposed to go in for upgrades,but I wonder how long they can do duty even after that,perhaps 2025 at the most.

I remember a news article three or four years ago that quoted someone HAL on the occasion of (the last perhaps) batch of DARIN-II Jaguars being delivered to the IAF. And because I always assumed it would be retired along with the MiG-27 or maybe a little later, 2040 really stuck. In any case, the last batch of aircraft will be 33-34 years old in 2040 when the retirement should complete. It wouldn't unsurprising given that the MiG-29 and Mirage-2000 are likely to have served for over 40 years when they are finally retired (about 2025). Then again, considering India's improving financial fortunes, maybe the IAF wouldn't be forced to squeeze every last bit of life over its fighters in the future and we may see the Jaguar replaced with the AMCA in 2030.

[prabir]

We have the following players -

1. US (F16, F18)
2. France (Rafael)
3. European Consortium (Euro Fighter Typhoon)
4. Russia (Mig 35)
5. Sweden (Grippen)

Out of the above list, India (even if we go with the assumption) has to please / "engage" certain countries. By this criteria, Sweden is not in the list. So, the list comes down to four.

1. US has been sufficiently "engaged" (Trade deals, Transport Aircrafts, Patrol Aircrafts, some power plants, GE 414 engines).
2. France has been provided with upgrade contracts for Mirage 2000, Scorpion Submarines, Nuke power plants, trade deals etc.
3. Russia has been sufficiently "engaged" (On going defence contracts, trade deals, FGFA, Nuke power plans etc.)

So, the best way forward is - Go with EADS, become part of their supply chain, become a partner on "equal terms" (Germans, Italians (Sonia), Spain, France will definitely support, though UK will cry for any engagement on "equal terms".
EADS partnership will definitely see manufacturing to be outsourced to India and will also act as a positive spill over to Indian economy (Civil as well as Defence).

Two main objectives of MRCA deal were -

** Kickstart our own value added manufacturing in Defence
** Have a good 4.5 generation fighter

All these are more than met by going for Typhoon. A little bit of imagination on part of decision makers can do the trick. Europe is having economic difficulties and now is the time to engage them on favorable terms.
I sincerely hope that this happens.

[b_patel]

So, the best way forward is - Go with EADS, become part of their supply chain, become a partner on "equal terms" (Germans, Italians (Sonia), Spain, France will definitely support, though UK will cry for any engagement on "equal terms".
EADS partnership will definitely see manufacturing to be outsourced to India and will also act as a positive spill over to Indian economy (Civil as well as Defence).

Two main objectives of MRCA deal were -

** Kickstart our own value added manufacturing in Defence
** Have a good 4.5 generation fighter

All these are more than met by going for Typhoon. A little bit of imagination on part of decision makers can do the trick. Europe is having economic difficulties and now is the time to engage them on favorable terms.
I sincerely hope that this happens.

This will probably be India's last major fighter purchase India makes from the West. Each of the MMRCA are capable and would make a good addition but the EF seems to offer much more in terms of sharing of tech than the other competitors. India is basically paying for the TOT in this deal. Also people make way too big of a deal with the Typhoons lack of A2G capabilities at the moment. Also too much emphasis is placed on the need for a strike/SEAD aircraft. None of the MRCA's adequately fit that bill.

[arthuro]

The typhoon has the best chances to win the MRCA competition IMO. Not especially on ToT because several other players are also promising extensive ToT (Gripen or rafale) but because of offsets.

When joining EADS or BAE you have access to airbus, eurocopter, mbda etc....That's a fantastic leverage.

You also have four governments pushing behind instead of one.

The only weak points I see is price (the most expensive aircraft of the competition) and the lack of AtG development and potential. Even fully developed the AtG capabilities will remain modest compared to the size and price of the aircraft. Only a single small 1000L drop tank with 2 Stormshadow or Taurus for the Typhoon versus 3*2000L for the rafale with the same config (which is probably the benchmark for strike with the SH) and 2*1000L in the CAS role with 4LGB vs 6LGBs and 3*2000L for the rafale. That's just 6 time more external fuel for the cruise missile config for deep stike and 3 time more for the CAS config.
So while the AtA performance of the Typhoon will be certainly very good I think it has real shortcomings in the deep strike role, especially against distant targets with a strategic value. I don't think the SU30mki would be as survivable for the deep strike role against defended targets than most of the mrca applicants although its range is an advantage.

[b_patel]

So while the AtA performance of the Typhoon will be certainly very good I think it has real shortcomings in the deep strike role, especially against distant targets with a strategic value. I don't think the SU30mki would be as survivable for the deep strike role against defended targets than most of the mrca applicants although its range is an advantage.

I swear this is the only point people can bring up against the Typhoon. Posters should realize by now the NONE of the MMRCA aircraft once inducted will suited for deep strike roles especially against china. Do you honestly believe that a fully loaded Rafale or Super Hornet has a better chance of surviving against Chinese air defenses and Flankers than a Typhoon? Fully loaded for a deep strike mission, all of the aircraft will light up Chinese long range radars. IF you want your pilot to survive send in PAK-FA/FGFA or if India chooses to purchase it the F-35. Stealth aircraft will be the only way Indian aircraft will be able to hit targets deep in China and make it out alive.

[kit]

I suppose stealth is not too much of a factor as India tries to make up for its medium mix of high performance fighters in numbers... its all about numbers and building up capabilities in the short term.For the long term, stealth is definitely a factor.

[shiv]

I swear this is the only point people can bring up against the Typhoon. Posters should realize by now the NONE of the MMRCA aircraft once inducted will suited for deep strike roles especially against china. Do you honestly believe that a fully loaded Rafale or Super Hornet has a better chance of surviving against Chinese air defenses and Flankers than a Typhoon? Fully loaded for a deep strike mission, all of the aircraft will light up Chinese long range radars. IF you want your pilot to survive send in PAK-FA/FGFA or if India chooses to purchase it the F-35. Stealth aircraft will be the only way Indian aircraft will be able to hit targets deep in China and make it out alive.

What targets deep inside China do you anticipate would need to be hit in case or war? This is a serious question and I am usually on the offensive when I ask such a question. An answer that says "Oh just about anything" is not, in my view, good enough, because it indicates a lack of insight into how or why air power may be used in war with China.

What targets "deep inside China" are anticipated as needing to be hit?
How deep is deep? How many kilometers?
What would be the expected result of hitting such targets?

[NRao]

You also have four governments pushing behind instead of one.

Even about 10 years ago we would not have not dared to make that statement. One of those four governments could have opposed something, based on something India did or did not do.

My feel is that India has become a good enough economic clout to make substantial difference. I also feel that India is making relatively good technical/political progress for so many countries to reverse their normal positions.

Finally, I feel that the tough positions China is taking is helping India. Every time China pokes a stick at others it helps India.

BTW, I am not sure if - if we were to compare technologies only - the Europeans are even on par with the US. I would not care that much about political clout, that India should/would gain, no matter what. And, if India were to truly face no restrictions WRT exports of technologies from the US, it may not even matter.

[Austin]

I don't think the SU30mki would be as survivable for the deep strike role against defended targets than most of the mrca applicants although its range is an advantage.

arthuro , what makes you say MKI is less survivable in Deep Strike mission compared to most MRCA candidates ?

[sumshyam]

I don't think the SU30mki would be as survivable for the deep strike role against defended targets than most of the mrca applicants although its range is an advantage.

arthuro , what makes you say MKI is less survivable in Deep Strike mission compared to most MRCA candidates ?

May be Radar Cross section.

[Cain Marko]

May be Radar Cross section.

Unlikely, the RCS of a loaded Rafale/Tiffy for deep strike with 3 EFTs and a couple of storm shadows and what not is not exactly going to be less than a Su 30mki which simply does not carry EFTs. There are some marginal advantages that the MRCA birds have, but nothing major:
1) MKI unlike MRCA does not at the moment have a MAWS
2) MKIs don't carry internal ELS although the Siva HADF pod circumvents this.
3) MKI does not have internal AESA jammers (or does it?)

All this won't matter at all once the upgrade gets going though.

CM.

[arthuro]

there is an RCS advantage of course for the MRCA applicants over the mki but there are other advantages like better sensor integration, better sensor fusion, better MMI and better Situation awareness. Technology is moving fast and by the time the winner of the MRCA will enter in service the technological gap should be quite significant

For the century of french aeronautics something like 2 years ago they displayed the prototype of the rafale B as well as many other aircrafts and helos etc in Paris. (the rafale B301 prototype was place de la concorde) There were also some rafale pilots to answer questions from curious people that were surprised to see a rafale in the center of Paris. I was there and I had the opportunity to talk with some of the rafale pilots. It happens that one of them did red flag along with the mki (and another one was coming back from Astan). Of course I asked him about his impressions of the mki but also the F15K that was participating in red flag.

Concerning the mki he was impressed by the sheer scale of the jet compared to most other proponents (and praised indian pilots by the way), but he stressed that it was still an old style of aircraft about its systems architecture despite a powerful and big radar. He probably meant that the sensors were not as integrated and fused than in the rafale. It was according to him more work intensive to get a clear picture of the tactical situation in the mki (and he took into account the fact that the mki hadn't the link 16 unlike other Nato aircrafts). Both indians and french pilots exchanged about their jets capabilities without reviling secrets.

That where my opinion come from (I could add another rafale pilot that I met at the paris airshow about russian aircrafts philosophy). Besides given the pace technology is moving it is hardly surprising that MRCA applicants will enjoy a better survivability.

[NRao]

arthuro,

Arriving at that conclusion is OK. However, the IAF in particular is making a move to network centric environment. Fusion and things like that are bound to come. Belatedly perhaps, nonetheless they will come.

See rakall's post, of Feb, 2010, here (down three).

[b_patel]

What targets deep inside China do you anticipate would need to be hit in case or war? This is a serious question and I am usually on the offensive when I ask such a question. An answer that says "Oh just about anything" is not, in my view, good enough, because it indicates a lack of insight into how or why air power may be used in war with China.

What targets "deep inside China" are anticipated as needing to be hit?
How deep is deep? How many kilometers?
What would be the expected result of hitting such targets?

Besides the airbases near the indian border I assume that most chinese military infrastructure is located deeper in China. I'm not talking about hitting locations on the other side of China, that would be pointless. Attacks on airfields and SEAD missions are going to be very hard for any MRCA to accomplish successfully. The only aircraft that could do it would be FGFA or the F-35 in the future. China spends a lot on R&D i wouldn't be surprised if we see advanced SAM's in the next 10 years. That's just my opinion.

[NRao]

......
SEAD missions are going to be very hard for any MRCA to accomplish successfully
....

F-18G? F-16WW? (at AeroIndia 2009)

[Cosmo_R]

A Naval Rafale crashed off Bakistan

http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/29/french-a ... aters.html

[shiv]

Besides the airbases near the indian border I assume that most chinese military infrastructure is located deeper in China. I'm not talking about hitting locations on the other side of China, that would be pointless. Attacks on airfields and SEAD missions are going to be very hard for any MRCA to accomplish successfully. The only aircraft that could do it would be FGFA or the F-35 in the future. China spends a lot on R&D i wouldn't be surprised if we see advanced SAM's in the next 10 years. That's just my opinion.

Thank you for being forthright about your opinion.

I believe that we see too many opinions abut the "type of aircraft required" with little analysis of what sort of battle will be fought and the exact nature of the targets that will nee to be hit. All missions in war are dangerous and some may be more risky than others. The ones that are more risky will call for more preparation and there will be an expectation of some loss. The chances of losses become less is the mission is less risky.

If you read Jasjit Singh's book on air power you get an idea of how Air Force people think based on what has happened in the initial stages of most "hot wars". In the first 48 hours of such a war the attrition can go as high as 25%. This is unsustainable. No air force can sustain that rate for more than a few days. But the idea behind expecting such attrition is that the missions will be particularly risky and designed to take out the most valuable targets in the early hours of the war so as to achieve degrees of air superiority if not air dominance.

If one assumes that the early missions are successful, the later missions will be less risky and the attrition rate will come down after the first 3-4 days of such a war. At this stage it is the "grunts" of the air force - the Jags and the MRCAs that would bear the brunt of the missions.

So the choice of "which aircraft?" has to be based on a number of considerations starting from
1) What do we actually have?
2) What can we possible acquire?
3) Are we going to be solely dependent on one or two multi-role capable aircraft types or are we going to have a mix that allows us specialist aircraft for specialist missions

In my view the F 35 is bad news because it is being designed as a "one size fits all" fighter. Western air forces are going for a "one size fits all" fighter because the cost and sophistication requires large numbers to be manufactured and those large numbers can be achieved only by involving everyone and giving everyone involved a choice in what he wants out of the aircraft leading to a type that does everything fairly well, but is very expensive. An expensive jack of all trades - does everything and everyone can just about afford it. It is neither a Lamborghini nor a Nano, but costs as much as a low-end BMW.

We can certainly reserve a single squadron of an F-35 like aircraft to perform the stealthy SEAD role in the early hours and days of a war. Even that squadron is likely to see some attrition. May not be 25%. May be 10%. We would hope an pray for attrition to be zero but one cannot plan a war for zero attrition without the air force staying out of the war. If you look at wars that have been fought by advanced countries (read USA/Israel) against significant adversaries (not Afghanistan) you find that the USA used its F-117s effectively. Th F-117 is not a very capable aircraft for dogfighting, But it was very stealthy platform that along with AWACS and satcom support did its job well in the early hours of the war with Iraq. Israel did the same job using MMRCA type aircraft.

If fact India tried the same thing in 1965 - the early days of the war were devoted to trying to get Pakistan's sophisticated (better than India) radars and attacks on Sargodha - which is essentially a huge American-style airbase which actually had Americans in in in 1965. But India did that with Hunters and Mysteres and attrition was very high. If you read the story of how many aircraft were in the air when Alam shot down 400% more Indian aircraft in 400% less time it sounds more like a WW2 story than a modern day conflict. When you move forward to the 1971 war you find that the PAF started keeping out of the war in the latter days - preserving their strength (for various reasons). That is certainly one way of avoiding wartime attrition.

So it is not as though the job cannot be done by MRCA. We can expect losses to be higher in the early days. If we have a stealthy platform - those early days will probably see less attrition but later in the war we will lose a significant proportion of expensive F-35s in normal attrition.

The other point is that if you read what the RAF is doing - they are finding that the "airframe life" of many of their aircraft is getting used up faster than anticipated because of Afghanistan action. And the money to replace such is in short supply. No wonder they are thinking of continuing with Typhoon and reducing the requirement of F-35.

If India has 20 F-35 and China has 100 J-10 and J-11 - after 1 week of war we will be down to 15 and they will be down to 80. We can say their losses are 4 times more than Indian losses but after 1 week they will have 80 to our 15. What will happen in week 2 of a war? Numbers have a quality of their own as the cliche goes and China produces those J-10s and J-11s now. We will not be producing any F-35s in the next 20 years.

[Paul]

What targets "deep inside China" are anticipated as needing to be hit?
How deep is deep? How many kilometers?
What would be the expected result of hitting such targets?

How about the aerospace industry in Chengdu.

Location of Chengdu town. It is more reachable than Bangalore, Kerala is to the opposition.

It would be at least 1000 Kms from Tezpur.

[shiv]

What targets "deep inside China" are anticipated as needing to be hit?
How deep is deep? How many kilometers?
What would be the expected result of hitting such targets?

How about the aerospace industry in Chengdu.

Location of Chengdu town. It is more reachable than Bangalore, Kerala is to the opposition.

It would be at least 1000 Kms from Tezpur.

Fair enough.

In a hot war with China that starts off with the Chinese having say 600 aircraft reserved against India (with the rest in the East) an attack on Chengdu can only have a long term effect on Chinese aviation in 6 months or later down the line. So if we are attacking targets in China that will have an effect only after 6 months - we are expecting a war to last 6 months or longer. And in attacking that target we may lose 25% of the attacking force of aircraft reducing our own ability to fight for 1 month, leave alone 6 months. What sort of war are we going to fight with China for 6 months or longer? How many of a theoretical 60 F-35s of the IAF will be left after 6 months?

Future wars are not necessarily going to be fought like WW 2 and no war between India and China will be like a US-Iraq war. I don't know about China but India definitely does not have the force levels and reserves to fight a war on the scale of the 1971 war and carry on with such a war for 6 months. India lost over 4 aircraft a day in 1971. Assume 4 a day and we get 720 aircraft lost in 6 months. I am not sure that everyone who talks about aircraft and war on BRF actually knows what they are talking about. China won't even need to attack Bangalore, Kerala. Why should we be attacking Chengdu if we can ensure Chinese attrition is unacceptable? Or if we can gain local air dominance?

[Indranil]

Shiv sir, nice post about the attrition .

P.S. You should do a Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V of this post once in every few pages

[Rahul M]

Concerning the mki he was impressed by the sheer scale of the jet compared to most other proponents (and praised indian pilots by the way), but he stressed that it was still an old style of aircraft about its systems architecture despite a powerful and big radar. He probably meant that the sensors were not as integrated and fused than in the rafale. It was according to him more work intensive to get a clear picture of the tactical situation in the mki (and he took into account the fact that the mki hadn't the link 16 unlike other Nato aircrafts). Both indians and french pilots exchanged about their jets capabilities without reviling secrets.

valid point but keep in mind that is precisely why IAF insisted on a 2 seat aircraft. with two sets of brains to take care of specific responsibilities the effective info processing time shouldn;t be too different, especially as the MKI is slated to go through a host of upgrades.