MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Sajith_J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Feb 2009 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Sajith_J » 24 Apr 2009 18:18

Ajay K wrote:Any details of air-ground role enhancements of Mig-35? Either navigational or targeting. I have not seen the Mig-35 deliver any ground attack ordinance.

The Mig is only a upgraded Mig 29 and just like the EF made for air superiority with less a2g capabilities, so don't expect something impressive.
jmaxwell wrote:
nachiket wrote:...
I had a question. The Mig-35 may very well have the best aerodynamics of the lot, and it needs that to be successful in its primary role ... that of an air-superiority fighter. But does the IAF really need another one of those? Don't the MKI, Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s (latter 2 after upgrade) take care of that requirement?? Won't it be prudent to think of augmenting our strike forces. To a layman, the F-18SH seems to offer an excellent strike package (especially the weapons like JDAM and co.) in addition to providing the IAF with the best BVR combat platform in the region.
...

Totally agree that we need a strike fighter. This is what the PAF aircomodore Kaiser Tufail has to say about the Kargil conflict:

But do we need just another bomb truck, cause the Mki has also heavy strike capabilities, or do we need a fighter that can do preemptive strikes without being detected so easily with good defense systems for survivability?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7765
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 24 Apr 2009 18:54

Sajith_J wrote:
Ajay K wrote:But do we need just another bomb truck, cause the Mki has also heavy strike capabilities, or do we need a fighter that can do preemptive strikes without being detected so easily with good defense systems for survivability?


It would be incorrect to describe the SH as a bomb truck! With the AESA radar + AIM-120C5 and AIM-9 + JHMCS (assuming we get all of these) its more than capable of holding its own against enemy air assets.
However one scenario where the lack of maneuverability of the SH would get it into trouble would be in WVR combat against a PAF block 50 F-16 also equipped with JHMCS + AIM-9 .

MarcH
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 10:32

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby MarcH » 24 Apr 2009 23:05

A well, there is a difference between manouverability and agility. The Hornet is a highly manouveral plane, especially at lower speeds. Where it lacks, is agility. Acceleration is the weak spot of the Hornet. And this is important for BVR, to increase the kinetic energy of missiles.
The best aircraft to play this game are the F-22 and EF Typhoon. Highly swept wings, and engines with comparably low bypass ratio for modern turbofans.
But maybe this is not that important for India, since the role will be that of an self escorting strike fighter. In that context it should boil down to fuel reserves available (for possible a2a encounters), and flight performance with fully loaded aircaft.
My bet here would be Rafale as the best performer. At least, if we assume the French can actually deliver the aircraft with AESA + Meteor. Otherwise, the F-18 would most probably win in this category, with the already proven APG-79 + AMRAAM.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Samay » 24 Apr 2009 23:27

But do we need just another bomb truck, cause the Mki has also heavy strike capabilities, or do we need a fighter that can do preemptive strikes without being detected so easily with good defense systems for survivability?


It would be incorrect to describe the SH as a bomb truck! With the AESA radar + AIM-120C5 and AIM-9 + JHMCS (assuming we get all of these) its more than capable of holding its own against enemy air assets.
However one scenario where the lack of maneuverability of the SH would get it into trouble would be in WVR combat against a PAF block 50 F-16 also equipped with JHMCS + AIM-9 .


I agree with Sajith_J that f18 is indeed a bomb truck,
instead its computer generated model was for this purpose alone,that is it was designed keeping in mind the amraam era . It's specific purpose was to identify the target (air-land) and to deliver the weapon, and the reason that there are many modifications done to it is to use it in other purposes and to decrease vulnerability.
Surely it was not designed to be a multirole and definitely not for close a2a combat,which questions its evaluation as an mrca when it is pitched for sale to country which would have only limited numbers of planes because of budget constraints, so it must be thought a thousand times before giving a contract if it risks the planes vulnerability in a close air to air combat in a complex or a high dependency on americans,high attrition rate and a possible 10-15 day air war in the subcontinent, whereas rafales with similarities from mirage 2000 is an EASIER choice, and will be evaluated by the IAF in field trials no matter what bug infested media says, or in other words what the bug infested media knows ,that dassault rafale is a strong contender and could eliminate the amrikis.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Apr 2009 23:29

...f18 is indeed a bomb truck ........


I recall one report where a F-18 had been able to detect an IDE (granted there many types of these) on the ground (in Iraq) AND THEN relay a picture of it in real-time to the troops on the ground. It is THIS ability that is brought to the table by US planes and the 18 in specific. Sensors and networks.

I really do not think the others even come close as we post. Few years down the road things could change of course.

Of course, ALL depends on what the US will be willing to part with. However, with the Taliban doing their dance India better get great sensors (in ADDITION to humint) to see the dance in real-time. What the F-18 brings to the table will be rather cool.

Bomb trucks are sooooo ancient way of thinking.

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby viveks » 24 Apr 2009 23:31

I predict this future. Indian Mig-29s replaced by Mig-35. Indian Jaguars & Mirage replaced by Rafale/Euro-2000. MMRCA contract....well...split....PAK-FA & F-35. Period.

The world is happy...mera bharat mahan.

Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1101
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Hiten » 25 Apr 2009 01:26


Sajith_J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Feb 2009 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Sajith_J » 25 Apr 2009 07:21

nachiket wrote:It would be incorrect to describe the SH as a bomb truck! With the AESA radar + AIM-120C5 and AIM-9 + JHMCS (assuming we get all of these) its more than capable of holding its own against enemy air assets.
However one scenario where the lack of maneuverability of the SH would get it into trouble would be in WVR combat against a PAF block 50 F-16 also equipped with JHMCS + AIM-9 .

Ok bomb truck was maybe a wrong description, what I meant was we already have a fighter that can do heavy strikes, so maybe a fighter with less but still good a2g capabilities and more speed, better manouverability and a low RCS would be enough too. F18 for sure it’s a good aircraft, but I think to have 230 mkis and 126 F18 could be a bit too much.
Samay wrote:Surely it was not designed to be a multirole and definitely not for close a2a combat,which questions its evaluation as an mrca

Multi role means that is capable of both roles (a2a and a2g), but some are more designed for air superiority with some a2g capability like EF and Mig 35, some more for strikes with some a2a like F18SH and some belongs more in between (Rafale, F16, Gripen NG) without beeing the best in one of this roles. So F18 SH fits in MRCA too!

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7765
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 25 Apr 2009 12:31

Sajith_J wrote:Ok bomb truck was maybe a wrong description, what I meant was we already have a fighter that can do heavy strikes, so maybe a fighter with less but still good a2g capabilities and more speed, better manouverability and a low RCS would be enough too. F18 for sure it’s a good aircraft, but I think to have 230 mkis and 126 F18 could be a bit too much.


Well the aircraft (among those being considered) that best matches that description would be the rafale IMHO.
Acc. to DDM it doesn't match the IAF's required tech specs. I think it's more likely that it doesn't match our "budgetary specs" :mrgreen:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 25 Apr 2009 12:53

Here are some details on the MIG-35s ordnance capabilities.It supposedly can carry "12,000lbs" of ordnance,of similar types that the SU-30MKI can carry,except perhaps that of Brahmos.It might be able to carry one on the centreline (MIG-29K).Here is a good description of the MIG-35s chief characteristics.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... mig-35.htm

keizer
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 25 Apr 2009 12:53

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby keizer » 25 Apr 2009 13:24

Hi guys new member; Keizer here, gr8 to finally join BR.

The MRCA, the Rafale is out hence no sense talking about it. The f-18SH is the most ideal and comes with options none of the others offer. the F-16IN and F-18IN are the most advanced in terms of avionics, weapons load out and multirole ability. F-16IN is extremly customizable and can be fitted with Israeli avionics, MATV, higher thrust engine and can easily deploy US/EU/Isssy weapons. Besides the F16 is being tested with new SABR and RACR radars, which is a 3rd gen AESA and will replace the apg-81. F-18IN has an even better radar with uprecedented range whihc none of the other contenders can match. Now the MKi and upgraded mig-29s will play air defence and air superirority roles, Mirages play roles of tactical strike, close fighter support, point defence roles, the Jag play deep strikes, low level penetration strikes, ground support roles etc, the mig-27ml is the primary ground attack aircraft. now the f-18SH would fit right in with abilities to play all the above mentioned roles as well as extensive AWACS as well as full fledged tanker roles. The F-18IN provides the best in battle field awareness and its AESA picture through link-16 can easily be shared with others in air assets in the battlefield thus giving everyone in the field a clean AESA picture of whats going on. It can display live video of bombing raids, recce, ground target movements to all assets in the air, ground, sea and ideal can network with 3 to 4 UAVS. which means ground stations, spec ops., ships, awacs, E-2D hawkeye, p-8 etc. can all share and gather intelligence. now none of the other contenders have that ability and the only contender that can match its network centricity is the f-16IN. Now, the PAki block 52s are no match for the f-18IN since the f-18SH will soon be flying with the Aim-120D which has max. range of over 200km when fired from a f-22 while supercruising. The f-18SH will easily be able to fire this missile from over 160km away and this missile has a no escape zone of over 160km.

Besides nothing matches the f-18SH's ability to point its nose at any given point in air. Plus the fact that it is the easiest fighter aircraft to fly( trainee pilots usually take 2 hours to learn how to fly it with gr8 confidence which gives time to train a lot more on tactics) and the physical attributes of flying it are less challenging as well. The SH eases in and out of loops, roles, climbs, dives, sustained high G turns with excellent ease, smooth stick movements and thus making sure the pilot doesn;t face too much physical stress. Aircraft like the mki which have excellent maneuverability, agility can be very tiring to fly. F-18SH is easier to fly which makes it a superhit with pilots who fly it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-_OWMDN64M

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 25 Apr 2009 13:35

viveks wrote:I predict this future. Indian Mig-29s replaced by Mig-35. Indian Jaguars & Mirage replaced by Rafale/Euro-2000. MMRCA contract....well...split....PAK-FA & F-35. Period.

The world is happy...mera bharat mahan.



WHERE IS TEJAS ?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 25 Apr 2009 14:21

Safely "flying" in the Tejas thread!

Yogesh
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 01:37
Location: Vasundhara
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Yogesh » 25 Apr 2009 14:37

Philip wrote:Safely "flying" in the Tejas thread!

Hmm that's really timed shot :lol: 8)

Yogesh
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 01:37
Location: Vasundhara
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Yogesh » 25 Apr 2009 14:44

keizer wrote:Hi guys new member; Keizer here, gr8 to finally join BR.

Plus the fact that it is the easiest fighter aircraft to fly( trainee pilots usually take 2 hours to learn how to fly it with gr8 confidence which gives time to train a lot more on tactics) and the physical attributes of flying it are less challenging as well.

Welcome on board !!
between by looking at the ease of flying SH's my ambition keeping myself in the sky :wink: :wink:

keizer
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 25 Apr 2009 12:53

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby keizer » 25 Apr 2009 16:59

the F-18IN is also best fitted to impress during the trails as its ready for full-scale evaluation of AESA, Block 2 EW suite, weapons like SDB 1, JDAM/ER, LJDAM, JSOW/ER, SLAM/ER, Harpoon, JASSM/ER, Paveway 4, Aim-120D, Aim-120 C-7, HARM/AAGRM, Taurus missile, CBU-97/107/SFW etc. all ready for evaluation, except for f-16IN, none of the other contenders have such an array of lethal long range cost effective precision guided weapons deployed on them. SDB for example allows the SH to carry over 16 bombs in one sortie along with 4 AAM to defend itself. These bombs allow for pounding of stationary, moving and hardened targets from ranges of over 100km. this reduces cost per sortie during combat and allows for precision targeting of more targets. F-18IN will win hearts once trails begin.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Shankar » 25 Apr 2009 17:03

he f-18SH is the most ideal and comes with options none of the others offer.
like?
F-16IN and F-18IN are the most advanced in terms of avionics, weapons load out and multirole ability. F-16IN is extremly customizable and can be fitted with Israeli avionics,

even if true which i do not agree the delivery of one and all will be at the whim of Obama - see happened to LM 2500
and to top it all Mig 35 can be customised including the mission computer and thrust vectoring engines which a US aircraft manufactureer will never allow ,the AESA t/r modules will also be made in india
The F-18IN provides the best in battle field awareness and its AESA picture through link-16 can easily be shared with others in air assets in the battlefield thus giving everyone in the field a clean AESA picture of whats going on.

so will mig 35

Mig 35 most likelihood already selected -only the field trials will confirm its on air true capabilities that where the air conditioned comfort habited us aircraft will go bhogs
cheers

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 25 Apr 2009 17:52

The MIG-35 to my mind will be one of the final two,as the Russians understand the Indian defence structure best and will know how to present their product in a manner to appeal the IAF.The aircraft's capabilities are well known.They have also had an inside line from local assembly to joint development and now local manufacture of engines and other items through TOT.The carrot the Russians will bring with them is the option of an Israeli EASA radar on the MIG-35,which might very well be considered since the LCA is to fly with such an Israeli radar.The commonality would be a very cost-effective solution and the IAF would get the best of both worlds,western and Russian at affordable cost.

keizer
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 25 Apr 2009 12:53

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby keizer » 25 Apr 2009 17:54

i disagree, the mig-35 doesn't have the ability to network with UAVS, neither can it perform awacs roles like the f-18IN. The mig-35 doesnt come with many low cost long range precision guided weapons like the JDAM, SDB, LJDAM, JDAM/ER, CBU-97/107SFW, Paveway. the ZHUK AESA doesn't have the range of the APG-79, the APG-79 can show live videos of multiple moving taregts being lit up to all the others in the battle field. the mig-35 also has a higher rcs. The zhuk AESA has a max. range of around 200km while the SH's detection is over 450km. The mig-35 doesn't provide the warfighter with the kind of weapons and mission flexibility that the SH provides everyday, there isn't more multirole aircraft in the world. The SH doesn't need a TVC to pull unlimited angles of attack and is far more robust with ability to takeoff from short air strips. The SH can also play tanker roles and not just buddy refueling, it can transfer fuel mid-air to all aircraft with refueling probes. The SH's radar can detect and track far more targets and can control over 36 aircraft in a battle qualifying it to be an AWACS. now the mig-35 falls short in all such aspects. we pay a bit more than the mig-35 and we get far more than the mig-35 can offer.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 25 Apr 2009 18:56

see happened to LM 2500


What happened to LM 2500? Per reports it was a non-issue.

The MIG-35 to my mind will be one of the final two


Nothing against this machine, but do they have a viable (as in flying) AESA yet?

From what I have read so far the MiG is no where close to any of the others WRT networking, etc.

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby KrishG » 25 Apr 2009 19:51

If IAF/MoD do not want to wait then the American offer especially F/A-18SH will win the contract. I agree with keizer on the issues with MiG-35 and also the fact that Super Hornet is cheaper than Rafale and EF with many a times better or similar capabilities in some areas. But we have got to accept that APG-79 is the biggest buying factor of SH and without full ToT or an scaled down RADAR offer could very well kick it out of the deal.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 25 Apr 2009 20:31

The key thing with Mig-35 is its Open Architecture platform , where you can integrate any thing we want from any country without any restrictions.

The Americans on the other hand will say you cant add this or you cant remove that or you cant integrate this weapon as it does not belong from US and its against the law of their land to do so.

Avionics and Weapons are evolving systems , even if Russian Radar may be slightly inferior now compared to American xyz , it will not be the case 5 years from now , and then you can retrofit it or do a software upgrade over its life cycle.

American weapons will not be available fleet wide restricting its use to single platform or type in service , if you choose Mig-35 then the weapons will be compatiable with upgraded Mig-29 , MKI , Bison , 27upg , perhaps Tejas making it fleet wide available and cost effective.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 25 Apr 2009 20:47

Austin, everything is ok.. even a lesser tech stuff.. but chewing us on the price factor is where Russians will go down.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 25 Apr 2009 20:49

A krish wrote:But we have got to accept that APG-79 is the biggest buying factor of SH and without full ToT or an scaled down RADAR offer could very well kick it out of the deal.


There is no need to speculate on such matters. The vendors have stated that India is expecting 60% ToT (whatever that means - check old threads, this was discussed earlier - bottom line no one on BR knows exactly what that means).

The US in particular has stated that they will NOT give complete ToT - NO source code, but are willing to part with latest and greatest - which means that they will provide a black box for those components that are NOT ToTable and the rest (60% per RFP I am told) can be built in India.

Even this, IMVVVVHO, is far better than a 100% ToT of AESA that is immature - and I think the rest are all immature when compared to what the US brings to the table.

I would highly recommend that folks leaf through the thread on technologies related to M/MRCA. No use reinventing the wheel - speculating.

F-35 ToT was offered too - posted a page or two ago.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 25 Apr 2009 21:01

The Americans on the other hand will say you cant add this or you cant remove that or you cant integrate this weapon as it does not belong from US and its against the law of their land to do so.


ToI :: 2005 :: Lockheed offers 'exclusive' F-16s to India

"If India's requirements are beyond any existing fighters, we are prepared to make upgraded F-16s to India's specifications with complete transfer of technology," Mike Kelly, senior executive of Lockheed Martin said in comments


I have never come across any article that backs down from that statement. IF AT ALL the specs have only improved - as an example the F-16 itself.

With Indian components in these machines what makes anyone think that ANY vendor will place ANY restrictions on these planes?

Feb 17, 2008 :: Boeing ‘authorized’ to offer AESA radar with F/A-18 fighter

The US government has “authorized” Boeing to offer a state-of-the-art radar with the F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter that is vying for an Indian Air Force (IAF) order for 126 multi-role combat aircraft, the company said Sunday. However, whether or not the technology for the radar would also be transferred “is an issue for the US government to decide”, a Boeing official said.

saptarishi
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 05 May 2007 01:20
Location: ghaziabad
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby saptarishi » 26 Apr 2009 02:02

lets make an impartial analysis of the VARIOUS AIR CRAFTS in mmrca .
RAFALE IS MORE OR LESS OUT,Same can be said about GRIPEN due to its similarity with LCA MK2


MIG-35--strong points----TVC,, full tech transfer INCLUDING THAT OF new AESA,,rvv-aepd,r-74 and all the pak-fa weapons,can be heavily customised,cheap cost
weak points------russian armtwisting as seen in gorshkov ,mig-29k and MKI DEALS,,,PUTTNG ALL EGGS IN ONE BASKET,,highest RCS among mmrca bidders,,old airframe

typhoon--stong points,,-high thrust and agility,best avionics and ECM,METEOR, aesa captor CAESAR,,
WEAK POINTS ---HIGH unit cost and ubproven strike capability

SUPER HORNETstrong points-AESA one of the best and is proven in combat,good avionics weapons and ECM
WEAK POINTS,,--sanction prone,,tech transfer problems

f-16in- STONG-HIGH THrUST ENGINE,great cockpit and aesa,high tech transfer,low unit and lifecycle cost,low rcs.and ACES ECM SYSTEM -one of the best in the world
weak points--old airframe and sanctions prone

american planes have edge in weapons, aim-120D, AIM-9X
with jdam,jsow slam-er, harpoon,agm-65,agm-88 harm--the strike capability looks enormous

my :| neutral view says---GO FOR THE AMERICAN AIRCRAFTS,,,MIG-35 is damn good but with su-30mki and PAK-FA WE WILLHAVE 2 GREAT AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTERS BUT nothing compares with the strike capability of american aircrafts...

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 26 Apr 2009 02:37

best way to beat american sanctions is by proper documentation, plus ensure parts manufacturing and total control over raw materials from home suppliers with least import content.

it would take at least 10 years to establish a toting facility to do everything to specs right from scratch.. holding about 15-20%% money as some un-liquidated damages should prevent them thinking of sanctions, in addition to a legal document that prevents them sanctioning. I am not sure any hyding country would supply us with such demands, except a few at high cost.

hence, we have to give up on cost aspects while considering strategic points, ie. consistent supplies and spares whilst war, no sanctions, high technology transfer, local production from scratch to a 100% value by 10 years.

plus, rubbish those laws ahead that asks for poodling.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby p_saggu » 26 Apr 2009 03:59

Austin wrote:The key thing with Mig-35 is its Open Architecture platform , where you can integrate any thing we want from any country without any restrictions.

American weapons will not be available fleet wide restricting its use to single platform or type in service , if you choose Mig-35 then the weapons will be compatiable with upgraded Mig-29 , MKI , Bison , 27upg , perhaps Tejas making it fleet wide available and cost effective.

Very important point.
The fact is because of the weapon systems being located at the home base the aircraft will be somehow tied to operate from that home base. Otherwise you are talking of moving a huge infrastructure of weapons and other ancillaries around wherever the aircraft is deployed. Or you will have to maintain inventories at various bases across the country which will only be used by one specific type of aircraft.

It is cumbersome.
I hope the winner agrees to MKI'se his aircraft to ensure commonality and compatibility with existing weapon systems with the IAF.

It will be some sight to see an F-16 fire an R-27 ! :rotfl: however far-fetched and foolish this statement may sound.

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 26 Apr 2009 04:21

The Rafale in IAF colours :) . Photoshopped by Kovy in Keypublishing forums.

Image

jmaxwell
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 27 Jun 2007 13:44
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby jmaxwell » 26 Apr 2009 05:13

p_saggu wrote:...It will be some sight to see an F-16 fire an R-27 ! :rotfl: however far-fetched and foolish this statement may sound.
And now flip that picture. Imagine AIMs, AMRAAMs and JSOWs being mated to the MKI :twisted:. Perhaps the MRCA is the very door we need to amreeki weapons and in large quantities. This aptly describes my current state of mind:
Image

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby abhiti » 26 Apr 2009 05:38

Deleted
Last edited by abhiti on 26 Apr 2009 05:51, edited 2 times in total.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby p_saggu » 26 Apr 2009 05:39

Exactly what's wrong with the Rafale? Why is everyone writing it off?
It has even been tested with an AESA.
Will some guru enlighten this newbie?

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby abhiti » 26 Apr 2009 05:54

p_saggu wrote:Exactly what's wrong with the Rafale? Why is everyone writing it off?
It has even been tested with an AESA.
Will some guru enlighten this newbie?


Well now that I compared weight of Su 30MKI and Rafale and Eurofighter I have to agree with you. There is nothing wrong with Rafale except for its cost. I hope French really make an offer which IAF cannot refuse.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9328
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 26 Apr 2009 06:58

Not sure if this video has been posted before...

Eurofighter Typhoon; Nothing comes close
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdcybHrBmPE

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Apr 2009 08:37

neither US or Ru will transfer anything related to aesa tech. Ru has not even included a lot of the pesa bars RF components in the licensing deal, its unwise to believe their promises of full tot for anything.

in any case, tot just enables one to make the current product inhouse, never really imparts the ability to
design something better. in that sense, a Tejas aesa would be the real breakthrough...

so leaving that out, I would think EF and Rafale are good because they might help us with some engine tech
collaboration to get kaveri as a finished product. and might agree to integrate astra, desi lgb kits, rafael weapons with less of complaining than the americans.

russia lacks in precision & long range weapons and lacking in avionics too.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Apr 2009 09:58

If IAF selected the Mig-35 for MMRCA , then we probably will be the largest Mig-29 variant operator outside Russia , with upg Mig-29 , Naval Mig-29K and Mig-35 , approaching close to ~ 250 A/C :shock:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Apr 2009 10:00

Singha wrote:russia lacks in precision & long range weapons and lacking in avionics too.


Thats news to me :wink:

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5290
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 26 Apr 2009 10:51

Samay wrote:I agree with Sajith_J that f18 is indeed a bomb truck,
instead its computer generated model was for this purpose alone,that is it was designed keeping in mind the amraam era . It's specific purpose was to identify the target (air-land) and to deliver the weapon, and the reason that there are many modifications done to it is to use it in other purposes and to decrease vulnerability.
Surely it was not designed to be a multirole and definitely not for close a2a combat,which questions its evaluation as an mrca when it is pitched for sale to country which would have only limited numbers of planes because of budget constraints, so it must be thought a thousand times before giving a contract if it risks the planes vulnerability in a close air to air combat in a complex or a high dependency on americans,high attrition rate and a possible 10-15 day air war in the subcontinent, whereas rafales with similarities from mirage 2000 is an EASIER choice, and will be evaluated by the IAF in field trials no matter what bug infested media says, or in other words what the bug infested media knows ,that dassault rafale is a strong contender and could eliminate the amrikis.


what're you talking about ? you obviously haven't the slightest clue about what the F/A-18 started off as or what its role was/is meant to be.

the F/A-18 was designed to fulfill the SAME role that the F-16 was designed for- to be a fighter primarily. it was developed by Northrop as the YF-17, lost out to the F-16 for the Air Force's Light Fighter program and was then adapted as a naval carrier borne fighter alongwith McDonnell because it was twin-engined. it was NOT developed to be a bomb truck and in those days when it was developed, there was no "computer generated model". what does "its computer generated model" mean anyway ? CAD/CAM for fighters/airplanes is a relatively new concept and most design/analysis software was developed starting in the 1980s (and mostly later part of that decade). before that, it was all hand-drawn, and hand analysed after extensive wind-tunnel testing and before that, the configuration was hand drawn and conceptualised, not derived from some magical "computer generated model".

and even then, it was always meant to be a fighter primarily and then an attack aircraft, not the other way around. it had FBW before any other production fighter. in fact, the F-18 was meant to be built as two different aircraft- the F-18 and the A-18, but because of improved avionics and displays, it was possible to alamgamate the two fighters into the F/A-18 Hornet.

its just that its been a very successful attack aircraft because of extensive systems design for both missions, but its a fighter that was developed to be good at WVR, and in that it does excel with very good AoA behaviour, but its wing design had conferred some not-so good characteristics to it as a fighter at higher speeds as compared to the F-16. at low speeds however, it'll out-turn a F-16 or for that matter almost any other fighter and has very good nose-pointing abilities. and as for your statement "it was designed keeping in mind the AMRAAM era" it only became AMRAAM capable in 1987. it was always designed to a primarily WVR fighter with AIM-9s and semi-active Sparrow missiles. and today, with the JHMCS/AIM-9X combo and the Super Hornet's tight turning/high AoA ability, and the APG-79, its a VERY capable WVR fighter as well. in BVR of course, the APG-79/AMRAAM combo are one of the better combinations available out there.

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby abhiti » 26 Apr 2009 11:34

Austin wrote:If IAF selected the Mig-35 for MMRCA , then we probably will be the largest Mig-29 variant operator outside Russia , with upg Mig-29 , Naval Mig-29K and Mig-35 , approaching close to ~ 250 A/C :shock:


It will be a mistake to have Russia total control on IAF technology. Risk management requires that we never place all eggs in one basket. What's wrong with French? These suckers (sic) will sell to anyone for money. They even want to sell to China and Iran while letting America kick and scream. We had such a problem with American technology after nuclear tests. Did we have any issues with Mirage 2000? If not, go French.

keizer
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 25 Apr 2009 12:53

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby keizer » 26 Apr 2009 12:33

LM has offered F-16s with source codes and the f-18IN comes with source codes as well. now as long as EUVA restrictions are eased and we are given a clean waiver on many of those restrictions and tot the US companies will win. The mig-35 is indeed customizable but by the time we customize it, the price will shoot up, the process takes a lot of time and by 2013 our force levels will be far below min. requirements. I am sure we wont take that gamble and will order one of the teens. I dont understand why we keep talking about the French, they are out , so need for any further discussions. as per today's news the tranche 3 EF looks to be in danger and i doubt this aircraft will comes for less than 130 million a piece.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8017207.stm

The fact is the only aircraft that can satisfy our Navy, Army and AF is the f-18IN or f-35. F-18IN is ideal and can be used for all 3 for their respective missions. The f-16 having an old airframe is also a wrong statement. The F-16IN looks far different and uses the latest CRCs in the airframe, hence the aiframe is far more advanced and newer than the mig-35 airframe which by all means looks like a patched up mig-29. moreover f-16IN will also feature ram materials and its rcs is far lower than any of the contenders. plus f-16 comes with ability and ready to fire mode for missiles like Aim-120 C/D, Aim-9x block 2, Python-5, Asraam, Iris-T, Mica, Magic missiles. It also comes with software to fire Skyflash, Alarm missiles, Apache missiles, AS30L LGB and Popeye-2. not to mention it is also capable of delivering Delilah which we already have. It also has a higher combat range than the mig-35. On any given day the f-16IN is a better option to the mig-35. mig-35 is a default option if none of the other contenders meet minimum contract requirments.

Rafale has been written off due to French negligence, they seemed to have blown off our people repeatedly when we turned to them for questions and secondly, they don't show the possibility to delivering AESA by 2013, since the French AF will start recieving it starting end 2012. Secondly the fact that Rafale falls short in weapons, costs and other tehnical requirements. Though a good aircraft Rafale has been sighted by countries like Japan, Singapore as being difficult to use and fly.

F-18IN comes with a possibility for a growth version of the GE 414 turbofan on request, the new engine has 29,000 lbs output has been ground tested already, which increases its range by around 20-25 % and thrust from 98kn to roughly 118KN and makes the SH even flightier. moreover we must remember that we hold options for 74 more aircraft and the last of the 126 fighters will be made in India by around 2020, now block 3 SH will be ready by then incase we want to order 74 more. now block 3 will have MATV, supercruise and unrefueled combat radius of over 1000NM and newer cutting edge avionics, engines etc, by then the engine output would have reached 130KN. hence the ideal option is still the SH.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... eopts.html


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests