MRCA News and Discussion

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Aug 2009 08:10

But...but gurulog isn't this golden opportunity to buy Mapo MIG ? or at least buy large stakes so that we can get our hands on engine tech and skilled manpower for if worst comes to worst RU Govt will intervene and probably merge Mig with Sukhoi corp.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2009 08:18

Negi, Klimov is the RD-33 engine maker not Mikoyan. I am not sure how healthy they are - seems to me Salyut-Saturn has the lock on all sukhoi engines.

N3 - yes it begs the question - we are allowing costlier twin engined jets than su30 and yet su30 is not part of the contest! opex wont be less than su30 given the twin engines and costly imported parts which will take a long time to make locally even in area of consumables like tires and bideshi paint!

MRCA should have been a project to take a Su35 single seater airframe and kit it up with EL2052 and western and indian weapons if you look at cost, commonality and timelines and allow twin engines.

if only single engine, F-solah, M2k-5 and gripen are left in the pack. F-solah hands down!!

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 20 Aug 2009 08:22

Singha wrote:Nrao sir is quite right. anything Mig - it will be totally our headache to fund the entire supply and development work chain while they wont be accountable to us. it will be a decade long
gorshkov2.0 project.

If that is true then what headaches do we expect with our IN MiGs? Sorry for going OT, but the discussion on the demise of MiG begs this question.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Aug 2009 08:39

GD ...RSK MiG, Kamov,Klimov all come under MAPO MiG. I should have been more clearer with my post.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2009 09:01

>> what headaches do we expect with our IN MiGs?

plenty I would think

we will be the sole user worldwide of the Mig29K

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2009 09:52

negi wrote:But...but gurulog isn't this golden opportunity to buy Mapo MIG ? or at least buy large stakes so that we can get our hands on engine tech and skilled manpower for if worst comes to worst RU Govt will intervene and probably merge Mig with Sukhoi corp.

But the Russian Govt is not keen to sell it or let a partner take stake in it , it is funding Mig with its own money and state orders.

Russia like India , will not sell or let foreign owner take a stake in strategic aircraft maker like Sukhoi , Mig , Tuplov at wort case it will merge into a giant entity.

Most likely development of UCAV and their likes will fall to Mig , and so will the modernisation of existing aircraft like Mig-31 , 29.

If Mig is really lucky they may even get orders to develp cost effective JSF class 5th Gen fighter , many world wide Mig customer would be keen to get a cost effective replacement for Mig-29 , 27 with a 5th Gen fighter.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2009 09:54

Singha wrote:>> what headaches do we expect with our IN MiGs?

plenty I would think we will be the sole user worldwide of the Mig29K

The Russian Navy will be provided with Mig-29K class of fighter for CBG as per Ivanov.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2009 10:16

Kartik wrote:the IAF was not the least bit interested in the SMT or the M2..MiG offered both these for the role that the Su-30MKI now performs, as well as to bulk up squadron numbers..this is on record and the IAF did not take the matter up any further.

No what I meant was the M2 is essential a Mig-35 TD on older platform , if the IAF is willing to accept it then probably it has no problem with TD doing the talking while the actually platform might come at a later stage

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Aug 2009 12:28

shameekg wrote: If that is true then what headaches do we expect with our IN MiGs? Sorry for going OT, but the discussion on the demise of MiG begs this question.

The issue (IMHO of course) is of funding.

The MiG-29Ks should be funded and therefore relatively safe. Besides (no expert here), the K is much closer to the older (legacy?) MiG-29s - and that pipeline should be fairly safe, I would think.

The MiG-35 - from what I have read - is a different beast. It is this difference that is not funded (my best guesstimate). And, I am fairly confident that if GoI puts money in the bank today, the MiG-35 will be inducted in 2012. I think this testing phase (completed in 2010) and a year more to have fun shooting (testing they say) missiles, etc, etc, etc. which puts us in late 2010 or early 2011.

A year from that all the other vendors can make the induction ceremony. Not MiG. BTW, the EF too will provide from "stock" IIRC. NG/16/Rafale are all ready to go and of course the 18 is in production, so no problems with any of them.

So, the 35 will be ready to go IF there is enough monies in the bank today. But the 35 has a hitch - what if they are not selected? So, the risk is very, very high and understandable. (Note that they say that they can start work on the first 18, IF SELECTED, in 2013. This can only mean that they lack the funds to start before that.)

The same risk does not exist for the 29K. Or not yet any ways.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 20 Aug 2009 12:42

The risk is Mig's to take. Not that of IAF. Better we avoid this bird.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 20 Aug 2009 12:51

The sewer hornet (looked like it) just passed over whitefield making a hard turn towards the south/south west.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Aug 2009 12:52

Considering that ALL of them will be incorporating something "Indian" (or even perhasp Israeli or French) there is an associated risk. The issue is how to minimize that risk WRT time - not cost (I am assuming that India will pay for that risk).

The risk that this MiG guy has tossed on the table is they cannot deliver the 35 when India wants it per the RFP: 2012. Time, not cost.

Can or is India willing to wait till - say - 2014 to induct the 35? Is it that a great a plane that India can wait for 2 (more) years?

Dunno. Perhaps as Austin/CM suggested that the 1.44 flies into town, and .............................
----------------------------------------------------------

Just for kicks:

MRCA and FGFA?

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 20 Aug 2009 13:05

Dunno. Perhaps as Austin/CM suggested that the 1.44 flies into town, and .............................
----------------------------------------------------------

Even though it will never happen it would be a terrible idea. The 1.44 flew like twice i think. Entering that in the competition would be a joke! It has a monsterous RCS, probably bigger than that of the Su-30MKI. I remember reading somewhere that russia claimed the RCS was equivalent to that of the Super hornet .01 sqm.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 20 Aug 2009 14:02

Mig has everything to gain, and India has nothing to gain out of awarding the contract to them.

Unless..... the entire Mig staff is offered some kind of dual citizenship in India with tax breaks and made to shift all their operations/R&D to India. Let us make them an offer they cant refuse...

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 20 Aug 2009 14:29

Cain Marko wrote:
the fact that the MiG-35 is supposed to be in India, in less than a month really means that they're making a big mess of this unless they bring the definitive MiG-35 to the trials..unless MiG is testing at a breakneck speed in secret, I'm afraid we're going to see the same story- MiG-29M2 dressed up as MiG-35, with the final MiG-35 variant only seen on models or drawings, with quite a bit of work yet to be done, and to be funded by its launch customer.
May be they'll bring back the 1.44 for the MRCA wot (i've always secretly hoped so)! here its been spotted @ MAKS 09, may be thats the secret prototype? I sure as heck will be pleased

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0 ... .Large.jpg

CM.

Man if this phoenix rises from the ashes then it will be a game changer food for thought: if this some how happens it will kind of conflict with the PAK FA IMHO. Hmmm just for giggles what would be interesting is if we could set the Yehudis loose on the 1.44 and be involved in the deep transplant...I shudder to think the result

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2009 14:30

NRao wrote:Dunno. Perhaps as Austin/CM suggested that the 1.44 flies into town, and .............................
----------------------------------------------------------

Not me it was CM .

And Mig 1.44 ( or 144 ) was a predecessor or TD for the real 5th Gen fighter which was Mig-1.42 for the Soviets

Mig 144 is a 35 ton plus fighter and we are competing for Medium fighter.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 20 Aug 2009 14:35

Was this posted ??

EADS offers India full-fledged manufacturing partnership for Eurofighter

Bernhard Gerwert Boss of EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company), on his visit to India last week has offered India full-fledged manufacturing partnership for Eurofighter, if India chooses the Eurofighter for its MMRCA Requirements of 126 jets , EADS has reworked some of its most fundamental tenets and structures, to appear more appealing to India, The consortium that developed the Eurofighter comprising the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain had decided on a unique manufacturing structure. Each part of the Eurofighter is manufactured in a different country; e.g. the right wing is made in Spain, the left wing in Italy. After that, all four partners assemble their own aircraft, bringing the parts together from the plants where they are manufactured. EADS badly needs new orders for the Eurofighter and contract for 126 jets will do wonders for the parent company which is currently struggling to find orders , British Ministry of Defence (MoD) tried to pull out of buying its contracted share of 88 fighters from the latest batch (called Tranche 3). Eventually the UK honored its commitments only because default would have cost London billions of Euros in penalties. The other Eurofighter partners are equally cash-strapped; all have jointly agreed to cut back on their orders for now. What Parts will be manufactured in India is still not clear. even Lockheed Martin has offered to start F-16 Production line in India, If India chooses F-16 for MMRCA requirements and also make India base for spares supply of F-16 for other operators operating F-16 currently, but EADS offer in manufacturing of critical components for new orders which company hopes to win from Switzerland, Japan, Romania, Greece and Turkey, which are currently evaluating the Eurofighter, could also be on that list. EADS also recently signed a $20 million contract to help resolve persistent issues in India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme. EADS is also in race to supply 99 EJ200 engines which currently powers twin-engine Eurofighter for Tejas MK-II Program which it is competing with General Electric GE-414,which powers Twin-engine Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet which currently in Bangalore for MMRCA Trials .

http://idrw.org/?p=558#more-558

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 20 Aug 2009 15:58

Willy wrote:45 sqns for the IAF is just a dream at the moment.The success of the LCA is imperative if the IAF is to reach anywhere near this figure.

The LCA is meant to get basic technologies to a good level mainly in materials science and software. Contribution to numbers from the LCA will be very slow. Also iaf top brass keeps saying that the quality of each plane is likely to increase simultaneously the numbers are going to decrease. So I dont see the iaf worrying about numbers. iaf is only tech hungry right now.

What we need is more pace on deciding the mrca (it is clear now who can offer a serious aesa and who can offer a great mlu package for its planes in 2030, no ambiguity so the iaf should start deciding quick) ...... the mrca replaces so many types ...mig23, mig25, mig27, jag, mirage ..... It wont be a surprise if iaf trying to hit many birds with one stone.

I'd expect the Rafale to get rfq minimum. The Rafale today inspite of not gettin foreign orders seems to have progressed seriously. Also rafale, typhoon will be the only planes gettin upgraded in a f35ized europe.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Aug 2009 23:27

Drevin wrote:
Willy wrote:45 sqns for the IAF is just a dream at the moment.The success of the LCA is imperative if the IAF is to reach anywhere near this figure.
The LCA is meant to get basic technologies to a good level mainly in materials science and software. Contribution to numbers from the LCA will be very slow. Also iaf top brass keeps saying that the quality of each plane is likely to increase simultaneously the numbers are going to decrease. So I dont see the iaf worrying about numbers. iaf is only tech hungry right now.

What we need is more pace on deciding the mrca (it is clear now who can offer a serious aesa and who can offer a great mlu package for its planes in 2030, no ambiguity so the iaf should start deciding quick) ...... the mrca replaces so many types ...mig23, mig25, mig27, jag, mirage ..... It wont be a surprise if iaf trying to hit many birds with one stone.

I'd expect the Rafale to get rfq minimum. The Rafale today inspite of not gettin foreign orders seems to have progressed seriously. Also rafale, typhoon will be the only planes gettin upgraded in a f35ized europe.

I disagree. No aircraft can replace the Mig-25 since none of them can click pictures from 80,000 feet or reach Mach 2.5+. The IAF will rely on satellites and UAVs for surveillance. The upgraded Mig-27s and Jags are going to be there in the IAF long after the MRCA arrives. Same is the case with the Mirage-2000. We didn't sign the expensive upgrade deal for no reason.
I think the MRCA is supposed to help fill in the numbers when the Mig-21s start getting decommissioned. Except the Bisons the other Mig-21s in our inventory are fairly useless against anything except the PAF F-7s. The MRCA cannot match the numbers of theses fighters which the IAF will junk in the coming years but one MRCA can do the work of 2-3 Mig-21s. IF the LCA had arrived on time, then the MRCA could have been used to increase the squadron numbers while letting the LCA do the job of replacing the Mig-21s. That did not happen.

Just my 2 paise

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 20 Aug 2009 23:37

Cain Marko wrote:
Sontu wrote:Negative Impact of F-18 E/F 's IRST mounted on External Fuel Tank

Can some guru analyse and let us know the penalties(minuses) that F-18s will have to suffer due to it's proposed IRST will be munted on it's centerline external fuel tank ?

I would asume this apprach will add following issues/problems to F-18's flight and combat capabilities.

1. F-18's will have to always carry the Centerline Fuel Tank which houses the IRST.
2. This approach ofF-18 E/F carrying a Centerline Fuel tank always, even during an arial combat will have a negative impact on F-18's manuverability, acceelaration (due to increased drag )and hence chances of it's survibility during an air combat will be very less.
3. This approach will increase the RSC singnature of F-18 hugely as Centerline Tank is a quite huge object with largest diameter, carried by any combat aircraft( espetially think when today's combat aircraft designers are trying to hide the AAMs and other ammunitions which have lesser diameter and trying to carry in Internal bays even thay are using retarctable Fuel probes to reduce the Radar signature ).

I am surprised why US designers have taken this approach while considering an IRST is quite low weight item with 80-100 Kg range and US is technologically good at Miniaturing avionics items,they could easily intigrated with main fusalage like any other combat planes ? that to when they consider soo much about RCS impact of canopy,fighter seat and other hardware inside the cockpit.
Regards,
A big problem that I see in this method is that they can't really drop the EFT, which seems std. procedure during air combat or if they have to really zip. You'll be dropping million $$s worth equipment along with the tank. Another problem could be FOV. The integrated ones offer better view imho.

The only reason I can think of pursuing this route = space constraints thanks to the aesa.

CM.

CM,
The space constraints ?? I think the OLS-27/30 has roughly dimention of 30 Cm x 30 Cmx30 Cm.
And look at F-35 where the IRST is mounted ...it's at it's under belly just ahead of it's nose wheel.

How come IAF / MOD did not analyse/imagine/ notiece this big problem of F-18 E/F while drafting RFP and inviting Super bug into the tenderring process ?

I feel this approach DEGRADES the Flight and Combat ability of F-18 E/F radically besides zooming up the RCS signature .

Is the F-18 E/F which is being tested/evaluated at Bangalore for it's flight performance,is it having this EFT mounted IRST now ?

Regards,

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Aug 2009 00:21

Sontu wrote:How come IAF / MOD did not analyse/imagine/ notiece this big problem of F-18 E/F while drafting RFP and inviting Super bug into the tenderring process ?

The Rafale doesn't have any IRST at all so obviously it's not a requirement in the RFP.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 21 Aug 2009 00:39

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Sontu wrote:How come IAF / MOD did not analyse/imagine/ notiece this big problem of F-18 E/F while drafting RFP and inviting Super bug into the tenderring process ?
The Rafale doesn't have any IRST at all so obviously it's not a requirement in the RFP.

Rafale had and IRST and it is already out of production. It is waiting for a replacement, but it is yet to be funded. Towed decoys are also being planned but the funding is not there. India could end-up paying the development costs for these or just get Israeli self-protection jammer suite and HMS. Rafale has it's own share of problems (more than what people expect) like it's Spectra suite, lack of HMS, radar.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Aug 2009 00:45

Sontu wrote: The space constraints ?? I think the OLS-27/30 has roughly dimention of 30 Cm x 30 Cmx30 Cm.
And look at F-35 where the IRST is mounted ...it's at it's under belly just ahead of it's nose wheel.

How come IAF / MOD did not analyse/imagine/ notiece this big problem of F-18 E/F while drafting RFP and inviting Super bug into the tenderring process ?

I feel this approach DEGRADES the Flight and Combat ability of F-18 E/F radically besides zooming up the RCS signature .

Is the F-18 E/F which is being tested/evaluated at Bangalore for it's flight performance,is it having this EFT mounted IRST now ?

Regards,

the space constraint definitely has to do with the size of the APG-79 AESA set..even on the MiG-35, they're working on reducing the size of the exciter/receiver on the Zhuk AE to get it to be moved back further into the nose, allowing more T/R modules to be packed into the array.

anyhow, the idiotic idea of putting the IRST on the centerline fuel tank has not been developed any further as yet. its certainly not anywhere remotely close to production, so the IAF isn't going to be seeing it during the trials.

BTW, the F-18E/F has a FBW that can assess any battle damage (say an aileron being damaged due to ack-ack or a missile that exploded nearby) and reconfigure itself in-flight accordingly to maintain controllability. in fact, its FBW is one of the most robust, offering almost fail-resistant departure proofing (meaning the aircraft will never 'depart' from controlled flight). and the Super Hornet has an unlimited AoA.

However, it does have a design factor of only 7.6Gs and that has to do with the fact that it has folding wings for carrier stowage..this one fact means that it carries over a major deficiency from its Naval lineage.

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 21 Aug 2009 00:59

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Sontu wrote:How come IAF / MOD did not analyse/imagine/ notiece this big problem of F-18 E/F while drafting RFP and inviting Super bug into the tenderring process ?
The Rafale doesn't have any IRST at all so obviously it's not a requirement in the RFP.

As per wiki Dasult integrated and tested it's IRST (OSF) to Rafale way back in 1995.
I have seen clear snaps of Rafale with OSF .
look at two components of OSF infront of the cockpit in the following image
http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... fale5.html
About Rafale OSF from Seretprojects site
link http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... opic=942.0

Says...

Electro optical systems:
The OSF (Optronique Secteur Frontal) comprises two modules on the aircraft's nose. The right one features an imaging dual-band IRST/FLIR sensor (3 - 6 and 8 - 12 microns) and the left one, aka CIU (Combat Identification Unit) features a 3-D CCD TV camera and a laser range finder.
The IRST provides a +/- 90° azimuth coverage and is capable to detect and track multiple aerial targets simultaneously. The sensor offers a max. detection range of 130 km in best conditions and can act as FLIR providing target images up to ~40 km and nav-images presented on the HuD.
The TV camera offers a max FOV of 60° and a range of ~50 km for single target track and identification. The LRF is effective up to ranges of 33 km.

I would be really surprised if such a important passive sensor like an IRST is not part of MRCA a requirement stated in RFP.

Regards,

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Aug 2009 01:14

Sontu wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: The Rafale doesn't have any IRST at all so obviously it's not a requirement in the RFP.
As per wiki Dasult integrated and tested it's IRST (OSF) to Rafale way back in 1995.

The OSF has been discontinued and is no longer available.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2009 01:40

Looks like the Rafale is in just to get a better price for the F-XX(18?) - and, they will get the M2K upgrades for Billions (and I suppose it does not require offsets). EADS will get a huge order for LCA engines, before the EF "partners" decide to commit suicide. Russia gets the 5th Gen order and a few more reactors, naval assets, etc. And the Grip folks ..... well........ hmmmm....

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 21 Aug 2009 01:46

Sontu wrote: Negative Impact of EFT mounted IRST on F-18 E/F
............................................................................

GeorgeWelch wrote: The OSF has been discontinued and is no longer available.

I would assume that if India wants it can get Rafale with OSF .As of now it is an important part of French Rafales. In the future Frenchs may integrate a better version of it.

But my question was not if Rafale has IRST or not..rather "The idea of using a Dropable External Fuel Tank mounted IRST in F-18 E/F and what kind of negative impacts it brings to the Combat abilities and Stealth compromise it brings in to the F-18 E/F. (Increases F-18 s RCS signature drastically while other latest fighters are trying hard to make their air crafts more stealthy) .

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Aug 2009 01:54

Sontu wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: The OSF has been discontinued and is no longer available.
I would assume that if India wants it can get Rafale with OSF

No, it was discontinued because the parts in it were obsolete and no longer available.

Sontu wrote:In the future Frenchs may integrate a better version of it.

The OSF-IT/NG/whatever is still a few years away, but it will be TV only (no IRST).

Sontu wrote:But my question was not if Rafale has IRST or not..rather "The idea of using a Dropable External Fuel Tank mounted IRST in F-18 E/F and what kind of negative impacts it brings to the Combat abilities and Stealth compromise it brings in to the F-18 E/F. (Increases F-18 s RCS signature drastically while other latest fighters are trying hard to make their air crafts more stealthy) .

Well, at least it gives you the option unlike the Rafale.

In reality it won't have much of an impact because the SH will almost always fly with the tank anyways.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2009 02:09

The F/A-18 E/F IRST is a LM + Boeing effort!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Aug 2009 02:10

Sontu wrote: But my question was not if Rafale has IRST or not..rather "The idea of using a Dropable External Fuel Tank mounted IRST in F-18 E/F and what kind of negative impacts it brings to the Combat abilities and Stealth compromise it brings in to the F-18 E/F. (Increases F-18 s RCS signature drastically while other latest fighters are trying hard to make their air crafts more stealthy) .

this is simply not a valid point, because this drawback is not restricted to the Super Hornet..every MRCA candidate WILL carry a centerline fuel tank (even if not for all missions) and every one of the MRCA contenders will carry their weapons/stores externally..

if its such a problem to even carry a centerline fuel tank due to RCS issues, then the whole MRCA list is flawed..MiG-35 boasts of having 11 weapons stations/pylons, all external, not even semi-conformal. what do you think those external stations, if used would do to the MiG-35's RCS ? and the MiG-35 even carries a larger centerline fuel tank than the legacy Fulcrum..

even the Gripen NG has additional external pylons, with 2 centerline pylons, and nothing special being done for RCS reduction, so its RCS will somehow not be affected by carrying centerline fuel tanks and other stores externally ?

BTW, the F/A-18E/F has several RCS reduction features put in place that some of the other MRCA contenders don't.

Devesh Rawal · Post by **Devesh Rawal** » 21 Aug 2009 02:36

Found a couple of articles on the SH and IRST that might be of interest (apologies if previously posted):

"The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block IIs are just beginning to enter service, with significantly improved AN/APG-79 AESA radars and other electronic upgrades. Recent years have seen another spreading improvement within global fighter fleets, however: Infa-Red Search & Track (IRST) systems that provide long range thermal imaging against air and ground targets. Most of these deployments have been on Russian (MiG-29 family, SU-30 family) and European (Eurofighter, Rafale) fighters, or special American exports (UAE’s F-16E/F Block 60s, F-15K/SG)." (May/2009)
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-1 ... rst-03429/

Like others have mentioned, it seems that LM's system is small enough (24cm by 97cm), weiging 53kgs that it can be integrated into the frame (for the IAF, perhaps?):
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/asse ... ctCard.pdf

CRS Report for Congress. Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress (Oct/2008)
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30624.pdf

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Aug 2009 04:17

Kartik wrote:
Sontu wrote: But my question was not if Rafale has IRST or not..rather "The idea of using a Dropable External Fuel Tank mounted IRST in F-18 E/F and what kind of negative impacts it brings to the Combat abilities and Stealth compromise it brings in to the F-18 E/F. (Increases F-18 s RCS signature drastically while other latest fighters are trying hard to make their air crafts more stealthy) .
this is simply not a valid point, because this drawback is not restricted to the Super Hornet..every MRCA candidate WILL carry a centerline fuel tank (even if not for all missions) and every one of the MRCA contenders will carry their weapons/stores externally..

if its such a problem to even carry a centerline fuel tank due to RCS issues, then the whole MRCA list is flawed..MiG-35 boasts of having 11 weapons stations/pylons, all external, not even semi-conformal. what do you think those external stations, if used would do to the MiG-35's RCS ? and the MiG-35 even carries a larger centerline fuel tank than the legacy Fulcrum..

even the Gripen NG has additional external pylons, with 2 centerline pylons, and nothing special being done for RCS reduction, so its RCS will somehow not be affected by carrying centerline fuel tanks and other stores externally ?

BTW, the F/A-18E/F has several RCS reduction features put in place that some of the other MRCA contenders don't.

RCS is not the only issue. Correct me if I'm wrong but during a mission fuel in external fuel tanks is used up first and the tank is dropped once empty right? It is also dropped (even if not empty) before engagi9ng enemy fighters to reduce drag and improve maneuverability. In the case of the F-18 the pilot will face a difficult choice when engaging enemy interceptors-
1. Drop the tank and lose your expensive IRST system or
2. keep it and incur a potentially dangerous loss in aerodynamic performance.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Aug 2009 04:54

nachiket wrote: RCS is not the only issue. Correct me if I'm wrong but during a mission fuel in external fuel tanks is used up first and the tank is dropped once empty right? It is also dropped (even if not empty) before engagi9ng enemy fighters to reduce drag and improve maneuverability. In the case of the F-18 the pilot will face a difficult choice when engaging enemy interceptors-
1. Drop the tank and lose your expensive IRST system or
2. keep it and incur a potentially dangerous loss in aerodynamic performance.

look, I'm not stating that putting the IRST in the centerline fuel tank is a smart solution at all..in fact I was shouting about this being most unimaginative solution months ago, when I first read about it on FlightGlobal. the point I made was that Sontu's claims about RCS for the Super Hornet being affected due to a centerline fuel tank are valid, but the same issue blights all the MRCA contenders.

previous generation aircraft were severely G limited when carrying fuel on drop tanks. it was standard operating procedure then to discard the drop tanks upon initiation of turning maneuvers or during high speed during combat because if they didn't there was a serious chance that the aircraft fuselage structure would simply not be able to withstand the stresses that a centerline fuel tank weighing anywhere between 500-1000 kgs with fuel would apply on it, and the pylon, alongwith the fuselage, would be ripped apart.

for the MiG-29, the centerline fuel tank restricted it to around 4Gs only and it cannot fly supersonic with it attached, and its cannon cannot be fired without jettisoning the centerline fuel tank or use its airbrakes.

link

Many of these involve the aircraft's centerline fuel tank. The MiG-29 cannot fly supersonic with the tank attached. Nor can pilots fire the aircraft's 30mm cannon (the tank blocks the shell discharge route) or use its speed brakes. The aircraft is limited to four g's when the tank has fuel remaining. The tank creates some drag and is also difficult to attach and remove.

the F/A-18 does'nt have these many restrictions, but I'm quite sure that 1000-1200 kgs of fuel sloshing around in the centerline tank won't allow for 7.6G max combat maneuvers.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 21 Aug 2009 05:11

FWIW

Putin: MiG and Sukhoi EPIC FAIL

Russia's United Aircraft Corporation, corporate parent of both fighter-makers, is now $3.76 billion in the red after squandering opportunities to sell off non-core assets, float shares and restructure, Putin said during opening ceremonies for MAKS air show outside Moscow.

"I would like to warn you against the illusion that the state will endlessly cover losses, bail out companies or correct mistakes by management," Putin says.

But not yet. Only moments before before making the above statement, Putin announced plans to inject $100 million in cash to stabilize Sukhoi and to consider pumping another $470 million in state aid to MiG. Last year, the Russian government bailed out MiG's finances with a similar cash injection, and assumed a $570 million order for 34 MiG-29SMTs rejected by Algeria.

Just don't expect more of the same, he says.

"We cannot resort to this practice all the time," Putin says. "We can work effectively in this country and we should achieve this by all means."

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Aug 2009 05:57

"I would like to warn you against the illusion that the state will endlessly cover losses, bail out companies or correct mistakes by management," Putin says.

He can talk all he wants, but at the end of the day Russia will do exactly that. They won't allow UAC to fail anymore than France and Germany will allow the A400M to fail.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Aug 2009 06:00

GeorgeWelch wrote:
"I would like to warn you against the illusion that the state will endlessly cover losses, bail out companies or correct mistakes by management," Putin says.
He can talk all he wants, but at the end of the day Russia will do exactly that. They won't allow UAC to fail anymore than France and Germany will allow the A400M to fail.

or US will allow Citibank and co to fail. If Obam said the same thing about them, would you or I found anything wrong with it?

"I would like to warn you against the illusion that the state will endlessly cover losses, bail out companies or correct mistakes by management," Obama says.

When everybody is a socialist for losses and capitalist for profits. lets all drink 3 cheers to socialism

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 21 Aug 2009 07:03

Next stage of flight tests of Zhuk-AE radar on-board MiG-35 completed successfully

The next stage of flight tests of the MiG-35 with on-board radar (radar) "Zhuk-AE" with the active phased array has been successfully completed. This, according to "Interfax", said deputy general director on August 18 company "Phazotron" on science, the chief designer Yuri Guskov at MAKS-2009.

According to the interlocutor of the agency, during a test flight the MiG-35 with onboard radar "Zhuk-AE were tested all the modes of its work on the air and ground targets in the rear hemisphere, and in the melee. Radar detected and conducted three aerial targets at ranges up to 148 kilometers. Test pilots praised the performance locator and performance, said Andrei.

Note that the on-board radar "Zhuk-AE was developed specifically for installation on a multi-purpose fighter, the MiG-35. In particular, it is planned that in case of victory in the Indian Air Force tender, which involved Russia's aircraft, serial samples will be completed with this particular radar.

Radar "Zhuk-AE is designed to be placed on a light fighter class. It weighs about 220-240 kilograms and has an antenna diameter of 575 millimeters. Detection range of air targets, as previously reported, was to be about 130 kilometers. This radar must be accompanied by up to 30 air targets and to ensure the simultaneous firing of eight of them.

Also, an old but excellent article on MiG-35's electronics.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2009 07:15

some sort of IRST is inbuilt into F-16-60 in a window beneath the nose but I think its a fixed fwd looking system - it would not be able to look up . the OLS on mig29/su30 may not be able to look sharply down I guess.

perhaps a lookup one on spine and a lookdown one below nose is the way fwd

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Aug 2009 07:38

ome sort of IRST is inbuilt into F-16-60 in a window beneath the nose but I think its a fixed fwd looking system - it would not be able to look up . the OLS on mig29/su30 may not be able to look sharply down I guess.

perhaps a lookup one on spine and a lookdown one below nose is the way fwd

Singha saar,

the 35 already has 360 deg IRST coverage, apart from the nose mounted OLS, it has a downward looking one counterpart.

CM.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 21 Aug 2009 08:03

Next stage of flight tests of Zhuk-AE radar on-board MiG-35 completed successfully

According to several reports from Russia Phazotron is in serious financial trouble and the IAF Mig 29 upgrade program is in jeoprady because of this. It would be very unwise to go with the Zhuk-AE even if the MIG-35 is selected, a wiser choice will be to go with the ELTA 2052.