MRCA News and Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Sep 2009 21:49

Migs providing to support a joint venture for making a india-genous AESA is silly.. in the sense, when we are struggling with MMR and sourcing from Israel for the doppler, when in the world we would have a workable solution for MMRCA. This is not workable, unless russia and India gets some smile from the Elta folks.

OTOH, if its a joint Elta-LRDE-Phazatron, then we are talking something interesting. Without an israeli combination, the migs offer don't look interesting at all. Besides, we get all the integration of israeli pythons and other missile systems.

They have to make it more nicers than those nice looking russian girls can show things but nothing in the works/at least for me.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 21 Sep 2009 21:58

SaiK wrote:Migs providing to support a joint venture for making a india-genous AESA is silly.. in the sense, when we are struggling with MMR and sourcing from Israel for the doppler, when in the world we would have a workable solution for MMRCA. This is not workable, unless russia and India gets some smile from the Elta folks.

sir, elta has nothing to do with Phazatron's offer.

and there is no fixed price set for MRCA

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 21 Sep 2009 22:14

This is just my second post in BR. So as expected a junk one..

I was trying to think what the Indian Defence Minister may think about the MMRCA deal..

1. I should be able to use the plane and the weapons against whoever i want and whenever i want to.
2. I should be able to fight my enemy at a time of my choice, NOT when my supplier would allow me to do.
3. My weapons need not be the best in the world but it should integrate well with my war doctrine and satisfy my requirements.
4. Some of the machines may be good in microsoft powerpoint presentations but some countries may not like ppts. So ppt should not be criteria in selecting planes.
5. Some radars may have 500 km range and trying for 1000km range but what i learned in my primary school is earth is round in shape.
6. Should all my planes have 200-250 km range radars.. i think 2-3 in a group of 8 need to have. i will have half of my planes(230-280 SU 30 MKI) with radars of that range. Is that enough? Can the remaining settle down for 100-150 km range radars. afterall no escape ranges of the best bvr missile in the world is still < 100 km.
7. The primary reason why I am buying the planes is to fight war and not to participate in joint training exercises.
8. Capability to operate with NATO or data link compatability with NATO is second thing... First one is it should be compatible with my Indian networks.

Few years back i read a fwded mail about the pen used by astronauts. US spend more than 1 million developing a pen which can be used in zero gravity scenarios. And soviet astronauts used pencils instead. so who are the fools?

IMVHO the hi-fi stuff may not be the best one for us.. there may be alternatives...

My apologies for the junk post..

Jaison · Post by **Jaison** » 21 Sep 2009 22:16

Hi guys.. here is my take of the whole Mrca deal

First of all the budget we have is around $10~12 billion.

All 6 aircrafts meet the RFP's ( guess Rafale not meeting requirements is sorted out now ) . Since India RFP's suggest 60% TOT( i have no authentic information bout this, just picking this up from previous posts ) i guess we weren't expecting much but then anyone offering full ToT will def have the upper hand here.Reliability and service is given top priority coz we have to keep them may be for the next 30 yrs or so and this aspect of the fighter would be given more brownie points than flying charact etc.Equally important will be the AESA. I've read some previous posts saying the AESA may not have been part of the RFP but as all of you know by now any one without one is out of the deal.Or else why should everyone offer the AESA as part of the package (but i haven't heard much from the eurofighter guys bout the aesa part, pls enlighten me bout that).Another major factor will be the politics behind it. One factor that could influence could be the time frame of induction.
My take about whether it'll be a single or twin engine fighter who'll win the competition, I think it wont make any difference as a twin engine fighter has more reliability while a single engine fighter will have much lower operating costs which are both priorities for the IAF. Now let me dissect each of them one by one(will be in no particular order)

1) THE MIG 35 : Since russia and the US are the only two countries that makes every nut and bolt of their fighter jets( well i did read somewhere that they've outsourced the EW suite(??) to a canadian company ) the russians are the only ones that can brag about "complete" transfer of technology. Another plus point is that it is so many percentage cheaper than all the other twin engined peers in the competition.Plus we already operate the mig 29 ,our navy is buying them,have MRO facilities, is going to produce RD 33 locally so integration of the MIG 35 into the IAF will be a breeze compared to all the other fighters.We can also customize the aircraft to our needs like the Su 30 MKI.Now the negative points include less reliability , lower tech( the AESA is first gen and whatever is the counter argument , is no match compared to the what the americans offer), almost total dependency on russia, lack of support and spares which has been a headache for the IAF especially with the Mig 29's. Also Russia doesn't offer much of political mileage more than what we have now and ditching them will hurt them,but not so much, as our the major chunk of weaponary, even future ones, is gonna still remain Russian.I guess the russians too believe that they have a huge chance of losing the deal to the west, so there is not going to be a major fallout.Though the Mig 35 has exceptional flying charac, the avionics part is still very much hollow even with the AESA and OLS(the counterpoint that can be given here is that we can customize it to our expected level). The Russian airforce has not given a clear indication of inducting it in large numbers and i think they are more inclined towards waiting for the pakfa and this can be a problem as far as support of the aircraft goes in the long term.

2) Eurofighter Typhoon :I'm really appreciative of the aircrafts capabilities and it is a winner( with the CAESAR ) in all fronts as a weapons platform compared to all other aircrafts in the competition. But for me this aircraft has the least chance of winning the competition. I know i might be creating a furore but then i'll elaborate on that.First of all the EF is way too costly

http://www.eurofighter.com/news/200900731.asp
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -deal.html

9 billion euros is around 14 billion US$. and our order is for 126(plus an option of 63 more) while the 14 billion $ here is for 112 a/c.Our budget is 10~12 billion plus we'll have to shell out money for weapons, support and service for around 30 yrs,ToT, manufacturing facilities for the aircraft and all this is going to be a hell lot of money much above our budget. Yes, 50% of it is gonna come back to us as offsets but then the money we've got to pay them in the first place will be exorbitant.
Second regarding ToT , I hope they can fulfill that part but the status of their radar is still unclear. Yes the tranche 3 will have an AESA but will it be available for our evaluations is still unkown. They have reportedly tested it back in 2007 but its present status is unclear. Hope someone will be able to shed some light on that.
On the political front the Europeans have proposed a package which is still unknown

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090818/j ... 372651.jsp

At least one of the six competitors in the race, EADS, is saying upfront that it will gift-wrap its offer of the Eurofighter Typhoon for the IAF with a “political package”.

Also on offer is partnership in the eurofighter project for further development but i guess we can arm twist anyone(maybe not the americans, or maybe

) into being part of future development of the platform.

Also the fatigue life of the eurofighter is pretty low

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -life.html

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 090409.xml

This means lower service life which is really bad news especially for the IAF.
Also most of the partner nations in EF will spend more resources on purchasing the F 35 when its available. This is highlighted by the Brits cutting back on their commitment towards buying their share of EF's.
Also the new tender called for additional AJT's for the IAF as they are unhappy with the Hawks, can put a black mark on the companies involved in the EF consortium.
Plus point is that if EJ200 engine gets selected for the LCA, EF and LCA will have the same engine. Also the EADS is also helping the LCA to meet is IOC target.

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/01/28/stor ... 481400.htm

Also if the deal happens , the technology being transfered will be top class..

But i think so much is not enough to turn the tide towards the EF with their major drawback being, as i told you.. THE PRICE..

3) Dassault Rafale : An excellent aircraft, as good as the typhoon, a winner in all fronts except the price tag.The rafale isn't cheap, might be as costly as the Typhoon. But has a few plus points. The whole aircraft is almost entirely french (may be not as entirely as their american and russian counterparts) so ToT wont be a problem for the French. Snecma is helping us make the 90 kN Kaveri which we might also be able to use in the rafale if bought. The rafale is going to be the primary aircraft for the french which is only going to complemented by their stealth UCAV which is under development unlike the Typhoon.
The Rafale is also the big brother of the mirage 2000 which we operate and was the original choice for the MRCA. The Indian pilots rave about the mirage and the rafale will only be better.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T ... l_down.asp
Dassault is in a better position than most of its competitors, as the IAF already operate the Mirage 2000 and the continuity and commonality between it and the Rafale offers some synergisms that only the Russian competitor, RSK-MiG can also claim.

With the French promising us the source codes i guess we can equip it with the any weapon system of our choice. The AESA they offer is the only one that is under production other than the american ones

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... R11048.xml

The fact that there is a naval variant too makes the deal very attractive
The french also claim very low operating costs. Plus they'll be so aggressive in this deal coz they still haven't won anywhere.They are still hanging on the balance in Brazil . They've always been bulldozed by the americans . ( but i still dont understand why they couldn't , or which part of the RFP they couldn't comply to. Anyways the way they crawled back into it shows they are serious about their offer)

Now the negative point is the price. I dont believe even in my wildest dreams that they can stick to our budget limit unless they give us substantial discounts , also taking into account the the followup order we might place.The typhoon consortium wont be able to do this coz its a consortium!! while the rafale can be discounted coz its entirely a french plane and there is no need to convince a bunch of governments about selling a fighter cheaper than what they themselves get.
Also something tells me somewhere something is wrong or else how'll it be kicked out in the middle of the competition ??
Also the french cant give us anything substantially new politically as they've agreed to all our demands (security council seat , nuke deal) long back. The french also has the dirty habit of selling arms to anyone if they get money , even to our neighbour in the west regardless of our concerns.

4) Gripen NG : The first true multirole aircraft that went into production , this one is a truly capable aircraft. It was built from bottom up to be network centric and will truly fit Lock and key into IAF's network centric doctrine. Plus points include the swash plate AESA( under development , so can be its biggest drawback if it isn't ready in the stipulated time) , the very low price tag with no aircraft on offer( leaving aside the f 16 sv) so much bang for the buck.Also the data link on the Gripen ,the man-machine interface etc are world class(all these info lifted from different blogs ). Its 10 mins refueling and rearming time shows its mission availability and its short take off and landing characteristics will be very attractive to the IAF.The airframe life is 8000 hrs (for the C/D), compared to 6000 hrs for the typhoon.

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations ... AS39CD.htm

The latest generation aircraft also have a more effective Environmental Control System (ECS) and has been re-certified for world wide climate operations, an improved Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and an extended airframe life (8,000 flying hours service life)

This coupled with very low operating costs(remember it has a single engine) makes it a mouth watering deal.
They are also offering more than 50% offset and offering partnership to develop the MCA. The development of the LCA mk ii will be significantly faster with swedish support. Also like the rafale, the gripen "might" be the main strike aircraft for the swedes for the next 2-3 decades.So no worries on the support front.The swedes are also offering to integrate any weapon of our choice russian, EU , american and indian and will let us customize the aircraft any way we want.
And if the F 414 gets selected for LCA , it'll have a common engine with the gripen hence better inventory management.
The Gripen will ,as the swedes claim, be the perfect junior partner for the Su 30 MKI( so will the LCA). Also there is a possibility that the Kaveri engine would be fitted into the gripen which if happens would be absolutely great ,both for us and the swedes.
Now coming to its negative points, it brings absolutely no political mileage . India can offer the swedes more politically(if they buy the LCA

) than they can offer us. Also their call of "independence" if they buy the platform shouldn't be taken seriously as they have a significant part of critical aircraft components( engine , radar ) sourced from outside.In my opinion the swedes should've selected the Eurojet engine instead of the F 414 for the Gripen NG which would've gone a long way lending their independence tag much needed credibility.

The LCA mk ii when developed will be strikingly similar in capability and the IAF wouldn't want two similar aircrafts in the same class. Also the gripen will be in a tight situation if they lose the brazilian and indian deal and would, in my opinion eventually go in for the F 35's which almost all their neighbors will buy eventually. But that would also make them fight tooth and nail for the deal but how worthwhile is their fight, only time will tell.

5) F 16 super Viper : First things first.. It is american. that means a combination of high technology + the burden of sanctions. The aircraft we are buying should be around for the next 30 years. 30 years is a long time. It was in the last 7-8 years that the americans have become close to us and they offering us high technology was unthinkable before that.So the next 30 years can also spring in a few surprises. Any thing can happen in this time period from US being our close ally to them slapping us with sanctions. Counter argument can be that there is no guarantee that the russians wont turn against us and help the chinese or whatever. But history wise the americans are more notorious in ditching their partners than the the russians( for eg take the case of Pakistan) . The americans deal with the motto "There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests". I'm no anti american and i believe they were a very responsible superpower(if you forget Iraq , kosovo and afghanistan ). Now back to F 16 SV.
It has a combat ready AESA which is much more advanced than what anyone offers except maybe the AN/APG 79, the platform is combat proven( though not in fights among equals), is agile, comes with advanced sensors and EW suite and as Lockheed martin claims, with some generous sprinkling of 5th gen tech from the F 35 and 22. They are shutting down their production in the US and would want someone to take over its remains and maybe act as a production and support hub for the rest of the world. They are also dangling the F 35 carrot which the navy is somewhat keen to have. Their enthusiasm to show off their ware can be best explained by citizen reports by some BRfites about the sortie rate they undertook in bangalore and their willingness to do weapon trials in rajasthan than back in the US.My guess is the SV will come with all the goodies shown in their future options page( i doubt the thrust vectoring part though)

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

here are the current options

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

Negative points inculde 4th gen aircraft beefed up to meet our requirements , Indians not very impressed with its capabilities from what they've seen from various exercises they've participated.The fact that it is gonna be discontinued in the immediate future to make way for the F 35. The typical indian mindset of i dont want the same car as my neighbor even if it is the latest version. The fact that we've to pay 7% royalty to the UAE gov since most of the stuff inside the SV was funded by UAE. And all the reasons stated above when i started writing bout the SV. It was worth buying it if had somet 5th gen stuff in it.But i guess the americans are equating 5th gen=AESA. It would come cheaper than most of the other competitors but i myself is not very inclined towards it ( may be my indian attitude "Since The whole world has it , i want something new" ).

6) The F 18 Super Hornet : Well the Super Bug is a very rugged Aircraft. Any thing capable of carrier landing and take off (including the rafale) would be a very capable one.The SH is also capable of huge payloads and has a very good range compared to all the other aircraft.It is a true multirole/swingrole aircraft in every sense.Its RCS is said to be the lowest among the competition, only beaten by the Fifth gen ones. Another strong point is the reliability and the maintenance aspect of the aircraft which is unbeatable in the competition which the IAF is sure to notice. It naturally had to be so as it was made to be Carrier based.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/06/n ... p_062409w/

The Navy has suggested it will spend about $25 million per aircraft to extend the life of the aging F/A-18 Hornets from 8,600 to 10,000 flight hours. New Super Hornets would cost about $50 million each

(I know it is the Hornet mentioned here but i bet the SH wont have an airframe life of less than 8600 hrs.And please note the price given here. It just snuggles inside our Budget )

Also notable is the AESA that comes with it. It is the best that is offered among all the radars and i'm not going in detail bout its specs coz it has been dissected and discussed in this same thread. It also has one of the best avionics package and though they dont claim anything to be 5th gen in it , i think it is a much better package than the F 16's offer. And it would be cheaper than the twin engined eurocanards by a mile ( but wont beat the MIG 35) coz of the numbers on order by the USN. Plus it comes with the F 414 on offer to the LCA .

Now coming to the not so good aspects of the SH , it is American so everything what i've written about the SV would apply here too. The SH isn't very agile ( it is agile but not as much as the flankers or the eurocanards ). But i dont think the IAF this time around is concentrating on the close combat aspect of the fighters so this might be forgiven.The SH may also be replaced (or complemented

)by the naval variant of the F 35 but the USN might keep it till 2030 atleast. Then the problem of ToT. If the americans would've given full ToT on this bird i bet there wouldn't have been any competition coz no one could've matched what the superbug offered. But sadly it isn't so , throwing the whole competition open.

Finally i guess the the competition is between the Rafale , SH and the Gripen ;Yeah, more like the Brazilian tender.What ever differences we have strategically with the Brazilian requirements i'm sure the IAF would be keenly watching it while carrying our evaluation . If not the IAF , I would

Adiós

(Any suggestions , corrections and healthy discussion is always welcome

)

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 21 Sep 2009 22:22

rajeshks wrote: 5. Some radars may have 500 km range and trying for 1000km range but what i learned in my primary school is earth is round in shape.
6. Should all my planes have 200-250 km range radars.. i think 2-3 in a group of 8 need to have. i will have half of my planes(230-280 SU 30 MKI) with radars of that range. Is that enough? Can the remaining settle down for 100-150 km range radars. afterall no escape ranges of the best bvr missile in the world is still < 100 km.

actually radar ranges of MRCA aircraft are irrelevant just because there are no stealthy fighter in neighborhood even pulse doppler radars can detect non stealthy fighters at optimal range

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 21 Sep 2009 22:44

Baldev wrote:
rajeshks wrote: 5. Some radars may have 500 km range and trying for 1000km range but what i learned in my primary school is earth is round in shape.
6. Should all my planes have 200-250 km range radars.. i think 2-3 in a group of 8 need to have. i will have half of my planes(230-280 SU 30 MKI) with radars of that range. Is that enough? Can the remaining settle down for 100-150 km range radars. afterall no escape ranges of the best bvr missile in the world is still < 100 km.
actually radar ranges of MRCA aircraft are irrelevant just because there are no stealthy fighter in neighborhood even pulse doppler radars can detect non stealthy fighters at optimal range

Just Curious...what makes you think the AESA's are for detecting stealth a/c?? That could be done by even a PESA...do you know why AESA's are preferred?

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 21 Sep 2009 22:50

the only modern fighter aircraft india is producing (in any form successfully) is the jaguar and it is european. we have just now started rolling out the MKIs.

india has a lot of experience with european tech. so EF2k may be the surprise winner with the same engine for LCA.

Jaison · Post by **Jaison** » 21 Sep 2009 22:54

Hi V raman
Guess you didn't read my previous post

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 21 Sep 2009 22:59

nikhil_p wrote: Just Curious...what makes you think the AESA's are for detecting stealth a/c?? That could be done by even a PESA...do you know why AESA's are preferred?

yes that can be done by PESA radar

i wanted to say that do we need to search stealthy fighters with AESA radar on MRCA if yes these AESA radars fail us and if not the radar ranges of AESA offered with MRCA are more than adequate against non stealthy aircrafts which IAF has to deal with

Jaison · Post by **Jaison** » 21 Sep 2009 23:14

Baldev wrote:
nikhil_p wrote: Just Curious...what makes you think the AESA's are for detecting stealth a/c?? That could be done by even a PESA...do you know why AESA's are preferred?
yes that can be done by PESA radar

i wanted to say that do we need to search stealthy fighters with AESA radar on MRCA if yes these AESA radars fail us and if not the radar ranges of AESA offered with MRCA are more than adequate against non stealthy aircrafts which IAF has to deal with

By the time the MRCA is operational, the IAF will have to deal with the prospect of facing chinese stealth fighters and maybe even a reduced RCS JF 17 or J 10

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 21 Sep 2009 23:15

Baldev wrote:
RameshC wrote:
well the apg-73 has max detection ranges of 300km for 5m2+ aerial target or a large ship, the track range for 1m2 target is around 100-120km. =

And radar is only one area where the mig falls short, the infamous OLS on the mig is not as capable as the ATFLIR on the SH or the Sniper on the F-16IN, the ATFLIR can see as far as 50 NM or nearly 90km. The SH can also deploy more A2A missiles, so can the Rafale and EF as well, mig's aerial payload matches that of the SV. yet again it falls short in matching the SV, SH, Rafale, EF and Gripen's payload flexibility.
when apg63(v1) which is more powerful radar for F15 has 130km range against 3^sq or 190-200km for 5^sq and this matches ZHUK 27 which is bigger brother of zhuk me has range of 190km against 5^sq target so how can apg73 has the range of 300km against 5^sq target or you want to say 300 km range against large ship which is true but this 300km range isn't true for air target detection

ATFLIR/sniper have larger detection range because these IRST are pod mounted and have their own cooling while OLS on mig is much smaller and inbuilt so its has smaller detection range,but ya rafael RECCE LITE is available for mig

The f-18 has range scales upto 160NM or over 300km, now beyond that no one but a real pilot can confirm its real tracking range for a 1m2 target and during the tiger meet i happened to ask the Swiss AF F-18A hornet pilot and he said the tracking range is over 60NM or over 110km, he also mentioned the f-18A can deploy the Aim-120C-5 at max. range, the missle has a max range of around 105km. now the max detection range of the apg-79 is more than double that of the apg-73, hence a SH can detect a large ship well over 500km away. The Zhuk Me isnt impressive, its tracking range is even worse than the f-16 block 52's tracking range for a fighter sized target. The max. detection range for zhuk AE at the moment is still 200km for a large ship and its barely begun testing, its tracking range fo 3m2 target is 130km. The APG-79 allows the SH to deploy the Aim-120D at max range of around 180km against a small target like the QF-4 drone thats all that matters and its all proven. yet again i say stop comparing 1st gen AESA to a 4th gen AESA, SH's radar maturity is more than all the other radars in the competition put together.

since it was introduced in 2005, it has undergone 3 upgrades with the 4th being tested. Russian defence industry cant churn at such rates.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Sep 2009 23:29

well the apg-73 has max detection ranges of 300km for 5m2+ aerial target or a large ship, the track range for 1m2 target is around 100-120km.

Can we see some sources for such amazing figures for the Apg-73? The above figures almost outperforms the published figures for the NO11M Bars as well as the typhoon's larger Captor E. For a mech radar, 100-120km tracking range would be about 150-180km detection range for a 1sqm target! A 300km detection range for a 5sqm target = about 200km tracking range for the same sized target - again higher than anything offered by other top of the line (and much larger) kits.

The last I checked the 73 on the shornet had a diameter of about 660mm (26.2 inches according to the Naval Institute guide to world naval weapon systems By Norman Friedmanand) and was easily outperformed by the BARS according to RMAF evaluations, which in fact expected the BARS to outperform the Apg-79 as well!

And then you point out that the Apg-79 will double the detection ranges of the 73, IOWs, it can detect a 5sqm target @ 600km! The MUCH larger IRBIS pesa - detects a 3 sqm target at 350-400km.

Figures like these need sources - please provide them (pilot stories apart). Thanks.

CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Sep 2009 23:38

And radar is only one area where the mig falls short, the infamous OLS on the mig is not as capable as the ATFLIR on the SH or the Sniper on the F-16IN, the ATFLIR can see as far as 50 NM or nearly 90km. The SH can also deploy more A2A missiles, so can the Rafale and EF as well, mig's aerial payload matches that of the SV. yet again it falls short in matching the SV, SH, Rafale, EF and Gripen's payload flexibility.

Again, please provide sources indicating the ATFLIR does a better job at detection than the OLS UE! Also do state whether the ranges provided are for AB or non-AB targets. Under pristine conditions detection ranges can be quite impressive for most IRSTs. IIRC, even the original OLE-29 on the MIG-29 that the IAF currently uses had ranges closer to 100km for AB targets, naturally the OLS on the 35 is considerably better. Let us also not forget the awful idea of carrying an IRST in an EFT that the shornet provides - drop the EFT and you drop a million bucks worth of technology as well! Also what kind of FOVs does the ATFLIR provide? The OLS on the 35 does close to 360 coverage.

As far as payload goes, the 35 is not expected to replace the MKI which outperforms all the candidates you mention above. The 35 btw carries 5500kg fuel internally, is capable of carrying 5 EFTs (2100ltr centerline and 4 1500ltr beneath wings), it also carries > than 6500kg of weapons. More than enough i'd say for what originally started out as a M2K-5 replacement.

he also mentioned the f-18A can deploy the Aim-120C-5 at max. range, the missle has a max range of around 105km.

Did he mention the figure of 105km or was that your extrapolation? The Amraam has a range of about 30miles, the C5 can be expected to be better, but I have not seen a single reliable source that provides raneg figures for it? All we know is that the C7 has greater range. Btw, when the hornets came in around 2000, the Swiss AF operated the Aim-120B! So it is hardly exciting news that the apg-73 can utilize the amraam b at max ranges although such an option will surely degrade the missiles nez and chances.

CM.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 21 Sep 2009 23:58

Cain Marko wrote:
well the apg-73 has max detection ranges of 300km for 5m2+ aerial target or a large ship, the track range for 1m2 target is around 100-120km.
Can we see some sources for such amazing figures for the Apg-73? The above figures almost outperforms the published figures for the NO11M Bars as well as the typhoon's larger Captor E. For a mech radar, 100-120km tracking range would be about 150-180km detection range for a 1sqm target! A 300km detection range for a 5sqm target = about 200km tracking range for the same sized target - again higher than anything offered by other top of the line (and much larger) kits.

The last I checked the 73 on the shornet had a diameter of about 660mm (26.2 inches according to the Naval Institute guide to world naval weapon systems By Norman Friedmanand) and was easily outperformed by the BARS according to RMAF evaluations, which in fact expected the BARS to outperform the Apg-79 as well!

And then you point out that the Apg-79 will double the detection ranges of the 73, IOWs, it can detect a 5sqm target @ 600km! The MUCH larger IRBIS pesa - detects a 3 sqm target at 350-400km.

Figures like these need sources - please provide them (pilot stories apart). Thanks.

CM.

i have provided sources in my previous posts (3 or 4 pages behind), please read them, SH can pull near full scale awacs roles and command over 36 aircraft in battle and hence a 500km detecion range should no be supricing. the range scales on the F-18 go upto 160NM or over 300km, the apg-79 is more than double that...check old posts...fact that the SH has already fired the Aim-120D at a QF-4 drone at nearly max range is enough proof to counter any skeptics. the QF-4 drone is an unmanned F-4 equipped with , aim-120D has a range of around 180km. How can the SH possibly hit a fighter sized QF-4 at over 170km away if the SH didnt have a tracking range of well over 180km for a fighter sized target??

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 22 Sep 2009 00:06

Baldev wrote:
although off topic but BARS radar has simultaneous operation of air and ground modes,and with this capability BARS well matches apg79 and other european radars

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html#8

I dont know when avionics of MKI is comparable to all Americans / Europeans, what makes us think Mig 35 will have third grade avionics compared to others..

Cain Marko - Can u throw some light..

-Nitin

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Sep 2009 00:11

what i am saying is that the offer from migs are not attractive.. in the sense, there is nothing that prevents us in seeking better technology partner.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Sep 2009 00:44

RameshC wrote:i have provided sources in my previous posts (3 or 4 pages behind), please read them, SH can pull near full scale awacs roles and command over 36 aircraft in battle and hence a 500km detecion range should no be supricing. the range scales on the F-18 go upto 160NM or over 300km, the apg-79 is more than double that...check old posts...fact that the SH has already fired the Aim-120D at a QF-4 drone at nearly max range is enough proof to counter any skeptics. the QF-4 drone is an unmanned F-4 equipped with , aim-120D has a range of around 180km. How can the SH possibly hit a fighter sized QF-4 at over 170km away if the SH didnt have a tracking range of well over 180km for a fighter sized target??

RameshC wrote:i have provided sources in my previous posts (3 or 4 pages behind), please read them, SH can pull near full scale awacs roles and command over 36 aircraft in battle and hence a 500km detecion range should no be supricing. the range scales on the F-18 go upto 160NM or over 300km, the apg-79 is more than double that...check old posts...fact that the SH has already fired the Aim-120D at a QF-4 drone at nearly max range is enough proof to counter any skeptics. the QF-4 drone is an unmanned F-4 equipped with , aim-120D has a range of around 180km. How can the SH possibly hit a fighter sized QF-4 at over 170km away if the SH didnt have a tracking range of well over 180km for a fighter sized target??

Sorry, but your sources do not specify any ranges for given target sizes! The best you can see is 160nm (300km) @ HI PRF for an uncited aerial target - could be a bloody b52 for all you know. IOWs, the conclusions you derived (such as 5msq target @ 300km for the apg-73) are misleading to say the least. The detection range for a 1msq target with the apg-80 AESA on the blk 60 is about 150km.

Here is a nice little post by Peter G on Keypubs (via AWST 2007) on FCR tracking ranges:

Originally Posted by Peter G View Post
Found my notes from Aviation Week and Space Technology, 2000/02/07

The maximal effective tracking range (might be a typo, possibly detection range) of the fighters for RCS = 1m2:
F-15C (AN/APG-63): 96 km (52 nm)
F-15C (AN/APG-63 V2): 144 km (78 nm)
F-22 (APG-77): 200 km (108 nm). Probably higher. Said to have exceeded radar range spec by 5%.
F-18E/F (AN/APG-79): 128 km (69 nm)
F-16E/F (AN/APG-80): 112 km (60 nm). Physically a smaller antenna.
F-35 (APG-81): 160 km (86 nm)

Corresponds well with all other open source materials I could find.

CM.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 22 Sep 2009 01:22

well i am not aware of the rcs of the b-52 but by 5m2 rcs i mean a large passenger aircraft and 300km is the max detection range, those ranges you mention seem way off, the ELTA 2052 itself has a max detection range of 220NM, the APG-79/80 both out perform it. the fact is The f-18E/F, F-22, F-16 equipped with AESA can easily deploy the 180km Aim-120D against a fighter sized target like the QF-4 drone, show me an aircraft that has matched it even in trials. none of us will never know the accurate ranges, but looking at weapons trails the SH seems to be the real deal. You cant possibly fire an Aim-120D at a QF-4 drone nearly 180km away if you cant track it at that range.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 22 Sep 2009 01:23

"what i am saying is that the offer from migs are not attractive.. in the sense, there is nothing that prevents us in seeking better technology partner."

French and Russians are tried and tested.
I remember issues with Sea King spares and gas turbine supply for the destroyer. Refusal to supply urgent spares + End user inspection + embedded spy code are all killers.

Russian not having a better radar is a major issue. Perhaps a good candidate for another joint Russian/Israeli/Indian collaboration like the AWACS. India will gain a lot from this.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 22 Sep 2009 01:27

Issy has been banned from the competition, the US wont allow their equipment to go on any other aircraft, particularly the mig-35, unless we want them on the F-16IN or F-18IN. we wouldnt have recieved the AWACS if US didnt approve it.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 22 Sep 2009 01:32

Patrick Cusack wrote:"what i am saying is that the offer from migs are not attractive.. in the sense, there is nothing that prevents us in seeking better technology partner."

French and Russians are tried and tested.
I remember issues with Sea King spares and gas turbine supply for the destroyer. Refusal to supply urgent spares + End user inspection + embedded spy code are all killers.

Russian not having a better radar is a major issue. Perhaps a good candidate for another joint Russian/Israeli/Indian collaboration like the AWACS. India will gain a lot from this.

Tried and Tested...hmm
if you won't try, then how can you test?
In order to test, you must try something new

Also, saar if you have already found the "embedded spy code"...please let us know
I believe there is a few million dollars to be had if one finds it

honestly, please read Boeing's response (on the same blog you got that fictional "embedded spy code" theory from) to that absurd claim of yours before you spew it like a fact

AFAIK, Russia just sold us a plane for the AWACS...therefore, the only thing we gained from Russia was an airframe, please feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong and Russia actually helped/co-developed the AWACS Radar or electronics...
we can call it the embedded Natasha code theory for now

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 22 Sep 2009 01:58

well guys i understand we have to be careful with our decision on this one but going for Russian platform will be a mistake however if none of the offers are good enough , i m sure IAF will choose it just to be safe but the chance of this happening is low because the Amrikis are slowly pulling all stops to take this baby home, we'll have to wait and see if and when they will drop the full-tot bombshell, i am positive this will happen, i doubt they will give source codes but they will allow us to add to the library of threats, because without full TOT they dont stand much chance while Rafale and mig come with full tot. if the US platform dont come with full-tot they are sure to loose.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Sep 2009 02:25

well i am not aware of the rcs of the b-52 but by 5m2 rcs i mean a large passenger aircraft and 300km is the max detection range, those ranges you mention seem way off, the ELTA 2052 itself has a max detection range of 220NM, the APG-79/80 both out perform it.

Boss this explains why your conclusions were skewed - 5msq for a large passenger a/c?

A passenger a/c will be far bigger in terms of rcs. The B-52 is around 100msq and is much smaller than a Boeing 747! A MiG-29 falls into the 5msq category, a mig-21 in the 3msq category, the F-16 around 1-3msq, ditto with the mirage 2000. No "large" passenger aircraft is going to come close to 5msq. Even a loaded su-27 is about 20+msq. Btw, an early BARs NO11M derivative detected a loaded su-27 @ 400km. According to the RCS law, detection doubles when RCS increases by 16X. Now you can imagine that if a Zhuk M detects a 3msq target at 150km, at what ranges will it detect say a 100+msq target, which is about 32X? Very much comparable to your Apg-73 radar, if not better.

Good grief, you make ridiculous assumptions and then go about dissing russian radars and associated industry. This MRCA thread is certainly getting more fantastic with every passing day! Please do a little more reading before posting.

the fact is The f-18E/F, F-22, F-16 equipped with AESA can easily deploy the 180km Aim-120D against a fighter sized target like the QF-4 drone, show me an aircraft that has matched it even in trials. none of us will never know the accurate ranges, but looking at weapons trails the SH seems to be the real deal. You cant possibly fire an Aim-120D at a QF-4 drone nearly 180km away if you cant track it at that range.

When did an F-16E/F ever deploy an Amraam D? At what range did a shornet with an AIm-120D hit the QF-4? Where did you get the 180km figure from? Again lets see some published figures and not your conclusions. Btw, as of May, 2009, the Aim-120D had just finished its 7th test flight.

CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Sep 2009 02:35

Raveen wrote:
Patrick Cusack wrote:"what i am saying is that the offer from migs are not attractive.. in the sense, there is nothing that prevents us in seeking better technology partner."

French and Russians are tried and tested.
I remember issues with Sea King spares and gas turbine supply for the destroyer. Refusal to supply urgent spares + End user inspection + embedded spy code are all killers.

Russian not having a better radar is a major issue. Perhaps a good candidate for another joint Russian/Israeli/Indian collaboration like the AWACS. India will gain a lot from this.

Tried and Tested...hmm
if you won't try, then how can you test?
In order to test, you must try something new
When you "try" something, you do it for a much smaller qty/cost. Try a sqd of attack choppers or Trenton types perhaps, but since when did trials include full size orders of 126 a/c and above @ a cost of over $ 10 billion. India must surely have hit a jackpot in the gulf region to "try" something new at such a cost.

AFAIK, Russia just sold us a plane for the AWACS...therefore, the only thing we gained from Russia was an airframe, please feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong and Russia actually helped/co-developed the AWACS Radar or electronics...
we can call it the embedded Natasha code theory for now

The russkis have been helping and co-developing on far more important strategic assets (than a radar). Despite the break up of the SU and dipso yeltsin's catering to US pressure, india still received (continues to receive) considerable assistance - Arihant, Akula, MKI, Brahmos, Space projects. IOWs, compared to the others, esp. the US, russia is certainly more tried and tested.

Nice attempt by cynics to equate this with a purely commercial relationship - sorry but that just reflects another "wesht ish besht" type mindset. (And no Raveen, I am not referring to your post)

CM.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 22 Sep 2009 02:46

Cain Marko wrote:
Raveen wrote: Tried and Tested...hmm
if you won't try, then how can you test?
In order to test, you must try something new
When you "try" something, you do it for a much smaller qty/cost. Try a sqd of attack choppers or Trenton types perhaps, but since when did trials include full size orders of 126 a/c and above @ a cost of over $ 10 billion. India must surely have hit a jackpot in the gulf region to "try" something new at such a cost.

Raveen wrote:AFAIK, Russia just sold us a plane for the AWACS...therefore, the only thing we gained from Russia was an airframe, please feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong and Russia actually helped/co-developed the AWACS Radar or electronics...
we can call it the embedded Natasha code theory for now
The russkis have been helping and co-developing on far more important strategic assets (than a radar). Despite the break up of the SU and dipso yeltsin's catering to US pressure, india still received (continues to receive) considerable assistance - Arihant, Akula, MKI, Brahmos, Space projects. IOWs, compared to the others, esp. the US, russia is certainly more tried and tested.

Nice attempt by cynics to equate this with a purely commercial relationship - sorry but that just reflects another "wesht ish besht" type mindset. (And no Raveen, I am not referring to your post)

CM.

I appreciate the valid pts saar
n not in reference to your post either CM saar (honestly):
our current attitude in my opinion borders on the "eberythang wesht ish 100% non-kosher and haram" and "Natasha ish onlee suitable bride...even if she sleeps with haram pork-istanis and chini-stanis"

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Sep 2009 02:52

Raveen wrote:I appreciate the valid pts saar
n not in reference to your post either CM saar (honestly):
our current attitude in my opinion borders on the "eberythang wesht ish 100% non-kosher and haram" and "Natasha ish onlee suitable bride...even if she sleeps with haram pork-istanis and chini-stanis"

But wesht can also be oirope, why not sleep with oiropean bimbette? The majority of posters here (from the poll conducted) shupport the wesht, wonlee they waant french cherie over husskie american.

CM

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 22 Sep 2009 02:52

Russians are so much a part of the Indian defense - they were also present to help launch INS Kochi. There is so much of partnership why would India want to rock this boat (I guess Gorshkov is an excuse).

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 22 Sep 2009 02:56

Cain Marko wrote:
Raveen wrote:I appreciate the valid pts saar
n not in reference to your post either CM saar (honestly):
our current attitude in my opinion borders on the "eberythang wesht ish 100% non-kosher and haram" and "Natasha ish onlee suitable bride...even if she sleeps with haram pork-istanis and chini-stanis"
But wesht can also be oirope, why not sleep with oiropean bimbette? The majority of posters here (from the poll conducted) shupport the wesht, wonlee they waant french cherie over husskie american.

CM

haha
Frenchie with cures, German with skillz or Blondie from Texas...or the husskie house wife from Seattle...as long as we remain clear...hope that the best wins
and not say stuff like:

Patrick Cusack wrote:Russians are so much a part of the Indian defense ... why would India want to rock this boat .

I am absolutely on the same boat with you CM saar
(as long as it's not rocked by baseless Natasha code theory)

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 22 Sep 2009 03:36

NRao wrote:The "more thrust" is supposed to make the T/W equal to or better than any of the current MRCA contenders!!

On Air Superiority of F-18, is it the A/B/C/D or E/F that your are talking of? I just googled for my sanity and all refs state "AS" for F-18 E/F Super Hornets. The E/F is a redesigned F-18.

You have to look at the history of the SH program. It was not something the USN wanted initially but was a compromise it took after other programs like the Super Tomcat got canceled. It is adequate for the needs of USN supported by the CBG ships, but not an air superiority fighter.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Sep 2009 03:54

I think that Russia can be trusted the most. My trust is not based on some naive belief in the benevolence of Russia.
I believe in a saying.
"No man can be more trusted than one who could be bought for money." This is true for Russia.
No country is anyone's "friend". It is naive to even think so. Behind every so called "friendship" between nations, there exists self interest. US was once Taliban's best friend. Now she is Taliban's most fierce enemy.
But a country like Russia can be trusted to deliver as long as there is money to be paid.
Sure, Russia will help China too. But how is that wrong? Russia is only taking decisions in her own interest.
But India can at least be assured that, as long as there is money, Russia will provide any tech we want. That is more than what can be said for any other country.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 22 Sep 2009 04:17

Cain Marko wrote:
well i am not aware of the rcs of the b-52 but by 5m2 rcs i mean a large passenger aircraft and 300km is the max detection range, those ranges you mention seem way off, the ELTA 2052 itself has a max detection range of 220NM, the APG-79/80 both out perform it.
Boss this explains why your conclusions were skewed - 5msq for a large passenger a/c? A passenger a/c will be far bigger in terms of rcs. The B-52 is around 100msq and is much smaller than a Boeing 747! A MiG-29 falls into the 5msq category, a mig-21 in the 3msq category, the F-16 around 1-3msq, ditto with the mirage 2000. No "large" passenger aircraft is going to come close to 5msq. Even a loaded su-27 is about 20+msq. Btw, an early BARs NO11M derivative detected a loaded su-27 @ 400km. According to the RCS law, detection doubles when RCS increases by 16X. Now you can imagine that if a Zhuk M detects a 3msq target at 150km, at what ranges will it detect say a 100+msq target, which is about 32X? Very much comparable to your Apg-73 radar, if not better.

Good grief, you make ridiculous assumptions and then go about dissing russian radars and associated industry. This MRCA thread is certainly getting more fantastic with every passing day! Please do a little more reading before posting.

the fact is The f-18E/F, F-22, F-16 equipped with AESA can easily deploy the 180km Aim-120D against a fighter sized target like the QF-4 drone, show me an aircraft that has matched it even in trials. none of us will never know the accurate ranges, but looking at weapons trails the SH seems to be the real deal. You cant possibly fire an Aim-120D at a QF-4 drone nearly 180km away if you cant track it at that range.
When did an F-16E/F ever deploy an Amraam D? At what range did a shornet with an AIm-120D hit the QF-4? Where did you get the 180km figure from? Again lets see some published figures and not your conclusions. Btw, as of May, 2009, the Aim-120D had just finished its 7th test flight.

CM.

ok, firstly a loaded su-30 falls under 2-3m2 rcs, the f-16 depending on load between 1-2m2, the B-52 sure is large but 100m2 is a bit of an overkill, so stop posting such exaggerated claims. well the Aim-120D has 50% greater range than the current Aim-120C-7 which has a range of around 120km...now you do the math. atleast the Aim-120D is being tested, dont know if the so called R-77M ramjet has ever taken flight or was it malfunctioning like over a 1/3 of our Russian BVR missiles, even if it has been tested, the mig's radar doesnt allow it to deploy it as of yet because guess what the radar has just begun testing and another problem its a first gen AESA, wait another problem, production wont start till late 2013 but wait not finished yet we wont get the mig till 2015 so why are we still talking abou the mig, its avionics have poor mtbf compared to the others. now at what range did the QF-4 get hit i dont know and neither does anyone but the test will offcourse be conducted at maximum lockon range. its like saying the ks-172s awacs killer is launched 50 km away from target, the test will obviously see if the missiles are effective at maximum kinematic range. F-16 is slated to recieve the Aim-120D as well as f-15, f-22, so there is no use questioning whether it can or has, who knows if it has fired the Aim-120D yet. in may 2009 the f-15D fired it and if the f-16 hasnt fired it yet, its turn will come. US old f-16s will begin recieving the SABR AESA radar as soon as its cleared for production and the f-16 will be able to deploy it easily. F-15s in the US have begun reciveing apg-65 AESA radars. the BARS radar has a maximum detection range of 350km for a large ship, dont know what you yapping about. the Aim-120D will be cleared for fullsclae production in 2010 in time to go on board the SH.

well johnny-m though the SH takes off from the carriers i pity the enemy who underestimates it, with ability to carry over 14 missiles in a fully loaded a2a config, it carries more missiles than the contenders. plus USN trusts this bird as the primary air superirority aircraft of the Navy and as far as i know noone takes self defence more seriously than the Carrier groups. It may not be the best air suprirorty fighter but it sure carries the most A2a missiles in a full payload. upto 12 Aim-120c + 2 Aim-9x block 2 or Asraam total 14. only the Rafale comes close with 12 missiles in a full load. more missiles mean more oppourtunities for kills its low rcs will delay detection just enough for the SH to have first shot.

http://www.ausairpower.net/000-Super-Bug-loadout.jpg

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Sep 2009 05:08

RameshC wrote:ok, firstly a loaded su-30 falls under 2-3m2 rcs, the f-16 depending on load between 1-2m2,

Are you for real - a clean su-35 (the latest one) is around 1-3msq. A su-27 is normally considered around 10-15msq. There are russian graphs showing rcs reduction measures on the flanker that suggest this, check google.

the B-52 sure is large but 100m2 is a bit of an overkill, so stop posting such exaggerated claims.

Exaggeration? - talk about "chorachya ultya bomba" (old jungle saying)!- the B52 is often cited as 100msq - 125 msq. plenty of sources, EHOG? use it.
one source: Stealth warplanes by doug richardson.

well the Aim-120D has 50% greater range than the current Aim-120C-7 which has a range of around 120km...now you do the math. atleast the Aim-120D is being tested,

source please? Till now you have argued plenty but not provided a single source to your statement bordering on pure BS. V. close to trolling i'd say. And no, don't cite wikipedia - even DDM is better than wiki sometimes.

dont know if the so called R-77M ramjet has ever taken flight or was it malfunctioning like over a 1/3 of our Russian BVR missiles, even if it has been tested, the mig's radar doesnt allow it to deploy it as of yet because guess what the radar has just begun testing and another problem its a first gen AESA,

Stop mixing up things. the R77M is not an issue here! Your tall claims otoh, on which you have been called are, so put up or shut up. Where are your sources for a large passenger a/c being around 5msq? Where is your source that the Su-30 is 2msq? Where is your source that an F-16 deployed Aim-120Ds? Look pal, if you want to be taken half way seriously on this forum, either back up your comments or back off. Tall claims without sources is exclusive territory of oracle fora.

wait another problem, production wont start till late 2013 but wait not finished yet we wont get the mig till 2015 so why are we still talking abou the mig, its avionics have poor mtbf compared to the others.

So where is your proof for russian "avionics" having less mtbf! Or is it another tall claim?

now at what range did the QF-4 get hit i dont know and neither does anyone but the test will offcourse be conducted at maximum lockon range. its like saying the ks-172s awacs killer is launched 50 km away from target, the test will obviously see if the missiles are effective at maximum kinematic range.

So you don't know, but simply assume that it was shot at max kinematic range. Of course, esp since missiles are rarely launched at max kinematic ranges in combat

F-16 is slated to recieve the Aim-120D as well as f-15, f-22, so there is no use questioning whether it can or has, who knows if it has fired the Aim-120D yet. in may 2009 the f-15D fired it and if the f-16 hasnt fired it yet, its turn will come. US old f-16s will begin recieving the SABR AESA radar as soon as its cleared for production and the f-16 will be able to deploy it easily. F-15s in the US have begun reciveing apg-65 AESA radars.

Look bubba, if it ain't been tested yet, don't say it has been. Simple really.

the BARS radar has a maximum detection range of 350km for a large ship, dont know what you yapping about. the Aim-120D will be cleared for fullsclae production in 2010 in time to go on board the SH.

Again, EHOG.

CM

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 22 Sep 2009 05:21

nrshah wrote:
Baldev wrote:
although off topic but BARS radar has simultaneous operation of air and ground modes,and with this capability BARS well matches apg79 and other european radars

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html#8
I dont know when avionics of MKI is comparable to all Americans / Europeans, what makes us think Mig 35 will have third grade avionics compared to others..

Cain Marko - Can u throw some light..

-Nitin

what do you mean by third grade avionics,

this clearly shows that all the discussion gone in vain

1. BARS radar which now gives simultaneous operation of AIR and GROUND modes is more than match for rafale RBE2 PESA/AESA and typhoon's captor and apg79 in performance and next upgrade to AESA radar outperform western AESAs

2. su30mki doesn't has inbuilt jammer found on rafale,mig35,typhoon so there is external elta8222 jammer

3. su30mki currently doesn't has MAWS,LASER WARNING receiver while mig,rafale, typhoon,J11 have these

4.L150 RWR on mki and mig35 is none the less capable

5.same targeting pod LITENING used on typhoon,f18 and isn't inferior to domacles pod for rafale

6. IRST on mki is comparable to OSF and PIRATE and same is true for OLS

7. MKI is more value for its money than rafale,typhoon in terms of capaility.

8.sorry for being off topic

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 22 Sep 2009 05:22

Ramesh C your assessment about apg73 which even outclasses even IRBIS E radar,which is not supportable

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 22 Sep 2009 05:28

Jaison wrote:
Baldev wrote: yes that can be done by PESA radar

i wanted to say that do we need to search stealthy fighters with AESA radar on MRCA if yes these AESA radars fail us and if not the radar ranges of AESA offered with MRCA are more than adequate against non stealthy aircrafts which IAF has to deal with
By the time the MRCA is operational, the IAF will have to deal with the prospect of facing chinese stealth fighters and maybe even a reduced RCS JF 17 or J 10

and non stealthy fighters detection which include reduced RCS fighters too and for which range of AESA radars on MRCA is adequate

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 22 Sep 2009 06:38

RameshC wrote: yet again i say stop comparing 1st gen AESA to a 4th gen AESA, SH's radar maturity is more than all the other radars in the competition put together.

since it was introduced in 2005, it has undergone 3 upgrades with the 4th being tested. Russian defence industry cant churn at such rates.

main thing is detection range not the AESA radar generation,all you have to do is detection of air and ground targets which meets parameter set for "target detection distance in different modes of operation" set by IAF whether one meets these parameters by using 1st gen or by using 4th gen of AESA radar.

even 1st gen of AESA is far more reliable than pulse doppler radars and even if AESA radar lasts for entire life of aircraft but even then the radar has to be junked after 20-22 yeas of operation because after every 20 years technology changes

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 22 Sep 2009 12:33

First generation fourth generation ?
I saw that in some other blogs as well.
U.S took the lead in ASEA, Russians tried to catch up with them and they created their first generation radar.When you follow somebody else's footsteps it is not necessary that you should follow the same growth path.In that case you tend to hope some technology levels, sinve you by now have some idea what that thing really is.
Please compare Zhuk-AE Vs APG-79.Zhuk AE has two variants FGA 29 and FGA 35.
575MM(FGA 29),700mm(FGA 35)Vs 700mm( APG 79)
680TR(FGA 29),1088TR(FGA 35) Vs 1100 TR(APG 79)
But yes they are not as proven in their capabilities as the APG 79.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 22 Sep 2009 12:59

hi
well iam a bit surprised that we indians are pinning so much for the US
historically they have never helped us in the time of need
even if i agree with the point that there planes are better (which they are not ) what will happen when out of blue they will stop supplying with spares or forget even the spares what about all the missiles.imagine we are in a hot zone with pakistan or china and haing our top class fighters not flying because of spares or missiles.
also even the us is planning to phase out F-16 and F-18 with f-35.

i simply don't understand why is it that all people on this blog are underestimating russian planes.
is SU-30 MKI a bad plane.
and if we are not ready for mig-35
what is wrong with rafale or eurofighter which are better than us planes...........
talking of precision laser guided missiles rafale and eurofighter are way ahead.
rafale can be used for improving LCA design as well
also other than russia only france and israel have been consistent with supplies in times of need.
and for all amerika lovers out there
the yanks tried to stem the supplies of laser guided bombs and ammo for india during kargil war
russia is helping us develop so many new weapons in all the three services..........
don't know what us has got which attracts us..........

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 22 Sep 2009 13:03

and again have anyone of you considered the kind of support we have got from russaia for our indigeneous INS ARIHANT,brahmos,t-90,su-30 mki,ins kochin,PAK FA
true they have been sluggish with supplies but at least there is one source we can trust
iam not advocating for mig-35
but give them a chance
i believe rafale is the best choice followed by typhoon-mig 35-gripen-f-18-f-16

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 22 Sep 2009 13:09

Baldev wrote: what do you mean by third grade avionics,
this clearly shows that all the discussion gone in vain

1. BARS radar which now gives simultaneous operation of AIR and GROUND modes is more than match for rafale RBE2 PESA/AESA and typhoon's captor and apg79 in performance and next upgrade to AESA radar outperform western AESAs

2. su30mki doesn't has inbuilt jammer found on rafale,mig35,typhoon so there is external elta8222 jammer

3. su30mki currently doesn't has MAWS,LASER WARNING receiver while mig,rafale, typhoon,J11 have these

4.L150 RWR on mki and mig35 is none the less capable

5.same targeting pod LITENING used on typhoon,f18 and isn't inferior to domacles pod for rafale

6. IRST on mki is comparable to OSF and PIRATE and same is true for OLS

7. MKI is more value for its money than rafale,typhoon in terms of capaility.

8.sorry for being off topic

You did not get me right. I am not saying avionics for MKI are inferior. I was just wandering when we have comparable avionics onboard MKI, why many of us feel Mig 35 will have inferior avionics?

-Nitin