MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4927
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 21 Jan 2010 12:46

NRao wrote:
I do not buy that. LCA is here to stay.


you're entitled to your own view.

Also, perhaps you missed LCA-MCA. Tied at the hip. While IAF is certainly, and rightly interested in squadrons, they are also interested in Indian techs(as in an article posted a few days ago).


no I didn't miss that. in fact, DRDO's latest publication says that the AMCA (as they call the MCA) program will be launched this year. I still have my doubts about the IAF's interest in promoting indigenous technology and products. We'll see how the LCA program goes.

The last time I checked they were two, RAF and Luftwaffe, separate AFs. And, weren't the Brits peddling their lot?


and I did'nt know that I'd need to state it explicitly that I was referring to them both individually because it seemed obvious. you're really clutching at straws here NRao ! Please see the numbers they've ordered. Even when they curtail their orders, its more than 126.

Do not hold your breath WRT Rafale. The French are French. They expect to order some 280, have ordered 180, of which 120 are for their AF. 42 have been delivered so far!! Per Wiki.


what does that mean ? they will induct Rafales to see out all Mirages in service today. They may reduce it a bit if they run into budgetary troubles, but nevertheless, the numbers will still be much larger than 126.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20447
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Jan 2010 16:19

The MMRCA deal has to be viewed holistically with the larger IAF's force structure and future strength in mind.Recent events will also influence a final decision,the emergence of a fiery dragon on the Himalayan front being a major factor,with the upgrading of facilities all along our north-eastern borders,stationing Su-30MKIs as well.

As some have said,had the LCA with its designed capabilities arrived by now or in the immediate future,there would be no need for a new buy.The hard fact is that the MK-2 engine still hasn't been selected and this is a major factor why the Gripen looks so attractive.It is cheaper than almost all its rivals and of contemporary tech which includes an AESA offering too.The one drawback it has is that it is single-engined.In a recent conversation with a retd. VCOAS,he preferred a twin-engined aircraft because of the frequency of bird strikes and that a more powerful and capable aircraft would be needed in view of the PRC threat.There is an interesting pic in the excellent book about th Flanker in IAF service,showing an SU-30MKI with one of its TVC engine nozzles deflected downwards indicating an engine shutdown.Had it been a single-engined aircraft,the pilot would've had to eject.Here the IAF should carefully study its stats as to the frequency of losses of single-engined aircraft due to bird strikes,engine problems,etc.,as opposed to those of its twin-engined aircraft.Therefore buying the Gripen as the "light" end of the IAF's stick with extra numbers of SU-30MKIs bought as the "heavy" hitter is a sensible option .It would be the ideal replacement for the large numbers of MIG-21s,but the loser would obviously be the LCA,which would be acquired in smaller numbers,especially if its stated estimated production rate is between only 8-12 a year.

Option 2 would be buying the MIG-35 twin-engined,earlier 29 in service with the IAF,29K being bought by the IN,engines already being manufactured at home,commonality of weaponry with the Sukhois,low cost ,etc.,a very cost-effective solution.This would however place all our eggs into the Russian basket especially as the 5th-gen fighter is going to be our hope for the future.The issue of after sales support for the same is a Q mark too.If the MIG bureau relocates it current production facility as is being contemplated in the restructuring of the Russian aviation industry,then even the Russians have their doubts about keeping its costs down and production rates.There is a possibility that if the order is split for political purposes,60+ MIG-35s might be acquired with eventual replacement of all earlier 29s in the future.The remainder would most probably be a European bird.

Option 3 ,either the Rafale or Typhoon,both coming in at hideous costs but with TOT which hopefully we can assimilate (Hawk cockup) .Dassault can work out an attractive package which includes eventual replacement of all M-2Ks with Rafales (as the cost of upgrades of a Mirage is almost that of a new MIG-29K!),that would be its best bet.As for the Typhoon,its offer of TVC engines for the LCA too would sweeten the deal.But even here,Tranche 3 with an AESA radar has yet to arrive.If the cost of a Typhoon or Rafale is going to be double that of the MIG-35 and Gripen,it is going to be very hard of the MOD to justify a buy from the cost factor alone.

Option 4,a US buy.The advantage of a US aircraft is its proven advanced tech for AESA radars and other eqpt.Whether the US will supply a full package for the same is debatable and a sreious issue when it comes to sanctions in any Indo-Pak spat.Other disadvantages are adding yet another nation's aerospace tech to train and support in addition to Russian and European products in service. The F-16 is supposedly inferior to the MIG-29/35 in close combat and even in its final avatar,the Paki factor goes against buying it though it might be offered at an attractive price close to the Gripen and MIG-35.As for the F-18SH,Oz has bought a last order of 24 at around $100million per pice!

The political factor also has much bearing upon the decision.Russia is the easiest to buy from without strings attached,Europeans second.The US least reliable.The question of the Indo-US "strategic realtionship" is being hotly debated. V.Adm.Raja Menon in an article today (so has former diplomat G.Parthasarathy) has examined several aspects of this issue,saying that if the realtionship is so great,why are we getting nuclear subs tech and carriers from Russia instead? The US is also strenuously preventing us from even training the Afghan forces here for fear of upsetting the Pakis.Neither has the US had any effect on Sino-Pak nuclear proliferation,detrimental to us and the fact of continued US arms sales to Pak,no action on reduction of Paki sponsored cross-border terrorism because of the US-Paki illicit relationship.The US has also had little effect on reducing the threat to India from China by engaging with the Chinese,whom they regard as vital for securing peace in Asia. Coupled with this the threat of sanctions,etc. casts serious doubt on buying such a major force-multiplying weapon system from the US. This is why the least likely winner would be a US aircraft and the Europeans if they play their cards ewell stand to gain.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 21 Jan 2010 16:38

Philip,

While the twin engined fighters certainly offers more safety the newer single engined fighters are almost as reliable and has an advantage in fuel and operational costs.

The IAF 29As are being upgraded and nearly being bought to the standards of the MIG 35 (bar the AESA and much superior IRST i believe). If the MRCA is not won by the MIG 35 it would be rather foolish to replace the upgraded MIG 29As with the MIG 35.

The F 16 may be inferior to the MIG 29 in close combat, certainly in certain aspects, there is a book where they let American F 16 pilots evaluate the German Mig 29s and the MIG 29 jocks evaluating the F 16, the conclusion was that despite the 29s superior performance in certain aspect, a good viper pilot can easily negate them and turn the engagement in his favour. The HOBS and HMCS kind of make maneuverability less relevant than it was before)

As for the Strategic Partnership, It is easier to deal in diplomacy with totalitarian states or states with a less vibrant democracy (Russia). The U.S system yields a lot of strategic changes to the changing presidencies and a lot of power to the Congress (which is increasingly assertive in many issues). This is why even its best allies suffer issues with regards to ToT and other aspects.

Jean_M
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 16:08
Location: Paris surroundings

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Jean_M » 21 Jan 2010 16:47

Seen old figures... an update for you folks:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... fales.html

PARIS --- The French Ministry of Defence on Dec. 31, 2009 awarded Dassault Aviation a multi-billion euro, multi-year production contract to deliver 60 Rafale F3 combat aircraft. These aircraft will be delivered beginning in 2015 with the new active antenna radar and enhanced self-protection suite.

This latest order, approved by the defense ministry’s Ministerial Committee on Investments on Nov. 12, covers 50 aircraft for the French air force and 10 for the French navy. It also includes an option to upgrade a number of French navy Rafale F1s to the latest F3 standard, as well as spare parts, support equipment and related services.

This order brings the total number of Rafales ordered by France to 180, out of a planned total of 286 aircraft: 228 for the air force and 58 for the navy. However, the French MoD retains the option to order 9 additional aircraft so as to return the program to the nominal number of 295 aircraft.

Related contracts have also been awarded to Snecma for the aircraft’s M-88 engines and to MBDA for its weapons.

A spokesman for DGA, the French defense ministry’s directorate-general of armaments, confirmed that the order was awarded on Dec. 31, 2009 but declined to state its value. Dassault Aviation declined to comment.

Deliveries on this order, known as Commande Globale n° 4 (Global Order n° 4) and authorized under the 2009 budget, are scheduled to begin in 2015, according to Parliamentary reports, at an average rate of 10.5 aircraft per year. This leaves some flexibility for Dassault to increase the production rate in the event that one of the anticipated export orders materializes.

As of the end of 2009, Dassault had delivered 82 Rafales (54 for the air force and 28 for the navy), of which three have been lost in accidents. Deliveries in 2010 are due to total 11 aircraft (8 for the air force, 3 for the navy), and will bring the total number of Rafales delivered by end 2010 to 93.

In parallel, the French air force is gradually introducing the latest F3 standard aircraft, which will be capable of all planned missions and which will carry additional weapons including the AM-39 Exocet anti-ship missile and the Reco NG reconnaissance pod. The F3 version was qualified by the air force in July 2008, and will equip the 7th Fighter Wing’s first operational squadron at Saint Dizier air base by mid-2010.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9697
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 21 Jan 2010 19:42

The F16 and SH are 1970's birds with little or no scope for improvements. Uncle Sa is can not be so easyly trusted. Grippen is almost LCA Mk2. Mig 35 is only one paper as of now. So may be Ref and EF are he two with real chance.

dukenukem
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 24 Sep 2009 22:59

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby dukenukem » 21 Jan 2010 20:32

Narayana Rao wrote:The F16 and SH are 1970's birds with little or no scope for improvements. Uncle Sa is can not be so easyly trusted. Grippen is almost LCA Mk2. Mig 35 is only one paper as of now. So may be Ref and EF are he two with real chance.


What about the Block 3 SH ? Also, isnt the SH even newer than the Mig 29?

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 21 Jan 2010 20:53

Rao Ji,

Kindly read the last few well informed posts made by Kartik.

SanjibGhosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 30 Jan 2009 18:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SanjibGhosh » 21 Jan 2010 21:37

US to give Pakistan unarmed drones’ technology: Gates (Lead)
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sou ... 07681.html


After reading this I think we all should stop talking about f-16 and f-18 ....
They just need very very solid kick on their **** .....

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby MarcH » 21 Jan 2010 21:42

The funny part is that Boeing redesigned the F-18E to made it compatible with an AESA radar. At the same time, they reduced the number of parts by around 20% to keep costs down.
This bird is called Super Hornet Block 3. Not even a new letter was given to the poor F-18.
The Russians did pretty much the same thing with their MiG-29M. But they found it necessary to give the bird a completely new name. Tada, the NEW MiG-35. :rotfl:

suraj p
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 23 Oct 2009 08:10

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby suraj p » 21 Jan 2010 21:47

Philip, it is a nice read. Thank you.

One question though, I recall some of the sarcasm of senior commander of USAF about MKIs after RedFlag.

In that episode, although he had some praise for IAF pilots and TVC of MKI, at one point (if I remember correctly) he pointed out that it is very easy for a trained US pilot to gun the brains of MKI in a dogfight setting. In that context, if IAF dreams of raising a twin-engine squadrons, wouldn't the agility, maneuverability and radar cross-section become a trade-off for more strike capability along with multirole capability.
Given the fact that F-16 and JAS stats (wing cross-section and single engine) are better compared to others. Of course the RADARS are very very important too! (wrt. SH)

Since the main advertised aim of IAF about MRCA is to aid in replenishing the aging Mig-21 along with LCA, why would they go with bulky birds.

Just my thoughts.

Again, thanks for the good writeup.
Last edited by suraj p on 21 Jan 2010 23:02, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 21 Jan 2010 21:52

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... yIC1TN2WEI Dassault’s plane is “too expensive” even with the euro at $1.24, the CEO said. “The Americans are benefiting from the dollar.” ...talks with Dassault to buy 36 Rafales, a contract valued at as much as 5 billion euros ($7.2 billion).


Bye Bye Rafale! $200M [without ToT?]

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 777
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Shameek » 21 Jan 2010 22:29

Narayana Rao wrote:The F16 and SH are 1970's birds with little or no scope for improvements. Uncle Sa is can not be so easyly trusted. Grippen is almost LCA Mk2. Mig 35 is only one paper as of now. So may be Ref and EF are he two with real chance.


Actually no. The SH is a vastly improved F-18. It actually has a working AESA which even the 'new' euro-birds do not. Same with the Super Viper. So it is not right to dismiss them in one sweeping statement. Read through the posts made earlier and you will come across the long debates on this very topic.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 21 Jan 2010 23:11

nachiket wrote:
jai wrote:Can anyone throw a light on the circumstances under which IAF chose M2K when it did ? Trying to understand the options it had, the logic IAF possibly went with in selecting the Mirage.

Wondering if there are any learnings or context from that procurement to this MRCA competition.


AFAIK we needed something to counter the F-16s which pakis were getting. We had nothing even close at the time(except the Mig-23 maybe). The M2k matched up pretty well against the F-16 and was always meant to be an F-16 competitor when designed. Add to that IAF had a good past experience with Dassault (Mystere and Ouragan). IAF's only other option was the Mig-29 which wasn't fully ready(acceptance trials by the Soviet AF completed in 1984.M2k order was placed in 1982) . We bought it soon afterwards of course.


Correct me if I am wrong but we first bought MiG 29. Then there was a talk about making them in India. Then we bought Mirage 2000. Then there was a talk about making them in India.

And then we went to sleep for another 15 years.

K

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 21 Jan 2010 23:30

trust RFP.. the 19th MRCA onwards will be made in India.

For the past MiI labels, I guess do not have ToT agreements at all, but only SDK agreements.

I hope I am not wrong.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 21 Jan 2010 23:41

Can the knowledgeable members of this board on the issue shed some more light on, why the Indian AF needs the MRCA? I think we all understand the general capabilities of a Light, Medium and Heavy fighters even if there are overlaps in the MRCA category, with some being more light or heavy than others. we also understand that numbers need to be filled.

What will be really helpful, is to link the capabilities being proposed through the acquisition with air force war fighting doctrines and further link the same with the nations' strategic and political goals. Once we have that why this particular spend ranging between $10-$15 billion makes sense and how it will enhance the nations security in both a tactical and strategic manner.

What I am asking board members to do (since i cannot) is to look at the toys on offer, in context of the what the nation needs and the air force can effectively use.

I am sorry if this issue has been adequately covered in the past, in these threads.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 21 Jan 2010 23:56

Kartik is the man to handle that question. Besides, I think we did discuss these in the earlier threads.

Few of the factors:-

- delays with LCA
- reducing squadron strength
- future projections
- technology & upgrade restrictions
- increased threat [china]
- doctrine changes

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Jan 2010 00:02

Quote "-"
- delays with LCA
I thought the capabilities are significantly different that one is not really a replacement for the other.

- reducing squadron strength
Get that one

- future projections
Needs more elaboration

- technology & upgrade restrictions
Meaning?

- increased threat [china]
Should be fun to analyze the MRCA in context of what we need to do against China in offense and defense roles and how the MRCA and what type is the closest fit.

- doctrine changes
I would love to know, what is the doctrine and how this doctrine matches a strategic and political vision?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 22 Jan 2010 00:30

Delays in LCA, and MRCA in the context of the inclusive capablity. This is one of the rider [mostly ddm], but not a key factor. For example, let us say we have already about 80 odd LCAs with IAF, and extremely happy, and we are getting into LCA-Tranche 2/AESA, then, there is a higher probability of MRCA not making to the important files with Mr. Anthony.

We are planning to replace MKIs with PAKFA. (future projections - tech), but the realizations will happen perhaps 15-20 years from now. Most of the pakfa technology is something never tested and tried, and till pakfa matures, we need MRCA to support MKI with a 4++ gen technologies that incldues an AESA radar, weapons for BVR engagement, etc. A gap filler to future you may say.

Future projections also should include squadron numbers and fleet strength. Didn't we hear >64?.

Future projections also should include role (multi role/deployment/reach aspects). IAF can't be any different to IN, in terms of JOINT strategic depth [touching where Indian Ocean/Seas reaches].

Mig29 upgrades, M2K upgrades, et al are costly [compared to new buys], but really not sufficient to fill the gaps. for example, we can't have AESA on Mig29/M2K. We have certain restrictions (political/technical) on the upgrade path.

..

Wait for the gurus to explain the doctrine.

--

PS: Add net-centric warfare and AWACs integration as well.

suraj p
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 23 Oct 2009 08:10

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby suraj p » 22 Jan 2010 00:35

SaiK wrote:Kartik is the man to handle that question. Besides, I think we did discuss these in the earlier threads.

Few of the factors:-

- delays with LCA
- reducing squadron strength
- future projections
- technology & upgrade restrictions
- increased threat [china]
- doctrine changes


and POLITICAL advantage

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4927
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 22 Jan 2010 01:13

SaiK wrote:trust RFP.. the 19th MRCA onwards will be made in India.

For the past MiI labels, I guess do not have ToT agreements at all, but only SDK agreements.

I hope I am not wrong.


of course there was ToT. you require that to be able to manufacture any major component from raw material stage. HAL has been doing that for ages on its assembly lines.

You're confusing ToT with ToK (Transfer of Knowledge). thats an altogether different thing, which no OEM will do unless it wants to go out of business. I'll give you a the drawings, material specs, finishes, manufacturing processes, tell you which machines to purchase, provide you with jigs/fixtures and moulds, but I won't explain why I designed it the way I did.

If you're smart enough, you'll put your best brains to figure out why it was done that way and in that process you'll learn. HAL was more content with licence producing other's designs without really putting any thought into any way in which the original design could be improved..they built MiG-21s for 2 decades. did they once think of coming up with any major design change that could improve the flying characteristics of the MiG-21 ? no. They simply waited till the USSR gave them the new drawings for a new MiG-21 variant and then they got down to assembling them again. they tried to come up with the improved Gnat design, the Ajeet, and they took ages to get it certified and ready to induct into the IAF. It came to a point where Ajeets were hardly utilised as much as they could've since they became obsolete and had to be retired in the 1980s.

and don't call it SDK agreements- its SKD (semi-knocked down) and that is only for initial aircraft where modules (large collections of assemblies of parts) are produced by the home country to be assembled by the assembler. Later on it moves to CKD and then finally to sourcing raw materials from indigenous sources. All detail parts, assemblies (collections of details parts), standard parts (fasteners, latches, hinges, etc.), almost everything is sourced from within the country (with some exceptions based on economy of scale).

the Chinese were smart in a way- they didn't get ToK, but they reverse engineered in iterations till they finally got it right. They would be able to guess why a particular part was placed where it was, or why it was designed the way it was designed. Then they used their own technology to come up with iterations (J-7PG with new cranked wings) while HAL couldn't be less bothered.

Of course, this is related to political will and direction as well. India never had leaders who felt that such a direction ought to have been taken. Chinese were more pragmatic and learnt that they couldn't depend on Russia to be a reliable partner (based on their experience), so they built up reverse engineering capabilities to the hilt. India had a secure and reliable supplier in the USSR and as long as we were a socialist nation, that wouldn't change. The attitude was- Then why bother ? Friendship prices will stay forever, others will develop weapons and we'll keep inducting them. No performance linked incentives at work, no one got fired for not doing their job, it was paradise ! only the few who were really motivated and wanted to do it for India or for themselves, went above and beyond their job description.
Last edited by Kartik on 22 Jan 2010 01:26, edited 2 times in total.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby jamwal » 22 Jan 2010 01:17

Regarding political advantages of buying MRCA, can somebody please explain what these so called "advantages" are for different countries ? How buying F16 or F-18 from US will change it's pro-Pakistan stance ? US is still selling all the latest hardware and probably even transferring drone technology to Pakisatan for free, even with multiple billion dollar deals we have signed recently.
Typhoon being a joint product, is political benefit (if any) is really a factor ?

I don't agree to the view that buying planes from a "more-powerful" country will be more beneficial for India in any tangible way. What strategic or diplomatic benefit does any particular country offer over another ? Support for a seat in UN, sympathy against Pakistan and China ? IMHO, nothing concrete benefit is in store for us, no matter what plane we buy.
American will not stop selling weapons to Pakistan or provide billions worth of aid as long they need Pakis for GWOT, no matter how much money India pumps in. Further, threat of sanctions will never go away.
French will sell anything to anybody if the price is right, same is the case with any European country. Only Russia seems somewhat favourably agreeable to Indian security and strategic concerns.
Regarding Gripen, India is likely to have most leverage in foreseeable future (except Russia) due to sheer amount of business being offered to such a comparatively small player. My only beef with Gripen is it's dependency on US. US is not known for playing fair.

I'm all for "not-putting all-eggs-in-one-basket" and not buying Russian stuff only. But is American option safe enough for us ?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby negi » 22 Jan 2010 02:37

The biggest issue with Unkil sourced weapons is that unlike all other major players US has big stakes in the subcontinent hence all its decisions with regards to whom and what to sell are governed by its interests/ambitions in the region and given its high moral stance when it comes to the issue of nuclear proliferation it is likely that platforms in question would be stripped of their ability to deliver nukes either by dumbing down the HW or including a clause in the End use agreement . Same holds true for US penchant for slapping sanctions/embargo as and when it likes.

Having said that good thing about buying from Unkil is imo Boeing and L&M out there are capable of delivering the birds in shortest possible time as compared to any of their competitors , it is my view that MoD/GOI usually settle the deals with GOTUS in a decent time frame as compared to all other vendors for instance C-130,Trenton and P-8I were procured in a jiffy as compared to Hawk,Gorky and Scorpene deals.

Suppliers selling TSP imho should be a non issue as US,French,Swedes and even Russians have sold arms to the former and will continue to do so as long as former has money.

So from political aspect imo only Ru and French are safe bets as far as MRCA is concerned (may be even Typhoon but the way I see it given MoDs modus operandi and penchant for taking its own sweet time its better to deal with platforms sourced from a single country ).

Swedes have little political relevance and hence would be pushed around by the big guys.

From technical pov Kartik has covered more or less everything out there so nothing for me to add .

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 22 Jan 2010 03:02

sorry, I put ToT out of context there.

I was thinking of saying, we had no "total" transfer of technology rather..

For example, we are just getting the RD33 engines for Mig29 to be manufactured by HAL.

Perhaps, we are limited by our production engineering & capability to take up complete manufacturing and stick to deadlines and schedules.

ps----

On the Gripen, and the feeling of being pushed aside by the big players, I have a different take. This is not the India pre May 11th 1998. If we had demonstrated to withstand sanctions from the sole super power (assumptions ), then we can withstand this decision to go for Gripen, if it suits us.

But there is a general fear that it would definitely displace LCA from its current strengths to have reasonable numbers being used by IAF, and get a chance to upgrade itself later.

Of course, are we in that much love for Gripen to do this?

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 584
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby V_Raman » 22 Jan 2010 03:19

SaiK wrote:Of course, are we in that much love for Gripen to do this?


i think we are.

prabir
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 27 Aug 2008 03:22

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prabir » 22 Jan 2010 03:22

If we are going to buy US planes, then the "political package" will be concrete actions + inputs that will come from US in case of an Indo-China conflict. Otherwise, it does not make sense to do business with US for lethal stuff.

No one worries about Pakistan as it is any way going to dogs way.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7320
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 22 Jan 2010 05:20

Kersi D wrote:
nachiket wrote:AFAIK we needed something to counter the F-16s which pakis were getting. We had nothing even close at the time(except the Mig-23 maybe). The M2k matched up pretty well against the F-16 and was always meant to be an F-16 competitor when designed. Add to that IAF had a good past experience with Dassault (Mystere and Ouragan). IAF's only other option was the Mig-29 which wasn't fully ready(acceptance trials by the Soviet AF completed in 1984.M2k order was placed in 1982) . We bought it soon afterwards of course.


Correct me if I am wrong but we first bought MiG 29. Then there was a talk about making them in India. Then we bought Mirage 2000. Then there was a talk about making them in India.

And then we went to sleep for another 15 years.

K


No it was the other way around. The Mig-29 procurement contract was signed in 1986. M2k in 1982.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 22 Jan 2010 06:42

Meanwhile, the current legal tussle will only delay the modernization of the airfields, for which the MAFI project was proposed and expected to be executed at the earliest. The modernisation of airfields is of paramount importance, as IAF has acquired new platforms like AWACS and the U.S. made C 130J. Since the new aircrafts will be advanced and equipped with modern avionics, the ground systems would have to be compatible with it. The acquisition of 126 Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), which India is currently negotiating to procure, will also lose its potential and significance if the airfields are not modernised. Another area where the MAFI programme will be applied is the North-East of India, along the Indo-Chinese border, where the airfields need upgrading.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=12238


WOW!..

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4927
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 22 Jan 2010 06:46

jai wrote:Can anyone throw a light on the circumstances under which IAF chose M2K when it did ? Trying to understand the options it had, the logic IAF possibly went with in selecting the Mirage.

Wondering if there are any learnings or context from that procurement to this MRCA competition.


As Nachiket already explained, it was bought as a direct counter to the F-16s that PAF was buying. These 2 were at that time, the only unstable CCV fighters with FBW systems, which gave them agility way beyond what any MiG at that possessed (the Fulcrum was yet to emerge) and from the pilot’s point of view, the boon of carefree handling, which meant you didn’t need to be cautious when engaging in maneuvers during ACM or even BFM. This was a generational jump in my view, and it distinguishes 3rd generation fighters from 2nd generation fighters, although nowadays with the avionics/weapons upgrades even a Bison could compete with the Mirage-2000H. But from a pilot’s perspective, the Mirage will any day be a superior fighter to fly.

The best fighter that the IAF had only begun inducting at that time was the MiG-23MF, a variant of the MiG-23BN. Its radar and semi-active BVR (although in reality the missile would invariably be fired after the pilot makes a visual identification of the bogey to prevent friendly fire, hence WVR) gave it a decent air-intercept capability compared to the MiG-21 Bis that was the IAF’s other main air interceptor.

The MiG-23 was a decent fighter when flown within its limits, with a powerful turbojet engine but essentially the swing-wing design never really imparted any particularly great advantage to any aircraft that sported it. It was the big concept of the 1960s and an attempt to make a fighter ok in both slow speed and high speed regimes, before the advent of CCV and FBW. But the associated airframe shoulder pivot joints were heavy and added a lot of airframe weight. In slower speed regimes, the wing would be at much lower sweep and the wing loading would be quite high because the wings themselves were quite slender with a high aspect ratio- this is seen on the MiG-23, 27, Tornado, F-111, all of them. And consequently, all of these aircraft ended up being average or below average fighters (MiG-23MF, F-111 and Tornado ADV) and never had the potential to become as good as fighters designed from day one to be nimble with lower wing loading. They became jack of all trades type. Even today, the Tornado ADV is considered to be only good at BVR whereas in WVR, it turns like a truck and is completely outclassed by the F-16 or Mirage-2000.

These swing-wingers could turn with a decent sustained turn rate because the engine provided adequate thrust and the low and medium sweep wings would generate enough lift. But then you had higher wing loading, the instantaneous turn and roll rates would never be great. On the other end of the speed regime, you could pull the wing to its max. number of degrees backward and you had a sort of delta wing, which meant a huge sweepback angle and the ability to really make a dash. So as a striker, this design was adequate, even though you generally had to use far fewer pylons on the wings due to weight constraints for the pivot motors. You ingressed at high speeds with the wing drawn back, before appearing over the target, you pulled your wings forward and once you made a pass over the target, dropping your bombs or strafing, you generally pulled your wings back and made a dash for safety.

The Mirage-2000 then was a revolutionary design for the IAF. It was bought to be an Air-Defence fighter and for this role it had an early advantage over the F-16. This was in the form of the R-530D semi-active BVR missile. The PAF’s F-16A/B Block 15s were all restricted to the WVR only Sidewinder. There were reports that PAF bought AIM-7 Sparrows but these were never confirmed and now it is believed to be just a rumour.

There was a very interesting article in Vayu which was written by retired AM Harish Masand, a former CO of a MiG-29 squadron. He mentioned the fact that the Mirages were handed defeat after defeat in DACT and that the Baaz outperformed it in climb and other factors. What it lacked against the Baaz in pure performance, it made up for in reliability and flexibility and longevitivity. This I’ll discuss more later on in this post. What he also mentions is that when you look at the two aircraft side by side, you’ll notice the difference in the build quality. And I can attest to that. The Mirage is an absolute beauty from up close. Close attention on form and fit mean that panel gaps are very small. There is very little that seems crude about the Vajra when seen from up close and it’s a bird that’s very easy to really fall in love with.

Some guys I’ve spoken to say that such high attention to form and fit doesn’t matter, that Russians knew that the boundary layer was so thick near the aircraft’s skin that such close tolerances didn’t matter for drag. And it’s true that if you want to compare the design philosophy, they’re just very different, and it reflected in costs of manufacturing as well.

Today, the Russians cannot use the same design philosophy on any of their current or future fighters because it’s a known fact that gaps between panels cause spikes in Radar Cross Section returns from a fighter. The YF-22 prototype I saw at a museum was a sight to behold if you notice such things. It’s got super-fine tolerances. In videos, if you see the F-22’s main landing gear door shut, you won’t even see a single line such is the fit (they have an overlap as well, but still).

Anyway, back to the Mirage. If you see the cockpit (I didn’t see it in person but I’ve seen a pic of it on the net), its basically vintage 1980s. Analog dials, large radar display with shielding to allow it to be seen in harsh glare, etc. but the striking difference between it and Russian fighters of that and earlier vintage is how un-cluttered it is despite these. The visibility isn’t as great as the F-16 with the big canopy bow frame, but it’s still somewhat better than either the Baaz or the MiG-23. It’s not hard to see why the Tejas canopy and cockpit overall ergonomics of height at which pilot sits is similar to the Mirage since when the Tejas was going through Project Definition, the Mirage was the template for several design factors. On the Baaz, the canopy starts much higher up, almost close to the pilot’s shoulders.

Even maintenance wise, the Mirage brought up some startling changes for the IAF technicians who were used to MiGs, Su-7s, Gnats, Hunters, etc. The computerized system checks and fault diagnostics system was completely new for the IAF. MTBF for systems and sub-systems was higher than any other aircraft in the IAF. The MTBO for the engine was better than any other aircraft in the IAF. I’m not saying that no system had issues or something like that, but overall, its availability rates were the highest and its aircrew and technicians were justifiably proud of the Mirage. It introduced the IAF to Western 3rd generation technologies that in many ways formed the basis of what it and the DRDO guys wanted on the Tejas, but obviously more advanced to cater for obsolescence.

The Mirages were capable of IFR but the IAF had no tankers, so the probes were not added. The Mirage relies on onboard oxygen tanks, and doesn’t have an OBOGS like the Tejas. This means that even with IFR, its endurance is limited to the amount of oxygen on tanks carried aboard. There was a case where when flying back from Mauritius, Wg Cdr Jaspreet Singh had a close call when a leak in an onboard oxygen tank caused problems and finally when he landed at Trivandrum, he had only 1 liter of oxygen left.

The Mirage airframe is designed for 6000 hours TTL, around twice that of the Baaz. Later on, NAL can do a fatigue test analysis on the Mirage, like it did for the Baaz and I’m pretty sure that they’ll find that the airframe can actually last quite a bit more. The reason for that belief of mine is that IAF Mirages have spent a large portion of their life being Air-defence fighters and that generally causes lower stresses on the airframe even though it involves more high-G maneuvering because you’re not lugging around heavy bombs. In fact, the typical IAF Mirage lead-out is a central drop tank and either clean or with dummy Magic-II on one pylon and one R-530D on another pylon. European air forces had found to their dismay that their F-16 wing spars had cracks in them much earlier than expected, and earlier than seen in other Air Forces that used F-16s for Air-defence, primarily because their missions involved lugging around bombs leading to high stresses.

Flexibility wise, there is no match for the Mirage in the IAF, except for the Su-30MKI now. It did everything that the IAF needed it to do. Air-defence fighter that took on the role of LGB platform for the 1999 Kargil war as well as did escort missions and since then is the only IAF fighter to be integrated with the Israeli Crystal Maze version of the Popeye Standoff air to ground missile.

Sometime in the late 1980s, a few years after induction, the Mirage became the de-facto prime nuclear weapon delivery platform for the IAF, whereas the Jaguar was the first platform to be considered for that role. You can read up on that here where its given in detail. It also has some very rare pictures of Mirages with different camo schemes that indicate they were ear-marked for missions that involved low-level penetration and hence the green/brown camo.

To their consternation the air force found the bomb pods made by ARDE were just too heavy for the Jaguar. At take-off the aircraft’s ground clearance with the bomb slung to its belly was just two inches which made it unsafe. By late 1986, even as the Brasstacks raged, the Jaguar was rejected. The three pilots selected for the job were sent back. Search then began for new aircraft. The team homed in on the Mirage 2000 purchased from France a few years earlier and work began on preparing the aircraft as India’s prime delivery system.

From the air force, an Air Vice Marshal, who was specially assigned to co-ordinate with DRDO, flew a Mirage fighter stationed at Gwalior to Kalaikunda. Two other pilots, who had been trained for the task, flew in with two more fighters. The core assembly made by TBRL fitted snugly into the container which was then slung under the belly of a Mirage. The bomb, including its explosives, was slightly longer than two adult arms stretched out. Its diameter was as large as a wheel of a min-van. When the container was mated to the aircraft there was nothing to differentiate it from a regular conventional bomb.

The specially chosen pilots had practised the toss bombing manoeuvre for years. There was no extraordinary skill required. Just plain caution. The Mirage 200 was ideal for such a mission. Despite being inducted way back into the min-1980s, the fighter remains top of the line. Pilots praise its reliability and the ease of handling. The ergonomics of the cockpit ensure that man and machine work in absolute harmony.


The Air Vice Marshal mentioned above would’ve most likely been Ajit Bhavnani who went on to become Commander of the Tri-services Nuclear Command and later on Air Marshal and had previously been CO of No.7 Battle Axes.

Air Marshal Ajit Bhavnani, commander of the tri-services nuclear command, will take over as the IAF vice-chief on August 22. The post has remained vacant since a fortnight. Bhavnani’s successor at the Strategic Forces Command will be announced on Friday.

Bhavnani was commissioned into the IAF fighter stream in 1966 and flew 22 missions into the enemy territory during the 1971 Indo-Pak war. In 1976, he underwent the fighter combat leaders course at TACDE in Gwalior, returning to command the institution from 1989 to 1992.

In 1984, he led a team to France to test Mirage-2000H. He commanded one of these. Between 1993-1996, Bhavnani was the Defence Attache in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, and returned to take over as the Base Commander of the Gwalior station. After this, he served as the Air Advisor to the Air Chief.



What the above points also make clear is that India doesn’t need any of the MRCA winner nations to give it permission to modify the MRCA to carry nukes.
IAF and DRDO have adequate ability to modify their fighters and build small enough nukes to let any fighter carry it as long as it can carry that payload and has adequate ground clearance to take off or land with the bomb slung underneath. I hope this silences that debate and those questions about the US giving us permission to modify F-16s or F-18s if we buy them. They didn’t give permission to PAF to modify their F-16s either, but they did it on their own anyway. Ideally you still want someone like France- no preaching morals and it couldn’t care less about what use India puts its Mirages to as long as India pays it for them. I like that attitude and that’s after all what weapons are for!

IMO that means that an upgrade for the Mirage is totally worth the cost because there is a lot of life left in the airframe and you can use it that much longer as a frontline fighter. Tactics are well established, plenty of trained pilots are available, infrastructure is already set up and HAL already is the only non-OEM that can overhaul Mirages outside of France. There is just too much invested in the Mirages and too much gained to let it just go obsolete by not upgrading it. A modern radar, EW suite , HMS and new missiles will allow the 3 Mirage squadrons to be used for another 15 years at least and they’ll be able to take on any of the PAF’s current or later fighters.

Anyway, things that the IAF would’ve learnt from the experience of having Mirages in service are that it wants a multi-role fighter, one that is flexible to take on other roles, even if it was designed primarily for the Air-defence mission. A Silver bullet fighter like Typhoon that does one job wonderfully well (Air Superiority and Air Defence) but aren’t yet fully able to do other roles particularly well are going to take a lot of effort for the IAF to get them fully multi-role. That is a con, especially when taken along with the cost of the Typhoon. It’s a somewhat similar analogy to the Baaz- it was the IAF’s premier Air Superiority fighter, but pretty much useless at ground attack, which meant that when the IAF wanted a Strategic Command, it was overlooked, and earlier when IAF wanted a new fighter in the 1990s, it was overlooked. The IAF will be ok with less performance (as the Mirage’s pure performance lagged the Baaz’s) than the best, as long as it does a good enough job in most roles.

It wants a fighter that has high availability and reliability and one on which various weapons can be integrated over its lifetime, possibly by non-OEM firms as well (R-73s and R-27s were integrated on Mirages, integrated locally, not by Dassault), so source codes are a must and non-negotiable.

But conversely, Mirage spares are very expensive and India never utilized the right to licence build Mirages at HAL, despite including such a clause in the original contract. Gwalior AFS had infrastructure for more than 100 Mirages because it was originally thought that the IAF would end up with that many or more. The cash crunch in the early 1990s put paid to any such plans as did the induction of Baaz at a much lesser cost. There was a debate in the IAF as to which platform was worth inducting in large numbers. However, neither was chosen and in the mid-late 1990s, the Su-30MKI was selected. This would’ve taught the IAF that it’s important that most spares be built in India and be available without price gouging. Full ToT allows the IAF to maintain its existing fleet without major problems and that is the main idea for ToT, not because the IAF or GoI want them to be reverse engineered or for technologies gained to be used on desi programs, although that will be a small spin-off benefit.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4927
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 22 Jan 2010 07:00

johnny_m wrote:Philip,

While the twin engined fighters certainly offers more safety the newer single engined fighters are almost as reliable and has an advantage in fuel and operational costs.


True. It’s a toss-up between these factors. There are those that argue that the twin-engined fighter offers higher probability of recovering a fighter even after one engine cuts out, say if it ingests a bird. Anyway, the Gripen has shown itself to have quite a good safety record, although the F-16’s safety record isn’t quite so great. Amongst all the MRCA contenders, it possibly has the worst safety record (which is relative of course). in IAF service, history has shown that the twin-engined fighters have a better safety record. Among the single engined fighters, the Mirage-2000 has a decent record, whereas the MiG-23 was the worst.

The IAF 29As are being upgraded and nearly being bought to the standards of the MIG 35 (bar the AESA and much superior IRST i believe). If the MRCA is not won by the MIG 35 it would be rather foolish to replace the upgraded MIG 29As with the MIG 35.


Not quite the MiG-35. its upto MiG-29SMT+ standards. DRDO is developing an internal EW suite for the MiG-29 upgrade (as well as for LCA and Su-30MKI) as per DRDO’s latest publication. It doesn’t have a higher payload as the MiG-35 and the MiG-35 will (possibly) have some sensor fusion as well, something the SMT doesn’t.

The F 16 may be inferior to the MIG 29 in close combat, certainly in certain aspects, there is a book where they let American F 16 pilots evaluate the German Mig 29s and the MIG 29 jocks evaluating the F 16, the conclusion was that despite the 29s superior performance in certain aspect, a good viper pilot can easily negate them and turn the engagement in his favour. The HOBS and HMCS kind of make maneuverability less relevant than it was before


There are certain flight regimes where the MiG-29 is considered unbeatable. The biggest drawback of the original MiG-29A was its poor MMI that involved plenty of pilot work before he could even engage a bogey. Coupled with poorer SA, it meant the MiG-29 couldn’t be used to its full potential. I can quite safely say that the MiG-35 won’t have those drawbacks and even without TVC could gobble up most fighters in close combat if one looked only at pure performance. Russian A2A weapons development has lagged for several years due to lack of funding and that is only now being rectified. Even so, I’d think that the IN’s MiG-29Ks with Thales TopOwl-F HMSD alongwith R-73E would be hard to evade in close combat.

And I’ve read one article that is often shown around where Luftwaffe MiG-29As are compared with F-16s in DACT. It appeared in CodeOne Magazine, which is a Lockheed Martin publication. Its not hard to see why they praised the F-16 eventually, is it?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby negi » 22 Jan 2010 07:37

Kartik comparisons with TSP don't hold any water firstly unlike the TSP India has in the past always adhered to what it signs on to in black and white and I don't see it changing in future . Moreover in case of TSP Unkil did put an embargo on TSP when it came to know about former's arrangement with China on fitting PRC sourced nukes on the falcons and that is why the second batch of 11 F-16A/Bs were not delivered despite having paid for in advance.Lastly ToT goes only so far as far as achieving self sufficiency is concerned for one cannot practically manufacture each and every component in house for instance we don't even do that for the MKI .

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Jan 2010 08:02

Just like the M2K leap frogged the IAF to a true third generation aircraft, which aircraft do we consider to be the most well suited among the MRCA contenders to do the same this time, i.e: leap frog to a true 4++ generation aircraft.

Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Klaus » 22 Jan 2010 08:49

How do the latest versions of EDITED S-300 and S-400 systems, designed with the explicit intent to shoot down F-teen planes impact the tender? IMHO it would mean that none of the F-teen birds can even be based off Leh/Ladakh, there wopuld be scores of S-400 batteries waiting just across the LAC. Arunachal has a better chance because the terrain favors us there with regard to air superiority, especially if the PLA can be adequately distracted in Aksai chin by the Jaguars or MKI's/M2K's

Hence we might end up in a situation where we cannot field the F-teen birds against TSP due to political pressure and cannot field them against PLA because of the prospect of heavy losses in Southwestern Tibet! A week long war would result in the surviving F-teens ending up gracing the hangars in Daulat Beg Oldi/Avantipur!

However, this question would'nt arise if the MRCA is a European bird, dont know about Mig-35's position on this hence cant comment!
Last edited by Rahul M on 22 Jan 2010 22:41, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: do not use that word.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7320
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 22 Jan 2010 10:00

Klaus wrote:How do the latest versions of Chinki S-300 and S-400 systems, designed with the explicit intent to shoot down F-teen planes impact the tender? IMHO it would mean that none of the F-teen birds can even be based off Leh/Ladakh, there wopuld be scores of S-400 batteries waiting just across the LAC. Arunachal has a better chance because the terrain favors us there with regard to air superiority, especially if the PLA can be adequately distracted in Aksai chin by the Jaguars or MKI's/M2K's

Hence we might end up in a situation where we cannot field the F-teen birds against TSP due to political pressure and cannot field them against PLA because of the prospect of heavy losses in Southwestern Tibet! A week long war would result in the surviving F-teens ending up gracing the hangars in Daulat Beg Oldi/Avantipur!

However, this question would'nt arise if the MRCA is a European bird, dont know about Mig-35's position on this hence cant comment!


SAM batteries are meant to take care of all aerial threats not a particular type of aircraft. Our MKIs and other aircraft are just as vulnerable to the S-300/400 systems as the F-16/18 or any other aircraft. The chances of survival depend on the RCS, EW equipment, range and effectiveness of the anti-radiation missiles carried etc.

Added later: If we buy the F-18 and IF (and its a really big IF) the US offers us the EA-18G Growler, that would be a major force multiplier. It can effectively deal with the SAM systems and enemy AWACS.

b_patel
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 04:08

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby b_patel » 22 Jan 2010 10:08

How do the latest versions of Chinki S-300 and S-400 systems, designed with the explicit intent to shoot down F-teen planes impact the tender? IMHO it would mean that none of the F-teen birds can even be based off Leh/Ladakh, there wopuld be scores of S-400 batteries waiting just across the LAC. Arunachal has a better chance because the terrain favors us there with regard to air superiority, especially if the PLA can be adequately distracted in Aksai chin by the Jaguars or MKI's/M2K's
Hence we might end up in a situation where we cannot field the F-teen birds against TSP due to political pressure and cannot field them against PLA because of the prospect of heavy losses in Southwestern Tibet! A week long war would result in the surviving F-teens ending up gracing the hangars in Daulat Beg Oldi/Avantipur!
However, this question would'nt arise if the MRCA is a European bird, dont know about Mig-35's position on this hence cant comment!

China doesn't have a copy of the S-400 system. The Russians have only managed to induct 2 battalions so far, they're planning on inducting another 5 in 2010. The Chinese copies of the S-300 system have never been tested in combat so no one knows how effective they would be against the F-18 or F-16. The European birds won't have an easier time against the Chinese S-300 system if it as capable as the Russian version.

b_patel
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 04:08

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby b_patel » 22 Jan 2010 10:12

Added later: If we buy the F-18 and IF (and its a really big IF) the US offers us the EA-18G Growler, that would be a major force multiplier. It can effectively deal with the SAM systems and enemy AWACS.

Who knows who India will eventually buy, hopefuly its the EF but we still have a LONG wait. India has been offered the Growler Lite, which I personally think is a waste of money. India might as well convert a squadron of MKI to dedicated EW units (similar to the growler) instead of buying the F-18 and Growler Lites.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 22 Jan 2010 11:03

yeah a MKI EW squadron's worth distributed in 2-3 nos across all active units would be good. some high power pods for the inboard wing pylons and center pylon should be developed/got from israel though. maybe wing pylons can be jammers, while center pylon radar locator + tail units to cue 10 ARM missiles ( 4 fuselage, 6 wings).

WSO cockpit heavily modified with EW consoles replacing the usual.

this can help in dedicated mass 20+ salvo attacks on the S-300 type batteries, using KH31P and brahmos modded to feature a ARM and home-on-jam seeker.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 22 Jan 2010 13:27

And I’ve read one article that is often shown around where Luftwaffe MiG-29As are compared with F-16s in DACT. It appeared in CodeOne Magazine, which is a Lockheed Martin publication. Its not hard to see why they praised the F-16 eventually, is it?


No its actually a book not an article. Its a Janes Publication by Jon Lake.

Code: Select all

http://rapidshare.com/files/157405382/How_to_Fly_and_Fight_in_the_Mikoyan_Mig-29_Fulcrum.rar

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby khukri » 22 Jan 2010 23:54

Who knows who India will eventually buy, hopefuly its the EF but we still have a LONG wait. India has been offered the Growler Lite, which I personally think is a waste of money. India might as well convert a squadron of MKI to dedicated EW units (similar to the growler) instead of buying the F-18 and Growler Lites.

You could be right - Reuters is just reporting this and its on AFM forum as well. although it could just be his excellency the ambassador being .....a little too diplomatic?:

LiveNews
Eurofighter leading race for India deal- ambassador 1/22/2010 9:56:14 PM

ROME, Jan 22 (Reuters) - The Eurofighter Typhoon is "leading the race" to win a contract from the Indian government for 126 fighter jets, valued at around $10.4 billion, India's ambassador to Italy said on Friday.

"We have shortlisted four to five countries, then the trials process and evaluation will follow. Eurofighter is one of them, in which Italy is involved, and it's leading the race," ambassador Arif Shahid Khan told Reuters after a meeting with a senior aid to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Boeing's BA.N F/A-18 Super Hornet, France's Dassault

AVMD.PA Rafale, Lockheed Martin Corp's LMT.N F-16, Russia's MiG-35, Sweden's Saab SAABb.ST JAS-39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, produced by a consortium of European companies EAD.PA BAES.L SIFI.MI , are competing for the order.

Defence industry experts do not expect an immediate decision.

(Reporting by Valentina Rusconi)

((daniel.flynn@thomsonreuters.com; +39 06 8522 4394; Reuters messaging: daniel.flynn.reuters.com@reuters.net, Rome Newsroom))

SanjibGhosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 30 Jan 2009 18:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SanjibGhosh » 22 Jan 2010 23:59

Eurofighter leading race for $10.4 bln contract
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6 ... arketsNews

:shock: :shock: :shock:

How can an ambassador make such a statement ...

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 23 Jan 2010 00:01

The Typhoon Will Not Be Bad At All. My reservations on the Eurobirds has always been price.
http://www.eurofighter.com/po_bl.asp?id=169

During recent exercises, NATO Air Forces carried out several training combat engagements known as DACT, Dissimilar Aircraft Combat Training, involving different types of aircraft. In this situation, where the air dominance is a matter, the Eurofighter Typhoons turned out to be the leading air-to-air fighter jets.

Once again, the outstanding performance of the Eurofighter Typhoon was evident in a dogfight simulation. The 111 Squadron of the Spanish Air Force as well as the 493rd Squadron of the U.S. Air Force were deployed for training in Gando Air Base, Gran Canaria. The Spanish Squadron attended the training with a total of six Eurofighter Typhoons. The U.S. Air Force deployed F-15s.

In an interview on the exercise, Major Juan Balesta, the 41-year old Commander of the 111 Squadron stressed that a two-ship formation of Eurofighters involved in a dogfight simulation “against” the F-15s enjoyed full control of the engagement. The Typhoons managed to smash a formation of eight F-15s which had the role of the attacker with the first Eurofighter jet managing to "shoot down" four F-15 fighter jets. The second Eurofighter managed to disable three F-15 jets. Eventually the pilots were using the Eurofighter Typhoon to full capacity and taking advantage of its enormous capabilities. Trump that.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests