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.
vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby vardhank » 15 Jul 2009 09:12

why in the MRCA thread?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Jul 2009 16:46

The OZ decision to buy 24 SHs came as a surprise,as the aircraft are considered infrior to the Flanker series as well as their successor to be,the JSF Lightning-2.These SH's however are only an "Interim solution",as the foll. report says.Very interestingly is the price that Oz is paying for 24 aircraft,"$2.3billion",which works out to approx. $100 million per aircraft! If the IAF is going to be offered a similar deal,one could expect at the most a 10-15% discount on 126 aircraft,making a unit price of around $85+ million as the likely price of an F-18SH for India.This is going to give the Rafale and Typhoon excellent chances if a western aircraft is chosen,as they are contenporary and not of 1970's design vintage.The MIG-35 of design a decade later of superior air combat and equal strike capability,is a far better option at around $45-50 million per piece,and if cost is going to be the key criteria,should be the favourite.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... jsf-02898/

Australia Buying 24 Super Hornets As Interim Gap-Fillers
13-Jul-2009 08:17 EDT
RAAF F/A-18F rollout

(click to view full)DID has covered the recent controversies over Australia’s involvement in the F-35 Lightning II program, amid criticisms that the F-35A will be unable to compete with proliferating SU-30 family aircraft in the region, lacks the required range or response time, and will either be extremely expensive at $100+ million per aircraft in early (2013-2016) production, or will not be available until 2018 or later. The accelerated retirement of Australia’s 22 long-range F-111s in 2010 sharpened the timing debate, with a recently retired Air Vice-Marshal and the opposition (now governing) Labor Party both weighing in with criticisms and alternative force proposals.

In December 2006, The Australian reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was discussing an A$ 3 billion (about $2.36 billion) purchase of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft around 2009-2010. A move that came as “a surprise to senior defence officials on Russell Hill”; but is now an official purchase as requests and contracts work their way through. Australia’s new Labor government’s later decided to keep the Super Hornet purchase, cementing the deal. Recent ministerial statements now place the program’s final figure at A$ 6.6 billion, which includes basing, training, and other ancillary costs.

This DID Spotlight article that describes the model chosen, links to coverage of the key controversies, and offers a history of contracts and key event’s from the program’s first official DSCA requests to the present day. The latest addition involves the rollout of the first aircraft, ahead of schedule…


Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 835
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Raveen » 15 Jul 2009 17:37

FYI SH was not designed in the 70's
it was the Hornet
just like the Mig 35 was not designed the same time the Mig 29 was

vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby vardhank » 15 Jul 2009 18:40

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bra ... ram-04179/

almost identical competition to ours, the writeup speaks a bit more about the political problems. looking at brazil's options, i can't imagine them going for anything but the rafale. or the IAF selecting anything else, either.

a critical last chance for France to get some export momentum and success behind its Rafale, which has lost every competition it has entered thus far (Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, UAE, et. al

there don't appear to be very specific stated reasons for these countries dumping the rafale. any articles that might point to this? seems fairly bizarre to me.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 15 Jul 2009 19:03

Philip wrote:Oz is paying for 24 aircraft,"$2.3billion",which works out to approx. $100 million per aircraft!


that is the full package including spares, support, training, etc

it also includes one-time costs that would be spread over a larger number of aircraft with a larger purchase

one thing i've learned is that trying to compare aircraft prices by press release is impossible, as what that price includes is always different and you can find any price you want

i can point to stories that say the price of the SH is under $50 million

we'll have to wait to see what prices the competitors have offered in their bid and then how reliable those prices are judged to be

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Hitesh » 15 Jul 2009 19:17

Philip, the SH is a '90ish frame in the same league as Rafael but more capable. The production cost for a SH is around 60 million if you include its expensive but extremely capable avionics.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Jul 2009 21:54

he SH is a '90ish frame in the same league as Rafael but more capable


Could you elaborate how exactly the super hornet is more capable?

Leaving aside the the vast array of weapons that the U.S. could provide (excepting of course AASM or Scalp or Mica IIR or Meteor types), in what possible way is the shornet as a platform more capable?

airframe performance?
payload?
range?
rcs?
sensors?

IMHO, the only advantage the shornet had (marginallY) was the AESA, but this has been overcome with the RBE 2 AESA.

CM.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2009 22:00

CM,

How can you expect to "leave aside" ANY THING and then ask to compare?

Phillip is in a time capsule. He has made that 70's argument ever since Boeing offered the SH. No matter what you bring to the post his post does not change. :)

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Jul 2009 22:49

Raoji,

I was referring to the platform itself. surely when comparing the capability of a given system, you can drop out factors such as tot, commonality, logistics, end user agreements and so on.

Still, admittedly the U.S platforms do offer greater variety in weapons. Couple of caveats though:
- there is still no long ranged strike weapon such as a klub, scalp.
- unlike the rafale, there are no/few weapons in current IAF inventory that could be used directly with u.s plaftorms.
- No weapon such as an IIR mica or Meteor on the shornet/f-16.

And this is the only area where one can see some sort of advantage for the amriki platforms. In almost all other categories they take a beating.

Anyway, the problem is in making a broad statement that the shornet is more capable than the rafale. One feels such generalized statements require at least some elaboration, don't you think?

CM.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 15 Jul 2009 23:18

Cain Marko wrote:
he SH is a '90ish frame in the same league as Rafael but more capable


Could you elaborate how exactly the super hornet is more capable?

Leaving aside the the vast array of weapons that the U.S. could provide (excepting of course AASM or Scalp or Mica IIR or Meteor types), in what possible way is the shornet as a platform more capable?

airframe performance?
payload?
range?
rcs?
sensors?

IMHO, the only advantage the shornet had (marginallY) was the AESA, but this has been overcome with the RBE 2 AESA.

CM.


the biggest advantage for the SH is that its AESA has been in service for quite some time now, whereas the RBE2 will not enter service in the Adl'A till 2012 or thereabouts. there is a difference in how mature the capabilities on the two radars will be at least as of now, when the evaluation will take place.

of course, there will be a lot of capabilities that the RBE2 will bring, by the time the MRCA actually enters service, and its not clear whether the evaluation will award points for "future capabilities" or score points based on the flight tests.

there is a higher thrust engine in the offing for the SH as well as the Rafale, so I guess the advantage evens out in this field. However, if the LCA is chosen to fly with the F-414, then the F-414 on the SH will be of interest in terms of commonality. that will not be the case with the Rafale, because the Snecma-GTRE JV has been ruled out from being productionised on the LCA, although it may have a future as the MCA powerplant.

btw, the SH supposedly has a front-on RCS that is supposedly very low, and the twin canted tails also helps to reduce side-on RCS..in clean configs, it may be as as good as that of the Silent Eagle, which lacks the intake blockers that are seen on the SH.

this presentation, which is very recent, is quite informative and gives a good idea of the range of capabilities that the SH already possesses.

I think the SH's trump card is that it is already capable of most of the things that the IAF wants of its MRCA, with minimal development time required, as compared to almost any of the other contenders, bar the F-16IN.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Jul 2009 23:18

NRao wrote:Phillip is in a time capsule. He has made that 70's argument ever since Boeing offered the SH. No matter what you bring to the post his post does not change. :)


Well, the shornet is certainly not a 70s a/c. Yes it is to some extent based on the older hornet, but in most ways differs considerably. It is indeed well suited to USN needs as it provides a nice golden avg being v.maintenance friendly (critical in carrier ops), great striker (ideally suited for missions against areas that have already been denuded of any potent a2a threat such as afg, iraq, kosovo etc), and a decent cover for the CVBG. This works well for an overwhelmingly superior force that the U.S brings to the table, which has hardly been threatened by any other force since the USSR.

Against the kind of enemies the IAF faces or will face however, one feels the shornet is not going to be enough or will soon be surpassed. Its inherent airframe limitations simply mean that with the proliferation of tech and chinese/paki access to the same, the electronics edge will wear thin in no time at all thereby making the bird quite inadequate for the A2A requirement. The bottomline at Redflag 08 also suggests the same (and those were aggressor f-15s/16s). I can't imagine this a/c causing any brown pants after about 2015-2020. To think that the IAF needs it for another 40 years :eek: The F-16 E/F is equally handicapped if not worse. Its hardly a wonder that all users of these legacy types are looking to transition to the JSF.

The IAF needs a bird that is superior to anything around as of now and has the potential to keep such an edge throughout its lifetime. Frankly ,only the Rafale and perhaps the the Tiffy can provide this. Unfortunately, not even a fulcrum fan like me can deny this. The only way the super-fulcrum can overcome its legacy roots is by coming at a very low price. If the russkis agree to provide 180+ mig-35s for the same price as 125 rafales/tiffies, then you have a real humdinger. I can't imagine the bean counters not being tempted :evil:

CM.

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby viveks » 15 Jul 2009 23:31

I have a right off to declare. After the government's decision to upgrade the Mirage. I am pretty sure the MMRCA is going to go the Super Hornet way. Watch my words....hmmmmmm!!!!!

Actually...I am surprised uncle sam did not send its silent eagle accross....that would have been the real juice.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Jul 2009 23:36

Kartik wrote:the biggest advantage for the SH is that its AESA has been in service for quite some time now, whereas the RBE2 will not enter service in the Adl'A till 2012 or thereabouts. there is a difference in how mature the capabilities on the two radars will be at least as of now, when the evaluation will take place.

of course, there will be a lot of capabilities that the RBE2 will bring, by the time the MRCA actually enters service, and its not clear whether the evaluation will award points for "future capabilities" or score points based on the flight tests.

there is a higher thrust engine in the offing for the SH as well as the Rafale, so I guess the advantage evens out in this field. However, if the LCA is chosen to fly with the F-414, then the F-414 on the SH will be of interest in terms of commonality. that will not be the case with the Rafale, because the Snecma-GTRE JV has been ruled out from being productionised on the LCA, although it may have a future as the MCA powerplant.

btw, the SH supposedly has a front-on RCS that is supposedly very low, and the twin canted tails also helps to reduce side-on RCS..in clean configs, it may be as as good as that of the Silent Eagle, which lacks the intake blockers that are seen on the SH.

this presentation, which is very recent, is quite informative and gives a good idea of the range of capabilities that the SH already possesses.

I think the SH's trump card is that it is already capable of most of the things that the IAF wants of its MRCA, with minimal development time required, as compared to almost any of the other contenders, bar the F-16IN.


No doubt the Shornet is the most mature and ready platform being offered as of now. Esp. in terms of the AESA. But the IAF has to look out for another 35-40 years for this investment and here is where the concern lies. Also, the rafale is not exactly in prototype stage either. It has been used extensively in the last decade or so. Mature enough one thinks. Further, there are huge doubts as to what kind of Apg-79 will be on offer (reports suggest a downgraded version is a distinct possibility). Again, there will be some customization on part of the IAF which will somewhat take away from the "mature" aspect of the shornet.

As far as greater thrust engines go, the super hornet needs these far more than the rafale. And thrust is not the only problem as you very well know. The rafale has it in terms of wingloading, turn rates, climb rates, supercruise, nose pointing - you name it.

Commonality in engines? the Kaveri JV with snecma might give you engines for both the rafale and the mca.

As far as stealth goes, for all the talk, what happens with EFTs and external weapons? of course this is a problem with the rafale as well. Still, as per recent reports, the IAF considers the Rafale the most advanced of the MRCA contenders in this aspect and rightly so imho.

CM.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Jul 2009 23:36

viveks wrote:I have a right off to declare. After the government's decision to upgrade the Mirage. I am pretty sure the MMRCA is going to go the Super Hornet way. Watch my words....hmmmmmm!!!!!

Actually...I am surprised uncle sam did not send its silent eagle accross....that would have been the real juice.


You may have a point. At close to $40 mil a pop, this could be it for the french.

CM.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Jul 2009 00:15

Now that UPA is giving two nuke reactors to uncle, maybe the MRCA can be to French?

I didnt know SH was worse than Flanker. As IAF already has SU 30 MKI that leaves only one US plane. And thats with TSP too.

Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Bhaskar » 16 Jul 2009 00:23

Antony spills the beans, says MiG-29 structurally flawed
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/antony-spill ... 226-3.html

The MiG-29, which was thought to be one of India's most potent weapons, is a defective aircraft.


What are the chances of the government buying a Mig again?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 16 Jul 2009 00:40

Bhaskar wrote:Antony spills the beans, says MiG-29 structurally flawed
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/antony-spill ... 226-3.html

The MiG-29, which was thought to be one of India's most potent weapons, is a defective aircraft.


What are the chances of the government buying a Mig again?


DDM at its sensationalist worst. "defective" is the term they use, of all !! I wonder what the headlines would be if the dimwits knew that even F-15s, F-16s and F-18s have suffered fatigue related issues that have caused major headaches..or that even the venerable 747s had panels that flew off aircraft while in mid-flight..or the F-15 crash due to a longeron failure, or the European F-16s whose wing spars cracked halfway through their life, or the Hornets with their suspect hinges..

the IAF ACM Naik in an interview had clearly mentioned that the IAF was aware of this even before the Russians said anything about the corrosion issue, because of its own preventive maintenance. and he had also said that no IAF MiG-29 had any corrosion related problems to the fin root.
Last edited by Kartik on 16 Jul 2009 00:42, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 16 Jul 2009 00:41

Well the link also says

"A repair scheme and preventive measures are in place and IAF has not encountered major problems concerning the issue," Antony said.


Yes but the headlines like "MiG-29 structurally flawed" can be stunning :shock:

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gagan » 16 Jul 2009 00:52

ramana wrote:Now that UPA is giving two nuke reactors to uncle, maybe the MRCA can be to French?

OT, but those are two reactor sites. We are talking of 4-8 reactors at least, $8-16 billion worth. The nuclear reactors deal for just these two sites is much larger than MRCA.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Jul 2009 01:25

If you follow my posts, my line of reasoning is that uncle has to be paid off for the nuke deal. Two sites is good enough to hedge against Tarapur kind of perfidy.
Earlier the sites were unknown and in the air. So the idea was to buy them off with planes.

To be honest I dont like the idea of propping up old technology firms which can filter to TSP to provide its delivery vehicles.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby abhiti » 16 Jul 2009 01:32

Kartik wrote:
Bhaskar wrote:Antony spills the beans, says MiG-29 structurally flawed http://ibnlive.in.com/news/antony-spill ... 226-3.html


DDM at its sensationalist worst. "defective" is the term they use, of all !!


DDM isn't dimwits at all, they are evil genius. I wonder why CNN ibn will bad mouth Russian stuff. Could an "indian" media channel have agenda? On the other end trust communist newspapers e.g. calcuta times (telegraph) or hindu to carry out Chinese agenda.

Welcome to independent media!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Jul 2009 01:36

Ajai Shuklaji

LINK

France's Dassault targets Lockheed in combat aircraft deal

Ajai Shukla / New Delhi July 16, 2009, 0:30 IST

The gloves are off in the competition to sell India 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for an estimated Rs 50,000 crore. Two days after Business Standard reported on the sudden replacement of Lockheed Martin India’s CEO, Lockheed’s French rival, Dassault Aviation — whose Rafale fighter is pitched against Lockheed Martin’s F-16 IN in the MMRCA tender — is contemplating asking the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) to disqualify Lockheed Martin from the tender. The reason: sources in Dassault allege that Lockheed Martin has illegally obtained access to classified documents relating to the competition.

- Lockheed Martin India head takes off in a hurry

Approached for details of Dassault’s decision, the company’s Indian representative, Pusina Rao, told Business Standard over the telephone from Paris, “Dassault executives are in discussions and will soon reach a final decision on what action it will initiate against Lockheed Martin. In any case, the French government will have the final word, since there are political repercussions involved.”

Rao declined to comment on how long it would take for Paris to approach the Indian MoD for action against Lockheed Martin.

Sources close to the MMRCA contract point out that tension has been growing between Dassault and Lockheed Martin since the end of 2008, when the Indian media reported that Dassault had been eliminated from the MMRCA contract because it had not fulfilled some of the technical requirements spelt out in the Indian tender. Weeks after the report — and apparently after French President Nikolas Sarkozy spoke to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over the phone — it was announced that Dassault was very much in contention.

But Dassault believed that Lockheed Martin was responsible for those reports. Now, Dassault is determined to get back at Lockheed Martin, citing charges of corruption in clear violation of the guidelines in India’s Defence Procurement Policy-2008 (DPP-2008).

On Tuesday, reporting on Lockheed’s India CEO, Ambassador Douglas A Hartwick’s sudden recall to the US without the appointment of a replacement, Business Standard had quoted Lockheed Martin’s Asia Chief, Rick Kirkland, as saying that while Lockheed Martin had never possessed classified Indian procurement documents, the company’s US headquarters had written to the MoD in New Delhi seeking clarification over two “unclassified files” that had found their way into Lockheed’s possession.

The MMRCA competition is growing increasingly heated, with all six competitors — Lockheed Martin; Boeing; Dassault; Grippen; MiG; and Eurofighter — scheduled to produce their aircraft for flight testing by the Indian Air Force, turn by turn, starting this month.



I think its competetion sensitive material and not classified material. Anyway there is long history with LM of 'educating' its customers.

Interesting that this comes out when Hillary is visiting to clinch the deal.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby abhiti » 16 Jul 2009 01:39

ramana wrote:If you follow my posts, my line of reasoning is that uncle has to be paid off for the nuke deal. Two sites is good enough to hedge against Tarapur kind of perfidy.
Earlier the sites were unknown and in the air. So the idea was to buy them off with planes.

To be honest I dont like the idea of propping up old technology firms which can filter to TSP to provide its delivery vehicles.


I like the way you think. Ramana, the intelligent!

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Jul 2009 02:33

Antony spills the beans, says MiG-29 structurally flawed
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/antony-spill ... 226-3.html


Boy! Talk about hit jobs. Alright its obvious now that the Hindu is commie laced/anti DRDO (Ravi Sharma) and the IBN wallas (Vishal Thapar?) are khan cronies. Man don't these guys have any shame - the reply by anthony to questions in the RS were totally objective and without any such tilt. $$$s be flowing and palm being greased I guess.

CM.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Jul 2009 02:37

ramana wrote:Now that UPA is giving two nuke reactors to uncle, maybe the MRCA can be to French?

I didnt know SH was worse than Flanker. As IAF already has SU 30 MKI that leaves only one US plane. And thats with TSP too.



Aap ke mooh mein double dose of ghee shakkar. If the MRCA goes to Rafale, I for one won't hold you for 8 tons of akula mithai. But it looks doubtful.

Still $ 40 mill for per a/c sounds ridiculous. THere has to be more than that which meets the eye. Are they going to get some extra airframes from the Adla or UAE ? What be the catch?

CM.

Vinito
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 18:33

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Vinito » 16 Jul 2009 02:56

Cain Marko wrote:
viveks wrote:I have a right off to declare. After the government's decision to upgrade the Mirage. I am pretty sure the MMRCA is going to go the Super Hornet way. Watch my words....hmmmmmm!!!!!

Actually...I am surprised uncle sam did not send its silent eagle accross....that would have been the real juice.


You may have a point. At close to $40 mil a pop, this could be it for the french.

CM.


$40 million for the aircraft with the RBE-2 radar...quite unlikely the French will sell it at that price. If its the older version it will not be worth the price with the PESA radar when the others are offering a much better radar.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Jul 2009 03:01

Vinito wrote:$40 million for the aircraft with the RBE-2 radar...quite unlikely the French will sell it at that price. If its the older version it will not be worth the price with the PESA radar when the others are offering a much better radar.


Could you please make your response a little more readable? What are you trying to say? That the M2k is slated to get the RBE2 as an upgrade and hence the massive price? And what others are offering what much better radar? Thanks

CM.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Jul 2009 03:04

Well, the shornet is certainly not a 70s a/c. Yes it is to some extent based on the older hornet, but in most ways differs considerably.


Actually, as the story goes, the SH is so diff than the Hornet that they were required to assign it another number (F-20? whatever). But to slide it through ASAP they decided to upgrade the suffix - from C/D to E/F.

It is a totally different air craft.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Jul 2009 03:10

I think its competetion sensitive material and not classified material. Anyway there is long history with LM of 'educating' its customers.

Interesting that this comes out when Hillary is visiting to clinch the deal.


100 F-16s (single engined and all) and 100 rafales (dual engined and all)?

I think both nations MUST thrown in ENR as bonny. US for sure.

Vinito
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 18:33

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Vinito » 16 Jul 2009 03:13

Cain Marko wrote:
Vinito wrote:$40 million for the aircraft with the RBE-2 radar...quite unlikely the French will sell it at that price. If its the older version it will not be worth the price with the PESA radar when the others are offering a much better radar.


Could you please make your response a little more readable? What are you trying to say? That the M2k is slated to get the RBE2 as an upgrade and hence the massive price? And what others are offering what much better radar? Thanks

CM.


My bad..I misunderstood the price to be that for the Rafale...A million apologies!!! :((

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 16 Jul 2009 03:35

Vinito wrote:
$40 million for the aircraft with the RBE-2 radar...quite unlikely the French will sell it at that price. If its the older version it will not be worth the price with the PESA radar when the others are offering a much better radar.


he was referring to the Mirage-2000-5, not the Rafale..$40 million for the upgrade and that might be all the French get- their pound of flesh. even with a PESA RBE2 radar, the cost of the Rafale is much higher than $40 million..scale of economies never work in favour of the French, as compared to the Americans or even the Russians.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby b_patel » 16 Jul 2009 06:27

I didnt know SH was worse than Flanker. As IAF already has SU 30 MKI that leaves only one US plane. And thats with TSP too.

Its not, the Su-30MKI is inferior in some aspects to the SH. The Radar and avionics wise the SU-30MKI lags behind. Also in the RCS department the SH is much better.

100 F-16s (single engined and all) and 100 rafales (dual engined and all)?
I think both nations MUST thrown in ENR as bonny. US for sure.

I wouldn't be so sure! If it came down to these two I think India would choose the Rafale b/c it is the better aircraft and has better performance. Maybe if it was the SH vs Rafale things might be different.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Jul 2009 07:05

Actually, as the story goes, the SH is so diff than the Hornet that they were required to assign it another number (F-20? whatever). But to slide it through ASAP they decided to upgrade the suffix - from C/D to E/F.


Raoji,

Despite the shenanigans that go on in the congress, it does remain that the shornet is based on the hornet. Irrespective of its dependence on the hornet though, now that I think about it, Philip's reservations about the Shornet/f-16 do hold merit.

Consider this - they took a relatively mediocre performer (A2A at least) and were able to make it extraordinarily mediocre. All the electronics in the world now can't make humpty dumpty whole again. If it truly was a completely "new" bird, why is it nowhere close to the eurocanards or even the fulcrum/flanker in terms of flight performance? Not the range, not the agility/manouverbality nor the acceleration, power.

Almost everything on it seems like a patch up afterthought (bandaid fix), whether it is outward canted pylons or the IRST. It seems like an extraordinary effort to make the hornet's flight performance truly mediocre. No doubt they increased its payload and gave it a solid upgrade in terms of electronics and sensors and this works well in the overall strategy of the USN since they seemed to have felt that after the collapse of the S.U. air superiority was not a big concern.

The fat viper also seems to follow this strategy. In fact in terms of comprehensively upgrading legacy birds, both the f-16E/F and the F-18E/F are poor reflections of yankee ability. The russkis did a far better job on the flanker/fulcrum imho.

If the americans really want to offer a superb, upgraded system in terms of both airframe and sensors, they need to push LM into offering exclusive rights (Production/export) for the F-16XL. This beast with blk-60+ avionics/sensors would be worthy. Otherwise, the attempt holds very little value for the IAF imho.

CM.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4066
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Jul 2009 09:42

One doubt ., if Gripen is too near to LCA in capabilities and F18 too near to Su MKI why buy either of them ? And if indeed they are a good choice , why dont we just ramp up numbers of LCA or Su MKI or both !? To me I wonder whether the whole MRCA smacks of any logic at all ! umm maybe i am not intelligent in the ways of the Babudom

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Jul 2009 11:02

I think we must see how far the various contenders can be upgraded in thr future to make them relevanmt for another two decades at least.That is why the date of design becomes most important.The oldest are the F-16 and F-18 (originally F-17),which were contenders for the USAF,The winner was the F-16.More later.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 16 Jul 2009 11:28

kit wrote:One doubt ., if Gripen is too near to LCA in capabilities and F18 too near to Su MKI why buy either of them ? And if indeed they are a good choice , why dont we just ramp up numbers of LCA or Su MKI or both !? To me I wonder whether the whole MRCA smacks of any logic at all ! umm maybe i am not intelligent in the ways of the Babudom

Your can't give what do you do not have (famous words of VietCong chief to the head of puppet South Vietnam Govt huddled in presidents palace in Saigon (HoChiMing city), as the VietCong T55 get in position to ram down the compound wall)
Similarly you cant ramp up production of an aircraft that is still many years from production.

IMVHO it is just idle speculation building castles in air. :mrgreen:

narayana
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 12:01

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby narayana » 16 Jul 2009 11:44

NRao wrote:
I think its competetion sensitive material and not classified material. Anyway there is long history with LM of 'educating' its customers.

Interesting that this comes out when Hillary is visiting to clinch the deal.


100 F-16s (single engined and all) and 100 rafales (dual engined and all)?

I think both nations MUST thrown in ENR as bonny. US for sure.


what will we do with the 100 F-16's after 2020?,they will be same as todays Mig-21,outdated, widow makers sadly on our side :(

dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby dorai » 16 Jul 2009 13:23

kit wrote:One doubt ., if Gripen is too near to LCA in capabilities and F18 too near to Su MKI why buy either of them ? And if indeed they are a good choice , why dont we just ramp up numbers of LCA or Su MKI or both !? To me I wonder whether the whole MRCA smacks of any logic at all ! umm maybe i am not intelligent in the ways of the Babudom


If Gripen NG is too near LCA then so is F-16 and MIG-35 (don't let its 2 engines fool you). If SH is too near MKI then so is Rafale and Eurofighter.

The logic with MMRCA is to get a medium multirole/swingrole fighter with the latest 4.5 gen technology without IAF having to spend time and money on trying to get things to work. Once off the production line they should be able to conduct medium multirole missions. LCA is not near that offered capability compared to any of the contenders.

That's not to say the SH is a bit more heavy than rest of the field and a bit closer to MKI in its class than the rest.. but it can still fill the medium role just as well.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4066
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Jul 2009 15:02

Arun_S., so does that mean Gripen NG is closer to a medium class fighter than F 18 since the former one comes near to LCA that is not in full production :) F18 being more of a heavy class in Su category.Capability and cost wise it does make sense but maybe not politically.Again speculation only.What happened to rumors of splitting the MRCA between 2 contenders ..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Jul 2009 17:18

Despite the shenanigans that go on in the congress, it does remain that the shornet is based on the hornet. Irrespective of its dependence on the hornet though, now that I think about it, Philip's reservations about the Shornet/f-16 do hold merit.


The entire MRCA concept is a goof up. No matter which AC India buys it will have a -ve that will pull the IAF down - no matter which one. The fact is that since "MRCA" was conceived technologically the world has moved on. So, to make the AC catch up with the world IAF + vendors strap on things to the AC. So, down the road it will be only more painful.

GoI did a very bad thing by reopening the tender and dragging this affair so long. But then who are we to discuss about politicians and Babus (in general)?

Consider this - they took a relatively mediocre performer (A2A at least) and were able to make it extraordinarily mediocre. All the electronics in the world now can't make humpty dumpty whole again. If it truly was a completely "new" bird, why is it nowhere close to the eurocanards or even the fulcrum/flanker in terms of flight performance? Not the range, not the agility/manouverbality nor the acceleration, power.


My understanding is that even not all the Flankers are equal. I have been told that there is one called the MKI that was rather ahead (way ahead) of the curve.

"humpty dumpty" is a moving object.

From what I know, I would like an AC that is able to overpower the enemy without firing a shot. Give me a G version first (of any AC, not just F-18). Look at Kargil situation. Even with terrain issues, height issues, ratio issues, attack vs. defence issues - who won?

To me ALL these guys are equally bad (not equally good). Just that IAF has to pick the best among them.

what will we do with the 100 F-16's after 2020?,they will be same as todays Mig-21,outdated, widow makers sadly on our side


In six years the damn things will be out dated? Even with potential of upgrades?

Why even buy them then? Assuming that to be true of any of these ACs.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests