MRCA News and Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2009 18:55

MRCA will come AFTER that.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Jul 2009 18:59

Philip wrote:Sorry,'70s. . . . the F-17 DNA is unmistakable! No one says that the MIG-35 is not an avatar of the MIG-29 either,no matter how good the "new" fighter is.

The MiG-29 dates back to the '70s too, so would it be fair to call the MiG-35 the final avatar of the ancient MiG-29?

Similarly the Su-30MKI is the final avatar of the ancient Su-27.

First flight:
YF-17: 1974
MiG-29: 1977
Su-27: 1977

However the difference between the SH and the YF-17 is far greater than any of the others.

Philip wrote:Therefore,by the same yardstick the US cannot stop the Israelis from selling India an AESA radar which India might use on the MIG-35 if it so desires.

Then how did it stop the Israelis from selling it to Gripen?

Philip wrote:Boeing's "dreams" might turn into reality now that F-22 production has been halted by Congress.

Any F-22 replacement has zero impact on the SH as one is for the USAF and the other is for the USN

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 23 Jul 2009 19:29

There is a continuum in terms of national interests. These interests coupled with several important inputs like relative economic strength, geopolitical expediency, domestic political expediency etc have largely dictated the ultimate decisions - whether military or diplomatic. Considering that and the large unknowns that go into these types of decision making, it is not hard to see what the future contours of the world look like - only if these "large unknowns" can intelligently be predicted ..

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 23 Jul 2009 20:24

b_patel wrote:I hope that the F-15 can carry more ordinance than the Typhoon or Rafale! It is a larger aircraft! The Typhoon was never intended to be a bomb truck like the Super Hornet and the F-15 are. I was always surprised the US never fielded the F-15 for this competition. I know its a heavy class fighter but it would have boosted inida's A2G capabilities.

ok everyone knows that its not for india but for other countries they choose f15e over rafale and typhoon

both rafale and typhoon don't carry heavier LGBs but f15e can carry,now if a hardened bunker needed to be destroyed where 230kg paveway4 or paveway2 carried by typhoon and rafale doesn't work there one needs a larger LGB weighing over 1500kg like gbu28 or kab1500

so on what account EADS and DASSAULT ask for hefty prices for their aircraft.

f15e carry 2 gbu28 LGB
su30 carry 3 kab1500 LGB
rafale/typhoon carry no LGB weighing over 230kg as of now.

as far as price and capability is concerned both f15e equipped with apg63(v1) and su30 equipped with zhuk27 with their armament outclass typhoon equipped with captor or rafale with rbe2

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 23 Jul 2009 20:39

and those who are saying f18/15e are bomb truck as if we talking WW2 era bombing when infinite number of bombs were dropped relentlessly.

also don't forget if f18e has payload of 8 tons it doesn't means it carry 8 ton of bombs,there is limit of number of LGB/JDAM bombs carried by an aircraft

like su30 certified to carry 6 kab500 LGB so its just 3 ton paylaod
or 3 kab1500 or 4.5 tons paylaod of LGBs

now su30 able to carry 8 tons of paylaod but it doesn't means su30 will be carrying 8 tons of kab1500/500 so same limitation applied to all aircrafts let alone f18e.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 23 Jul 2009 20:44

Dassault Seeks Tighter Cost Control at Thales

Dassault will send two Rafales equipped with the new generation active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars for flight trials to India in September, the head of military aircraft, Eric Trappier said.

"India is a marathon, not a sprint," he said, referring to India's international tender for 126 medium range multi-role combat aircraft.

In a separate, long-awaited deal for the Indian Air Force, Thales is negotiating for a $1.4 billion modernization contract for 51 Mirage 2000-H aircraft. French industry, led by Thales, would handle the upgrade of the initial four Mirages, with the first two in France, and the latter two at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.'s facilities in India, a Thales spokeswoman said.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Jul 2009 21:20

so the cost for the upgrade is $1.4 billion and not the $2 billion that Vivek Raghuvanshi has been quoting..that brings it to about $27.5 million per fighter, with upgraded radars, avionics, weapons and additional 20 years of service life.

sreej · Post by **sreej** » 23 Jul 2009 21:21

Newbie to the forum

K Let me clear the air first. I'm no US fanboy.. I hate their guts for the ENR trick they pulled right underneath our wise old leader's nose. Having said that IMHO the F18 is simply the best and cost effective fighter that is being fielded now. It has every single trick that we want and better still all of these have been extensively tested and proven in the field. No other competitor except for maybe the MIG 35 of MIG 29 vintage( Here's lookin at you Phil) can boast of that. The EUA is a necessary evil if we have to get the best fighter in the fray. Having signed that doesn't necessarily mean we are going to buy khan weapons but if you have to get the absolutely best weapons that's something we have to live with. And the one game changer is the EW18 g spec which we may get on the cheap along with the rest. One of those flying along with the rest of a strike formation could be the reason why the rest of 'em will come back in one piece. Yes you may argue that we can create a g spec aircraft out of any other fighter with a mix n match of israeli, french and russian bits.. but that is going to cost us time, money and technical expertise which we simply don't have enough of - considering the pace of LCA development. The GE414 is also being considered for the LCA and has a roadmap for improving the thrust ratings by about 20% in the future - according to the GE Aviation website http://bit.ly/6dwsU - which could help. As for the rest of the aircrafts:

Typhoon : too expensive and AESA not mature.

F16 : going to be phased out..makes no sense since we have f18 in the fray which is better.

MIG35: Most of us agree that we don't want to put all our eggs in the ruskie basket however good the plane is..again with no field proven AESA its more of a disadvantage.

Gripen : I quite like the Gripen for the simple fact that it is cheap, full TOT, the SELEX GALELIO AESA that the khans also apparently trust. We could be sharing parts with the LCA and have an eager partner for the MCA project. Maybe with the money saved we could be buying more than 126 of these and still have some change left for future upgrades.

Rafale: I like the rafale and consider it a more capable platform than the f18. I also believe that whatever tech they give us will be world class and reliable but the french have not shown the enthusiasm of the americans in keeping their fighters cutting edge. The french have no real threats and do not share the same sense of insecurity that the khans have. Hence they can afford to be on the slower lane but that could also dim the chances for this otherwise awesome aircraft.

and BTW @Philip please stop the F18 of 70s vintage diatribe. All of us have heard it and noted it. The counter argument has also been heard. It gets tiring after a while.

The f15 is not being offered and we don't need it. We already have the SU30 MKI to cover that. That is a fruitless discussion.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2009 21:30

The MiG-29 dates back to the '70s too, so would it be fair to call the MiG-35 the final avatar of the ancient MiG-29?

Yes.

In fact Russia has ensured India that it will provide ToT for how to corrode fins.

And, of course, how not to provide timely spares too is part of the ToT.

(Sorry, could not resist.)

Similarly the Su-30MKI is the final avatar of the ancient Su-27.

Well, there is huge diff between Su-27 and the Su-30 MKI.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 23 Jul 2009 21:42

Welcome..

sreej wrote:Newbie to the forum
K Let me clear the air first. I'm no US fanboy.. I hate their guts for the ENR trick they pulled right underneath our wise old leader's nose..

It is not their guts.. our stupidity..

If India had signed a "comprehensive" nuke agreement with France & Russia when the earlier deals were signed.. the ENR trick would have been pre-emtped..

Our wise leader has looked very ordinary & immature this week -- whether it is conceding Baloch bragging rights to Pak or EUA inspection rights to Madam secretary..

sreej wrote: Having said that IMHO the F18 is simply the best and cost effective fighter that is being fielded now. It has every single trick that we want

There is no use holding a the joker card, if you cant use it..

sreej · Post by **sreej** » 23 Jul 2009 22:06

There is no use holding a the joker card, if you cant use it..

I don't see any reason for us to field the SH against pakis except for maybe the EW18 g in case we need to strike. The Su30 can get the job done singlehandedly. The pakis don't yet have a BVR missile that can match the r77 for range... i think they have some AIM 120Cs (not sure picked that up from some paki forum).

And as for the Chinese I'm pretty sure the khans won't have any problems in us using the ACes up our sleeves. And anyways against the chinkis we'll be using it only for defence as I'm pretty sure Indians don't have the balls to pre-emptively strike at the chinkis for anything.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 23 Jul 2009 22:27

sreej wrote:and BTW @Philip please stop the F18 of 70s vintage diatribe. All of us have heard it and noted it. The counter argument has also been heard. It gets tiring after a while.

Sreej, cant agree with you more.

hope Phil gets the message.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Jul 2009 23:19

sreej wrote: Gripen : I quite like the Gripen for the simple fact that it is cheap, full TOT, the SELEX GALELIO AESA that the khans also apparently trust. We could be sharing parts with the LCA and have an eager partner for the MCA project. Maybe with the money saved we could be buying more than 126 of these and still have some change left for future upgrades.

the AESA being offered with full ToT is not a Selex Galileo..its a Selex Raven ES-05A with the swashplate configuration that has a definite advantage over fixed AESA configuration radars..the quasi mechanical AESA basically improves the field of view considerably over conventional AESA radars. but its up-front acquisition costs are not cheap by any standards- going by the offer made by Saab to the Netherlands for 86 Gripen NGs for around $6.5 billion or thereabouts, the Gripen IN will very closely fit the cost that is being touted for the MRCA- i.e. $10-11 billion. from what is known of the Gripen, it has very low maintenance and fuel costs and that is where it will be cheap- its lifecycle costs will certainly be lower than any other fighter in the MRCA, bar the F-16IN. and from all customers, I've only heard good reports of the Gripen, and Saab is renowned for good customer support and great offsets. Its a great fighter and one that would've been a good fit for the IAF had it not been for the LCA Mk.2 being in a very similar class. with the IAF committing to 5 squadrons of the LCA Mk.2, the question is whether the IAF needs that many single engined aircraft whose capabilities may overlap.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2009 00:34

June, 2009 :: Raven radar equipped Gripen to fly by year-end

Swashplate technology allows the radar to be repositioned so that it scan a wider volume of sky than if it was fixed. Saab quotes a scan angle of 100 degrees from the centerline, allowing ES-05 to see targets behind the so-called “3-9 line.” The angled positioning of the antenna also helps to reduce frontal radar cross section.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2009 00:42

BUT, for what it is worth, AN/APG-79 AESA has: Air-to-air, Air-to-ground, SAR imagery, Communications and electronic warfare. And, of course, has been in production since 2007!!!

Does not this radar also have an "angled position"?

From a pure AESA stand point I do not think it is even worth talking about others - from an Indian PoV. It is far too mature and the US techs WRT AESA are too far ahead.

sreej · Post by **sreej** » 24 Jul 2009 00:47

The Gripen has been designed to work in circumstances where there is no air superiority. If the chinkis decide to whip India again, Indian air superiority is iffy. They have far superior infra, resources and number of aircraft at their disposal. And as with most battles they'll be targeting the airfields closest to the border first and at least some of them will be damaged. This is when the gripen with its recently acquired supercruise ability http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations ... ruises.htm and the ability to work without an airfield can come to the fore.. getting to the theater fast and making sure we hold our ground even without critical airfields working until the heavy hitters (Su30MKI) can come and try to force them out..

the question is whether the IAF needs that many single engined aircraft whose capabilities may overlap.

I don't know of any other single engined aircraft in the Indian arsenal that has those capabilities.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2009 01:04

SAAB has a long history in designing air crafts - it goes back some 70-80 years. There is a very documentary on either the History or Military channel that is very, very impressive - about SAAB.

In fact IF IAF has time, my combo would be 126 Rafale and 75 Grips.

But, the F-18 with an AESA is bound to be very formidable - just from an electronic warfare PoV. I am not sure what "sensors" the RFP has asked for, but, that would make a huge difference too.

On China, yes they have superiority in some areas, but that does not mean that they will rule. The era of one-to-one is pretty much gone. With both nations having dynamite satellites and the like things are more equal than they seem. In fact IF ONE were to take a Kargil into account (meaning politicians KEEP OUT) I am not concerned.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 24 Jul 2009 02:08

sreej wrote:
There is no use holding a the joker card, if you cant use it..
I don't see any reason for us to field the SH against pakis except for maybe the EW18 g in case we need to strike. The Su30 can get the job done singlehandedly. The pakis don't yet have a BVR missile that can match the r77 for range... i think they have some AIM 120Cs (not sure picked that up from some paki forum).

And as for the Chinese I'm pretty sure the khans won't have any problems in us using the ACes up our sleeves. And anyways against the chinkis we'll be using it only for defence as I'm pretty sure Indians don't have the balls to pre-emptively strike at the chinkis for anything.

sreej, a recent CAG report says many things about the much hyped r77 also the aim120c in baki inventory is not that bad at all ,. As per reports bakis have got nearly 300-500 aim120c

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 24 Jul 2009 02:15

NRao wrote:SAAB has a long history in designing air crafts - it goes back some 70-80 years. There is a very documentary on either the History or Military channel that is very, very impressive - about SAAB.

In fact IF IAF has time, my combo would be 126 Rafale and 75 Grips.

But, the F-18 with an AESA is bound to be very formidable - just from an electronic warfare PoV. I am not sure what "sensors" the RFP has asked for, but, that would make a huge difference too.

On China, yes they have superiority in some areas, but that does not mean that they will rule. The era of one-to-one is pretty much gone. With both nations having dynamite satellites and the like things are more equal than they seem. In fact IF ONE were to take a Kargil into account (meaning politicians KEEP OUT) I am not concerned.

It will be better if MoD goes for a combo of 126 rafales,70 gripens,70 solahs,70 superhornets, by that way we can get most of the 4th gen stuff in minimum time and keeping everyone happy

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2009 02:59

Have the Swedes been behaving well at NSG mtgs?

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 24 Jul 2009 03:27

ramana wrote:Have the Swedes been behaving well at NSG mtgs?

Sweden has been supporting the United States attempts to get a deal on the issue and says...

Sweden sheds its nuclear fears, offers India fighter jets

Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, on a visit to India, told journalists on Friday, "India is emerging as a significant global player in areas such as Asian stability, climate change etc, and we need to deepen the dialogue."

"We see India as a responsible partner on this issue. India has never been a proliferator and we don't expect it to be."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 005930.cms

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Jul 2009 03:38

ramana wrote:Have the Swedes been behaving well at NSG mtgs?

Very well
Sweden offers India civilian nuclear technology

Sweden, a member of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, is offering New Delhi its niche expertise in nuclear waste management and security as it eyes India's $40 billion civilian nuclear energy market.

a delegation of Swedish companies operating in the area of nuclear technology and safety management came to India this April on an exploratory trip. They held talks with officials of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and also met India's nuclear points man Anil Kakodkar, chief of the Atomic Energy Commission.

The delegation comprised Swedish atomic companies such as Sandpit, Swenson, SKB International Consulting AB, Studbook, ES-consult and Rel con Candlepower AB.

Another Swedish delegation will be coming to India soon to explore opportunities in the nuclear energy area

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 24 Jul 2009 04:13

NRao wrote:BUT, for what it is worth, AN/APG-79 AESA has: Air-to-air, Air-to-ground, SAR imagery, Communications and electronic warfare. And, of course, has been in production since 2007!!!

Does not this radar also have an "angled position"?

From a pure AESA stand point I do not think it is even worth talking about others - from an Indian PoV. It is far too mature and the US techs WRT AESA are too far ahead.

and why its not even worth of talking about others there are more powerful radars compared to apg79 are in development and available to IAF.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 24 Jul 2009 04:22

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote: and why its not even worth of talking about others there are more powerful radars compared to apg79 are in development and available to IAF.

Welcome back Andrew,

Which would these radars be ? And quantify how the radars which you claim to better than the APG-79, would be better than it in what sense. Lastly, no "obvious" / "of course this is true" statements from now on.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 24 Jul 2009 04:28

NRao wrote:
The MiG-29 dates back to the '70s too, so would it be fair to call the MiG-35 the final avatar of the ancient MiG-29?
Yes.

In fact Russia has ensured India that it will provide ToT for how to corrode fins.

And, of course, how not to provide timely spares too is part of the ToT.

(Sorry, could not resist.)

Similarly the Su-30MKI is the final avatar of the ancient Su-27.
Well, there is huge diff between Su-27 and the Su-30 MKI.

those russian mig29 were left without maintainance for 15-17 years,so its anyone's guess to what happens to an aircraft when its left unmaintained for 1.5 decade

ya when you pay 200 million per aircraft like aussies paid for their f18e then you supposed to get spares on time

out of this 200 million 80 million was the price of f18e and 120million was for training and maintainance,spares for 10 years for each aircraft

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 24 Jul 2009 05:21

NRao wrote:BUT, for what it is worth, AN/APG-79 AESA has: Air-to-air, Air-to-ground, SAR imagery, Communications and electronic warfare. And, of course, has been in production since 2007!!!

Does not this radar also have an "angled position"?

From a pure AESA stand point I do not think it is even worth talking about others - from an Indian PoV. It is far too mature and the US techs WRT AESA are too far ahead.

Could you please provide a link for the parts I highlited ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2009 05:35

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote: and why its not even worth of talking about others there are more powerful radars compared to apg79 are in development and available to IAF.

AD,

Please ............. let us not go through this again.

I have given my reasons (many a times). BUT, I will give it again.

1) My point is that IF the US is considered to be in the 4th grade right now, the rest of them (IMHO) are in the KG. BY THE TIME they all come to the 4th grade the US will be somewhere in the 6/7/8the grade. (This does NOT mean that India buy the US product. BUT, as I see it, in the environment India is in I really do not see India having time to learn with the non-US vendors.)
2) The US AESAs have more capabilities TODAY than any of the others will have in 2012 (from open source)
3) The US AESA is in production and in USE. The other are a few years out to get to a base model production (with only base capability)
4) LM (I am not sure about Boeing) has stated (which may or may not mean much until India actually gets it) that they will hand over the "book" - what they have learned, tactics, etc, etc, etc. IF we were to consider the quality of that statement no other vendor can say that for another 10+ years and even then they will not have the experience that the US DOES today.

Per your own post - the others are in "development", which is where the US was some 10+ years ago!

5) The US and India (and Israel) seem to have plenty in common when it comes to deftechs, which others do not - not even close. So, I have to assume that there will HAVE to be a far closer relationship - ONLY because of the environment - between these nations (politically) which will have to translate into tech coops. There really cannot be a way out.

6) Russia IMVVVHO is a spent force - both politically and technically ( I really do not expect much from them in terms of FGFA for instance - like the Su story, Indian MKI is far ahead in quantity and quality - no comparisons). EADS is really going nowhere - they have no real threats, France is least interested in spending anymore on the Rafale (they had to plead with their govt to fund even what is being funded - specially the AESA). Sweden?

More in my next post.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2009 05:36

MarcH wrote: Could you please provide a link for the parts I highlited ?

Did you even try:

NRao wrote:BUT, for what it is worth, AN/APG-79 AESA has: Air-to-air, Air-to-ground, SAR imagery, Communications and electronic warfare. And, of course, has been in production since 2007!!!

Also check the MRCA tech thread - there are 2-3 articles just on AESA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2009 05:43

I see the MRCA with three major components:

MRCA itself, offsets and political.

And, I would NOT be surprised AT ALL if "political" plays a major role in the decision. I expect it to.

"MRCA itself" has two components: MRCA "itself" + MRCA components that are shared with other Indian techs (as in potentially the engine with the MCA?).

Offsets: that is a cool $3 to 5 billion. We tend to forget about this aspect and yet it can contribute in a huge way to the nation in general - forget the deftech sector.

Now, my read is - and I could be all wet on this - is that the stars are aligning for a Indo-US "partnership" and the US political wing can really do nothing about it. They can go to China to bail them out financially, but to get bread and butter deals the US - IMHO - will HAVE to come to India.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 24 Jul 2009 06:00

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote: rafale/typhoon carry no LGB weighing over 230kg as of now.

Andrew do you mind explaining the pics below of the Euro and the Rafale...mind you these pics are proabably a couple of years old...
http://www.eurofighter.com/medialibrary ... diaID=7206

[/url]http://www.eurofighter.com/medialibrary ... D=7208[url]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_htvjsmtPrmc/S ... fale_c.jpg

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Jul 2009 06:15

Similarly the Su-30MKI is the final avatar of the ancient Su-27.

actually thats a bit off. as of now the su-35 is the most advanced flanker variant, and expect more advanced mkis in time. so the flanker continues to evolve, which is one of its greatest strengths.

As far as all the hype about the shornet, apart from a hypothetical advantage in terms of its radar/EW systems, in many other departments it is quite easily surpassed. I have a feeling that philip can't emphasize its 70s vintage design enough (and an outdated one, even by the 80s) considering how many people here seem to be bowled over with all the hype. Needs to be drilled in one thinks.

As far as AESAs and maturity go, it counts for something but one doubts if it is the match winning factor. Late model Pesas (RBE-2, IRBIS, Bars) as well as Mechs (Captor) are supposed to match up well enough. No doubt the americans went ahead with gen 2 by now, but that does not mean the followups for the above mentioned radars won't match up or even surpass the the latest offered on the shornet. One thing is for certain the follow ups will certainly be ahead of the originals, which in themselves were close to (or matched up) the 1st gen AESAs.

The americans seem to have just skipped any further development of the mesa/pesa types and went with the more expensive and exploratory AESA development. Nothing wrong with that. the euros/russkis stuck to improving what was already there and implementing AESA tech when it became cheaper, thereby avoiding some of the problems as well. Nothing wrong with that either.

The F-18E/F is an aircraft that tries to compensate for some glaring flaws with gee-whiz tech. It needs all the wizardry just to stay on par. With that kind of a platform, the IAF is liable to be playing catch up. Esp. after the USN gives up on it (won't be too long).

CM.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 24 Jul 2009 06:30

NRao wrote: Did you even try:

NRao wrote:BUT, for what it is worth, AN/APG-79 AESA has: Air-to-air, Air-to-ground, SAR imagery, Communications and electronic warfare. And, of course, has been in production since 2007!!!

Also check the MRCA tech thread - there are 2-3 articles just on AESA.

I'm aware that there was a development contract signed last year. The link you provided says nothing about the progress of said capabilities. I was hoping you could provide some information about the status of the project.
The link you gave doesn't help in that regard.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2009 06:42

CM,

Valid points.

However, on Su-35 - quality is up, how about quantity? RuSF is no position to buy too many of them.

On Shornet, sure, technically it will have some aspects that are behind. However, there are other aspects that count too (political for one). But, it will get a better engine by the time IAF gets them (IF India selects them that is).

On vintage design, we get Phils point, it is just that some of us do not agree with that - which is why it makes it painful to read again and again. If Phil wants to believe that that is OK.

On Captor, etc, etc. In what respect are they supposed to match up? Communication, elec warfare, etc? (I am not familiar with mesa/pesa, will try google to catch up. May be you have a point there.)

SH has flaws. But who offers the gee-whiz techs that seem to be the "in" thing? CAS states he wants network centric AF. Which other vendor can provide that at the gee-whiz level? Seriously. During my surfing (I have posted tons of articles on the MRCA-tech thread when I had AWST subscription) I did not come across too much that stated that the others could catch up with US gee-whiz. And, it was not because of a lack of brain power - RU specially has PLENTY in that respect. The issue (from my simple research) is two fold: a need and funds. IMHO IF 911 did not happen I doubt if the US would be where they are today - technically. Same with Israel. If the palestine issue is resolved, I very much doubt they will have so much funds to provide (Iran will no longer be an issue too).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2009 06:43

MarcH wrote:
NRao wrote:BUT, for what it is worth, AN/APG-79 AESA has: Air-to-air, Air-to-ground, SAR imagery, Communications and electronic warfare. And, of course, has been in production since 2007!!!

Does not this radar also have an "angled position"?

From a pure AESA stand point I do not think it is even worth talking about others - from an Indian PoV. It is far too mature and the US techs WRT AESA are too far ahead.
Could you please provide a link for the parts I highlited ?

AESA Radars (Seems to be recent.)

added l8r:

I'm aware that there was a development contract signed last year. The link you provided says nothing about the progress of said capabilities. I was hoping you could provide some information about the status of the project.
The link you gave doesn't help in that regard.

google buddy.

Oh. Dev contract between whom?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Jul 2009 06:54

As far as the MRCA decision goes, there seem to be 3 key players - Political (PMO, MEA), Bean Counting/Offsets decision makers (MOD), IAF.

The IAF is a constant in this game imho because all the a/c in the frenzy should meet/exceed its needs, which were clear with their desire for the M2k-5.

So the 2 real factors are the PMO and MOD, which seem not to agree on everything (as evidenced when Hillary came for the EUVA).

The Americans' best chance is with the political angle. Expect Hilarious Clinton et al to lean further on the resident economist.

The Russians will target the bean counters (expect really cheap offers, plus max TOT/offsets from them). Not to mention they already have big contacts in this region. Political weight too.

The French will probly try a combo of all three factors cause they know how well liked french products are with the IAF. Plus they do have some political clout, not to mention the whine factor in that the original deal was expressly theirs.

The EADS guys will target the MOD via attractive offset offers. THey stand a better chance imho if the EJ-200 is selected for the Tejas.

Saab will have their work cut out for them - v.little political clout, american engines and so on. They will try to undercut prices, offer excellent offsets ,TOT where they can. The fact that the IAF doctrine dictates diversification should help them being the cheapest euro alternative.

We'll see.

CM.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 24 Jul 2009 06:58

NRao wrote: google buddy.

Oh. Dev contract between whom?

The quick googel search just provides this: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... radar.html
The important part: An "in-band" electronic attack capability for the Raytheon APG-79 AESA in US Navy Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets is to be funded from FY2008.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jul 2009 07:28

The same article states:

Raytheon says its AESA upgrade for the Boeing F-15 has already demonstrated in-band electronic attack capability in USAF flight tests, and the company has demonstrated the wideband ISR datalink using its own testbed aircraft.

So, it worked (then) for the USAF F-15, in 2007. And, the USN was to fund it for the F-18E/F.

Then:

Although the (V)3 is primarily an air-to-air radar, Raytheon says it is capable of being upgraded via software to provide in-band electronic attack and wideband ISR datalink capabilities. The air-to-air/air-to-ground (V)4, meanwhile, will use the higher-throughput "back end" from the Super Hornet's APG-79.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 24 Jul 2009 07:59

Yep, they have it demonstrated on testaircraft. What I would like to know, is it already fielded or not ? Latest newspiece for that was from my memory a delay in introduction of said capabilities.
There was an aviationweek article, in which they describe those planned capabilities. Basicly they could project fake radar returns and false height/speed information of real targets "in excess of 100 miles"
But for this to work, they would have to integrate the radar with the ALQ-214 jammers.

sreej · Post by **sreej** » 24 Jul 2009 08:42

NRao wrote: SH has flaws. But who offers the gee-whiz techs that seem to be the "in" thing? CAS states he wants network centric AF. Which other vendor can provide that at the gee-whiz level? Seriously. During my surfing (I have posted tons of articles on the MRCA-tech thread when I had AWST subscription) I did not come across too much that stated that the others could catch up with US gee-whiz. And, it was not because of a lack of brain power - RU specially has PLENTY in that respect. The issue (from my simple research) is two fold: a need and funds. IMHO IF 911 did not happen I doubt if the US would be where they are today - technically. Same with Israel. If the palestine issue is resolved, I very much doubt they will have so much funds to provide (Iran will no longer be an issue too).

My arguments exactly.. As long as the US have wars to fight around the world- and they will have - they'll keep on upgrading their fleet and esp that of the USN as they are not going to be fighting any wars in their neighborhood in the foreseeable future. They rely on the USN AC more than their air force.. Another important point is the SH and its tech is the only deterrent that we have against the chinkis.. Im leaving out the pakis from discussion on MRCA since anything we get with the chinkis in mind should be more than enough to keep the pakis in their rabbit holes. The SH and its capabilities are the only real unknown to them.. The chinkis can get any and all of the other aircraft and all its tech without much hassle. They have the moolah to do that. But what they can't get to is the khan tech and no matter how much the chinkis are going to spend they'll still be a decade behind. The difference an aircraft like the EW18g can make in the battlefield is enormous. And no matter how much anyone is going to cry hoarse the very simple fact of the matter is that APG-79 is the oldest,most mature,the only proven and yet most cutting edge radar that we are being offered... No two ways about it. Again with the US position on Taiwan, I'm pretty sure they have put in extra attention to the chinkis and added a lot of details about their radars and ACs into the threat libraries. Think about it.. what need does the Ozzys have for the growler?? The closest threat to them, even if not that great are the Chinese in the Indian Ocean. They trust the EW18g and the SH to be the best bet.. I don't see why we should see it any differently.

By pure merit considerations I would agree that the rafale is the best fighter in the fray but given the circumstances, the SH brings in the tricks that we need the most...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Jul 2009 09:20

NRao wrote:However, on Su-35 - quality is up, how about quantity? RuSF is no position to buy too many of them.

I was just refering that the MKI is hardly the final flanker, more is yet to come and even the latest su-35 isn't it. If the su-35 looks so delicious, I wonder what an MLUed MKI will be like.

On Shornet, sure, technically it will have some aspects that are behind. However, there are other aspects that count too (political for one). But, it will get a better engine by the time IAF gets them (IF India selects them that is).

What guarantee that the shornet is going to get the 25000 lb engine? it is in the pipeline but similar is the case with newer variants for the EJ-200, M88, RD-33. At this point the U.S seems to want to concentrate more on the JSF and cut off funding to other programs. And who can blame 'em. It is clearly a gen ahead.

On vintage design, we get Phils point, it is just that some of us do not agree with that - which is why it makes it painful to read again and again. If Phil wants to believe that that is OK.

It is a critical point though - cause the shornet has really suffered in this region. Just as the MiG-35 has weaknesses in NCW and possibly EW.Or the Tiffy in terms of underdeveloped A2G abilities. The design is a crummy one, cause it offers no advantage over the others whatever, it is by far the bottom of the lot. Buying something of this nature will leave the IAF with a mill stone around its neck for the next 30-40 years.

On Captor, etc, etc. In what respect are they supposed to match up? Communication, elec warfare, etc? (I am not familiar with mesa/pesa, will try google to catch up. May be you have a point there.)

I am no tech junkie either but it is apparent that later MESAs such as the Captor or PESA like RBE-2 had something seriously good going for them. Ditto with the russkis (Irbis). I remember these guys insisting that they can do as well if not better than first gen AESA radars on variousparameters. I recall all the above making claims to lpi for instance. One difference that I can think of is FOVs, the RBE-2 sacrifices range for this, the Mechs are normally better at it and the Russians came up with the hybrid (mech/electronic) scanning to get outstanding angles. AESAs, being large are at a disadvantage here, the Gripen does show on innovative solution i think.

SH has flaws. But who offers the gee-whiz techs that seem to be the "in" thing? CAS states he wants network centric AF. Which other vendor can provide that at the gee-whiz level? Seriously. During my surfing (I have posted tons of articles on the MRCA-tech thread when I had AWST subscription) I did not come across too much that stated that the others could catch up with US gee-whiz.

But raosaab, how do we know what the others can/can't do, a LOT of stuff seems to be within wraps. That is the biggest problem when discussing EW/ECCM abilities - statements implying a decisive edge for any of these candidates at this point are a bit of conjecture. Secondly, while the ACM did mention NCW as a priority, nowhere was flight performance dissed. BTW, as far as this goes, ultimately won't all of the MRCA candidates have similar datalinking capabilities offered by the ODL that the IAF is working on?.

And, it was not because of a lack of brain power - RU specially has PLENTY in that respect. The issue (from my simple research) is two fold: a need and funds. IMHO IF 911 did not happen I doubt if the US would be where they are today - technically. Same with Israel. If the palestine issue is resolved, I very much doubt they will have so much funds to provide (Iran will no longer be an issue too).

The U.S is embroiled in some v.low intensity warfare scenarios, and their R&D efforts seem to bear out needs dictated by warfare that is essentially one-sided. I doubt such scenarios will be india's future wars (neither with pak nor with china). My take is that the IAF will sooner or later face something on more traditional lines. The NCW capabilities are important, reducing shooter-sensor response etc but these are not the only aspects. There must be a reason why the IAF practices furball scenarios in intl exercises even now.

The threat matrix is different for the U.S and for india. almost always the U.S. brings capabilities to the table that simply overwhelm enemy defences resulting in desultory, hit-run, terrorist type of tactics. In case of india, the latter has been the norm for the past 20 years via TSP; any notion of even ltd strikes will probly result in something major. In case of China, india again faces a different challenge.

The Shornet is essentially a customized US/USN platform often supported by AWACS and growlers types facing (so far anyway) poor quality A2A, AD threats. The Shornet is excellent in this regard. The IAF otoh, faces a different monster altogether. The Pukis and chinkis are far more competent and better equipped. For the chinks and threats of that nature, the US will rely purely on the F-22/JSF to gain a decisive edge. Shornets et al will bring up the rear. So why would the IAF want to use such an asset for such a game? No F-22 doesn't mean they get saddled with a slug.

Furthermore, with IAF getting AWACS capabilities, flight characteristics gain even greater importance imho. This is an area where the teens lag behind the others.

What I am saying is that the IAF get a platform that has everything as far as possible:
Great EW capabilities
Great NCW capabilites
Great flight performance characteristics (turn rates, climb rates, acceleration, endurance, range, supercruise etc )
Great uptimes
Great sensors
Great sensor fusion and MMI

ALL of the above. The U.S entries are great in some but not in others. The eurocanards bring the best balance, with the fulcrum perhaps on the other extreme. Another point to consider is that while avionics & sensor parity can be reached sooner or later with relative ease; airframe parity requires much more effort. IOWs, once you get a bomb truck you are kind of stuck with it. JMT.

CM.