MRCA News and Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2009 17:42

Phillip,

I am not sure why we are going in circles. But,

As to my remarks about the SH,one cannot deny that the SH is an upgrade of the basic F-17/18,just look at it and the earliest examples.It is NOT a "new" aircraft,no matter how good the upgrades.

Sure, they look alike. BUT, unlike other air crafts "upgrades", the E/F was redesigned - it has some 40% fewer parts than the earlier version and is much, much larger. Seriously, since I am not aware, can we say that of ANY other aircraft? American too? Furthermore, for what it is worth, some wanted to assign a new number to it.

Even the MKI is a redesign, looks like the Su-27 (with canards granted), but the MKI is larger than the original plane and was a redesign. It is a totally different plane.

Would the proposed MCA be a dual engined upgrade of the LCA? I think not, but it will have plenty in common with the LCA.

What we can say about the F-18 E/F is that it is no F-35 - a totally different design. BUT, that was the intent for the F-18. To the extent that the USN has a totally diff name for the E/F - so as NOT to confuse it with earlier F-18s - a very deliberate act.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2009 17:56

Aerodynmaically,as a BAe pilot told me at Aero-India who has flown almost all the types,Typhoon included,Russian aerodynamics are superior to western designs,and the MIG-35 superior to anything flying

Sure, and, I am not going to argue against an IAF pilot.

BUT, I suspect there are philosophical differences that come into play. For example, the US has moved to incorporate the ability to "shoot down" a cruise missile using an E-10 platform. They propose to use a MP-RTIP radar, gens a burst of microwave energy strong enough to down a CM. This - in the US phil - is a game changer.

the MIG-35 has to prove that it has a BVR missile and AESA radar equal to the rest and that its strike capabilities in terms of GA/strike with stand-off PGMs meet requirements

AND, as a networking asset. AND, the ability to fry enemy electronics, AND, conformal radar.

In short the Russians are way, way behind the US.

Does NOT mean that India should automatically - blindly - go for the US product. BUT, for what it is worth, the US - for better or worse - has already deployed stuff that India (and actually the rest of the nations too) have tried to emulate (based mostly on the Iraq wars).

I can assure you that the newer networks that the US is building are so far ahead that it would seem to be a dream to the rest of us.

Now, I will grant you this, I am not sure what the US will provide India with and then there is the question about "ToT".

But, my argument is, based on open source, what the US has - the lowest techs from their PoV - is better than the most advanced techs (as in AESA and networks and sensors) that others can provide (even complete ToT).

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 17 Jul 2009 18:21

Rao Sir,

Not to offend, but i always think and believe there is more hype about US tech that it actually is.

Look what happened to F 86 sabre and Patton tanks against in 1965 / 1971 wars

F 86 was at that time what F 22 is today. And a trainer aircraft (Sabre slayer) kicked them out...

I know they were striped off version but still was very far advanced than any thing that India possessed.

-Nitin

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2009 18:51

NRS,

I can understand your position of "hype". No two ways about it.

But experience is a game changer.

About a trainer slaying a leading edge tech ................ sir, THAT IS MY POINT. Give IAF some of these toys and move out of the way.

It is not an accident that the PAF did not show up during the Kargil war. That was preparedness + improvising on the move.

However, Kargil had a cost associated with it - Rs wise. That is what India needs to avoid. IMHO of course.

There is stuff to discuss about kinematics, etc, but in this era if we get to a dog fight or when IAF crosses the border and gets fired upon - something is wrong. That is my point. The techs have moved so far out that when one brings up valid situations from 1965/1971, it shows the disconnects.

The problem is not techs, it is the speed at which techs can be absorbed into any entity (not just armed forces, we face that in small and big corporations). The availability of techs and that speed determines philosophies/doctrines. So, my point is (and I am not arguing for one or against another) which of these techs can help India ASAP. IMHO, it is the US techs - along with all those risks which are real (US Congress, ToT, etc).

When the F-18 E/F was first offered in 2003/4 IIRC, I immediately opted for that AC - ONLY because of the techs it was associated with. Then another George was wondering if I was a Boeing sales plant.

. You have to believe me when I say they are game changers. Which other vendor then had an AESA? None. Forget using the ESA against a Pak or Chicom, an AESA can dramatically influence internal upheaval - Jihadis and Naxals for instance. Immediate. BUT, Only the proper AESA can. Not any AESA. And, based on open sources, as of today and perhaps into the 2011 or so time frame - none of the other players will be able to help out (NOT because they are not capable, but because they will not be there).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2009 19:10

Look what happened to F 86 sabre and Patton tanks against in 1965 / 1971 wars

(Sorry for the ramble up there.)

Imagine an F-86 in IAF hand or a Patton in IA hand.

Point being I really do not care how each of those nations use thier techs. BUT, they do give us insight into how the techs CAN be used. I then add an "Indian" component to it.

Talking of F-86 and Patton, IA should never have won kargil. EVERYTHING was against India - by the book. Paki had height advantage, numbers advantage, better prepared, plenty of time to prepare, etc, etc, etc. Yet ...............

So, why would I consider what/how the American or Russia uses their own techs?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2009 19:37

Someone asked about the F-18SH cost.Oz is paying $100 million per piece for 24+ as an interin buy until the JSF arrives.Stated cost by Oz.I've worked out a discount of between 10-15% if we buy 126,giving a cost per unit of not less than about $85 milllion.The Rafale might match that price,but the Typhoon will be at least $5-10 million more,but offers far superior tech,the most pilot friendly cockpit,etc.,so the manufacturers claim.The Gripen and the MIG-35 will probably be around $45-50 million per unit at the lowest,the venerable F-16 too perhaps a little more as the manufacturers have extracted infintely more moolah out of this aircraft by selling it to almost everyone in the so-called free world,even to erstwhile enemies like Egypt and Israel.

As for the SU-30MKI upgrades,there is a detailed article and pics in a mag that one isn't supposed to mention about.Here is an alleged previous quote from the HAL chairman about the price of an upgraded Su-30MKI."HAL chairman Nalini Ranjan Mohanty has said that the Indian-built Su-30s will cost only about $22.5 million a unit against the current import price of about $37.5 million (priceagreed upon for the first 140 aircraft)." Going by that yardstick,an upgraded Su-30 MKI with AESA radar + "smart skins",fuselage weapons bay,3-D TVC engines,etc. should not cost more than $50 million.Which aircraft would you prefer the IAF to have in service,one F-18SH or two SU-30MKIs of 4+ gen for the same price?! The only factor in favour of the MMRCA acquisition is that it will have a single pilot.But then you also have the SU-35 with a single pilot option too!

If I was the DM/COAS,I would instead dump the enormously expensive MMRCA deal and instead build more considerably upgraded Jaguars,where the existing 120+ aircraft are all going to be upgraded (options of Honywell and RR engines being considered),acquire more upgraded MIG-29/35s too,as both these types are in service acquiring at least 60+ of each type at less than half the price of a new MMRCA and with the enormous costs saved buy more upgraded Su-30MKIs and accelerate the 5th-gen project and production of the LCA.If you work out the economics,there is much merit in this option apart from us not having to introduce yet another type in service,especially a vintage design US aircraft which makes little sense.Since the Mirage-2000s are also being upgraded along with the MIG-27s,the IAF should have both numbers and quality in this manner.Since the LCA-MK-2 will be greatly improved over MK-1 with more powerful TVC engines (option available) plus an AESA radar,it will be a more capable and cheaper aircraft than the Gripen, an MMRCA contender.Plus,with the money saved,there will definitely be some moolah available for development of the MCA to follow the LCA development when LCA production is on stream.So why buy (new MMRCA)?

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 17 Jul 2009 20:58

IMVHO, To add to what Rao said abt the 65/71 wars, ultimately weapons or intelligence will not win on its own win a war. What matters is the person / people behind it, & how well they use what they have. I have personally seen many instances in business where a team with extremely limited abilities both in terms of resources & people actually go out and beat competitors with much more resources and better qualified people. The difference was leadership, tactics & plain old hard work that helped achieve a particular goal. The examples you have quoted i.e. 65/71 war just shows the initiative, leadership, strategy, and drive etc. of our armed forces, & all this at pretty ordinary salaries. This is something that makes me proud to be an Indian. Now to this inherent strength if we provide better / superior tools our armed forces will become even stronger. Also the corollary is that just because our armed forces are so good, does not mean we should handicap them with inferior weapons! That is the point Rao is making & I wholeheartedly agree with.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2009 21:29

What India needs is NOT a MRCA from XYZ.

What India needs is a Mush with 10 Kargils. One every two years. That will create a gen of Indians who will be proactive.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Jul 2009 21:31

Yes I tend to agree with Philip , this whole MMRCA exercise is a big farce designed to make some party , people rich at the cost of Indian Tax payers.

The best MMRCA aircraft cost/logistics/effectiveness is to go for 100 Mirages plus equal number of Mig-35 , this will help in stream lining the types that IAF operates and streamline the entire logistics chain of supply for weapons , overhauling , spares , training etc.

Even the Mig-29 and Mirage upgrades extends its life by 25 years , so it makes sense that MMRCA gets both Mirages and Mig-35 , good enough to deal with any damn thing in this part of world and try to maximise integration of avionics , weapons and other stuff with LCA.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 17 Jul 2009 21:35

[deleted]

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 17 Jul 2009 21:37

As per Boeing executive at recent Paris airshow, F18SH would cost ~50MM. He said less than half of what media (For Oz's) is quoting. check it few pages back in this very thread.

Oz figures may be the total cost of the program that includes 'estimates' of life time supports etc.

I think both the one engine aircrafts (F16 and Grippen) would cost around ~$45MM and two engine aircarfts would cost around ~$55MM in capital cost. Give and take a few million!

No company would come to the competition and spend 10's of million of dollars without having a product (in some configuration) that fits in the project budget and tech requirements. Technical evaluations would largely be qualifying in nature, financial bids would decide who gets the cake. I would like to beleive that top notch companies know it and would only throw their hats in the arena if they have a cost competitive project.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 17 Jul 2009 21:40

nrshah wrote:Rao Sir,

Not to offend, but i always think and believe there is more hype about US tech that it actually is.

Look what happened to F 86 sabre and Patton tanks against in 1965 / 1971 wars

F 86 was at that time what F 22 is today. And a trainer aircraft (Sabre slayer) kicked them out...

I know they were striped off version but still was very far advanced than any thing that India possessed.

-Nitin

It was never about technology alone, of course I am not comparing raptors of today with mig29, but it is about how we used what we got in previous conflicts,.

Luckily we have a chance today to get comparable technologies ,with lesser differences[(on which discussions are done here)],
than what we have got in pre cold war scenario,where ussr never gave us their latest tech, or without stripping down,.

If we get an american ac (which many people support from their past records or the marketing) , we will use it in a different way (exception: flying them)
,than what usaf does with them ,so will be rafales or any other, which is what IAF has always indicated, and recently retd. ACM FH Major said, in plain words that it does not matters whether pakis have solahs.,it how we will use them .

for that matter take example of your own pc keyboard(with one or two keys difference), we are all writing using it, what is written is important.,instead of debating on where that keyboard was made.

Likewise that aircraft which solves the purpose how IAF wants to use mrca(doctrine !) , is the winner, is what I think is an mrca competition, in different ways to determine who could be used well,.

I think we could always have a new way of discussion on that.,which I see has never happened on brf since 2007 ,,.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2009 21:45

Austin wrote:Yes I tend to agree with Philip , this whole MMRCA exercise is a big farce designed to make some party , people rich at the cost of Indian Tax payers.

The best MMRCA aircraft cost/logistics/effectiveness is to go for 100 Mirages plus equal number of Mig-35 , this will help in stream lining the types that IAF operates and streamline the entire logistics chain of supply for weapons , overhauling , spares , training etc.

Even the Mig-29 and Mirage upgrades extends its life by 25 years , so it makes sense that MMRCA gets both Mirages and Mig-35 , good enough to deal with any damn thing in this part of world and try to maximise integration of avionics , weapons and other stuff with LCA.

And, there is NOTHING wrong with that thinking.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Jul 2009 22:14

If I was the DM/COAS,I would instead dump the enormously expensive MMRCA deal and instead build more considerably upgraded Jaguars,where the existing 120+ aircraft are all going to be upgraded (options of Honywell and RR engines being considered),acquire more upgraded MIG-29/35s too,as both these types are in service acquiring at least 60+ of each type at less than half the price of a new MMRCA and with the enormous costs saved buy more upgraded Su-30MKIs and accelerate the 5th-gen project and production of the LCA.If you work out the economics,there is much merit in this option apart from us not having to introduce yet another type in service,especially a vintage design US aircraft which makes little sense.Since the Mirage-2000s are also being upgraded along with the MIG-27s,the IAF should have both numbers and quality in this manner.Since the LCA-MK-2 will be greatly improved over MK-1 with more powerful TVC engines (option available) plus an AESA radar,it will be a more capable and cheaper aircraft than the Gripen, an MMRCA contender.Plus,with the money saved,there will definitely be some moolah available for development of the MCA to follow the LCA development when LCA production is on stream.So why buy (new MMRCA)?

Yes I tend to agree with Philip , this whole MMRCA exercise is a big farce designed to make some party , people rich at the cost of Indian Tax payers.

The best MMRCA aircraft cost/logistics/effectiveness is to go for 100 Mirages plus equal number of Mig-35 , this will help in stream lining the types that IAF operates and streamline the entire logistics chain of supply for weapons , overhauling , spares , training etc.

Makes ample sense to me too. Wonder who profits with this farce.

CM.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 17 Jul 2009 22:20

NRao wrote:What India needs is NOT a MRCA from XYZ.

What India needs is a Mush with 10 Kargils. One every two years. That will create a gen of Indians who will be proactive.

We did get another Kargil namely 26/11. But what did Congress govt do so far. After lectures and more lectures before elections it again back to its contradictory statements on Pak. A Kargil isn't Kargil till media makes it so and Congress seems to have found a formula to stay in power - control the media houses.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2009 22:27

I have to wonder if GoI would be that stupid if a state actor had done Mumbai. Even in Kargil it was the US that held India back.

acquire more upgraded MIG-29/35s too,as both these types are in service acquiring at least 60+ of each type at less than half the price of a new MMRCA and with the enormous costs saved buy more upgraded Su-30MKIs and accelerate the 5th-gen project and production of the LCA

Sure. What I call the Amby syndrome. It may just suffice if PakiLand becomes a true democracy and dhmmi to the US.

On FGFA. Dunno. I am not THAT confident that it will be a plane that we expect. Acceleration? Pouring funds will help with (more) R&D (so hopefully the error rate will decrease), but not in speed.

LCA will come when it will come. Spending monies on that too - will it help? And, if so, in what way?

A Kargil isn't Kargil till media makes it so and Congress seems to have found a formula to stay in power - control the media houses.

sorry missed that.

Liek I said, Amby Syndrome. It is neither the political party nor the media that is teh problem. It is Indian population - chai-biscut, content with Ambassador, etc.

Until population changes, the more things change the more they reamin the same - Indian upgrade.

koti · Post by **koti** » 17 Jul 2009 22:45

10 Billion$........
I am strongly feeling that spending 10 Billion on a single military deal like MMRCA is not worth the investment now.
The MMRCA is supposed to be a low performer to the SU-30MKI and high performer compared to Jaguar, Mig-27, M2k and is required to fill the numbers.
This can be subjectively addressed by getting the second hand M2K, ordering a few Mig-35's to make up for that 126 number,and upgrade Mig-29's to OVT standard.
This saves a lot of bucks in terms OAM and training.

And, we could increase the funding for LCA(from the saved Billions) sharply. This reduces the development time of the aircraft. And LCA in its current configuration is not at all inferior to most of our adversaries aircraft. This could be the most effective approach in terms of addressing the number problem of IAF.
The important thing in investing in LCA is most of the money stays inside the country. This greatly increases the capacity of the economy to sustain a higher defense overhead in the long run.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Jul 2009 23:06

NRao wrote:
acquire more upgraded MIG-29/35s too,as both these types are in service acquiring at least 60+ of each type at less than half the price of a new MMRCA and with the enormous costs saved buy more upgraded Su-30MKIs and accelerate the 5th-gen project and production of the LCA
Sure. What I call the Amby syndrome. It may just suffice if PakiLand becomes a true democracy and dhmmi to the US.

On FGFA. Dunno. I am not THAT confident that it will be a plane that we expect. Acceleration? Pouring funds will help with (more) R&D (so hopefully the error rate will decrease), but not in speed.

The greatest need for an MRCA of 126 #s has always been to arrest falling numbers. An interim purchase to curb the downfall. Buying 4+ gen fighters at this late hour can't be anything else. It would make ample sense therefore to buy hardware that can be quickly integrated and serve the purpose of arresting the slipping numbers.

A $ 4-5 odd billion purchase would more than take care of such needs, buying a MIG-29M/K type (which has so much infrastructure/commonality) along with M2K-5s (as available, at least the 12 qatari birds), ordering jags would take care of this. There are options - MiG-29Ms, Mirage 2000-5s, Su-30MKI, Jags. At least until the LCA comes in force, followed by the pakfa and solid work for the MCA is underway (another 10-15 years). India is hardly likely to face a threat that cannot be handled by the above just about as well as 126 a/c of some uber, esoteric quality (shornet, typhoon etc).

LCA will come when it will come. Spending monies on that too - will it help? And, if so, in what way?

Spending monies on indigenous products/R&D will always help. I am not too sure how the LCAs could be sped up, perhaps better informred forum members could make suggestions. But $$$$s can be invested in trying to churn out more pilots, MCA and other projects such as the AWACS. If not anything, give them pay raises! $ 5 billion is a LOT, a few bonuses for the guys putting in yeoman service won't be misplaced.

I don't know how you equate the suggestions to meet desperate operational needs/indigenize with an "amby syndrome", a tendency to be satisfied with the mediocre I assume. A desire to pour $$$s in indigenous products is in fact a way to jump out of mediocrity. The MRCA fiasco as it is today, especially this infatuation with novel, geewhiz products, otoh can clearly be envisaged as a desire to perpetuate mediocrity.

CM.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Jul 2009 03:14

if its such a farce, then why bother to discuss it at all ? and why are countries like Brazil, Japan, Switzerland, etc. bothering to look at the newer types instead of simply upgrading, and using the same fighter types they already, or purchasing more of the types they already have, and using them for the next 30 years ?

the reason is simple- to try and stay ahead of the curve of obsolescence at least for the next 15 years..the Mirage-2000-5s and MiG-29UPGs will be competitive, but they are finally going to reach a stage where you cannot upgrade them any further without expending money almost equivalent to, if not more than, the cost of the fighters themselves..integration of equipment is neither cheap, nor easy. on BRF, the Su-30MKI has perpetuated a myth among armchair generals that XYZ equipment can be slam dunked into a fighter and overnight its equivalent to a fighter that was designed nearly 10-15 years later, and incorporated design and manufacturing philosophies that were non-existent or too futuristic at the time of their design..the Su-27 was a platform that was so under-utilised in its original configuration that it offered a lot of volume and a lot of scope for upgrades and improvements..adding a digital FBW helped, and so did avionics, but not all platforms are the same.

heck, there are armchair marshals who want the IAF to buy more MiG-21s and Jaguars and use them for another 30-40 years !! while the Jag is a good aircraft for its role currently, its a fighter designed in the 1960s and the future of the IAF strike cannot be based on a design that is 2 generations behind what is current ! already we're one of the only major operators of Jaguars worldwide, when even its parent country has retired them (though it did so more due to funding issues)..we have guys suggesting that instead we should operate these for another 30 years and more ! one even suggested that the LCA ought to have been dumped for more MiG-21 Bison types..that is the most backward, pessimistic thinking imaginable and even the IAF would laugh at such a ridiculous proposition !

I guess the same line of thought would mean that maybe the IAF ought not to have spent a ton of money on the Mirages in the 1980s, especially when the foreign exchange reserves were so low..they ought to have upgraded the HAL Ajeets or the HF-24 Marut with FBW, radar and it should've been operational till today. why did the IAF even bother to induct MiG-29s when MiG-23MFs could do the role of air to air interception ? they should've bought more of those and slapped the MiG-29s radar and HMS onto the MiG-23MF and bingo ! you'd have a MiG-23MF-MKI that would last another 30 years trying to counter F-16s that would outfly the MiG-23 or the Ajeet any day, any time.

I can only thank those forward thinking visionaries who took on the challenge of the LCA because the kind of thinking some people are showing here would've meant a fighter that would've had little to no composites (which as a technology will benefit Indian industry immensely in the future), an analog FBW that would've needed replacing less than half way through the fighter's life, and much lesser competency to even think of developing a 5th generation fighter on our own..

and eventually, even though the Mirage-2000 is my all-time favourite aircraft, I'm happy that the IAF will get a fighter designed a decade after it, one that is current for a lot more years than some upgraded MiG or Mirage and one that has far more upgrade potential another 20 years down the line. I'm quite sure that the pilots who will risk their lives to fight any future battles for India will agree. so, the MRCA is not quite a futile exercise or a farce, its actually very important because the chosen fighter WILL be the backbone of IAF strike for the next 30 years..

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 18 Jul 2009 03:25

Kartik and Cain Marko - I guess truth lies between what you guys have stated. We need new aircraft as well as we need to upgrade existing aircrafts like Mig 29 and Mirage 2000. I thinks that were IAF is heading

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Jul 2009 04:18

Sandipan wrote:Kartik and Cain Marko - I guess truth lies between what you guys have stated. We need new aircraft as well as we need to upgrade existing aircrafts like Mig 29 and Mirage 2000. I thinks that were IAF is heading

oh I absolutely agree that the Mirages and MiG-29s need upgrades. they're fine fighters, but their radars, avionics and systems are getting increasingly obsolete by the standards of the F-16 Block 50s that the PAF has procured. and considering that they have substantial residual life left, the need for upgrades to keep them current is very crucial. plus the infrastructure for them exists and at a time when fighter numbers are at an all time low, its essential to keep the airframes going for a decade or more.

also need to keep in mind that their entire fleet of F-16s will be at Block 50 levels, and that is a substantial number of very capable fighters. currently, out of the IAF fleet, only the Su-30MKIs can confidently take on the F-16 Block 50 that has AMRAAMs and JHMCS with AIM-9Ms (PAF didn't get AIM-9Xs for whatever reason).

reading about the Mirage and MiG-29 upgrades, they'll be able to take on the F-16 Block 50 and the JF-17s, but very soon, the PLAAF will field advanced J-10 variants (J-10B which is already undergoing test flights) and their J-XX 5th gen fighter. the PAF will soon follow suit as well. to think that we should only procure LCAs, more second hand upgraded Mirages and Fulcrums and leave the rest to the PAK-FA and MCA (if it ever sees the light of day) would leave too much to be done by the Su-30MKIs and they can't be there at every theater to dominate the battle. the MRCA will relieve the load, inject new technologies and capabilities that the IAF needs (such as EW warfare) and it is very important that it be a fighter able to excel in both strike and air defence. there is a limit to what second hand upgraded Mirages and Fulcrums will be able to do..the Mirage upgrade actually shows that up- its mission computer itself is being replaced.

Modernization project will include installation of high-performance on-board computer with extended memory, multimode radar, capable of detecting target at a distance of 70 nautical miles (130 km) in terms of interference, multichannel digital data transmission systems, advanced equipment for the use of missiles near and long-range navigation and equipment.

The cockpit will be equipped with two side digital displays and an improved bottom dashboard, Helmet display systems. Communications, navigation and identification will be replaced to meet the standards of "glass cockpit".

Upgrading of the complex electronic warfare includes the installation of an integrated receiver warning of approaching enemy missiles, providing continuous information to the issuance of timely action to counter, a fully integrated system of stationary jamming and transmitter interference.

Standard fuel tanks will be increased. The system of sealing the aircraft will be modified to improve the functioning of tropical and desert climates. The system of filling with liquid oxygen will be replaced by on-board system, the production of oxygen, engines will be equipped with a digital control system.

As stated previously the Director of the modernization program fighters "Mirage" of Thales' Federico Andre, India has also proposed a project that would reduce the signature of the aircraft and provide them with greater security from detection and attack aircraft destruction and their means of air defense.

link

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 18 Jul 2009 04:30

I don't believe I mentioned anywhere that the IAF should not get new aircraft. Yes it should, but getting an a/c that is only equal/marginally better than late model mirages/fulcrum (and that is precisely what an F-16E/F or F-18E/F is) makes little or no sense whatever. The MRCA contenders aren't 5th gen types by any means.

Having 6 different a/c which fall into a huge variety of categories from twin engined birds to single engined, later designs (Rafale), revamped designs (F-16e/f), to designs in prototype stage (Gripen NG) is nothing short of a farce.

No gents this is a circus, no mistake. The IAF had made it amply clear why they wanted the a/c and which a/c they wanted that too in a hurry. Obviously this current drama is a far cry from that.

CM.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 18 Jul 2009 16:24

guys,guys ,guys,just check out this old article fromfrom air fleet russia on mmrca

http://www.airfleet.ru/arhiv/n3_2009/12-billion_prize/

at this moment of time not many people will root for mig-35,this article is nicely written by a russian,still it is unbiased [ generally russkies are biased towards their products].what could tilt the deal in favour of russians is the line of weapons these guys are offering with mig-35
1].rvv-sd,ramjet powered long range air-air missile close to 200km range
2]rvv-md, a short range missile in class of python-5,iris-t and aim-9x
3]kh-59mk stand-off 286km range land attack missile
4]kab-1500lg-fe, kab-250,kab-500se, gps and laser guided PGM
5]ZHUK-AE/FGA35 AESA

on paper,in terms of capabilities such as long range wepons,TVC, AESA and low cost makes mig-35 the favourite.russians have been the most reliable suppliers for past 50 years[no sanctions from them].moreover it will be easier to integrate mig-35 into iaf since navy and iaf both have mig-29.logistically also very good aircraft
but the main drawback is that the russian weapons often do not perform that well as specified by them like the krasnopol shells,shtil missiles on khrivack etc, and also the recent armtwisting on t-90,su-30 and gorshkov deals may also work against their bid

one more post
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-ne ... ian-order/

For instance, the MiG-35 is equipped with active phased-array antenna radar and new multichannel electro-optical systems to engage both aerial and ground targets. The aircraft also boasts a new-generation self-defense suite including both radio and electro-optical functions.

The jet’s armaments consist of Kh-59MK2 air-to-ground missiles, carrying a 661-pound warhead on a range of up to 154 nm. The weapon is able to identify the terrain around the target and destroy objects that offer no radar, infrared or optical contrast. It is also available as an anti-ship version designated the -59MK.

Also part of the MiG-35 firepower is a new family of Kh-38 air-to-ground missiles. Their range of 22 nm greatly increases the fighter’s reach over the battlefield.

The Kh-38 is built on a modular design that allows for a choice of self-guided warheads– such as laser, infrared, satellite and active radar–to meet different mission requirements. The relatively light, 1,146-pound missile can incorporate a powerful warhead of up to 551 pounds as a single unit or as several submunitions. The fighter’s combat capabilities for engaging aerial targets are being enhanced with new RVV-SD medium-range and RVV-MD short-range air-to-air missiles.

eagerly waiting for the MAKS 2009 where rvv-sd and rvv-md will be unveiled

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 18 Jul 2009 17:30

One reason for the MRCA is to arrest falling numbers, the other is to get a footing in the concepts of network centricity. I believe the US leads in this. Getting the Shornet is the best way to quickly come up to speed. Sometimes its worthwhile to pay and save time in the learning curve, as opposed to reinventing the wheel. This also jives with what airmarshall Homi said wrt to puki F16's, it depends how you use it.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 18 Jul 2009 18:11

koti wrote:I am strongly feeling that spending 10 Billion on a single military deal like MMRCA is not worth the investment now.

I agree but with in a different way. I believe MMRCA was needed when it was conceived (2001) It was then we required 126 A/cs. It was also much needed considering Kargil episode was new followed with attack on Parliament.. Had we entered agreement then, probably we would have been flying around 4 squadrons already.

Now, by the time we will start inducting MMRCA, Tejas Mk 2 would already have rolled out... Please not doubts here.. It will be wiser if we increase the no of Tejas Mk 2 from 125 to more than 250.

Also, by 2015 /16 FGFA will be at final trails stage (I dont have slightest possible doubt on the capabilities of Russians and with LCA flying successfully also on the Indians) followed by MCA (2020)

However, if at all we want to go for it, we should get it from a country which will apart from TOT will help us in various other projects...(Russians (INS ARIHANT) / French (BMD) / America (sanctions))

-Nitin

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 18 Jul 2009 18:17

The MRCA contract has to be dovetailed with a co-development project...Maybe the MCA project..else a lot of questions dont make sense:

1. A long drawn out exhaustive trial process (barring the arty acquisition, where it is more to do with politics, no platform in recent or distant memory has been taken through such an exhaustive and long drawn out competitive process)..

2. Ceterus paribus conditions on tehcnology most vendors are still years away from deploying - AESA is the prime example, but supercruise, supposed stealth, EW as well..

3. Calling in every variety of aircraft - from single engined "light fighters" lke Gripen to "near Su30" class F18..ASQRs would need to have been very very generic for everyone to have qualified..

IAF, or for that matter MoD, cannot be that daft...This doesnt seem to be the "gap filler" that is being touted as the rationale..

That is why the LCA engine RFP needs to be monitored closely...Chances are that the winner of this contract will have a very strong bearign on the winner of the MRCA contract..

In this context, the scuttling of the Gripen-Israeli bid on American bidding is interesting. As a technologiocal and political "sale", the americans shouldnt be all that worried about the Gripen-Israeli bid.. But as a collaborative project, it probably offers one of the best "sanctions proof, independent" packages..Especially if the idea is to coopt the vendor for the LCA/MCA type next gen project..

The key points to monitor for me in the MRCA race would be the TOT news as they filter out, and the winner of the LCA engine project...

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 18 Jul 2009 18:18

[/quote](if it ever sees the light of day)[/quote]

When LCA was initiated, we have already gone thru many such dialogues.

The issue is LCA is still there flying successfully and crossing milestones on regular basis, those who made that statements have become id ka chand.

Mods, I am sorry if it is offensive and will delete if asked to do so.

-Nitin

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jul 2009 01:48

Guddu wrote:One reason for the MRCA is to arrest falling numbers, the other is to get a footing in the concepts of network centricity. I believe the US leads in this. Getting the Shornet is the best way to quickly come up to speed. Sometimes its worthwhile to pay and save time in the learning curve, as opposed to reinventing the wheel. This also jives with what airmarshall Homi said wrt to puki F16's, it depends how you use it.

Outside of end user agreement and two other + the ever present US Congress in your bedroom, the US does lead in most areas - including arm twisting.

But, there is the $3-5 billion offsets that should count for something. I am hoping that they would allow the full use of their AESA. Having worked on the supply chain stuff it will be beneficial.

Paying the armed forces? I have suggested for many decades India should tap their underground economy - which is as large, if not larger, than the real - above-ground - economy. India was never a poor country. There is plenty of water under this dry river bed. Actually this argument applies for anything in India - literacy, health, infrastructure, etc..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2009 23:20

abhiti wrote:
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!

Following on this. US even after meltdown and lack of money is giving lots of $ to TSP. Aise na ho ki humara rupaya MRCA se, woonko dollar ban kar prop kiye!

How essential is the Indian order for the health and viability of the two uncle firms? Even then LM broke its own ethics rules and should be debarred.

Can the SU 30 be fitted with AESA type stuff?

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 20 Jul 2009 00:59

from a US pov (defense exports), how is this market different from Iran-Irag wars of the 80's? isn't it just exploitation of Indo-Pak or Indo-Sino tensions

since TSP is a beggar, we provide the parity by paying for both (US routes say $3 billion as a development fund and they buy arms either from US or European or even chinese market, whats the edge IAF finally gains?)

the edge we are attempting with Chinese, as long as their economy is strong with so many foreign reserves, it will be like Russia running out of economic fuel (in that sense all our prior purchases from russia haven't helped it)

the day TSP ends like Iraq inspite of all the false propping, it will all be Indo-Sino market, this positioning of Shornet against Chinese threat is just a primer.

US would never want things to blow over, just simmering enough

is it Obama's way of getting back at Bangalore (outsourcing market)?

the mistrust is fundamental as the same US export strategy (economic interests) will interfere with our indigenous 3 stage power infrastructure, a spanner very well could be the reprocessing rights put against the wall of NPT

the bottomline is one can get the AESA, network centric stuff but not with a short term outlook

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 20 Jul 2009 02:11

This should be Interesting to many

The other contender is Paris-based Dassault Aviation SA, which is pitching the Rafale. Dassault’s Mirage 2000 is currently Brazil’s most-advanced warplane. French officials have “clearly stated their openness” to cooperate with Brazil in the technology field, Yves Robins, vice-president corporate communication of Dassault Aviation, said in an interview this week.(Only difference is that of su30, but that should not alter common path os selecting criteria, as this similar contract will open chance either for unkil or french

Under the tender guidelines, the company that wins the contract is required to transfer technology to Brazil equal to the full purchase price of the planes.

‘Technology Access’

“Our main goal is technology access,” Brazil’s Defense Minister Nelson Jobim said yesterday.

That favors Boeing’s competitors who are less burdened by U.S. restrictions on arms exports, said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based consultancy. U.S. rules may include demands for on-site inspections and approval of any sales to third parties over the plane’s 40-year flying life, he said.
If EULA is signed with the USA, Its done deal for boeing,as it means its done to favour unkil by congress
“Certainly it’s a process that you have to go through with the United States and it can be a process that takes time,” Albaugh said. Alert :strings theory“But ultimately our customers get what they need, get what they want.”

To replace its aging fleet, Brazil may order total of 120 fighter jets. India plans to order 126 warplanes, while Denmark may buy as much as 42 and Greece 40, Albaugh said.

The sale is Dassault’s to lose, said Alexandre Barros, head of Early Warning, a Brasilia-based political risk firm. The French have been Brazil’s top arms supplier since 1978, when President Jimmy Carter banned U.S. arms sales to Latin America, fearing an arms race among the reigning military juntas. The policy was reversed in 1997.

‘No Qualms’

“The French have no qualms about transferring a lot of technology,” said Barros.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has lobbied for the deal, which would be the Rafale’s first international sale after failed bids in Morocco, South Korea and Singapore. During a visit last December, he signed contracts worth 8 billion euros ($11 billion) to build 50 Super Cougar helicopters and five submarines.

Lula invited Sarkozy as Brazil’s guest of honor at its independence day Sept. 7. After meeting him in Paris this week, Lula said he hopes to sign new defense accords at that time.

The F/A-18’s biggest advantage against the Dassault is a longer track-record, especially in environments like coastal Brazil, said Aboulafia.

Economies of Scale

Currently the F/A-18 is being produced at a rate of 43 per year, compared to 13 per year for the Rafale and 5 for the Gripen, so Boeing is able to win on cost per unit, Aboulafia said.

The Gripen is the weakest of the three candidates, says Michel Merluzeau, an aviation analyst at G2 Solution in Kirkland, Washington. Deliveries and production for the single- engine plane are falling, making its survival dependent on more financing. Sweden’s annual defense spending of $5.5 billion is less than 1 percent the $623 billion U.S. market, he said.

Boeing rose 0.8 percent to $39.65 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The stock has dropped by more than half since Feb. 28, 2008, the day before the company lost a $35 billion U.S. tanker competition to a group including rival European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. The stock has also been hurt by delays to the company’s newest commercial aircraft, the 787 Dreamliner.

samsher · Post by **samsher** » 20 Jul 2009 02:25

Hello folks,
I happened to watch an intersting episode of "Dogfights of the future" on the Military Channel. Mostly featuring the F-22 Raptor and te F-35 pitted against the "others. My personal opinion is that it was heavily biased in favor of the F-22 (no surprises !!). Anyways, found it "youtubed" . I am posting the links here.
Some folks or admins may have the opinion that this should be in the Multimedia thread but since this episode featured the Mig 29, SU-30 and the Rafael I thought I would post them here. Feel free to move them there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KpjgHYjcA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrAYSxYjbg

Thanks and enjoy.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 20 Jul 2009 12:05

Boy that was some biased footage for sure. Notice how the cobra all of a sudden becomes a winning manouver (vs the tiffy) when done by the Raptor. Amazingly, the MKI will only lose speed and become a sitting duck to get its "brains drilled out" (as the good col. says), when it performs such a moves. tsk tsk.

CM.

kit · Post by **kit** » 20 Jul 2009 14:24

samsher wrote:Hello folks,
I happened to watch an intersting episode of "Dogfights of the future" on the Military Channel. Mostly featuring the F-22 Raptor and te F-35 pitted against the "others. My personal opinion is that it was heavily biased in favor of the F-22 (no surprises !!). Anyways, found it "youtubed" . I am posting the links here.
Some folks or admins may have the opinion that this should be in the Multimedia thread but since this episode featured the Mig 29, SU-30 and the Rafael I thought I would post them here. Feel free to move them there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KpjgHYjcA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrAYSxYjbg

Thanks and enjoy.

IB4TL . It was in Discovery channel as well ( US ) Notice the sensor fusion and the concept of bomb truck Lancers in conjunction with the F22 s,when the missile load for F 22 is exhausted against the potential adversary ( Su 30 MKI specifically ) at the time i did wonder why they pitted the Rafale and the MKI version as its competitors.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 20 Jul 2009 14:49

Its rather amusing to see how even reputed American channels can be so biased. No doubt F-22 is perhaps the best fighter currently in service, but this was too much.
Another thing that amused me is that the bias did not end with F-22. Note that the only fighters that survived to engage in dogfights were Rafales. Even here the Americans would rather praise a French equipment over a Russian one. Not even one MKI, with its thrust vectoring, could evade amraams while 6 rafales managed to survive. No doubt Rafale is an excellent a/c, but this is too much bias.

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 20 Jul 2009 15:32

samsher wrote:Hello folks,
I happened to watch an intersting episode of "Dogfights of the future" on the Military Channel. Mostly featuring the F-22 Raptor and te F-35 pitted against the "others. My personal opinion is that it was heavily biased in favor of the F-22 (no surprises !!). Anyways, found it "youtubed" . I am posting the links here.
Some folks or admins may have the opinion that this should be in the Multimedia thread but since this episode featured the Mig 29, SU-30 and the Rafael I thought I would post them here. Feel free to move them there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KpjgHYjcA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrAYSxYjbg

Thanks and enjoy.

screen this movie to IAF bosses they will immediately buy f22 if offered

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 20 Jul 2009 17:53

ramana wrote:Following on this. US even after meltdown and lack of money is giving lots of $ to TSP. Aise na ho ki humara rupaya MRCA se, woonko dollar ban kar prop kiye!

How essential is the Indian order for the health and viability of the two uncle firms? Even then LM broke its own ethics rules and should be debarred.

Can the SU 30 be fitted with AESA type stuff?

You cannot depend on America for anything. They use all dependence as leverage. Something Pakis have learnt well and now using Afghanistan as leverage. India can only hope to source equipment for a country who is too small for a political agenda like France or Sweden. But the fear is that for the people who matter like our PM they already seem to be signing American tune to the extent of claiming India is supporting terrorism in Balochistan!

SU 30 once upgraded in next decade will get AESA for sure.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jul 2009 19:36

The stream of info about the ongoing Indo-US dialogue and the desperation to reach an agreement on defence sales,has brought out a concealed fact about the Indo-US N-deal,that it WAS linked to India buying US arms! This explains the indecent haste to buy 126+ new aircraft ostensibly to arrst falling numbers in the IAF,not by buying a 4+ gen or 5th-gen aircraft and its technology,to serve us well for another 25+ years,but to instead buy a '70s vintage design that resembles an aging lady with too much of make up!
No Sharon Stone,Julia Roberts or Angelina Jolie on offer ,instead we're being dumped with Jane Fonda and Liz Taylor!

kit · Post by **kit** » 20 Jul 2009 19:55

Right ! At least some forum members have that view.The whole MRCA never made much sense to me anyway.Americans just want to 'lock' India into its strategic embrace, so that whatever regime that comes after congress wont have much option otherwise.I am pretty much sure it is the F18 ! oh there might be some grand proclamation that some high tech will be transferred .. so it was Russia who helped us during the cold war .. it was more symbiotic .. wonder how washingtons 'dritharashtra embrace' is going to be like ! God help Madame G

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2009 20:31

Also with the so called End Users Agreement wont the planes be required to be not used in anger? All they would be good for ar red flag exercises and fly pasts. So why pay so much for weapons that cant be used. Even half that amount would productionise the LCA and the SU 30s.