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.
Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4414
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Mahendra » 10 Apr 2010 02:51

While you guys here speculate let me give you some sugarless chaiwala news

The trials at Leh was nothing but a farce to hoodwink the media, Indian pilots are actually testing out the F16, Eurofighter and F18 in AF-Pak, yes they are actually flying those planes and often violating Pakistani airspace. The Chaiwala goes on to say that at the moment it looks as if F18 is slightly ahead of Eurofighter and F16 when it comes to popularity among IAF pilots.
While the assorted Anandas, Bhasmasuras and Ghatothkachas here can fantasize about Russian and Swedish Junk, the decision to go 50-50 between US and EU has been made

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Apr 2010 02:54

Plenty of wrong info and faulty arguments here:

Viv S wrote:The Eurofighter and Rafale while less maneuverable, are more agile, have a better t/w ratio not true, only the Tiffy has a slightly better twrthan the 35, have better operational ranges Proof? The RD-33s are very economical, this was never an issue - current range on internal fuel = 2200km++, lower radar cross-sectionsNo real proof, however, it is possible but by how much? The 35 is supposed to be 5X-10X times lower than the A i.e. around 0.5msq clean. Further how much of an advantage is this when both sides load up on EFTs/munitions? , better radars(the MiG-35's AESA is still very much a work in progress and is unlikely to have more than 700-1000 t/r modules) wrong again - the Zhuk A slated to make the 35 is currently being tested and has 1064 TRMs. Even the smaller 680TRM 575mm antenna showed v.respectable figures and development on this piece is done. SEcondly, there is little to show that an Apg 80 or Raven or even the RBE-2 has better performance. Thirdly, apart from the RBE-2 and Apg set, all other are in development, better(though pricey) munitions and are better with regard to maintenance(making assumptions here) big assumptions at that. There is little to show that a Mica or Amraam C5 is any better than an R77, importantly the euros don't offer an anti radiation missile, nor too many options in passive A2A apart from the MIca. The Meteor is just about as far from induction as the R77-180 or the KS-172. In fact, the russkis have a greater diversity at least than oiropean.

Unless the Russians have made substantial recent breakthroughs, the F-16IN and F-18E/F's avionics are a league ahead of the MiG-35 besides the usual lower RCS, better munitions, logistics, maintenance etc etc. based on what? the shornet has an EFT mounted IRST for example, repating the same argument - better maintenance etc does not making true, much lessl "leagues ahead" of anything

The MiG-35's OLS comes into play at ranges that aren't very far into the BVR spectrum. Also, all other aircrafts field IRST sensors too and in terms of range the PIRATE is rumored(can't find anything concrete) to have far better performance. Again, not entirely true; while targeting on all IRST, pirate or not, is normally WVR through laser rangin; IFF can be at much higher ranges, btwk the IRST on the 35 is awesome all the figures are given for nnon AB targets; for burning targets ranges are several times that

Most importantly, every other aircraft(including the Gripen) has a better upgrade potential by virtue of serving in the AF of its country of origin. Very wrong, as proven by historical fact via the MKI program - I doubt there has been a single bird in IAF inventory that hs seen such a CIP as the MKI and no, it is not flown by the VVS. For that matter, where is the F-16IN in the USAF? or the NG in the swedish force?The upgrade potential on the fulcrum is much higher iin virtue of the fact that russki upgrades are cheaper by orders of mangnitude not to mention the airframe is not small and limited by inefficiency ala the viper or bug or possibly even the Greip. Only the rafale and ef-2000 have an advantge airframe wise.

ANother non performance related parameter that you forget to mention is cost, the 35 is cheapest by far (other than the Gripen). The only valid reason to dump the 35 imho is as you say the possibility of the whole fleet becoming russki.


Cheapest yes, but the way I see it, if we wanted a budget fighter, we should've been ordering more MKIs instead of the Gripen or MiG-35. Until the PAKFA comes along(and could be a long while if things don't pan out), the IAF needs to maintain a technological edge especially over the PLAAF.this is backwards, the MKI is anything but a typcal budget fighter, even after the MRCA comes in, I doubt it'll overcome an MLUed MKI. Tech offered via the MRCA is not generationally btter than either the MKI or the 35



^^^ Wouldn't this also mitigate your apprehensions with regard to an American fighter?v.doubtful that the Americans will part with technolgoy or IP to the extent that the russians have. They may or may not (latte possibility is very real imho), but the russians already have proven performance here


CM

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Apr 2010 02:55

Mahendra wrote:While you guys here speculate let me give you some sugarless chaiwala news

The trials at Leh was nothing but a farce to hoodwink the media, Indian pilots are actually testing out the F16, Eurofighter and F18 in AF-Pak, yes they are actually flying those planes and often violating Pakistani airspace. The Chaiwala goes on to say that at the moment it looks as if F18 is slightly ahead of Eurofighter and F16 when it comes to popularity among IAF pilots.
While the assorted Anandas, Bhasmasuras and Ghatothkachas here can fantasize about Russian and Swedish Junk, the decision to go 50-50 between US and EU has been made

Indeed, wasn't there another jingo - promising the MiG-35 on similar lines - done deal and what not? Well, we'll see how much "pani kum chai" your chaiwallah offers!

CM

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 10 Apr 2010 02:59

Mahendra wrote:While you guys here speculate let me give you some sugarless chaiwala news

The trials at Leh was nothing but a farce to hoodwink the media, Indian pilots are actually testing out the F16, Eurofighter and F18 in AF-Pak, yes they are actually flying those planes and often violating Pakistani airspace. The Chaiwala goes on to say that at the moment it looks as if F18 is slightly ahead of Eurofighter and F16 when it comes to popularity among IAF pilots.
While the assorted Anandas, Bhasmasuras and Ghatothkachas here can fantasize about Russian and Swedish Junk, the decision to go 50-50 between US and EU has been made

Is there some underlying humour in your post that I am not able to grasp? Or do you think that we are just plain stupid?

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4414
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Mahendra » 10 Apr 2010 03:09

Gaurji

I am just relaying information from a trusted source, I am not making any assumptions about the intelligence level of the forumites, take it for what it is worth, no need to get aggravated.
I personally have nothing against the other planes

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 10 Apr 2010 04:46

Mahendra wrote:While you guys here speculate let me give you some sugarless chaiwala news

The trials at Leh was nothing but a farce to hoodwink the media, Indian pilots are actually testing out the F16, Eurofighter and F18 in AF-Pak, yes they are actually flying those planes and often violating Pakistani airspace. The Chaiwala goes on to say that at the moment it looks as if F18 is slightly ahead of Eurofighter and F16 when it comes to popularity among IAF pilots.
While the assorted Anandas, Bhasmasuras and Ghatothkachas here can fantasize about Russian and Swedish Junk, the decision to go 50-50 between US and EU has been made


your chaiwallah seems to mix some high quality ganja alongwith his chai and seems to also partake of quite a bit of what he dishes out.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 10 Apr 2010 05:35

Cain Marko wrote:not true, only the Tiffy has a slightly better twrthan the 35


I'm pretty sure the Rafale has a better t/w ratio as well. But, lets assume I'm wrong, what specs did you take?

Proof? The RD-33s are very economical, this was never an issue - current range on internal fuel = 2200km++,


http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Ki ... ng_AFM.pdf

I'll see if I can find a link for the Rafale(which AFAIK has a higher range than the EF). BTW can you post a link to the 2200km figure?

No real proof, however, it is possible but by how much? The 35 is supposed to be 5X-10X times lower than the A i.e. around 0.5msq clean. Further how much of an advantage is this when both sides load up on EFTs/munitions?


Yup no proof, but from I've read Russian RCS reduction measures most relate to application of RAMs. I have my doubts on how just that would enable it to have an RCS comparable or lower than the SH/EF. Unless, you know of any relevant changes to the design?

wrong again - the Zhuk A slated to make the 35 is currently being tested and has 1064 TRMs.


Well 1064 not 1000 then.

Even the smaller 680TRM 575mm antenna showed v.respectable figures and development on this piece is done. SEcondly, there is little to show that an Apg 80 or Raven or even the RBE-2 has better performance. Thirdly, apart from the RBE-2 and Apg set, all other are in development


Others meaning Captor-E/CAESAR? It started flight tests even before the RBE-2 and while so far it is an industry driven effort, the time-line suggests a GaAs based variant is probably close to being available. It is a part of the EF's proposal despite not being ordered for the Tranche 3 so far.

I'm not expert but from I've gathered the APG's advantage is not in terms of radiated power but in terms mature software and multi-functionality.

big assumptions at that. There is little to show that a Mica or Amraam C5 is any better than an R77, importantly the euros don't offer an anti radiation missile, nor too many options in passive A2A apart from the MIca. The Meteor is just about as far from induction as the R77-180 or the KS-172. In fact, the russkis have a greater diversity at least than oiropean


I was talking in terms of Meteor and Aim-120D. The Meteor is expected to be in service around 2013 roughly the same time as the first deliveries to the IAF. The Aim-120D on the other hand is already in service and can equip the Eurocanards as well.

based on what? the shornet has an EFT mounted IRST for example, repating the same argument - better maintenance etc does not making true, much lessl "leagues ahead" of anything


Improved MTBO for the aircraft and engine but its still based on the less-than-stellar MiG-29.

Again, not entirely true; while targeting on all IRST, pirate or not, is normally WVR through laser rangin; IFF can be at much higher ranges, btwk the IRST on the 35 is awesome all the figures are given for nnon AB targets; for burning targets ranges are several times that


Define awesome. There not as capable or reliable as radars and will continue to serve only in a secondary capacity.

Very wrong, as proven by historical fact via the MKI program - I doubt there has been a single bird in IAF inventory that hs seen such a CIP as the MKI and no, it is not flown by the VVS. For that matter, where is the F-16IN in the USAF? or the NG in the swedish force?The upgrade potential on the fulcrum is much higher iin virtue of the fact that russki upgrades are cheaper by orders of mangnitude not to mention the airframe is not small and limited by inefficiency ala the viper or bug or possibly even the Greip. Only the rafale and ef-2000 have an advantge airframe wise.


The Su-27/Su-35 belong to the same family as the Su-30MKI. I don't think you can draw a parallel here. For example would Klimov continue to make the newer variants of the RD-33 available for upgrades once VVS phases out the MiG-29(which may not be long given the condition they're in).

The end of the F-16's production would have been a concern if not for the fact that over 4,500 of them are in service globally and still were in production till a few years back. The Swedish Air Force has ordered some 250 Gripens and will be inducting the Gripen NG as well.

this is backwards, the MKI is anything but a typcal budget fighter, even after the MRCA comes in, I doubt it'll overcome an MLUed MKI. Tech offered via the MRCA is not generationally btter than either the MKI or the 35


Not generationally no. But, keeping EW in mind would you prefer to deploy Russian or western aircraft against the PLAAF?

v.doubtful that the Americans will part with technolgoy or IP to the extent that the russians have. They may or may not (latte possibility is very real imho), but the russians already have proven performance here


AFAIK its only the AESA that's an issue, even that given developments elsewhere may be cleared for ToT.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Apr 2010 10:48

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:not true, only the Tiffy has a slightly better twrthan the 35


I'm pretty sure the Rafale has a better t/w ratio as well. But, lets assume I'm wrong, what specs did you take?

Rafale - empty: 9500kg + 1000kg (6 Mica + pylons + pilot + ammo + fluids) + 4800kg fuel internal = 15300kg, M88.2 X 2 @ 75kgf = 15000kgf, TWR < 1.
MiG-35 - empty: 11600 (800kg < than K) + 1200kg (4 R77 + 2 R73 etc) + 5000kg (could be less) = 17800kg, 2X RD33-MK @ 9000kgf = 18000kgf, TWR > 1


Proof? The RD-33s are very economical, this was never an issue - current range on internal fuel = 2200km++,


http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Ki ... ng_AFM.pdf
I'll see if I can find a link for the Rafale(which AFAIK has a higher range than the EF). BTW can you post a link to the 2200km figure? The EF article states a range of 2900km but does not specify the load out. Surely that is not on internal fuel alone, the MiG-35 range is based on the MiG-29M (9.15) specified @ 2100-2200 with 4500kg int. fuel by Y. Gordon in Famous Russian A/c. The 35 carries more internal fuel and has more economical engines

No real proof, however, it is possible but by how much? The 35 is supposed to be 5X-10X times lower than the A i.e. around 0.5msq clean. Further how much of an advantage is this when both sides load up on EFTs/munitions?


Yup no proof, but from I've read Russian RCS reduction measures most relate to application of RAMs. I have my doubts on how just that would enable it to have an RCS comparable or lower than the SH/EF. Unless, you know of any relevant changes to the design? Did you notice the crossteeth on the ' radome. Not to mention the ram coating on the ZHuk M and blades. Russia has achieved pretty decent results on RCS reduction. Even so, what great advantage do the ecanards of F-18 with external tanks/weapons (with outward canted pylons no less) offer? Or the solah for that matter? Admittedly though i'd say that a lightly loaded Rafale or even NG might have some advantage.

wrong again - the Zhuk A slated to make the 35 is currently being tested and has 1064 TRMs.


Well 1064 not 1000 then.
That is pretty equal or close to the Apg-79, arguably the biggest AESA in the contest. the apg 81(80?) and the Raveln are smaller, so is the RBE-2 .
Even the smaller 680TRM 575mm antenna showed v.respectable figures and development on this piece is done. SEcondly, there is little to show that an Apg 80 or Raven or even the RBE-2 has better performance. Thirdly, apart from the RBE-2 and Apg set, all other are in development


Others meaning Captor-E/CAESAR? It started flight tests even before the RBE-2 and while so far it is an industry driven effort, the time-line suggests a GaAs based variant is probably close to being available. It is a part of the EF's proposal despite not being ordered for the Tranche 3 so far.
What you need to remember is that there is no great difference between russki effortss and euorpean or american in terms of development times; the max difference is 5-6 years. And the russians obviously have a lot of talent since their uber PESA products are certainly comparable/better than gen 1 AESA. IOWs, it ain't so cut and dry.
I'm not expert but from I've gathered the APG's advantage is not in terms of radiated power but in terms mature software and multi-functionality. There is little to suggest that russian sets or european ones won't have mature code, iirc the russkis were pretty good at such things.

big assumptions at that. There is little to show that a Mica or Amraam C5 is any better than an R77, importantly the euros don't offer an anti radiation missile, nor too many options in passive A2A apart from the MIca. The Meteor is just about as far from induction as the R77-180 or the KS-172. In fact, the russkis have a greater diversity at least than oiropean


I was talking in terms of Meteor and Aim-120D. The Meteor is expected to be in service around 2013 roughly the same time as the first deliveries to the IAF. The Aim-120D on the other hand is already in service and can equip the Eurocanards as well.Meteor is still far away - no different from the izd 180, which should be available pretty soon too. And there is no reason to believe that the IAF will get the Aim 120D, has it even been integrated on the the shornet of blk60? Iirc, the EF-2000 only just became C5 capable a year or so ago!

based on what? the shornet has an EFT mounted IRST for example, repating the same argument - better maintenance etc does not making true, much lessl "leagues ahead" of anything


Improved MTBO for the aircraft and engine but its still based on the less-than-stellar MiG-29True for an early model MiG29, not so for the 35; iirc airframe life is around 6000 hours, engine life is pretty comparable as well. Even if there is any small advantage here for the rest, it has to beweighed against setting up an entire new supply chain - what a night mare..

Again, not entirely true; while targeting on all IRST, pirate or not, is normally WVR through laser rangin; IFF can be at much higher ranges, btwk the IRST on the 35 is awesome all the figures are given for nnon AB targets; for burning targets ranges are several times that


Define awesome. There not as capable or reliable as radars and will continue to serve only in a secondary capacity.Never said anything about replacing radars, the ZHuk A seems capable enough. But awesome can be seen in terms of the figures they have put out. NOt to mention that there was a report by Aroor on how impressed the IAF was with the OLS

Very wrong, as proven by historical fact via the MKI program - I doubt there has been a single bird in IAF inventory that hs seen such a CIP as the MKI and no, it is not flown by the VVS. For that matter, where is the F-16IN in the USAF? or the NG in the swedish force?The upgrade potential on the fulcrum is much higher iin virtue of the fact that russki upgrades are cheaper by orders of mangnitude not to mention the airframe is not small and limited by inefficiency ala the viper or bug or possibly even the Greip. Only the rafale and ef-2000 have an advantge airframe wise.


The Su-27/Su-35 belong to the same family as the Su-30MKI. SO? The 35 is from the same family as the 29, at least the RuN is ordering some Ks, when the MKI was ordered nthe russian forces were not exactly buihng the vanilla flaner in droves.I don't think you can draw a parallel here. For example would Klimov continue to make the newer variants of the RD-33 available for upgrades once VVS phases out the MiG-29(which may not be long given the condition they're in). Klimov was advertising the RD-3333 10 ton engine way back when, there is little to no reason to feel that there won't be further advances in this family of enigines esp. after the number of orders that Mig will get after the MRCA. For that matter even now they ahve about 72 Ks on order + 60 odd upgrades. India is already tinkering around with the Rd-33s I don't see an issue here.

The end of the F-16's production would have been a concern if not for the fact that over 4,500 of them are in service globally and still were in production till a few years back. The Swedish Air Force has ordered some 250 Gripens and will be inducting the Gripen NG as well. So what? we saw what happened with the MKI - no problems so far. There might be a million a million solahs all over the world but there is a distinct possibillity that one day your fleet is sanctoned and you can't do jack but cannibalize. Btw, how many NGs have been ordered so far ? At least the 29k has a firm 78 orders, no?

this is backwards, the MKI is anything but a typcal budget fighter, even after the MRCA comes in, I doubt it'll overcome an MLUed MKI. Tech offered via the MRCA is not generationally btter than either the MKI or the 35


Not generationally no. But, keeping EW in mind would you prefer to deploy Russian or western aircraft against the PLAAF?Frankly, we are hardly in any position to takl about EW, what seems to be missing in the 35? It has a nice MAWS, even a LWR which the solah does not, AESA internal jammer, rwr - aur kya chaiye bhai? ll c

v.doubtful that the Americans will part with technolgoy or IP to the extent that the russians have. They may or may not (latte possibility is very real imho), but the russians already have proven performance here


AFAIK its only the AESA that's an issue, even that given developments elsewhere may be cleared for ToT. MOre speculation but BIG question mark is still there after 4 years of this fiasco - still no positive clearance, doesn't inspire confidence frankly


CM

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 10 Apr 2010 11:08

Want to know in Single Engine Category , How does Gripen IN and F-16 IN compare with each other ?

Lets say between the two which is a better buy and why ?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Apr 2010 11:19

Austin wrote:Want to know in Single Engine Category , How does Gripen IN and F-16 IN compare with each other ?

Lets say between the two which is a better buy and why ?


Zat vun iz ver zimple - GripenNG. Why? Top 17 reasons -

1) Newer airframe design (delta canard, high composites), v.low drag, low RCS.
2) Considerably better fuel fraction
3) Much lower wingloading!
4) Superb Range.
5) Incorporates a variety of weapons without much hoopla (IAF can get euro and israeli or even US weapons if needed)
6) Swashplate design on AESA allows better FOV
7) Same size AESA (1000trm) although 16 might put out greater power thanks to more powerful engine - dunno. But I think they should be similar in performance.
8. LWR + decoys (not available on the solah iirc)
9) SUpposedly amazing turnaround times.
10) Excellent CPFH ($ 3000 wonlee)
11) Similar TWR but less draggy airframe.
12) Supercruise @ 1.2 M with 6 AAMs + 1 EFT
13) Legendary datalinking capacity.
14) Less possibility of sanctions
15) Cheaper upfront and lifetime ownership.
16) Decent TOT and support (probly better than the solah).
17) Better upgrade potential since the design is newer and the Viper design is at its very fag end.

HOwever, the solah does have a slight advantage -
1) More payload - upto 7000kg (1 ton more) but if IAF needs heavy lifting might as well use the MKI. The Gripen is a great substitute for the M2k.
2) Use of CFTs free up pylons (of course they also add drag, and weight but help in strike missions i s'pose)

Did i miss anything? That took a whole of about 5-6 minutes. Dorai, I am sure can add a few more to the list.

CM

Added l8r - knew I was forgeting something - the Gripen has the capacity for STOL, not so with solah.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 10 Apr 2010 11:42

Mahendra wrote:While the assorted Anandas, Bhasmasuras and Ghatothkachas here can fantasize about Russian and Swedish Junk, the decision to go 50-50 between US and EU has been made


I have been having a dirty feeling since a long time that the MMRCA deal may be split for political gains. My thinking was it would be split between USA and Russia. The decision to go 50-50 between US and EU is lesser of the evil of relying on one country especially US. We have relied solely on USSR / Russia for long. YES USSR has supported us for a long time. But the Gorshkov and T 90 saga has left a bad taste

K

PS
I have been having a dirty feeling since a long time........ Actually I get dirty feelings ALL THE TIME, not necessary on MMRCA !!!

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 10 Apr 2010 11:44

Kersi D wrote:PS
I have been having a dirty feeling since a long time........ Actually I get dirty feelings ALL THE TIME, not necessary on MMRCA !!!



How Dirty?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Apr 2010 11:45

Kersi D wrote:PS
I have been having a dirty feeling since a long time........ Actually I get dirty feelings ALL THE TIME, not necessary on MMRCA !!!


What a dirty fellow you are, now stop reading those girlie mags and get back to MRCA! :twisted:

CM

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 10 Apr 2010 12:04

well CM, no offense but lots of wrong info as well. Apg-80 has over 1100 T/R modules, the Apg-79 has more than 1200 T/R modules. Gripen NG only has a better AESA and super cruise beyond that the Super Viper outperforms the Gripen NG in everything else. F-16SV is cutomizable that means, probe drogue refueling, CFTs, MATV is an option, has almost all EU, Israeli and US weapons tested and integrated plus sprinkling of new tech from the f-22 so far not the case with the Gripen NG. the Super viper can carry more loads as well due to new higher thrust engine upto 8000kgs. Most of the weapons deployed on the SV like Jdam, jdam-er, ljdam, sdb, aagrm etc aren't deployed on the Gripen Ng. new anti rad missile the AAGRM is deployed on all US fighter which can hit shut down radars as well EF has ALARM missiles. SV can fly 1700km with 1500kg load fire and return all on internal fuel. Its radar is operational and has been proven for years now. The datalinking on SV is far more advanced this baby can datalink with uavs, awacs and all other assets in the air, ground or sea. none of the contenders can match the datalinking ability of the US teens. Both the teens can hit moving ground targets, datalinked to them from gorund forces and show simultanoeus tracking of different targets at same time. Having a lot of US parts the Gripen or Ef are just as sanction prone and sanctions in this day and age is actually not possible, the chances of sanctions are lower with the teens because they cant sanction such a big customer with a nation that has no many economic possibilties and speaking not only of the mrca.

http://spsaviation.net/mmrca.asp?id=5

mig-35 wont be ready for full scale production before 2013/2014 which means we wont get delivery of first aircraft before 2015/2016.
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?664367

SV and SH will get LM's IRST the similar to one fitted on the f-22. You could say the Russki PESA are good in terms of detection range but hey we kept our mki radars off with fears that our radar frquencies could be spied on and jammed. Pesa is no AESA, AESa far outperforms any PEsa. about the ramjet Adder, well there isnt one, so for not operational at all same goes for the awacs killer, till its tested or being sold, no confirmation its ready for us.

our own r-77s malfunctioned in inventory, EF is C-7 capable while the Gripen in only c-5 capable. SV is also c-7 capable, python-5, delilah, popeye-2 ready, spice munition kit ready, etc. the SH is the only contender tested twice with the aim-120D and aim-120D is ready for full scale induction in 2011. no mig-35 orders by main user and hence no reliability of future upgrades. mig-35 rcs below 0.5 m2 clean haha thats a joke, the PAKFA during first flight had 0.5 m2 rcs clean, mig-35 is 3 to 5 m2 at best.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1265
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Nihat » 10 Apr 2010 12:05

Combat radius and Reliability are 2 major issues with the Gripen NG. If we are looking at fighting a two front war which includes all out air assault on TSP and limited defense / offense roles against China, then an 800 Km combat radius just does not cut it. The harsh climate of Rajasthan and Leh and NE regions might also prove too stressful for a single engine craft.

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ashish raval » 10 Apr 2010 12:10

^^ what is the use of f-22, f-35, f-.... if you cant use it in real war. India cannot trust a country which showers pakis with anti-India weapons trying to dupe India in name of war on terror. America has one sole intention in this world check all rising super power and stop world becoming multi-polar. Pure hegemony nothing else. :evil:

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8098
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 10 Apr 2010 12:18

Nihat wrote:Combat radius and Reliability are 2 major issues with the Gripen NG. If we are looking at fighting a two front war which includes all out air assault on TSP and limited defense / offense roles against China, then an 800 Km combat radius just does not cut it. The harsh climate of Rajasthan and Leh and NE regions might also prove too stressful for a single engine craft.


Those specs are for the Gripen C/D. The combat radius of the NG is more. Though I haven't found an exact figure anywhere.

From wiki
Compared to the Gripen D, the Gripen NG's max takeoff weight has increased from 14,000 to 16,000 kg (30,900–35,300 lb) with an increase in empty weight of 200 kg (440 lb). Due to relocated main landing gear, the internal fuel capacity has increased by 40%, which will increase ferry range to 4,070 km (2,200 nmi). The new undercarriage configuration also allows for the addition of two heavy stores pylons to the fuselage. Its PS-05/A radar adds a new AESA antenna for flight testing beginning in mid-2009.[17]

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 10 Apr 2010 13:50

Cain Marko wrote:Zat vun iz ver zimple - GripenNG. Why? Top 17 reasons -
Did i miss anything? That took a whole of about 5-6 minutes. Dorai, I am sure can add a few more to the list.
CM


WoW , Nice summary CM , Thanks :)

So can we now safely rule out the 11 HP Mig-35 for good ?

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SanjibGhosh » 10 Apr 2010 17:45

I have just watched the interview of ACM on NDTV. The main points of the interview apart from the naxals issue are:

1. Evaluation of MMRCA would be completed in June (all the phases). Currently 2 are left to be completed.

2. Not happy with the progress of LCA (since past 20 yr). Now there is a ray hope that it would be inducted in a sq strength.

3. Rohini is a very good radar.

4. Akash is good but still there are some gaps which drdo is filling up.

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 10 Apr 2010 18:55

Nihat wrote:Combat radius and Reliability are 2 major issues with the Gripen NG. If we are looking at fighting a two front war which includes all out air assault on TSP and limited defense / offense roles against China, then an 800 Km combat radius just does not cut it. The harsh climate of Rajasthan and Leh and NE regions might also prove too stressful for a single engine craft.


In terms of reliability the Gripen have recorded more then 130 000 flight hours and has never ever had an engine failure.

As far as I know the Gripen passed Leh with marginal to spare, unlike certain two-engined ones. And this was version D with less power than the Gripen NG. According to what I have heard, EF couldn't even get it's engines started properly..

Combat radius. Well it depends on what the MMRCA is supposed to do. If it is deep penetration strikes into China then non of the planes offered would cut it. Is it for air defence? Well, then Gripen is as good as any with a good range of weapons to choose from, re-arm and re-fuel in 10 min, then get back into the action. It's cheap and easy to maintain, so it doesn't cost a fortune unlike certain other Euro-canards.

If the deal gets split into two, then SH and Gripen NG would be a great combination. Similar weapons, same engines with different roles.

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4414
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Mahendra » 10 Apr 2010 19:00

^
Good post, agree with you 100%

Welcome to BRF and particularly to the MRCA News and Discussion thread

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kavu » 10 Apr 2010 19:00

Henrik wrote:
Combat radius. Well it depends on what the MMRCA is supposed to do. If it is deep penetration strikes into China then non of the planes offered would cut it.


Nobody is flying to Shanghai or Beijing

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 10 Apr 2010 19:08

Mahendra wrote:^
Good post, agree with you 100%

Welcome to BRF and particularly to the MRCA News and Discussion thread


Thank you!

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 10 Apr 2010 19:10

Kavu wrote:
Henrik wrote:
Combat radius. Well it depends on what the MMRCA is supposed to do. If it is deep penetration strikes into China then non of the planes offered would cut it.


Nobody is flying to Shanghai or Beijing

Exactly :wink:

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kavu » 10 Apr 2010 19:15

Henrik wrote:Nobody is flying to Shanghai or Beijing

Exactly :wink:[/quote]

Yet the idea of MMRCA is of a strike platform, Range and stand off weapons are of paramount importance. It will take precedence over everything else.

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 10 Apr 2010 20:00

Kavu wrote:
Henrik wrote:Nobody is flying to Shanghai or Beijing

Exactly :wink:


Yet the idea of MMRCA is of a strike platform, Range and stand off weapons are of paramount importance. It will take precedence over everything else.

Like I said, if the deal is split into two, SH and Gripen would be a great combination with economic benefits. And someone has to pay to keep the planes flying..
Rafale costs, according to the Brazilian competition, almost 3 (!) times as much in operational costs then Gripen, it's twice as expensive to buy and, as far as I know, you can't intergrate whatever weapons you want either.

These are some of the weapons that can be carried by Gripen NG:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fi ... stores.jpg

You also have to define what kind of a "strike platform" the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft really is and it's limitations thereafter. Btw, what's wrong with modern cruise-missiles? Taurus KEPD 350 for example, wich is a German/Swedish cruise-missile.

SAAB claims a 1300km combat radius with "full missile load and 30 min on station" for Gripen NG. Now if that's true, it can't be all that bad right? Especially if you get 3 for 1..

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 10 Apr 2010 20:15

there's not going to be any split-order.

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 10 Apr 2010 20:24

Rahul M wrote:there's not going to be any split-order.

Well that would certainly kill a lot of rumours.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Apr 2010 21:09

Brahmananda wrote:well CM, no offense but lots of wrong info as well. Apg-80 has over 1100 T/R modules,Source? All sources I see = 1000TRM, the solah has a pretty tiny nose, one of its big disadvantages - a reason why most of its radar detection figures are pretty low vis a vis a M2k or fulcrum the Apg-79 has more than 1200 T/R modules.Again source please; I've seen 1100 TRM in most places Gripen NG only has a better AESA and super cruise beyond that the Super Viper outperforms the Gripen NG in everything else. BS! how does the viper outperform the Greipen NG in "everything else" - they have similar TWRs, while the NG has a far better wingloading, low drag airframe, optimized for lower RCS, more composites etc. Give me some sources and figures pleaseF-16SV is cutomizable that means, probe drogue refueling, CFTs, MATV is an option, has almost all EU, Israeli and US weapons tested and integrated plus sprinkling of new tech from the f-22 so far not the case with the Gripen NG. Customizable? Almost all EU weapons? MATV? Are you nuts? The blk60 has none of this the Super viper can carry more loads as well due to new higher thrust engine upto 8000kgs. Most of the weapons deployed on the SV like Jdam, jdam-er, ljdam, sdb, aagrm etc aren't deployed on the Gripen Ng. new anti rad missile the AAGRM is deployed on all US fighter which can hit shut down radars as well EF has ALARM missiles. SV can fly 1700km with 1500kg load fire and return all on internal fuel. Geez! I dunno if this *** is worth replying to - 1700km combat radius with 1500kg? on internal fuel at that? :shock: It';; be happy to do that one way without any weapons considering how fat it has gotten!Its radar is operational and has been proven for years now. The datalinking on SV is far more advanced must be if you say so.this baby can datalink with uavs, awacs and all other assets in the air, ground or sea. none of the contenders can match the datalinking ability of the US teens. Both the teens can hit moving ground targets, datalinked to them from gorund forces and show simultanoeus tracking of different targets at same time. Having a lot of US parts the Gripen or Ef are just as sanction prone and sanctions in this day and age is actually not possible, the chances of sanctions are lower with the teens because they cant sanction such a big customer with a nation that has no many economic possibilties and speaking not only of the mrca.

http://spsaviation.net/mmrca.asp?id=5

mig-35 wont be ready for full scale production before 2013/2014 which means we wont get delivery of first aircraft before 2015/2016.
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?664367

SV and SH will get LM's IRST the similar to one fitted on the f-22. :shock: You could say the Russki PESA are good in terms of detection range but hey we kept our mki radars off with fears that our radar frquencies could be spied on and jammed. Pesa is no AESA, AESa far outperforms any PEsa. about the ramjet Adder, well there isnt one, so for not operational at all same goes for the awacs killer, till its tested or being sold, no confirmation its ready for us. says a LOT really

our own r-77s malfunctioned in inventory, EF is C-7 capable while the Gripen in only c-5 capable. SV is also c-7 capable, python-5, delilah, popeye-2 ready, spice munition kit ready, etc. the SH is the only contender tested twice with the aim-120D and aim-120D is ready for full scale induction in 2011. no mig-35 orders by main user and hence no reliability of future upgrades. mig-35 rcs below 0.5 m2 clean haha thats a joke, the PAKFA during first flight had 0.5 m2 rcs clean, :shock: mig-35 is 3 to 5 m2 at best.


I think I simply will not respond to this tripe any more. Stop with your generalized nonsense or provide some sources. CM

Btw, those of you wondering about he NG's range; it is a strong point - 2500km ferry is higher than any MRCA contender (Rafale/EFcould be close to that), Shornet = 2300km , Solah = 1800-2000, 35 - 2100-2200. Combat radius is of course lower (as for all the above) still, 1300km with 6 AAMs and 30 minutes loiter is excellent.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Apr 2010 21:13

Austin wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Zat vun iz ver zimple - GripenNG. Why? Top 17 reasons -
Did i miss anything? That took a whole of about 5-6 minutes. Dorai, I am sure can add a few more to the list.
CM


WoW , Nice summary CM , Thanks :)

So can we now safely rule out the 11 HP Mig-35 for good ?

I frankly dunno; I think if IAF interest in the bird as an MRCA is low, we can rule it out. If it is high, we may see the 11 hps. JMT

CM.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8225
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 11 Apr 2010 00:54

Cain Marko wrote:I think I simply will not respond to this tripe any more. Stop with your generalized nonsense or provide some sources.


CM please don't stop. If you wouldnt have taken this up I would have taken up this gauntlet. I asked exactly the same question some posts back . Show us how the Mig-35 is deemed inferior? Like some of us have been pointing out ... what would an enemy airforce hate more, 1 EF against each plane of theirs or 3 Gripen-NG/Mig-35 against each of their planes.

also I don't quite buy that 1 engine = lesser reliability theory. I mean F-16 is arguably one of the highest flown plane in the world. How many crashes due to engine failure? Gripen has clocked so many hours. How many engine failures?

All the planes in the MRCA are very very good planes and all of them are really close. I dont know why we should pay 2-3 times more for some of them.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Apr 2010 06:12

Well it all depends on what the IAF/GOI/MOD decide they want -

A) Uber tech, cost and twin engined performance ($ 120 - 150 million)- Rafale, Tiffy and Shornet come out on top imho. Rafale/TIffy come out on top, Rafale being my fave.

b) Mid Level tech, solid performance low price - MiG-35 ($ 50 - 65 million)

C) Mid Level Tech, mid level performance, low to medium price - Gripen NG, Solah ($ 75 - 100+ million)

The 35 in a way forms its own niche - v.low price; solid performance; no nonsense. Marginally lower perhaps than a tiffy or rafale in certain parameters. Comparable or better than the Shornet/Solah/Gripen A2A; and slightly lower than a solah in A2G, Shornet scoring decent points here.

But if cost is a real factor and the IAF wants twin engine robust performance plus easy induction- the 35 is a v.good a/c. HOwever, under a similar situation but if the IAF really wants to hedge against russian inventory, then the GripenNG is a solid contender.

Of course, politics may have the last laugh and you may find the teens in the IAF.

CM.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 11 Apr 2010 06:49

^^^ CM agree either we opt for a single engine yet capable fighter to reduce the operating cost like Gripen-IN or opt for something which already has logistics advantage in place with twin engine like Mig-35 , the others are really not worth the money considering we have a capable and upgradeable MKI in place.

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby VishalJ » 11 Apr 2010 08:29

As far as i knew, there was only this one frame of the MiG 35 - Reg'n # 154
Well just a few days ago i saw Max upload another MiG 35D - Reg'n # 967
I spoke to him if it was a brand new conversion or something & this is what he had to say


From: Max Bryansky
To: Vishal Jolapara
Subject: Re: Airliners.net photo feedback
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010

Hi, Vishal!

961, 967 and 154 fly together. Flied to India on tests 961 and 967 last autumn.

_______________________________
Best regards, Max "Foxbat" Bryansky
(http://www.foxbat.ru)

Russian AviaPhoto Team

----------- Original Message ----------
From: Vishal Jolapara
To: Max Bryansky
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010
Subject: Re: Airliners.net photo feedback


Hello Max,

I just saw your MiG-35 shot of frame 967

Is this a newly converted MiG 29 Frame like 154 - http://www.airliners.net/photo/1505295/ ?

Seems like it, as there arent any other entries showing up of that tail number.

Regards - Vishal


I went to the link he had given me & found another MiG 35 frame, Reg'n # 961

So then there were 3 Image

Image

Image

Image
Does there seem like a difference between the noses of 961 & 967 in terms of length or is it just me ? Image
Last edited by VishalJ on 12 Apr 2010 01:52, edited 1 time in total.

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 11 Apr 2010 10:20

Cain Marko wrote:Well it all depends on what the IAF/GOI/MOD decide they want -

A) Uber tech, cost and twin engined performance ($ 120 - 150 million)- Rafale, Tiffy and Shornet come out on top imho. Rafale/TIffy come out on top, Rafale being my fave.

b) Mid Level tech, solid performance low price - MiG-35 ($ 50 - 65 million)

C) Mid Level Tech, mid level performance, low to medium price - Gripen NG, Solah ($ 75 - 100+ million)


What is the basis for ranking them as such in terms of "high" performance to "mid" performance? It seems to me you are ranking by size and engines.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 11 Apr 2010 11:24

@ vishal, OT question, I can't see any airliners.net image from one of the proflies on my FF browser. it always shows up as a black dot. any idea what the problem could be ?

this link http://www.airliners.net/photo/1505295/ for example, shows up as Image

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 11 Apr 2010 12:20

^^^ Rahul may be you have blocked the Mig-35 for good on your system , Look No Mig-35,See No Mig-35 :wink:

Kavu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 18:42

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kavu » 11 Apr 2010 12:22

[quote="Vishal Jolapara"]


Vishal,

It is just you, lol. The cone size is the same, the cone is only painted half way down, which is why at a glance it looks different!

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 11 Apr 2010 12:24

Cain Marko wrote:I frankly dunno; I think if IAF interest in the bird as an MRCA is low, we can rule it out. If it is high, we may see the 11 hps. JMT

CM.


CM even if Mig-35 does not win the MMRCA race , there are firm orders for 24 Mig-35 for RuAF and they have their own export prospects for countries who need light/medium fighter other than Sukhoi from Russian stable.

The fact that they do not have a real Mig-35 prototype flying is quite disappointing and very unprofessional .

IAF wants to see how the real baby works not some converted patched up natasha.

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 11 Apr 2010 12:30

why do you keep comparing the f-16IN to the block 60, the IN is far more advanced than the block60 ever could be and LM does offer future option to us which havent been offered to others and we can choose to have them. A lot of EU weapons have been integrated on them.


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

ha your figures on the ferry ranges are so messed up

SH: 3330km
Rafale:3700km
EF: 3700km
f-16 block 60: 4220km
mig-35: 3100km
Gripen NG: 3200km

LM claimes 1500kg delivered at 1700km radius on their website wouldnt hurt if you do some reasearch first youself.
f-16IN will have a lot more tech psrinkles from the f-22 and f-35 so even its rcs will be lower than the Gripen NG. even your won figures on gripn's ferry are inaccurate.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests