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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 28 Apr 2010 15:17

f-16IN for one has longer range ability, its ferry range is higher than the rest. Its comes with operational AESA. LM since the beginning has shown the willingness to full-tot if the US govt. permits it. F-16 can readily fire all the latest weapons in US and Israeli inventory including weapons like Delilah, Popeye-2/crystal maze, Derby, Python-5, Spice pgm kits, Weapons like Magic-2, Iris-T, MICA, As-30L, Apache missile have been integrated for some EU customers.

It has the second lowest operational costs, good higher thrust engine, 400000 hrs of combat proven effectiveness. F-16VISTA was tested with MATV years ago, so MATV option should be there if we choose to excercise it. It has an internal FLIR targeting system, Litening G-4 targetting system, FAlcon Edge EW suite.

Gripen NG is lighter, cheaper to operate and faster, can fire the Meteor and other nice weapons. supercruise is good. The datalink on the SV is better. Being US aircraft SV has better weapons integrated on it already while NG needs some integration work. both good aircraft. Prices are relatively the same.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Bharadwaj » 28 Apr 2010 15:46

Brahmananda wrote:f-16IN for one has longer range ability, its ferry range is higher than the rest. Its comes with operational AESA. LM since the beginning has shown the willingness to full-tot if the US govt. permits it. F-16 can readily fire all the latest weapons in US and Israeli inventory including weapons like Delilah, Popeye-2/crystal maze, Derby, Python-5, Spice pgm kits, Weapons like Magic-2, Iris-T, MICA, As-30L, Apache missile have been integrated for some EU customers.


It also could come with other amazing features that allows it to be "tailored" for strategic situations...It is truly multirole.....It can even be used as a glider after its capabilities are "tailored". :D

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 28 Apr 2010 15:52

Shukla,
Thanks very much for the F-16 simulator video.

avinash.rd
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 25 Aug 2009 11:56

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby avinash.rd » 28 Apr 2010 17:37

Brahmananda wrote:f-16IN for one has longer range ability, its ferry range is higher than the rest. Its comes with operational AESA. LM since the beginning has shown the willingness to full-tot if the US govt. permits it. F-16 can readily fire all the latest weapons in US and Israeli inventory including weapons like Delilah, Popeye-2/crystal maze, Derby, Python-5, Spice pgm kits, Weapons like Magic-2, Iris-T, MICA, As-30L, Apache missile have been integrated for some EU customers.

It has the second lowest operational costs, good higher thrust engine, 400000 hrs of combat proven effectiveness. F-16VISTA was tested with MATV years ago, so MATV option should be there if we choose to excercise it. It has an internal FLIR targeting system, Litening G-4 targetting system, FAlcon Edge EW suite.

Gripen NG is lighter, cheaper to operate and faster, can fire the Meteor and other nice weapons. supercruise is good. The datalink on the SV is better. Being US aircraft SV has better weapons integrated on it already while NG needs some integration work. both good aircraft. Prices are relatively the same.


We can get it upgraded if needed with Israel's help. I believe Rafale or EF is too expensive. If India is ready to spend $12-13 billion on 126 planes, which is about $100 million a piece (cost+TOT+maintenance, etc), then I believe these European beauties are like buying a Lamborghini or Ferrari with Indian salary.. :) I am not saying that those 2 are inferior in any way. I believe only 4 planes can make a cut with a price tag of $100 million a piece.

Looking at the IAF's interest in Gripen, I believe Gripen has the best chance among all the 6 fighters.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 28 Apr 2010 18:58

With the further delay in the LCA,if a western bird is to be picked,the Gripen on many counts is a v.attractive option,particularly from the cost-effective angle.For more twin-engined birds for heavier duties,the extra SU-30MKIs we are buying at regular intervals should fit the bill,unless significantly cheaper but almost equally capable MIG-35s can suffice.If the extra secondhand M-2000s are to be acquired at reasonable price and/or upgrades of existing M-2000s finalised,then we might need to acquire less Flankers and conserve our money for future 5th-gen fighter development and production.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 28 Apr 2010 20:29

Gaur wrote:Shukla,
Thanks very much for the F-16 simulator video.


The pleasure is mine mate.. (Found the great videos on spsaviation website)

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 28 Apr 2010 21:38

The only problem that I see with F16, F18 and Gripen is the usage of american engines and components. In cases of war we will be stoneballed with sanctions just like in 1998 .... and we won't have independence to choose our course of action. This is a big risk .... I will any day prefer non-american technology because it keeps us independent AND out of threat of sanctions ...

It's better to pay more now than to get suffocated when we need our weapons most ... I hope indian policy makers and procurement officials keep this in mind ....

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Bharadwaj » 28 Apr 2010 22:01

aditya.agd wrote:The only problem that I see with F16, F18 and Gripen is the usage of american engines and components. In cases of war we will be stoneballed with sanctions just like in 1998 .... and we won't have independence to choose our course of action. This is a big risk .... I will any day prefer non-american technology because it keeps us independent AND out of threat of sanctions ...

It's better to pay more now than to get suffocated when we need our weapons most ... I hope indian policy makers and procurement officials keep this in mind ....


Indeed-All the wonderful yankee technologies are useless if we can't use it. The mirage experience has been good and France will not cause any trouble. Rafale or EF would be a good choice but both will likely not be l1 hence the mig-35 could be the best choice even if its a case of all eggs in one basket.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 28 Apr 2010 23:02

F-16 and f-18 are US made so its obvious they'll have US components but i repeat the Gripen NG and Typhoon have lots of US critical parts, Rafale is the most expensive twin engined bird to operate. sanctions today is not possible.

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 28 Apr 2010 23:10

U can never trust Uncle sam based on all previous international experience. Just to give you one example:

- Uncle Sam did a covert operations in Afghanistan to oust Soviets but now they bombed afghanistan to hell .... just for one man Osama....

- Uncle sam is bombing inside pakistan to corner the terrorists while keeping the Military Junta and ISI happy by giving them weapons ....

- they signed nuclear deal with India but provided more weapons including around 500 AMRAMS to Pakistan to shoot down 'Taliban' aircrafts

It's difficult to trust American policies even though their intentions may be good .... India is too big (1 Billion people) to risk our sovereignty.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 28 Apr 2010 23:47

well US is kind to the Puki govt. because they are very good beggars, you can only avoid a beggar a few times, not when the beggar is at your door everyday, so their gifts to pukis are just pity gifts. On any given day they'll side with India when push comes to shove. If Pukis start a war with India with n-threats i am sure we'll be pounding the Pukis together with the US. India is a democracy and they wont turn their back on India not now or not in the future, they trust India more than China or Pukis. Pukis have mastered the art of begging.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RoyG » 29 Apr 2010 00:41

Brahmananda wrote:well US is kind to the Puki govt. because they are very good beggars, you can only avoid a beggar a few times, not when the beggar is at your door everyday, so their gifts to pukis are just pity gifts. On any given day they'll side with India when push comes to shove. If Pukis start a war with India with n-threats i am sure we'll be pounding the Pukis together with the US. India is a democracy and they wont turn their back on India not now or not in the future, they trust India more than China or Pukis. Pukis have mastered the art of begging.


Pity gifts pack quite a punch. When push comes to shove they'll side with both just like their doing now. What does being democratic have to do with US goals in Afghanistan? Peering above the clouds are we?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8064
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 29 Apr 2010 00:57

aditya.agd wrote:The only problem that I see with F16, F18 and Gripen is the usage of american engines and components. In cases of war we will be stoneballed with sanctions just like in 1998 .... and we won't have independence to choose our course of action. This is a big risk .... <SNIP>


What about the LCA Mark-1 engines? and oh, what if the GE engine is chosen for Mark-II?

US is no saint, and neither is any international policy making. India/Pakistan/Afghanistan could have been bracketed together as mere pawns earlier. Not any longer!

P.S. Its OT here. Do you think the sovietsor the EU (they colonized us) were saints? Why shouldn't we be scared of them? Just my thoughts. Please don't answer to them here!

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 29 Apr 2010 01:19

No one is a saint here, each state has its own national interest and Russians will support us because it will benefit them. When India becomes powerful and if it starts threatening Russian interests....well who knows.

As for if we were colonized by the Soviets...haha....

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4228
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Apr 2010 01:59

Kartik wrote:Come now CM..how is this a ploy to jack up prices ? has the IAF finished its trials so that it could submit its report by April 28th ? Its not like the MoD forced the IAF to accomodate the Gripen NG by sending pilots to Sweden and then asking Saab to come to India for trials once again..


No, not a ploy to jack up prices but a ploy to jack up the budget. I am alluding to the fact that the budget of $ 10.5 billion never really suited the big twin engined birds, not 126 of them anyway. Thats why there was the ruckus by EADS and dassault wanting a level playing field against the single engined birds, which would naturally be considerably cheaper.

My guess is that the MRCA budget may just increase by another $ 5 billion or so. The trend in prices for recent deals has not been very encouraging in terms of managing an EF-2000 / Rafale / Shornet in the current budget ($ 10.5 billion). Possibly flyaway, and even that is doubtful. If we look at what the C-17s might cost or even the M2k upgrade, it indicates imvho that $ 10.2 billion is not going to suffice for the twin engined birds, not by far.

IOWs, if the budget stays the same, the game has to be between the Gripen and the 35, with the solah getting an outside chance.

CM.

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 29 Apr 2010 07:11

I am pessimistic but we may never order MMRCA in any case .... No one in our beaureaucratic circles in MoD would like to take a risk. I wish we know the actual status about the whole deal ...

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 29 Apr 2010 16:09

As, DID reports.. Boeing has also decided to revise its bid.. So far- LM, Boeing have announced that they would revise their bids & SAAB has declared that it would leave its bid unchanged, with no response just yet from others...

Also,
From the MMRCA bid due date of April 28/08 to April 28/10, the US dollar has risen against India’s rupee about 10.5%, while the Euro has become 6% cheaper, and the Russian rouble has become 11.6% cheaper.


EADS & Dassault/Thales better be sensible and grab this opportunity.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... ges-01989/

Shatack
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 15 Apr 2010 22:06

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Shatack » 29 Apr 2010 18:23

Brahmananda wrote:cost per flight hour
F-16 around $6000
EF around 14000 euros
Rafale: $16,000
F/A-18E: $10,000
Gripen: $4,500

Rafale is very expensive to operate , gripen NG the lowest in single engined fighters and SH in the twin engined fighters.


such hilarious!

4.500$ a hour? this can't even pay the gaz! :rotfl:

Shatack
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 15 Apr 2010 22:06

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Shatack » 29 Apr 2010 18:26

shukla wrote:As, DID reports.. Boeing has also decided to revise its bid.. So far- LM, Boeing have announced that they would revise their bids & SAAB has declared that it would leave its bid unchanged, with no response just yet from others...

Also,
From the MMRCA bid due date of April 28/08 to April 28/10, the US dollar has risen against India’s rupee about 10.5%, while the Euro has become 6% cheaper, and the Russian rouble has become 11.6% cheaper.


EADS & Dassault/Thales better be sensible and grab this opportunity.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... ges-01989/


ther's not oportunity with MRCA for anyone, even indians themselves, with this budget!

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 29 Apr 2010 18:55

Shatack wrote:ther's not oportunity with MRCA for anyone, even indians themselves, with this budget!


This statement of yours makes absolutely no sense to me my friend..

Ponen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 21 Apr 2010 15:18

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Ponen » 29 Apr 2010 19:18

shukla wrote:
Shatack wrote:ther's not oportunity with MRCA for anyone, even indians themselves, with this budget!


This statement of yours makes absolutely no sense to me my friend..


And how does this surprise you, does any of his other messages make sense or contribute to the discussion?

Taking this as a prime example:
Shatack wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:cost per flight hour
F-16 around $6000
EF around 14000 euros
Rafale: $16,000
F/A-18E: $10,000
Gripen: $4,500

Rafale is very expensive to operate , gripen NG the lowest in single engined fighters and SH in the twin engined fighters.


such hilarious!

4.500$ a hour? this can't even pay the gaz! :rotfl:


To me it seems like plain out flame baiting.

Hopefully this post will contribute to the discussion by making the mods considering banning him or something so that this thread and others will be less cluttered with b/s in the future.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 29 Apr 2010 21:34

Shatack wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:cost per flight hour
F-16 around $6000
EF around 14000 euros
Rafale: $16,000
F/A-18E: $10,000
Gripen: $4,500

Rafale is very expensive to operate , gripen NG the lowest in single engined fighters and SH in the twin engined fighters.


such hilarious!

4.500$ a hour? this can't even pay the gaz! :rotfl:

I would say perfectly sensible. Since you don't seem to have a clue, I could tell you that Gripen, right from the start, was designed to be cheap to operate.. This was to get as much bang/buck as possible. This, however, can't be said about the Rafale which costs more than 3 times as much! And for what really? :roll:

Please compare with the F-16, which is also a single engined plane, but with a bigger engine and is heavier.. Or the SH which got two of nearly the same engines as the Gripen, is about twice the size and costs about twice as much.. You my friend are hilarious

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 29 Apr 2010 22:06

Shatack wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:cost per flight hour
F-16 around $6000
EF around 14000 euros
Rafale: $16,000
F/A-18E: $10,000
Gripen: $4,500

Rafale is very expensive to operate , gripen NG the lowest in single engined fighters and SH in the twin engined fighters.


such hilarious!

4.500$ a hour? this can't even pay the gaz! :rotfl:


$4500 figure comes from Brazilian AF evaluations.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30624.pdf

the current cost per flight hour of the SH in the US is around $8000 which is still a lot less compared to the Rafale.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby putnanja » 29 Apr 2010 22:19

Brahmananda wrote:$4500 figure comes from Brazilian AF evaluations.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30624.pdf

the current cost per flight hour of the SH in the US is around $8000 which is still a lot less compared to the Rafale.


Brahmananda, did you even understand that document that you linked? It is cost per hour based on acquisition costs. It says that at $50 million per plane and 6000 hours life of the plane, it costs around $8333.33 per hour. It is not operating cost!! It very clearly says that upgrading older F/a-18s to increase their life from 8600 to 10k hours cost $26 million. So they are comparing at a per hour cost for each plane!!

Check out this link: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... sts-v.html

It says for F/A 18 A-D, the operating costs is $18.9k

And this link says the same about SHs

According to the presentation, as reported by Congress Daily, Navy Times, Inside Defense, and other defense publications, the jet fighter could cost the Navy $31,000 per hour to fly, $12,000 more than the F/A-18 Super Hornets and AV-8A Harriers it will replace.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 29 Apr 2010 22:48

Brazilian Evals put the SH cost per hour at 10K.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby putnanja » 29 Apr 2010 23:01

Brahmananda wrote:Brazilian Evals put the SH cost per hour at 10K.


Please provide links. And the Brazilian president also said that based on the operating cost per hour, the SH was the most expensive fighter, not Rafale.

France seen leading race to equip Brazil air force

The price per plane -- one of the criticisms of the Rafale by its rival bidders -- "is not fundamental," During said.

"It's the operating cost that counts. The cost per hour of flight, of maintenance, of the electronics. We are a poor country and all this has to last for the next 30 years."

He added: "The Rafale is not the most expensive offer in terms of operating cost. That's the F/A-18."

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5040
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 30 Apr 2010 02:11

So the price of the F/A-18E/F is now clear based on that Congressional Research Service article..Its $117 million for the USN. we can comfortably add another 10% to the price quoted here as the profit from export is generally higher than that from domestic sales..US sales do not include VAT. I cannot see how 126 F/A-18E/Fs will fit into a $12 billion budget when one includes the cost of infrastructure, ToT, training, initial few years of support, etc.

The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget requests funding for the procurement of nine F/A-1E/Fs.
The FY2010 budget estimates the total procurement cost of these aircraft at $1,055.0 million, or
an average of about $117.2 million each.
These nine aircraft received $45.5 million in prior-year advance procurement funding, leaving $1,009.5 million to be provided in FY2010 to complete
their procurement cost.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 30 Apr 2010 02:29

If the Rafale is cheaper to operate than the SH why did the Brazilian AF put Rafale in the last place. Lula put Rafale on top and said it was cheaper to opreate even when the AF hadn't finished their eval on cost. By cost of acquistion and operation they rated NG first, SH second and Rafale last.

http://www.brazzil.com/component/conten ... fales.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ripen.html

The leaked summary suggests that the F3-standard Rafale was ranked last because of its high purchase price and operating costs. A related technology transfer package - a key element of the F-X2 selection criteria - was also deemed inadequate, the report says. Embraer is believed to have shown little interest in participating in production of the Rafale, after it was offered the opportunity to manufacture the wings for Brazilian examples.\

So it remains Rafale is still the most expensive bird to operate.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7420
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 30 Apr 2010 02:29

Kartik wrote:So the price of the F/A-18E/F is now clear based on that Congressional Research Service article..Its $117 million for the USN. we can comfortably add another 10% to the price quoted here as the profit from export is generally higher than that from domestic sales..US sales do not include VAT. I cannot see how 126 F/A-18E/Fs will fit into a $12 billion budget when one includes the cost of infrastructure, ToT, training, initial few years of support, etc.

The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget requests funding for the procurement of nine F/A-1E/Fs.
The FY2010 budget estimates the total procurement cost of these aircraft at $1,055.0 million, or
an average of about $117.2 million each.
These nine aircraft received $45.5 million in prior-year advance procurement funding, leaving $1,009.5 million to be provided in FY2010 to complete
their procurement cost.

I gave up hoping to see Rafale/F-18SH in IAF colors after the figures for the Brazilian contract were first bandied about. The typhoon would be similarly expensive. The real competition is between the Gripen , Mig-35 and the Solah, with the Solah having a couple of non-technical but severe disadvantages. The other three may not even make it to the final list to be recommended to the MoD after the evaluations are completed,if the IAF doesn't want to waste time in trying to procure aircraft which we can't possibly afford. Nothing to be sad about though as long as the Gripen is in the race. :mrgreen:

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby putnanja » 30 Apr 2010 02:31

Kartik, I don't think the infrastructure costs or support cost is included in the MRCA contract. And I think MoD will use the same trick as was used in T-90, scorpene etc, where additional items like support cost etc will be add-ons later to get around the budget limit for MRCA.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5040
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 30 Apr 2010 03:35

Kartik, I don't think the infrastructure costs or support cost is included in the MRCA contract. And I think MoD will use the same trick as was used in T-90, scorpene etc, where additional items like support cost etc will be add-ons later to get around the budget limit for MRCA.


I'm sorry, I should've been more clear. I didn't mean infrastructure meaning new hangars, or the cost of setting up a new building that will house training equipment. That cost will be borne by the IAF separate from the procurement costs. I meant the cost of ground support equipment, simulators, etc. Basically the infrastructure that will need to be set up for training and for maintenance of the jets. Each OEM will have its own set of offerings in this regard since not all are the same when it comes to this issue.

And what the MoD will do to get around the budget limits is upto the MoD. If they want to use innovative techniques to make an expensive fighter seem cheap then that will be a matter for debate later on. That will anyway happen only if this isn't an L1 tender..

However for simple unit fly-away procurement costs, looking at the cost of the F/A-18E/F for the USN (that can easily absorb Super Hornets) as being $117 million, I cannot see how the SH will be much cheaper than that for the IAF.

I've been stressing for a while now that the SHornet will be in the $80-90 million range, since some posters claim it will cost as little as $55-60 million, but it now seems that the only way it can cost even $80 million is when HAL is able to build it from raw materials and not when HAL is assembling SKDs or CKDs. Because with SKDs and CKDs, they may save on the labour cost for assembling the fighter (several thousands of man-hours costing several millions of $ in the US or EU), but the cost of engine, avionics, machining of metallic parts, building of composite panels etc. will all be done by the OEM and its suppliers.

Edit- added later: Reading more of that report, it seems that the cost varies as the production batch size varies. Boeing may be able to offer a better price to the USN if they sign a Multi-year program (MYP) and that gives some indication that maybe looking at the RAAF Super Hornet purchase, the prices offered to the Brazilians or the recent small sized annual batch purchases by the USN may not be ideal indicators of the Super Hornet's price as it may be offered by Boeing to the IAF..depending on the requirement of the IAF, for how many MRCAs it will need to induct per year, the price may vary as well..all in all, very difficult to predict the price of these MRCAs..

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5040
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 30 Apr 2010 05:15

Reading that report on the F/A-18 procurement, I started thinking that what happens if the IAF actually does end up buying SHornets as the MRCA. here are some interesting points for what can happen if we choose the SHornet as the MRCA based on the USN's usage of its SHornet fleet. All of the points I'm making (except where I clearly state that its an assumption) are verifiable by reading the report.

-Oldest SHornet in USN service is 3800 hours old. Inducted in 1999, it means that they've been flown at an average of nearly 400 hours per year. Can be attributed to the long ferry flights from carriers based far away during the Iraq war, the Afghan wars, etc. Again, not all SHornets in the USN have seen such massive usage.

-It is also indicative of how reliable this fighter is although there are several other reports that can be read on this fact

-The minimum life of the SHornet is 6000 hours and the average usage for the SHornet fleet in USN is around 300 hours per year

-This is for a carrier based fighter that takes heavier punishment every time it lands..for a land-based SHornet which can land at a shallower glide slope and doesn't need to use its arresting hook every time, the life will likely be longer

-The rate at which they're using up life on the SHornets, the oldest SHornets in the USN will start retiring around 2020-22. This is assuming that the USN decides not to go in for a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) to extend the lives of their SHornets to 8000 hours or more depending on their service condition and cost of SLEP. I'm guessing that the USN will by then just prefer to go buy more F-35Cs instead of spending money on SLEP. Buying new SHornets will be out of the question since the only place where SHornets will be built by then will be India

-the IAF will only start inducting MRCAs around 2013-14 (if all goes well). The entire MRCA order of 126 will be fulfilled by around 2023 or so if we assume that they induct 14 MRCAs per year (current rate at which MKIs are being inducted)

-So the last IAF SHornet will be entering service while the earliest USN SHornets will be retiring. The last SHornets in the USN will start retiring around 2035.

-The IAF's average fleet hours per year is much lower than the USAF or USN because in the past they didn't have refuelling capability and most don't need to fly long distances to get to their theater of operations or training. Now they do use refuelling and have long duration missions, but this isn't likely to be the norm

-So the IAF will most likely be using its SHornets more lightly than the USN..~150 to 200 hours per year at the most except for the initial batches that will be flogged as the IAF builds a pool of trained pilots and instructors.

-That means that the average SHornet in IAF service will last 35 years without any need to get a SLEP (assuming 175 hours per year used, and min service life of 6000 hours).

-So the IAF will end up needing to retire its earliest SHornets in 2048. I'll take 2050 as the date. That is for the earliest and the last will be retired by 2058. That is all assuming we don't even need a SLEP for our SHornets.

Look at these dates guys. We'll end up being the last operators of whatever type it is that we choose as our MRCA. That much is for sure. It is imperative that we choose a fighter that we can sustain on our own, with no EUMA SHUMA bullshit. If we want to modify it, we need to have the right to do that without any unkil threatening us.

You can modify the above para with the Rafale, Typhoon, MiG-35, F-16IN or the Gripen NG and modify the dates a bit to see which fighter may be better from the long-term perspective for the IAF. The end date for when the MRCA will finally retire from IAF service will likely not change much.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 30 Apr 2010 09:03

Advanced cooling system for Gripen NG

Microtecnica has been awarded a contract worth in excess of €20m (£17m) to design and supply a cooling system for Saab’s next-generation Gripen NG aircraft.


Designed and manufactured by Microtecnica, the advanced cooling control system will use energy-saving technology that exploits the bleed air originating from the aircraft engine. Using computer-controlled valves, the system will optimise its energy efficiency by accurately matching the extracted bleed flow from the engine to the actual system requirements. Microtecnica is currently at the design phase of the project, which involves qualification and requirement testing.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby b_patel » 30 Apr 2010 10:01

The leaked summary suggests that the F3-standard Rafale was ranked last because of its high purchase price and operating costs. A related technology transfer package - a key element of the F-X2 selection criteria - was also deemed inadequate, the report says. Embraer is believed to have shown little interest in participating in production of the Rafale, after it was offered the opportunity to manufacture the wings for Brazilian examples.\


I find it hard to believe that France would have an inadequate TOT package, they can offer more than SAAB will ever be capable of. The newspaper the initially leaked this summary is obviously biased towards the Gripen. Also the Rafale has higher purchase and operating costs b/c there aren't that many of them in service, there are over 400+ SH in service so parts etc are going to be cheaper which will bring down the cost of everything. Also those prices aren't really valid anymore, the value of the Euro has gone down a decent amount, so it would be cheaper for brazil now, I think.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4228
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 30 Apr 2010 10:28

Kartik wrote:-So the IAF will end up needing to retire its earliest SHornets in 2048. I'll take 2050 as the date. That is for the earliest and the last will be retired by 2058. That is all assuming we don't even need a SLEP for our SHornets.

Look at these dates guys. We'll end up being the last operators of whatever type it is that we choose as our MRCA. That much is for sure. It is imperative that we choose a fighter that we can sustain on our own, with no EUMA SHUMA bullshit. If we want to modify it, we need to have the right to do that without any unkil threatening us.


aargh! That ugly, fat bug in the IAF till 2060 - nightmare! Prayers must start in earnest just to spare us the eyesore! Aesthetics have to count if its gonna last that long.

Jokes apart, that is an AMAZINGLY long lasting bird, and reliable. HOWEVER, there are certain other downsides apart from the one mentioned by Kartik -

The shornet has by far the worst flight performance in the MRCA race. Does India need this? 10 years down the road, the IAF will be inducting Shornets when it may have to face AESA equipped flankers and J10s (these are almost ready now btw), which are easily superior in flight performance to the Shornet. What A2A advantage can the shornet offer then? This will not be an issue with the e'canards or the 35.

While India is still inducting the Shornet, its greatest user will be retiring it! When the time comes (about 2035) for an MLU - who provides the funds for constant tech updates? Can India do this alone? NO (as is evident by the Mirage 2000 and MIg-29, and even the Su-30MKI upgrades) - it'll have to fund development by the OEM, which simply means that the MLU will be scary expensive since it'll be at a time when all Shornet users will have retired said a/c. Case in point is the Vajra upgrade; it is hardly uber tech by today's standards, and still costs a bloody fortune. Can you imagine what it'd cost if India wanted newer engines, SPECTRA, OSF and the RBE-2 on it?

However, in case of the MRCA this should not be the case with the european contenders, all of which will be in the service of their respective manufacturer AFs thereby requiring native support for upgrades and tech development. Not even the MiG-35 - India should be able to upg. these on its own by then, moreover Russia will induct these in their own services; most importantly, even if it suffers a similar fate as the Shornet/Solah (orphaned by maker nation), russian upgrades come at a pittance compared to western counterparts. In fact, I'd wager that the 35 will have the cheapest upgrades and with the highest Indian content.

And all this apart from the EUMA, sanctions threat!

Yes the Shornet has a long lasting airframe (6000 hours), but frankly, so do the rest - even the MiG-35 is advertised at 6000 hours. I'd rather see a Rafale/EF-2000 if India is to spend the kind of moolah that buys an F-18E/F. I'd rather see a Gripen NG/ MiG-35 if India is to spend the kind of moolah that buys and F-16blk60.

CM
Last edited by Cain Marko on 30 Apr 2010 11:47, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 30 Apr 2010 11:08

SH has one of the most useful and combat friendly flight performance, can go super sonic when needed and flies at very high aoa without a tvc, its slow speed performance is with a useful load is better than anything available now, secondly our Super hornet offer comes with the GE F414 EPE which offers 20% more thrust per engine and thus boosting its performance. With the current output of 196KN, it goes to nearly 240KN per aircraft, dry thrust goes up from 67KN to 80KN per engine. Fact is SH's performance is amazing even with very good loads. Even IAF knows and tested this fact, the thrust shortage is being improved with thr new engine which will boost its overall flight performance. Now that the thrust improvements are given, why not calculate the T/W ratio of the improved aircraft, i am sure with the new engine itw T/W ratio will surpass the mig.

http://img240.imageshack.us/i/twcompareul0.gif/

speaking of A2A advantage, SH is the only contender in the competition that can deploy the new Aim-120D, with ranges over 160km, plus with its radar ability to track 1m2 at very long ranges, SH is capable of very long range kills even longer BVR kills than aircraft to be equipped with Meteor. Its datalink is unmatched with over 300NM or 560km of info sharing ability. Thats why it play awacs roles very frequently and tanking roles and not just buddy buddy but also other aircraft. so many roles one aircraft. operational cost lower than the mig and better A2G and A2S ability than mig too, better sensors, more rugged airframe and amazing engines with no record of failure. It has all the traits of a winner and fits well for IAF's diverse needs. The question remain will IAF go for Single or Twin engined aircraft, if single Gripen NG win, if Twin engined SH stands the best chance now that we are going in for a cozier relationship with the US, i am sure tot will come as well.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4228
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 30 Apr 2010 11:35

Brahmananda wrote:SH has one of the most useful and combat friendly flight performance, can go super sonic when needed and flies at very high aoa without a tvc, its slow speed performance is with a useful load is better than anything available now, secondly our Super hornet offer comes with the GE F414 EPE which offers 20% more thrust per engine and thus boosting its performance. With the current output of 196KN, it goes to nearly 240KN per aircraft, dry thrust goes up from 67KN to 80KN per engine. Fact is SH's performance is amazing even with very good loads. Even IAF knows and tested this fact, the thrust shortage is being improved with thr new engine which will boost its overall flight performance. Now that the thrust improvements are given, why not calculate the T/W ratio of the improved aircraft, i am sure with the new engine itw T/W ratio will surpass the mig.

http://img240.imageshack.us/i/twcompareul0.gif/

speaking of A2A advantage, SH is the only contender in the competition that can deploy the new Aim-120D, with ranges over 160km, plus with its radar ability to track 1m2 at very long ranges, SH is capable of very long range kills even longer BVR kills than aircraft to be equipped with Meteor. Its datalink is unmatched with over 300NM or 560km of info sharing ability. Thats why it play awacs roles very frequently and tanking roles and not just buddy buddy but also other aircraft. so many roles one aircraft. operational cost lower than the mig and better A2G and A2S ability than mig too, better sensors, more rugged airframe and amazing engines with no record of failure. It has all the traits of a winner and fits well for IAF's diverse needs. The question remain will IAF go for Single or Twin engined aircraft, if single Gripen NG win, if Twin engined SH stands the best chance now that we are going in for a cozier relationship with the US, i am sure tot will come as well.


Yes, yes, we know - US aircraft will win onlee. anything new to share? Btw, all of the above have been discussed and summarily dealt with before - tell me what the IAF Shornet will have in 2020 that a J-11 or a J-10B can't handle.

EPE engines? Has a shornet even flown with one of those? Aim 120D to India? Since when? In either case, the other offers too have great promise - Russkis will offer MiG-35 with VK-300 engines (these can perform on Vodka alone if required, even with pure H20, but since russkis only drink vodka, H20 is rarely used). and possibly plasma stealth, did I tell you they may also offer airlaunched Granits and Klubs along with latest developed weapons suite for Pakfa. In fact, they may offer a 11 hp MiG-35 with 3 brahmos - all carried on multiple ejector racks on wingtip hp to boot, and ultra long range AAMs (800km OTH, dual seekers, 2000km datalink, satellite uplink GPS/GLonass, with chapati maker if needed) - all to be seen in next Maks! France is more than willing to offer Kaveri and if required M88.3s not to mention a fully stealth Rafale F4, EF-2000 will offer uprated EJ-200s with TVC no less and the distinct possibility of upgrading the LCA into a mini-EF-2000. Even Saab is willing to design a completely stealthy version and offer it to India - they promise it'll be powered by a indigenous swedish volvo engine totally made in India. In fact, it may so happen that ChiPak will offer enhanced version of J-10 or Thundaar with DSI and PL-25 missiles. So there.

CM.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 30 Apr 2010 12:41

Brahmananda saar, have you looked through all the different arguments made against the SHornet are you just going to post your stump speech? No doubt the plane has its benefits, but have you considered the drawbacks this plane brings?

avinash.rd
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 25 Aug 2009 11:56

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby avinash.rd » 30 Apr 2010 12:51

Carl_T wrote:Brahmananda saar, have you looked through all the different arguments made against the SHornet are you just going to post your stump speech? No doubt the plane has its benefits, but have you considered the drawbacks this plane brings?


Carl_T,

Can we have the list of drawbacks each plane brings?

Thanks,
Avinash

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 30 Apr 2010 12:53

Karthik ji would be the most knowledgeable about that.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests