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.
Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1197
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Nihat » 29 May 2010 00:46

LCA Mk. II is a paper plane as of today, without getting into it's yet to be sorted out technicalities all that can be said is that it is still a fair distance from being reality and should be looked at completly seperatly from Gripen NG.

In theory all 4th gen. jets can be classified alike based on the fact that they can all launch missiles and drop bombs, whats important is wether or not Gripen NG is the best choice for IAF and can it do it's job effectivly.

Gripen NG is inexpensive compared to others and less of a maintanence headache compared to heavier twin engined jets, it can supercruise thereby saving fuel and extending combat radius and tbh I cannot find good reason or for that matter any reason why Gripen would not be top dog (strictly technically speaking)

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 29 May 2010 11:48

Nihat wrote:LCA Mk. II is a paper plane as of today, without getting into it's yet to be sorted out technicalities all that can be said is that it is still a fair distance from being reality and should be looked at completly seperatly from Gripen NG.


Really? I thought it was just a re-engined Mk1 with some avionics upgrades(AESA, IRST). Do you have any sources/links regarding the Mk2?


Gripen NG is inexpensive compared to others and less of a maintanence headache compared to heavier twin engined jets, it can supercruise thereby saving fuel and extending combat radius and tbh I cannot find good reason or for that matter any reason why Gripen would not be top dog (strictly technically speaking)


While it probably has a much lower operational cost than all the others(except for the F-16), I don't think its acquisition cost will be substantially lower than the EF/Rafale given its limited order book.

It comes down to what the IAF's priorities are. If its value-for-money that its looking at, then the F-16 and Gripen are front-runners. If its looking an a technological edge, the EF and F-18E/F lead. IMO, its the latter that should be a priority. With a (probably) cost-effective PAK-FA and Tejas Mk2 on their way as well as extra MKIs, the MMRCA doesn't need any orders beyond the initial 126 to make up the IAF's flagging squadron strength. Between the EF and F-18E/F, the EF seems to be the better platform by far and therefore the best bet for the IAF. In addition, India gets the option of joining the four nation consortium and getting a say in the aircraft's future upgrades.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby koti » 29 May 2010 16:42

Nihat wrote:LCA Mk. II is a paper plane as of today, without getting into it's yet to be sorted out technicalities all that can be said is that it is still a fair distance from being reality and should be looked at completly seperatly from Gripen NG.

In theory all 4th gen. jets can be classified alike based on the fact that they can all launch missiles and drop bombs, whats important is wether or not Gripen NG is the best choice for IAF and can it do it's job effectivly.

Gripen NG is inexpensive compared to others and less of a maintanence headache compared to heavier twin engined jets, it can supercruise thereby saving fuel and extending combat radius and tbh I cannot find good reason or for that matter any reason why Gripen would not be top dog (strictly technically speaking)


Even the Mig-35 has similar advantages. We can get complete technlogy transfer added to the massive savings we can make in logistics since we already operate Mig-29's. It can accomodate any weapon the EF or Gripen can accomodate(Ofcouse on tweaking) and it is the only aircraft that can be truely MKIzed.
And that added advantage will be seen when we get the FGFA. A lot of money and efforts can be saved in choosing this option. The weapons, software, stratagies etc.
Putting all eggs in a basket is not such a good option. But when it suits the cause better, why cribb?

Going American seems very tempting because of all the Hi-fi stuff we hear abou them. But mind you, the items on offer are like a bell around a bulls neck. They serve the master more then the bull.(Bad comparision but comcentrate on the point)
Last edited by koti on 29 May 2010 18:17, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3795
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 29 May 2010 17:51

NRao wrote:
Rahul Shukla wrote:One of the declassified papers I read recently explained in detail the workings of a system designed to control the use of various strategic/tactical weapons by US forces and other countries.

.........................................

This is the 21st century saar. Uncle pushes a button and Rovers on Mars move and stop. Remote control of a major weapons system and/or an aircraft is a piece of cake. Btw, our Russian friends are no better than Uncle. Only problem is their military papers are never declassified so I can't quote.


The same publication has a blurp about US GPS based artillery ammo that will not explode if the GPS Sats are not reachable during the terminal phase of its flight!!!! Programmed to do so. At the same time, if it such devices do not explode they will self destruct in some form so that the technologies do not fall into the wrong hands.

However, the point I want to make is that India (in specific) has some great strengths - as in the case of Brahmos. India needs to use those strengths to build out (at a faster rate). Point being there is just too much hee-hawing among Indians - we complain too much and do very little (as compared to what we can do).

Does washington really need something like CISMOA to pull off this jig ?


Perhaps you did not read that article? IF you did this question should not arise. Washington needing is not an issue - it is there and other nationS (NOT just India) are aware of it. It has been there for eons. Sign it and you get the non-dumbed down version, don't sign it and you get the dumbed down version. Simple. No use posting pages and pages of pros or cons about it.

Having said that my guess is that India is trying to extract a LOT more from the US than these agreements. There is a huge political game going on that we are not privy to, which has nothing to do with these purchases.




Sir., I believe you are speaking like a person from the bureaucracy.
So I am not wrong in thinking the MRCA deal is in effect a bribe for the Americans to assent to India's security council seat.The Indian president's visit to China is like wise to get the Chinese assent.
If so guys., i think we better sit back and watch this game play out till the 'decision' is made.Our energies better spent in more 'productive' ways :wink:

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3795
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 29 May 2010 18:59

Something interesting w r t Super Hornet from RAAF


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

Although the F/A-18F has impressed, RAAF officials are disappointed the Super Hornet's AESA technology remains unable to perform electronic attack missions in the X-band of the electromagnetic spectrum, Roberton says.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 29 May 2010 19:18

Viv S wrote:It comes down to what the IAF's priorities are. If its value-for-money that its looking at, then the F-16 and Gripen are front-runners. If its looking an a technological edge, the EF and F-18E/F lead. IMO, its the latter that should be a priority. With a (probably) cost-effective PAK-FA and Tejas Mk2 on their way as well as extra MKIs, the MMRCA doesn't need any orders beyond the initial 126 to make up the IAF's flagging squadron strength. Between the EF and F-18E/F, the EF seems to be the better platform by far and therefore the best bet for the IAF. In addition, India gets the option of joining the four nation consortium and getting a say in the aircraft's future upgrades.


Why is technological edge more important than value for money? Do we have an unlimited budget? I also don't see why the Gripen is at a major tech disadvantage to the EF or the Rafale.

126 planes is not enough at all, even if we buy 126 we are at a major deficit when compared to the PLAAF. I think we should go for Gripen to replace and then regularly buy some Mig 29s for the medium weight role. As for MK2 being on its way, do you think they are going to start churning out 20-30 per year all of a sudden?

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1197
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Nihat » 30 May 2010 02:14

Really? I thought it was just a re-engined Mk1 with some avionics upgrades(AESA, IRST). Do you have any sources/links regarding the Mk2?


The AESA and engine changes are also significant as the aircraft will have to be tested for some specific parameteres again, besides given the way the engine selection process is ongoing , LCA MK II seems a minimum of 4-5 yrs. away.


Even the Mig-35 has similar advantages. We can get complete technlogy transfer added to the massive savings we can make in logistics since we already operate Mig-29's. It can accomodate any weapon the EF or Gripen can accomodate(Ofcouse on tweaking) and it is the only aircraft that can be truely MKIzed.
And that added advantage will be seen when we get the FGFA. A lot of money and efforts can be saved in choosing this option. The weapons, software, stratagies etc.
Putting all eggs in a basket is not such a good option. But when it suits the cause better, why cribb?

Going American seems very tempting because of all the Hi-fi stuff we hear abou them. But mind you, the items on offer are like a bell around a bulls neck. They serve the master more then the bull.(Bad comparision but comcentrate on the point)


Mig-35 would have been ideal if the Russin AF would have inducted it in large numbers, however that does not seem probable now and it may well happen that we could be the only users of a foreign jet which is potential logistical nightmare. If we wanted to go in for Mig-35 or any other russian jet , I don't think IAF would have opted for a global tendering process.

The reason I prefer Gripen NG is also because the swedes will have fewer issues with sharing source codes than americans whih should imply future integration with Astra as well as the Gripens ability to fire AMRAAMS which would eliminate any surprise from PAF and give the chinese a new headache.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 30 May 2010 03:03

Lockheed Martin / Northrop Grumman briefing on F-16IN Super Viper AESA radar

Promises TOT


TOT more often than not results in only learning how to turn a screw driver. There's no way to download the brains of the scientists and engineers who came up with that radar and the R&D process it went through.

Its better to just call it for what it is - just an outright purchase of a black box.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 30 May 2010 04:33

Carl_T wrote:
Viv S wrote:It comes down to what the IAF's priorities are. If its value-for-money that its looking at, then the F-16 and Gripen are front-runners. If its looking an a technological edge, the EF and F-18E/F lead. IMO, its the latter that should be a priority. With a (probably) cost-effective PAK-FA and Tejas Mk2 on their way as well as extra MKIs, the MMRCA doesn't need any orders beyond the initial 126 to make up the IAF's flagging squadron strength. Between the EF and F-18E/F, the EF seems to be the better platform by far and therefore the best bet for the IAF. In addition, India gets the option of joining the four nation consortium and getting a say in the aircraft's future upgrades.


Why is technological edge more important than value for money? Do we have an unlimited budget? I also don't see why the Gripen is at a major tech disadvantage to the EF or the Rafale.

126 planes is not enough at all, even if we buy 126 we are at a major deficit when compared to the PLAAF. I think we should go for Gripen to replace and then regularly buy some Mig 29s for the medium weight role. As for MK2 being on its way, do you think they are going to start churning out 20-30 per year all of a sudden?


Because the advent of the fifth generation aircraft's changed the future equations. Most countries making fighter purchases today intend them to be stop-gap till the F-35 becomes available. In India's case, the PAK FA will enter service around 2016, at a cost comparable or less than the MRCA contenders today. Ordering more than 126 doesn't make sense. And the aircraft ordered will be required to dominate the J-10B and as well as hold its own against the J-xx(expected to enter service 2018-20).

The Gripen is a fine aircraft but its outperformed by the EF/Rafale on every parameter including aerodynamics, RCS, radar, EW suite, no. of hardpoints etc. Equally importantly it has a very limited order book and all apprehensions about US products apply to it as well. One should start factoring in the F-16, if the Gripen is to be a contender.

With regard to the Tejas Mk2, 20 aircraft annually isn't a stretch if the IAF places an order for four or five squadrons, offsetting the cost of creating a second production line. And it can comfortably replace the Jaguars and soon to be retired MiG-27 as well as flying CAPs and escort.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 30 May 2010 04:54

Nihat wrote:
Really? I thought it was just a re-engined Mk1 with some avionics upgrades(AESA, IRST). Do you have any sources/links regarding the Mk2?


The AESA and engine changes are also significant as the aircraft will have to be tested for some specific parameteres again, besides given the way the engine selection process is ongoing , LCA MK II seems a minimum of 4-5 yrs. away.


While some tests and trials are inevitable, its not really likely to be a long drawn out affair. With regard to the engine, installing the F414 will require significant modifications to the airframe(and therefore delays) while the EJ-200 while having a lower thrust is a faster simpler solution to the Mk2(yet another reason to pick the EF).


The reason I prefer Gripen NG is also because the swedes will have fewer issues with sharing source codes than americans whih should imply future integration with Astra as well as the Gripens ability to fire AMRAAMS which would eliminate any surprise from PAF and give the chinese a new headache.


I'm pretty sure the Gripen's primary MRAAM/LRAAM will be the Meteor. Also, would the IAF want to replace the Meteor or Aim-120D with the Astra?
Last edited by Viv S on 30 May 2010 16:06, edited 1 time in total.

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 252
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Wickberg » 30 May 2010 06:38

Nihat wrote:LCA Mk. II is a paper plane as of today, without getting into it's yet to be sorted out technicalities all that can be said is that it is still a fair distance from being reality and should be looked at completly seperatly from Gripen NG.

In theory all 4th gen. jets can be classified alike based on the fact that they can all launch missiles and drop bombs, whats important is wether or not Gripen NG is the best choice for IAF and can it do it's job effectivly.

Gripen NG is inexpensive compared to others and less of a maintanence headache compared to heavier twin engined jets, it can supercruise thereby saving fuel and extending combat radius and tbh I cannot find good reason or for that matter any reason why Gripen would not be top dog (strictly technically speaking)


Common! Is the Lca Mk2 even a paperplane? Have we seen any official releases from the maker that tells us what the Mk2 can do?! It does´nt have a radar, an engine, will it carry more fuel and weapons etc.... Not even the Tejas Mk1 is in service yet, they haven´t even flown a prototype with an existing radar. And some how, some people like to compare the Tejas with the Gripen that was operational in 1996. No one can compare the Tejas to the Gripen, not even a Gripen A/B that is almost 30 years old, cause the Tejas have not entered operational service and will unfortunately never do.As a Swede I know that there is no way in hell India would buy the Gripen, but I allso know that the LCA project will be canceled. And that´s a shame, cause the world needs new fighters. It´s just a simple facts that the LCA is all wrong, in its designs, goals etc...

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 30 May 2010 06:49

disagree, LCA will be launched eventually. its target is to replace the mig-21 which is not a tall order.

sweden has/had the luxury of getting the US engine and technical support plus easy access to other US technology - unhindered and sanction free. India does not hence it will take longer as we have to tough it out alone.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 30 May 2010 06:50

Wickberg wrote:....cause the Tejas have not entered operational service and will unfortunately never do.As a Swede I know that there is no way in hell India would buy the Gripen, but I allso know that the LCA project will be canceled. And that´s a shame, cause the world needs new fighters. It´s just a simple facts that the LCA is all wrong, in its designs, goals etc...


Would you mind telling us how you came to this brilliant conclusion sir?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 30 May 2010 07:35

but I allso know that the LCA project will be canceled. And that´s a shame, cause the world needs new fighters. It´s just a simple facts that the LCA is all wrong, in its designs, goals etc...


Why so?

Granted much of your post is fairly or close to accurate.

I am of the opinion that the Grip has a pretty good chance technically. It may not get selected on the political side of the equation - and that would certainly be a shame - but that is the way the game is played.

I would have liked 125 of the political MMRCAs and 75 Grips. But the ONLY way I see the Grip in IAF colors is IF there is a morphing of the Grip and the LCA - that in addition to the actual MMRCA.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 30 May 2010 08:18

Wickberg wrote:.... Not even the Tejas Mk1 is in service yet, they haven´t even flown a prototype with an existing radar...

LSP 3 has flown with a radar recently.

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Srivastav » 30 May 2010 09:07

Wickberg wrote: It´s just a simple facts that the LCA is all wrong, in its designs, goals etc...

Again a comment reeking of superiority complex by a gripen fanboy. I can understand that every time someone compares LCA to Gripen you guys get your knickers in a knot, but before spouting ridiculous comments like "LCA is all wrong, in its design etc" lets see your proof. what deficiencies you find in its design and goals. Once you've shown me those, ill come back with a more civilized retort

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 30 May 2010 13:24

Srivastav wrote:
Wickberg wrote: It´s just a simple facts that the LCA is all wrong, in its designs, goals etc...

Again a comment reeking of superiority complex by a gripen fanboy. I can understand that every time someone compares LCA to Gripen you guys get your knickers in a knot, but before spouting ridiculous comments like "LCA is all wrong, in its design etc" lets see your proof. what deficiencies you find in its design and goals. Once you've shown me those, ill come back with a more civilized retort


ignore him. He's done this in the past, had his arguments handed back to him on a platter and even said once that he posted while under the influence. Maybe he was drunk again. What this guy thinks about the LCA or the LCA Mk2 means nothing.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Ponen » 31 May 2010 03:23

Viv S wrote:...
The Gripen is a fine aircraft but its outperformed by the EF/Rafale on every parameter including aerodynamics, RCS, radar, EW suite, no. of hardpoints etc. Equally importantly it has a very limited order book and all apprehensions about US products apply to it as well.
...


Please, if you have any sources on aspects of the EF/Rafale compared to the Gripen NG regarding, for example, aerodynamics then please, do not hesitate to post them. The same goes for information about their RCS and their EW suites. I am not aware of the EF/Rafales RCS and have only heard about the Gripen having a RCS of < 0.1 m^2 nor do I know much about the different EW suites or how to compare them to eachother (except for the Rafale EW suite having a fancy name).
I'm sorry to say that I have also failed to see how the Gripen NG radar is inferior to the Eurofighter Typhoon's as they will be using the same antenna. Or do you perhaps have some exclusive information on the respective back-ends of the two that makes the EF radar package a whole lot better? This confused me but surely you have a very good explanation. I have no information on the RBE2-AA's performance either so I might as well ask you to give me some information on this as well.
And I'm guessing you're talking about the Gripen NG regarding the 'order book' as well and sure, it has not been ordered by any air force yet (although they Swedish air force has expressed their interest in getting it) but then again I am not aware of anyone having ordered, for example, the Rafale F3 yet.

I am, however, sure that the mistake is on my side as you seem very confident in what you are saying and I am equally assured that you have got some excellent sources for your information.

So please, do not hesitate to post them.
Last edited by Ponen on 31 May 2010 03:37, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 31 May 2010 03:34

Ponen wrote:
Viv S wrote:...
The Gripen is a fine aircraft but its outperformed by the EF/Rafale on every parameter including aerodynamics, RCS, radar, EW suite, no. of hardpoints etc. Equally importantly it has a very limited order book and all apprehensions about US products apply to it as well.
...


Please, if you have any sources on aspects of the EF/Rafale compared to the Gripen NG regarding, for example, aerodynamics then please, do not hesitate to post them. The same goes for information about their RCS and their EW suites.

............................

So please, do not hesitate to post them.



Before we reinvent the wheel (and these are valid questions) perhaps we should check out previous threadS?

From a MMRCA PoV, such statistics, really, DO NOT MATTER. For the simple reason that the IAF has something called a RFP and ALL vendors need to address that document. It seems, from open source material, that ALL of them will meet that document!!! (Surprise.)

JimmyD
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 21 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Somewhere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby JimmyD » 31 May 2010 07:05

Rahul Shukla wrote: Yes, I know about the landing gear retraction restriction below 2,000 feet on Paki F-16's but that's besides the point.


What is this restriction? I tried googling but could not come up with any information.

Thanks,

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 31 May 2010 09:04

Ponen wrote:
Viv S wrote:...
The Gripen is a fine aircraft but its outperformed by the EF/Rafale on every parameter including aerodynamics, RCS, radar, EW suite, no. of hardpoints etc. Equally importantly it has a very limited order book and all apprehensions about US products apply to it as well.
...


Please, if you have any sources on aspects of the EF/Rafale compared to the Gripen NG regarding, for example, aerodynamics then please, do not hesitate to post them. The same goes for information about their RCS and their EW suites. I am not aware of the EF/Rafales RCS and have only heard about the Gripen having a RCS of < 0.1 m^2 nor do I know much about the different EW suites or how to compare them to eachother (except for the Rafale EW suite having a fancy name).


I'm basing that mostly on 'overheard' statements. Official RCS figures are unavailable and even estimates don't take into account semi-recessed munition stations as on the EF.

I'm sorry to say that I have also failed to see how the Gripen NG radar is inferior to the Eurofighter Typhoon's as they will be using the same antenna. Or do you perhaps have some exclusive information on the respective back-ends of the two that makes the EF radar package a whole lot better? This confused me but surely you have a very good explanation. I have no information on the RBE2-AA's performance either so I might as well ask you to give me some information on this as well.


While both the Captor and PS-05/A evolved out the Blue Vixen, the EF has a huge advantage because of its larger nose. The F-22 and F-15 radars field 1500 T/R modules, SH - 1100, F-16 - 1000 and Rafale ≈ 1000. Compare that with 750-1000 on the Gripen and 1425 on the EF.

And I'm guessing you're talking about the Gripen NG regarding the 'order book' as well and sure, it has not been ordered by any air force yet (although they Swedish air force has expressed their interest in getting it) but then again I am not aware of anyone having ordered, for example, the Rafale F3 yet.


Well the Gripen NG seems to be a significant upgrade from the C/D but even if we were to lump them together that'd give us 100 Gripen C/Ds + unknown number of NGs. The EF on the other hand has around 475 orders while the SH has had around 400. Economies of scale would probably result in the Gripen's acquisition cost being in the same vicinity(albeit lower) as the EF and Rafale.

I am, however, sure that the mistake is on my side as you seem very confident in what you are saying and I am equally assured that you have got some excellent sources for your information.

So please, do not hesitate to post them.


Not at all. My opinion is priced at $0.02(incl. VAT).

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Shatack » 31 May 2010 13:54

gripen has nothing cheap, Saab comercials drives minds to great illusions!

and netherland, norway, brasil etc.. rejected it not about politics, but performances

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 31 May 2010 14:09

IAF flying Sukhoi's to France for joint combat exercises.. wonder if they would field the Rafale's?

Six Indian Sukhoi-30MKI fighters, two IL-76 heavy-lift aircraft and a IL-78 mid-air refueller will be leaving for France for a joint air combat exercise with the French Air Force next month.

The exercise, Garuda-IV, will be held at the Istres airbase in France from June 14 to 25. "The exercise will help to further enhance interoperability between the Indian and French air forces since pilots as well as the ground crew will get to see each other's operational, technical and administrative practices from close quarters,'' said an officer.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 992058.cms

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 31 May 2010 14:40

I am sure they will if possible. mki and rafale already flew together in a red flag exercise.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3795
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 31 May 2010 16:15

So they are not too much worried about giving away the BARS radar modes ? I think the Rafale s during RedFlag was busy trying to electronically 'sniff' the MKI s and the F15 s that were deployed.

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Asit P » 31 May 2010 21:22

Wickberg wrote:Not even the Tejas Mk1 is in service yet, they haven´t even flown a prototype with an existing radar.

As a matter of fact LCA has flown with an 'existing radar'. Please update your knowledge.


Wickberg wrote: No one can compare the Tejas to the Gripen, not even a Gripen A/B that is almost 30 years old, cause the Tejas have not entered operational service

By this logic, Tejas should not even be compared with Hunter, Gnat & Sabre! Isn't it? If this is the kind of logic you want to come up with, then Kartik is absolutely right with his assertion, that you would look best in the ignore mode of one and all.


Wickberg wrote:As a Swede I know that there is no way in hell India would buy the Gripen, but I allso know that the LCA project will be canceled.

Where does this prophecy come from? Is it from one of those mystic crystal balls which you have in your living room or is it just the case of sour Grapes?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 31 May 2010 22:29

Shatack wrote:gripen has nothing cheap, Saab comercials drives minds to great illusions!

and netherland, norway, brasil etc.. rejected it not about politics, but performances


But that does not mean that the IAF will reject it. In fact it is possible that the IAF really loves this AC. But politics rejects it.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 01 Jun 2010 02:35

Shatack wrote:gripen has nothing cheap, Saab comercials drives minds to great illusions!

and netherland, norway, brasil etc.. rejected it not about politics, but performances

Stop with your BS and learn to read, you have been proven wrong about this dozens of times in this thread. Stop trolling.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Jun 2010 10:22

Gripen is a good aircraft and a worthy contender for MMRCA program , it can replace both the medium and light class aircraft in the IAF.

Who knows we may just see Gripen in IAF colors

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 01 Jun 2010 10:34

only problem with gripen is that it would kill the LCA.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Jun 2010 10:44

LCA will rise or fall on its own merit , None of the MMRCA contender selected will KILL Tejas.

IAF being an operational and delivering agency on National Security as far as air power goes will definitely keep operational aspect in mind and keep MMRCA as a hedge incase LCA falls short on its promise or the production agency cannot deliver the forecasted number on time.

Unfortunate contingency like sanctions impinging Tejas program will also be one factor that IAF will keep in its calculus.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1197
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Nihat » 01 Jun 2010 14:37

Austin wrote:Gripen is a good aircraft and a worthy contender for MMRCA program , it can replace both the medium and light class aircraft in the IAF.



True and besides , how many heavy combat aircrafts do we require. There will be potentially 270 MKI + Impending induction of FGFA from 2016 onwards. The need for relativly lower maintanece aircrafts is also there which need little by way of special treatment,have quick turn around time and low RCS which are capable of operating in hostile environs for a long time and can be permanently stationed on frontlines for A2A or A2G roles.

Too many heavy aircrafts will spoil the balance of the IAF.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 01 Jun 2010 17:40

why exactly has gripen been anointed as the quick turn around/high availability specialist here vs EF/Rafale/F18 ?
it has been in service for much longer than EF/rafale so it stands to reason the swedes will have smoothed out
all wrinkles and it might show higher uptime *now*, but we are talking of 4-5 yrs away for delivery by which ef/rafale
will have earned their squadron time.

it features just the same amt of complex avionics systems and weapons as the rest. these will not magically have a higher
mtbf when used in gripen vs the others. its cockpit is at par with the others, not revolutionary in ease of operation.

its only advantage seems to be 1 engine -vs- 2 engine ... the con being less absolute payload, and perhaps less t:w
in the A2A role.

its a fair trade if the cost of purchase and 20 yr ownership is 40% lower AND IAF is ok with a single engined plane
and its NG payload x range x speed.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 01 Jun 2010 18:41

Singha wrote:why exactly has gripen been anointed as the quick turn around/high availability specialist here vs EF/Rafale/F18 ?
it has been in service for much longer than EF/rafale so it stands to reason the swedes will have smoothed out
all wrinkles and it might show higher uptime *now*, but we are talking of 4-5 yrs away for delivery by which ef/rafale
will have earned their squadron time.

it features just the same amt of complex avionics systems and weapons as the rest. these will not magically have a higher
mtbf when used in gripen vs the others. its cockpit is at par with the others, not revolutionary in ease of operation.

its only advantage seems to be 1 engine -vs- 2 engine ... the con being less absolute payload, and perhaps less t:w
in the A2A role.

its a fair trade if the cost of purchase and 20 yr ownership is 40% lower AND IAF is ok with a single engined plane
and its NG payload x range x speed.


Does any of these matter?

RFP rules. Other than that it is good for discussionS, but not for BP!!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 01 Jun 2010 18:43

maybe they looked at gripen landing in highways, being refueled and rearmed by a few conscripts hiding in the forest and taking off in 5 mins.
we dont use such a dispersed basing strategy and never will due to our lack of deserted roads and need for striking in massive force .
and no idea what they will do if a plane is damaged or needs a engine change in the middle of nowhere/

our high tempo will need to be based IDF style on lots of bases, extra pilots, lots of extra ground crew and engines and avionics being pulled offline and extra spares kept ready to be slotted in rather than repairs attempted in place.

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby sathyaC » 01 Jun 2010 19:20

Nihat wrote:
Austin wrote:Gripen is a good aircraft and a worthy contender for MMRCA program , it can replace both the medium and light class aircraft in the IAF.



True and besides , how many heavy combat aircrafts do we require. There will be potentially 270 MKI + Impending induction of FGFA from 2016 onwards. The need for relativly lower maintanece aircrafts is also there which need little by way of special treatment,have quick turn around time and low RCS which are capable of operating in hostile environs for a long time and can be permanently stationed on frontlines for A2A or A2G roles.

Too many heavy aircrafts will spoil the balance of the IAF.

we can have our LCA to the job of the light aircraft roll
more over we must not just get the squadron strength back to 40 but get it around 60 by
2025-2030 as we need to dominate IOR
so we need (2025-2030)
300+ LCA Mk2 Mk3
250 FGFA/PAK FA
300+ MCA
200 MRCA

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Jun 2010 20:00

Well I see no reason for being fussy on single engine ,IAF operated M2K , it was single engine , some what battle proven and IAF is happy about it.

As long as the engine is reliable , I would rather bet on single engine for MMRCA , most of the time it would be flying on peace time mission and it would mean significant cost savings and logistics footprint.

I think Gripen-NG is the best bet for MMRCA , It can do most task quite well , its operational in few AF and if need be IAF can look at it replacing the light category if Tejas fails on IAF expectations or delivery , if not Gripen and Tejas can co-exist and compliment each other.

The other single engine option is F-16IN and I would stay away from any US fighter at this stage.

Boudhayan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 10:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Boudhayan » 01 Jun 2010 20:03

kit wrote:So they are not too much worried about giving away the BARS radar modes ? I think the Rafale s during RedFlag was busy trying to electronically 'sniff' the MKI s and the F15 s that were deployed.


The Radar modes together with the frequency for the BARS radar is one of the best kept secrets in India. Hence there is no way by which the radar modes would go out to electronic sniffing devices. On another note, there is a particular "Training" mode for the BARS radar that our MKI have (not sure if this is present for all radars from different vendors, Gurus please enlighten on other radars). In ALL the international exercises in which the IAF MIKs have participated, everywhere the pilots were specially ordered to use this Training mode ONLY so that other countries do not have any hint of what the frequency/mode of the radar is/capable of.
Remember what happened at Red Flag, our MKIs were not able to identify boogies at even medium range, 4o miles if I remember the value correctly (I am not referring to IFFs, since the ones that MKIs have is not compatible with NATOs ) and they had to verbally get the confirmation from AWACS of USAF (since datalink was also not working due to compatible issues). All the identification issues were due to the standard orders of IAF to use only the training mode of the BARS radar.

In short the BARS radar are in good hands (IAF) or I should say great hands and there is no way the modes/frequencies would be compromised to other nations. :D

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 01 Jun 2010 20:36

pandyan wrote:
Singha wrote:why exactly has gripen been anointed as the quick turn around...

The quick turnaround claim was something that was debated before as well; it is most likely that Saab is measuring some selective tasks and not complete list of tasks involved. Someone posted a link to F-18 paper that was quite comprehensive study on list of tasks that needs to be performed in order to prepare the aircraft for the next sortie. The interesting thing was almost every single task that was listed for F-18 is applicable for any other fighter aircraft.

No, they don't just measure "selective tasks", it's the actual turnaround time for a Gripen between sorties. It takes a couple of minutes to re-fuel, re-arm, there isn't some "fineprint" to this. Gripen was designed from the start to have a quick turn-around, executed by a couple of conscripts, designed to be as fool-proof as possible and land and take-off, not from some highway, but a more "regular" road.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 01 Jun 2010 21:34

Austin wrote:LCA will rise or fall on its own merit , None of the MMRCA contender selected will KILL Tejas.

IAF being an operational and delivering agency on National Security as far as air power goes will definitely keep operational aspect in mind and keep MMRCA as a hedge incase LCA falls short on its promise or the production agency cannot deliver the forecasted number on time.

Unfortunate contingency like sanctions impinging Tejas program will also be one factor that IAF will keep in its calculus.


Its right that the LCA must rise or fall on its own merit. But for that one needs to give it adequate support and give it a fair chance. Even the Rafale and F-22 had a lot of problems while being inducted, so teething troubles shouldn't end up de-motivating the IAF to a degree that it then looks to an easier approach of simply buying more of the MRCA type it selects.

BTW, the Gripen IN will be just as if not more sanctionable than the Tejas. It has more US components (and however much certain Swedes here will talk about water-tight contracts between Saab and GE or other US firms for ToT and uninterrupted support, the US Govt and its laws will not care 2 hoots about them if sanctions have to be applied). Sweden has neither the political weight nor the economic muscle to do anything to the US if it simply reneges on its obligations due to sanctions- GE and other companies will simply have to toe the US Govt.'s line if they want to continue doing business in the US.

I'm not doubting Saab's ability or the Gripen IN's capability. But if we want to keep some things in mind regarding the Tejas then its prudent that the same be done for the MRCA candidates as well.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests