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.
sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby sudhan » 09 Apr 2010 12:32

andy B wrote:
I may be wrong but I believe the dark smudge on ze port side is the APU exhaust onlee. Ze Rafale has it next to its vertical tail fin on ze port side too. Incidentally the Panavia Tornado tails are somewhat blackened too and they seem to have moved ze position of the apu further forward in the EF2k while in the Rafale it is in similar arrangment to the Tornado.


The blackening of the Tornado's tail is due to the thrust reversing that it uses... check out the pic..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Tornado_MFG1_landing_RAF_Mildenhall_1984.JPEG

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 09 Apr 2010 13:07

Viv S wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:The Aim-120C is also cheaper and longer range. The Aim-120C sells for $355k and is longer ranged and the new aim-120C-7 variant is better than existing r-77s.


I believe India will be going for the Aim-120D if an American aircraft wins the contract.

Meteor is expected to cost well over a million pounds per unit, for that price we can afford to fire 2 aim-120s and kill the target at a lower cost. 1 aim-120c-7 is said to have a hit rate of over 90%, two is a certain kill, why should we go for a Meteor which is nearly the same range and is about 3 to 4 times more expensive.


Well, the launch aircraft has a limited payload. Why not fire two Meteors instead of 2 Aim-120s? When the survival of a $70 million aircraft is at stake(not to mention the importance of mission its performing), is it worth going for the more economical munition over a better performing one?


two meteors accounts to over 2 million pounds in cost, besides the SH can deploy upto 12 Aim-120C/D in a single mission and the aim-120D has a longer range than the meteor, hopefully we order it . the apg-79 should be able to track a chinese flanker from over 180 km away and thus the aim-120D should give a first shot ability and since it has an active seeker the flanker wont detect it till its too late

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2010 13:31

Brahmananda wrote:two meteors accounts to over 2 million pounds in cost, besides the SH can deploy upto 12 Aim-120C/D in a single mission and the aim-120D has a longer range than the meteor, hopefully we order it . the apg-79 should be able to track a chinese flanker from over 180 km away and thus the aim-120D should give a first shot ability and since it has an active seeker the flanker wont detect it till its too late


The Aim-120D costs upwards of $700,000. So the Meteor is about twice as expensive. As for it having a longer range than the Meteor, I haven't read any credible figures for the Meteor, most of the information(like a NEZ of 80km) is unverifiable but considering its protracted development, I'd say it probably outperforms the AMRAAM. If its better by any significant margin, its worth it. PLAAF Flankers as well as PAF F-16s go for $40 million+, $3 million to secure a kill is a fair deal. Maybe the AMRAAM can get it too, but unless it has a similar hit probability at the same range it should be a secondary option.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 09 Apr 2010 14:26

the Meteor on mbda website has range of 120km+, the Aim-120D has a 50% range increase over the aim-120C-7 which has a range of around 130km+. the aim-120D has a high NEZ than the Meteor due to its high kinematic range, the problem with the Metoer is it has the same range as the r-77 which means even a flanker will launch at the same time and same for tha aim-120 c-5, a longer range aim-120D is preferred combine it with the Sh's radar, it will mostly fire the Aim-120D at over 140km away

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2010 14:59

Brahmananda wrote:the Meteor on mbda website has range of 120km+


Got a link for that?

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1655
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Sid » 09 Apr 2010 15:11

Brahmananda wrote:the Meteor on mbda website has range of 120km+, the Aim-120D has a 50% range increase over the aim-120C-7 which has a range of around 130km+. the aim-120D has a high NEZ than the Meteor due to its high kinematic range, the problem with the Metoer is it has the same range as the r-77 which means even a flanker will launch at the same time and same for tha aim-120 c-5, a longer range aim-120D is preferred combine it with the Sh's radar, it will mostly fire the Aim-120D at over 140km away


AFAIK you never engage BVR targets at max range. It has the least probability of hitting targets at that range as enemy can out maneuver at such long ranges. You have to get enemy within best envelop (depending on height/speed/heading) to get very high probability of hitting.

Best practice is to fly in hunter-killer formations where fighters flying behind track and lock enemy where as fighters in front (flying in passive mode) launches weapons and quickly disengages since fighters from back can still maintain locks from a safe distance. This practice is possible now due to data-linking of fighters.

So in theory MKIs in such formations can still engage enemy with longer range weapons, i.e. AIM 120 equipped F solah.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 09 Apr 2010 15:15

whats is the typical range to fire bvr missiles like amraam and mica - 50km ?

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5443
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby niran » 09 Apr 2010 15:27

Sid wrote:So in theory MKIs in such formations can still engage enemy with longer range weapons, i.e. AIM 120 equipped F solah.


not in theory, it will be the normal practice when M-2000 are upgraded,

the main list includes
-A Thales RDY-2 radar. The RDY-2 radar was similar in configuration to the original RDY, but featured two new air-to-ground modes, including a high-resolution "synthetic aperture radar (SAR)" imaging mode with a "moving target indicator (MTI)" capability to provide an all-weather, day / night ground attack capability. The radar featured "low probability of intercept (LPI)" operation, with the output pattern varying in a seemingly random pattern that prevented an adversary RWR from recognizing that it has been targeted. Rafale tech moving down.

-The high-power "Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU)" another tech designed for the Rafale.

- A Thales Totem 3000 INS with ring-laser gyros and GPS capability, providing much greater accuracy, higher reliability, and shorter alignment time than the old ULISS 52 system. It worked in conjunction with a terrain-following system.

- An on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS).

- An improved, classified "ICMS 3" digital countermeasures suite.

-The cockpit will be updated as well, with the same general layout but with larger color displays and other modernizations. more Rafalisque.

-The Thales Topsight helmet-mounted display / sighting system.

-a dual linked wide-angle HUD / head-level display; and HOTAS controls.

-There will be a high degree of cockpit automation; for example, the fire control system could automatically prioritize threats. The cockpit will be NVG compatible.of course

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2010 16:11

Sid wrote:AFAIK you never engage BVR targets at max range. It has the least probability of hitting targets at that range as enemy can out maneuver at such long ranges. You have to get enemy within best envelop (depending on height/speed/heading) to get very high probability of hitting.


True but the max. range gives you a good idea of how far the missile's no-escape-zone extends.

Best practice is to fly in hunter-killer formations where fighters flying behind track and lock enemy where as fighters in front (flying in passive mode) launches weapons and quickly disengages since fighters from back can still maintain locks from a safe distance. This practice is possible now due to data-linking of fighters.


Yes, but that works both ways. Data-linked PAF and PLAAF fighters will fly similar tactics. Firing a salvo at max. range will allow the launch aircraft to retain the initiative. When the target detects the missile it will be forced to take evasive action and any missile it's launched will have a low hit probability in the absence of mid-course updates. Also, the firing aircraft will probably use that window of time to close in for the kill with a second salvo.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 09 Apr 2010 17:19

yeah no one fires at max range, my mistake the mbda website says the meteor range is inexcess of 100km

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/r ... age_id=105

even if fired at 80km hardly any advantage because the Aim-120C-5 that Pukis have also has a range of 100 and they'll both fire at same time. The r-77 too has a range of 110 km which means we can fire at 80km and be effective which is hardly any advantage of first shot. As of now the Ramjet r-77 isnt on the table. r-33 has the longest range and is operational with 120km and this is again lower than the aim-120D which has range over 150km+ exact figures are still classified but they say it has 50% more kinematic range than the c-7 which also has more range than the 105km+ C-5.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/510/

Which means even if the SH fires the Aim-D at 130km away it will have effective first shot. Mica and others are useless because with a max range of 60km, you would fire at 50km which is sadly not good enough. With new engine and the radar, the SH would climb high, go supersonic and fire as soon as the target is in range. not to mention it can track things like the f-16, flankers over 150km away. meanwhile the SH itself has a rcs below 1m2, he can hold on to his target after firing, the flanker, f-16 wont be able to detect the incoming missile due to active radar, midcourse updates, even when the SH is 100km away, he can start turning away, the aim-120D travelling at over mach 4 would already be homing onto it target and it would hit it with the enemy having little or no notice.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1276
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Nihat » 09 Apr 2010 17:31

the SH itself has a rcs below 1m2


where did you get that from , I would have thought that SH would surely hv a bigger RCS than F-16 , being a bigger jet in every way

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1655
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Sid » 09 Apr 2010 17:40

Singha wrote:whats is the typical range to fire bvr missiles like amraam and mica - 50km ?



http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

The effective range of the AIM-120A of course highly depends on the firing parameters (speed/height as I said earlier), and official performance data are classified.

Typical quoted figures for maximum range vary between 50 km (30 miles) and 70 km (45 miles). For the lower portions of the AMRAAM's range envelope (minimum range is said to be 2 km (2200 yds)), where the mid-course guidance updates are not needed, the AIM-120 is a true fire-and-forget weapon.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 09 Apr 2010 18:01

Nihat wrote:
the SH itself has a rcs below 1m2


where did you get that from , I would have thought that SH would surely hv a bigger RCS than F-16 , being a bigger jet in every way

RCS has very little to do with a/c size. If we go by your logic, F-22 should have huge rcs. F-18 incorporates various stealth features which should make its rcs lower than that of F-16.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2010 18:11

Brahmananda wrote:yeah no one fires at max range,


We don't know that now, two BVR capable aircraft haven't ever engaged in combat to date.

my mistake the mbda website says the meteor range is inexcess of 100km
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/r ... age_id=105


That's basically saying its classified.

even if fired at 80km hardly any advantage because the Aim-120C-5 that Pukis have also has a range of 100 and they'll both fire at same time. The r-77 too has a range of 110 km which means we can fire at 80km and be effective which is hardly any advantage of first shot. As of now the Ramjet r-77 isnt on the table. r-33 has the longest range and is operational with 120km and this is again lower than the aim-120D which has range over 150km+ exact figures are still classified but they say it has 50% more kinematic range than the c-7 which also has more range than the 105km+ C-5.


I was referring to the NEZ with the 80km figure not the max. range.

Which means even if the SH fires the Aim-D at 130km away it will have effective first shot. Mica and others are useless because with a max range of 60km, you would fire at 50km which is sadly not good enough. With new engine and the radar, the SH would climb high, go supersonic and fire as soon as the target is in range. not to mention it can track things like the f-16, flankers over 150km away. meanwhile the SH itself has a rcs below 1m2, he can hold on to his target after firing, the flanker, f-16 wont be able to detect the incoming missile due to active radar, midcourse updates, even when the SH is 100km away, he can start turning away, the aim-120D travelling at over mach 4 would already be homing onto it target and it would hit it with the enemy having little or no notice.


We're assuming optimum conditions here. The missile launch could be picked up on IRST systems, the target aircraft may be backed up with an AEW&C aircraft, the F-16/Flanker radar will pick up the inbound missile, the target would employ SPJs, towed decoys or have escort jamming aircraft to degrade the performance of the missile's seeker as well as the designating aircraft's radar. A stealthy kill is far from assured. Also, another factor that's very relevant is the launch conditions, a launch from a EF supercruising at Mach 1.35 at 55,000ft can have a 30% higher range. Anyways, all this is irrelevant to the Aim-120D vs Meteor question, which we'll have to abandon seeing as enough information about them(particularly the latter) isn't available in the public domain. My point was simply that given the nature of aerial combat, cost of air-to-air munitions has be a secondary consideration.


On a more important note... apparently I'm now a BRfite... hooray :mrgreen: 8)
Last edited by Viv S on 09 Apr 2010 20:43, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2010 18:17

Nihat wrote:
the SH itself has a rcs below 1m2


where did you get that from , I would have thought that SH would surely hv a bigger RCS than F-16 , being a bigger jet in every way


The Super Hornet is believed to have the lowest frontal RCS figures among all aircraft with the exception of the F-22(disputed by supporters of the EF). In any case, fact is RCS reduction was a very serious consideration during the SH's design.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 09 Apr 2010 21:00

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:SO, the Gripen is seemingly an IAF fave eh? So much so that its getting a second chance in May. Good. I s'pose the IAF realizes that its the only western bird that'll fit in the $ 10 odd billion budget. Either that or more fulcrums, so might as well go with the little fella. Good thinking imho. Naught wrong in getting a little diversity and western weapons - meteor, asraam, harpoons, taurus etc

CM.

Over the years in this MRCA threads whenever anybody suggested f-15 or su 35 for MRCA it was pointed out that we already have su 30 in the same weight class.
Since IAF is going to induct some squadrons of Tejas too then why is Gripen being allowed in MRCA which is of the same weight class? Why not have additional squadrons of Tejas instead? :((
If Gripen is chosen for MRCA that will expose the corruption of this deal totally.



I was wondering about same thing.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5382
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 09 Apr 2010 21:57

Gaur wrote:RCS has very little to do with a/c size. If we go by your logic, F-22 should have huge rcs. F-18 incorporates various stealth features which should make its rcs lower than that of F-16.


do you happen to be Samsara on Keypubs forum ?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 09 Apr 2010 22:13

Manish_Sharma wrote:Over the years in this MRCA threads whenever anybody suggested f-15 or su 35 for MRCA it was pointed out that we already have su 30 in the same weight class.
Since IAF is going to induct some squadrons of Tejas too then why is Gripen being allowed in MRCA which is of the same weight class? Why not have additional squadrons of Tejas instead? :((
If Gripen is chosen for MRCA that will expose the corruption of this deal totally.


Just my opinion. I dont think that we should couple the MRCA and the Tejas development. They dont harm each other. In spite of the similarities, Gripen is a finished product and a successor of other finished products. So though not in a different league, it certainly has achieved a level of product maturity which Tejas will take around 5 years to get to.
There are lots of numbers for the Tejas to fill up. Given even assembly line of 20 per year (optimistically), it will take the HAL 10 years to get the numbers up there! Let's not burden it with another 200 on the same assembly line. Besides the Gripen is not phenominally expensive than the Tejas!

However, I don't know why, but of recent times I feel that we should go with the Mig-35. It's A2A and BVR are one of the best. A2G is also one of the best amongst the contenders. I am sure that those characteristics will be met as advertised. Just a bit worried about the AESA radar. Other than that, we should get them fast once the assembly line is set up. We will have commanility with the Mig-29 variants in the IAF/Navy. It is not expensive. Virtually nothing going against it. anyways, just my thoughts!

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2010 22:20

Manish_Sharma wrote:Over the years in this MRCA threads whenever anybody suggested f-15 or su 35 for MRCA it was pointed out that we already have su 30 in the same weight class.
Since IAF is going to induct some squadrons of Tejas too then why is Gripen being allowed in MRCA which is of the same weight class? Why not have additional squadrons of Tejas instead? :((
If Gripen is chosen for MRCA that will expose the corruption of this deal totally.


Its a fair question and one I have mixed feelings about. I don't believe the Gripen has that edge in performance that justifies its induction into a force that already has an excellent aircraft(Su-30MKI) as the backbone of its fleet.

That said I don't think you can draw parallels between the Tejas and Gripen just yet. It'll be several years before the Tejas MkII is inducted, which will be roughly comparable with the Gripen C/D. The Gripen's NG variant on the other hand is/will be better by a significant margin in practically in all aspects.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2010 22:30

indranilroy wrote:However, I don't know why, but of recent times I feel that we should go with the Mig-35. It's A2A and BVR are one of the best. A2G is also one of the best amongst the contenders. I am sure that those characteristics will be met as advertised. Just a bit worried about the AESA radar. Other than that, we should get them fast once the assembly line is set up. We will have commanility with the Mig-29 variants in the IAF/Navy. It is not expensive. Virtually nothing going against it. anyways, just my thoughts!


Well, except for the Gripen, every aircraft in running outperforms the MiG-35 at BVR combat. Also, its not in production and is not expected to have any domestic orders. The logistics are an advantage but then there's is the question of its utility given that we already operate a large number of very capable Sukhois. And finally, ordering 126+ aircraft will lead to the IAF's fleet becoming almost completely of Russian origin and while I appreciate their friendship and support, I'd be wary of granting them that sort of leverage.

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 09 Apr 2010 23:07

The Gripen with its movable AESA, Meteor and a PIRATE derived IRST will not be an easy opponent in BVR either, especially because it has very low RCS when compared to the MIG 35.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5382
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 09 Apr 2010 23:09

Viv S wrote:Well, except for the Gripen, every aircraft in running outperforms the MiG-35 at BVR combat. Also, its not in production and is not expected to have any domestic orders. The logistics are an advantage but then there's is the question of its utility given that we already operate a large number of very capable Sukhois. And finally, ordering 126+ aircraft will lead to the IAF's fleet becoming almost completely of Russian origin and while I appreciate their friendship and support, I'd be wary of granting them that sort of leverage.


why not the Gripen NG ? Its the smallest aircraft of the lot, which naturally means a small target, it will get a swash-plate AESA, has a top-notch datalink that allows for silent interceptions, SATCOM which is more difficult to jam, very good situational awareness for the pilot due to its MMI and sensor fusion, a new IRST to allow for passive attacks and can use the AMRAAM and in the future, the Meteor.

What makes you think that this is any worse than a MiG-35 in BVR combat ?

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2010 23:12

johnny_m wrote:The Gripen with its movable AESA, Meteor and a PIRATE derived IRST will not be an easy opponent in BVR either, especially because it has very low RCS when compared to the MIG 35.


I don't the MiG-35 outperforms the Gripen either. Its just that the performance deficit that the MiG-35 has vis-a-vis the others, is not as apparent with respect to the Gripen.
Last edited by Viv S on 09 Apr 2010 23:17, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2010 23:16

Kartik wrote:why not the Gripen NG ? Its the smallest aircraft of the lot, which naturally means a small target, it will get a swash-plate AESA, has a top-notch datalink that allows for silent interceptions, SATCOM which is more difficult to jam, very good situational awareness for the pilot due to its MMI and sensor fusion, a new IRST to allow for passive attacks and can use the AMRAAM and in the future, the Meteor.

What makes you think that this is any worse than a MiG-35 in BVR combat ?


I don't believe its any worse than the MiG-35. It does have a disadvantage with respect to sub-systems originating from third parties. Also, there is the fact that opting for the Gripen expends whatever political capital is inherent in the order on a country that's of little strategic value to India.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4676
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 09 Apr 2010 23:19

Kartik wrote:
Viv S wrote:Well, except for the Gripen, every aircraft in running outperforms the MiG-35 at BVR combat.

What makes you think that this is any worse than a MiG-35 in BVR combat ?


Also, what makes you say that every other contender outperforms the MiG-35 at BVR combat? :shock: There is little in terms of critical advantages that any of the birds enjoy over the 35, BVR or WVR, least of all the American contenders. If they have a marginal advantage in terms of electronics and sensors, it is often offset by excellent kinematics and OLS on the 35.

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. Still, this could be overcome too, esp. if India can start building the 35 from scratch (raw materials) as in the case of the MKI. May be not the nuts and bolts, but at least critical components.

CM.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 09 Apr 2010 23:23

Viv S wrote:
johnny_m wrote:The Gripen with its movable AESA, Meteor and a PIRATE derived IRST will not be an easy opponent in BVR either, especially because it has very low RCS when compared to the MIG 35.


I don't the MiG-35 outperforms the Gripen either. Its just that the performance deficit that the MiG-35 has vis-a-vis the others, is not as apparent with respect to the Gripen.

Could you clarify why you think there is a big performance deficit vis-a-vis the others and not so much for the Gripen?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby negi » 09 Apr 2010 23:31

Mig-35 has a large logistical footprint , I think with MKI production line in place and PAKFA joining the IAF in next decade we need a fighter to fill in the M2K's and Jaguar's shoes i.e. something in light/medium category . LCA tranches will take time and IAF cannot wait , the M2K MLU is a clear indication of IAF's desperation with our procurement process.
Its better to forgo the twin engine category and buy the Gripen/F-16 in larger numbers for the sanctioned amount in order to stock up additional airframes which me might cannibalize for spares in future if Unkil or EU play spoilsport.

As it is in the next decade we should have LCA MKII/MKIIIs which should be right up there with the best 4/4.5 generation AC in the world.

--Yeah I have switched sides 8)
Last edited by negi on 09 Apr 2010 23:36, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kavu » 09 Apr 2010 23:34

Any country which sells us arms, that too has 70% footprint in our complete Armed Forces equipment, has enormous and unwarranted strategic leverage over us, it was tolerable when we were a nobody, but we arent that anymore.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 09 Apr 2010 23:34

EF can't super cruise at mach 1.35, it barely gets to mach 1.2 with a full load of A2A missiles. The only known aircraft that can cruise faster are the f-22 and may be the su-35BM. there are even claims that the EF can't supercruise with a decent payload in the link below. Even the Gripen NG can supposedly supercruise with a good amount of stores. The SH like all the other aircraft can climb high, turn on reheat, go supersonic and fire its missiles at speeds over mach 1 so they can achieve almost max range as well. doesnt mean one has to supercruise to attain max firing range. they just have to fly over 50k feet and go supersonic. the new engine that SH is getting will only improve its incredible performance in all regimes. when flying against the SH, the radar it carries itself is capable of awacs. SH can do this with ease, it can also tank other aircraft and not just buddies.

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/july/2007/ ... hanush.htm

Indeed the SH has one of the lowest if not the lowest rcs among the contenders. now most missile approach warning systems can detect missiles and combine it with the RWR for active radar missiles. But by the time a missile can be detected on the RWR its too late, the missile is already in its terminal guidance mode with its active radar searching for it and with the latest missiles no amount of chaff can actually stop it. Even if we go for the EF we are better off with Aim-120D which if EF can supercruise at meaningful mach speeds can be very useful and even more effective than the Meteor and safer for long range kills. With the Swashplate AESA that it will recieve, the EF and aim-120D combo will be cheaper and i think ensure first shot against forseable targets.

Personally dont like Gripen NG, nice aircraft but single engine and the Tejas mk-2 i am sure will outperform it in everyway.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 09 Apr 2010 23:37

Carl_T wrote:
Viv S wrote:
I don't the MiG-35 outperforms the Gripen either. Its just that the performance deficit that the MiG-35 has vis-a-vis the others, is not as apparent with respect to the Gripen.

Could you clarify why you think there is a big performance deficit vis-a-vis the others and not so much for the Gripen?


Really I am waiting to hear why Mig-35's BVR, WVR has been deemed as a much bigger deficit wrt to the others. Please give a whole picture! RCS is NOT the whole thing!

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4676
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 09 Apr 2010 23:39

negi wrote:Mig-35 has a large logistical footprint , I think with MKI production line in place and PAKFA joining the IAF in next decade we need a fighter to fill in the M2K's and Jaguar's shoes i.e. something in light/medium category . LCA tranches will take time and IAF cannot wait , the M2K MLU is a clear indication of IAF's desperation with our procurement process.
Its better to forgo the twin engine category and buy the Gripen/F-16 in larger numbers for the sanctioned amount in order to stock up additional airframes which me might cannibalize for spares in future if Unkil or EU play spoilsport.
As it is in the next decade we should have LCA MKII/MKIIIs which should be right up there with the best 4/4.5 generation AC in the world.


Gripen would indeed be a v.decent acquisition in this context (v.trim logistical chain, excellent support, fabulous turnaround times). I am not convinced about the solah. Esp. when this has to be considered in terms of offsetting an already existent supply chain for the fulcrum.
Kavu wrote:Any country which sells us arms, that too has 70% footprint in our complete Armed Forces equipment, has enormous and unwarranted strategic leverage over us, it was tolerable when we were a nobody, but we arent that anymore.


And what about any country that can suddenly decide to restrict your use of the hardware? Wake up one morning to your cuppa coffee and a large fleet of white oiliphants. This can happen not only with the teens but also with the Gripen NG, it is a critical drawback for this otherwise excllent choice.

CM

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4676
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 09 Apr 2010 23:43

negi wrote:--Yeah I have switched sides 8)

At your age at that (as a forumite of course, for all we know, you might still be a young 'un) - kuch tho sharam karo, this is becoming reminiscent of some of our netas :twisted: .

CM

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 10 Apr 2010 00:19

Brahmananda wrote:EF can't super cruise at mach 1.35, it barely gets to mach 1.2 with a full load of A2A missiles. The only known aircraft that can cruise faster are the f-22 and may be the su-35BM. there are even claims that the EF can't supercruise with a decent payload in the link below.


I've read varying claims most putting the speed around Mach 1.3 under optimum conditions with a standard A2A load. But, even Mach 1.2 is pretty decent.

Even the Gripen NG can supposedly supercruise with a good amount of stores.


Its got a lower t/w ratio and substantially higher wing loading(compared to EF), so I'd be very doubtful of that claim.

The SH like all the other aircraft can climb high, turn on reheat, go supersonic and fire its missiles at speeds over mach 1 so they can achieve almost max range as well. doesnt mean one has to supercruise to attain max firing range. they just have to fly over 50k feet and go supersonic. the new engine that SH is getting will only improve its incredible performance in all regimes. when flying against the SH, the radar it carries itself is capable of awacs. SH can do this with ease, it can also tank other aircraft and not just buddies.


If its already on afterburners and flying at that speed, well and good. If not, it'll take time to get into that launch position. Also, using afterburners swallows fuel and therefore limits the sortie's duration.

Indeed the SH has one of the lowest if not the lowest rcs among the contenders. now most missile approach warning systems can detect missiles and combine it with the RWR for active radar missiles. But by the time a missile can be detected on the RWR its too late, the missile is already in its terminal guidance mode with its active radar searching for it and with the latest missiles no amount of chaff can actually stop it.


Not chaff alone certainly, but factor in electronic jamming, towed decoys, besides early detection of the missile itself by enemy aircraft or an enemy AEW&C.

Even if we go for the EF we are better off with Aim-120D which if EF can supercruise at meaningful mach speeds can be very useful and even more effective than the Meteor and safer for long range kills. With the Swashplate AESA that it will recieve, the EF and aim-120D combo will be cheaper and i think ensure first shot against forseable targets.


Depends on the Meteor's performance relative to the Aim-120D. Remains to be seen, but I'm sure the IAF will have an accurate idea.

Personally dont like Gripen NG, nice aircraft but single engine and the Tejas mk-2 i am sure will outperform it in everyway.


My understanding(and I could be wrong) is that the only major development expected in the Tejas Mk2 is the new engine and perhaps some updated avionics. The Mk2 should then be able to achieve the IAF's original ASR.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 10 Apr 2010 00:20

Strongest point about MRCA other then making up quick numbers was than being very heavy Su 30 was expensive to run and Tejas very light and IAF wanted something in the middle of the two that way SH is too close to Su 30 weightclass and Gripen is same as Tejas.

With these parapmeters only Rafale and Ef2k are ideal MRCA.

Another point given is "MRCA is because of delay in Tejas".
Well with the current pace 1st MRCA will come 2013 and by then Tejas would have cleared FOC 8)
thus nullyifing the need for MRCA.

Still if MOD/IAF want to go for phoren maal then we should go for Ef2k and bargain hard to get engine tech plus be a partner in developing the AESA with GaN Chips which can both be used later for MCA too.
Now later all three Tejas, Ef2k and MCA can have same engines and radars with GaN Chips, not to mention india as partern in the AESA radar.
I remember many pages back Kartik had written a nice post about the difference of finishing/built quality between Mig 29 and Mirages when they arrived first and the advantage of having a nice built quality in the modern radar envioronment. In this regard too Ef2k production ToT can help in making our own MCA.
Also when Ef2k was here Singha had mentioned how quite its engines were, that too should count.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 10 Apr 2010 01:08

Cain Marko wrote:
Kartik wrote:What makes you think that this is any worse than a MiG-35 in BVR combat ?


Also, what makes you say that every other contender outperforms the MiG-35 at BVR combat? :shock: There is little in terms of critical advantages that any of the birds enjoy over the 35, BVR or WVR, least of all the American contenders. If they have a marginal advantage in terms of electronics and sensors, it is often offset by excellent kinematics and OLS on the 35.


The Eurofighter and Rafale while less maneuverable, are more agile, have a better t/w ratio, have better operational ranges, lower radar cross-sections, 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), better(though pricey) munitions and are better with regard to maintenance(making assumptions here).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Still, this could be overcome too, esp. if India can start building the 35 from scratch (raw materials) as in the case of the MKI. May be not the nuts and bolts, but at least critical components.


^^^ Wouldn't this also mitigate your apprehensions with regard to an American fighter?

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1655
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Sid » 10 Apr 2010 01:18

What IAF wanted form MMRCA was a quick fleet replenishment in the form of proven platform of that time not some future plane. And that time was year 2000, fresh with scars from Kargil war. In theory IAF should have started to receive MMRCA planes by 2008 and completed by 2015/16 time frame by the time IAF will see first of PAK-FA on the horizon. Perfect time-frame, but we all know how much time it took them to release the RFP.

What if in the end (lets assume IAF clears one of the contestants) someone will come up and print a report of kickbacks (which no defense deal can avoid)? Then IAF will have to start form scratch again?

If its taking 2 decades to produce a fighter in India, it also takes similar time frame to procure a phoren maal too!!!

where as it took mere one year to buy super costly choppers for our good-for-nothing netas :cry: :oops: this is embarrassing. NO!

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 10 Apr 2010 01:18

Kartik wrote:
Gaur wrote:RCS has very little to do with a/c size. If we go by your logic, F-22 should have huge rcs. F-18 incorporates various stealth features which should make its rcs lower than that of F-16.


do you happen to be Samsara on Keypubs forum ?

No. I am not a member of Keypubs though I do lurk there albeit rarely.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby negi » 10 Apr 2010 01:32

Cain Marko wrote:
negi wrote:--Yeah I have switched sides 8)

At your age at that (as a forumite of course, for all we know, you might still be a young 'un) - kuch tho sharam karo, this is becoming reminiscent of some of our netas :twisted: .

CM

I was referring to my earlier stand on Euro canards , I am no longer in favor of EF or even the Rafale (Mig-35 never even crossed my mind ) . Now with the MRCA tender taking ages to conclude and the pace at which LCA programme is progressing I don't think we need to invest heavily into an expensive twin engined 4th Gen fighter , specially when IAF needs to maintain a balance between the quality as well as quantity as far as its fighter fleet is concerned . Imo the whole idea is to be able to have enough numerical supremacy to come out on top in a war of attrition .

The M2K upgrade should address some of the concerns of the IAF as far as our squadron strength is concerned however what we need urgently is a matured platform which can compliment the MKIs and even the PAKFA/FGFA in next decade but with a substantial smaller logistical footprint for that is the only way forward to meet our minimum sanctioned squadron strength while keeping the costs within sane numbers.

The Gripen and F-16 are just the right kind of birds which shall be good enough to serve us for next 2-3 decades while we build upon our LCA success (MCA et al) .

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 10 Apr 2010 01:41

Carl_T wrote:Could you clarify why you think there is a big performance deficit vis-a-vis the others and not so much for the Gripen?


IMO the SH/EF/Rafale have an advantages in a lower RCS, better radars and a higher payloads. The EF/Rafale are better aerodynamically and have better operating ranges. Also it seems the newer F414G will equip the Gripen only after 2015.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ities.html

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 10 Apr 2010 01:52

regarding SH being the same heavy class as the mki, well doesnt matter because the SH is cheaper to operate than the Rafale according to what Brazilian analysis reveals. Gripen is the cheapest to operate over its life time, SH came second and Rafale came last. Rafale and EF both are expensive to maintain over their life spans, same goes with the mig which is the worst among the lot in terms of maintanance and operational costs. Gripen, f-16, SH, Ef, Rafale and mig-35 in order of maintenance. Looking at the future upgrade paths, SH has block 3 in the works and will be ready by 2020+ incase we want to excercise the option to go for 74 more aircraft. none of the contenders have been upgraded as fast as the SH over its life span, the latest block 2+ SHs fly with v-3 version of the apg-79, the engines have been upgraded from 92 kn to 98kn and now 120kn each, now on offer for us, all in less than 10 years. It can already hit multiple moving targets on the ground and montiors simultaneously all at the same time. The level of maturity achieved in such short span is unparalleled and with over 300 SHs being operated it has a good upgrade path over its life span. it makes more sense for us to go for a single vendor either the US or Russia because Rafale, EF and Gripen have a global logistical footprints making it a night mare for local production during intial phases. I strongly support a US or Russia buy, though the mig-35 isnt really the strongest and wont land in India before 2015, we sure can customized like we want.

the Growler began production a few years back and they already talk about upgrading its EW suite and othe systems on board. This churn rate sadly doesnt exist among any other contenders, if competition heats up and US gives full-tot, a US buy is certain even with EUMA in place, full tot and source code customization will allow them to win.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests