MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[Drishyaman]

OMG, it's spelled GRIPEN.

Typos corrected thanks for pointing and Thanks for reading.

Damn Swedes playing games with odd mix of double letters. SAAB Draken (two A and one K), then SAAB Viggen (2 A and two G), then SAAB Gripen (2 A and 1 P). Who can keep track when they use two or one of A, S, G, P, N?
(BTW it is tongue-in-cheek... before someone takes it too seriously).

[Drishyaman]

I have to stress one point: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN OFFICIAL SOURCE

Gurinder P ji, guess everyone who refers to wiki knows that. I have no other reliable sources for referring to those incidents but there are some videos on youtube to support some of those, may be you will trust those videos.

OT: Isn't there any difference between the technical experts in the IAF and the average Joe who might be looking to buy a car?

Yes, agree with you but what about average Joe’s media, they will surely spice it up. Don’t you think so?

PS: Very sorry to see Wickberg go.

I agree with you. I was also interested in a healthy debate. Its also important to have Swedish views on gripen as well. May be Wickberg will sober down and Rahul would pardon him

What are you on about?

That you know what is in my mind from day 1. I am not a big FAN of Gripen. I don’t want the IAF to operate Gripen. In my earlier posts I have stated multiple reasons for the same clearly.

[Multatuli]

jai wrote

In the end its all about having the money to buy what you want. I Believe the EF is a good opportunity for India - in fact better than SU 30 MKI as the circumstances are similar - manufacturing countries need our investment and will give us the product we specify - AESA, 3 D TVC etc etc.
......
Another great possibility than can arise is that the AMCA can become a next gen fighter program with the same member nations with India in the lead - positioned to complement / replace EF 30 - 40 years from now...

That sums up my thaughts too, except that I don't agree with the AMCA being a joint project between India and others. The AMCA has to be fully Indian, it has to meet Indian requirements which are not necessarily the same as for the European airforces, besides it would prove a real pain in the arse to come to a final design with all those Europeans involved.

As for future upgrades for the MRCA, I think that India will be able to do any upgrade all by herself in the next 10 to 15 years, with the exception perhaps of the engines. And even if we can't do the engine upgrade in say 15 years after introduction of the MRCA in the IAF, we still have the option to fit in an engine from Russia, the US, or some other country. With India being part of the FGFA and the AMCA going forward, the IAF will have plenty of options with upgrades for the Euro Fighter.

Regarding the Rafale: I was really disappointed with the recent visit of the French President to India. France could have offered us a real partnership in so many projects ( the Kaveri-Snecma engine; India needs larger aircraft carriers, roughly the same size as the French Charles de Gaulle, they could have offered to share the design with us (particularly the reactor design); etc.), but nothing significant was offered to India. I was in favour of the Rafale for the MRCA, but that's no longer so.

[SaiK]

We have pretty good screw drivers being passed from Brit, Russia and the yankees now on the engines. MKI al31fps, Mig RD 33ks, al 55s, rolls royce, france, etc. The GE 414 screw driver should give us enough confidence to move away from screw drivers to a more kaveri baseline. Again, the french infatuation with DRDO is unthinkable imho.. but, it is their choice now (hopefully they manage to deliver what IAF asks for LCA Mk2 as well - 100kN).. A twin 100kN is what I think IAF may demand for aMCA, and replace all future chosen MRCA upgrades, Mig upgrades, etc.

Rope in more of private partnership from respected engineering firms, tech students and other r&d orgs who have tremendous experiences in turbines. More inputs in terms of funds and brain is required for core Independence from imports on this precision technology setup.

Selecting EF2K, now brings in the EJ200 screw drivers as well, in addition to being partners in profit sharing, this should also mean sharing IPs and further gain in the areas where we need. So, an EF selection should help Kaveri, and imho, a separate venture with France may not have been required. However, it would be interesting to know how this turns out to be.

As of now, the 85kN Kaveri is still the baby that needs nurturing, reorganization after flight tests at grumov.

[srai]

Boeing Offers India "Super Hornet International Roadmap"

...
* Enhanced Performance Engines
* Next-generation cockpit
* Spherical missile laser warning
* Internal Infra-Red Search & Track (IRST)
* Conformal fuel tanks (see aircraft in slide)
* Enclosed weapons pod (see aircraft in slide)
* Designed-in stealth
* Future survivability technology that will "make the Block II Super Hornet harder to detect, harder to hit, and harder to kill"
...

All of these can be done on any of the other MRCA competitors - EuroFighter, Rafale, Gripen, MiG-35, F-16IN. In fact, all of these already have some of the items listed, such as the IRST. Upgrade roadmap is available for all MRCA competitors. If IAF wants to foot the bill for these upgrades, the competitors will gladly do it.

[shukla]

British aerospace firms eye partnerships at air show
Sify News

British Minister for Defence Equipment Support and Technology Peter Luff will lead a large defence and business delegation to the five-day air show at the air force base near Yelahanka on the city's outskirts, where the British firms will showcase their cutting edge technology in the defence, aviation and security sectors.

'Forging industrial partnerships and joint ventures between our defence industries, air force and defence scientists and Indian counterparts will be high on our agenda during the visit to Aero India, a world class show and best in the region,' Luff said in a statement.

The delegation will also discuss with the Indian authorities prospects of the Eurofighter Typhoon as a multi-role medium combat aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) fleet. Typhoon, a product of the European consortium, including Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain, is in race with five other global aerospace majors for the 126 fighter aircraft order from the IAF at an estimated $10 billion.

'Our strategic relationship with India is important and we are keen to engage in both the defence and security sectors to enhance the relationship,' Luff said.

[Singha]

can someone explain the internal IRST for F-18 ? earlier it was proposed as a fitting on the centerline pylon which increase drag penalty and prevented it looking up at close ranges. is it same thing or something OLS/OSF style?

[Kartik]

can someone explain the internal IRST for F-18 ? earlier it was proposed as a fitting on the centerline pylon which increase drag penalty and prevented it looking up at close ranges. is it same thing or something OLS/OSF style?

they decided to move it to a fairing under the nose for the International Super Hornet roadmap program. The USN will still get the drop tank mounted IRST though. the IAF's MRCA contest apparently required each contender to have a passive IRST and while the Super Hornet would've technically qualified for that requirement even with a drop tank mounted IRST, its shortcomings are quite well known, and hence they are looking to fit it under the nose.

[chackojoseph]

cross post

BAE Systems to push for Eurofighter Typhoon at Aero India 2011, navalised Typhoon to be showcased

[Philip]

I am rubbing my hands with glee.Aero-India this year will be so full of hatred for rivals,that we may see guns being drawn at the event! It reminds me of that classic Clint Eastwood western,"The good,the bad,and the ugly",where the three treasure hunters stand in acircle watching who will draw first! It should be fun watchingthe antics of the Yanquis,Swedes,French and Europeans,not to mention the Russians at play.Let the games begin....!

[shukla]

IAF may get 'Star Wars' helmet from European consortium
Economic times

"Designed and developed by British aerospace major BAE Systems, the helmet is part of optional purchases India could make if it chooses to go with the Eurofighter Typhoon plane in the medium multi-role combat aircraft ( MMRCA )) tender," an official of Cassidian, EADS' defence and security arm, said here Friday.

"We have given this option to the Indian Air Force (IAF) if it decides in favour of our aircraft," the official said.

The helmet-mounted symbology system, released last July by BAE, is getting ready for use by Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots flying the Eurofighter Typhoon this year. It may soon be worn by Spanish, German and Italian fighter pilots flying the Eurofighter Typhoon.

[shukla]

Let the games begin.......

Two Italian air force Typhoons land in Banglore

[rajanb]

While Aero India will have fantastic displays one hopes that we will ultimately select an a/c which gives us the necessary qualitative edge over the a/c of countries or a combination of countries, who are in the envelope of our threat perception, and give us an edge over their quantitative and qualitative air assets.

But, alas, that is a very simplistic approach. There have to be politico - economic factors to be taken into consideration.

Not to mention, that in times of a military conflict, the supplier of the a/c should not let us down. And I hope the selection banishes this aspect of doubt. History has given us many instances of this.

The time factor weighs against our favour, considering the reported depletion of our a/c force levels.

But having said that and having witnessed a low level dogfight, at Kalaikunda during the 1965 war, between an F-86 and a Hunter, one must salute the warriors of our armed forces who have always given us that tactical and strategic edge. And also salute the boffins who manage to sharpen our teeth with technical, innovative approaches.

I wish the Government would take a quick decision!

An Indian first and an Indian last!

[Viv S]

But I thought you said the UK and Germany wanted it? So if they wanted it, what's the holdup with Italy and Spain? Do you have to have unanimous consent before upgrades go through?

It did go through didn't it. From what I understand, the RAF wasn't too interested in it because of its limited field of view vis-a-vis the mechanically scanned Captor-M. That was until it was reworked into a swashplate array.

Right, because it was required to get additional export orders in the first place. Rest assured if AESA wasn't important for the MRCA competition, the EF would still be in AESA limbo.

That's a subjective opinion again. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

So you're saying India's need for upgrades can be held hostage when Italy and Spain drag their feet in the future?

You can't force other countries to spend money, so if you're only going to do upgrades where the other member countries fund their 'fair share', you're going to be waiting a long, long time

Only if India funds it all.

You assume the other countries will buy the upgrades you fund. I wouldn't assume any such thing.

UK and Germany each own 33% of EF Gmbh with Italy (21%) and Spain (13%) owning the remainder. I'm not privy to the actual details of EF's proposal, but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume India would be allotted between 20-25% of the company with other stakeholders diluting their respective shares (though probably not proportionally).

As long as Germany and the UK are on the same page as India, Spain and Italy aren't going to be significant stumbling blocks. And their share of the development funding isn't going to be vital to the project.

The real point is the US has a much stronger commitment to defense than the UK or Germany.

Sure it is, it's just a matter of priorities.

Well that level of defence spending hampers domestic investment. Not a positive statistic when China seems set to overtake the US as the largest economy in the world by 2025 (down from earlier expectation of 2035).

Conventionally, the US' threat perception is still fundamentally the same as it was in 2001. Yet defence spending has increased from 3% of the GDP back (a figure constant during a period of good financial health) to 4.7% today.

WHAT UPGRADES?

It's hard to scrap updates you were never planning on doing in the first place . . .

Among the upgrades I've heard planned are TVC, 100-120kN engine, CFTs (under development for RAF), and incremental upgrades to all existing systems.

A shrinking fleet by itself no, you have to look at the full picture.

The US just ordered over a 100 new SHs, they're about to award a contract (hopefully) for 179 new tankers, they just dual sourced an award for the LCS, they're starting an initiative for a new bomber. There is money to go around for things that need it

In the UK everything is being gutted, there is no money period.

If you can't see the difference, I'm sorry, I just can't help you.

Again you're comparing militaries and not spending priorities. The UK isn't going to decommission its defence forces any time soon, which 'no money' would lead to. In real terms, the cuts will amount to less than 10% over the next four years. The question is unlike the Trident, is keeping the EF upgraded a priority. And judging from the future force structure of the RAF and Luftwaffe, as well as public statements made bearing the same out, upgrades are very much a priority.

So your position is that once everyone has AESA that all development on fighters will cease and all planes will be on equal footing? Sorry I don't buy that. I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that it will be advanced beyond today.

Not on equal footing of course but not leagues apart which they were before their induction of AESAs.

I'm assuming nothing beyond the fact that even they recognize it won't be ready for at least another 4 years.

I'm not sure there is such a thing. If Microsoft has taught us anything, it's that there are always new features to add

The major advantages of an AESA radar are its reliability, versatility and perhaps most importantly its LPI characteristics. All of which the Captor-E (as well as the rest) feature. The APG-79 will probably score much higher as far as EW is concerned, but that's not an overwhelming advantage when one talks of 'see-first-shoot-first'.

Proof?

The EF brings comparable avionics to the table on an airframe optimized for trans-sonic/supersonic BVR engagements. And it does this while offering a far greater degree of ToT than the US, and greater involvement than France.

That's a big part of it, but certainly not all.

That's an assumption you're making - that the US will maintain a constant gap of X years with Europe as far as software solutions are concerned. There's less experimentation required when a technology has already been developed.

That's why I stressed on the fact that the technology to be delivered to the IAF will be essentially a decade old. And it will probably be ten years before any hardware upgrades can be carried out. If for example, the SH has a GaN based radar available in 2018, the Europeans will have one available by 2022. Without the gap making a lot of difference to an IAF MLU program beginning in say... 2024-25.

You're just looking at one component. Maybe they will catch up in one area, maybe not, but they will always be behind in something, so whenever your hypothetical MLU program happens, the SH will still have the edge.

There aren't a lot of other components as far as avionics goes. The radar is at the heart of it. And secondly we're assuming that those cutting edge advances will be available to India. A EA-18G Growler for example is not, since the export of the ALQ-99 is prohibited as will probably be the NGJ. Who's to say what will actually be available to the IAF?

I am. The US has the will to spend on the military and Europe doesn't.

But it's not. They don't forsee any threats and thus there is no pressing need to keep them upgraded.

Debatable. The UK and Germany are both members of the NATO. The US isn't going to war with China or Russia any time soon either. A sentiment repeatedly espoused by Secretary Gates. And the day they do, their allies in Europe will be involved as well (along with perhaps Japan and South Korea).

Interesting little article about the Wedgetail

It discusses the difficulties getting it operational, and while there were hardware issues, the majority of time, by far, was devoted to software.

I went through the article and while it says it took more time, it doesn't say it was a bigger problem than getting the hardware to function properly. It describes the issues with software as related to 'refinement' and 'optimiz[ation]'.

Also, its interesting that you're dismissing aerodynamic performance in lieu of avionics while at the same time touting the Super Hornet's new EPE engines amongst its upgrades.

[SaiK]

hats off to ddm on their efforts to get a realistic estimate on the value of the project. while normally these vary from $10 - 12b, the economic times one is funny, exactly to fractions now: $10.4b. wow.

[srai]

hats off to ddm on their efforts to get a realistic estimate on the value of the project. while normally these vary from $10 - 12b, the economic times one is funny, exactly to fractions now: $10.4b. wow.

I wonder how these guys are coming up with their numbers?

* At $10 billion for 126 aircrafts, it comes to $80 million per aircraft.
* At $12 billion for 126 aircrafts, it comes to $95 million per aircraft.

With some creative deal signing (like the deal with the French for the Scorpene SSK which apparently did not account for major parts costing $500 million or more dollars), all vendors can get the deal signed. Eventually, the cost of the 126 aircrafts + ToT + license manufacture infrastructure and other details will come out be much more that the $12 billion initial signing. The "true cost" is not known at this point (and may never be known to the public).

[SaiK]

Are they getting hints (advises) from the corrupted k-group about these figures? which aircraft would be $82.5M (considering 10.4b/126)? May be that is the MRCA candidate they want to project! - that endowment document carried a price list as well.

Indirectly projecting a cost, so that people gets a subliminal message what type of aircraft would be chosen by the k-group.

PS:-

MiG-35 $45 million1
Gripen NG $82.2 million2
Rafale $85.4 million3
Typhoon $123.1 million4
F-16IN $60 million5
F/A-18E/F $60.3 million6

k=kalmadi

[Drishyaman]

Not convinced that Mig – 35 is out of race. But, if that happens we need to make a choice between the Rafale and the Typhoon keeping aside the fighters which runs on Unkil’s engines. Considering the fact that apart from being prone to Sanctions, Unkil will try to enforce inter-operability clause.

Now a direct comparison needs to be made between Rafale and Typhoon. We need to see which of these meets the IAF’s requirement more accurately. Which of these 2 fighters will bring more in terms of Technology? Buying which of these 2 fighters, we will gain the maximum political mileage.

Becoming a 20 % partner (assumption) in Euro Fighter Typhoon project would not be a bad deal either. Cost incurred in procuring Euro Fighter will be offset if we become a partner in the project.

Buying the Rafale will in turn be a big boost to the Snecma-GTRE deal.

So, an intelligent decision needs to be made by GOI ?

If Kaalluu Uncle’s group is handling the decision making process then we have fear of going the CWG way.

[Philip]

X-posted from the Indo-US thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... crets.html

Unbelievable details of how the US betrayed Britain's nuclear secrets to Russia,for cooperation on a N-deal! Will the US do the same to India with respect to weaponry,aircraft it is selling or hopes to sell to India,by betraying the secrets of these items likewise to Pak ? It is not impossible because the US is stuck deep in the sh*t of Af-Pak and desperately needs Pak to extricate itself from the quicksand it is stuck in.

India buying an American MRCA could compromise itself massively given the US's track record of "betrayal",seen here and at the moment in Egypt too.Given its continued support for Pak both military and economic,dspite the perfidy of Pak in supporting anti-US Islamist forces,the US need for Pak right now is far greater than its need for India .In the light of these revelations,it would be asinine for the IAF/MOD to plump for a US aircraft .

[Viv S]

X-posted from the Indo-US thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... crets.html

Unbelievable details of how the US betrayed Britain's nuclear secrets to Russia,for cooperation on a N-deal! Will the US do the same to India with respect to weaponry,aircraft it is selling or hopes to sell to India,by betraying the secrets of these items likewise to Pak ? It is not impossible because the US is stuck deep in the sh*t of Af-Pak and desperately needs Pak to extricate itself from the quicksand it is stuck in.

Its a British newspaper trying to sensationalize an otherwise ordinary piece of information. The govt. of the UK keeps its public apprised of the number of Trident missiles it has. The US has simply verified that number for the Russians. The British nuclear deterrent remains unaffected. And the specs on the Trident missile (which the US operates as well) are no big secret. As long as details about its ballistic profile aren't released, the British don't need to be worried.

Also, the US operates the same equipment as its proposing to sell to India. They're not going to release that information to anyone. And as far as protecting technical information goes the Americans are as paranoid as they come. To be honest, I see a bigger likelihood of them leaking information to India (in the event of a war) than the other way round.

[Drishyaman]

Viv S !! Sorry, But can't buy your argument in the 2 nd para. Seems more like an assumption

[Viv S]

Viv S !! Sorry, But can't buy your argument in the 2 nd para. Seems more like an assumption

Not really. The regular civilian and military aid from the US to Pakistan makes us in India overlook the fact that there is no real love lost between the two. The Pakistanis have the Americans over a barrel because the supply lines feeding the ISAF forces in Afghanistan run via Karachi. Which isn't to say the US doesn't have its own leverage - it controls the IMF loans that have kept Pakistan solvent so far. I can't see the US volunteering any help to Pakistan in the event of a war against India. Its not going to change the result of a conflict - it'll just increase Indian casualties on the path to victory, which doesn't help US interests.

Once the war in Afghanistan is over, Pakistan will be firmly in the Chinese camp. The US knows it, China knows it, Pakistan knows it.

[Victor]

Because of the recent fast track purchases of ultra-light howitzers, specialized spy and “special ops” type stuff like P8i, C-17, C-130J etc., the choice of the F414 for LCA, the clout-per-dollar and the economic dividends that can be had only from the Amrikis, I get the strong feeling that the F/A-18 will fly in IAF colours. If we have thrown in our lot with unkil for these super-sensitive and strategically critical items, it tells me that regardless of how things look and sound on the surface, India has a level of comfort with the sanctions issue and that the CISMOA will be signed in some way, shape or form.

Frankly, I’d welcome this. The oiropeans can keep their civilized and oh-so-propah sensitivities, sleep all they want with the islamists and allow their little countries to be overrun by the unwashed. I want to partner with countries that kick butt on a grand scale without hesitation because we will need to be doing that ourselves soon. Finally, the F-18 is second to none in the badass department.

[shukla]

This explains how Russia have enough to be happy about despite 'almost' being out of the mmrca race.. We are going to get the Mig-35's after all

Russia tests upgraded IAF MiG-29 fighter
Domain-B

Russia's MiG corporation said Friday it had carried out the first test flight of a MiG-29 fighter upgraded to Indian Air Force specifications under a $900 million contract with the Indian Air Force (IAF). Under terms of contract the IAF's existing fleet of 69 MiG-29 aircraft will receive engine and avionics upgrades.

''On Feb 4, a MiG-29UPG fighter carried out its first test flight. The flight lasted for an hour and was flawless,'' MiG said in a statement.

Along with the avionics kit, the existing N-109 radar is being replaced by a Phazatron Zhuk-ME radar. The fighters will also receive upgrades that will enhance beyond-visual-range combat ability and provide air-to-air refuelling capability. The upgrade will extend the service life of the aircraft from 25 to 40 years. The upgrades are expected to be completed by 2013.

Most of the systems introduced in the MiG-35, a hot contender for the IAF's medium range multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender can be retro-fitted onto older MiG-29s through up-gradation programmes. It may be assumed that these older MiG-29s are now being brought to near MiG-35 capability with these upgrades.

[Vishnu]

It is being suggested that India needs a quick resolution to the MMRCA debacle. A dogfight over the skies of Aeroindia with a winner takes all result will end this thread once and for all.

My two penny bit.

[kit]

Viv S !! Sorry, But can't buy your argument in the 2 nd para. Seems more like an assumption

<br sourceIndex="880"><br sourceIndex="881">Not really. The regular civilian and military aid from the US to Pakistan makes us in India overlook the fact that there is no real love lost between the two. The Pakistanis have the Americans over a barrel because the supply lines feeding the ISAF forces in Afghanistan run via Karachi. Which isn't to say the US doesn't have its own leverage - it controls the IMF loans that have kept Pakistan solvent so far. I can't see the US volunteering any help to Pakistan in the event of a war against India. Its not going to change the result of a conflict - it'll just increase Indian casualties on the path to victory, which doesn't help US interests. <br sourceIndex="882"><br sourceIndex="883">Once the war in Afghanistan is over, Pakistan will be firmly in the Chinese camp. The US knows it, China knows it, Pakistan knows it.

A naive assumption.For example US poseidon is not the indian neptune.And the geopolitical game is much bigger than you think, AFPAK is just a neighborhood affair.,best left at that.Too much focus on that makes one forget the bigger picture.India does have a history of being an introvert not knowing what it is really capable of.

[Singha]

the Rus will in a few yrs land a giant MKI MLU deal for new aesa radar , perhaps a EDE engine etc. in the meantime they can develop the Pakfa to full potential and try out things on Mig29-upg , Mig29K and Su35BM.

they have nothing to moan about. surely they cannot hope to land every deal or JV.

in stuff like tankers, LRMP, tactical and strategic transports, UAV, PGMs, optronic pods, WLRs they have fallen way behind and are essentially using mid 1980s stuff. once they have products competitive with those on offer from the west, they will automatically become serious players again for the areas they have "lost" now.

[Boreas]

This explains how Russia have enough to be happy about despite 'almost' being out of the mmrca race.. We are going to get the Mig-35's after all

Russia tests upgraded IAF MiG-29 fighter
Domain-B

Russia's MiG corporation said Friday it had carried out the first test flight of a MiG-29 fighter upgraded to Indian Air Force specifications under a $900 million contract with the Indian Air Force (IAF). Under terms of contract the IAF's existing fleet of 69 MiG-29 aircraft will receive engine and avionics upgrades.

''On Feb 4, a MiG-29UPG fighter carried out its first test flight. The flight lasted for an hour and was flawless,'' MiG said in a statement.

Along with the avionics kit, the existing N-109 radar is being replaced by a Phazatron Zhuk-ME radar. The fighters will also receive upgrades that will enhance beyond-visual-range combat ability and provide air-to-air refuelling capability. The upgrade will extend the service life of the aircraft from 25 to 40 years. The upgrades are expected to be completed by 2013.

Most of the systems introduced in the MiG-35, a hot contender for the IAF's medium range multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender can be retro-fitted onto older MiG-29s through up-gradation programmes. It may be assumed that these older MiG-29s are now being brought to near MiG-35 capability with these upgrades.

Can somebody put some light on fact why IAF settled for Zhuk-ME even though Zhuk AE/ASE was available?
Even Zhuk-MSFE PESA variant was a better choice!

[Baldev]

Can somebody put some light on fact why IAF settled for Zhuk-ME even though Zhuk AE/ASE was available?
Even Zhuk-MSFE PESA variant was a better choice!

for some questions nobody has any answer.

[Viv S]

A naive assumption.For example US poseidon is not the indian neptune.And the geopolitical game is much bigger than you think, AFPAK is just a neighborhood affair.,best left at that.Too much focus on that makes one forget the bigger picture.India does have a history of being an introvert not knowing what it is really capable of.

Sure, if you look at the bigger picture, you'll see the US has little incentive to pass on sensitive information to Pakistan. Especially for some leverage in what you've described as a 'neighborhood affair'. Geopolitically, the US is heading for a situation where for the first time in 65 years they'll have a rival that equals their economic clout in China. Antagonizing India doesn't do the Americans any good, especially when its set to be third pole of power within twenty years.

[Viv S]

Can somebody put some light on fact why IAF settled for Zhuk-ME even though Zhuk AE/ASE was available?
Even Zhuk-MSFE PESA variant was a better choice!

The Zhuk-AE is still in development. A mature radar can't be expected until 2015. The MiG-29s have just about fifteen years of life left in them and the IAFs needs to get the most out of them now. Delaying the upgrade further isn't an option.

[Boreas]

Can somebody put some light on fact why IAF settled for Zhuk-ME even though Zhuk AE/ASE was available?
Even Zhuk-MSFE PESA variant was a better choice!

The Zhuk-AE is still in development. A mature radar can't be expected until 2015. The MiG-29s have just about fifteen years of life left in them and the IAFs needs to get the most out of them now. Delaying the upgrade further isn't an option.

Well as per my factbook Zhuk-AE got its IOC back in 2009.

They are eying to extend the current target detection range of around 150Km to 250+Km. But yet Zhuk-AE with range of 150Km is far better then what we are buying.

[Viv S]

Well as per my factbook Zhuk-AE got its IOC back in 2009.

They are eying to extend the current target detection range of around 150Km to 250+Km. But yet Zhuk-AE with range of 150Km is far better then what we are buying.

IIRC that was after the upgrade deal was signed. Including it in the upgrade would lead to another round of price negotiations, technical evaluations and waiting around for the next visit by the Russian dignitary to India (or the other way round) for a gala signing ceremony. Also its viability for active service in its IOC state is questionable.

[Drishyaman]

Well as per my factbook Zhuk-AE got its IOC back in 2009.

They are eying to extend the current target detection range of around 150Km to 250+Km. But yet Zhuk-AE with range of 150Km is far better then what we are buying.

IIRC that was after the upgrade deal was signed. Including it in the upgrade would lead to another round of price negotiations, technical evaluations and waiting around for the next visit by the Russian dignitary to India (or the other way round) for a gala signing ceremony. Also its viability for active service in its IOC state is questionable.

Yes, the deal was signed in 2008 and the decision to go for it was probably done much earlier.

[Baldev]

Well as per my factbook Zhuk-AE got its IOC back in 2009.

They are eying to extend the current target detection range of around 150Km to 250+Km. But yet Zhuk-AE with range of 150Km is far better then what we are buying.

IIRC that was after the upgrade deal was signed. Including it in the upgrade would lead to another round of price negotiations, technical evaluations and waiting around for the next visit by the Russian dignitary to India (or the other way round) for a gala signing ceremony.

once the deal is signed its really hard to change the specifications because of above mentioned reason,but it can be done before signing the deal for upgrade that cancel the existing specifications and reissue the new specifications and for new price negotiations.

and because of AEWACS it really doesn't matter which radar is fitted to fighter,just think if aesa radar was an option for m2000 upgrade then what price french might have asked for upgrade.

[GeorgeWelch]

It did go through didn't it.

10 years late.

If you want to always be 10 years behind, the EF consortium is the place to be.

From what I understand, the RAF wasn't too interested in it because of its limited field of view vis-a-vis the mechanically scanned Captor-M. That was until it was reworked into a swashplate array.

Which is nonsense, if that was the problem, they could have mounted the array on a swash plate from the beginning. They already had one for CAPTOR.

Are you telling me it took them 10 years to figure out how to mount an AESA array on a swashplate?

Right, because it was required to get additional export orders in the first place. Rest assured if AESA wasn't important for the MRCA competition, the EF would still be in AESA limbo.

That's a subjective opinion again. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

http://defensenews.com/blogs/farnboroug ... -9-months/

Eurofighter GmbH, the industrial consortium that builds the Typhoon fighter, will “pre-finance” the initial development of the AESA radar the aircraft badly needs for export campaigns, but only until next March, CEO Enzo Casolini said at the Farnborough Air Show on July 20.

Eurofighter is hoping that the consortium’s partner nations, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Spain, will then put up the money to keep the development on track to have a radar ready for potential buyers such as India.

. . .

“The 2015 schedule is needed to match the Indian requirement,” said Casolini (Eurofighter CEO)

. . .

A senior Italian defense source confirmed that Italy was behind the AESA initiative.

“We do not have costs or timings yet, and we are viewing this mainly for export at present, but we supporting the concept,” he said

Why did EuroFighter front the money to start AESA development when the partner nations haven't actually committed yet? Because development has to start NOW if they want it to be ready for India. If the Indian requirement wasn't there, EuroFighter would have just waited for the partner nations to actually put up the money.

Again you're comparing militaries and not spending priorities.

Well yes, that is the point isn't it? How much money are the UK and other euro-nations going to invest in new military programs. And the answer is 'not much'.

The UK isn't going to decommission its defence forces any time soon

They're giving it a solid shot.

Not on equal footing of course but not leagues apart which they were before their induction of AESAs.

What you're missing is that it's not just AESA. It's ANY new tech for fighters.

The major advantages of an AESA radar are its reliability, versatility and perhaps most importantly its LPI characteristics. All of which the Captor-E (as well as the rest) feature. The APG-79 will probably score much higher as far as EW is concerned, but that's not an overwhelming advantage when one talks of 'see-first-shoot-first'.

Jamming is critical to keeping the enemy from being able to see you, so yes superior EW is an overwhelming advantage.

That's an assumption you're making - that the US will maintain a constant gap of X years with Europe as far as software solutions are concerned.

Yes, for a very good reason. Money. The US will invest the resources to stay at the bleeding edge and Europe won't.

There's less experimentation required when a technology has already been developed.

That's the point I was making about software. It's not experimenation, it's engineering and product management and having the resources to pay 1000 programmers to work on it for 10 years.

Debatable. The UK and Germany are both members of the NATO.

No it's not debatable. Yes the UK and Germany are part of NATO, but that's irrelevant to how they perceive military threats. They feel very secure where they are. The US on the other hand perceives tons of threats to its interests.

The US isn't going to war with China or Russia any time soon either.

I hope not, but it is still a major concern.

A sentiment repeatedly espoused by Secretary Gates. And the day they do, their allies in Europe will be involved as well

I sincerely doubt they would be involved in any SK/Taiwan scenario.

I went through the article and while it says it took more time, it doesn't say it was a bigger problem than getting the hardware to function properly.

Taking more time is practically the definition of 'bigger problem.'

If it can be solved quickly, it isn't a big problem.

Also, its interesting that you're dismissing aerodynamic performance in lieu of avionics while at the same time touting the Super Hornet's new EPE engines amongst its upgrades.

I wasn't touting the EPE engines per se beyond pointing out that upgrades are continuing.

[Arya Sumantra]

No it's not debatable. Yes the UK and Germany are part of NATO, but that's irrelevant to how they perceive military threats. They feel very secure where they are. The US on the other hand perceives tons of threats to its interests.

which often includes the customer countries themselves(as often found in documents released without proper scrutiny). That's why the persistence to sell equipment that turns from Hardware to Tupperware(H2T) at the press of a remote.

Nations buy wares to protect their interests not yours. They buy not lease. Unless you undertake comprehensive regulatory reforms starting first with scrapping EUMA, none of your equipment is comparable with competition no matter how superior. There cannot be apples to wood comparison.

Others are not holy but they are not as much strong to unilaterally inflict as much damage.

[GeorgeWelch]

That's why the persistence to sell equipment that turns from Hardware to Tupperware(H2T) at the press of a remote.

And can you find a single instance of this happening?

The only case I can find of remote disabling is . . . the Exocet . . . from France

[Viv S]

It did go through didn't it.

10 years late.

If you want to always be 10 years behind, the EF consortium is the place to be.

Which is nonsense, if that was the problem, they could have mounted the array on a swash plate from the beginning. They already had one for CAPTOR.

Are you telling me it took them 10 years to figure out how to mount an AESA array on a swashplate?

Yeah... and 10 years ago, the super radar wasn't available to India. 10 years from now, the next super piece of equipment will still remain unavailable. Seeing as access to the cutting edge of technology isn't available, its hardly a selling point. Also, the CAESAR first flew in 2007 so the requirement of mounting a swash-plate was based on data that's quite recent.

http://defensenews.com/blogs/farnboroug ... -9-months/

Why did EuroFighter front the money to start AESA development when the partner nations haven't actually committed yet? Because development has to start NOW if they want it to be ready for India. If the Indian requirement wasn't there, EuroFighter would have just waited for the partner nations to actually put up the money.

WRT the link, no where does it say that an AESA would never have been developed if it weren't attractive to export customers.

So what you're saying is that they're doing the right thing (developing an AESA) for the wrong reasons (a possible export order)? And that India can get them to develop an AESA radar by offering them a 1 in 6 chance of winning a big order, but wouldn't be able to do the same if it were a member of the consortium.

Well yes, that is the point isn't it? How much money are the UK and other euro-nations going to invest in new military programs. And the answer is 'not much'.

They're giving it a solid shot.

We aren't discussing 'new military programs'. We're talking about a fighter that's already well into production and nearing the peak of its evolution. Like most other later fourth generation fighters, their isn't a lot of radical change that can be made to the aircraft even if you have pots of money to throw at the problem.

Question: How much do you think ought to be spent on the Eurofighter's future upgrades? How much do you think will be spent on the Super Hornet's development over the next ten years? A tentative figure will suffice.

What you're missing is that it's not just AESA. It's ANY new tech for fighters.

Other than GaN modules what new tech do you see emerging in the next ten years?

Jamming is critical to keeping the enemy from being able to see you, so yes superior EW is an overwhelming advantage.

One of the biggest advantages of an AESA is its extreme resistance to jamming. Your statement assumes that the adversary isn't equipped with an AESA of his own. So against an EF flying with a Captor-E, jamming doesn't provide any overwhelming advantage.

That's an assumption you're making - that the US will maintain a constant gap of X years with Europe as far as software solutions are concerned.

Yes, for a very good reason. Money. The US will invest the resources to stay at the bleeding edge and Europe won't.

There's less experimentation required when a technology has already been developed.

That's the point I was making about software. It's not experimenation, it's engineering and product management and having the resources to pay 1000 programmers to work on it for 10 years.

Software solutions can only increase the effective range upto a degree. There is definite ceiling to what can be achieved without a hardware upgrade, even if the 1000 programmers work endlessly.

Debatable. The UK and Germany are both members of the NATO.

No it's not debatable. Yes the UK and Germany are part of NATO, but that's irrelevant to how they perceive military threats. They feel very secure where they are. The US on the other hand perceives tons of threats to its interests.

The US isn't going to war with China or Russia any time soon either.

I hope not, but it is still a major concern.

A sentiment repeatedly espoused by Secretary Gates. And the day they do, their allies in Europe will be involved as well

I sincerely doubt they would be involved in any SK/Taiwan scenario.

Fighter aircraft aren't really weapons for skirmishes. The cutting edge technology will only really make a difference in a conventional war against China or Russia. AESA radars don't really make much difference to the US' interests globally. And a war with China or Russia will result in warfare at a major scale and the remainder of NATO will have to get involved even if they don't relish the prospect (they're still there in Afghanistan despite public misgivings).

But, what you're missing here is that this isn't about military technology in general, this is about a very specific program that has to be a priority for the funds available. We are not talking about funding a stealth fighter/bomber, some uber-futuristic laser defence system or anything of the sort.

Taking more time is practically the definition of 'bigger problem.'

If it can be solved quickly, it isn't a big problem.

Not if the problem deals with 'refinement' of the system, which implies that the system still functions albeit not optimally.

I wasn't touting the EPE engines per se beyond pointing out that upgrades are continuing.

And engine upgrades are being funded despite WVR combat being a thing of the past?

[GeorgeWelch]

Yeah... and 10 years ago, the super radar wasn't available to India. 10 years from now, the next super piece of equipment will still remain unavailable. Seeing as access to the cutting edge of technology isn't available, its hardly a selling point.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the US is making cutting edge available now. They sold the P-8 and are willing to sell the F-35

Also, the CAESAR first flew in 2007 so the requirement of mounting a swash-plate was based on data that's quite recent.

Nonsense, the angular limits of AESA were well known and understood.

WRT the link, no where does it say that an AESA would never have been developed if it weren't attractive to export customers.

You just keeping digging your hole deeper. Sometimes you have to learn to quit while you are behind.

I never said it would 'never have been developed', I said it would still be in limbo, as in there wouldn't be an actual project running at the moment.

So what you're saying is that they're doing the right thing (developing an AESA) for the wrong reasons (a possible export order)?

They're doing the right thing 10 years late, but only because it is required for the export market.

And that India can get them to develop an AESA radar by offering them a 1 in 6 chance of winning a big order, but wouldn't be able to do the same if it were a member of the consortium.

Exactly, glad you understand now.

Once you've bought it, they already have your money. After that point, what incentive do they have to do anything else you care about?

We aren't discussing 'new military programs'.

Any upgrade program is a 'new program'.

Question: How much do you think ought to be spent on the Eurofighter's future upgrades?

Whatever it takes to keep it on the cutting edge.

How much do you think will be spent on the Super Hornet's development over the next ten years? A tentative figure will suffice.

Whatever it takes to keep it on the cutting edge.

Other than GaN modules what new tech do you see emerging in the next ten years?

Are you saying there won't be any advances besides GaN? That fighter technology will stagnate?

One of the biggest advantages of an AESA is its extreme resistance to jamming. Your statement assumes that the adversary isn't equipped with an AESA of his own.

One of the biggest advantages of an AESA is it's ability to jam other radars with an extreme resistance to jamming.

Unfortunately for EF, its current AESA roadmap has zero EW capability.

Software solutions can only increase the effective range upto a degree.

Range is just a small part of what I'm talking about. Think other features like EW capability (which the EF isn't even going to attempt).

Fighter aircraft aren't really weapons for skirmishes. The cutting edge technology will only really make a difference in a conventional war against China or Russia.

100% false. With the proliferation of advanced SAMs, fighters with obsolete systems will be hard pressed to hit designated targets even if they aren't going up against other fighters.

Not if the problem deals with 'refinement' of the system, which implies that the system still functions albeit not optimally.

If that was the case, they wouldn't have delayed production to fix them.

And engine upgrades are being funded despite WVR combat being a thing of the past?

I never said WVR combat is a thing of the past, and the EPE program is part of the larger EDE program which is focused on reducing fuel burn, maintenance and other life cycle costs.