MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[Sridhar]

Depends on what he means by "oldest type", no?

[nachiket]

Jagan,

The statement made by Antony about the MiG-21 seems at odds with what is listed in the IAF's Aircraft Fleet Strength page:

• MiG-21Bis -> 56 aircrafts (2 squadrons 15, 26)
• MiG-21 M/MF -> 90 aircrafts (5 squadrons 17, 35, 37, 101, 108)

That's 7 "old" MiG-21 squadrons listed versus Antony's comment of only having 1 left (which will supposedly be retired next year).

He must mean the FLs, in which case which is the squadron still flying it? Besides MOFTU of course.

[ramana]

Some expert was asked about the viability of multi-party (consortium) vs singe vendor supplier of the aircraft. The question was would a consortium be hostage to the parties political situation in their home countries.

[NRao]

Some expert was asked about the viability of multi-party (consortium) vs singe vendor supplier of the aircraft. The question was would a consortium be hostage to the parties political situation in their home countries.

That is a very legit question.

However, it should not make any diff WRT India under the present circumstances. Consortium or home politics should be trumped by Indian power. There can be no doubt about that. Localized EADS politics, as an example, should have no impact on Indian decisions.

[ramana]

Raogaru, It was at the highest levels and they are worried some to bit guy in a partner country could derail the supply.

[Philip]

A clue has been found as to the MMRCA "tilt".AKA,IAF,etc., have been recently talking about "quick induction",its meaning one presumes that the team that can deliver the first two sqds. in a hurry will be connsidered favourably.So let's take a dekko at which of the contenders can do this.It is easier to see which cannot do this...the MIG-35! This is perhaps why the Russians are not bringing the MG-35 to Aero-India,as this "quick-fix" requirement will scuttle their chances even though the MIG-35 wil in all probability be the cheapest bird.Making this an essential requirement thus shoots down the MIG-35.So this strategy has been used to deal with the Russians.Smart tactic!

So where does this leave us?I think that all the western birds can deliver a sqd. or two "jalthi speed" from their own inventories and in manner similar to the induction of the Jaguars aeons ago and the SU-30s,the first lot will be of std. below that in the tender,to be progressively replaced with new build aircraft.This will ease the falling numbers scenario considerably.If one remembers, I advocated this a long time ago for the Rafale,also replacing the M-2000 inventory with Rafales,augmenting IAF numbers with transferring French aircraft immediately.The Yanqui birds can be easily acquired by the dozen,no problem here,which leaves us with the Typhoon and Gripen.The former can also be arranged for at least one sqd. of early tranche aircraft from one of the partner's air forces,but can the Swedes do the same with the Gripen? A closer examination of the options available to all might scent a winner!

[Gurneesh]

^^^^ All except Mig 35 and Gripen NG would allow for two speedy sqds. Mainly because both the Mig-35 and Gripen NG are still prototypes.

[Pratik_S]

AERO INDIA: First Look At The F/A-18 International Roadmap Platform

[Cain Marko]

A clue has been found as to the MMRCA "tilt".AKA,IAF,etc., have been recently talking about "quick induction",its meaning one presumes that the team that can deliver the first two sqds. in a hurry will be connsidered favourably.So let's take a dekko at which of the contenders can do this.It is easier to see which cannot do this...the MIG-35! This is perhaps why the Russians are not bringing the MG-35 to Aero-India,as this "quick-fix" requirement will scuttle their chances even though the MIG-35 wil in all probability be the cheapest bird.Making this an essential requirement thus shoots down the MIG-35.So this strategy has been used to deal with the Russians.Smart tactic!

Well, I had mentioned ages ago that the IAF would have to find some way to derail the 35 before the MOD came in. The cost effectiveness of the bird had to be blunted and the above could indeed be the tactic used.

So where does this leave us?I think that all the western birds can deliver a sqd. or two "jalthi speed" from their own inventories and in manner similar to the induction of the Jaguars aeons ago and the SU-30s,the first lot will be of std. below that in the tender,to be progressively replaced with new build aircraft.This will ease the falling numbers scenario considerably.If one remembers, I advocated this a long time ago for the Rafale,also replacing the M-2000 inventory with Rafales,augmenting IAF numbers with transferring French aircraft immediately.The Yanqui birds can be easily acquired by the dozen,no problem here,which leaves us with the Typhoon and Gripen.The former can also be arranged for at least one sqd. of early tranche aircraft from one of the partner's air forces,but can the Swedes do the same with the Gripen? A closer examination of the options available to all might scent a winner!

Well the Tiffy certainly would have an advantage here since most of the consortium seem to want to cut orders. A quick injection via UK/Germany might not be too off the wall. And yes, this would certainly favor the Shornet.

As far as Rafale is concerned, the fact that the M2k UPG deal still seems to be languishing may point to some INdo-French jugaad here.

Tough for the Gripen NG though.
CM

[Henrik]

^^^^ All except Mig 35 and Gripen NG would allow for two speedy sqds. Mainly because both the Mig-35 and Gripen NG are still prototypes.

Gripen A/B/C/D are not prototypes, that's what he meant with "earlier tranches".

[NRao]

Is there a F-16IN somewhere - inducted? Think not.

What about a F-18? None have the proposed EPE engine, which is supposed to:

The EPE is planned to meet initial delivery timeline should the F/A-18E/F be selected as the MMRCA

As usual we are reading too much into all these things, which is OK. After all this is the internet.

And, the IAF could expect 10-20 F-16s out of some current inventory (UAE? Singapore? Not USAF). Forget about the F-18, that is not coming out of any inventory.

[Boreas]

few yrs back there was a report china had offered france a deal for 200 rafales if france could work and get the EU embargo lifted.

even though 200 rafales may not make military sense for china they would do it to pay off france and prove a point as to rich rewards to be made - germany, italy and spain would soon be beating a path to beijings door leaving perhaps UK as only holdout.

german and french cos have benefitted a lot from chinese civilian side projects already I think - siemens, volkswagen...

What the western companies and govt are saying is that if India does not open the market to them then they will open it for PRC and make money. India has to call it bluff

Well if the french can ink the mistral deal with ruskis.. i won't call it bluff any more.

Its more like everybody knows this is going to happen, and everybody wants that whenever it happens they score max.

[Philip]

Latest AWST,an issue featuring a comprehensive look at India's miliatry modernisation".http://www.zinio.com/my-library.jsp

[shukla]

X-post from Aero-India thread (posted by SriSri)

Gripen for Air Force M-MRCA - Sweden Promises Full, True Tech Transfer
India-Defence

Mr. Eddy de la Motte, Campaign Director for Gripen promised full Transfer-of-Technology (ToT) on all critical sub components including AESA radar. Saab officials further revealed tie ups with HAL with components from Saab featuring on export variants of HAL Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopters that were sold in South America.

[shukla]

UK defence official says Eurofigther Typhoon is not expensive
IBN News

Air Marshal Leeson, Chief of Material Air, Royal Air Force, said he did not support the view that the Typhoon offer was "expensive". If one assessed its capability, it's actually a cost-effective solution", he argued. "I don't accept that Eurofighter Typhoon is very expensive". He said Typhoon compares "extraordinarily well" vis-a-vis "through life costs". The four Eurofighter partner countries are Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain.

Meanwhile, Richard Paniguian, Head of UK Trade & Investment's Defence and Security Organisation (UKTI DSO), said the UK's defence, science and technology laboratories were set for signing a "letter of arrangement" with India's Defence Research and Development Organisation. He termed this proposed agreement a "very important step in binding together our scientific and technology programmes".

"In the UK, we want closer collaboration with India in science and technology", Paniguian added. British Minister for Defence Equipment Support and Technology, Peter Luff, is leading a large defence and business delegation to Aero India 2011 commencing here tomorrow. Close to 40 UK companies are expected to visit the five-day show. "Every UK company who has made this journey to Aero India is looking for the opportunity to build partnership with their counterparts here in India", Paniguian said.

Look we all agree that the EF's more than a decednt bird but theres no fooling anyone on its price tag.. it IS and WILL BE an expensive buy..

[nachiket]

Well, I had mentioned ages ago that the IAF would have to find some way to derail the 35 before the MOD came in. The cost effectiveness of the bird had to be blunted and the above could indeed be the tactic used.


CM

CM, isn't it an arrogant assumption to make that the IAF will deliberately try to "derail" the Mig-35? This amounts to accusing the IAF of underhanded tactics without a shred of evidence beyond vague DDM articles.

If quick induction is indeed what the IAF wants, then that is just one more point on which all the bids will be evaluated. It does not amount to bias against any specific vendor. The last thing we need in this saga are allegations of bias.

[nachiket]

^^^^ All except Mig 35 and Gripen NG would allow for two speedy sqds. Mainly because both the Mig-35 and Gripen NG are still prototypes.

Gripen A/B/C/D are not prototypes, that's what he meant with "earlier tranches".

And they aren't "early tranches either". The NG has a considerably modified air-frame and a new engine. The difference between the Gripen C/D and NG is almost as big as that between the legacy Hornet and the SH.
As for the other contenders like the Typhoon and Rafale, the final IAF version may have a different Radar and other avionics than the older tranches but that's about it.

[SaiK]

Context: Gripen:

Screw driver ToT, deep ToT are understandable. But what is "true" tot, and full tot?

true to the sense, based on the truth behind the supply chain of sub components?
full to the extent, they can rely on the component suppliers?

[Singha]

among items on SH roadmap mentioned in todays TOi were "wall to wall ipad interface to get view of the attacked area" (the words in toi)..so maybe they are talking of screens that can be repurposed to provide a 180' overlaid imagery of the area, tagged with known threats like missile bubbles and radars picked up by the imaging pod and processed further. would be cool to have a 3D terrain model to fly with, tagged with threat bubbles to fly around neatly.

my $1 is on the hornet. their test pilot apparently lost an engine over north atlantic 900km from land, but managed to recover on the other...he was stressing on "everything in rfp available today" and the twin engined and roadmap part in TOI talk.

ofcourse the boat anchor (40 tons) called "US state department" comes free with the SH package

[SidGupta]

Hello All,

My first post on Bharat Rakshak forums, a website i have long followed and admired.

Anyways, been a passionate and avid follower of the MMRCA project.

I think, given the specific requirement of the IAF, the Swedish GRIPEN is the strongest contender, as far as Technical and Financial requirements go. It is afterall the only true OPERATIONAL 'medium' aircraft in the lineup (as is the MiG35, but that is still far from induction-ready).

The other aircraft are much more expensive (initial AND recurring), AND far larger than the 'Mirage 2000' standard on which the RFP was based. The IAF already has the much loved and envied Su30MKI, and has already announced that it will be adding to the current strength - we DO NOT need another HEAVY Fighter to add the needless variety in the fleet.

However, given the strategic, political and technology-transfer requirements, i do think theyre on weaker ground, despite their latest claims of a 'True Transfer' - How? Given that over 50% of the Gripen's components are US made, critically, the GE Engine.

A quick summary, as i see it, of the 'deal breakers' that i think the GOI and IAF will perceive are then:

T = Technical, F = Financial, S = Strategic/Political

1) MiG35
T] Far from 'ready to induct'. IAF has already awarded a US$ 900M contract for upgrades for its MiG29. The MiG35 fulfills the financial and 'size' role requirement, but simply, its not ready.

S] Much publicized need to diversify AWAY from a single partner (i.e. Russia), especially given currently dependability for procurement and continuous upgrades to Su30MKI, MiG29, MiG21 and the 5th gen Sukhoi PAK-FA. And this is just the IAF airplanes, not to mention the helicopters, weapon systems, BrahMos program and the similar long list for the Navy and Army.

S] Must be mentioned, this 'need' to diversify away is due to losing negotiation power in recent/future deals with Russia, and will obviously add to the training/maintenance and familiarity needs of the IAF

2) F16 Super Viper
T] While the most combat tested, It's an old platform, that will NOT lend well to future upgrades and hence in a 30 year program cost perspective will rank very poorly. Something LMartin itself has implicitly acknowledged by offering the F35 as a near future upgrade.

S] Being used by Pakistan for decades, does IAF really want 20-30% of its Air power to be composed of an aircraft that its closest enemy has expertise of use for over 2 decades?

S] Transport and Logistical Aircrafts are one thing, do we really want to trust the US Senate and Congress with 20-30% of our Air power? Havent we learnt from the biting lessons of the 1998 Sanctions and its effects on our LCA program (the very reason we started the MMRCA project)

3) EF Typhoon
F] Expensive, at almost twice the cost of a Gripen, its a factor that CANNOT be ignored

T] While its performance is supposedly best amongst the 6, has no current plans for AESA Radar integration. (a key requirement for the IAF)

T] Hardly a 'Medium' Combat Aircraft, does IAF want another Su30MKI-category aircraft to replace its MiG21s/23s/27s?

S] Multi-nation consortium, will this be a future problem in-case of geo-political tensions and need for 'consensus' making

4) F/A 18 Super Hornet
T] Has been a mainstay for the US Navy, but the USAF has always prefered the F15 over the SHornet. Not as old a platform as the F16, but certainly not as cutting edge as the EF Typhoon

T] Certainly NOT a 'Medium' Combat Aircraft, Its twice the weight of the Gripen and at least 25% larger across all dimensions

S] Boeing might be a willing and fantastic prospective partner, but still subject to the US political policies. Do we really want to trust the US Senate and Congress with 20-30% of our Air power? Havent we learnt from the biting lessons of the 1998 Sanctions and its effects on our LCA program (the very reason we started the MMRCA project)

5) SAAB Gripen NG/IN
T] True-Tech transfer is claimed, but how is it achievable given that 50% components, specifically the engine is US made. If this is NOT a concern, then the F/A 18 becomes hard to ignore (apart from the size/combat class issues)

S] The MMRCA is India's opportunity to forge, larger strategic ties with the partner nation. Russia for this reason is on the backfoot (as its a) already the strongest partner b) india wants to offset this with 'another' partner) What does India gain from Sweden as a close defence partner?

6) Dassault Rafale
T] Frankly, while im not an aviation expert, having reviewed various other analysis and records, the Rafale is NOT best-in-class for anything. Further, it has the unfortunate record of losing ALL similar combat aircraft acquisition competitions, across the globe, for whatever reason.

F] Expensive, at almost twice the cost of a Gripen, its a factor that CANNOT be ignored

CONCLUSION:
- If Technology-Transfer issues become the key point of decision (which they should), then the US aircraft and Gripen will fall out of the race. With the MiG35 not ready, the choice is then between the expensive, 'Heavy' options Typhoon and Rafale

- Once the Financial arguments are set aside the Typhoon and Rafale are hard to ignore. With the Typhoon edging out the Rafale, apparently, it would seem the better option

- But i believe India's choice might be the Rafale and here's why
1) IAF operates and truly admires its Mirage 2000's. A fighter proven in Kargil, that Dassault manufacturers and was the base for designing NOT just the Rafale, but also India's own LCA Tejas. This will ease the maintenance and training of future Rafale squadrons. Hence allowing India to add another defence partner, in addition to Russia, without unmanageable diversity in its fleet.

2) Transfer of Technology will not only be complete but truly collaborative, since its a single nation, which has already been a defence partner for the IAF, with the Mirage 2000s and the LCA base design. (and hence the striking similarity between the Mirage 2000 and Tejas airframe)

3) The Rafale uses a SNECMA engine, and this sir is the latest 'hint', as was recently announced, is going to be the partner firm for developing our own Kaveri engine for the LCA Tejas and the future MCA. (http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4969)

It would make complete sense for India then to chose the Rafale, which is comparable in performance to all other fighters, similar price to EF Typhoon, while providing the above distinct advantages.

Welcome France, Welcome Rafale
Rafale, btw means 'a squall' in french (a storm-like weather phenomenon)

[Singha]

I think requirement have changed from the old kargil era 120 M2k single vendor req. for one thing, PRC has emerged firmly as our major threat - and targets are deeper, over a wider area and much better SAM protected. PRC also has better a2a fighters than Pak and the gap is only increasing.

if the emphasis is going to be on strike with a very decent A2A backup - rafale and F18 are it. if the emphasis is on single-malt A2A supremacy with secondary strike heavy investment needed on EF to both get the aesa radar and bring its strike capabilities and weapons upto par with the F18/rafale.

since wars with china can be won both by taking and holding ground (CAS), inflicting punishing raids on their core infra (DPSA), giving a bloody nose in A2A its a tough question to answer.

Rafale is a good plane overall, but I think F18 scores over it with a better missile, better radar, richer user and better engine all available today (and going to get better).

[SidGupta]

True, the F/A 18 SHornet is a good aircraft, no doubt.

From the Aero India 2011, a walkaround of the International version being suggested to India:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... f-the.html

I still think, that India should refrain from acquiring such key combat technology from the US. Weve acquired transport aircraft, might go ahead and acquire a couple of squadrons of F/A 18's in the future, in the spirit of, lets 'walk before we run'. Were talking about 126+ aircraft, i have my doubts if the first order to a US firm should be this significant.

However, if the US is able to assure the GOI and IAF regarding consistent future supply, then surely, a longer and larger partnership with Boeing and the US makes a lot of sense. Not limited just to the MMRCA.

I still would bet on the Rafale, with Gripen a likely dark horse.

[merlin]

Given that as a package overall the Super Keeda is the best bet, how are we going to overcome the irritants?

a. CISMOA and other such #X@$%
b. Foggy bottom
c. COTUS
d. US-PRC tango that is only going to intensify in the future

Answer: K banega P.

[SriSri]

U.K. Defence Minister trying to hardsell Eurofighter Typhoon at Media Center, Aero India..

[SriSri]

U.K. MoD too promises full ToT for Eurofighter.. :-/

[Cain Marko]

CM, isn't it an arrogant assumption to make that the IAF will deliberately try to "derail" the Mig-35? This amounts to accusing the IAF of underhanded tactics without a shred of evidence beyond vague DDM articles.

If quick induction is indeed what the IAF wants, then that is just one more point on which all the bids will be evaluated. It does not amount to bias against any specific vendor. The last thing we need in this saga are allegations of bias.

No arrogance intended - the word derail here is not used to imply anything underhanded. Sooner or later only one winner will emerge, the others will be dropped for one reason or the other - nothing surreptitious. But they will probably have to come up with reasons (at least to some extent) as to why one was chosen above the others. Especially if the losers are countries with serious clout. I had often wondered on what basis the IAF would drop the 35 - it had to be a technical one - this is the only place the IAF could call shots and I was fully expecting MiG to come up with the best contract deal by far.

My point was that dropping the 35 is that much more difficult when the L1 clause is to be considered - the bird had a LOT going for it, at least on paper, and was v.likely to have the best TOT/price options, I would fully expect MiG/UAC to throw in the kitchen sink and undercut everybody else. Not something the MOD/MOF would gloss over.

At the same time IMHO, the IAF never really wanted this bird, it goes against their doctrine of diversification (nothing wrong/right with this, its just the way it stands), and there were signs to be seen regarding this approach from the very early days. The article by Aroor only confirmed this (nor do I believe that he was being arrogant). The 35's fate was sealed when the Pakfa deal and the additional IN 29 deal was confirmed. It started with Tyagi calling it a "Khoka", and ended with MiG staying out of AI, where it had been a regular visitor for almost a decade.

JMT if course, take it FWIW

CM.

[Philip]

There is one method by which the GOI/IAF can acquire the Gripen dspite it having a US engine.That is by also threatening to impose its own sanctions regime,a ban on all US military hardware if the US tries to sabotage a Gripen buy,or stall engine sales later on.In fact any such action by the US will kill forever its entrance into the Indian defence market.To be shafted twice,once before with the LCA,would be too much for any nation to stomach and even now,with the era of Man Mubarak Singh acknowledged to have served out its useful time,a future Indian leadership would be far less accomodating to any threat of sanctions.

This why I have persistently advocated that we need more aircraft than the 120+ MMRCAs,preferably from a reliable trustworthy supplier,not only for the need to meet the joint challenge from the Sino-Pak axis,but in case this acquisition faces local manufacturing problems,ike a US engine sanction to protect Pak.We already have developmental problems and delays with the LCA,to have another with the MMRCA would be catastrophic.Acquiring another significant number of MIG-35s to augment/replace MIG-29s in service would be cost-effective sensible insurance, and also a means by which induction of new aircraft would be twice as fast allowing us to replace the aging MIG-21s faster.

ACM Naik has said that we will have about 300 SU-30MKIs and from 2012 upgrade development work for the Flankers will start,which will probably mirror the Russian plan to induct 5th-gen tech first on upgraded Flankers,validate them so that they would be perfected systems flying on production FGFAs. So the "heavy" component of the IAF will have been well sorted out.A MIG-35 buy of another 60-120 aircraft to augment/replace the existing MIG-29s would along with the MMRCAs provide the second layer of IAF airpower "beefing up" both numbers and capability.

PS:There is a glimmer of hope for the MIG-35 if they can offer the IAF two sqds of Fulcrums to MIG-29K+ std (with TVC).These to be replaced with MIG-35s later on.This is a sound idea because the Russian Navy requires new carrier strike aircraft and are already evaluating the MIG-29K after the IN's buy.The MIG-29K is in production and a quick-fix might be possible.

[kmc_chacko]

as I have read MRCA will be most probably decided by March 2012,

And if we decide MRCA by March 2012 it will be another 18 months for induction of first plane to IAF i.e., end of 2013 or first quarter of 2014

isn't it correct ?

[SaiK]

It was 6 months from the time IAF submitted its report to MoD. Then it was June 2011. Last time we heard it was Dec 2011. This time, it became March 2012.

Well, how about following Mayan calendar at least just for the sake of MRCA?

[Sancho]

A clue has been found as to the MMRCA "tilt".AKA,IAF,etc., have been recently talking about "quick induction",its meaning one presumes that the team that can deliver the first two sqds. in a hurry will be connsidered favourably.So let's take a dekko at which of the contenders can do this.

Which is pretty simple, just look at which fighters was able to field a version into the trials (flight and weapon) trials, that had most of the capabilities, techs and weapons available that are offered in MMRCA and you see that only the US fighters and the Rafale did that!
Mig 35 was present as modified Mig 29K / KUB only and the status of the upgraded AESA radar is unclear.
Older Gripen versions did all the trials, while the Gripen Demo did only the flight trials at Leh once again. Techs and capabilities are under development only and for demonstration now, not final production versions, just like the airframe.

EF also did the trials with older versions only. The German EFs that were fielded in India didn't even had all EWS capabilities, nor IRST to present. AESA radar is only prefunded by the consortium companies and if the partner countries funds it, it will be ready not earlier than 2015 (the longer they wait, the more delays).

Rafale F3+ will be available from 2012 onwards and Dassault offered early delivery of up to 40 fighters quiet some time.

F16IN is based on the UAE block 60 which is ready now, the only parts that are under development or integration now are CFTs (which were fielded in the trials) and avionics changes.

F18SH block 2 is ready and available now, but the international growth options, that are proposed to fulfill MMRCA requirements (GE 414 EPE engine and new MAWS / LWR) are not and needs fundings before development and integration can start.

If you then add the fact, that IAF has to build up, training, maintenance, weapons and spares for the US fighters completely new, while Rafale already has most of these things available through Mirage 2000, it should be clear which fighter offers fast indction advantages.

[Sidhu]

With the introduction of the LCA Mk2.... It seems increasingly pointless to go in for a huge MMRCA order. LCA Mk1 and Mk2(with the resizing et al) are increasingly crossing over that border of "light" into "medium" and finally by the time the deal fructifies and the details are worked out, the Mk2 would be available. The LCA Mk2 is tooo close in capability (only the AESA needs to be fitted onto it and I think ELTA or our Russkie can be pressurised into dropping one into our lap) to the F16 IN and the Grippen (LCA will have the same or better engine in both cases).

Point is ... Do we need a large order of MMRCA ?? (I know this has been debated 100000s of times)

[SidGupta]

Where did you hear about the new March 2012 date?

Last from a trustworthy source was still March 2011, very much inline with '6 months from final report submission to MOD'.

Not sure if people have read about this so-called leaking of the tech evaluation, but would make sense why the MiG35 is mia from Aero11, they're probably certain to be crossed out based on tech evals and thus didn't feel the need to show up for a lost cause.

Anyone can confirm a reputed source for March 2012? Sify etc are notoriously bad at their reporting e.g latest Aero11 coverage says Boeing's F16 and Lockeed's F18 :o

[kmc_chacko]

India hopes to seal fighter jet deal by March 2012

BANGALORE: India's contract process to buy 126 fighter jets valued at about $11 billion is "going smoothly" and is expected to be completed in the fiscal year ending March 2012, Defence Minister A.K. Antony said on Wednesday.

Saab's JAS-39 Gripen is competing with Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault's Rafale, Lockheed Martin Corp's F-16 and Russia's MiG-35 to win a contract from India for the fighter jets.

Cassidian, the recently renamed defence arm of EADS and a partner in the Eurofighter Typhoon, is also vying for the Indian fighter award. Eurofighter is a four-nation consortium of EADS, representing Germany and Spain, Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Finmeccanica .

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 459862.cms

[kmc_chacko]

Where did you hear about the new March 2012 date?

Last from a trustworthy source was still March 2011, very much inline with '6 months from final report submission to MOD'.

Not sure if people have read about this so-called leaking of the tech evaluation, but would make sense why the MiG35 is mia from Aero11, they're probably certain to be crossed out based on tech evals and thus didn't feel the need to show up for a lost cause.

Anyone can confirm a reputed source for March 2012? Sify etc are notoriously bad at their reporting e.g latest Aero11 coverage says Boeing's F16 and Lockeed's F18 :o

it is also posted in bharatrakshak websites top stories list

[kmc_chacko]

With the introduction of the LCA Mk2.... It seems increasingly pointless to go in for a huge MMRCA order. LCA Mk1 and Mk2(with the resizing et al) are increasingly crossing over that border of "light" into "medium" and finally by the time the deal fructifies and the details are worked out, the Mk2 would be available. The LCA Mk2 is tooo close in capability (only the AESA needs to be fitted onto it and I think ELTA or our Russkie can be pressurised into dropping one into our lap) to the F16 IN and the Grippen (LCA will have the same or better engine in both cases).

Point is ... Do we need a large order of MMRCA ?? (I know this has been debated 100000s of times)

Mk2 will have following changes as per LCA thread
1. some small structural changes for extra internal fuel
2. more powerful engine
3. new EW suites
4. might be indigenous missiles

i.e., a fighter equal to the level of Mirage 2000-5.

If Su-30MKI fielded for A2G role we need a fighter for A2A combat either EF or F-18 will be suitable for that role.

I prefer by 2020 IAF should have 270 Su-30MKI + 200 F-18/EF + 200 Tejas Mk2/Mk3 + 150+ Mirage/Mig/Jaguar total 820 top class fighters.

While PAKFA, FGFA & AMCA will replace Mirage/Mig/Jaguar piece by piece making future AF of 250 FGFA + 150 PAKFA + 100 AMCA + 200 Tejas Mk4 + 270 Su-30MKI + 200 MRCA by 2035 total 1170 fighters to counter 2 front war

[Doddel]

Hi everyone

Been following this interresting forum for a while now and this is my first post.
Been thinking about cost effectiveness and bang per buck about the different aircrafts. Made a few calculations on bang per buck. I don't have time to compare all the aircrafts so I am just comparing Gripen to Rafale.

If we look at the FX-2 competition (36 aircrafts) in Brazil the cost difference for these to aircrafts is quite significant:
Gripen: $4.5 billion (+ maint. $1.5 billion, ?? years (the article doesn't specify so I guess it is also 30 year))
Rafale: $8.2 billion (+ maint. $4 billion, 30 years)

source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bra ... ram-04179/

Because I don't know exactly how the maintenance contracts is calculated I will not use them in my calculations.

The cost per flight hour for the aircrafts is about:
Gripen: $3000 to $4500
Rafale: ~$16 000

source: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=95008

If we assume that the aircrafts will be used 5000 hours (Just a guess from me. Heard that F-16 have a lifetime of ~8000 hours. Does anyone have any better expectation for the aircrafts lifetime?)

Gripen is from the start designed to be cheap to operate and maintain. The approximate total cost for the aircraft + 5000 hours will then be:

Gripen: (($3000 + $4500)/2)*5000 + $4.5/36 billion = 19 + 125 million = 144 million / aircraft

Rafale: ~$16 000 * 5000 + $8.2/36 billion = 80 + 228 million = 308 million / aircraft

This gives a cost difference faktor of:

~308/144 = ~2.14

So with these faktors Brazil gets more 2.14 Gripen per Rafale. There may also be some other difference that I am not taking into account. But is it clear that Rafale is much more expensive.

IAF can always choose to use 2+ Gripen's instead of 1 Rafale for every missions. So instead of comparing the aircrafts head-to-head in for example Payload and number of hardpoints it should make more sense to also take into acount the price factor. 2.14 Gripens against 1 Rafale so...

Payload
Gripen: 15 400 kg (7200 kg * 2.14)
Rafale: 9500 kg

Hardpoints
Gripen: 19.26 (9 * 2.14)
Rafale: 14

And also Lives... hehe...
Gripen: 2.14
Rafale: 1

The maximum speed and those factors are of course not changing.

So what I mean is that Gripen will always beat Rafale in these specs because the price is so much lower.

A greater number of aircraft also gives more flexibility. For example 1 gripen in A2G config can always be accompanied by 1 gripen in A2A config. Or it is possible to go for double A-A config.. you get the point...

During war there is a big possibility that the airports/runways are getting bombed. Gripen will be more resistent to this scenario because it can start from highways. If half of the airports are bombed (can the J-20 be built for this?) then ~half of all Rafale are out of bussines not gripen (at least not half of them).

Lets look into this scenario
All Rafales is based at airports
50% Gripen at airports, 50% at highways.

This happens: Surprice attack (by J-20 or/and long range missiles)
Half of the airports are bombed
50% Rafale left
75% Gripen left

The factor 2.14 then becomes

(75/50) * 2.14 = 3.21

If all airports are out, than of course the air-war is lost with Rafale (50/0). I guess that the easiest way of defeating the enemys air-force is by destroying them on the ground.

The turn-around time (less than 10 min to refuel and reload to full A-A) and support of the gripen is also phenomenal which increases the number of aircrafts that can be held in the air even more. The aircraft works almost every time. This must even be extra important when a war is going on and extra stress is put to the support organisation. Regarding support I don't know how good Rafale is so I don't make any calculations here but Gripen is from the start built with easy support in mind.
Does someone knows the turn-around time of Rafale and how easy it is to support?

The cost for upgrades and weapons of the planes is not taken into account. Gripen NG is from the start designed to be cheap to upgrade so my guess is that it is cheaper than Rafale in this aspect, but I don't know the numbers. I guess that it is also cheaper to buy weapon for Gripen because it has more to choose from.

All these factors increases the number advantage for gripen even futher, and even more when stealth (J-20) is getting a bigger threat. Gripen is built for war against a strong adversary.

So my question to everybody is:

Why would IAF select Rafale in front of the Gripen when they get more than twice the amount of aircraft and greater flexibility? During war this factor will probably increase even futher. Maybe someone can make the same calculations with more factors into account.

What side do you want to be on if 4+ Gripens were going up against 2 Rafale.

At war: 6+ Gripens versus 2 Rafale.

I guess that the French must give quite a good ToT to make it worth it, remember SAAB have full ToT (AESA included).

Someone that want to make the same calculations on the other planes and also use more factors?

Best regards
Doddel

[ramana]

A big fear is the US engine and spare parts in case of tensions with TSP. US will promise many things and can renege as it has done to India and others. and then there is the case of passing intelligence to TSP about force dispositions in the name of stability!

Its takiya to make money.

[SaiK]

The contractual agreements should take care of those fears. If not, then I suspect scam in the name security.

However, it is well understood politics that we stay away from the solo power.

[Doddel]

Sure... It can be problems with the engine, but this even worseis if an american plane is selected.

But isn't it possible to buy a lot of extra engine parts from the start. The Gripen is so much cheaper. Or maybe the extra money can be used to develope an own engine. India can use some of the money saved for technology research.

[SaiK]

^Can you compare with Mig35?