MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

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.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16997
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Rahul M » 21 Feb 2011 22:59

kmc_chacko, there are more reliable sources than wiki. those numbers are close but not enough.
in fact I would be grateful if you do a through analysis of PLAAF numbers in china mil watch thread. the last time I did was in 2009.

ezra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Sep 2008 21:42

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby ezra » 22 Feb 2011 01:00

Minister Anthoney says their will be no political intereference in the choice of fighter... but the reality is, there always is.
In my opinion..
The Russian fighter is a non starter as it is similiar to the mki 30 and the Russians have been kept satisfied with the 5th generation fighter being jointly developed.

The American fighters are according to their sarcastic Col from the Nellis airforce base, "legacy" aircraft... the Americans should be satisfied with the recent purchases of American heavy lift aircraft..

The French Rafael is a capable aircraft in the league of the Eurofighter... but there is no need to buy the Rafael no matter how good it is ... the french have been pacified with the order of submarines.

The Gripen is a capable aircraft... but it has a high content of American tech and their is little political capital to be gained....

This leaves the Europeans with their Eurofighter who have to be pacified with a purchase...

Hence the winner of the competition the Eurofighter.... simple

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 22 Feb 2011 01:08

Didn't we clearly read the strategic minds yet for all the new thinkers? There is no urgency in getting the MRCA, when we can think of an LCA Mk3 twin engined with a home grown AESA radar , ECM and stores. 5 years down the line, it would be a win-win.

There is no urgency or need to pacify russians or europeans or the khans. Absolutely none in this world, we need to feed with our monies.

We shall have to look at our priorities first. Who cares which country or company loses. Money in our bank is better than theirs. Please see video posted few posts back.

Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Multatuli » 22 Feb 2011 01:12

Christopher Sidor wrote :

This concept of India being a so called "key partner" is a mirage. EFT design work has been done. It is over.
There is no 5th generation EFT planned or proposed or discussed anywhere. All of the countries which are part of the EFT are going to F-35 for a 5th generation fighter as significant partners or as buyers. So basically this thought that we are going to get design expertise from a fighter whose design has been already done does not hold water. All we will get will be tweaking this aircraft.
And if we want to get design expertise, it would be better to partner with the french, who will most likely build a 5th generation fighter independent of the US and Russia.


This argument of India gaining design experience through the purchase of the EF Typhoon circulates in BRF as a main point in favour of the EFT, this is also the view pushed by the EFT consortium. I am glad to see it debunked once more. The only learning experince for India would come in the form of
upgrades, well there is plenty of scope for that with the LCA and MKI.

Also, as you, and others, pointed out: the EFT is an old platform, there is no stealth incorporated at all in it's design, this combined with the high cost of this aircraft makes me suspect that Europe will move away from the EFT in the near future and move on to a new European platform, a 5th generation air superiority fighter. The European defense industry needs such a 5th gen project to keep current with evolving tech and to keep it's people employed. I don't think the EFT consortium has anything significant to offer to India in terms of tech or 'participation', all they want is a colossal cash injection from India. The same is unfortunately true for the French Rafale (although the Rafale does have a limited stealth design). Both the Rafale and the EFT are grossly overpriced 4.5 generation aircraft.

Actually I don't think any of the 6 aircraft are worth the money and the trouble. It was suggested long ago to scrap the MRCA competion and instead order more LCA Mk.I's (80/100 in total), Su-30MKI's (270 + 40/50) and perhaps 40 or so MiG 35's (which are basicly upgraded MiG 29's as I understand it).

The IAF's future has to be the LCA (Mk.I, Mk.II,..., Mk.V, etc.), the Su-30MK, the PAK-FA/FGFA and the AMCA. That were our money should go.
We need a sensible GoI to tell this to the IAF and act on it (massive funding increase for Indian R&D and bring in the private heavy hitters in engineering).

Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Multatuli » 22 Feb 2011 02:49

Cain Marko wrote:

In any case this MRCA thing is a bloody circus - I have always felt so. Esp. in light of 5 gen a/c coming in. The push should be to indigenize, period. Whether they (IAF) like it or not - they should buy LCA, AMCA. It should not be a matter of choice. It never was with any of the major aerospace powers. VVS/USAF/Adla etc didn't just dump indigenous programs because toys from other countries looked better!


That is how any sensible government will think, but we all know the situation in India, the calibre of our politicians, Ministers and even the Prime Minister. The above quote is the only logical conclusion any patriotic minded government can arrive at. But instead (just some of the comments in this thread) the thinking is "we have to 'pacify' X, buy off Y", etc.. It reveals an extraordinary corrupt and slavish mindset of some Indians.

Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Multatuli » 22 Feb 2011 03:22

Cain Marko wrote:

You can simply NOT fill technological voids via TOT - SKD/CKD type assembly. Even the Su-30MKI where India probably received max TOT has not sealed the tech/industrial void. To do this you need to heavily invest and support indigeneous programs - there simply is no other way. Whether we look at the US, Rus, Fra, UK, or CHina - the tech void/ability was built by bread and butter R&D programs. No shortcuts here - and the MRCA is not the answer to this situation. To fill this void, support to the Tejas/AMCA is even more critical. The Tejas is literally a brilliant example when it comes to setting up an industry - in this sense it was largely successful.


An axiomatic truth. Unfortunately many are so hooked to foreign stuff that they can not even begin to imagine that Indians buy made in India products, this is particularly true for defense items. Read a bit in this forum and you will notice the "lets buy this from Germany", "let's import that from the US". This is simply fantastic for a giant country like India. Read the news reports on the Tejas reaching IOC in the Times of Islamabad, and you you will see what a totally despicable type of humanoids write on indigenous defense products in India. According to those ToI 'reporters', Indians should not even contemplate designing fighter aircraft or other such hight tech defense products. You see, that is the exclusive privilege of the Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese or even the South Koreans. But it is simply far too complex for Indians to try, it can only result in failure.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Gurneesh » 22 Feb 2011 03:27

Also, as you, and others, pointed out: the EFT is an old platform, there is no stealth incorporated at all in it's design, this combined with the high cost of this aircraft makes me suspect that Europe will move away from the EFT in the near future and move on to a new European platform, a 5th generation air superiority fighter. The European defense industry needs such a 5th gen project to keep current with evolving tech and to keep it's people employed. I don't think the EFT consortium has anything significant to offer to India in terms of tech or 'participation', all they want is a colossal cash injection from India. The same is unfortunately true for the French Rafale (although the Rafale does have a limited stealth design). Both the Rafale and the EFT are grossly overpriced 4.5 generation aircraft.

Actually I don't think any of the 6 aircraft are worth the money and the trouble. It was suggested long ago to scrap the MRCA competion and instead order more LCA Mk.I's (80/100 in total), Su-30MKI's (270 + 40/50) and perhaps 40 or so MiG 35's (which are basicly upgraded MiG 29's as I understand it).


While I do like the Typhoon i agree that it is too expensive.

None of the contenders would give any more TOT than screw driver tech or even if they give it would not of much use. I mean we supposedly got TOT with MKI but still cannot use it to make SCBs for Kaveri. Same would be the case with most of tech that comes with MMRCA. HAL will learn how to make stuff for that particular plane but using that tech on lets say Tejas or AMCA will be a different matter altogether (something that we have not been able to do till now).

Moreover, India as of now has an edge over PLAAF and PAF mainly because of the quality of our arsenal. But China is now in the process of bulk induction of decent 4th gen a/c like J10 and J11 (& Su-27). We cannot keep up with China in numbers game anymore. So, what we need is stuff that is markedly superior to what bulk of PLAAF or PAF will have. Which means concentrating on stuff like AMCA and FGFA. So, MMRCA is just to fill a gap and thus we should look to get the cheapest fighter rather than look for TOT (which is anyway useless).

GOI has already shot itself in the foot by not just ordering more M2000 in early 2000's. Now, what we have is planes that either too expensive (EFT, Rafale) or are not yet ready (Mig35, NG) or are simply too risky (Teens). We required these planes yesterday but none of the viable contenders (Mig35, NG) can be had quickly.

So, I guess IAF should have just ordered Mig29 SMTs and MKI'd them. But, now none of the contenders make that much sense.

I can think of two options:

1) To get second hand mirages and mig29s and upgrade them. These can be inducted quickly and should be good for a couple of decades after which all of them (including MMRCA) will be irrelevant anyway (due to full scale FGFA/PAKFA induction and start of AMCA induction).

2) Another option would be to go with the teens (i know too risky) since these are relatively cheaper but still can be inducted quickly (specially if HAL does not make more than half of them). One would argue that we might not be able to use these against Pak (which might even be true). But these 126 planes will help in freeing up other IAF assets to be used against Pak while helping to maintain a watch over the eastern side. Even upgraded second hand ones will be a good option.

All we should be looking to do is GET DECENT AC, INDUCT QUICKLY and SAVE MONEY (which should be then pumped into AMCA or even to improve infrastructure in NE areas).

We should not be spending 100 mil on a plane that might start to look seriously out of place in the company of FGFAs and AMCAs.

Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1092
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Hiten » 22 Feb 2011 11:27

they painted an IN roundel on to the Naval Eurofigther :D

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8140
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Indranil » 22 Feb 2011 12:05

here's gripen
Image
F-16 IN
Image

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 22 Feb 2011 12:05

^^^
That is because IN will be the sole operator of this aircraft, if it wins the proposed Navy RFP, similar to Sea Grippen. Again please note nothing against the performance of these two aircraft. They are in my view two of the best.

Moderators one suggestion, can we have forum dedicated specifically to the proposed Naval Fighter RFP.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby rajanb » 22 Feb 2011 12:23

Here we go again:

http://idrw.org/?p=2861
US pushes deal, secrecy hitch on IAF screen

The US wants the deal and yet want to shackle it.

I for one, don't understand why we just didn't buy another 123 MKIs

Be that as it may, the safest option seems to be The Rafale and the Mig-35! Assuming that both met technical requirements.

Look forward to the Gurus take on this. :?:

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 22 Feb 2011 13:01

MMRCA deal is nothing but a stop gap solution for filling up the depleting force. If any TOT happens along with that, it will be icing on the cake. If, there is going to be any TOT it has to be cutting edge otherwise it will be meaning less and I have a big doubt about the TOT happening.
Gurneesh wrote: So, I guess IAF should have just ordered Mig29 SMTs and MKI'd them.

I would say why don’t we MKI the Mig – 35 and there is another 4 yrs for MMRCA to join the IAF, by that time Mig – 35 will be ready. Mig – 35 will save us billions of dollars which can be used for further development of Tejas and AMCA.
Now, will someone say that Mig – 35 will not be able to stand against the Panda’s J – 10 or J – 11?
Mig – 35 will give us the numbers.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 22 Feb 2011 13:12

None of the contenders would give any more TOT than screw driver tech or even if they give it would not be of much use.


I disagree mate.
If we get any thing decent from the APG's, it would we a wonderful opertunity. The GE414 and the Captor are also very promising.

The ToT if given will save us atleast 4-5 years of learning curve.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 22 Feb 2011 13:31

EF though is a better looking plane, it in my opinion does not justify a selection. There is not one parameter that will put it ahead of the remaining contenders.
1) A2A-> Mig and Rafale are on par.
2) A2G-> Rafale, SH and NG(??) outperform
3) Payload-Range-> Again Rafale,NG and SH outperform
4) Sensors-> SH outperforms, Rafale too is ahead on this
5) Weapons-> Mig and SH on par if not better
6) ToT-> Mig, NG(*) can give in on par ToT, Rafale too can do that if we get lucky
7) Cost-> I believe all the five outperform EF in this sphere
8) Future upgrades-> SH, NG have visible prospects. MIG's future will be in our hands as it is with MKI and F16 is doomed.
9) Commonality-> None beat the MIG here.
10) Operational costs-> NG and SH(?) do a lot better here.
11) Upgrade costs-> MIG and NG(?) will beat it hands down.

I again remind the above points are not pointing to the cheapest fighters NG or the MiG but the Highest priced one.

So, I see no distinct advantage of going with EF. IMO it will not justify even a price on par with SH.
IMO EF's value is in over estimated.
It is like buying garments from Gucci against buying at Raymond’s...

The MIG is the only sensible option considering the cost, performance and commonality with the IAF.
Sensible to make the entire MMRCA in its current form Sensible.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 22 Feb 2011 13:50

There have been a chorus of voices which have demanded that we scrap this tender and increase the number of existing fighters (SU-30/Mig-29/LCA) in place. The argument remains seductive. But we should not be tempted.

Let us for example take us the merits for scrapping the MRCA Tender as it stands.
Number one we will need not build an entire support structure for the MRCA fighter. By scrapping MRCA we can save precious money, and a rupee saved here can be used to augment our capability somewhere else.
Number two induction of existing fighter is presumed to be faster. This might be in the case of Su-30, but fails in the case of LCA and Mig-35. We are seeing the induction of LCA now only that too in small quantities.
Number three We will reduce the clutter in IAF. IAF currently operates a bewildering array of fighters. No airforce has such a variety of fighters in its inventory. We are in the future going to operate Su-30/FGFA/LCA/Mig-29/MRCA-Winner. I am for simplicity not including Mirage and Jaguars, on which massive amounts are being spent. If you observe closely none of them are from the same family. So removing the MRCA-Winner eliminates clutter to a degree. There is some merit in this argument.


Now let us see the demerits of scrapping the deal.
Number one, SU-30 is a heavy fighter. LCA is a light fighter. MRCA is going to be a medium-fighter. We cannot have an air force filled with only Light and heavy fighters. There are operational roles which will be required to be filled by a medium fighter. IAF is less than pleased with Mig-35. In words of one unnamed air force officer, "This fighter (Mig-35) has no future".

Number two. All our major fighters which will see service are either of Russian origin or Indian. If we scrap the deal our reliance on Russian fighters and Russia increases. It appears IAF is not that happy with such a scenario. IAF has mirages and is very very impressed with it. It even has Jaguars, which it is upgrading with significant costs, but they are few and are for limited roles. Further will these fighters be capable on taking on the new and existing Chinese fighters and Chinese air-defense systems is debatable. I am concentrating on Chinese weapons, because even Pakistan will have a significant portion of Chinese fighters and Chinese Air-defense systems in future. Also we should not forget that Russia has supplied China with most of its modern fighters. Even the proposed J-20 looks similar to the Mig 1.42/1.44 design. The proposed J-15 may be a replica of Su-33, a very capable naval fighter, which India should have preferred over Mig-29K, but did not due to obvious reasons.

Number Three the offer for ToT are significant. For example SaaB has proposed to transfer the entire source code of its AESA radar to India. This is a big, very big, step. To put it into perspective, even US has refused to share the source code of F-35 with Japan and Britain, Countries which are partners in the F-35 development program. Off course will we be able to replace the existing source code of the AESA radar with our own future derivative is questionable. EFT consortium is proposing to transfer EJT 2000 technology and their crystal blade technology along with the fighter. With our troubles in Kaveri this is a really tempting offer.

Number Four All the fighters bring something which is not available with IAF. Grippen brings with it a high sortie rate and ability to take off from short and damaged runways along with its very economical cost of operation and acquisition. EFT well it is beautiful bird, expensive but still beautiful. It boasts of a lovely engine and a carbon composite airframe. Since I do not the IAF technical evaluation result, I will not speculate on its performance but would love to know how it stacked up against its peers. Rafael, again expensive but still has the potential of being another mirage.

Please note that I have not discussed F-16IN and F/A-18 Super Hornet over here. F/A-18 Super Hornet is a decent aircraft and has a limited future, but these fighters are discounted for the known reasons. If American had offered F-35 then we would be having a different discussion entirely. :twisted:

SidGupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 12:32

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SidGupta » 22 Feb 2011 13:50

That is how any sensible government will think, but we all know the situation in India, the calibre of our politicians, Ministers and even the Prime Minister. The above quote is the only logical conclusion any patriotic minded government can arrive at. But instead (just some of the comments in this thread) the thinking is "we have to 'pacify' X, buy off Y", etc.. It reveals an extraordinary corrupt and slavish mindset of some Indians.


Yes and once youre done singing 'Rang De Basanti', please wake up and face the reality. The IAF needs competitive aircrafts NOW. Not when the LCA is FOC-stage, not when Mk2 is FOC-stage - both, not expected, anytime soon. Not even mentioning the AMCA or FGFA.

This argument, posed as a comparison with countries like the US is incredibly childish and doesnt attempt to recognize the time, money and expertise it takes to establish a strong indigenous R&D and manufacturing base. To stop purchasing 'foreign fighters that look good', we need a steady supply from within. We can expect that 20 years from now, NOT NOW. Im not going to explain the differences in the US and Indian defense R&D and Manufacturing environment, since thats clearly something you arent bothered with.

We need aircraft NOW, to replace MiG21s (in their various versions), MiG23s and MiG27s. Not to mention the 'on the edge of retirement' Jaguars and in the next 25-year-window, eventually even the Mirage 2000s and MiG29s. Give it some thought, the following options have already either been actioned or planned-then-scrapped:

1. Additional Su30 MKIs - actioned

2. Upgrade existing MiG29s - actioned

3. Additional Mirage 2Ks - planned originally and since scrapped in favor of the MMRCA (read: the IAF clearly needs better aircraft, NOT M2Ks, whose production incidentally has been discountinued and Dassault would need to setup a dedicated facility for the IAF)

I understand the LCA program has been delayed, but i for one, am proud and impressed with the Tejas (especially as compared to other inidigenous debacles like the Arjun). Unfortunately its just NOT ready TODAY and cant fulfill the needs of the IAF for the next 5 years.

People keep talking about NONE of the 6 contenders being ready 'off-the-shelf'. I think it should be expected that whoever is chosen, will certainly NOT be delivering the 'entire package' in the first batch. Which then means, one needs to consider, where in the 'progress chart', the 6 stand.

My very basic understanding, and please i would love a detailed response.

In order of 'ready to deliver':

1. F16 Super Viper - the Block 60 on offer is ready off the shelf, including AESA radar. Unfortunately, i do think, not only is this the oldest and least-long term aircraft, but given PAFs 3 decade usage, i dont think this will ever be chosen. Add the well-know US politics argument.

2. F/A 18 Super Hornet - the 'latest version', as is being built for the Australian airforce, im not sure if the AESA radar on offer to India, is also embedded in the Australian version OR would this need further development before delivery to India. Add the well-know US politics argument.

3. Rafale - except the AESA radar, ready to deliver

4. EF Typhoon - only A2A weapon systems currently implemented. AESA radar not even on the planning-charts of the 5 nations. Expensive, and far from a 'Multirole' aircraft.

5. Gripen IN/NG - redesigned airframe, new GE414 engine, AESA radar, none of them in production or imbedded onto IN/NG platform and tested. A Cheap choice and one i strongly believe will soon look 'subpar' against the Tejas Mk2 within the next 5 years. There could be an argument for chosing this platform and deviate saved money into the Tejas Mk2 and AMCA program.

6. MiG35 - were already spending close to a Billion upgrading our current MiG29s to enhance their current performance and life cycle. A no-show at the Aero 11 to me spells a virtual widthdrawl. I think its nowhere near 'ready to deliver'. Cheapest option, but most expensive to maintain and will have a high lifetime cost given the amount of upgrades it will require.

As i have conjectured before, the Rafale imho, will be the choice - im sure a hard bargain will be sought. Dassault has lost ALL other contracts in which it has offered the Rafale, ofr various reasons. Which might be a reason they might offer India, financial and strategic terms which would be very lucrative.

- Fully implemented, tested, inducted, true 'Multirole' modern gen 4+ fighter. All weapon systems, except AESA currently working with French Airforce
- Dassault has been an old partner. IAF loves it Mirage 2Ks and has a reasonable infrastructure and familiarity dealing with Dassault
- Dassault was the design partner for the LCA Tejas
- Rafale's SNECMA engine is the partner for the Kaveri-AMCA engine
- France has no history with India of withdholding key technology, even in political tumultous times. A reliable SINGLE 2nd partner to off-set the increasing defense dependence on Russia

A split order might be the UPA goverments political decision of maintaining a good rapport with the US and so i wouldnt be suprized to see F/A18 SHornets sneak in. But for me, its Rafale all the way, subject to aggressive lifetime-price costing.
Last edited by SidGupta on 22 Feb 2011 14:08, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 22 Feb 2011 13:54

U.S. Fighter Sales To Asia Will Reinforce Alliances, Deter Troublemakers 
Defense Professionals

India has a competition underway to buy 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). U.S. candidates for this sale are the Lockheed Martin F-16 and the Boeing F/A-18E/F. Once solely the playing field for Soviet and European defense companies, U.S. aircraft companies have already made major inroads into the Indian defense market with sales of the C-130J, P-8 Poseidon and C-17. Winning the MMRCA competition would mark a new level of Indian-American defense collaboration. The U.S. is also building other systems in which the Indian military could have an interest such as the Stryker wheeled combat system and the Littoral Combat Ship.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 22 Feb 2011 13:56

Yes and once youre done singing Rang De Basanti, please wake up and face the reality


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Henrik » 22 Feb 2011 14:10

Hiten wrote:they painted an IN roundel on to the Naval Eurofigther :D

Image

Interesting to see that they've painted RBS-15 SSM on there.

silod
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 04 Feb 2011 14:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby silod » 22 Feb 2011 14:50

Dear All,

I am currently reading "Disciple", authored by Stephen Coonts. He mentions a unique system called "ALQ-199" that makes US Navy's Hornets invisible to the Iranian radars. I just want to ask some Gurus whether this system really exists or it is a mere imagination of the author? If this is true that US has this system for their Hornets, why is US not pitching the Hornets to us equipped with this system under MMRCA deal? PLEASE THROW SOME LIGHT ON THIS ASPECT.

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 22 Feb 2011 15:10

silod wrote:Dear All,

I am currently reading "Disciple", authored by Stephen Coonts. He mentions a unique system called "ALQ-199" that makes US Navy's Hornets invisible to the Iranian radars. I just want to ask some Gurus whether this system really exists or it is a mere imagination of the author? If this is true that US has this system for their Hornets, why is US not pitching the Hornets to us equipped with this system under MMRCA deal? PLEASE THROW SOME LIGHT ON THIS ASPECT.


OT : Now you bring fiction to this thread :rotfl:
Dale Brown (born November 2, 1956) is an American author and aviator, most famous for his aviation techno-thriller novels, with thirteen New York Times best sellers to his name.
Weaponry in Dale Brown novels
The weapons used by the aircraft and commandos in Dale Brown novels are very advanced and are based on other proposed technologies.
ALQ-199
The ALQ-199 is not a true weapon but can be used to destroy aircraft. The ALQ-199 fires laser beams at attacking anti-air missiles, dazzling the missiles' targeting equipment, causing them to fail to strike the target. The system may also be used to blind a pilot, which would usually result in the loss of the aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponry_i ... ls#ALQ-199

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Viv S » 22 Feb 2011 15:38

koti wrote:EF though is a better looking plane, it in my opinion does not justify a selection. There is not one parameter that will put it ahead of the remaining contenders.
1) A2A-> Mig and Rafale are on par.
2) A2G-> Rafale, SH and NG(??) outperform
3) Payload-Range-> Again Rafale,NG and SH outperform
4) Sensors-> SH outperforms, Rafale too is ahead on this
5) Weapons-> Mig and SH on par if not better
6) ToT-> Mig, NG(*) can give in on par ToT, Rafale too can do that if we get lucky
7) Cost-> I believe all the five outperform EF in this sphere
8) Future upgrades-> SH, NG have visible prospects. MIG's future will be in our hands as it is with MKI and F16 is doomed.
9) Commonality-> None beat the MIG here.
10) Operational costs-> NG and SH(?) do a lot better here.
11) Upgrade costs-> MIG and NG(?) will beat it hands down.


1) Are they? The EF is by far the most agile of the three and will be delivered with an AESA that's expected to outperform the corresponding ones on the MiG and Rafale.
2) Only the SH could be expected to 'outperform' the EF by virtue of having a greater variety of cost-effective munitions available (though its questionable if the IAF will want to buy the gamut of weaponry). Also as far as strike roles go, its the MKI with its massive range and payload that's the real performer - the MRCA competitors are mostly at par.
3) Enough to make an appreciable difference in our region where both potential adversaries are right next door? Almost every major PAF base is within 300km of the IB/LoC and most targets in a China conflict will be FOB, POL depots, transit facilities and the like vis-a-vis strikes on Shanghai or even Chengdu.
4) The SH yes, to an extent. The Rafale on the other hand has more or less will have the same set of sensors as the EF.
5) American munitions are fairly cost effective (including the EF's Paveway-IV) - the Rafale's set on the other hand are priced very steeply.
6) The NG and MiG will have fairly attractive ToT proposals, with the Rafale, I doubt if we'd get anything over and above what was explicitly stated in the contract.
7) Doubtful again. The Rafale costs roughly the same as the EF (much much more if development costs are factored in). Also, this for an aircraft being license produced in India so a very different set of modalities come into play. The Europeans are currently in the predicament of having drawn up contracts in a manner, which makes selling the aircraft actually cheaper than cancelling orders, so I'm quite sure there's a good deal to be made there. In any event, the ratio of flyaway cost between the NG, SH and EF isn't likely to be mcuh higher than 4:5.
8)The NG and MiG-35's future upgrades are very iffy given that their limited domestic production runs. And the French will probably relish the opportunity to make a pile of cash off Rafale upgrades.
9) Probably. But the IAF's fleet will end up being overwhelmingly Russian in origin - the IAF's believed to be looking to diversify its suppliers.
10/11) While the single engined fighters will obviously be cheaper to fly, any similar verdict about the other four will be very speculative.

Jamie Boscardin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 02 Aug 2010 21:56

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Jamie Boscardin » 22 Feb 2011 18:25

SidGupta wrote:
Yes and once youre done singing 'Rang De Basanti', please wake up and face the reality. The IAF needs competitive aircrafts NOW. Not when the LCA is FOC-stage, not when Mk2 is FOC-stage - both, not expected, anytime soon. Not even mentioning the AMCA or FGFA.

....


SidGupta, can you pls justify if the IAF needs an aircraft now (colored/italics/bold etc), how can the MMRCA achieve that? Lets look at whats going to happen:
1. 16/26(?) ac would be purchased off the shelf (probable time-frame, best guess 2 yrs). Induction happening in 2013.
2. Remaining 100 would be built by HAL in India, either via assembly with kits or by TOT transfer.
Now, as we know its going to be TOT+ manufacturing, what that means is:
i. Setting up of new assembly line.
ii. Training & manpower.
iii. Hoping for good and continuous supply of spare-parts from OEM.
Finally, they will be churning progressively ac's per year(8, 10, 15 etc ?)

IAF in parallel, will have to work on training of its fighters, maintenance crew, infrastructure setup etc and then come out with the doctrine for usage/combat effectiveness etc for the fighters and how they fit in into mission specifics etc.

All this said and done, we are probably looking at 2020 for complete induction and operational readiness of IAF.

Now, lets look at other variables, assuming that MMRCA is scrapped.
Scenario1:
- HAL is already in the process of setting up of the Tejas assembly line for MK1.
- Mk2 would be have got FOC by 2016. No reason for HAL to quickly setup another assembly line and coz of the familiarity and spare part arrangement already in-place with local vendors would be in a much better position to churn close to 30 ac per yr. So, by 2020, we may theoretically expect LCA MK2's of around 100 numbers?

Scenario2:
- HAL already has a fully dedicated MKI line in Nashik. They have orders to go till 2018.
- Now, if IAF had to order more of MKI's, it would be better for HAL to spend money and get another assembly running to increase production. Familiarity with the aircraft, ready manpower, complete supply chain, spare parts availability etc are a big plus.

By 2015, ruskies would have the AESA in place and we can also integrate them to all our existing MKI's. The agreement to upgrade the current Zhuk radars with the AESA is already in place.

You may argue that LCA MK2, is still on papers, but the MKI isn't and none of the MMRCA contenders are better than the MKI for sure (some may be equal but not better).

So, if you are cynical and read IAF chief's comments about a dissatisfied bidder throwing a spanner on the whole process, you may smile that someone might be also thinking of these lines and there is an alternate plan B in place.

SidGupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 12:32

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SidGupta » 22 Feb 2011 18:58

So, by 2020, we may theoretically expect LCA MK2's of around 100 numbers?


Sir, right now HALs production capability of the MK1 is less than 12 aircraft per annum.

Im not sure in which fairyland, we will have around 100 MK2s by 2020, assuming the Tejas MK2 is FOC by 2020.

You may argue that LCA MK2, is still on papers, but the MKI isn't and none of the MMRCA contenders are better than the MKI for sure (some may be equal but not better).


And i think everyone whose following, understands that the GOI and IAF have already placed additonal order, as well AESA radar upgradation for existing MKIs. Heres the problem, we STILL NEED MORE.

There are ample number of posts detailing our current squadron strength, and the need for more. Further, the need for a Medium Multirole aircraft, in addition to the 'Light' Tejas and 'Heavy' Su30 MKIs.

Now unless youre gonna argue that the AMCA will be FOC ready by 2020 ...

1) Are they? The EF is by far the most agile of the three and will be delivered with an AESA that's expected to outperform the corresponding ones on the MiG and Rafale.


Lol, considering the AESA isnt even on the development chart for the EF consortium ... this is, laughable. Really, you do realize, they havent even BUDGETED the development/implementation of AESA radar into the Typhoon.

2) Only the SH could be expected to 'outperform' the EF by virtue of having a greater variety of cost-effective munitions available (though its questionable if the IAF will want to buy the gamut of weaponry). Also as far as strike roles go, its the MKI with its massive range and payload that's the real performer - the MRCA competitors are mostly at par.


Really? Again, correct me if im wrong, but i understand that the Typhoon has ZERO implementation of A-2-G weapon systems. The Typhoon is an Air-Superiority fighters' wet dream, but still 'on-paper' Multirole.

So where is your A-2-G 'performance comparison' from?

Jamie Boscardin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 02 Aug 2010 21:56

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Jamie Boscardin » 22 Feb 2011 20:18

^^
Your knowledge is pretty outdated and would recommend googling before stating your point of view.

1. AESA development for EF - targeted entry date 2015 - signed in 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
http://defensenews.com/blogs/farnboroug ... -9-months/

2. HAL is producing around 28 MKI ac's per yr:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 092315.cms

You can put forward your views without using caps and other unnecessary words, it makes your post mature (IMHO) unless you want to get badly slammed by the gurus.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 22 Feb 2011 20:41

Viv S wrote: Are they? The EF is by far the most agile of the three and will be delivered with an AESA that's expected to outperform the corresponding ones on the MiG and Rafale.

Yes. But you already have better AESA's on Teens. The Irbis will be on par if not better then Captor.
Only the SH could be expected to 'outperform' the EF by virtue of having a greater variety of cost-effective munitions available (though its questionable if the IAF will want to buy the gamut of weaponry). Also as far as strike roles go, it’s the MKI with its massive range and payload that's the real performer - the MRCA competitors are mostly at par.

The point I am putting forward is that EF's A2G is subpar compared to Rafale, NG, F16SV and SH. It may get better at this eventually. But even though it does, it will still be at level with the rest, not beyond.

3) Enough to make an appreciable difference in our region where both potential adversaries are right next door? Almost every major PAF base is within 300km of the IB/LoC and most targets in a China conflict will be FOB, POL depots, transit facilities and the like vis-a-vis strikes on Shanghai or even Chengdu.

I strongly disagree here. Even if targets are near, it will never be a straight line navigation from our airbase to bombsite. It is a highly protected airspace, we should expect very steeply curved "S" paths to target.
Not only that, If EF cannot deal with a sudden mission requirement to change from strike role to air defense role due to lack of fuel, it is as good as a Flogger.

American munitions are fairly cost effective (including the EF's Paveway-IV) - the Rafale's set on the other hand are priced very steeply.

Rafale and EF will have maximum weapon commonality. Both Russian and American weapons are cheap of course and can also be used with any of the contenders. (Commonality again :) )

The NG and MiG will have fairly attractive ToT proposals, with the Rafale, I doubt if we'd get anything over and above what was explicitly stated in the contract.

We cannot substantiate this.
I wonder if Germany will have another mood swing like it had with the Glock and H&K sale for counter terrorist units.

Doubtful again. The Rafale costs roughly the same as the EF (much much more if development costs are factored in).

That is another disadvantage of Rafale, but not EF's advantage.

The NG and MiG-35's future upgrades are very iffy given that their limited domestic production runs. And the French will probably relish the opportunity to make a pile of cash off Rafale upgrades.

The Big disadvantage EF has here is its multi-ownered. If IAF wants an upgrade of one sort, it should convince 4 countries that have a completely different operational requirements, different threat perceptions and different economic liberties.

Probably. But the IAF's fleet will end up being overwhelmingly Russian in origin - the IAF's believed to be looking to diversify its suppliers.

Operating lesser aircraft types is inversely proportional to diversity of suppliers.
Also, The RuAF is predominantly Russian.
PLAAF is predominantly Russian too.
USAF is predominantly American again.
I see no danger in this predominance as long as the platform is good and the OEM country doesn't have mood problems. And we are not facing any issues in selecting the weapon types the IAF desires now-a-days too.
Israel, EU and US weapons are comfortably fitting in onto older planes, so they will fin in well with the newer ones too.


The point I would like to convey again sir is that: I no more see any distinct advantage in IAF opting for EF despite its price.
Even though its price could somehow be lowered to the band of SH, I still see it as an option that will be a migraine headache to IAF.
Last edited by koti on 22 Feb 2011 20:52, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 22 Feb 2011 20:50

Jamie Boscardin wrote:^^
1. AESA development for EF - targeted entry date 2015 - signed in 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
http://defensenews.com/blogs/farnboroug ... -9-months/


James,
The Captor is in the pipeline ofcourse.
Can you state which country's airforces are actually looking forward to integrate it into their EFs.?

And another point, Captor's high module density can be matched if upgrades are allowed on the Zhuk or RBE2 and a timeframe till 2015.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Viv S » 22 Feb 2011 20:56

SidGupta wrote:
1) Are they? The EF is by far the most agile of the three and will be delivered with an AESA that's expected to outperform the corresponding ones on the MiG and Rafale.


Lol, considering the AESA isnt even on the development chart for the EF consortium ... this is, laughable. Really, you do realize, they havent even BUDGETED the development/implementation of AESA radar into the Typhoon.


Development of the AESA has been sanctioned, development is proceeding and the Captor-E will be retrofitted in place of the Captor-Ms. Prefunding of the Captor-E by Euroradar happened early year IIRC and Selex was contracted by the UK MoD to develop an EScan variant of the radar. While most of the development so far (particularly the CAESAR) was technically industry funded it relied to a large extent on government grants.

Really? Again, correct me if im wrong, but i understand that the Typhoon has ZERO implementation of A-2-G weapon systems. The Typhoon is an Air-Superiority fighters' wet dream, but still 'on-paper' Multirole.


You're wrong. The Paveway-II and Litening III were integrated into the RAF aircraft back in early 2008 as part of the Austere package. Today all Tranche 2 aircraft can employ the Paveway series of PGMs as well as dumb bombs which does make it multi-role. The Brimstone and Storm Shadow are yet to be integrated (they'll be done piecemeal), but they'll be done well before the IAF is to receive its aircraft. That aside, I don't think IAF will be looking to purchase the Storm Shadow given that the Nirbhay is starting trials in 2012, and will hopefully enter service by 2015-16.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Viv S » 22 Feb 2011 21:34

koti wrote:Yes. But you already have better AESA's on Teens. The Irbis will be on par if not better then Captor.


Sure. And if the SH didn't have the 7.5G limitation and a design optimized for subsonic flight, it would be the leading contender in my book. The EF on the other hand, will have a first rate radar and excellent performance statistics.

The point I am putting forward is that EF's A2G is subpar compared to Rafale, NG, F16SV and SH. It may get better at this eventually. But even though it does, it will still be at level with the rest, not beyond.


Subpar on what parameters? Practically speaking, when it goes on a typical strike mission it'll have 4 MRAAMs, 1 1000l fuel tank, and eight Paveway-IVs. Its performance is likely to be the same as any of the its peers albeit with a somewhat smaller range.

3) Enough to make an appreciable difference in our region where both potential adversaries are right next door? Almost every major PAF base is within 300km of the IB/LoC and most targets in a China conflict will be FOB, POL depots, transit facilities and the like vis-a-vis strikes on Shanghai or even Chengdu.

I strongly disagree here. Even if targets are near, it will never be a straight line navigation from our airbase to bombsite. It is a highly protected airspace, we should expect very steeply curved "S" paths to target.
Not only that, If EF cannot deal with a sudden mission requirement to change from strike role to air defense role due to lack of fuel, it is as good as a Flogger.


You missed the point. A deep penetration mission is a rarity rather than the rule. Most strike missions are going be targeted at logistical nodes that are out of artillery range but not important enough to expend a cruise missile over. For the rare but possible deep penetration mission - by 2018 the IAF will have 270 MKIs and will be taking deliveries of the initial PAK-FA batch.

The NG and MiG will have fairly attractive ToT proposals, with the Rafale, I doubt if we'd get anything over and above what was explicitly stated in the contract.

We cannot substantiate this.
I wonder if Germany will have another mood swing like it had with the Glock and H&K sale for counter terrorist units.


Well its my understanding that the MoD has extracted sovereign guarantees from each of countries involved so mood swings shouldn't be a problem.

The Big disadvantage EF has here is its multi-ownered. If IAF wants an upgrade of one sort, it should convince 4 countries that have a completely different operational requirements, different threat perceptions and different economic liberties.


It doesn't actually. First off India's inclusion in the consortium will give it about a fifth of ownership of EF Gmbh. And secondly, any development effort cannot be vetoed by another member. So, India can in fact partner with UK and Germany and develop an upgraded engine even if Italy and Spain decide to sit it out. As a matter of fact the CECAR program despite being quite critical to the roadmap was a British-German effort. The development of CFTs is being funded just by UK.

In effect, if the IAF wants an upgrade and doesn't want to go about doing so solo, it can partner up with anyone one (or more) of the four involved parties.

Operating lesser aircraft types is inversely proportional to diversity of suppliers.
Also, The RuAF is predominantly Russian.
PLAAF is predominantly Russian too.
USAF is predominantly American again.


The PLAAF is giving up its dependence on Russian aircraft (except for aero engines, the effort has been quite successful. The IAF should ideally be predominantly Indian, but since it isn't I don't think it would welcome being dependent on a single party.

I see no danger in this predominance as long as the platform is good and the OEM country doesn't have mood problems. And we are not facing any issues in selecting the weapon types the IAF desires now-a-days too.


There is no danger per se, but that fact that it controls vital spares supply for the bulk of the IAF's fleet, would give the Russians leverage that India may not want to concede.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Victor » 22 Feb 2011 22:13

Sure. And if the SH didn't have the 7.5G limitation and a design optimized for subsonic flight, it would be the leading contender in my book.

The 7.5g limitation is self-imposed by USN on all its aircraft to prevent too much wear since they get bashed with hard carrier landings anyway. Both the Hornet and Super Hornet are fully capable of flying beyond 9g. The pilot has an override switch if he ever needs it.

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 22 Feb 2011 22:28

newbee here. am surprised with the amount of partisanship on the forum. have a little experience with military hardware. are you guys all sure that the f-16in is inferior to the gripen?? range, power, loadout, radar etc etc?? same with the twin engines. is anybody in his right mind when he says that the typhoon or the rafale have more options or more roles than the hornet. bury the cold war guys. buy the best.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Lalmohan » 22 Feb 2011 22:31

hello achilles, welcome
are you by any chance an employee of LM?
if not, please go through all 400 archived pages of this thread and answer your own question

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 22 Feb 2011 22:34

fools-ki kami nahi hai zindagi mein. ek dhundo to hazaar milte hain.

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 22 Feb 2011 22:35

achilles_malli wrote:newbee here. am surprised with the amount of partisanship on the forum. have a little experience with military hardware. are you guys all sure that the f-16in is inferior to the gripen?? range, power, loadout, radar etc etc?? same with the twin engines. is anybody in his right mind when he says that the typhoon or the rafale have more options or more roles than the hornet. bury the cold war guys. buy the best.

Sirji, which one is the best?

Jamie Boscardin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 02 Aug 2010 21:56

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Jamie Boscardin » 22 Feb 2011 22:36

koti wrote:
Jamie Boscardin wrote:^^
1. AESA development for EF - targeted entry date 2015 - signed in 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
http://defensenews.com/blogs/farnboroug ... -9-months/


James,
The Captor is in the pipeline ofcourse.
Can you state which country's airforces are actually looking forward to integrate it into their EFs.?

And another point, Captor's high module density can be matched if upgrades are allowed on the Zhuk or RBE2 and a timeframe till 2015.


I would say any country taking the tranche3 delivery would have that. Tranche 2 deliveries which have the Captor-M have the capacity to be upgraded.
It started off with RAF, then Italy and now all of them have jumped in.

We can safely say that the IAF's requirement for the MMRCA that the ac's entering service with IAF should have an AESA radar incorporated spurted the EF's and Rafael's AESA development.
Rafale's announcement of AESA entering service by 2013 and EU's announcement that AESA will enter trials by 2013 and service by 2015 is testimony to that.

Having said that, lets look at one interesting fact:
Which Ac's are already flying with prototype or operational AESA
1. Gripen NG with Raven
2. SH - AN/APG-79
3. F16 - AN/APG-79
4. Mig35 - Phazotron Zhuk-AE
5. Rafale - AESA RBE2

So, essentially, only the Eurofighter Typhoon is the only one which is still working on AESA, their trials will start in 2013 and may get operational in 2015.

Strictly, looking at the RFP, Eurofighter is out, but everywhere we hear Eurofighter winning :). If this really happens, every other contender will crib and eventually MMRCA would be scrapped.

So, my theory of IAF having a plan B (without MMRCA) holds.

Also, if I may put in an argument that Gripen NG and Mig35 are prototype ac's, aka work in progress, then that leaves only 3 in the ring: Rafale, SH, F-16
Last edited by Jamie Boscardin on 22 Feb 2011 22:51, edited 1 time in total.

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 22 Feb 2011 22:39

lalmohan...
surprisingly i am someone who's used the socialist hardware. I am also pretty close to the field. stop ****** romantising useless hardware. you will have the blood of young pilots on your hands.
have you ever operated US and Russian/ European hardware??? you will understand what i am talking about.
you can all be influenced but i have generational memory.
love you.
no malice to you at all.

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 22 Feb 2011 22:50

newbee here again, there's been so much discussions about source codes and tot?? Our great and ever great hyped PSU's have not even changed the the source codes of surface navigation radars. A selesmar radar is available for 74 lakhs in the open market while the armed forces have to buy the same shit for 2.5 crores with inferior performance because BEL has indegenised the cabinets. get real man.

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 22 Feb 2011 22:53

Drishyaman wrote:
achilles_malli wrote:newbee here. am surprised with the amount of partisanship on the forum. have a little experience with military hardware. are you guys all sure that the f-16in is inferior to the gripen?? range, power, loadout, radar etc etc?? same with the twin engines. is anybody in his right mind when he says that the typhoon or the rafale have more options or more roles than the hornet. bury the cold war guys. buy the best.

Sirji, which one is the best?


buy the 16. no ***** in quetta would say that he would win the war against india when faced with 72 vs 260 odds
Last edited by archan on 27 Feb 2011 17:05, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edit. language

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 22 Feb 2011 22:57

achilles_malli wrote:newbee here again, there's been so much discussions about source codes and tot?? Our great and ever great hyped PSU's have not even changed the the source codes of surface navigation radars. A selesmar radar is available for 74 lakhs in the open market while the armed forces have to buy the same shit for 2.5 crores with inferior performance because BEL has indegenised the cabinets. get real man.

Sirji, Are you a Arms dealer by any chance ? Are you in the business of procuring Arms for India?

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 22 Feb 2011 23:00

achilles_malli wrote:buy the 16. no asshole in quetta would say that he would win the war against india when faced with 72 vs 260 odds

Why ? Could you please, give the argument in favour of your favourite F - 16? That is, why not anyone from the other 5?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests