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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Karan M » 27 Oct 2010 21:51

raj-ji wrote:If the Gripen is mediocre, why was it one of the 6 chosen for the MMRCA? Obviously someone in the IAF thought this was a good fighter. All prelim. reports say that the Gripen faired well in the trials.


Appeals to authority without evidence go nowhere "obviously someone in the IAF..."...the reality on the other hand speaks otherwise. That the IAF just sent out a wide ranging RFI to avoid CAG censure over single vendor trials, ending up with a menagerie of aircraft in different classes and capabilities. The MiG-35 for instance, another paper plane, got in exactly the same way. In an ideal world, the RFP would be only between the three premier fighters, the EF, Rafale and SH.And as regards trials, sure, lets see an actual Gripen NG do the trials.

As for the capabilities of the Panda's fighters, does any one know for sure that it could stand up the Gripen NG? No, one of the benefits of creating something unique, the myth of these fighters could be more valuable than their capabilities, this was used considerably during the cold war.


Rhetoric, and not even worth the bandwidth you wasted on the post. Of course nobody knows for "sure", but everyone knows reasonably well what their capabilities are. Do you? Clearly not, because if you had, you wouldnt be making such dubious statements about "unique" and "myth" and what not, after having misinterpreted what I said to begin with. The Chinese currently field Su-27SKs and Su-30MK variants. And are also inducting homegrown upgraded Flankers. These come with significant advantages over single engined fighters in the Mirage 2000/F-16 class, of which the Gripen is but a next generation follow on. The Flankers offer first class aerodynamics performance even with a decent combat load without compromising it with add on fuel tanks, and suffering as heavily in terms of wingloading and other key parameters as the smaller aircraft. They also have a whopping 1 Meter radar aperture array, which even with an earlier generation Mechanical scanned array, if iteratively improved, as on the Eurofighter ECR-90, can match and exceed AESAs on smaller fighters. The Gripen/MiG-35 have nose cones a third smaller and rely on power generation driven by a single powerplant. In short, with the Su-27 platform, the Chinese have a very capable system which can serve them for decades to come, and is likely, once they start manufacturing engines, to be improved even further. Not are its ancillary systems standing still. The PRC has also a long history of credible propulsion advances and assistance from the Russians in seeker technology. Their air to air missile capabilities are also steadily increasing. In short, relying on the Gripen NG against a fleet of Flankers is folly at best, and a disaster in the worst case scenario. What we need are fighters able to fight into enemy territory and defeat layered air defenses, not ones which run a ragged attrition based campaign.


If India is SAAB's biggest client, that will mean a great deal of influence on the Gripen program, not a bad place to be.


If this, if that..whose interests are being served here? What does India gain from becoming anybodys biggest client and being dependent, when it has its own LCA MK2 program going on and which can offer most of the capabilities this in development Gripen NG claims it will offer.

Do you think you will get this kind of influence with Boeing, Dassault or EADS?


Disingenuous at best. India already has a variety of systems on order with all these companies & has already given them orders and received offsets in turn which can be driven by these firms which have far larger economies of scale. What benefit to India to tie itself to Swedish apron strings when that country itself is struggling to keep the Gripen alive. India is best served going for a product where it does not have to do the heavy lifting in terms of either finances or technology, and gets better industrial advantage than what SAAB can provide

This would not be the top aircraft in the inventory, the IAF has the MKIs for that. Again a lot to be said for having a relatively inexpensive fighter, that's capable, cheap and easy to operate with quick turn around times. And at the minimum, sharing the same engine as the LCA.


If India needed cheap fighters, it would not have floated the MMRCA with a $10B plus budget, and no, there are no "top aircraft" and bottom feeders in the IAF inventory, as when war comes, all have to do their bit. And only somebody without an understanding of the IAF ORBAT would believe that the MKIs being the top aircraft would mean the rest could be less capable.
The Jaguar, MiG-27 pilots who will now go to the MMRCA will be asked to do a fair share of heavy lifting as well, which means the aircraft has to be every bit as capable as the MKI and even provide other capabilities which the MKI does not. At $10 Billion plus, it better do so.

Everyone has a different point of view, so lets agree to disagree.


Its not about points of view or whatever, but the fact that your Gripen claims so far have holes big enough to steer a battleship through.
Last edited by Karan M on 27 Oct 2010 22:10, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Karan M » 27 Oct 2010 22:05

sohels wrote:
Karan M wrote:The Gripen NG is more akin to the original MMRCA plan for Mirage 2000's, and is by no means sufficient against the kind of platforms that are being developed in China. Flanker derivatives can get to parity with the Gripen, and India cannot afford that kind of attrition. Can Gripen even carry the kind of payload and offer the persistence to take on heavily integrated Air Defense Networks, hardly.


So which of the other contenders can do this (ie defeat the Flanker in aerial combat and successfully take on Chinese air defense systems)?


Its a tough call in Air to Air, but the latest variant of the Rafale (w/AESA) and the Tranche3B+ Typhoon (w/AESA) will have clear superiority versus projected variants of the PRC Flanker. The SH may have an edge in BVR, if it gets off the first shot, but a lot depends on what comes with the weapons package, i.e. which AMRAAM variant India gets.

In Air to Ground, no contest, the SH is far superior to the other two types in the number of weapons it can carry and have already been integrated. But the Rafale is no slouch either, and the Typhoon can be improved to a reasonable level but it has payload limitations in terms of the number of heavy munitions it can carry with large fuel loads.

Overall, I'd rank Rafale 1, SH and Typhoon as 2nd, with a slight edge to Typhoon in 2nd on account of airframe potential
In terms of industrial capabilities offered, SH and Typhoon are 1, and Rafale is 2.

One gets what one pays for. These 3 fighters are the most expensive but also the most capable. All 3 come with complete network centric packages (which you can link with the IAFs network via gateways), have sensor fusion and pilot aids, first class ergonomics & also field the most advanced sensors. The SH leads in that it has a very powerful AESA array operational, but a fully populated system on the Typhoon is likely to be at parity or even superior.

Choose a top of the line system, and fight a war with the best tools

Devesh Rawal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 09:01
Location: USA

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Devesh Rawal » 27 Oct 2010 23:47

Karan M wrote:Choose a top of the line system, and fight a war with the best tools


A very sensible and rational post. You are on my respected list! :)

Any opinion on the question I asked couple of pages ago about integration of stand-off smart bombs (AGM-154a JSOW) on the MRCA contenders? It seems to be the way to go over traditional munitions?

Sandeep_ghosh
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 07:19
Location: Unkel Sam's pot garden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sandeep_ghosh » 28 Oct 2010 00:12

GeorgeWelch wrote:It CAN carry an external cannon.

In practice I bet it is almost never fitted.

And it will NEVER be fitted for A2A missions. The primary use of the cannon nowadays is ground-attack.

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:And MMRCA is for IAF not IN so i dont think you example is valid. As for TVC I am sure IAF will welcome it.


The example is valid because the cannon isn't conceived as primarily an A2A weapon, thus minimizing the importance of maneuver in aerial combat.

TVC is fine, but on the list of important attributes in aerial combat, it ranks right near the bottom. If you base your selection on that while ignoring all the more important attributes, you will greatly regret it.


MMRCA a/c are not meant to be used as a pure a2a a/c

can you please show me one air superiority/ multirole fighter which lacks a potent gun.

Again F35 and F22 are synonymous to development of F16 and F15, F22 is an air dominance fighter meant to be in low numbers without tech transfer to any other country unlike f35 which is meant for mass production and distribution just like the f16's development. Even then the F35A has an internal gun.

If TVC was that insignificant SU 30 MKI, PAKFA, would not consider it . and guess what the USAF wanted the upgrades for F16 and F15to be ...TVC.... F-15S/MTD and F16 VISTA.


MMRCA A/c's are "multi role "defined aircraft that can be used as both a fighter aircraft and a ground attack aircraft. As far as gun in a2a engagements is concerned, with 9-12 hardpoints exhausted, gun comes in handy. Also against low heat signature UAV's. MMRCA a/c will be called for maritime and ground attack roles, Gun and and larger payload with twin engine config might come handy.

I would really like to hear the disadvantages of getting the MIG 35 system

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby raj-ji » 28 Oct 2010 00:14

Karan M wrote:
raj-ji wrote:If the Gripen is mediocre, why was it one of the 6 chosen for the MMRCA? Obviously someone in the IAF thought this was a good fighter. All prelim. reports say that the Gripen faired well in the trials.


Appeals to authority without evidence go nowhere "obviously someone in the IAF..."...the reality on the other hand speaks otherwise. That the IAF just sent out a wide ranging RFI to avoid CAG censure over single vendor trials, ending up with a menagerie of aircraft in different classes and capabilities. The MiG-35 for instance, another paper plane, got in exactly the same way. In an ideal world, the RFP would be only between the three premier fighters, the EF, Rafale and SH.And as regards trials, sure, lets see an actual Gripen NG do the trials.

As for the capabilities of the Panda's fighters, does any one know for sure that it could stand up the Gripen NG? No, one of the benefits of creating something unique, the myth of these fighters could be more valuable than their capabilities, this was used considerably during the cold war.


Rhetoric, and not even worth the bandwidth you wasted on the post. Of course nobody knows for "sure", but everyone knows reasonably well what their capabilities are. Do you? Clearly not, because if you had, you wouldnt be making such dubious statements about "unique" and "myth" and what not, after having misinterpreted what I said to begin with. The Chinese currently field Su-27SKs and Su-30MK variants. And are also inducting homegrown upgraded Flankers. These come with significant advantages over single engined fighters in the Mirage 2000/F-16 class, of which the Gripen is but a next generation follow on. The Flankers offer first class aerodynamics performance even with a decent combat load without compromising it with add on fuel tanks, and suffering as heavily in terms of wingloading and other key parameters as the smaller aircraft. They also have a whopping 1 Meter radar aperture array, which even with an earlier generation Mechanical scanned array, if iteratively improved, as on the Eurofighter ECR-90, can match and exceed AESAs on smaller fighters. The Gripen/MiG-35 have nose cones a third smaller and rely on power generation driven by a single powerplant. In short, with the Su-27 platform, the Chinese have a very capable system which can serve them for decades to come, and is likely, once they start manufacturing engines, to be improved even further. Not are its ancillary systems standing still. The PRC has also a long history of credible propulsion advances and assistance from the Russians in seeker technology. Their air to air missile capabilities are also steadily increasing. In short, relying on the Gripen NG against a fleet of Flankers is folly at best, and a disaster in the worst case scenario. What we need are fighters able to fight into enemy territory and defeat layered air defenses, not ones which run a ragged attrition based campaign.


If India is SAAB's biggest client, that will mean a great deal of influence on the Gripen program, not a bad place to be.


If this, if that..whose interests are being served here? What does India gain from becoming anybodys biggest client and being dependent, when it has its own LCA MK2 program going on and which can offer most of the capabilities this in development Gripen NG claims it will offer.

Do you think you will get this kind of influence with Boeing, Dassault or EADS?


Disingenuous at best. India already has a variety of systems on order with all these companies & has already given them orders and received offsets in turn which can be driven by these firms which have far larger economies of scale. What benefit to India to tie itself to Swedish apron strings when that country itself is struggling to keep the Gripen alive. India is best served going for a product where it does not have to do the heavy lifting in terms of either finances or technology, and gets better industrial advantage than what SAAB can provide

This would not be the top aircraft in the inventory, the IAF has the MKIs for that. Again a lot to be said for having a relatively inexpensive fighter, that's capable, cheap and easy to operate with quick turn around times. And at the minimum, sharing the same engine as the LCA.


If India needed cheap fighters, it would not have floated the MMRCA with a $10B plus budget, and no, there are no "top aircraft" and bottom feeders in the IAF inventory, as when war comes, all have to do their bit. And only somebody without an understanding of the IAF ORBAT would believe that the MKIs being the top aircraft would mean the rest could be less capable.
The Jaguar, MiG-27 pilots who will now go to the MMRCA will be asked to do a fair share of heavy lifting as well, which means the aircraft has to be every bit as capable as the MKI and even provide other capabilities which the MKI does not. At $10 Billion plus, it better do so.

Everyone has a different point of view, so lets agree to disagree.


Its not about points of view or whatever, but the fact that your Gripen claims so far have holes big enough to steer a battleship through.


Very compelling argument above about the capabilities of the Panda's Flankers. Your argument would make a tad more sense if India didn't have the SU30 MKI, and in large numbers, with more on the way.

In regards to the "paper plane" references, by the time this competition is finalized and everything is all said and done, the Gripen NG will be ready. Unless you think that things will move quickly from now on, I wouldn't wager a bet on that, would you?

The $10 Billion you mention, India could use that to get quality (Rafale, EF) or quantity (Gripen, MIG35). We have quality with the MKI, very few would argue with that. What the IAF is missing is quantity, and the Gripen would be the best way to get that, while still getting a potent aircraft (MIG 35 is out because the IAF wants to diversify, IAF may still buy seperately in the future I suspect). The US also uses the mix of quality and quantity F22, F35, F15 working with F16, F18, A10 (not to mention the different versions of each). We have a huge gap when it comes to numbers and the Panda, and how do you bridge this, the LCA, MCA? How long is that going to take?

The Gripen wasn't my first choice (it was the Rafale), but here is the breakdown:

Rafale & EF - expensive, will be out of the running if L1 is chosen (unless they are the only two shortlisted, not likely)
F16 & F18 - too many strings attached, see previous discussions by others
MIG35 - Russian, and we want to diversify

What's left, the Gripen, and it will have the same engine as the LCA.

The hole is perhaps big enough for a 'paper battleship', not a real one.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7919
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby nachiket » 28 Oct 2010 00:15

Sandeep, on paper the Mig-35 has an AESA radar with 1000 T/R modules and 11 hardpoints and 3D TVC. Is even a prototype of such an aircraft actually flying?
Last edited by nachiket on 28 Oct 2010 00:26, edited 1 time in total.

Sandeep_ghosh
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 07:19
Location: Unkel Sam's pot garden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sandeep_ghosh » 28 Oct 2010 00:20

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Sandeep_ghosh wrote:Getting Mig 35 opens the possibility of upgrading the 104 a/c's to MIG 35 standard.


1. The MiG-29s are OLD and not worth investing much more in.
2. The MiG-29s are already going through an upgrade program. They're not just going to throw that out. The OVT program is it for them.
3. How much would it cost? The current Mirage program costs almost as much per plane as a new SH . . .
3. It's not possible anyways. The MiG-35 is in many ways a different plane. It is not possible to upgrade an existing MiG-29 to a MiG-35.

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:with Full tech transfer unlike Americans


Except with you're not actually getting any tech transfer since you've already got access to everything Russia has through the FGFA program.


India is not getting the ovt upgrade for existing 29's, its the SMT upgrade thats the radar/ glass cokpit and hotas, whereas OVT is all aspect nozzle , fbw ... completely different package, very close to airframe of 35

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 28 Oct 2010 00:24

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:MMRCA a/c are not meant to be used as a pure a2a a/c


Fine, and the SH comes with an internal gun

The point that people were trying to make is that inclusion of a gun in the F-22 'proves' how important TVC is. A point I reject.

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:can you please show me one air superiority/ multirole fighter which lacks a potent gun.


F-35C

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:If TVC was that insignificant SU 30 MKI, PAKFA, would not consider it .


And if it was that significant, it would have been on the F-35A/C. We can around and around on this.

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:and guess what the USAF wanted the upgrades for F16 and F15to be ...TVC.... F-15S/MTD and F16 VISTA.


No, the USAF evaluated it and decided it was was not worth it.

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:I would really like to hear the disadvantages of getting the MIG 35 system


Its biggest problem is that it's not ready and no one knows when it will be ready. For a program whose entire rationale is an urgent need to stop tail loss, that is significant.

Also:
- no new tech
- no technical or political diversification
- likely to be sole customer so India will have to bear entire future of program by itself

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5321
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Kartik » 28 Oct 2010 00:45

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:We already use Mig 29M (69) which are being upgraded to Mig29SMT standard also Navy will employ Mig 29K (45).
Getting Mig 35 opens the possibility of upgrading the 104 a/c's to MIG 35 standard. that would actually bring MMRCA numbers from 128 to 232... nearly a fleet of migs as big as the sukhoi's

Also Mig 35 open architecture configuration for its avionics lets choose from components and systems made by Russian, United States, French and Israeli sources.

It can employ Wide variety of current and future missiles. I am not sure of any other aircraft in the mmrca deal to be able to fire the R77 missile which outclasses the AIM 120, skyflash and the MBDA Mica.

We all know how 2d thrust vectoring changed the face of su 27, Imagine what all aspect nozzle 3d thrust vectoring nozzle can do for the MIG.

MIG 35 will let us create a MKI type MIG 29 variant

at half the price of the eurofighter.
with Full tech transfer unlike Americans
deployment of of the shelf and existing Missles and smart bombs unlike the rafale
least dependence third party licences as in case of Jas Gripens

And looking at performance of Mig 29s ... it has time and again proved itself as an air supremacy fighter.


Since when did the IAF start using MiG-29Ms ? Get your facts right first Mr Ghosh. They use the MiG-29A and UB, the MiG-29M was offered in the 1990s but the IAF wasn't interested. The IAF's existing 63 MiG-29's will all be upgraded to a common SMT+ configuration and not a MiG-35 config anytime now or later. Even this upgrade program has cost $900 million and will take several years before all the aircraft are upgraded at IAF's No.9 BRD. After that they will serve out the rest of their lives in the SMT+ standard.

Secondly, the IAF and IN are separate and don't plan their procurements together. the MiG-29Ks are brand new, we've only started receiving them and 6 are in service. the IN is NOT going to take these brand new jets and put them through any MiG-35 level upgrade. And frankly the improvement in capability from -K to -35 will not be justifiable cost/time wise. Maybe in 2025, when the entire MiG-29K/KUB fleet is around 10-15 years old the IN will start looking at an upgrade program derived from PAK-FA and FGFA technologies and weaponry.

So this idea of yours is a non-starter.

R-77 outclasses the AIM-120 ? which variant of the R-77 and which variant of the AIM-120 ? How does it outclass the AIM-120 ? And also the MICA ? The only advantage the R-77 has over the MICA is its higher range, otherwise the MICA is a very capable BVR missile, reputedly has a very high Pk and very hard to jam. Even the new gen Meteor basically uses an upgraded MICA seeker.

Sandeep_ghosh
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 07:19
Location: Unkel Sam's pot garden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sandeep_ghosh » 28 Oct 2010 01:14

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Sandeep_ghosh wrote:MMRCA a/c are not meant to be used as a pure a2a a/c


Fine, and the SH comes with an internal gun

The point that people were trying to make is that inclusion of a gun in the F-22 'proves' how important TVC is. A point I reject.

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:can you please show me one air superiority/ multirole fighter which lacks a potent gun.


F-35C

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:If TVC was that insignificant SU 30 MKI, PAKFA, would not consider it .


And if it was that significant, it would have been on the F-35A/C. We can around and around on this.

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:and guess what the USAF wanted the upgrades for F16 and F15to be ...TVC.... F-15S/MTD and F16 VISTA.


No, the USAF evaluated it and decided it was was not worth it.

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:I would really like to hear the disadvantages of getting the MIG 35 system


Its biggest problem is that it's not ready and no one knows when it will be ready. For a program whose entire rationale is an urgent need to stop tail loss, that is significant.

Also:
- no new tech
- no technical or political diversification
- likely to be sole customer so India will have to bear entire future of program by itself





F35 was never designed t be a primary air superiority fighter,
It's primary function is ground attack, recon and air defense, unlike F22. Also the F35C has the least t/w ratio out of all the variants of the f35.


Coming back to Mig 35 : No new tech : New Zhuk Aesa radar donot confuse with Zhuk M for SMT upgrade. Mig typhoon and the sh have the top 3 radars in the list.

Also Mig 35 is fastest among the competition with 2.5 Mach rated speed, Fastest rate of climb at 335m/s

No political diversification : True, but that means no problems in case of sanction if India choses precision strike against a neighbor.

Sole operator: the biggest rusky customers are India and china... do you really want china to have the same aircraft if we have the same. Su 27-35 series is used by lot of countries but look at main export users ... just India and china ... other operators like vietnam , indonesia, venezuela etc have numbers from 6-20.

SO yes, its not at all a bad thing about being the sole operator of the system .

Also no one has still placed an order for the rafale does that mean we should count it as like the mig, sole operator.

About bearing the cost: no matter which system we decide to procure , we are still going to bear the entire cost of program development and implementation and upgrades. Doesn't matter how many countries use the same system there will be no offset to the established price.

Sandeep_ghosh
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 07:19
Location: Unkel Sam's pot garden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sandeep_ghosh » 28 Oct 2010 01:39

Kartik wrote:
Sandeep_ghosh wrote:We already use Mig 29M (69) which are being upgraded to Mig29SMT standard also Navy will employ Mig 29K (45).
Getting Mig 35 opens the possibility of upgrading the 104 a/c's to MIG 35 standard. that would actually bring MMRCA numbers from 128 to 232... nearly a fleet of migs as big as the sukhoi's

Also Mig 35 open architecture configuration for its avionics lets choose from components and systems made by Russian, United States, French and Israeli sources.

It can employ Wide variety of current and future missiles. I am not sure of any other aircraft in the mmrca deal to be able to fire the R77 missile which outclasses the AIM 120, skyflash and the MBDA Mica.

We all know how 2d thrust vectoring changed the face of su 27, Imagine what all aspect nozzle 3d thrust vectoring nozzle can do for the MIG.

MIG 35 will let us create a MKI type MIG 29 variant

at half the price of the eurofighter.
with Full tech transfer unlike Americans
deployment of of the shelf and existing Missles and smart bombs unlike the rafale
least dependence third party licences as in case of Jas Gripens

And looking at performance of Mig 29s ... it has time and again proved itself as an air supremacy fighter.


Since when did the IAF start using MiG-29Ms ? Get your facts right first Mr Ghosh. They use the MiG-29A and UB, the MiG-29M was offered in the 1990s but the IAF wasn't interested. The IAF's existing 63 MiG-29's will all be upgraded to a common SMT+ configuration and not a MiG-35 config anytime now or later. Even this upgrade program has cost $900 million and will take several years before all the aircraft are upgraded at IAF's No.9 BRD. After that they will serve out the rest of their lives in the SMT+ standard.

Secondly, the IAF and IN are separate and don't plan their procurements together. the MiG-29Ks are brand new, we've only started receiving them and 6 are in service. the IN is NOT going to take these brand new jets and put them through any MiG-35 level upgrade. And frankly the improvement in capability from -K to -35 will not be justifiable cost/time wise. Maybe in 2025, when the entire MiG-29K/KUB fleet is around 10-15 years old the IN will start looking at an upgrade program derived from PAK-FA and FGFA technologies and weaponry.

So this idea of yours is a non-starter.

R-77 outclasses the AIM-120 ? which variant of the R-77 and which variant of the AIM-120 ? How does it outclass the AIM-120 ? And also the MICA ? The only advantage the R-77 has over the MICA is its higher range, otherwise the MICA is a very capable BVR missile, reputedly has a very high Pk and very hard to jam. Even the new gen Meteor basically uses an upgraded MICA seeker.






My bad on Mig 29M , and true IN mig29k are new and wont go through the 35 upgrade, but will surely go through an upgrade in next 10 years.

AIM 120C are outclassed by R77MD offered with the Mig 35 not just in range but also in maneuverability. MD ranges upto 110km compared to AIM 120C's 70. AIM 120 D out-range the standard R77 but Not the R77MD variant. MBDA MICA has TVC but ranges around 50Kms. In BVR range is the most important aspect.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 805
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Raveen » 28 Oct 2010 01:44

Sandeep_ghosh
1. You asked for a multi-role A/C and as per your admission the F-35 is multi-role.
2. Fine, so it has a radar that is comparable to others in the competition.
3. Fastest is better because? If speed meant all that then every single new fighter would be going for Mach 3. Is the Mach 2.5 fast enough to break away from a stealthier oponent with a better avionics/radar fit launching a BVR missle zooming in at Mach 4?
4. Did the US send you a memo titles "list of sanctions against India in case of war against Pakistan"
5. You forgot the RuAF for the 27, where are they on the Mig 35?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Karan M » 28 Oct 2010 01:53

raj ji wrote:Very compelling argument above about the capabilities of the Panda's Flankers. Your argument would make a tad more sense if India didn't have the SU30 MKI, and in large numbers, with more on the way.


Oh my, is that impressive. You think I didnt take that into account? BTW seriously, which world do you live in. Is it a world, where like video games, Indias Flankers take on Chinas Flankers while politely the rest of Indias fighters wait for the outcome. I mean seriously, are you serious? Are you even aware that Indian MKI induction is already behind what China has inducted in terms of Flankers and the reason why India is seeking technology is because the numbers differential is likely to continue. If not, you have no business even continuing in this discussion...

In regards to the "paper plane" references, by the time this competition is finalized and everything is all said and done, the Gripen NG will be ready. Unless you think that things will move quickly from now on, I wouldn't wager a bet on that, would you?


Wow, are you part of the development team to state that it will be ready? Right now, as it stands, its not. Period. The Rafale, Typhoon, SH are operational, fighter planes. Not paper planes.

he $10 Billion you mention, India could use that to get quality (Rafale, EF) or quantity (Gripen, MIG35). We have quality with the MKI, very few would argue with that.


What a nice interpretation of the reality. India has 100 odd MKIs and 270 total ordered, while PRC is bulking up on Flankers, and the Pak. are reinvesting in their fleet. In your picture perfect world, India's MKIs would do the heavy lifting while the rest, supported, the reality is the ENTIRE IAF WILL GO TO BATTLE. Internalize this. There is no DIFFERENCE between a MiG-27 pilot on Day1 and a MKI pilot, both will end up being given all sorts of hard tasks. In your world perhaps, only the MKIs matter, in the real world, the pilots who go to the MMRCA require a proper platform, not just one which was cheap in peacetime

What the IAF is missing is quantity, and the Gripen would be the best way to get that, while still getting a potent aircraft (MIG 35 is out because the IAF wants to diversify, IAF may still buy seperately in the future I suspect).
The US also uses the mix of quality and quantity F22, F35, F15 working with F16, F18, A10 (not to mention the different versions of each). We have a huge gap when it comes to numbers and the Panda, and how do you bridge this, the LCA, MCA? How long is that going to take?


The LCA will give the quantity, no wonder it is targeted by all sorts of shady operators, and the timelines are well known. The IAF needs quality to go along with quantity, and that is provided by options 1 to 3 above, not the Gripen NG


The Gripen wasn't my first choice (it was the Rafale), but here is the breakdown:

Rafale & EF - expensive, will be out of the running if L1 is chosen (unless they are the only two shortlisted, not likely)
F16 & F18 - too many strings attached, see previous discussions by others
MIG35 - Russian, and we want to diversify


Who are you to decide what is too expensive or not? Do you or does anyone else have the details up hand to decide what is expensive or not? If not, then how do you know what meets all the criteria and what is decided as L1? Quit the speculation and partisan evangelizing for one choice. Think of India first (LCA, MCA, IAF requirements) then playing games

Sandeep_ghosh
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 07:19
Location: Unkel Sam's pot garden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sandeep_ghosh » 28 Oct 2010 02:07

Raveen wrote:1. You asked for a multi-role A/C and as per your admission the F-35 is multi-role.
2. Fine, so it has a radar that is comparable to others in the competition.
3. Fastest is better because? If speed meant all that then every single new fighter would be going for Mach 3. Is the Mach 2.5 fast enough to break away from a stealthier oponent with a better avionics/radar fit launching a BVR missle zooming in at Mach 4?
4. Did the US send you a memo titles "list of sanctions against India in case of war against Pakistan"
5. You forgot the RuAF for the 27, where are they on the Mig 35?


Not fast to outrun a missile but i still think being faster in the race is an advantage. 2.5 mach speed with tvc and 10g airframe + the maneuverability of MI29 airframe cannot be so bad, can it? And which stealthier plane are you referring to??

No US did not send me a memo , but maybe you can reflect int the history...

MIG 35 is not a new a/c its an upgrade on mig 29. A very heavy upgrade... just like SU30 Mki being an upgrade on SU27.
So RuAF standing on 27 is known to you ... then you might be familiar with MIG 29's standing in RuAF.

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby raj-ji » 28 Oct 2010 02:59

Karan M wrote:
raj ji wrote:Very compelling argument above about the capabilities of the Panda's Flankers. Your argument would make a tad more sense if India didn't have the SU30 MKI, and in large numbers, with more on the way.


Oh my, is that impressive. You think I didnt take that into account? BTW seriously, which world do you live in. Is it a world, where like video games, Indias Flankers take on Chinas Flankers while politely the rest of Indias fighters wait for the outcome. I mean seriously, are you serious? Are you even aware that Indian MKI induction is already behind what China has inducted in terms of Flankers and the reason why India is seeking technology is because the numbers differential is likely to continue. If not, you have no business even continuing in this discussion...

In regards to the "paper plane" references, by the time this competition is finalized and everything is all said and done, the Gripen NG will be ready. Unless you think that things will move quickly from now on, I wouldn't wager a bet on that, would you?


Wow, are you part of the development team to state that it will be ready? Right now, as it stands, its not. Period. The Rafale, Typhoon, SH are operational, fighter planes. Not paper planes.

he $10 Billion you mention, India could use that to get quality (Rafale, EF) or quantity (Gripen, MIG35). We have quality with the MKI, very few would argue with that.


What a nice interpretation of the reality. India has 100 odd MKIs and 270 total ordered, while PRC is bulking up on Flankers, and the Pak. are reinvesting in their fleet. In your picture perfect world, India's MKIs would do the heavy lifting while the rest, supported, the reality is the ENTIRE IAF WILL GO TO BATTLE. Internalize this. There is no DIFFERENCE between a MiG-27 pilot on Day1 and a MKI pilot, both will end up being given all sorts of hard tasks. In your world perhaps, only the MKIs matter, in the real world, the pilots who go to the MMRCA require a proper platform, not just one which was cheap in peacetime

What the IAF is missing is quantity, and the Gripen would be the best way to get that, while still getting a potent aircraft (MIG 35 is out because the IAF wants to diversify, IAF may still buy seperately in the future I suspect).
The US also uses the mix of quality and quantity F22, F35, F15 working with F16, F18, A10 (not to mention the different versions of each). We have a huge gap when it comes to numbers and the Panda, and how do you bridge this, the LCA, MCA? How long is that going to take?


The LCA will give the quantity, no wonder it is targeted by all sorts of shady operators, and the timelines are well known. The IAF needs quality to go along with quantity, and that is provided by options 1 to 3 above, not the Gripen NG


The Gripen wasn't my first choice (it was the Rafale), but here is the breakdown:

Rafale & EF - expensive, will be out of the running if L1 is chosen (unless they are the only two shortlisted, not likely)
F16 & F18 - too many strings attached, see previous discussions by others
MIG35 - Russian, and we want to diversify


Who are you to decide what is too expensive or not? Do you or does anyone else have the details up hand to decide what is expensive or not? If not, then how do you know what meets all the criteria and what is decided as L1? Quit the speculation and partisan evangelizing for one choice. Think of India first (LCA, MCA, IAF requirements) then playing games


Is this new information that the Rafale and EF are expensive? Have you read the countless previous posts, this isn't speculation it is a fact.

As for partisan evangelizing and games, it is easy to be sucked into the sabre rattling from our neighbours, and throw money at a "potential" threat. All while knowing that a conflict (small or large) would be very bad for business for the two fastest growing economies in the world, and both sides know it. But if you really want to deal with the threat, invest $10 Billion in the best off the shelf SAM systems, you would have enough to secure all Indian airspace from all but one Air Force.

Last post on this. Again, lets agree to disagree.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 28 Oct 2010 03:00

Eurofighter pledges opportunities for industrial partnership to secure MMRCA bid
Janes defene reports
Eurofighter said in a statement that the supervisory board will support the MMRCA campaign as well as propose "additional opportunities for industrial and technological co-operation" to potential Indian partners.

The supervisory board consists of chief executive officers (CEOs) from Eurofighter partners EADS, BAE Systems and Finmeccanica subsidiary Alenia Aeronautica.

The significance of the meeting was outlined by Bernhard Gerwert, chairman of the supervisory board and CEO of EADS subsidiary Cassidian Air Systems. He said: "The Eurofighter supervisory board is meeting in New Delhi to underline the importance we attach to integrating India into the programme as a true and equal industrial partner."

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Henrik » 28 Oct 2010 03:48

Karan M wrote:Technologically on par? The SH has a mature proven AESA, the Rafale and Typhoon have been flying for several years now with capabilities only now being sought for implementation on the NG, and have been in continuous modernisation, and a in development plane is on par with these platforms? And the technological edge with respect to Flanker derivatives is dubious, at best. The Flanker is a larger platform able to field much more powerful, larger aperture sized sensors and the PRC has a long history of iterative development.

Christ, name ONE technology that the Typhoon and Rafale is flying right now that the Gripen NG won't have.


The competition spoke the truth in this case. The Gripen NG and the MiG-35 are the two paper airplanes in the competition. Lots of glib talk but little to show for it so far. And as regards the Tejas MKII, your attitude speaks for itself and supports the fact that India should not subsidize the swedish industry. Let it sink or swim on its own, with its own money.

"My attitude"? I just spoke the truth didn't I? Did I step on your toes? The Tejas MkII still has a long way to go, probably a lot longer to go still then the Gripen NG has.

What sharing parts and where, apart from the engines. The Gripen NG is a hodge podge of systems from across the world, as far as sourcing goes and its likely to complicate logistics not simplify them, with multiple systems all having issues with multiple national laws, in case politics comes into the picture.

So you are saying that the Typhoon or Rafale would be smarter from a logistically point of view.. jeez.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4510
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Oct 2010 07:36

I've said this before, and I stand by it - the MiG-35 will get the boot via IAF evals, it is the only way to keep it out. If it makes it to the advanced stages, it will be L1, with the Gripen coming in a close second. MiG/UAC needs this deal desperately and will promise the moon for a pittance, my guess is 190 a/c for $ 10 billion.

Re. its capability, there is little to doubt that it'll meet IAF needs quite well.

CM.

Sandeep_ghosh
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 07:19
Location: Unkel Sam's pot garden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sandeep_ghosh » 28 Oct 2010 07:47

Cain Marko wrote:I've said this before, and I stand by it - the MiG-35 will get the boot via IAF evals, it is the only way to keep it out. If it makes it to the advanced stages, it will be L1, with the Gripen coming in a close second. MiG/UAC needs this deal desperately and will promise the moon for a pittance, my guess is 190 a/c for $ 10 billion.

Re. its capability, there is little to doubt that it'll meet IAF needs quite well.

CM.


why is MIG 29 getting the boot??

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 28 Oct 2010 08:00

Cain Marko wrote:Re. its capability, there is little to doubt that it'll meet IAF needs quite well.


Except for the whole part about it being ready anytime soon.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 28 Oct 2010 08:27

Cause Mig35 was late.. it only capitalized on the money from IAF to survive.. Q: Why weren't the 85 mig 29s weren't upgraded to Mig35 standards. The engines were ready, AESA (no info on its status now - may be it is ready), OLS, etc for the mig29 upgrades. Instead they chose to go the slow ride, step by step upgrade so that they can survive their Mig industrial complex without any shutdown.

If Mig 35 doesn't get Indian order, it is no profit for them to keep their production line open except for repairs. They will get converted to PAK-FA making or merge into to Sukhoi factory.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 805
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Raveen » 28 Oct 2010 08:27

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:
Raveen wrote:1. You asked for a multi-role A/C and as per your admission the F-35 is multi-role.
2. Fine, so it has a radar that is comparable to others in the competition.
3. Fastest is better because? If speed meant all that then every single new fighter would be going for Mach 3. Is the Mach 2.5 fast enough to break away from a stealthier oponent with a better avionics/radar fit launching a BVR missle zooming in at Mach 4?
4. Did the US send you a memo titles "list of sanctions against India in case of war against Pakistan"
5. You forgot the RuAF for the 27, where are they on the Mig 35?


Not fast to outrun a missile but i still think being faster in the race is an advantage. 2.5 mach speed with tvc and 10g airframe + the maneuverability of MI29 airframe cannot be so bad, can it? And which stealthier plane are you referring to??

No US did not send me a memo , but maybe you can reflect int the history...

MIG 35 is not a new a/c its an upgrade on mig 29. A very heavy upgrade... just like SU30 Mki being an upgrade on SU27.
So RuAF standing on 27 is known to you ... then you might be familiar with MIG 29's standing in RuAF.


The F35
Plus please show me a 10G Mach 2.5 maneuvour where the pilot is alive and not passed out and the airframe survives

In history I see the Russians not supplying us cryo engines as well becasue of 'pressure' maybe you rely too much on history, historical perspectives are good as long the players don't change and in this case the US, India and the world is a very different place.

So the Mig35 is all new where is suits you and an upgrade where it doesn't?
t

nishu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 19:49

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby nishu » 28 Oct 2010 08:46

what do the symbols on the flags represent in this image
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/10/ia ... -what.html

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby rohitvats » 28 Oct 2010 09:11

nishu wrote:what do the symbols on the flags represent in this image
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/10/ia ... -what.html


Insignias of various Air Commands. The first on the left is Western Air Command.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 28 Oct 2010 09:36

Raveen wrote:
The F35
Plus please show me a 10G Mach 2.5 maneuvour where the pilot is alive and not passed out and the airframe survives

In history I see the Russians not supplying us cryo engines as well because of 'pressure' maybe you rely too much on history, historical perspectives are good as long the players don't change and in this case the US, India and the world is a very different place.

So the Mig35 is all new where is suits you and an upgrade where it doesn't?


Cryo engines do not undermine our security.
Where as a two front war does.

When we compare Indo-US-Russian relations we should keep in mind the facts we will be dealing with a country which deployed dozens of infantry divisions to thwart a Chinese aggression during our previous wars, which gave us war materials from its active stockpile. And another country which deployed a carrier battle group in our waters threatening a nuclear strike if we did not obey them.

Yes, India changed, Russia(USSR) changed and US seems to be changing.

We are having new friends. But it should never be at the cost of our old ones.

Plus please show me a 10G Mach 2.5 maneuvour where the pilot is alive and not passed out and the airframe survives


I think you should see it from a different perspective like: A fighter which can do a 10G Mach 2.5 maneuver can easily out maneuver another one which cannot do the same at all possible low mach and lower G's.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 28 Oct 2010 09:54

koti wrote:We are having new friends. But it should never be at the cost of our old ones.


India is still throwing plenty of defense money Russia's way.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 28 Oct 2010 10:19

GeorgeWelch wrote:
koti wrote:We are having new friends. But it should never be at the cost of our old ones.


India is still throwing plenty of defense money Russia's way.


Throwing is an unacceptable word. :evil:
It is typical American way of throwing money to silence friends and enemies alike. But the relation India carried and continues to carry with Russia is a progressively evolving alliance.

All the money that seems to go Russia's way is for very very sensitive and Strategic military hardware.
Be it the SMERCH or the Akula or the FGFA or the BRAHMOS.

And yes the T-90 and the Gorky should be attributed to rather bad businessman-ship from both sides.

Now considering the recent Multi-Billion dollar purchases from US of A.
We got Trenton. An old and equally rusty retired ship with no strategic value.
A couple of again old retired mine sweepers.(In the pipe)
A few anti ship missiles which were given a decade early to our arch enemy.
Recce planes that are stripped of certain critical components as we did not sign a few papers.
ityadi.... :eek:

Now coming back to throwing, it seems that India is throwing money rather to US in order to make it happy and befriend it better.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 28 Oct 2010 11:17

koti wrote:Throwing is an unacceptable word. :evil:


I did not intend it in a pejorative sense.

Simply that, as you documented, India and Russia have major defense ties.

One contract, no matter what the outcome, is hardly going to be 'at the cost of our old ones'.

koti wrote:Now coming back to throwing, it seems that India is throwing money rather to US in order to make it happy and befriend it better.


Or maybe they simply preferred the US product in that field.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 28 Oct 2010 11:48

Not to get totally offtopic, but . . .

koti wrote:Now considering the recent Multi-Billion dollar purchases from US of A.
We got Trenton. An old and equally rusty retired ship with no strategic value.


1. It was $50 million, probably less than the cost of a single MRCA plane.

2. It's amazing how a lie once started can never be killed. There are no problems with India using Jalashwa however it wants.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 28 Oct 2010 12:07

It's amazing how a lie once started can never be killed. There are no problems with India using Jalashwa however it wants.

The point I raised regarding Jalashwa is not regarding its end use restriction.
But the utility as a platform as a whole does not bring any notable military advantage when seen against PRC and Pak.

It was $50 million, probably less than the cost of a single MRCA plane.

Comparing cost of an MMRCA contender with Jalashwa is out of my scope.
The reason I brought Jalashwa into the picture is to point out the and contrast the current level of Indo-US and Indo- Russian relations.
One where we get to co-develop futuristic technologies and the other where we buy retired or about to be retired equipment.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 28 Oct 2010 12:16

One where we get to co-develop futuristic technologies and the other where we buy retired or about to be retired equipment.


Like the P-8I and the Gorshkov?

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Neshant » 28 Oct 2010 12:34

Armed forces around the world are going to be downsizing big time.

Instead of blowing a ton of money on new crap, just wait a while and pick up the surplus for a song.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 28 Oct 2010 13:42

GeorgeWelch wrote:
One where we get to co-develop futuristic technologies and the other where we buy retired or about to be retired equipment.


Like the P-8I and the Gorshkov?


Reply at viewtopic.php?f=3&p=969302#p969302

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 28 Oct 2010 13:54

The PLAAF operates wide varieties of Su's. But still we don't seem to bother about that and are going ahead with our MKI's.

Why is it that the sole argument against f-16IN is its operation by PAF?

If it is to be rejected, it should be for any reason other then this. Also, I think we will be eligible for a relatively cheap upgrade to JSF(maybe upgraded further) at around 2025-30.

Just a thought.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 28 Oct 2010 14:18

koti wrote:The PLAAF operates wide varieties of Su's. But still we don't seem to bother about that and are going ahead with our MKI's.

Why is it that the sole argument against f-16IN is its operation by PAF?

If it is to be rejected, it should be for any reason other then this. Also, I think we will be eligible for a relatively cheap upgrade to JSF(maybe upgraded further) at around 2025-30.

Just a thought.


We need the planes now. not in 2025-30. By that time, PAK-FA would be flying in our air force.

F-16IN is not much different from what F-16 Planes that Pakistan flies. An open secret is that Pakistan has allowed Chinese to inspect these fighters in detail. In so much detail that the Chinese have a rip-off or pirated version of F-16 in service. So the problem with F-16 is that Pakistan has it, China has it and by buying it India gets no advantage over its enemies.
Also F-16 like F/A-18 are American. So they come with the various restrictions on their usage and places where they can be used. These restrictions will not apply to Grippen NG or EFT or Rafale or Mig-35. In case of a war with Pakistan, we can expect the yanks to exercise influence by banning all weapons exports or spare parts. This has happened previously in 1965 and 1971 and will be repeated in the future. Right now China and America are in opposition to each other. For more than a decade, i.e. 1971-89, they were aligned. In simpler words, America is not dependable.

With regarding to SU-30MKI vs SU-30MKK, there is a significant difference in the avionics in between these planes. We did a mistake in not insisting that this fighter or its spin-offs would not be exported to other countries. This fighter got off the ground, because of the 9000 crore rupees that we spent in 1995.

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Juggi G » 28 Oct 2010 14:32



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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Gaur » 28 Oct 2010 18:54

^^
It really sad that there exists so much sensational journalism in India. Shiv Aroor had himself displayed the list of equipments absent from Indian C-130J. Which one of those cannot be replaced?
Maybe India's reluctance to sign CISMOA may have an effect on F-16, SH avionics suite (I really have no expertise to know for sure). However, the C-130J deal is a very good one even without it.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 28 Oct 2010 18:59

MMRCA fighter buzz: US, EU step up heat
IBNlive reports..


arya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 17:48
Location: Kanyakubj Nagre

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby arya » 28 Oct 2010 20:33

shukla wrote:MMRCA fighter buzz: US, EU step up heat
IBNlive reports..


:eek:
DDm again its best according to him Russia's President is Putin not Medvedev :rotfl:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests