India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

[Kartik]

No, it didn't think it would meet the specifications as set forth in the tender. That's a legalistic determination and has nothing to do with how they view the capabilities.

For example, during the first KC-X competition, the USAF decided they liked the KC-30 better than the KC-767 even though it didn't meet some of the requirements they themselves set forth in the RFP. So they chose the plane they liked better. Oops, legally they were in the wrong because they didn't follow the rules they set forth. The IAF is trying to avoid a similar fiasco.

Proof. Where is the proof of this accusation of yours?

Which is clearly what we were talking about. Standard SHs first to be upgraded at a later date.

What makes you think that the Shornet has a leg up on the Typhoon and Rafale in this respect? Both of them could also be produced to current specifications in 36 months.

So the opinion of the largest operator is 'selective cherry picking'?

When we talk of the IAF's opinion of the Shornet which led to its rejection, you basically dismiss it as being rigged. Conversely, you ask me why I consider the opinion of the largest operator as cherry picking- Why would I give a rat's ass about what the USN thinks of the Shornet when the operator I'm interested in (the IAF) has rejected it?

You need to study the history of the F-22 more. The kinematics weren't what made it expensive . . .

Why was it even required? It added very little to the overall capability of the F-22 if one was to go by your theory. Even a F-117 would've sufficed then would it not, since stealth was the primary requisite if one is to believe you, and airframe design that hinders good supersonic performance doesn't matter.

Why do they do it? Because it's worth it.

However it is also why they're excited about the F-35 and it's much more durable stealth coating.

Yes, its worth it, which is why the order size was reduced from 800 odd to 187. Clearly they couldn't get enough of it. PM's can promise the moon. The proof will be when the F-35 enters service and they have data to back up what they're claiming right now.

Yes, you can overcome drag with more thrust. You find that surprising?

No I don’t- but it emphasises the poor basic design of the Shornet, a fighter that carries its carrier legacy over to the land based version as well, bringing along a design that is uncompetitive against fighters like the Typhoon and Rafale (which despite having a naval variant, isn't handicapped performance wise, like the Shornet).

Correct. And also why the USN has no interest in it. It exists solely to check one datapoint on the IAF list of requirements.

And those requirements (which you so blithely dismiss) are the prerogative of the IAF- why do they need to give a flying f**k about the USN's requirements? Is the USN going to fight the IAF's wars for it?

If the Shornet cannot meet those requirements then sorry, it doesn't make the cut. Better luck with some other US ally whose requirements mirror those of the USN, like Australia.

You aren't paying attention to what I said.

You didn't put it across well enough then- what was it you said ? That the F-35's ToT would've been as good as that of the Shornet? I don't believe you and I don't think anyone else here will either.

Except the amount being spent isn't 'bulk-up' money, it's 'core of the future' money, and the F-35 will be far better to be a core of the future.

To spend so much on obsolete fighters solely to 'bulk-up' boggles the mind.

I find it truly amusing that you refer to the Typhoon and Rafale as obsolete while extolling the virtues of the Shornet ! I now understand what marketing folks are like- they believe what they peddle is truly the best, even if it is slam bang in the mediocre category of the same generation that the person is ridiculing. If it boggles your mind that India is spending so much on the MRCA, so be it. I couldn't care less. As far as I, an Indian citizen, am concerned, they're making the right choice instead of chasing a mirage (not the Dassault one either).

Too late for what?

To be of any real use when it is badly needed.

Are you even aware of the JSF consortium's rules ?

Yes.

Then you wouldn't be trying to say that India will become a partner nation. Israel isn't a partner- it’s a participant. India would be the same.

Development will be ongoing and India will undoubtedly have their own requirements (perhaps weapons integration). As you see, countries got partner status for as little as $110 million. You really think they would deny India who will invest so much more?

Secondly this gets back to where you misunderstood my earlier comment about ToT. I don't know how much of the F-35 they would be willing to share BUT they would obviously be willing to share what would have been included in the SH/SViper package, which would have met the MRCA requirements.

So you still get the same or better ToT than you get for ordering the EF/Rafale.

There is so much conjecture on your part that its not worth discussing this any more with you. If you believe that India would've been given the same level of technology as it would've been given with the Shornet, then you're welcome to hold that view. I don't buy it, never will. We've seen far too often how restrictive the US has been with technology transfer clauses. I don't fault the F-35 itself- it may well end up being a fine piece of kit- but I don't believe that it fits into our scheme of things for now.

You must stop confusing what makes sense with what legalistically has to happen. There is minimal overlap between the two. For instance they couldn't even CONSIDER bid price before the downselect. Some people have questioned the wisdom of such a policy, but it is the policy and they have to follow it whether it makes sense or not.

If they'd considered the bid prices before the downselect, then there were other fighters that would've been in a better situation than even the SHornet. The objective was first select which equipment meets your requirements, and then select the cheapest of them. Question its wisdom if you will, it is the law. It is intended to prevent a situation from arising where some bidder offering a cheaper product can undercut another bidder, even if the cheaper product doesn't satisfy the armed forces' requirements fully. The Shornet would've done that.

Exactly, can't have it demeaning the almighty process.

So now you admit that you're basically trolling here. This is my last reply to you.

The second has no relation to the first.

Yawn…I don't care about your opinion and will not bother to reply any further. I'll just be happy in the knowledge that the IAF is getting its requirements met.

And if the need was desperate, they would have gotten over themselves and let it happen.

They haven't had any problem sole sourcing more MKIs.

Is the secret to simply split the order into smaller bite-sized chunks? If they had ordered 40 more there would have been no problem. Then another 40 and still no problem. And another 40 and voila! You're at 120!

Those smaller follow-on orders happened because the IAF would've shrunk to PAF levels if more MKI's weren't ordered. That wasn't the case when the IAF was actively seeking Mirages. Anyway, I've seen others trying to explain this to you and you don't understand it still. Either you're dumb as a doorbell or clearly choosing to ignore what others and I have tried to explain. Either way, not my concern anymore.

[Prem]

In potential reductions to major weapons systems, Mr. Panetta said he was considering cutting the purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a radar-evading jet for the Air Force, Navy and Marines that is projected to cost nearly $400 billion for more than 2,400 planes over the next two decades. He suggested he might slow or cut back production, although the final decision may be to protect that jet program and identify cuts in other weapons purchases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world ... ted=2&_r=1

( This is 166Million a Pop)

[Viv S]

I think a lot of poster have gone truly overboard with their criticism of the F-35.

Its far from a bad aircraft. Even with external stores its going to be the stealthiest aircraft in the skies for a long time. Its EW systems are probably a good deal better than those on any other aircraft. The EO-DAS and MMI in particular appear to be outstanding. It will be able to do what all its fourth generation brethen can't - replace the F-117.

While its cost has increased hugely from what it was originally intended to be ($65 million), its still competitive with the Rafale and EF. 10 or 20% more or less, isn't as crucial in the bigger scheme of things. Its future is as assured as it can get, with it replacing the F-16 and F-18 in the USAF and USN. A GaN radar for example will probably be available for it as an option or upgrade before the Rafale or EF.

So those aren't the reasons why it isn't an option. The most important reason is the timeline. With the IOC looking more and more likely to extend into 2018, the only way the IAF gets it, is if it is willing to wait. Or play around with early (possibly immature) variants of F-35 while ordering extra Mirage-2000s to bridge the gap. But the problem is we're already committed to the PAK-FA and the MRCA is intended to bridge the gap until the PAK-FA enters service (probably around 2020 with FOC around 2025). So even if the domestic production of the F-35 is sanctioned by the US Congress it will end up overlapping the PAK-FA/FGFA production. Also, the degree of ToT and industrial involvement being promised by the EF and Rafale seems considerably better than what the F-35 is likely to bring.

[nachiket]

I think a lot of poster have gone truly overboard with their criticism of the F-35.

Its far from a bad aircraft. Even with external stores its going to be the stealthiest aircraft in the skies for a long time.

I thought that honor went to the almighty Raptor. Besides, how exactly do you compare its stealth characteristics to those of the PAKFA and J-20?

[Viv S]

I think a lot of poster have gone truly overboard with their criticism of the F-35.

Its far from a bad aircraft. Even with external stores its going to be the stealthiest aircraft in the skies for a long time.

I thought that honor went to the almighty Raptor. Besides, how exactly do you compare its stealth characteristics to those of the PAKFA and J-20?

I thought I had an 'except for the F-22' in there. Probably edited it out with another EW reference.

In any case, its obviously not for export, so its a moot point.

You can't authoritatively compare its stealth characteristics with the PAKFA and J-20. But then both of them are further off in their in-service dates than the F-35. The point was that, saying it loses its stealthy characteristics with an external load (esp. vis-a-vis the EF and Rafale) is incorrect. Even with a complement of 8 AAMs, it still retains a significant RCS against both. Even the recent EADS claim about the EF being able to detect the F-35 at 59km conceded the F-35 would detect the EF at 120-150km.

[Pogula]

You can't compare its stealth characteristics with the PAKFA and J-20. But I don't except either of those to be in service for a 'long time' yet.

It is amusing that you said that! The JSF has an expected IOC of 2018, but given the way the program had been managed over the past 5 years, I think a 2018 IOC is still a very optimistic expectation.

Now, on the other hand, when is the PAK-FA expected to get its IOC? IIRC, Vladimir Prisyazhnyuk recently revealed they are on track for a 2016 IOC.

As of now, Viv, it looks like PAK-FA will be rolling out in Russian/Indian colours much before the JSF will roll out with the USAF badge!

[Viv S]

Now, on the other hand, when is the PAK-FA expected to get its IOC? IIRC, Vladimir Prisyazhnyuk recently revealed they are on track for a 2016 IOC.

Yeeahh.... that's not going to happen.

[Virupaksha]

I thought that honor went to the almighty Raptor. Besides, how exactly do you compare its stealth characteristics to those of the PAKFA and J-20?

I thought I had an 'except for the F-22' in there. Probably edited it out with another EW reference.

In any case, its obviously not for export, so its a moot point.

You can't authoritatively compare its stealth characteristics with the PAKFA and J-20. But then both of them are further off in their in-service dates than the F-35. The point was that, saying it loses its stealthy characteristics with an external load (esp. vis-a-vis the EF and Rafale) is incorrect. Even with a complement of 8 AAMs, it still retains a significant RCS against both. Even the recent EADS claim about the EF being able to detect the F-35 at 59km conceded the F-35 would detect the EF at 120-150km.

and why are we discussing these absolute NON-ENTITIES like F-35, PAKFA, J-20 on this thread?

If they were in offer, they should have contested along with others.

Choice is between EF/Rafale. end of story.

[Taygibay]

Back on topic then,

[Leo.Davidson]

May the Rafale WINNNNNN !!!

Flatten that baby and she'll outmatch the F-35. The F-35 is still work in progress, there is enough time to gather the characteristics and parameters of the F-35 and apply it to the Rafale. We don't need VTOL or VSTOL. Stuff the laser designator, etc in the fuselage and this baby will out perform the F-35.

[ramana]

i still dont get it. how can folks bring in F 35 in this thread when its about EF & Rafale? Totally off topic. Just because some one wrote a most likely lifafa article no need to go overboard here.

[member_20029]

As of now, Viv, it looks like PAK-FA will be rolling out in Russian/Indian colours much before the JSF will roll out with the USAF badge!

honestly, with the direction US politics are taking right now, that very well may be the case (assuming the HAL/Sukhoi Engineers can keep up their end of the bargain)






what about Thrust Vectoring, anyone considered that?
Only the EF2000 is even capable of thrust vectoring (with a system modification, according to the Consortium), and while we're comparing MMRCA fighters to US 5th gens, I must point out that the F-35 doesn't have TV as well...

would that matter in the dealings?

[Kartik]

To end the story of the F-35 for the MRCA-

F-35 likely to be fully operational only in 2018

Although the service doesn't yet know when the F-35 will become operational, the aircraft will likely miss the current projected date of 2016. The aircraft will likely become fully operational in 2018, Carlisle said, but the service is not naming an official date until the new master schedule is complete.

So even the USAF isn't sure when the F-35 will be operational and we have guys here telling us that we ought to go chasing this.

[krishnan]

They want mullah and what better way than to get india on board.

Nanga thane ilachavayunge...

[sum]

^^ Today's paper ( cant recollect if DeccanHerald or Hindu) quotes a source in MoD saying that EF was cheaper in unit cost than the french one and it surprised everyone in MoD.

However, the IAF is looking at total cost and not just unit cost and so final call only in 6-8 weeks.

Trying to find the link in online version. Read it on print version.

[ranjithnath]

this thread is going haywire ever since F35 was introduced into discussion.which as a matter of fact, has been repeatedly been turned down by both IAF and MOD.

[Aditya_V]

this thread is going haywire ever since F35 was introduced into discussion.which as a matter of fact, has been repeatedly been turned down by both IAF and MOD.

Especially since even US allies are expecting most of their orders in the next decade, even if the IAF orders today, it will begin to come in only around 2022 odd. And based on the cost of the F-22( whose final cost is in excess of 350m + high maintenance), this aircraft is going to cost more 200 m Plus.

This aircraft can be considered for our next gen inductions and not for aircraft we need yesterday to meet the Paki F-16 and Chinese threats.

US should also learn than selling AMRAAMS to Pakis was a bad decision, I agree buying scorpenes from France after they sold Agosta's with Mesma and Exocet was also a bad decision.

[SaiK]

Flatten that baby and she'll outmatch the F-35. ..

I was thinking the same.. flat and stretch laterally, so that you get more surface area for the nose t/r panels as well. get the pakfa nose basically.

[Singha]

http://www.indiandefence.com/forums/f7/ ... ysis-6127/

some of the analysis posted here in hilarious. like rafale being able to carry more load because its more "stable" and EF not as much because it was designed to be manouverable. and rafale canards being useless for nose pointing.

[bksahu]

Any chaiwalah info on which one is going to get selected???

[krishnan]

The one which wins the tender

[shukla]

EF unit cost cheaper than the Rafale? Or just bogus press??

Fighter deal suspense continues

The MoD, on Friday last, opened the commercial bids of the two contenders clearing way for further negotiations before it announces the lowest bidder. According to well-placed sources, EADS, which is promoting the more advanced and thereby more expensive aircraft   is said to have quoted a lower price “unit flyaway cost.”

“This comes as a contradiction to all the assessments made in the past that Eurofighter is costly and that India might not purchase it due to cost pressures,” a source said.
The two aircraft were, according to Air Commodore B R Krishna, Commandant, Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment, were “shortlisted after they complied with the 600-odd parameters laid down in the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements.” Sources, while adding that though there was not too much of a difference between the two quotes, however said: “This shows how important the deal is for countries involved in the promotion of the aircraft and with the European economy not exactly in a comfortable position, such deals have become more dearer.”

The vendors refused to comment on the matter as there is confidentiality agreement.  Speaking to Deccan Herald, MoD spokesperson Sitanshu Kar, without confirming anything said: “...This is just the unit cost, there is more work left before one could rejoice or feel otherwise. We have some of our best personnel looking  into the matter and the L-1 could be announced in another six to eight weeks.”

The MoD is busy with benchmarking and standardisation of costs, so that there are common parameters for the bidders. Kar said a Joint Director rank official from the Defence Accounts Department will head the deliberation of costs.

Given that India is, for the first time going to consider more than just the direct acquisition costs before selecting the lowest bidder, the MoD will also evaluate the life-cycle costs (keeping in mind a time span of 40 years of operation), cost of other aspects like the electronic warfare equipment, avionics et al.

And considering that the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will manufacture the selected aircraft in the future,  transfer of technology costs will also be considered.

[rajanb]

I wonder if time to deliver is also a factor of cost?

[svinayak]

I wonder if time to deliver is also a factor of cost?

It will reflect somewhere in the TCO and currency and spare cost

[Aditya_V]

I wonder if time to deliver is also a factor of cost?

More worryingly are any of the 2 vendors looking the Gorskhov and Scorpene precedents?

[GeorgeWelch]

George.Don't call me a liar ever again,you litttle t*rd.

Stop lying and I'll stop calling you a liar. Deal?

PS:Just for the record for members,here's one report/quote.

AGAIN, nothing about the UK getting a lesser version.

*Here's the report about "tier1,2,3 variants!" Only the US will get the fully loaded JSF and evn Britain's "tier 1" does not come with TOT and codes (other reports).

And your lies continue. . . It is clearly about different tiers of PARTNERSHIP, not about tiers of PLANES.

There is NOTHING in your quotes that indicate that the plane the UK is getting is any way less capable.

Yes, there are concerns about ToT and source codes, but the product itself is not in doubt.

[mallikarjun]

Dear Taygibay,
I like ur posts, Please enlighten me on,
1.Willl MMRCA at this later stage allow contenders to to lower the prices to beat other??
2.if not, what does the price negotiation committe do in the process of negotiation in your openion??
3.Will rafale fare well in that price war at this late stage?

Mallik

[GeorgeWelch]

No, it didn't think it would meet the specifications as set forth in the tender. That's a legalistic determination and has nothing to do with how they view the capabilities.

For example, during the first KC-X competition, the USAF decided they liked the KC-30 better than the KC-767 even though it didn't meet some of the requirements they themselves set forth in the RFP. So they chose the plane they liked better. Oops, legally they were in the wrong because they didn't follow the rules they set forth. The IAF is trying to avoid a similar fiasco.

Proof. Where is the proof of this accusation of yours?

What accusation? That the IAF is carefully following the letter of the law?

My point is that following the letter of the law is NOT NECESSARILY the same as how they actually view it's capabilities. You say they determined it didn't meet their needs, I say you can't know that. All they determined was that it didn't meet the letter of the specification.

Which is clearly what we were talking about. Standard SHs first to be upgraded at a later date.

What makes you think that the Shornet has a leg up on the Typhoon and Rafale in this respect? Both of them could also be produced to current specifications in 36 months.

The SH could be produced to current specification in a lot less than 36 months and in it's current form is more capable than the EF. But mainly it would be a ton cheaper.

So the opinion of the largest operator is 'selective cherry picking'?

When we talk of the IAF's opinion of the Shornet which led to its rejection, you basically dismiss it as being rigged.

I didn't dismiss it as rigged, I recognized it for what it was: Mechanically following a process that was set in motion a long time ago.

Why would I give a rat's ass about what the USN thinks of the Shornet when the operator I'm interested in (the IAF) has rejected it?

Stop trying to change the subject, which was was specifically the merits of the EPE engine. If you weren't interested in the SH at all, we wouldn't have been disucssing the EPE in the first place. In the context of how important the EPE is, the USN's opinion certainly is relevant.

And again, deciding it doesn't meet a certain spec isn't the same as deciding it's unsuitable.

Hypothetical example: the spec says accelerate from M1.1 to M1.4 in 90 seconds. One plane does it in 93 seconds and another plane does it in 88 seconds. Clearly the first plane would never meet your specialized needs and would be utterly useless on the modern battlefield, so it should be pitched regardless of what other advantages it might provide

It's an inherent problem of mechanistic processes that they can't use judgment. Trying to substitute rules for judgment doesn't always lead to the best selection, but on the other hand it makes protests more difficult (which is why it gets used even when it so often leads to sub-optimal results)

You need to study the history of the F-22 more. The kinematics weren't what made it expensive . . .

Why was it even required? It added very little to the overall capability of the F-22 if one was to go by your theory.

Because it added very little extra cost, so why not?

Even a F-117 would've sufficed then would it not, since stealth was the primary requisite if one is to believe you, and airframe design that hinders good supersonic performance doesn't matter.

I never said performance doesn't matter, I said it's not as important as some people think. And specifically in regards to the EPE, you can come up with certain flight regimes where it makes a big difference, but overall, not so much. The marginal difference between the the EPE SH and non-EPE SH isn't going to win you many (if any) fights.

Why do they do it? Because it's worth it.

However it is also why they're excited about the F-35 and it's much more durable stealth coating.

Yes, its worth it, which is why the order size was reduced from 800 odd to 187. Clearly they couldn't get enough of it.

Again you keep trying to change topics.

The order being reduced had NOTHING to do with the maintenance hours required to maintain the coating.

PM's can promise the moon. The proof will be when the F-35 enters service and they have data to back up what they're claiming right now.

They have enough of them flying now to know if there was something drastically wrong the coating. And so far not a peep about problems with it.

No I don’t- but it emphasises the poor basic design of the Shornet, a fighter that carries its carrier legacy over to the land based version as well, bringing along a design that is uncompetitive against fighters like the Typhoon and Rafale (which despite having a naval variant, isn't handicapped performance wise, like the Shornet).

Just a quick aside, France accepts a higher landing speed on their carriers than the USN does. There is a chart of % of accidents vs landing speed and at a certain speed, the accident rate really starts to climb to rapidly. The USN stays strictly on the low side of the 'elbow' while France goes a little ways up it, which forces certain design choices on the SH.

That probably doesn't change your opinion on anything, but I thought you might find it interesting.

Correct. And also why the USN has no interest in it. It exists solely to check one datapoint on the IAF list of requirements.

And those requirements (which you so blithely dismiss) are the prerogative of the IAF- why do they need to give a flying f**k about the USN's requirements? Is the USN going to fight the IAF's wars for it?

And my point is that requirements are often rather arbitrary and not all equally important and that an AF might be willing to accept a little 'give' on one in order to gain somewhere else.

So getting all high and mighty about the SH not meeting India's requirements is slightly amusing. Which requirement couldn't it meet and how critical was it? In the end it doesn't matter, under a mechanistic process they're all equally important and with no margin for error. In the real world we recognize it's not so black and white.

You didn't put it across well enough then- what was it you said ? That the F-35's ToT would've been as good as that of the Shornet? I don't believe you and I don't think anyone else here will either.

Why not? If they're willing to share the tech for x amount of money, they're willing to share it for x amount of money. It makes no sense to say we'll make AESA chips available to you if you order SH but not if you order F-35.

Except the amount being spent isn't 'bulk-up' money, it's 'core of the future' money, and the F-35 will be far better to be a core of the future.

To spend so much on obsolete fighters solely to 'bulk-up' boggles the mind.

I find it truly amusing that you refer to the Typhoon and Rafale as obsolete while extolling the virtues of the Shornet !

What virtues of the SH am I extolling? That it's cheap and available quickly, EXACTLY the virtues that are relevant in a 'gap-filler' situation.

Then you wouldn't be trying to say that India will become a partner nation. Israel isn't a partner- it’s a participant. India would be the same.

Israel hasn't signed anything yet, also Israel has a lot of 'unique' political issues that may keep them from wanting to be a partner nation in the first place.

If you believe that India would've been given the same level of technology as it would've been given with the Shornet, then you're welcome to hold that view. I don't buy it, never will.

I'm not saying SH LEVEL ToT on the F-35, I'm saying the actual SH ToT package. In other words the ToT package that would have been included with a SH buy (APG-79, F414, etc). There's no reason that same package couldn't be available.

If they'd considered the bid prices before the downselect, then there were other fighters that would've been in a better situation than even the SHornet.

Maybe, we'll never know.

[GeorgeWelch]

Just to keep the good times rolling, here's some thoughts on this article:

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/11/co ... -ride.html

Now couple this with the fact that its payload just about matches that of the Tejas

Tejas payload: 4000kg
F-35 payload: 8100kg

Next, even if it is advertised as a “multirole” aircraft, its capability on the aerial warfare front is still seriously suspect.

Stealth + F-16 kinetics + super sensors and situational awareness = aerial domination

At present the best it can do is carry four air-to-air missiles internally, less than half the capability of either the Typhoon or Rafale

Internally carried missiles:
F-35: 4 now, 6 eventually
Rafale and EF: 0

Externally the F-35 will carry 10 now and 12+ eventually

Also, its stealth is not all-aspect like the F-22’s, and so it cannot be relied upon to make its way in and out of enemy territory unassisted

No stealth mission goes in unassisted (jammers, AWACS, etc). The difference is the F-35 has a chance of making it while the other don't even with assistance.

Additionally, the F-35 features a significantly smaller combat radius than either MMRCA finalist when on internal fuel and weapons (which also means a smaller payload due to restrictions on space available).

Yes stealth mode involves some compromises. But it also gives you OPTIONS. Options that are simply unavailable on the other aircraft. Saying that stealth is useless because it can't go as far as something lugging 5 external tanks misses the point.

There are doubts, too, about its aerodynamic capabilities. The aircraft features thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading figures poorer than those of any contemporary fighter.

And by the time you get to a real world scenario where you're hanging external tanks and weapons off the competition, the difference is more than made up.

And nevermind all the test pilots that have consistently said it performs like a clean F-16, a condition no F-16 actually fights in.

The lack of a two-seat F-35 means that not only will the IAF not get what it wants for deep penetration strike roles, but it means that any pilot training will have to be done on expensive simulators only.

Any simulator is cheap compared an actual fighter. Basic flight training will be done on jet trainers and then pilots migrated over to the F-35, no problem.

Even six years after it entered service, new and potentially fatal problems continue to surface with alarming regularity.

So the IAF should no longer order aircraft unless they have been in service at least 6 years? Oops, guess that kills the FGFA and AMCA too . .

Yes there are problems with new aircraft, but air forces put up with them because they're worth it.

the IAF needs new aircraft as fast as possible to shore up numbers and make up for the rapid obsolescence of a large portion of its fleet

The F-35 might not be the right solution for this particular problem . . . but the platinum-plated Rafale and Eurofighter sure as hell aren't either.

the F-35's role can be performed not by another aircraft, but by missiles

Most ridiculous suggestion yet.

Missiles are certainly important, but there are huge ranges of missions they can't address. Pop-up targets, mobile targets, targets that require very precise hits, targets that require visual confirmation, or basically any sort of ground-support role.

[Hitesh]

Georgie,

I have gone over your posts and Philip's posts. He is not lying. He may be putting a different spin on the given facts but he is not lying so lay off with the statements of "liar, liar" okay?

I checked the SH's stats. Except for the avionics, SH's handling leaves a lot to be desired even with its greater engine thrusts. I still recall that even during the early 2000s the USN pilots were fond of calling the SH as the Super Pig as it was so ungainly as compared to the F/A-18Cs. It suffered shorter ranges and less maneuverability than the Cs. So based on that, IAF chose EU fighter and Rafale. And that is the last word since IAF is the end user as it is the last word regarding C-17 purchases when Philip and others such as Sanku were claiming that the yet to exist IL-476 was for the taking.

As for JSF, it came too late in the MRCA competition. And that is not the fault of IAF or GoI. Besides I do not think that JSF would cope well over the Himalayas in order to counter the J20 threat.

[arunsrinivasan]

^^ +1

[Viv S]

What virtues of the SH am I extolling? That it's cheap and available quickly, EXACTLY the virtues that are relevant in a 'gap-filler' situation.

Filling the gap to what? Surely not the F-35. The Su-30MKI production will run to about 2016, which is when the domestic MRCA line should be up by. Manufacturing at a conservative 12 aircraft per year, the production quota of 108 aircraft will be completed by 2025, by which time the domestic production of the PAK-FA would have begun. So the question is, where does the F-35 fit in?

As regards the SH, its done deed. Yes its possible the SH offered somewhat better value for money. Just as its possible that it was rejected on operational grounds (last I heard full ToT for the APG-79 had been red flagged), industrial grounds (SH's industrial participation was subject to approval unlike EF and Rafale's Lassez Faire approach), or on political grounds (the Russians would be take a loss to the Europeans with more equanimity than they would one to the US). But seeing as its done, no point in returning to that debate.

I'm not saying SH LEVEL ToT on the F-35, I'm saying the actual SH ToT package. In other words the ToT package that would have been included with a SH buy (APG-79, F414, etc). There's no reason that same package couldn't be available.

Was the APG-79 ToT available in the first place? I was given to understand that while the system's export have received congressional approval, ToT had not. Besides, how would what you're saying work? The MoD is probably looking at a Su-30MKI like program - first few units completely built abroad, next batch assembled from knocked down kits, next one partially built in-house and final batches completely manufactured in-house. Do you think there's even a remote possibility of that being cleared for India? The US' biggest strength vis-a-vis the Europeans, is also its biggest drawback - they don't the need Indian orders as badly as the Europeans do and are proportionally less willing to share core technologies.

[SaiK]

Perhaps to offload all the unwanted posts, admins should open a thread for F35. Or, if they feel it could add more validation points to the selected mmrca craft, they could maintain the thread more readable, and bring out the arguments that only make sense without any name calling and personal fights. It is a request in the interest of many eyes in the public domain.

[Taygibay]

Dear Taygibay,
I like ur posts, Please enlighten me on,
1.Willl MMRCA at this later stage allow contenders to to lower the prices to beat other??
2.if not, what does the price negotiation committe do in the process of negotiation in your openion??
3.Will rafale fare well in that price war at this late stage?

Mallik

Thank you very much, Mallik.
I am glad to contribute to our good forum but
concerning your questions, my knowledge of
the details may not be quite sufficient to answer
correctly.

The prices themselves should not change or not much.
The Bids should be fixed or almost as price is concerned.

The committee will try to calculate the total costs of the
submissions it has just opened. There may be things that
it values more in the offers say ToT and it would then give
a bigger factor to it. If the unit cost of one is lower, the value
of the Technology may be seen as less too and thus bring that
vendor back to par in the computed value of the deal.
( i.e. cheaper in price but cheaper in value = normal price )

Also, the nature of the offsets may come in play as one could
offer deals for them that are not directly related to the planes.
If say one offers to bring back more in value but less of it from
the military, does India want a new truck plant or less in value
but a gun factory instead.
Those are the things being checked to determine the L1.

After that, the chosen bidder and Indian govt officials will get
together and discuss the legal aspects and put an agreement
on paper. I'm afraid that we will have to wait until then to know.
Full disclosure may take much longer even.

As for Rafale doing well, let's just say that the past cooperation
between India and France has been good and that may help;
there should be less legal difficulties as well being a single source.
But there are no guarantees.

Let me add that while we do not know much this part of the process
is essential to India.
There are going to be some adjustments made yet and how well
those are dealt with will change the end result lot.

Tay.

P.S. George Welch, you meant total?

Internally carried missiles:
F-35: 4 now, 6 eventually
Rafale and EF: 0

Externally the F-35 will carry 10 now and 12+ eventually

The present bays allow 2 AtoA/2AtoG stations.
There are three weapons stations per wing so that it would need
to fly without external fuel to carry 6 external AtoA missiles.

If you have info concerning a dual AtoA pylon being in the works,
please share a link, by PM to spare the MMRCA thread.
Those are utterly rare for technical reasons and would constitute
a darn nice achievement/advantage.

Also,

No stealth mission goes in unassisted (jammers, AWACS, etc).
The difference is the F-35 has a chance of making it while the other
don't even with assistance.

is forgetting that stealth is but one solution to deep penetration.
The Rafale is designed for high-lo-lo, which makes it a visible
target only in transit. Most modern fighters will not detect this
hugging the ground :

And ferry range of a clean fighter is 1,200Nm for the F-35 and that
Answer: 1200 n.m. = 2222.4 km compares to 2,100km for the Raffy.
So take higher consumption for low flight and the F-35 goes a little
further +-180km due to stealth, not so much. Which ties in to the
thread as it points out that CFTs should be an IAF requirement for
both ACs in the MMRCA.

That last however

Just a quick aside, France accepts a higher landing speed on their carriers than the USN does. There is a chart of % of accidents vs landing speed and at a certain speed, the accident rate really starts to climb to rapidly. The USN stays strictly on the low side of the 'elbow' while France goes a little ways up it, which forces certain design choices on the SH.

is very true and shows how difficult it is to make a choice in such
a case as the MMRCA. What fits one AF may not quite fit another,
As long as tenders are going to last for years, I would recommend
that at least two pilots from the buyer's AF be sent for 2-3 months
in units of the sellers AF using it.
Two months plus in France, two months back in India, two months plus
in the UK, two months back in India again to report on evaluation,
in less than a year you have a serious basis as how your guys like it.
If both pilots go criss-cross they may be sent to different units thus
getting more experience or different roles.

[Yagnasri]

Politically - The stand of the French immediately after Indian Nuclear testing will be a great help. I am sure french marketing people will push this spin at every possible oppertunity. Further great and proven relationship in the form of M2000 is also will be pushed. I dont thing we have anything like that even with Brits who withheld spares to us earlier and Germans, spain and Italians have nothing at all. In fact Italian connection may be a problamatic because of Q and SG and bofors saga. So clearly advantage France politically. Unkil tried to play the game 1970's items and lost. Now too late with fat, one legged, untested and costly item with full of undiscolsed secrets. Further i dont thing Indian has time to go and beg before US congress when ever we want some up greade or some spares.

[Taygibay]

Fully agreed to your sequence of events Ajatshatru but

we will offer the aircraft free to our pet Munna

While not harboring resentment towards Pakistan personally,
its industry would not be able to absorb the tech involved.
Not as things stands now.
The pilots wiould use them but that's almost all.
Think of the step from JF-17 to an F-35 in tech terms.

[GeorgeWelch]

P.S. George Welch, you meant total?

Yes. Perhaps I didn't phrase it clearly, but if you allow external carriage, then it carries 10 now and 12+ eventually.

is forgetting that stealth is but one solution to deep penetration.
The Rafale is designed for high-lo-lo, which makes it a visible
target only in transit. Most modern fighters will not detect this
hugging the ground :

The F-35 can do ground-hugging too, but that is far from a silver-bullet solution. It has serious limitations, especially if the enemy has AWACS up high or the terrain isn't favorable to such tactics. Also it does nothing to help with air combat capabilities.

[GeorgeWelch]

Filling the gap to what?

The gap in squadron strength that apparently is so critical.

Surely not the F-35.

Whatever gap has everyone so convinced that if they wait another couple years the IAF is DOOOOOOOOMED

So the question is, where does the F-35 fit in?

Clearly you wouldn't do the full MRCA buy PLUS the F-35.

I'm not saying SH LEVEL ToT on the F-35, I'm saying the actual SH ToT package. In other words the ToT package that would have been included with a SH buy (APG-79, F414, etc). There's no reason that same package couldn't be available.

Was the APG-79 ToT available in the first place? I was given to understand that while the system's export have received congressional approval, ToT had not.

Obviously I'm not privy to the details, but they were convinced they could meet the ToT requirements as set forth in the tender.

Do you think there's even a remote possibility of that being cleared for India?

Why not? Turkey is getting their own final assembly line. There's nothing particularly sensitive about the actual assembly process. You're going to have access to all the pieces anyways, so it shouldn't be an issue.

[darshhan]

I think this should settle the debate on F-35 vs MMRCA

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11 ... -50-years/

More bad news for the Pentagon’s next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons program in Defense Department history — and arguably the most important one in the Pentagon today. The Air Force has confirmed what observers long expected: that the land-based F-35A model probably won’t be ready for combat until 2018, two years later than previously scheduled.

The single-engine stealth fighter, built by Lockheed Martin, has been beset by parts failures, design changes and a 64-percent increase in overall cost since development began in 2001. While testing has gone better lately, the nearly $400-billion program still needs to complete thousands more test flights before the first batch of regular pilots can even begin training.

The effects of the delay are cascading throughout the world’s biggest and most powerful Air Force. To keep up its strength while awaiting the F-35, the Air Force is having to keep its 1980s- and 1990s-vintage F-15s and F-16s far longer than anyone ever imagined when those planes rolled off the production line.

“We have a geriatric Air Force,” retired Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula told The Wall Street Journal in September. And it’s going to get a lot older before large numbers of new jets start offering any relief. Evolving plans see nearly 500 F-15Cs, Ds and Es remaining in the air beyond 2030, by which time the youngest C and D models — the dogfighters — will be close to 50 years old. At least 300 of the more lightly built F-16s are now expected to last through the 2020s, averaging 40 years in service. Of the Air Force’s 2,000 fighters, just 180 or so F-22s can be considered “young.”

With age comes increased risk of fleet-wide failures — though young planes can also have systemic problems.

Still, age is not a perfect measure of a jet’s usefulness. The 50-year-old B-52 is arguably more capable than ever following decades of upgrades. The Air Force is planning billions of dollars of updates to keep the F-15s and F-16s in fighting shape. The F-15s are getting new radars and having their frayed wiring replaced. Between 300 and 600 F-16s will get structural upgrades. The Air Force is also mulling a new radar for the F-16. Both fighters could also get new weapons. “The proposed … investments will sustain America’s air-superiority advantage,” the Air Force claimed in a February statement.

Some critics disagree. With China and Russia developing new stealth fighters and America’s jets still flying into their fourth and fifth decades, the Air Force could find itself outgunned in a future air war, they say. While these skeptics might take a simplistic view of aerial combat and aircraft age, they’re not wrong to be alarmed at the F-35’s seemingly interminable delays.

[Taygibay]

@ George Welch



Wink, lol, an image by someone who comes by here.
It would require the two external wing points to be
open which they are not at present but includes two
supersonic tanks.
So tanks gone ten now twelve when points opened!


BTW, I hope this helps, I took the liberty :
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=3&t=6201

Later guys, Tay.