MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Apr 2018 14:26

Back to the future what, or has Lockheed perfected time travel?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Apr 2018 23:29

Interesting..some of the cons of going with US sourced combat jets, at least for Chile. If any US combat jets are to be bought, there has to be absolutely no interference on the part of the US on Indian sovereignty or end use.

Janes excerpt

The Chilean Air Force is looking again at putting some of its 46 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters through a service life extension programme (SLEP), local military sources have told Jane’s .

The SLEP, which would incorporate upgrades to avionics and weapons sourced from Israel, would free the aircraft from end-user controls and limitations set by the United States under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system.

According to the sources, the deployment of F-16s armed with AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) to provide security over Santiago City during a 2013 summit between Latin American, Caribbean, and EU leaders required US authorisation.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 27 Apr 2018 00:36

Rakesh wrote:The fighter for India’s future: Going back to the beginning...
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion ... nning.html

By Mohan Guruswamy

......................

The whole article seems like a advertisement for Gripen.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Apr 2018 01:15

Good guess Raj. Although the Rafale and F-18 - IMVHO - are the two strongest in the batch. The latter because of its tie up with HAL and the former because 36 of the same type will be joining the IAF. While the F-18 wins on unit cost - vis-a-viv the Rafale - that cost will be negated once you take the factory, tools, spares, infrastructure and other variables into account. The Rafale will be more expensive on unit cost, but all other variables already exist. Where the Rafale will lose is if they go in for 110 birds. For that matter, the GOI will be unable to afford any of the birds - Gripen included - at 110 examples. The IAF knows this and so do the bean counters at the MoD. To quote the term from former FBI Director James Comey, “Lordy, I hope the IAF gets what it wants.” I cannot use timely, because just like the last two comedy sessions this will take a long time.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Apr 2018 01:38

Khalsa wrote:We actually do need a good Medium Sized Bomb truck. The Australians wanted something they could use to bring tonnage across distance and they find it a good fit. I am sure, it will work fine for us too.

I am only dismayed at a rapidly diminishing window of opportunity for the Tejas but it is what it is.
The Hornet brings a strategic piece of equipment (EMALS) to our shores and I am all for it.

Saar, we already have a beautiful bomb truck. That is the Rambha. With the exception of the APG-79 AESA radar, in almost every other respect the Rambha is superior. Now serviceability is another story, but even on that respect it has improved from earlier. Delivering tonnage across vast distances is something the Rambha excels at and the IAF has perfected it to a T since her induction nearly 16 years ago in Sept 2002. After the Super Sukhoi upgrade, she will be more than capable to handle anything the PAF or the PLAAF can throw at it. There is a reason why the Rambha is known as the air dominance fighter in the IAF.

To quote Rocky and Mayur from the TV show Jai Hind, when the Hawks take to the skies, everything else pales in comparison. Hawks being the name of a Rambha squadron - No 24 Hunting Hawks - the first IAF squadron to be raised with the Su-30 (the K variant) at Lohegoan AFS in 1997. She later converted to the MKI variant and is based now at Bareilly AFS. That statement about The Hawks is not hyperbole or exaggeration, it truly is. Another IAF officer - talking about the Rambha - said she dominates the airspace in such a way, that it sanitizes it. If you feel you can launch your own aircraft, then roll the dice and take your chances. In his words, it is a kind of dadagiri (bully). Sanitizing a section of airspace is key to achieving victory.

What the IAF wants now is something with a cheaper per flight hour operating cost, ease of maintenance, quick turn around time, etc. The Gripen touts them as among her main advantages. And then with Saab’s tall claims that they will revolutionize Indian aviation industry and 100% ToT is music to the Govt’s ears. That does not mean a cake walk for Saab or Boeing has lost. I still believe Boeing pulled off a masterstroke by tying up with HAL.

After the retirement of the F-111 Aardvark in 2010, the Aussies never had a bomb truck with similar capabilities until the Super Hornet arrived in the same year. In fact, I would have loved to see the IAF get the Growler version. But it is not on offer and neither is the IAF interested in it. And I have yet to reply to ArjunPandit on the Growler. My wife just had a baby and so busy. Sorry Arjun Saar!

EMALS is more than likely coming - F-18 Super Hornet for the IAF or not. The MoD and the Indian Naval Design Bureau need to finalize the design and release the funds, so metal cutting can begin. That has still not occurred. When are they expecting this vessel to arrive?

This is not a bloody saiboat, rather a 65,000 ton CATOBAR carrier. They need to get moving.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Apr 2018 02:03

rajsunder wrote:
Rakesh wrote:The fighter for India’s future: Going back to the beginning...
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion ... nning.html

By Mohan Guruswamy

......................
The whole article seems like a advertisement for Gripen.

With a LOT of very very questionable data, such as attrition rates for twin versus single engine fighters. Mohan Guruswamy needs to be made aware of the 36 odd inflight failures of Su-30MKI's AL-31FN engines that in the event of those happening on a single engine fighter would've led to a definite crash. None of those led to a crash on the twin engined Su-30MKI.

One also needs to look at what the attrition rate of the F-16, affectionately (!) called the Lawn Dart is versus other twin engined types in the USAF inventory. Obviously not all are engine related crashes, but it is disingenuous and dishonest to make claims that in the event of one engine failing on a twin engined fighter, the second too will be most likely lost. He's clearly done no such research.

had it been me writing the article, I'd have pointed to the Gripen's excellent attrition rate, in which most accidents have occurred due to reasons other than the engine.

As for roll onset rate, the Rafale can safely be assumed to have one of the highest roll rates of any fighters in existence. Similarly with the Typhoon. And one such parameter anyway doesn't define any superiority of single engine fighters over twin engine- as as MiG-29 pilots proved in DACT versus more sophisticated Mirage-2000s.

And if he peddles BS like Gripen costing between $30-60 million, then one knows that this article can be ignored. Not even Gripen Cs cost anywhere near $30 million.

Gripen E, which is the only variant of interest, will likely be in the $70-90 million ballpark flyaway and with all the associated spares, spare engines, ground equipment, training, simulators, that will go up by another 30-40%.

Anyway, its an opinion piece and its his opinion.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Apr 2018 02:10

Delivering tonnage across vast distances is something the Rambha excels at

Rakesh, the Su-30 can carry 4 AAMs to around 1500 km fire them and return. At the end of the day, its a fighter. The large bomber aircraft are in a different category altogether, in that they can carry huge warloads to large distances. A fully loaded Su-30 MKI will have a maneuverability shortfall plus range will decline appreciably.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 27 Apr 2018 02:47

Karan M wrote:
Delivering tonnage across vast distances is something the Rambha excels at
A fully loaded Su-30 MKI will have a maneuverability shortfall plus range will decline appreciably.

True! But that is true for any fighter (f-teens/f-20s/30s/MkI/Gripen/LCA) tasked to play bomb truck. They have really reduced ranges.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Apr 2018 03:28

Rakesh wrote:And I have yet to reply to ArjunPandit on the Growler. My wife just had a baby and so busy. Sorry Arjun Saar!

Congratulations Rakesh!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Apr 2018 04:38

Cybaru wrote:
Karan M wrote:
A fully loaded Su-30 MKI will have a maneuverability shortfall plus range will decline appreciably.
True! But that is true for any fighter (f-teens/f-20s/30s/MkI/Gripen/LCA) tasked to play bomb truck. They have really reduced ranges.

Karan Saar, you are correct. I should have clarified that point, which Cybaru Saar has done. My bad.

I was just pointing out to Khalsa-ji, that the IAF already has a F-18 type aircraft in its inventory. It is called the Rambha. I just want to state though, that is *NO* reason for the disqualification of the F-18 Super Hornet in the MRCA contest.

Khalsa-ji ---> from the wiki page on the Su-30MKI and the F-18E/F Super Hornet.

Su-30MKI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI)

Empty Weight --> 18,400 kg (40,565 lb)
Loaded Weight --> 26,090 kg (57,520 lb) (typical mission weight)
Max. Takeoff Weight --> 38,800 kg (85,600 lb)

Range: At high altitude --> 3,000 km (1,860 miles; 1,620 nautical miles)
...........At low altitude --> 1,270 km (790 miles; 690 nautical miles)
...........Combat radius --> 1,300 km (808 miles; 702 nautical miles)
...........Ferry range --> 8,000 km (4,970 miles; 4,320 nautical miles) with two in-flight refuelling

F-18 Super Hornet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/ ... per_Hornet)

Empty Weight --> 14,552 kg (32,081 lb)
Loaded Weight -->21,320 kg (47,000 lb) (in fighter configuration)
Max. Takeoff Weight --> 29,937 kg (66,000 lb)

Range --> 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 km) clean plus two AIM-9s
Combat Radius --> 390 nautical miles (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission
Ferry Range --> 1,800 nautical miles (2,070 miles, 3,330 km)

Now the pictures below are not indicative of any real combat mission load, the IAF might undertake. They are just for photo ops. But the point I am making is we already a bomb/missile truck. Now if we got the Growler variant of the F-18, that is a different story.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Apr 2018 04:44

Kartik wrote:
Rakesh wrote:And I have yet to reply to ArjunPandit on the Growler. My wife just had a baby and so busy. Sorry Arjun Saar!
Congratulations Rakesh!

Thank you Kartik!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Apr 2018 06:39

Saab’s Gripen E is Leading IAF’s latest MMRCA Contest for 110 fighter jets
https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/20 ... hter-jets/

The Indian Air Force defined the operational role of the fighter jet to be Air Superiority, Air Defence, Air to Surface Operations, Reconnaissance, Maritime, EW missions and Buddy Refuelling etc. IAF specified that the proposed fighter jet could carry weapons of Indian origin and foreign origin. Vendors are requested to define aspect and relevant radar frequency bands for calculation of Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the aircraft when aircraft configured with A2A and A2G weapons. The most intriguing fact that the IAF specified refuelling capability of NATO standard and Gallium Nitride (GaN) based technology used in AESA radar which is available only in European and American fighter jet, indicate that the IAF does not indent or interested in Russia’s fighter jet in the recent RFI.

The Radar tracking mode also specified beyond + 60° azimuth and 120 km range which is covered by Wide Field of Regard of Raven AESA radar. None of the Russian radar has Wide Field of Regard. The Radar specification includes Real Beam Mapping (RBM), Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), Ground Moving Target Indication (GMTI) over RBM/SAR, Ground Moving Target Track (GMTT) over RBM/SAR, Ground Target (Stationary) Track, Air to Ground Ranging, Weather, Sea Surveillance and Search While Track, Sea Target Continuous Track (STCT), Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR) and Terrain Avoidance.

The specification of radar, electronics and refuelling prob will prohibit any Russian fighter jets inclusive Su-35 to compete in Indian MMRCA as Russian fighter jets lack advanced GaN-based radar. The MiG-35 has been advertised as a fighter jet with an AESA radar. However, the recent delivery of Egyptian Air Force (EAF) does not contain an AESA radar because the radar supposed to exported to EAF inventory allegedly is not production ready. The requirement stipulating the use of GaN-based TRMs in the aircraft’s AESA radar seems to be a significant discerning factor. The Saab JAS 39 Gripen E seems to be leading the IAF’s latest fighter contest.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Apr 2018 06:44

Raven ES-05 --> http://www.leonardocompany.com/document ... 07819_.pdf

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 27 Apr 2018 09:52

AFAIK no in operation (or to be in the near future) fighter has a GaN AESA radar, that article may have been pulled out of the a$$.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 27 Apr 2018 10:34

Rakesh wrote:
Kartik wrote:
Congratulations Rakesh!
Thank you Kartik!

Badhai ho, Admiral Sir! Soon you will be busier than the IAF folk during GaganShakti

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Apr 2018 10:41

Rakesh wrote:
Khalsa wrote: My wife just had a baby and so busy.

Congratulations Admiral! Ab toh mithai banta hai

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 Apr 2018 10:46

Rakesh wrote:Raven ES-05 --> http://www.leonardocompany.com/document ... 07819_.pdf

https://exoatmospheric.files.wordpress. ... ven-es.jpg

Isn't Finmeccanica/Leonardo Blacklisted

https://mod.gov.in/sites/default/files/firmshold.pdf

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 27 Apr 2018 10:51

Rakesh wrote: My wife just had a baby and so busy.

Congratulations

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 27 Apr 2018 12:30

Kakarat wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Raven ES-05 --> http://www.leonardocompany.com/document ... 07819_.pdf

https://exoatmospheric.files.wordpress. ... ven-es.jpg
Isn't Finmeccanica/Leonardo Blacklisted

https://mod.gov.in/sites/default/files/firmshold.pdf

They'll find a workaround claiming the Radar is made in the UK

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Apr 2018 12:36

The admiral has launched a baby boomer! Gratters old bean! Fat chance of any mithai though.We're still waiting for the Akula mithai.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 27 Apr 2018 14:56

Rakesh wrote:My wife just had a baby and so busy. Sorry Arjun Saar!

Good God Admiral
Wishing you and the Rear Admiral the very best in life.

May your fleet grow by seasons.
May you continue to rule the waves of our brains and our hearts !!

Last not least may you name her after the letter V or S
Sorry I took a gamble there on if the baby is a girl or a boy.

Please give my best wishes to your wife and love and regards to the little one.

Along with the rest of the rakshaks.

Jai Hind & fair winds !!

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 27 Apr 2018 16:41

Indranil wrote:
Rakesh wrote:
Congratulations Admiral! Ab toh mithai banta hai

I was going to post literally the same thing word to word, but you already did so.

Anyhow, Congrats Admiral to you and yor Family. Abhi to mithai banata hi hai..

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Apr 2018 17:18

Thank you to all for the warm wishes. Mithai distribution will start once this RFI is cancelled and India focuses only on Tejas production

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 27 Apr 2018 18:17

In other words, No Mithai

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Apr 2018 02:36

Congratulations to you and your better half Admiral!

Rakesh wrote:Thank you to all for the warm wishes. Mithai distribution will start once this RFI is cancelled and India focuses only on Tejas production

How many tonnes are you promising this time?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Apr 2018 02:48

Rakesh wrote:Saab’s Gripen E is Leading IAF’s latest MMRCA Contest for 110 fighter jets
https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/20 ... hter-jets/

The Indian Air Force defined the operational role of the fighter jet to be Air Superiority, Air Defence, Air to Surface Operations, Reconnaissance, Maritime, EW missions and Buddy Refuelling etc. IAF specified that the proposed fighter jet could carry weapons of Indian origin and foreign origin. Vendors are requested to define aspect and relevant radar frequency bands for calculation of Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the aircraft when aircraft configured with A2A and A2G weapons. The most intriguing fact that the IAF specified refuelling capability of NATO standard and Gallium Nitride (GaN) based technology used in AESA radar which is available only in European and American fighter jet, indicate that the IAF does not indent or interested in Russia’s fighter jet in the recent RFI.

The Radar tracking mode also specified beyond + 60° azimuth and 120 km range which is covered by Wide Field of Regard of Raven AESA radar. None of the Russian radar has Wide Field of Regard. The Radar specification includes Real Beam Mapping (RBM), Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), Ground Moving Target Indication (GMTI) over RBM/SAR, Ground Moving Target Track (GMTT) over RBM/SAR, Ground Target (Stationary) Track, Air to Ground Ranging, Weather, Sea Surveillance and Search While Track, Sea Target Continuous Track (STCT), Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR) and Terrain Avoidance.

The specification of radar, electronics and refuelling prob will prohibit any Russian fighter jets inclusive Su-35 to compete in Indian MMRCA as Russian fighter jets lack advanced GaN-based radar. The MiG-35 has been advertised as a fighter jet with an AESA radar. However, the recent delivery of Egyptian Air Force (EAF) does not contain an AESA radar because the radar supposed to exported to EAF inventory allegedly is not production ready. The requirement stipulating the use of GaN-based TRMs in the aircraft’s AESA radar seems to be a significant discerning factor. The Saab JAS 39 Gripen E seems to be leading the IAF’s latest fighter contest.

Another poor article with a clear intent to make the Gripen E seem like the top contender.

the IAF DID NOT SPECIFY ANYTHING OF THAT SORT in the RFI. It requested information on the type of radar and this was the specific question. How is that interpreted to mean that the IAF wants GaN based AESA radar only? Maybe there will be a grading mechanism that will give higher points to a fighter that has GaN radar but it does not SPECIFY much. It requests information.

(a) What kind of Transmit/Receive (T/R) modules are used in Active Electronically Scanned Array‟ (AESA) radar? Is Gallium Nitride (GaN) based technology used in AESA radar?

and as for the scanning ranges

Velocity Search Mode
(c) What are the total scan zones (deg) in azimuth and elevation? Does it have capability to scan beyond + 60° azimuth?

Track While Scan Mode
a) What are the scan zones (deg) in azimuth and elevation? Does it have capability to scan beyond+ 60° azimuth?

So a re-positioner like that on the Raven AESA or the Captor-E is welcome, but once again the IAF DOES NOT SPECIFY that it is mandatory. Perhaps higher points when grading the jets, but certainly not disqualification due to not having a higher scan range.

There are requirements that the Gripen E does not meet as of today, and would need specific testing and certificating for - e.g. buddy refueling. Someone must inform the gentleman that wrote this article, that the RFI Part 1 states that one of the intended uses of the MRCA fighter is for buddy refueling. And so far, it has not been demonstrated even once by any Gripen variant.

Another specific requirement of the IAF's RFI is to have a fully combat capable trainer armed with internal gun. AFAIR, the Gripen D deleted the onboard cannon. And the Gripen F is not going to have it either. So how will they comply with this requirement?

And, lets see the Swiss scoring based on its evaluations of the Rafale F3 (AFAIR), Typhoon Tranche 2 (AFAIR) and Gripen C.

Mission/Parameter Score (scale of 0 to 9)
QRA 4.5
Pilot workload 7.0
EW 8.0
CNI Comm/Nav/ID 5.0
Aircraft Performance 5.5
Data dissemination 2.5
Engagement 5.5
Acquisition 5.5
Identification 5.0
Detection 6.0
Endurance/AAR/Loiter Time ~3.8
SA/Force Coordination 6.2
Mission Preparation 4.0

Make no mistake- the Gripen C is in general a good light fighter and the medium weight Gripen E will meet most of the RFI requirements but it is not as good as Rafale or Typhoon. These jets pretty much eclipse it in ALL parameters except for acquisition and operating costs. These leaked scores from the Swiss evaluation expose the fact that Saab PR has hyped the earlier Gripen C to mythical standards in conjunction with some journalists. Gripen E is no exception, with Saab execs regularly using hyperbole about it being the most capable jet fighter in the world and so on.

if the IAF commits to 324 Tejas including Tejas Mk2s, then there is no need to get the Gripen E, it should be the Rafale that should be acquired. Economies of scale with the existing 36 order.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Apr 2018 03:27

If IAF signs a deal for ASEA radar from outside like thales or rafael then it could madate that radar be made standard... It will be interesting to see what happens to that tender.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Apr 2018 04:21

Kartik wrote: And, lets see the Swiss scoring based on its evaluations of the Rafale F3 (AFAIR), Typhoon Tranche 2 (AFAIR) and Gripen C.

That is a very interesting chart indeed. Validates IAF's choice of Rafale, but did not expect the pilot load on EF to be lower than Rafale.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Apr 2018 06:52

^^^
Would be nice to see ground attack profile comparison chart.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Apr 2018 12:18

...and finally the cost factor! A $200M+ Rafale vs a $40-60M Gripen.We already have our supreme air dominance fighter the MKI-to be upgraded to even more fearsome SS std.,so why the desperate req. for more Rafales when cheaper options are available? No contesto!

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 28 Apr 2018 13:51

Philip wrote:...and finally the cost factor! A $200M+ Rafale vs a $40-60M Gripen.We already have our supreme air dominance fighter the MKI-to be upgraded to even more fearsome SS std.,so why the desperate req. for more Rafales when cheaper options are available? No contesto!

No one knows what the Super Sukhoi standard is or how much it will actually cost. So lets leave that aside. Also you are comparing total cost(flyaway + maintenance + weapons) of the Rafale, with POSSIBLE flyaway cost of the Gripen E. The Gripen, if it comes, will need its own maintenance facilities and training, which costs extra. Same for any other aircraft including the Shornet or the Viper. We already have paid for those facilities for the Rafale, along with some India-specific R&D. Rather silly to waste that amount on only 36 planes, no?

Lastly, if money truly was an issue, then the MoD and the IAF wouldn't be announcing SEF and TEF mega deals and RFIs willy-nilly. I like to think that the money is there and will be made available once the downselection is made. Also, there is evidently a reason why the IAF and the MOD, don't want more Flankers or Fulcrums. You can make up your mind as to what they are.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Apr 2018 18:15

^^^
Just because a RFI/RFP are put out that doesn't mean there is money to pay for them. These SEF/TEF contests are too far in to the future for the current government to worry about paying it in their term. Those decisions are left for future governments some 10-15years later.

As far as current capital budgets go, it is already maxed out according to a recent news report.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 29 Apr 2018 01:42

Kartik wrote:
Rakesh wrote:And I have yet to reply to ArjunPandit on the Growler. My wife just had a baby and so busy. Sorry Arjun Saar!
Congratulations Rakesh!

Rakesh Saar, firstly congratulations...my answers can wait...i have the patience of Indian army when it comes to Artillery and DRDO's persistence when it comes to Nag, but more importantly spend more time there than here.

My wishes of long life in a prosperous and power india to the little one

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Apr 2018 02:42

Philip wrote:...and finally the cost factor! A $200M+ Rafale vs a $40-60M Gripen.We already have our supreme air dominance fighter the MKI-to be upgraded to even more fearsome SS std.,so why the desperate req. for more Rafales when cheaper options are available? No contesto!

Philip sir, please look up the Gripen deals and post ANY ONE where the unit cost is $40-60M

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Apr 2018 02:44

Indranil wrote:
Kartik wrote: And, lets see the Swiss scoring based on its evaluations of the Rafale F3 (AFAIR), Typhoon Tranche 2 (AFAIR) and Gripen C.

That is a very interesting chart indeed. Validates IAF's choice of Rafale, but did not expect the pilot load on EF to be lower than Rafale.

Indeed, I'm surprised to see that the Rafale had better detection, acquisition and identification of targets than the typhoon. We're both the fighters using aesa radar or was the typhoon still using the mech array captor m?

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Apr 2018 03:42

^^^
None of the versions tested had AESA.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Apr 2018 04:00

Cain Marko wrote:
Indranil wrote:
That is a very interesting chart indeed. Validates IAF's choice of Rafale, but did not expect the pilot load on EF to be lower than Rafale.
Indeed, I'm surprised to see that the Rafale had better detection, acquisition and identification of targets than the typhoon. We're both the fighters using aesa radar or was the typhoon still using the mech array captor m?

Rafale brought a representative AESA while EF brought their standard MSA. Basically, the Rafale was running an F3 while EF was contending with an older T2.

The difference in maturity levels still persists today - with EF likely to close in only by 2019 with the Kuwaiti aircraft.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Apr 2018 05:59

Chinmay wrote:Lastly, if money truly was an issue, then the MoD and the IAF wouldn't be announcing SEF and TEF mega deals and RFIs willy-nilly. I like to think that the money is there and will be made available once the downselection is made. Also, there is evidently a reason why the IAF and the MOD, don't want more Flankers or Fulcrums. You can make up your mind as to what they are.

Saar, there is a disconnect between what the services ask for and what the MoD is willing to spend. This is not an issue of affordability, because money is there. The question is the MoD willing to fork out upwards of $15+ billion for these birds and all the wonderful things that come with them?

· The IAF asks the MoD for birds.
· The MoD issues a tender (RFI)
· OEM respond to tender
· Bids are evaluated on technical merits (by IAF)
· Then IAF advises the MoD which birds made the technical cut
· Then MoD takes over and evaluates the total cost of ownership to determine L1
· Then negotiations begin with L1 OEM
· Contract is signed, after successful conclusion of negotiations

The above is more or less the scenario that occurs. But there is nothing *IDEAL* about our procurement process. It is a mess shrouded in the name of efficiency and transperancy. The problem is the MoD has no clue how much 110 birds will cost. They are repeating the same mistake, as was in the case of the first MMRCA contest, by inviting all the OEMs to bid. They will get a sticker shock when they see the cost of 110 birds.

This is the mistake the previous Congress Govt made (and are still making with their Rafale accusation claims), when they wanted 126 birds for $10 billion and that too with license production in India. No OEM would fork out 126 fourth generation birds, with production transfer know how, weapons, spares, tools, infrastructure for $10 billion. Just to put a data point into perspective...you know what the unit cost of the above works out to?

$10,000,000,000 Billion / 126 Birds = approx $80 million unit cost (if one wants to get real specific --> $79,365,079.36). So when Dassault won in January 2012 and negotiations began with the OEM, the MoD got a shock at the sticker price. If memory serves me right, Dassault wanted double the original estimate of the deal for 126 birds. And why blame them? Dassault is not Mother Teresa's Home for the Downtrodden. And that is without a PBL-type agreement, India specific enchancements and other technical features that will come with the 36 Rafales. Not to mention that Dassault refused to certify any HAL-built planes. But that is a different story.

Which OEM is going to give you all of the above, for a 4++ generation bird, at that price? Even the pro F-18 and F-16 crowd on BRF will tell you that is unaffordable, unless they are blind. But the problem is the current Govt in India does not feel the need to counter the Congress claim (for whatever reason and I do not want to venture a guess).

This new RFI wants even more from the OEM and the RFI clearly states that the MoD wants Transfer of Technology as well along with other goodies + all of the above. So this claim - by the chief marketer of the F-18 on BRF - that this "current" MRCA purchase of 110 birds is going to be a value driven purchase and thus the F-18 will win, is laughable. He is only giving you *ONE* piece of the puzzle - the F-18 being among the cheapest in terms of unit cost. Everything is being (deliberately) left out.

On unit cost alone, 110 birds (with everything that the MoD wants) will come anywhere between $15 billion (low estimate) to upwards of $20 billion. Is the MoD willing to fund this, when they open negoations with the L1 vendor? And what about meeting the IAF timeline to address squadron shortage? Despite Prime Minister Modi's assurance that this will not take forever to complete, everybody in North and South Block knows it will and even the IAF is aware of it as well.

And where is the MoD going to get funds for the 57 birds for the Indian Navy? A recent estimate put it at Rs 95,000 crore ($15 billion) for the 57 birds. And what about funds for the 65,000 ton EMALS equipped CATOBAR aircraft carrier to place these 57 naval fighters on? Talk (by the MoD) is cheap, but when push comes to shove...the MoD always comes up with one excuse or the other to NOT release the funds for these Star Wars, Not-Grounded-in-Reality projects.

A perfect example of this is the CATOBAR carrier being nuclear powered. The Navy all along wanted the Vishaal to have nuclear propulsion. But when it came time to fund the reactor, no one wanted to bell the cat. The Navy refused to fork out the development money for the vessel. Where was the MoD? See below...

Navy drops cherished dream of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/10/n ... clear.html

The navy, which was eager to incorporate nuclear propulsion for INS Vishal, has been told by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) that it would take 15-20 years to develop a nuclear reactor powerful enough for an aircraft carrier, incorporating features to protect it from the corrosive and dynamic marine environment.

BARC has successfully developed a 190 Megawatt (MW) reactor for India’s fleet of four-to-six nuclear propelled, nuclear missile carrying submarines, of which the first – INS Arihant – has already been commissioned. However, INS Vishal would require a reactor capable of generating at least 500-550 MW. That means developing a brand new, miniaturised reactor, ruggedized against a marine environment.

Nor is such a 550 MW reactor in the development pipeline, because of a dispute over who will pay the bill. Says an indignant navy admiral: “BARC wants us to place a ‘developmental contract’ to fund the reactor’s development. Why should we do that?”

The only solution right now is to cancel this bloody RFI, order 44 more Rafales and scale up Tejas production.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Apr 2018 06:00

Kartik wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Saab’s Gripen E is Leading IAF’s latest MMRCA Contest for 110 fighter jets
https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/20 ... hter-jets/
Another poor article with a clear intent to make the Gripen E seem like the top contender.

Beautiful Post. Bash on Regardless.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Apr 2018 22:48

That's why the IAF should "cut their coat according to the cloth".Dassault as Adm.R. has eloquently put It, is not " Mother Theresa's", neither is the GOI handing out moolah to the services unlike the loans to Nirav Modi and co.!
They should in this time of shortages and rationing , like Oliver simply ask for "more", of the types in service, already approved years ago.

Secondly, we seem to be unique amongst the world's air forces to operate so many types.Even the USAF operates two -3 basic types, F-15s and F-16s with the F-22 icing on the cake.The F-35 is meant to replace the F-16.Naval fighters becos of carrier ops, have in the past differed from the USAF in their choice.We will be operating until 2030, 7 types! MKIs, MIG-29s,M2Ks,Rafales,Jags,LCAs, and Bisons to be replaced by yet another firang fighter, with either FGFA in the next decade or AMCA 2 decades from now to add to the grand total.Add the Hawk and you get a wonderful " navaratna" ! Splendid planning and future maintenance and support wet dreams to come.

PS: There should ideally be some rationalising.One can understand the need to upgrade legacy aircraft and save money.But instead of acquiring yet another firang fighter in the light-med. zone,we should throw open LCA production to the pvt. sector too and have a third prod. facility.That will allow HAL to proceed with MK-2 dev. at a faster pace. One option is to lease out to the pvt. sector an existing aircraft DPSU prod. facility ,or part of a facility,instead of a greenfield project,to save time. Even if the rate is around 12/yr.it will mean a 30% increase in the ROP,inducting more LCAs faster ,while more numbers of heavy and med. types in service can make up the numbers.Adding just one more Rafale sqd. bargained for the lowest price possible,not more than $1.5-$2B ,would be sufficient to keep the IAF happy for the moment.The $5+B saved can be used to acquire at least 5-6 sqds of '"extras",plus more tankers,AWACS platforms,etc.