MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Cain Marko » 28 May 2020 00:23

Having said that, I fully expect another russki filly in IAF livery in the future. Probly the pakfa as an mki replacement. They're just waiting for the newer engines, izd 30 to come through.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 May 2020 00:42

ldev wrote:But from a practical standpoint it would have been more effective to have 36-48 operational F-16s today in India vs 4-6 Rafale in Indian colors flying around in France when the battle is on the India China front.

Yes Bharat having 36-48 f16s will be really good for peace to prevail, as in future USA will be able to control Bharat better with sanctions threat, specially if some China-pak loving dem Chelsea Clinton etc. becomes president. Even Republican president's sanctions threat over buying S-400, Akula from Russia will carry more weight. We must become indirect COLONY of usa. I fully support American Fighters for mmrca.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Kartik » 28 May 2020 01:26

Rakesh wrote:
Kartik wrote:Before doing anything, let a real MiG-35 first fly, enter RuAF service and then we can talk about it being fit to serve IAF needs. As of today, there is still not a single production MiG-35 with the specs that would've been offered to the IAF.

The last thing the IAF needs is to adopt an orphan, and then have to work with ADA and DRDO to get it to meet the specs it originally should've met.

It will remain the least mature, least well backed and most risky solution of all the contenders.

Just like as of today, there is not a single production F-21 variant that exists with the specs that are planned to have been offered to the IAF? If we are using a production variant to exist and fly today, as a yardstick to measure, the F-21 also fails to make that cut. And just like the MiG-35 has not entered RuAF service, neither will the F-21 enter service with any other country because LM plans to make India the sole F-21 customer. They have said that they will not sell the plane to any other country, if they win the contract.

Another plane (Gripen E) in the contest - will achieve FOC only by 2025. But yet again, it is being considered. But she is flying and will be operated by other countries as well ;)

The IAF has done this in the past i.e. the initial batch of Mirage 2000s came in with less powerful engines. Same story with the initial batch of Jaguars. Phoren maal is always given leeway. It is phoren after all, it will work.

As Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa Sir said, the MiG-35 is a completely new aircraft and very interesting, but she will have to go through the procurement process.


That's a disingenuous comparison Rakesh. Just look at the number of F-16Vs ordered and the number of F-16V retrofit kits ordered. Compare that to the real MiG-35, none of which have flown or are in service anywhere in the world. The F-21 only introduces a few minor differences over the F-16V, all of which have been tested including the CARTS refueling. In fact, the F-21 monicker is a marketing ploy, the real name should've remained F-16 Block 70IN. Block 70s are in production for export orders now.

We have already paid the price for adopting an orphan in the MiG-29K. The Russians piggy backed on our MiG-29K purchases to order 24 and that's it. In fact, the saddest part is that IN had to go to ADA to fix structural issues that should have been sorted out BEFORE it entered service, or MiG should've fixed them on their dime. I'm not saying that the MiG-35 will be riddled with such issues, but all the gear that it needs to have will most definitely not be as thoroughly tested as any Western fighter on offer or even our own indigenous Tejas or MWF.

When it comes to the most important aspects of a good 4.5 gen fighter, the sensors, the sensor fusion, networking, the avionics, the stand off weaponry, the long BVRAAM, the MiG-35 is the least mature with no known plan or roadmap for when these things will be ready for operational use.

To date, there isn't a single operational AESA radar in service on ANY Russian fighter. How could you possibly compare that to a F-21 with an AESA radar that is possibly the 3rd generation of American AESA radar in service?

Sensor fusion is another area where I haven't seen anything from the Russians, although I'd be happy to be corrected. By comparison, all of the Western fighters have sensor fusion built in.

Gripen E will be top notch when it comes to it's sensor fusion and networking, an area where Saab has traditionally excelled, PR and marketing aside. And then, it has the Meteor as well, which is a massive advantage.

Gripen E has a total of 96 firm orders and more will come from Brazil since 36 won't meet their total needs and AMX and F-5BRs will need replacing eventually. Compared to what, 24 for the MiG-35? The fact is that the RuAF has no appetite for the MiG-35 and they are now firmly looking at Su-57Es for the future. And the export nation that orders it will have to bear all the burden of making it a really mature operational fighter that has all it's kinks ironed out.

MiG has barely any real orders to keep it solvent and that will have a definite impact on it's ability to work on new technologies for the MiG-35, 5 or 10 or 15 years down the line. The great thing about the Rafale is that France intends to keep it in service till 2050 or longer, which means we won't be the ones having to spend money on developing upgrades on our own. Same applies for Gripen E as well. F-21 will stay relevant because so many F-16s are in service and continue to be sold; LM will want to make the most out of the available upgrade market. And of course there is no comparison in the resources available to LM versus MiG.

And don't we ourselves crib that giving just 40 units orders for the Tejas gives an impression to export nations to stay away from the Tejas because the domestic air force itself doesn't believe in it? Why should we do any different with the MiG-35?

Gripen E has undergone evaluation flights for the H-X competition in Finland, with production fighters. Production standard IOC level fighters are to be handed over to the SwAF and FAB next year. Granted they are not FOC level, but that is a lot better than MiG-35s still being produced with mechanically scanning Zhuk radars.

When ACM BS Dhanoa was referring to the MiG-35, he was referring to the differences from the MRCA 1.0 fighter IMO. Compared to that, the MiG-35 shown at MAKS was newer.

The intent of the MRCA is to bring in a fighter that quickly can assimilate and take on operational duties. Not one that needs another 5-10 invested in fixing things that were never really operationalized in the parent Air Force. If that's the case, we are far better off just going with the MWF and ordering 36 more Rafale fighters and calling off the MRCA competition altogether. the MiG-35 just doesn't add enough value to justify investing in it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9253
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 02:11

MiG-35 and F-16V/70/72 aren't comparable in terms of the industrial program or a future installed base. The latter has more than 100 orders of approvals (FMS) for new build aircraft and hundreds of upgrades to the "V" configuration on contract. It has multiple customers who are invested in the platform for decades to come. GOTUS is preparing for a large IDIQ contract with Lockheed for about $62 Billion worth of new build F-16V's as a preemptive step to make FM Sales faster. They wouldn't do this (these contracts consume a lot of bandwidth to negotiate and definitize) unless they thought they could convert a significant number of them. The F-16V should outsell the Gripen-E over their overlapping production time-frame. From stopping production till more orders came (moving the production line) to now openly talking about a steady production rate of about 14 aircraft/yr, Lockheed has come a long way with the F-16V.. Barring a significant order by the Russian Air Force (beyond the token # ordered till date), I doubt anyone would be willing to place their bets on the MiG-35 unless other options weren't available or were out of reach (even then there is also the Flankers to consider).

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Kartik » 28 May 2020 03:05

brar_w wrote:MiG-35 and F-16V/70/72 aren't comparable in terms of the industrial program or a future installed base. The latter has more than 100 orders of approvals (FMS) for new build aircraft and hundreds of upgrades to the "V" configuration on contract. It has multiple customers who are invested in the platform for decades to come. GOTUS is preparing for a large IDIQ contract with Lockheed for about $62 Billion worth of new build F-16V's as a preemptive step to make FM Sales faster. They wouldn't do this (these contracts consume a lot of bandwidth to negotiate and definitize) unless they thought they could convert a significant number of them.


I haven't read anything about the bolded text that you wrote. $62 billion towards new build F-16Vs? That's massive! For whom is that supposed to be?

brar_w wrote:The F-16V should outsell the Gripen-E over their overlapping production time-frame. From stopping production till more orders came (moving the production line) to now openly talking about a steady production rate of about 14 aircraft/yr, Lockheed has come a long way with the F-16V.. Barring a significant order by the Russian Air Force (beyond the token # ordered till date), I doubt anyone would be willing to place their bets on the MiG-35 unless other options weren't available or were out of reach (even then there is also the Flankers to consider).


They potentially could comfortably exceed the number of Gripen Es, given the number of F-16 operators that may not be able to get F-35s.

They are already close, with Taiwanese, Bulgarian, Slovakian and Bahraini orders approaching a total of nearly 100 units. Morocco may go in for more, as may Indonesia.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9253
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 03:13

Kartik wrote:
I haven't read anything about the bolded text that you wrote. $62 billion towards new build F-16Vs? That's massive! For whom is that supposed to be?


It will be negotiated as an IDIQ contract meaning that GOTUS will negotiate for a set number of F-16V's, in a set configuration (block 70/72) and for a set cadence of delivery. Once the contract is agreed and signed with Lockheed, GOTUS will then pass those terms on to prospective FMS customers who want the aircraft. If those customers agree, a set number of aircraft will be definitized and payments made to Lockheed. If no one wants the aircraft then the contract will lapse and Lockheed will not build those aircraft. This contract vehicle can potentially save years from FMS cases where a series of exchanges and contract negotiations take place customer by customer, case by case, configuration by configuration before an FMS case can advance through the various hurdles and get into contracting. Here, everything will be agreed upon upfront..with a ceiling on the total contract value, maximum aircraft number, configuration and delivery rates. If an FMS customer wants the aircraft they can skip all that and slot straight into a delivery window.

Read more here -

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&start=1600#p2433577

They wouldn't be considering this if they (GOTUS) felt that there was little chance of sale. They would probably have to expect at least half of those 300-500 FMS unit sales to materialize for them to pursue this sort of a contracting vehicle. Same for Lockheed. It wouldn't pursue this either on its end if it felt that they had to account for huge production gaps and lags between orders. For the first time since they decided to move the F-16 production to South Carolina, Lockheed has given an estimate on its anticipated eventual steady production rate. They are aiming for about 14/yr.

Kartik wrote:
They are already close, with Taiwanese, Bulgarian, Slovakian and Bahraini orders approaching a total of nearly 100 units. Morocco may go in for more, as may Indonesia.


Between firm orders and FMS approvals, they are close to 130 [Bahrain (16), Slovakia (14), Bulgaria (8), Taiwan (66), and Morocco (25)]. Expect more to come in by the time all these are fully signed and sealed.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9781
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 28 May 2020 04:24

Kartik wrote:That's a disingenuous comparison Rakesh. Just look at the number of F-16Vs ordered and the number of F-16V retrofit kits ordered. Compare that to the real MiG-35, none of which have flown or are in service anywhere in the world. The F-21 only introduces a few minor differences over the F-16V, all of which have been tested including the CARTS refueling. In fact, the F-21 monicker is a marketing ploy, the real name should've remained F-16 Block 70IN. Block 70s are in production for export orders now.

Kartik, I was following your own guideline - has to be a real aircraft, it has to fly and it has to be in service. But since you have expanded on it, it makes it more clearer. Thank You.

Some of the aircraft in the contest right now, are not in the configuration that is being advertised to the IAF. What is the status of the CAPTOR-E on the Typhoon? The last I heard it was in development. Will it be ready to the IAF for testing during MMRCA 2.0? Neither does a Rafale F4 variant exist today. The Gripen E is still in IOC stage. LM will likely send a F-16V for testing. My point is a good number of contestants will be fielding aircraft that will not be the final variant that is on offer - on paper - to the IAF. But still the IAF will test all aircraft in the configuration delivered to them, because that is what will be available. And that is okay to the IAF, because it is phoren maal. And the same is true for the MiG-35.

I will concede though that all the contenders will exceed anything that Mikoyan or Sukhoi can field, sensor wise. I said that in my initial post as well. Being leaders in radar and sensors were never the realm of the Russians. Aerodynamically, the MiG-35 or Su-35 will surely outmaneuver the F-21 and the F-18. But dogfighting is supposed to be a thing of the past, although Balakot proved otherwise.

But there is the issue of the IAF wanting to install its own systems, sensors and weapons on these aircraft. I am not sure how open any of the OEMs would be willing to do this. Since MBDA had issues installing Meteor aboard Tejas (because of the Israeli radar), I am not sure how open Raytheon, Leonardo and others like them would be open to having Astra or BrahMos-A interface with their AESA radar aboard a Western platform. You have seen pictures of Astra Mk1 on a Rambha. Do you see the Astra on a F-21, a Typhoon or a Rafale? Who would want AIM-120C7/Meteor when Astra Mk2 can do the same thing for way cheaper? Or could India take out the APG-83 AESA from a F-21 and install a future variant of an Uttam AESA? Or do the same on a Rafale or a Typhoon? Can India export customized F-21 variants - with Indian sensors and weapons - to customers? Would be cheaper no?

Kartik wrote:We have already paid the price for adopting an orphan in the MiG-29K. The Russians piggy backed on our MiG-29K purchases to order 24 and that's it. In fact, the saddest part is that IN had to go to ADA to fix structural issues that should have been sorted out BEFORE it entered service, or MiG should've fixed them on their dime. I'm not saying that the MiG-35 will be riddled with such issues, but all the gear that it needs to have will most definitely not be as thoroughly tested as any Western fighter on offer or even our own indigenous Tejas or MWF.

When it comes to the most important aspects of a good 4.5 gen fighter, the sensors, the sensor fusion, networking, the avionics, the stand off weaponry, the long BVRAAM, the MiG-35 is the least mature with no known plan or roadmap for when these things will be ready for operational use.

To date, there isn't a single operational AESA radar in service on ANY Russian fighter. How could you possibly compare that to a F-21 with an AESA radar that is possibly the 3rd generation of American AESA radar in service?

Saab and Eurofighter are fielding AESA radars that are still in development and will not be ready by the time the IAF tests the aircraft. Same with Mikoyan and Sukhoi. I am not comparing anything Kartik. I am highlighting the fact that IAF is more than open to testing phoren aircraft, whether in IOC or FOC configuration. During MMRCA 1.0, both the F-18 and F-16 fielded AESA radars and yet they lost out to the Rafale who never even had an operational AESA. Back then, the APG-79 (aboard the F-18) and the APG-80 (aboard the F-16IN) was far more advanced than the radar aboard the Rafale. Yet they lost. I believe the bolded part of your post above, should be asked to the IAF.

Kartik wrote:Sensor fusion is another area where I haven't seen anything from the Russians, although I'd be happy to be corrected. By comparison, all of the Western fighters have sensor fusion built in.

No contest there.

Kartik wrote:Gripen E will be top notch when it comes to it's sensor fusion and networking, an area where Saab has traditionally excelled, PR and marketing aside. And then, it has the Meteor as well, which is a massive advantage.

Gripen E has a total of 96 firm orders and more will come from Brazil since 36 won't meet their total needs and AMX and F-5BRs will need replacing eventually. Compared to what, 24 for the MiG-35? The fact is that the RuAF has no appetite for the MiG-35 and they are now firmly looking at Su-57Es for the future. And the export nation that orders it will have to bear all the burden of making it a really mature operational fighter that has all it's kinks ironed out.

I am not denying anything you are saying about the Gripen E. But she is due for FOC in 2025. Will the IAF adopt an aircraft that has yet to achieve FOC? Will the IAF adopt an aircraft going solely on the word of an OEM? Going by the past track record of IAF purchases, I would say yes. Like the Mirage 2000, Jaguar and Rafale examples I gave. The first batch of Rambhas that joined the IAF in 1997 was the K variant and MKI 1.0 variant was inducted on 27 Sept 2002. A full five years later. And as you are fully aware, the Rambha is Russian.

The IAF ironed out all the kinks on the Rambha. The IAF solved the hydraulic issue on the Jaguars, info on which was sent to other operators of the Jaguar around the world. The IAF installed over-the-wing missile launchers on the Jaguars as well. Tinkering with phoren maal is always fun. But desi maal must be world class from the get go.

Kartik wrote:And don't we ourselves crib that giving just 40 units orders for the Tejas gives an impression to export nations to stay away from the Tejas because the domestic air force itself doesn't believe in it? Why should we do any different with the MiG-35?

Kartik, we were the first Su-30 customer (1996) even prior to China (1999). I did not hear the IAF cribbing.

We were close to being the first Mirage 2000 customer (outside of France), but Egypt beat us by mere months. No cribbing.

We were the first MiG-29 customer (outside of Russia) as well. Again no cribbing, because it is phoren.

We (technically) were the first international Rafale customer, with L1 being selected on 31 Jan 2012. Negotiations dragged on till Sept 2016 and by then Egypt (2014) and Qatar (2015) had ordered them. And contrary to cribbing, the IAF is elated.

I do not have a crystal ball to predict the future, but if by some twisted fate...the IAF zeroes in on the MiG-35, I will bet you will hear no cribbing. Cribbing (and small orders) only happens with local maal. Phoren maal is always good, because it is phoren.

Kartik wrote:The intent of the MRCA is to bring in a fighter that quickly can assimilate and take on operational duties. Not one that needs another 5-10 invested in fixing things that were never really operationalized in the parent Air Force.

You know and I both know that MRCA - assuming the deal goes through - will not bring in any fighter quickly. That truly is being disingenuous :)

The IAF is envisioning a 12 year time frame to acquire 114 birds, once the contract is signed. How is that quick? I thought there was an acute squadron shortage. Perhaps if TASL can replicate LM's performance (from the 80s) and make 30 F-21s per month, the squadron shortage can be over in like 3.5 months. But there is a "tiny" problem of paying for these aircraft. Before delivery can be taken, the user has to pay the OEM for the aircraft being purchased and that too in dollars. This is not the Indo-Soviet relationship where payments were made via soybeans. So any accelerated delivery involves money coming out from the IAF's annual CAPEX budget.

There is also another "tiny" problem of having a qualified roster of pilots available to fly these 114 aircraft, in an accelerated delivery schedule. Taking on operational duties quickly, requires pilots to complete their training syllabus or at least a significant portion of it. You do not take a Rambha driver, put him in a F-21 and tell him to go fly. How is he going to exploit the platform, if he is not properly trained on it? In the IAF, pilots have to be qualified to operate a certain aircraft and that qualification takes a significant amount of time.

MRCA will never address the shortage, with or without an American bird.

Kartik wrote:If that's the case, we are far better off just going with the MWF and ordering 36 more Rafale fighters and calling off the MRCA competition altogether. the MiG-35 just doesn't add enough value to justify investing in it.

Thank you for the bolded part. Because that is going to happen.

This contract will never materialize. It is a political and financial minefield for any Govt.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9253
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 06:26

Rakesh wrote:We (technically) were the first international Rafale customer, with L1 being selected on 31 Jan 2012. Negotiations dragged on till Sept 2016 and by then Egypt (2014) and Qatar (2015) had ordered them. And contrary to cribbing, the IAF is elated.

Problem with that the IAF now has the benefit of hindsight. MiG must have promised a turn key fighter with all the bells and whistles the IAF was looking for back during the original MRCA contest. RFI was issued in the mid-2000's. Bids came in almost a decade ago. How much of what MiG had promised had panned out in terms of maturity? How many customers since the decade and a half has MiG picked up that inspires confidence in the long term sustainment of the program? or product development being fed by operator feedback?

You can definitely make a program successful if you are the only operator or the only dominant operator. But you are at the mercy of the OEM and/or other G2G negotiated licences and arrangements. You can make it work but most would avoid that type of situation given other alternatives. The comparison to the Rafale and even m2K isn't a valid one. Both of those aircraft were to be the mainstay of the French Air Force for a long time. This was pretty clear upfront. Rafale despite being uber expensive on account of zero economies of scale is all that France has at its disposal until maybe 2040 when it may have a second series production fighter project. France has no choice but to upgrade it so the costs will be shared between France and export customers. With the MiG-35 there is no such host customer support guarantee. The Su-30 and Su-35 are going to be mainstays of the Russian Air Force. Even the Su-57 is going to be taking a back seat for at least a decade (very low rate production levels) to them. What are the odds, given this dynamic, and the state of the Russian economy that there is a sudden multi billion dollar cash infusion into the MiG-35 product development that builds on the baseline capability, which itself isn't fully hashed out? This would be similar with the MiG-29K. No matter how one sugar coats it, Russian navy isn't going to be a carrier navy and isn't going to be investing more than what the IN will. It is not an optimal situation.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Cain Marko » 28 May 2020 07:33

[wrt fulcrums, couple of things need to be noted:

The Mig 35 for the most part is already flying with multiple air forces in a very similar variant. Only the radar remains. But that is no different from say, a captor e. And until quitee recently even the Rafale.

The russkis are not half bad with radar designs. The irbis pedigree going back to the zaslon is very solid. They were also innovative with the use of irsts.

When it comes to integration of systems and weapons from other oems, they have always been the most pliable.

Price wise, again they will be seriously competitive.

India already has a massive infrastructure to support fulcrums, I can see why it would be tempting to go this route.

Having said this, it's weakness lies in a relatively immature product that will need to be outfitted and tested to get it to IAF standards. The corollary that follows is how far can Russia be held to a tight contract as related to Indian inputs/mods, timelines and spares.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9253
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 07:46

One has to be extremely optimistic to claim that despite that 10+ years after the MiG-35 was presented as a turn key NG figther to the IAF there being hardly any MiG-35 variants currently flying (as promised) or operational, it is yet almost "already flying with multiple air-forces". Remind me, how many firm orders has the MiG-35 secured since it was first pitched to the IAF? A simple number should suffice to drive home the point on how the MiG-35 has evolved into a mature and in-service fighter from a basic proposal in the early 2000's just like every other MRCA offer out there.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby srai » 28 May 2020 08:13

Rakesh wrote:....
Or could India take out the APG-83 AESA from a F-21 and install some variant of an Uttam AESA?
...

Even the Israelis aren't allowed to do such a thing by the Americans.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 28 May 2020 08:19

srai wrote:
Rakesh wrote:....
Or could India take out the APG-83 AESA from a F-21 and install some variant of an Uttam AESA?
...

Even the Israelis aren't allowed to do such a thing by the Americans.


Not sure if this went through but was contemplated. So getting source codes is a matter of confidence building and negotiations. This was in relation to the upgrade of Turkish Air Force F-16s.

Oct 30/11: Turkish media report that the Obama administration has agreed in principle to transfer key F-16 software source code information to Turkey. This would let Turkey modify those codes themselves, if they wished to integrate locally-produced avionics and weapons. The deal reportedly involves around 50 pages of technical details defining the transfer, followed by US congressional approval.

Source code access would be more convenient for the Turks, and could be lucrative if some of the F-16 operators who already deal with Turkey for maintenance and modifications choose to purchase locally-designed weapons and modifications. It also acts as a form of partial insurance against any American support cutoff. Recent years have seen greater efforts by Turkey to develop its own equipment, and their SSM procurement agency has a project called Ozgur external link, which aims to develop:

“…an avionic suit [sic] solution and integrating that suit to a fighter A/C and by execution of integration and certification of a set of defined weapon systems including locally developed weapon systems… The developed solution will be integrated to a fighter and the certification of the whole system including weapon systems will be performed.”


On the whole issue of US fighters I ask a simple question:

If China was offered F-16s the Block 70 version by the US, would they take it? Potential sanctions by the US or not? I think the answer is obvious. They will grab the offer with both hands. Because they follow Deng's axiom, " What does it matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice".

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby srai » 28 May 2020 08:27

Rakesh wrote:...

There is also another "tiny" problem of having a qualified roster of pilots available to fly these 114 aircraft, in an accelerated delivery schedule. Taking on operational duties quickly, requires pilots to complete their training syllabus or at least a significant portion of it. You do not take a Rambha driver, put him in a F-21 and tell him to go fly. How is he going to exploit the platform, if he is not properly trained on it? In the IAF, pilots have to be qualified to operate a certain aircraft and that qualification takes a significant amount of time.

...

By my estimates, it takes around a decade to fully establish a new type into an air-force. First 5-years to setup infrastructure and initiation training to first lot of pilots and ground crew. A lot of hand holding by the OEM going on. Then the second 5-year (from 6th to 10th) Air Force will gradually become independent through maturity of tactics, training new crew, logistics, spare parts support, more qualified armaments and stocks, etc.
Last edited by srai on 28 May 2020 08:29, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9253
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 08:28

srai wrote:
Rakesh wrote:....
Or could India take out the APG-83 AESA from a F-21 and install some variant of an Uttam AESA?
...

Even the Israelis aren't allowed to do such a thing by the Americans.


It is complicated because the Israeli SUFA deal was financed very heavily by the US. Yet on other occasions, the IDF has gained access to the AN/APG-82 for its F-15 program, a radar that has so far been held back for export, and has received more customization on the F-35 program than even the closest tier partners such as the UK. Same thing with their BMD program and how closely they work with the US Missile Defense Agency.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby srai » 28 May 2020 08:32

Any F-16/F-15 export operators using their own radars?

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 28 May 2020 08:35

srai wrote:Any F-16/F-15 export operators using their own radars?

Why would you use your own radar? You need the source codes to integrate other weapons.

India should continue to develop the Uttam radar and it's variants and mount them on the Tejas and AMCA. But it should also have the ability to integrate the Astra e.g. on an imported fighter.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby srai » 28 May 2020 08:42

^^^
Well ... after all these years and hundreds of exports, no one has their own radars in the American platforms. So how would India suddenly be different?

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 28 May 2020 09:57

srai wrote:^^^
Well ... after all these years and hundreds of exports, no one has their own radars in the American platforms. So how would India suddenly be different?

Generally end users do not mount their own radars on imported aircraft. I do not know of any instance where US, Russian or French fighters have had their radar's replaced by an end user. Even the Israelis who export their Elta radars to India do not mount them on US aircraft they buy. But end users are more likely to want to integrate their own or third party missiles or precision guided munitions on aircraft and so they will want access to source codes to enable such integration.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Cain Marko » 28 May 2020 11:05

The Mig 29M and K are both flying in 3 different countries' services. For all intents and purposes, these are pretty much the 35 sans Aesa.

As far as being regarded a turn key fighter during the mrca trials, let's see:
Where was the Gripen E then? Frankly where is it now?
Where was the shornet intl then?
Where was the captor based ef2k? How many places are actually flying it today?
Where was the f16v70?
Even the Rafale was hardly ready with aesa etc...

Please drop the pretense that the fulcrum can't attach a 3rd party, newer radar if a contract stipulating the same is agreed upon. The amount of expertise that Hal and BRD have on this type should easily allow this.

brar_w wrote:One has to be extremely optimistic to claim that despite that 10+ years after the MiG-35 was presented as a turn key NG figther to the IAF there being hardly any MiG-35 variants currently flying (as promised) or operational, it is yet almost "already flying with multiple air-forces". Remind me, how many firm orders has the MiG-35 secured since it was first pitched to the IAF? A simple number should suffice to drive home the point on how the MiG-35 has evolved into a mature and in-service fighter from a basic proposal in the early 2000's just like every other MRCA offer out there.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Cain Marko » 28 May 2020 11:21

The 35 has weaknesses, biggest one being the lack of a decent LRAAM like the meteor that can give the IAF an edge.

Being immature is not one of these.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9781
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 28 May 2020 16:51

Cain Marko wrote:Please drop the pretense that the fulcrum can't attach a 3rd party, newer radar if a contract stipulating the same is agreed upon. The amount of expertise that Hal and BRD have on this type should easily allow this.

Like the Elta EL/M-2052 AESA planned to be fitted on the Tejas Mk1A or some variant of an Uttam AESA? And like the Tejas Mk1A, armed with Astra Mk1/Mk2, Derby, Python-5 and ASRAAM? Also BrahMos-NG and most other ordnance carried by the Tejas? Eliminate most of the Russian weapons. They are bad after all ;)

She will not have the sensor fusion of a Gripen E or the payload capacity of a F-18, but for an IAF that cannot afford $17 billion for 114 "Western" fighters...a "customized" MiG-35 - like above - could perhaps get a second dekho. I am not saying that is the path that the IAF must adopt, but commonality across the fleet is a big plus point. Just as in the F-18's case where the Tejas Mk2 and the Super Hornet both use the F414 turbofan. The MiG-35 does have issues with after sales support & spares and that will be a big negative working against the aircraft in this contest. In her current configuration on offer to the IAF, the MiG-35 would not win the contest on technical grounds.

When it comes down to the bean counters at the MoD, who have to crunch the numbers, commonality of weapons and systems across the fleet makes a significant cost saving.

If the IAF sees no other path beyond acquiring 114 fighters, two more Rafale units (hi-end MMRCA) and a set of a "customized" MiG-35s (lo-end MMRCA) could perhaps work out to be an optimal solution for the IAF. This is the same IAF that said during MMRCA 1.0 there is no Plan B and 126 birds must be acquired.

The MiG-35 can also serve as a great test bed for the AMCA. Which other OEM would be willing to have India tinker with their aircraft, other than Mikoyan? Even my philanthropic friends from La France would lift their noses high at such a suggestion.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9253
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 17:49

srai wrote:Any F-16/F-15 export operators using their own radars?


How many F-15/F-16 customers had the ability to develop, test and integrate their own radars and then value that capability given how much of licencing cost is likely to be associated with that? The list is going to be extremely small particularly if one goes back in time when the bulk of these platforms were exported. Perhaps 1 or 2 customers in total. It was much cheaper to licence produce the existing radar in house. Japan did that on the F-15J for example. Israel could have probably done a completely new radar on the SUFA had it paid for most of the program itself. But because the program was financed in part by the US taxpayer things were different.

But that doesn't mean that there haven't been attempts to craft bespoke variants of US fighters with indigenous sensors and other mods. The F-2 comes to mind here - An F-16 derivative designed and built in partnership between Mitsubishi and GD/LM which includes a Japanese radar system along with other local mission systems.

Cain Marko wrote:The Mig 29M and K are both flying in 3 different countries' services. For all intents and purposes, these are pretty much the 35 sans Aesa.


Again, how many MiG-35's are operational as offered more than a decade ago? There was that one order for a full up MiG-35 (export) but it later got downgraded to a lesser variant. No matter how one spins it, there are exactly ZERO MiG-35's exported in the exact configuration that MiG pitched to India. That's just a fact that cannot be denied or wished away.

Cain Marko wrote:Where was the Gripen E then? Frankly where is it now?


Lack of maturity would/should have been a major negative for the Gripen E at that time as well. No denying that. Even now, it is one of the less mature offerings (baring MiG-35 of course) given that it has not yet exited its developmental program.

Cain Marko wrote:Where was the shornet intl then?


Boeing's offer was based on a Block II Super Hornet, which itself had all that the IAF was seeking. It had an AESA radar..It was in full rate production and was fully operational at the time. If the IAF wanted something from the "International roadmap" (which was only launched in 2010) then by all accounts, that too involved risk. Boeing would/should have always been at a disadvantage given they were pitching a carrier based naval fighter for an Air Force requirement. There has to be a pretty good reason to pick it compared to other more dedicated ground based aircraft in the competition.

Cain Marko wrote:Where was the f16v70?


The F-16 Block 70/72 did not exist at the time and was not offered. Lockheed's proposal at the time was based on the F-16 Block 60 which was operational, with an AESA radar and other advanced systems (like AESA based EW suite) since around 2005, a few years ahead of Lockheed's submission
.
Cain Marko wrote:Even the Rafale was hardly ready with aesa etc...


Dassault and France had a plan to get to an AESA. Yes it was more risky than some of the other offerings that already had it operational. But the difference between what Dassault/France were pitching and what MiG/Russia were pitching was night and day. For one, there would have been no doubt in the Rafale's status within the French Armed Forces. It had become, and would continue to remain their mainstay fighter aircraft for decades to come. This is almost exact opposite to what the MiG-35 was at the time where the Russian AF response to the MiG-35 was lukewarm at best and barely enough to sustain the viability of the project in the hope that it'll pick up some export orders in the future. In short, France was 100% invested in making the Rafale the best that they could for it would represent nearly 100% of the capability of their AF. Russia meanwhile, had pivoted to the Flanker family and has just a token amount of MiG-35 on order.

As I wrote earlier, all of this doesn't matter NOW.

IAF/MOD has the advantage of hindsight. Boeing has transitioned from the Block II Super Hornet to the Block III and has firm orders of more than 70 aircraft for it. The first two test variants have rolled off the line. Deliveries of the full up Blk III will begin next year. Rafale has finalized F4 standard of the Rafale and the aircraft has picked up additional customers. Typhoon has now a funded road map and follow up orders from Germany are on their way. Gripen-E is now flying and is getting ready to be handed to its first customer soon. Lockheed has developed the Block 70/72 configuration (V) and has orders/approvals for nearly 130 new build aircraft in additions to hundreds of block upgrades to older aircraft. The only aircraft that still seems to be stuck back in time to what it had promised in the mid to late 2000's is the MiG-35 - An aircraft that has had literally ZERO success with export customers and a lukewarm intake from the Russian Air Force itself.

This is why it is surprising to see folks advocating for it. Going for a type that literally no one, including its host nation, is buying in any real numbers should be a alarming. Most users tend to prefer aircraft that have a decent installed base so that product development is funded by a large number of customers and not incumbent on just a handful or may be just ONE. Certainly the IAF can make it work if forced to take it..but it is tough to imagine that this would be something they'd be looking forward to diving into as a matter of preference.

Cain Marko wrote:The 35 has weaknesses, biggest one being the lack of a decent LRAAM like the meteor that can give the IAF an edge.

Being immature is not one of these.


Maturity can very easily be established for each on of the critical sub-systems based on what has happened to the program since it was proposed in 2008ish. We can look at which operators have picked it up. How many they have picked up. How well has the host nation developed the platform, and inducted it into its own service in what numbers. Furthermore, given production success we can then follow and see how well the operator(s) are investing in product development and follow on modernization to upgrade the systems and keep them relevant. Do share that data on the MiG-35 if you have handy.

Rakesh wrote:Like the Elta EL/M-2052 AESA planned to be fitted on the Tejas Mk1A or some variant of an Uttam AESA? And like the Tejas Mk1A, armed with Astra Mk1/Mk2, Derby, Python-5 and ASRAAM? Also BrahMos-NG and most other ordnance carried by the Tejas? Eliminate most of the Russian weapons. They are bad after all ;)


Is there any indication that the MMRCA (which exists only at the RFI stage) is going to be ask or allow vendors to basically rip out the guts of their aircraft and collaborate with 3rd party vendors to cook up a bespoke variant? How will such a variant be evaluated? Can all those sensors and weapons be integrated without extensive development, development and operational testing? If not, then who is going to pay for all that and how will it impact the delivery schedule? It would be very strange to most vendors offering a turn key solution that aims to fulfill IAF requirements while one of them essentially offers up a multi year developmental program. I don't think something like that would even be allowed within the terms of the MMRCA, assuming that the program proceeds as planned.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 May 2020 18:50, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9781
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 28 May 2020 18:16

brar_w wrote:Is there any indication that the MMRCA (which exists only at the RFI stage) is going to be ask or allow vendors to basically rip out the guts of their aircraft and collaborate with 3rd party vendors to cook up a bespoke variant? How will such a variant be evaluated? Can all those sensors and weapons be integrated without extensive development, development and operational testing? If not, then who is going to pay for all that and how will it impact the delivery schedule? It would be very strange to most vendors offering a turn key solution that aims to fulfill IAF requirements while one of them essentially offers up a multi year developmental program. I don't think something like that would even be allowed within the terms of the MMRCA, assuming that the program proceeds as planned.

This program will not achieve completion. At that stage, the concerns that you have raised - which are valid in a MMRCA contest - will not matter.

$17 billion is only a starting price for this contest and it will only go higher from there. MMRCA 1.0 proved that. $10 billion was allocated for 126 MMRCAs. You know how that ended up.

The Rambha was a bespoke variant. How did that turn out? How was the MKI evaluated? All the sensors and weapons (Israeli, Russian and Indian) were integrated no? Can this be done in place of the MMRCA contest? Yes it can. But just like the MMRCA, it will not solve the squadron shortage. Nothing will in the short term.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9253
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 18:22

Rakesh wrote:This program will not achieve completion. At that stage, the concerns that you have raised - which are valid in a MMRCA contest - will not matter.

So in that case, if the MMRCA is terminated (and RFP stage never realized) then what is stopping the other competitors from partnering on their own and trying to sell a more bespoke developmental project instead of a turn key aircraft? If that is what is ultimately going to be valued, hard to see how MiG is in the drivers seat for that. Lockheed for example (hypothetically speaking) can craft a F-16V/SUFA hybrid and that will include all or most of the relevant Israeli weapons and EW systems (Derby, Python, Stunner et al) and comms gear. In fact most of that stuff is already operational on IDF F-16's and a fair bit also on Singapore's F-16's. In fact, all the Israeli weapons that are being lobbed at Syria right now are fully integrated into the F-16 I.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 28 May 2020 18:43, edited 3 times in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9781
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 28 May 2020 18:27

Absolutely. You have to beat the MiG price point though.

A bespoke developmental project from a Western OEM - like the F-16V/SUFA example above - will cost way more than a Russian platform integrated with Israeli and Indian sensors.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9253
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 18:37

Rakesh wrote:Absolutely. You have to beat the MiG price point though.

A bespoke developmental project from a Western OEM - like the F-16V/SUFA example above - will cost way more than a Russian platform integrated with Israeli and Indian sensors.

That depends upon the modifications requested, who will pay for them and how everything will be coordinated. Such a bespoke MiG-35 doesn't exist (in fact MiG-35 as is barely exists). A hybrid F-16 I with Israeli mission computers, Israeli countermeasures, EW systems, Weapons racks, weapons carriage and communication gear is already operational in the dozens. Has been for years and is constantly being upgraded as per IDF requirements. Swapping out certain Israeli systems for Indian systems should, in theory, be much easier than completely creating a new variant from scratch. There is a cost/risk element to all this. Again, all this can be considered by the OEM's if there is signalling from the IAF/MOD that suggests that this is the direction this program is going to take. Once all OEM's see that they will respond likewise. I don't see MiG being in a particular advantage in such a case. I do see some disadvantage for Dassault and the Eurofigther team (and Boeing too but their main disadvantage is that they have a carrier optimized aircraft) that has never executed such a partnership for a bespoke variant..But then neither has MiG with their particular aircraft. Lockheed has done that on 3 occasions, once with Japan with the F-2, once with the UAE with the Block 60, and once with Israel with the F-16 I. Each required an element of design (F-2), systems development (F-16 Blk 60) or integration (SUFA) challenges that a unique OEM plus foreign vendor team had to overcome.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 May 2020 19:30, edited 2 times in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9781
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 28 May 2020 18:45

If they adopt the MiG-35, then just like the Su-30MKI program, they will address the concerns you have raised. Hypothetical scenario it is, but when the MMRCA does not pan out...other options will be looked at. The MiG-35 is one, the Sufa example is another.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 28 May 2020 19:55

I had completely overlooked the F16I Sufa and the degree of customization (Israelization :) ) in it's avionics from it's EW warfare suite to cockpit displays to mission computers to AAMs etc.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9253
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 22:32

ldev wrote:I had completely overlooked the F16I Sufa and the degree of customization (Israelization :) ) in it's avionics from it's EW warfare suite to cockpit displays to mission computers to AAMs etc.

Between the three programs I referenced in my last post (F-2, Blk 60, and F-16 I) Lockheed has pretty much done the entire gamut of customization that one could hope to do on an aircraft program. They've partnered to create a larger aircraft involving extensive re-design (F-2), developed extensive new modern hardware on the block 60 (AESA radar, EW suite, cooling/power generation, IR, engine upgrades) and integrated it into a new bespoke variant (much ahead of when the competition introduced some of these changes), and worked with domestic industry to create a highly localized variant of the F-16 block 50/52 in the SUFA program. That is an advantage for them if it does indeed come to the creation of a hybrid of US, Israel and domestic systems. Its not going to involve tasks that the company hasn't really done on the program before. A template for such a variant already exists. This is not something the Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet or the Gripen program has much experience in.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 May 2020 23:25

ldev wrote:
On the whole issue of US fighters I ask a simple question:

If China was offered F-16s the Block 70 version by the US, would they take it? Potential sanctions by the US or not? I think the answer is obvious. They will grab the offer with both hands. Because they follow Deng's axiom, " What does it matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice".

Due to sanctions in '98 Seaking Helicopters were grounded due to american sanctions despite Seaking being british helis. As some parts were American.

Imagine 3 fighter squadrons grounded due to American sanctions. F16 is fully American unlike Seaking. Imagine the level of control. Also every year we will have to present them for humiliating American inspection that we haven't tried to pry any secrets of the platform.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 28 May 2020 23:36

Manish_Sharma wrote:
ldev wrote:
On the whole issue of US fighters I ask a simple question:

If China was offered F-16s the Block 70 version by the US, would they take it? Potential sanctions by the US or not? I think the answer is obvious. They will grab the offer with both hands. Because they follow Deng's axiom, " What does it matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice".

Due to sanctions in '98 Seaking Helicopters were grounded due to american sanctions despite Seaking being british helis. As some parts were American.

Imagine 3 fighter squadrons grounded due to American sanctions. F16 is fully American unlike Seaking. Imagine the level of control. Also every year we will have to present them for humiliating American inspection that we haven't tried to pry any secrets of the platform.


Economic "advisories" by themselves are much more potent and far quicker acting than arms sanctions. And economic sanctions are devastating in a dollar dominated world. Just go back to Pokhran 1998.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Manish_Sharma » 29 May 2020 00:35

ldev wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:Due to sanctions in '98 Seaking Helicopters were grounded due to american sanctions despite Seaking being british helis. As some parts were American.

Imagine 3 fighter squadrons grounded due to American sanctions. F16 is fully American unlike Seaking. Imagine the level of control. Also every year we will have to present them for humiliating American inspection that we haven't tried to pry any secrets of the platform.


Economic "advisories" by themselves are much more potent and far quicker acting than arms sanctions. And economic sanctions are devastating in a dollar dominated world. Just go back to Pokhran 1998.


There were various think tank reports on why American sanctions failure and all of the think tanks had one single solution : MAKE INDIA PURCHASE AMERICAN WEAPONS HEAVILY
so they can bring Indian armed FORCES to knees with sanctions.

Specially china paki lovers like bill & Hillary Clinton or sleeping joe, Bernie Sanders type of presidents.

Also even now CRIMINAL USA wants to transgress our sovereignty by arm twisting us with CAATSA forbidding to buy S400 or leasing Akula from Russia.

If we allow them trample over our sovereignty, there will be no end to it.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Cain Marko » 29 May 2020 10:57

Rakesh wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Please drop the pretense that the fulcrum can't attach a 3rd party, newer radar if a contract stipulating the same is agreed upon. The amount of expertise that Hal and BRD have on this type should easily allow this.

Like the Elta EL/M-2052 AESA planned to be fitted on the Tejas Mk1A or some variant of an Uttam AESA? And like the Tejas Mk1A, armed with Astra Mk1/Mk2, Derby, Python-5 and ASRAAM? Also BrahMos-NG and most other ordnance carried by the Tejas? Eliminate most of the Russian weapons. They are bad after all ;)

Indeed. Lets not forget the experience of getting the EL series radars on platforms that they had even less access to - Jaguars and Sea Harriers.

She will not have the sensor fusion of a Gripen E or the payload capacity of a F-18, but for an IAF that cannot afford $17 billion for 114 "Western" fighters...a "customized" MiG-35 - like above - could perhaps get a second dekho. I am not saying that is the path that the IAF must adopt, but commonality across the fleet is a big plus point. Just as in the F-18's case where the Tejas Mk2 and the Super Hornet both use the F414 turbofan. The MiG-35 does have issues with after sales support & spares and that will be a big negative working against the aircraft in this contest. In her current configuration on offer to the IAF, the MiG-35 would not win the contest on technical grounds.

When it comes down to the bean counters at the MoD, who have to crunch the numbers, commonality of weapons and systems across the fleet makes a significant cost saving.

If the IAF sees no other path beyond acquiring 114 fighters, two more Rafale units (hi-end MMRCA) and a set of a "customized" MiG-35s (lo-end MMRCA) could perhaps work out to be an optimal solution for the IAF. This is the same IAF that said during MMRCA 1.0 there is no Plan B and 126 birds must be acquired.

The MiG-35 can also serve as a great test bed for the AMCA. Which other OEM would be willing to have India tinker with their aircraft, other than Mikoyan? Even my philanthropic friends from La France would lift their noses high at such a suggestion.

Either that or IAF should get behind the TEDBF full on. Get the bird ready and flying before the Mk2.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Cain Marko » 29 May 2020 11:01

One thing that intermittently intrigues me (like an itch that keeps coming back), is the question - does the IAF consider the F404/414 engine a weakness in the Tejas? It seems to be quite cagey about sanctions on a frontline machines.

In which case, the idea of buying 36 Rafales and assorted MiG 29SMT/M/35 and some MKI might be the route chosen by the AF. Just to offset the risk and of course get those numbers up.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ArjunPandit » 29 May 2020 16:15

while probability is never zero, but the bus for mil/eco sanctions by america has left teh station long back..while i strongly support Tejas i think having a dib in american system is helpful. It has wider packages better radars and engines. And most importantly it has a large size which can be tapped in a shooting war with China. If we had an F18 or F16 2-3 years back we would not have to worry about no.s falling down and could have used some no.s as a back up or or emergency purchase. I am sure US wont mind stuff being used against china. For a foreseeable future we can be a bulwark. Either we reach china/khanesque manufacturing scales soon or we tap into khan bases. A small F18 purchase may help there. A case in point is Turkey.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 222
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Chinmay » 29 May 2020 21:01

ArjunPandit wrote:while probability is never zero, but the bus for mil/eco sanctions by america has left teh station long back..while i strongly support Tejas i think having a dib in american system is helpful. It has wider packages better radars and engines. And most importantly it has a large size which can be tapped in a shooting war with China. If we had an F18 or F16 2-3 years back we would not have to worry about no.s falling down and could have used some no.s as a back up or or emergency purchase. I am sure US wont mind stuff being used against china. For a foreseeable future we can be a bulwark. Either we reach china/khanesque manufacturing scales soon or we tap into khan bases. A small F18 purchase may help there. A case in point is Turkey.


Why would the we need to buy fighters given that we can buy more of existing kit which the IAF/IN/IA has had excellent experience using? P-8, Chinooks, C-130s all have proved their worth. Much better to buy more of those, if weapons sales are all that is required to keep Unkil on our side.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4066
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby kit » 29 May 2020 21:54

Please dont get delusional about "unkil on our side" after the chinks , india is next in line

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 222
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Chinmay » 29 May 2020 22:06

Oh I have no pretensions of that. Unkil is firmly on his own side, and makes no bones about it.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9781
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 18 Jun 2020 01:24

khan wrote:Longer term, all of your favorite Russian kit needs to be retired & replaced with either Desi maal or American maal - right now, it would be really nice to have a plane load of the latest AAMRAAM missiles on the way and some 200 odd F-15's inducted instead of those SU-30's with uncertain BVR missiles.

That is why the MMRCA contest exists and in which the F-15EX is taking part.

The IAF cannot replace 272 Su-30s with F-15s (or any plane for that matter) overnight. By the time those planes come and pilots are trained, the war will be over.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Cain Marko » 18 Jun 2020 01:25

khan wrote:[some 200 odd F-15's inducted instead of those SU-30's.

Uhh why exactly? Or have you never heard of cope India?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: suryag, vishal and 29 guests