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.
Post Reply
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Post by Cain Marko »

brar_w wrote:The US is playing catch up on ground launched long range fires because until recently it couldn't field anything with a range greater than 500 km. The IA already has several options in production and currently fielded or being upgraded/enhanced. Also, the US long range fires is very specifically designed around the counter IADS mission with a limited target set whereas the IA has an option for much greater target sets and warhead sizes.
Yes, the iaf already has the Brahmos that possibly exceeds 500km when air launched, not to mention the scalp eg on the raffle. In time we can expect longer ranges with the Brahmos ng and the nirbhay
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:The US is playing catch up on ground launched long range fires because until recently it couldn't field anything with a range greater than 500 km. The IA already has several options in production and currently fielded or being upgraded/enhanced. Also, the US long range fires is very specifically designed around the counter IADS mission with a limited target set whereas the IA has an option for much greater target sets and warhead sizes.
True the US is playing catch up. However those attributes that the US requires for long range precision fires i.e. long distance island bases in the Pacific that are able to reach Taiwan and China are also those that fit in with Indian requirements which is being able to target rear radar sites, ammunition dumps, CC&C nodes deep into Tibet and in fact into China proper. Current Indian strike options are limited to the Brahmos with the range topping out at a proposed ~800 km and the BM category becomes de-stabilizing if used - hence CDS Rawat proposed a separate Rocket Force distinct from the SFC which has everything from nuclear tipped Agni 1s to Agni 5s.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by brar_w »

Brahmos, the Nirbhay, and the ballistic missile family covers that (you can create conventional warheads on these weapons). BM becoming de-stabilizing? China doesn't have a problem with it so I don't think how using a Cruise or a quasi ballistic missile will be any better when nuclear versions of those can very easily exist.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:Brahmos, the Nirbhay, and the ballistic missile family covers that (you can create conventional warheads on these weapons). BM becoming de-stabilizing? China doesn't have a problem with it so I don't think how using a Cruise or a quasi ballistic missile will be any better when nuclear versions of those can very easily exist.
Brahmos is definitely part of the proposed Rocket Force inventory with the current range limitation of 400 km and proposed extended range of 800 km. Nirbhay currently will be limited to 1000 km, engine technology vs fuel consumption. BMs from India's standpoint will be handicapped by cost per unit i.e. PLARF missiles that can be used on targets of value are cheap single stage. In contrast Indian missiles to achieve those ranges to be used against at value Chinese targets which are not located in Tibet will need to be at least 2 stage. Also being BMs, notwithstanding MARV capability they will be more easily intercepted by BM/AD. And finally CEP with a BM and a conventional warhead may not achieve the precision capability required to destroy the intended target.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by brar_w »

Subsonic cruise missile ranges are often time to target limited and not all out range limited. For time-critical and re-deployable targets (like mobile air-defense systems, and C2 nodes), you can't wait for a long range subsonic missile to take an hour to get to its target. A 2,000 km range subsonic missile will take nearly two hours to get there. If you want to target individual TELs, re-deployable radars or launchers, you are looking at a time to target that should probably be sub 10-minutes. This needs a very short kill-chain and rapid detection, ID, targeting, and weapons release. The weapon also would need to travel at an average (which is important here and not top speed) speed well in excess of Mach 5 to cover the 500-1000 km that you would probably want to stand off to avoid things like S-400 or J-20/PL-15 etc. That's basically what the USAF requires of its AGM-183A program..
ldev wrote: And finally CEP with a BM and a conventional warhead may not achieve the precision capability required to destroy the intended target.
Why? Why can't they add a seeker for more precision?
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Oct 2021 21:42, edited 1 time in total.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:Subsonic cruise missile ranges are often time to target limited and not all out range limited. For time-critical and re-deployable targets (like mobile air-defense systems, and C2 nodes), you can't wait for a long range subsonic missile to take an hour to get to its target. A 2,000 km range subsonic missile will take nearly two hours to get there.
True. Therefore e.g. taking out a PLAAF S400 radar site in Tibet can be tasked to a 800 km range Brahmos. But taking out a fixed CC&C node near Chengdu can be left to a long range subsonic CM.
Why? Why can't they add a seeker for more precision?
Are there seekers currently available that can peer through a plasma shield coming in at hypersonic speed such that the warhead is able to achieve CM style CEP?

The point I am making is that this mix of ground based strike options is likely to be much more cost effective for India vs going in for an 114 expensive MRFA solution. It will enable India to go in for cheaper fighter options tasked primarily with air defence with the most costly penetrative ability not necessarily needed.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:
Are there seekers currently available that can peer through a plasma shield coming in at hypersonic speed such that the warhead is able to achieve CM style CEP?
Yes.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:
ldev wrote:
Are there seekers currently available that can peer through a plasma shield coming in at hypersonic speed such that the warhead is able to achieve CM style CEP?
Yes.
:) Thank you. Will do some research on it.

What I am saying is that instead of just concentrating on Rafale vs F15EX vs F-16 vs Tejas, I think that India should look at separating strike functions vis a vis China from AD. And I think that collaborating with the US on the ground based strike function, in addition to options such as Brahmos currently in the inventory is the way forward. If seekers such as the ones you have described are available and result in an accurate 2 stage Indian BM which can hold hostage at value targets on the edge of Tibet and beyond and and overall solution is cost effective, that is the way to go.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by brar_w »

The Pershing program back in the 70s and 80s, and the Chinese DF series (which many believe is loosely based on Pershing 2) all solved for adding radar or other type of non INS guidance . That’s how you get to Anti ship ballistic or boost glide weapons. Both the US Army’s LRHW and USAFs ARRW will have a seeker added in future iterations. I believe the DRDO has ASBM in the works as well.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:The Pershing program back in the 70s and 80s, and the Chinese DF series (which many believe is loosely based on Pershing 2) all solved for adding radar or other type of non INS guidance . That’s how you get to Anti ship ballistic or boost glide weapons. Both the US Army’s LRHW and USAFs ARRW will have a seeker added in future iterations. I believe the DRDO has ASBM in the works as well.
AsBMs such as the Chinese DF-21 or DF-26 need to have a CEP of 300 m specially if they are targeting a behemoth like a USN aircraft carrier. And have they been truly tested against a ship target moving at ~30 knots such as a USN carrier group? An Indian BM targeting a recessed/hardened CC&C node at the PLA Western Theater Command HQ in Chengdu will need to have a CEP of 10 meters to be effective. I believe LRHW will achieve that kind of accuracy against fixed targets. And so IMO a long range subsonic CM option is better at those ranges at least for India. Unless there is some kind of tech collaboration on seekers for BMs.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:
brar_w wrote:The Pershing program back in the 70s and 80s, and the Chinese DF series (which many believe is loosely based on Pershing 2) all solved for adding radar or other type of non INS guidance . That’s how you get to Anti ship ballistic or boost glide weapons. Both the US Army’s LRHW and USAFs ARRW will have a seeker added in future iterations. I believe the DRDO has ASBM in the works as well.
AsBMs such as the Chinese DF-21 or DF-26 need to have a CEP of 300 m specially if they are targeting a behemoth like a USN aircraft carrier. And have they been truly tested against a ship target moving at ~30 knots such as a USN carrier group? An Indian BM targeting a recessed/hardened CC&C node at the PLA Western Theater Command HQ in Chengdu will need to have a CEP of 10 meters to be effective. I believe LRHW will achieve that kind of accuracy against fixed targets. And so IMO a long range subsonic CM option is better at those ranges at least for India. Unless there is some kind of tech collaboration on seekers for BMs.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2518404#p2518404
ernest
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 15:35

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

Post by ernest »

Lohit wrote:Asking a noob question to the gurus here, please assume in advance the question is posed from one who has a 5 year old's knowledge/acumen on vayusena matters,

...
...
If true, this exercise provides an insight as to why rampng up Tejas production is so critical.

Once S400 acquisition and integration gets completed in the next couple of years, every single sqdn we add will start tilting the balance of airpower in our favor, which is currently "just" balanced by S400.

Given that a max sortie for a Tejas on the west will be 1000kms, to and fro, given Pak's limited 'width' and given Tejas theoretical range of 3k kms, if Tejas can match an F16 or Bandar in terms of avionics and weapons, its what we want.

Now, as per available data, HAL has been given a target of providing 83 Tejas in 5 years but HAL has stated they can complete the order in 3 (https://www.ndtv.com/bangalore-news/raj ... on-2361868) - which leads me to believe they have a production capacity of ~28 jets or ~1.5 sqdns p.a. Investing (and that too not much on CAPEX if HAL has good industrial engineers which Im sure it has) to scale throughput by 40% gets us to ~40 jets or 2 sqdns p.a.

If I add 2 sqdns of Tejas per year from today - PAF has to proportionately add 40 Bandars at a cost of $600-800 Mn per year - something that is not financially feasible for them at all.

Thus, in 5 years time; assuming PAF due to NaPak's economic implosion is unable to add jets, then vs 17 PAF sqdns in play I field 12 existing sqdns + 6 S400 sqdn equivalent + 10 Tejas sqdns or 17 vs 28 or almost a 1.5x numerical advantage (not to forget that actuals would be 3x counting in Eastern inventory), which in my view qualifies as overwhelming! Even if we buy the 114 MRCA to make the difference starker and counter-act any PAF inventory additions, our core focus should remain on adding 2 Tejas sqdns p.a.
...
...
Let me also add, that the above exercise leads me to believe that there is scope for both - external procurement of MRCA class jets to ensure any PAF inventory additions are shadowed by us with global best-in-class crafts like Rafael that outclasses PAF - and Tejas which will ensure that I have a base case 1.5x superiority for my goto workhorse that outnumbers PAF.

With you questions, and possible options, you're providing a great answer to our squadron shortfall puzzle. That we should be adding more of Tejas mk1, which has no shortcomings against any PAF aircraft, is the obvious solution that is being ignored. By capping current acquisitions to 123 airframes, we are repeating the mistake of waiting for the bird in bush. This has negative effects for both squadron strength and the growth of our MIC, but our planners have decided to not go fr additional mk1 for now.

The way I see it, we have an optimization problem, where the constraints are a limited budget, aircraft production rates, the capability (4G+) of acceptable aircraft, and the costs of various aircraft options to fill our squadrons. The objective functions is to maximize our squadron strength/offensive capability within a planned timeframe (say 2030).

The best solution for this optimization exercise will have to include a large number of Tejas Mk1, at least > 60% of new acquisitions. We can wait for the various future MRFA, but they will not be able to provide the value/expenditure ratio of Tejas. This is when we are not even accounting for the boost in MIC that domestic designs bring. But vested interests have delayed and reduced the orders or Tejas to small quantities, leaving IAF in search of foreign MRFA options to fill its dwindling squadron numbers. Hope that we see a renewed push for Tejas like what happened during Shri Parrikar's time.
Lohit
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 28 Feb 2019 01:03

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

Post by Lohit »

ernest wrote:
With you questions, and possible options, you're providing a great answer to our squadron shortfall puzzle.

Hope that we see a renewed push for Tejas like what happened during Shri Parrikar's time.
Thanks chief, and I have high hopes that atleast under Gen Rawat and Namo the push shall sustain and pick pace. Can't say if this holds true if Namo is out in 2024.

Matter of fact, I think having a sharp, irresistible "aerial dagger", such as the 36 Rafales is enough.

Ultimately our war objective, imho, would be to achieve air dominance over Lahore-Peshawar-Isloo triangle air-space, "the heart of NaPak", which is merely ~40k sq kms. In any struggle to achieve total victory, our ask is to take air dominance and hold this airspace - which is far easier v similar ask for Pak. It is a question of pre-emptive annihilation of air forces in this triangle and placing unsurmountable AAD in its periphery, to place it under aerial siege, similar to Dhaka albeit on a grander scale.

Any counter-offensive on mainland territory by PAF elements holding out outside this strategic triangle can at best harass mainland India but not really enable PAF to carve out any sizeable air dominance gains of strategic significance, we are too vast! To defend against such forays, Tejas even with its supposed limitations should be more than enough.

---

Added: Fact that Pakjabi greed has concentrated resources in this strategic triangle and failed to create any major cities or industrial bases in say B'stan plays to our strength heavily. If we capture this slice - what are the supposed 'tactical nukes" to do? Nuke Peshawar? Isloo?
ernest
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 15:35

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

Post by ernest »

Lohit wrote: Matter of fact, I think having a sharp, irresistible "aerial dagger", such as the 36 Rafales is enough.

Ultimately our war objective, imho, would be to achieve air dominance over Lahore-Peshawar-Isloo triangle air-space, "the heart of NaPak", which is merely ~40k sq kms. In any struggle to achieve total victory, our ask is to take air dominance and hold this airspace - which is far easier v similar ask for Pak. It is a question of pre-emptive annihilation of air forces in this triangle and placing unsurmountable AAD in its periphery, to place it under aerial siege, similar to Dhaka albeit on a grander scale.

Any counter-offensive on mainland territory by PAF elements holding out outside this strategic triangle can at best harass mainland India but not really enable PAF to carve out any sizeable air dominance gains of strategic significance, we are too vast! To defend against such forays, Tejas even with its supposed limitations should be more than enough.

As you've pointed out, the kind of capability we are aiming at, with our budget constraints will define what kind of squadron mix we end up with. However, there are other force multipliers like LIFT, loitering munitions, HALE/MALE UAV, and UCAVs that will form a significant part of IAF's offensive capability. Which brings me to another question: Does anyone have any reliable info on planned squadron strength of Ghatak UCAVs . Ideally, they should be included in our 42 squadron calculus. It would be shame if 10 years later we are floating a MM-UCAV tender for non-Indian options (maybe Turkish UCAvs too).
Rakesh wrote:Seeing how 114 MRFA will likely never see the light of day, additional Mk1As will arrive.
Hope this happens soon
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Looks like I have to amend my earlier statement Sir :)
ernest
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 15:35

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

Post by ernest »

Rakesh wrote:Looks like I have to amend my earlier statement Sir :)
Only the first part, right? Jingoes only want to see more Tejas. Let others also join the stables of IAF, but not at the cost of domestic platforms
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Post by LakshmanPST »

Lohit wrote:Asking a noob question to the gurus here, please assume in advance the question is posed from one who has a 5 year old's knowledge/acumen on vayusena matters,

....

....Lets assume half of these, 18 sqdns, are dedicated to the West are meant to face 25 sqdns of PAF. In an ideal scenario I would want to maintain, say 26 sqdns to slightly balance out the adversary ie a deficit of 8 sqdns.

....
Slight correction...
PAF has total 24 squadrons--->
16 Combat squadrons
4 CCS squadrons
4 Training squadrons

Training squadrons have exclusively twin seat trainers... They won't be used in Combat...
CCS squadrons are not full squadrons... More like one wing...
-
And in the 16 Combat squadrons--->
4 squadrons are F16
5 squadrons are JF17
1 squadron is Mirage III
4 squadrons are Mirage V
2 squadrons are F7

F7s are only point defenders... Won't be used in offensive operations...
-
Realistically, PAF is a 14 squadron Air Force when it comes to offensive operations...
So, actual combat capabilities of PAF are far lesser than what you assumed...
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Post by Aditya_V »

When it comes to airframe/ Parts , the Mirage III/V are hardly operational plus thier weapons suite/Radar is much older than even Mig-21 Bison, they are more useful in 27-Feb-19 type drawing attention to the IAF but I doubt they will be used against offensive operations as they will be sitting ducks for SAM's, thats why they dropped thier PGM 50Km before LOC and missed targets widely used costly H-4 PGM's.

JF-17 BVR is still questioned and could use only 83REK's on 27-Feb-19. The reality is as of today is PAF is mainly reliant on its ~ 75 F16 fleet, the only aircraft which can even take on Mig 21 Bison and ASRAAM equipped Jags. So any offensive package will have to F-16's with some other aircraft which can act as Bomb trucks.

For defensive role, again the MIII/V, F-7 maneuverability lack of BVR means the PAF cannot use these even against Asraam equipped Jaguars or incoming Bison, even many JF-17 has still fired on Pl-5as on date, if the get integrated with Pl-10/PL-12 they will be useful for defensive operations.

IAF/ PAF knows that the only aircraft the PAF really riles on is the PAF F-16 fleet as today, JF-17 today has maneuverability issues, Yet to show proper BVR capability, PGM capability and Air to air refueling. thats why PAF IL-78 are used as cargo aircraft to fly to the USA to pick up F-16/ P-3/ C-130/ Harpoon/ M-109 spare parts, they are not compatible with USA F-16's for refueling either.
Lohit
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 28 Feb 2019 01:03

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

Post by Lohit »

LakshmanPST wrote:
Slight correction...
PAF has total 24 squadrons--->
16 Combat squadrons
...
And in the 16 Combat squadrons--->
4 squadrons are F16
5 squadrons are JF17
1 squadron is Mirage III
4 squadrons are Mirage V
2 squadrons are F7

F7s are only point defenders... Won't be used in offensive operations...
-
Realistically, PAF is a 14 squadron Air Force when it comes to offensive operations...
So, actual combat capabilities of PAF are far lesser than what you assumed...
Thanks for adding clarity Lakshman ji! I realize that doing a slightly more granular analysis is important to have a semblance of any meaningful inference! :oops:

Also, I am perhaps mistaken but I think they have 7 J7/F-7 sqdns vs your citation of 2. Plus Mirage III account for not 1 but almost 4.5 sqdns as per my basic understanding from wiki - please correct me if I am wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Air_Force

Broadly basis your suggestion, as I see it basis wiki, if I were to draw a matchup of PAF vs 50% IAF,

9 sqdns of highly capable craft (F16 4 sqds + JF17 5 sqd) v/s 8 IAF sqdns (MKIs 7 sqdns + Rafaels 1 sqdn) -> Deficit of 1 sqdns for IAF

9 sqdns of moderately capable craft (Mirage V 4.5 sqdns + Mirage III 4.5 sqds) v/s 3 IAF sqdns (Tejas 0.5 sqdn + Mig29 1.5 sqdn + Mirage 2000 1 sqdn) -> Deficit of 6 sqdns for IAF

7 sqdns of Low capable caft (J 7) vs 4.5 IAF sqdns (Jaguars 3 sqdns + Bisons 1.5 sqdns) -> While again a deficit of 2.5 sqdns, like you said, it perhaps has limited bearing since these will either be purely defensively deployed or for specialized ground attack roles and hence can be discounted from over all play

So, going by this thook-patti model, there is a deficit of 7 sqdns overall. Again, if one consider that it is perhaps 2/3rd of these that will be in play in a sizeable conflict, 12 (ie 2/3rd of 18 PAF in toto) capable and moderately capable PAF sqdns v/s ~8 IAF sqdns ie a deficit of 4 sqdns.

Therefore I might tentatively conclude that,

1. Given S400 can "simultaneously" engage 36 targets or ~2 sqdns worth, deploying 2 S400s (~4 sqdn worth), will finally erase the deficit (phew).

2. The worst deficit is actually in the moderately capable craft category - again emphasizing how critical supplementing Tejas in this category is! Given that in the top tier we field MKIs and Rafaels which are a class apart from F16s and Bandars, the 1 odd sqdn deficit does not bother me. The focus shifts to the moderate tier which will have to bear the brunt of the war especially in an extended shooting match. And that is where we need to critically churn out the numbers.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

S-400 cannot erase squadrons. Please look up radar horizon to understand the limitations of GBAD.
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Post by hemant_sai »

What perplexes me is that IAF leadership doesn't seem to be learnt any lesson from mmrca circus.
Who exactly takes those decisions of what is required and how it will be fulfilled?
If everyone in DAC is rendered helpless due to DAP then it is ridiculous.

Time is crucial and IAF needs those fighters between now and 2030.
Post 2030, we will have our own options.
What is the logic to plan timeline for mrfa well into next decade?
So now goalpost is shifted to have 5th gen tech as well, to justify that?
Complete layman like me also understands that this is ridiculous and left to the mercy of fate once again.

If anyone from IAF is reading here,
I would request just to be sensible in planning and sensitive to the TIME.

We need good mix of quality and quantity and that too in reasonable budget and sooner.
As far as reasonable budget is concerned, it should be fixed between $10-12 BN.
In this budget plan 2 foreign planes which will give best mix of quality and quantity.
With 2 parallel deliveries it is possible to get those planes well before 2030.

Obviously those 2 planes must not be entirely new to the IAF fleet. Then where does it leave us?

When things are so crystal clear, it is difficult to understand DAC team.
Why this carrot of 20-30BN mrfa so important to ruin obvious need we have.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

IMHO, ACM SP Tyagi was the litmus test. He was arrested on criminal conspiracy and illegal gratification charges, but sedition charges also should have been filed. After all, the compromise was on the safety of the national leadership! Instead of such exemplary action, nothing seemed to have moved at all after the bail was granted. This emboldens others to be as comfortable as possible to continue doing perplexing things we see today. Isn't India the only nation whose ACM does not speak of its upcoming fighter and CNS of Indian NUH worth $5 billion that is also the most qualified? Has such a thing happened in any other major country in last 100 years?
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Post by hemant_sai »

Why we cannot innovate on Mig29 further to make it a viable option for new orders? It may not be completely futuristic but can help reduce potential problems.

1) Can we bring Mig29 on par with Mk1A avionics if not possible to go for Mk2 match.
2) For engines if not GE414 then why not M88-4E?
Those same engines work for Rafale to support mtow of 24T then why won't it work for Mig29 supporting mtow of 18T?
Is it really going to take 5 years to integrate Rafale engines with Mig29?

If those 2 conditions are managed - it will certainly make Mig29 a good option.
But I don't see any will even on this forum, let alone IAF.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

Mig-29 UPG is an upgrade and is a good one at that.
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Post by hemant_sai »

Well then that's it,
54 Rafale F3R(I) and 60 Mig29UPG in 12BN is the right option to go for.
Instead of paying more in the name of off-sets and ToT,
save the precious bucks now and use it for indigenous projects.

There is no hope for bringing Rafale manufacturing to India under strategic partnership. We don't have time to wait for that.

But if GoI is ready to spend and conclude MRFA before 2024 - I am not against it.
But when we know the truth that it is not going to happen,
Then it is better for IAF to wake up and stand for practical solution.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

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

Post by YashG »

hemant_sai wrote:Why we cannot innovate on Mig29 further to make it a viable option for new orders? It may not be completely futuristic but can help reduce potential problems.

1) Can we bring Mig29 on par with Mk1A avionics if not possible to go for Mk2 match.
2) For engines if not GE414 then why not M88-4E?
Those same engines work for Rafale to support mtow of 24T then why won't it work for Mig29 supporting mtow of 18T?
Is it really going to take 5 years to integrate Rafale engines with Mig29?

If those 2 conditions are managed - it will certainly make Mig29 a good option.
But I don't see any will even on this forum, let alone IAF.
What exactly you want to pick from MK1A and put on Mig29 ?
Mig 29 UPG upgrade was planned at a time when AESA uttam was not ready - it is still close to induction, not yet inducted. But it uses ZHUK M, which is a good radar. It also uses IRST of russian origin, some other avionics like D29 are indigenous.
https://www.drdo.gov.in/development-d-2 ... e-aircraft

Who will integrate M88 on Mig29 ? Not russians. Its a long, un-needed development cycle for very marginal improvements.
Mig29 already has a satisfactory range & loadout, why would you want to increase it by going into totally expensive/uncertain/uncharted territory of M88, not to mention twin engine Mig29 will need a lot of M88s - not cheap at all. If available, we would put all of this money and development bandwidth on Mk2 or AMCA.

Why do you want to see will for such a low RoI project on this forum, let alone IAF.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Post by Manish_Sharma »

From Tejas Mk.2 thread:
hemant_sai wrote:Well then that's it,
54 Rafale F3R(I) and 60 Mig29UPG in 12BN is the right option to go for.
One of my fantasy is that we make a deal with Russian to buy 63 Mig29/35 with condition that they test and equip it with Kaveri GTX 35 instead of RD-33.

KAVERI is 137 inch long compared to RD-33 being 167 inch long. So Kaveri is 30 inches shorter.

KAVERI Diameter is 35.8 inches compared to RD-33 being 40 inches.

Thrust is about same in both Dry and Afterburning modes.

Mig is bankrupt for an order of 63 they'll do anything.

This way they do all the testing and tweaking of Migs and we get a well tested platform on which Kaveri runs.

We can tell Russians from day one this MIG-35MKI will be equipped with Uttam, Kaveri, our LDP & Jamming pods, plus Astra missiles.

Mig can manufacture and assemble in Russia while IAF will do maintenance.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Post by Manish_Sharma »

hemant_sai wrote:Well then that's it,
54 Rafale F3R(I) and 60 Mig29UPG in 12BN is the right option to go for.
Instead of paying more in the name of off-sets and ToT,
save the precious bucks now and use it for indigenous projects.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7634&p=2522662#p2522662
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by brar_w »

And what and when will this arrive? Uttam isn't going to be operational on the MK1A till perhaps 2025 or 2026, so anything for a hypothetical MiG-35MKI won't show up operationally till 2030 at the earliest. All the integration you want is essentially free IR&D for MiG when the same can be achieved by spending on the MWF which would offer comparable capability and will be available for serial production by 2029 following MK1A order completion.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Post by Manish_Sharma »

^ MWF is brand new single engine design with loads of parameters to be tested. Hence a GE 414 type super-proven super-reliable engine is required.

While Mig 29 is a time tested 40 years old design for which Mig has truckload of tests data while Kaveri is new engine yet untested on any fighter.

So:
New MWF = Well tested GE414

Well Tested Mig 29 = New untested Kaveri

Why would Mig35 with Kaveri take till 30s?

Did Rafale which first flew with GE engine and later switched to M88 take 7 years?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by brar_w »

Detail design of the changes you mention, and development of the other sub-systems you also mentioned, and follow on dev and ops testing is a minimum of 6-8 year time horizon. Without delays. Effectively, what you have listed cannot be fielded (say one squadron) this decade.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

It is most likely that Kaveri flies with TEDBF variant for IAF. Twin engines, hence some redundancy. Would be late, but will have to start somewhere.
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Post by hemant_sai »

If we are really serious about engine testing, why can't we go for dedicated 2or3 engine Flying-Test-Bed?
Manufactured specifically for testing engines? No need to wait for TEDBF.

Such platforms will be required always even after we get success with initial version of Kaveri.
We don't necessarily want a fighter plane for engine testing.

Maybe GTRE doesn't even has engine certified for flight testing to push MoD for such requirement.
Maybe in future only UCAVs will be used for engine testing? Not a bad idea either.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Post by Manish_Sharma »

brar_w wrote:And what and when will this arrive? Uttam isn't going to be operational on the MK1A till perhaps 2025 or 2026, so anything for a hypothetical MiG-35MKI won't show up operationally till 2030 at the earliest. All the integration you want is essentially free IR&D for MiG when the same can be achieved by spending on the MWF which would offer comparable capability and will be available for serial production by 2029 following MK1A order completion.
https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiat ... ze=770:433
Image

Engines are right behind nacelles in Mig 29 not S design like Tejas so replacing RD-33 with Kaveri GTX will not be that much complicated that it takes 6 to 8 years. At the most 2 years.

Our AMCA is also going to fly first two squadrons with GE 414 and later with indigenous engines. Will that change itself eat 6 to 8 years? Did Change of GE to M-88 take 6 to 8 years in Rafale development? I don't think so. MiG are a very experienced house and this Mig29/35 is a 40 year old design so they know all the ins and outs of it pretty well. Just like F-16 flies with engines from two different companies GE and P&W all that hardly takes 6 to 8 years.
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Post by hemant_sai »

YashG wrote:
hemant_sai wrote:Why we cannot innovate on Mig29 further to make it a viable option for new orders? It may not be completely futuristic but can help reduce potential problems.

1) Can we bring Mig29 on par with Mk1A avionics if not possible to go for Mk2 match.
2) For engines if not GE414 then why not M88-4E?
Those same engines work for Rafale to support mtow of 24T then why won't it work for Mig29 supporting mtow of 18T?
Is it really going to take 5 years to integrate Rafale engines with Mig29?

If those 2 conditions are managed - it will certainly make Mig29 a good option.
But I don't see any will even on this forum, let alone IAF.
What exactly you want to pick from MK1A and put on Mig29 ?
....
Well I am not proposing to upgrade existing fleet of Mig29UPG. Those are anyways going to be retired by early 30s.

Mk1A will be there for next 20-25 years. And wish an option for new Mig29s to serve same timeline.

Assuming that we can't really place more Mk1A orders and also cannot fulfill in same timeline of 2028,
Looking at Mig29 as an option (60-80 planes) out of 114MRFA to save on cost and timeline both.

Won't it help if those new Mig29s are brought on par with Mk1A? (I would prefer to match Mk2 but it is not practical to realize timeline of 2028/29.)

Version of Mig29 which can last for same period of Mk1A and will provide complete flexibility for desi platforms and upgrades without much ado.
Basically Mk1A itself but wrapped in Mig29.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Post by ks_sachin »

hemant_sai wrote:
YashG wrote:What exactly you want to pick from MK1A and put on Mig29 ?
....
Well I am not proposing...
Who is manufacturing the MIG 29?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by brar_w »

Manish_Sharma wrote:Engines are right behind nacelles in Mig 29 not S design like Tejas so replacing RD-33 with Kaveri GTX will not be that much complicated that it takes 6 to 8 years. At the most 2 years.
I don't think anyone reasonably familiar with engine development or aircraft integration would be able to sign off on that timeline. You are talking about integrating a developmental engine, into a fighter that is not designed for it, and not only flight qualifying the engine for this application but also fully validating that the integration was successful. This isn't a 24 month effort. Now to it add all the other developmental items (not yet operational elsewhere) that you also want to add. You are looking at the 2030s.

The two examples you cite are not related to this at all. AMCA is being designed to incorporate a new, yet to be formalized engine which will be designed for it. It will use the F-414 in the interim. The engine development timeline, and its testing on the AMCA will take longer than 6-8 years but we don't know how far into it they are already. If they haven't started then you are looking at a post 2035 capability at the earliest. But the distinction there is that both the AMCA and the new engine will be designed to work with one other from the very onset. The F-16 example is also not comparable. the GE engine was flying on the Tomcat, and it still took most of the 1980's to derive to a F-16 configuration that could accommodate the higher thrust variant, and be certified for it.
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Post by hemant_sai »

ks_sachin wrote:
hemant_sai wrote: ...Basically Mk1A itself but wrapped in Mig29.
Who is manufacturing the MIG 29?
:) This is short and sweet answer.

So we don't have much option. It is either Mig29UPG or Mig35?

In that case, I am not very enthu about these options for next 20-25 years in IAF.
Russian platforms without greater degree of indigenous systems is a No-No.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

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

Post by arvin »

Manish_Sharma wrote: Engines are right behind nacelles in Mig 29 not S design like Tejas so replacing RD-33 with Kaveri GTX will not be that much complicated that it takes 6 to 8 years. At the most 2 years.
.
In 2 years maybe only the cockpit upgrade will be completed.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

A little OT, but see the detailed article on Mig 29 UPG.

The BAAZigars: All you need to know about the MiG-29 UPG
Post Reply