MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 31 Jan 2011 21:01

sohels wrote:
kmc_chacko wrote:In the 2005 Singapore evaluation, a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s
Did those F-16s have the APG-80 AESA?

Did the Typhoon have AESA ?

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 31 Jan 2011 22:04

B_Ambuj wrote:
sohels wrote:
Did those F-16s have the APG-80 AESA?
Did the Typhoon have AESA ?

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 31 Jan 2011 22:29

Avid wrote:The cost difference also means that with F-16IN, certainly numbers can be doubled without adversely effecting economics of fly-away or life-cycle. These numbers are not meaningless, and certainly allows for rapidly plugging the hole that currently exists in IAF (through loaners from USAF, National Guard etc.). Even if F-16IN is considered to be half as capable as EF, double the numbers allows for one to be stationed in NE, and other in West. That is the physical reality.

As for PAF also having F-16s. Well Saudis have it and so do Israelis. Does it make Israel fear about potency of its airforce?

ToT:
The inclination to undertake ToT is greater than for EF/Rafale for their radars that are their first. Same goes with the engines.

Regarding loaning the aircraft, UK/germany could easily do it (UK did it with Jags) and so can the French too.

Isreali's have to play nice with US and fly planes that US tells them to buy or even gifts. Under US pressure, IAI scrapped Lavi.
They cannot install Elta 2052 even on IAF f-16's let alone sell it. Isreal is very good in defense, yet they donot have an aircraft because US killed off their projects (much like they did with Canadians or the brits(?) or tried doing to LCA).

Should we buy a fighter and then be at the mercy of US for any substantial upgrades that we want to perform. And what is the guarantee that 10 years down the line, Unkil will not gift Paki's some f-16 E/F's or SH's and then tell us to buy the F-35.

In any case, if one was to do a rough comparison with buying a PC, then

Indigenous (LCA) is like assembling a PC: Most cost effective, Complete freedom of initial config as well as future upgrades. But it does require considerable knowledge and time plus troubleshooting needs to be done on our own.

Non US fighters (EF, Rafale, Mig35) like buying a branded PC: Slightly expensive, offers some freedom to do future upgrades but upgrade plans should be based on the initial hardware (which might have restrictions) and the risk of losing warranty if you fiddle too much.

US fighters is like buying a Mac. These days as cost effective as branded, but you are pretty much screwed if you want to upgrade it (very expensive and limited) or if you want to use in a way that Mac (US) did not intend you to use it.

If one buys a iMac (f-16) or Mac Pro (f-18) today then some years down the line Mac (US) expects you to buy new Macs (F-35 etc.) than to upgrade your system.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 31 Jan 2011 22:34

while reading about EF in wiki i come across

in October 2008,

The US government has given its approval for the sale of sensitive military technology to the Saudis in the form of Eurofighter combat jets developed cooperatively by the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/23 ... hter_sale/

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 31 Jan 2011 22:50

Gurneesh wrote: Isreali's have to play nice with US and fly planes that US tells them to buy or even gifts. Under US pressure, IAI scrapped Lavi.
They cannot install Elta 2052 even on IAF f-16's let alone sell it. Isreal is very good in defense, yet they donot have an aircraft because US killed off their projects (much like they did with Canadians or the brits(?) or tried doing to LCA).

Should we buy a fighter and then be at the mercy of US for any substantial upgrades that we want to perform. And what is the guarantee that 10 years down the line, Unkil will not gift Paki's some f-16 E/F's or SH's and then tell us to buy the F-35.

Same reason holds good for rejecting the Grippen with Unkil’s engine apart from the fact it does not have much to offer in form of technology transfer. Also, Grippen is having the History of crashing multiple times and slipping away from the tarmac. Can we afford to handle the bad press related to its crash history that would come along with the Grippen ?

On top of that the cost of Grippen seems to be too high.

kmc_chacko wrote: The US government has given its approval for the sale of sensitive military technology to the Saudis in the form of Eurofighter combat jets developed cooperatively by the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/23 ... hter_sale/

Hollycow !! What is that ....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jan 2011 23:03

They can stop cyrogenic sale even by Russia to India. Why not EF? It all depends on the mighty pen that Mr Hyde uses while Mr Jackal senses and interacts for which purpose they may play per their super power doctrine.
==

from br/flightglobal news link:

Also, many commentators say that although the US vendors make much of interoperability, some Indians see it as an impingement on sovereignty.

"India has its own systems and is proud of them," says one industry source close to the race. "The country is unique, and templates that apply elsewhere simply don't apply there." The source points out that India initiated the Non-Aligned Movement of nations in 1954. "India prides its sovereignty," he adds.

Hinting at frustration, several MMRCA contenders say the rules governing offsets in India are something of a moving target. Offset rules continue to evolve, mainly because of changing and evolving technologies. Technology transfer is, of course, a critical aspect of the MMRCA competition. One peculiarity, say some race contenders, is that the offsets apply only to the defence sector, rather than the broader aerospace industry.

Naturally enough, the various suppliers are reluctant to discuss intricate details of their bids, although all insist they comply with India's offset requirements. India's defence ministry is also tight-lipped on how the different aircraft and their offset packages are faring at the evaluation stage. Whatever India's final decision is, the aviation world is unlikely to see a repeat of the two-decade procurement saga of India's BAE Systems Hawk.

wow, the author is kinda vexed here.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 31 Jan 2011 23:05

US fighters is like buying a Mac. These days as cost effective as branded, but you are pretty much screwed if you want to upgrade it (very expensive and limited) or if you want to use in a way that Mac (US) did not intend you to use it.

If one buys a iMac (f-16) or Mac Pro (f-18) today then some years down the line Mac (US) expects you to buy new Macs (F-35 etc.) than to upgrade your system.

Nice Anology but applies more to French Fighters.

Expensive to Buy - Yes

Expensive to Upgrade - Yes

Trouble Free Operation - Yes

US Fighters are like Branded Windows PCs, Works rather good sold world over, But No Source Code

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 01 Feb 2011 00:21

kmc_chacko wrote:In the 2005 Singapore evaluation, a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s

B_Ambuj wrote:
sohels wrote:Did those F-16s have the APG-80 AESA?
Did the Typhoon have AESA ?

Another reason why that statement merits no consideration.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Feb 2011 00:27

The APG-80 is present only on UAE F-16 blk 60s.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 01 Feb 2011 00:41

B_Ambuj wrote:Same reason holds good for rejecting the Grippen with Unkil’s engine apart from the fact it does not have much to offer in form of technology transfer. Also, Grippen is having the History of crashing multiple times and slipping away from the tarmac. Can we afford to handle the bad press related to its crash history that would come along with the Grippen ?

On top of that the cost of Grippen seems to be too high.

You really have an issue with the Gripen don't you? Are you some Rafale salesman perhaps?

Why would the Gripen crash in the hands of indian pilots? You need to read up some.

What do you know about the technology transfer? Have you read all the documents from all the vendors? You must have since you seem to have extensive knowledge on the issue.

And by the way, that price is way to high.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 01 Feb 2011 00:50

Swedish defence minister Sten Tolgfors.

Now of course he's very baised towards the Gripen, so don't take everything he says as face value.

In New Delhi I met among others my Indian colleague A.K. Antony.

The reason I went to India at this time was to highlight the Government's support for the Saab Gripen.

But there are also a number of other important issues to talk with India on right now. India is pursuing a significant development cooperation with Afghanistan. India will also considerable emphasis on maintaining the security of international maritime transport and the fight against piracy in the Indian Ocean. There is a new MOU on defense between Sweden and India and the related working group has just held its first meeting. We look forward to a second meeting in the spring.

India is now preparing to short list a number of planes, that they choose to move forward with in the process.

In a few weeks, it is Aero India, where a Swedish delegation will attend. State Secretary Håkan Jevrell will come together with other such as Håkan Espmark to represent the Defense Department there.

Gripen is a well proven fighter. We have personally flown more than 120,000 hours, with very good experience. At the same time, the Gripen NG will be the most modern aircraft in the Indian contract, since the next generation of Gripen is developed to be operational right on delivery to India. Competitors are a few years older models.

The demonstrator has flown over 150 passes and has been in place in India.

We see the fact that the Gripen is a single-engine as a big advantage, both in terms of price, operating costs and reliability. "Double the engines, double the trouble." A significant portion of the additional thrust that an engine provides extra is spent to offset the plane's increased weight.

Gripen has proven to be successful at high altitude basing and is designed to be for "quick turnaround times" and "small ground crews."

The purchase price is significantly lower than competitors, but even more interesting is that the life-cycle cost is significantly lower relative number of competitors. Should India choose Gripen opens up completely new possibilities for technical cooperation in aviation.

The Indian Minister Antony is focused on creating an open procurement process that is determined by the different aircraft's own merits. He is also very clear in his work against all forms of corruption.

It really is an attitude that I welcome.

Sten Tolgfors, Minister for Defence

http://tolgfors.wordpress.com/2011/01/3 ... or-indien/

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 01 Feb 2011 01:19

Henrik wrote:
B_Ambuj wrote:Same reason holds good for rejecting the Grippen with Unkil’s engine apart from the fact it does not have much to offer in form of technology transfer. Also, Grippen is having the History of crashing multiple times and slipping away from the tarmac. Can we afford to handle the bad press related to its crash history that would come along with the Grippen ?

On top of that the cost of Grippen seems to be too high.
You really have an issue with the Gripen don't you? Are you some Rafale salesman perhaps?

Why would the Gripen crash in the hands of indian pilots? You need to read up some.

What do you know about the technology transfer? Have you read all the documents from all the vendors? You must have since you seem to have extensive knowledge on the issue.

And by the way, that price is way to high.

Just don´t bother replaying to idiots. The common bharat reader is smarter then that. It´s just that simple....

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Feb 2011 01:25

Avid wrote: Economics:
For those rooting for the EF @ $120 million a piece (fly-away), consider this -- FGFA cost is currently projected @ $100 million in 2017/18. MRCA induction will certainly continue into 2017-18. How do you feel about paying more for EF now than for FGFA?

Problem is if you bring the FGFA/PAK-FA into it, it beats out every contender in the MRCA race on cost-capability. But the PAK-FA will enter service only by 2017 (the IAF is expected to order about 50 of those) and the FGFA by 2019 (according to HAL Chairman's recent interview). And this is the IOC we're talking about. It'll take a while to gain the FOC and enter full rate production, by which time the delivery of all 126 aircraft would probably be complete.

Point being that the MRCA competition needs to be decided on its merits. The FGFA is not an alternative to it. But, one still needs to keep in mind advanced variants of the J-10 rapidly coming off the assembly lines in addition to the J-20 which the MRCA winner may run up against fifteen years from now.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Feb 2011 02:01

Wickberg wrote: Just don´t bother replaying to idiots. The common bharat reader is smarter then that. It´s just that simple....

Wickberg, a little restraint on your choice of words would be nice. I mean there are many who don't subscribe to the views posted by Ambuj. But then calling each other stupid, really doesn't help. It only makes things worse and wastes unnecessary bandwidth and time of the readers of such chagrin.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 01 Feb 2011 02:35

Viv S wrote:Precisely why the EF is the best of the lot. Avionics can be upgraded. But its the best airframe available with the most room for a radar or engine upgrade.

Ah yes, the old 'you can always upgrade the avionics' chestnut.

The fact is you can't. EF is already 10 years behind the US in avionics and the only reason they aren't even further behind is the demands of the export market. Once production ends, the EF consortium will have zero interest in funding and producing new upgrades.

Sure you can add in your own 3rd party stuff, but
1) Developing your own upgrades is EXPENSIVE and time consuming.
2) What's available from 3rd parties is always going to be a step behind.

So yes, if you're ok with chronically obsolete avionics, the EF is a fine choice.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 01 Feb 2011 02:41

kmc_chacko wrote:In the 2005 Singapore evaluation, a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s

And newer US aircraft have an 80-1 advantage over similar vintage planes :shrug:

All that demonstrates is the importance of weapons and avionics. No kinetic advantage makes THAT much of a difference, it's all about seeing first and shooting first. Which means avionics. And the SH kills the EF in that department and will for the rest of its lifetime simply because the USN actually cares about keeping current while the euro nations don't.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 01 Feb 2011 03:17

indranilroy wrote:
Wickberg wrote: Just don´t bother replaying to idiots. The common bharat reader is smarter then that. It´s just that simple....
Wickberg, a little restraint on your choice of words would be nice. I mean there are many who don't subscribe to the views posted by Ambuj. But then calling each other stupid, really doesn't help. It only makes things worse and wastes unnecessary bandwidth and time of the readers of such chagrin.

Oh, I am sorry. Is "idiot blatant liar" better? Cause that just about describes what he writes in his posts?

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Feb 2011 04:58

Avid wrote:...
Economics:
For those rooting for the EF @ $120 million a piece (fly-away), consider this -- FGFA cost is currently projected @ $100 million in 2017/18. MRCA induction will certainly continue into 2017-18. How do you feel about paying more for EF now than for FGFA?

...

As far as the cost of the PAK-FA / FGFA, we have to actually wait until 2017+ to get the real price tag. That's only the target the project is aiming for. The actual cost will be known only once the orders are placed, units are delivered and put into operation.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 Feb 2011 06:35

'No secrets compromised by misplacement of file'
Times of India

"We have received the MoD report. All the agencies, including IAF, have reported nothing was compromised. So, hereafter the MMRCA acquisition process will again start,'' said Antony. said Antony.

Antony, on his part, had asked IAF, directorate general (acquisitions) and the department of defence production to find out if the missing file episode had in any way "vitiated'' the procurement process.

Asked about the project's current status, Antony said, "It will take some time. Who will get the deal, I can't say now. The process has started again after the inquiry report was submitted and it will take a few more months.''

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 01 Feb 2011 07:16

No, I was not talking about buying used F-16s. Merely "loaning" much like the 40+ SU-30Ks we got OTS and were sent back later for upgrade to MKI. These would be similar.

As for the sanction scepter being held up high by many, and the magical upgrades. I will continue to play the devil's advocate here.

- Pak Navy has Agosta, didn't stop us from purchasing Scorpene. What guarantee is there that they will not be sold Scorpene? Why does the same not apply to F-16 comparison?

- Sea King gearboxes and Harriers (IIRC) were stuck in UK when sanctions were put in place in 1998. Or people have forgotten that? In case of EADS, only one of the member country will have to hit us with sanctions for some component to end up off-limits. So take your pick -- Germany, UK, Spain or Italy. By the way, BAE is now an American company, and subject to american jurisdiction, so all items from BAE are subject to the same sanctions regime (especially if it wants to do business with Pentagon). For those who find this suspect, look up BAE acquisition of an american company and now being subject to FBI investigation for the EF deal with the Saudis.

- Have we so quickly forgotten the rusted used components inside the "brand new" Hawk AJT being supplied to us in not so distant past by BAE? What is the status of the Hawk AJT ToT? Whatever happened to the major ToT that we were supposed to get with Jaguars? Also, mind you the Jags were also hit by sanctions.

- Now the magical upgrades and the 40+ yr lifespan. Are we overlooking what Dassault has been wanting for the upgrades of the M2K?

- F-16 will continue to be in USAF inventory for at least 25-30 years, and longer than that possibly in many other inventories. US may not allow Israeli AF to mount a different radar, but surely allowed them to make some of the deadliest weaponry for it. At least that is a given that weapons could be sourced from Israel. Where will we source weapons from for Rafale and EF, other than original sources or US?

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 01 Feb 2011 07:28

chackojoseph wrote:
Avid wrote:Note - both P-8I and C-17 have been purchased through FMS route. There is no bargain/negotiation/etc.
Are you sure?

Yes. I have had this discussion before on BR (not exactly sure who).

Under FMS route, foreign government (GoI in this case) places RFI with FMS, and the pricing is based on Pentagon pricing schedule. Essentially, what we pay is what they pay, plus 3% (?) for administration, logistics, etc.

All American equipment purchased so far has been under FMS route. Beginning with WLR, C-130J, P-8I, and now C-17 as well as M777 (when decision to purchase is made). When purchase is made through FMS, Pentagon has the liberty to supply items from its own inventory immediately and replenish it later. For example, if you were to order 500 JDAM through FMS, Pentagon could fly out 500 JDAM to you and the supplies for your order can be used to replenish their inventory. Mind you that could does not equate to would.

For MRCA, it is not through FMS and consequently direct price negotiations with vendors will be undertaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_military_sales

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Feb 2011 09:07

Avid,

You might want to read this

Experience of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) managers indicates that many FMS cases are retained in an open status because of delays in negotiation of final contract prices. The objective of this study was to develop procedures and policies which will reduce to acceptable levels the number of FMS case closures being delayed due to lack of finalized prices. The approach was to determine the number, age, and value of contracts delaying closure of FMS cases; upon determination of reasons for delay in final price negotiation, identify opportunities for reducing the delays which are within the procuring activities' ability to exploit. A satisfactory data base does not currently exist to enable a reliable finding of the impact of pricing delay in FMS case closures. A lack of interface between computer systems, as well as semantics problems, cause a lack of communication and precludes a system approach to FMS case management and closure in particular. System change requests (SCR's) have been developed to provide an interface between computer systems and provide for a basis of a systematic approach to management and closure of FMS cases. Upon implementation of the SCR's, a data base will become available which will allow analysis of the impact of pricing and other potential functional delays on FMS case closures.

I will tell you that even kickbacks too exist in the FMS. There have been cases in which inflated invoicing has led to kickbacks.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 01 Feb 2011 09:07

Avid wrote:No, I was not talking about buying used F-16s. Merely "loaning" much like the 40+ SU-30Ks we got OTS and were sent back later for upgrade to MKI. These would be similar.

As for the sanction scepter being held up high by many, and the magical upgrades. I will continue to play the devil's advocate here.

- Pak Navy has Agosta, didn't stop us from purchasing Scorpene. What guarantee is there that they will not be sold Scorpene? Why does the same not apply to F-16 comparison?

- Sea King gearboxes and Harriers (IIRC) were stuck in UK when sanctions were put in place in 1998. Or people have forgotten that? In case of EADS, only one of the member country will have to hit us with sanctions for some component to end up off-limits. So take your pick -- Germany, UK, Spain or Italy. By the way, BAE is now an American company, and subject to american jurisdiction, so all items from BAE are subject to the same sanctions regime (especially if it wants to do business with Pentagon). For those who find this suspect, look up BAE acquisition of an american company and now being subject to FBI investigation for the EF deal with the Saudis.

- Have we so quickly forgotten the rusted used components inside the "brand new" Hawk AJT being supplied to us in not so distant past by BAE? What is the status of the Hawk AJT ToT? Whatever happened to the major ToT that we were supposed to get with Jaguars? Also, mind you the Jags were also hit by sanctions.

- Now the magical upgrades and the 40+ yr lifespan. Are we overlooking what Dassault has been wanting for the upgrades of the M2K?

- F-16 will continue to be in USAF inventory for at least 25-30 years, and longer than that possibly in many other inventories. US may not allow Israeli AF to mount a different radar, but surely allowed them to make some of the deadliest weaponry for it. At least that is a given that weapons could be sourced from Israel. Where will we source weapons from for Rafale and EF, other than original sources or US?

Well no one is a saint. If the customer is not cautious, then he/she will get duped (fairly often).

Now, MMRCA envisions MKI like manufacture. So, after may be the first few planes, all will be made by HAL from raw materials. I am not sure how much is the Russian input in the MKI's being churned out right now

. But I think that every thing is made in India from raw materials. So, that should also be true for MMRCA too. Thus, any spare part sanctions may not have a very big effect if all the spare parts are being manufactured in India. This holds true for all the contenders.

But where the Americans lose out is ironically their Uber Radars and electronics.
A)US will not part with the source codes. So, any changes that IAF wants at delivery or in future will have to be done in US. This means handing them sensitive information. In all the air exercises MKI bars radar is kept off (or used in limited modes) to keep it as classified as possible. Now imagine handing the radar info to the US so that the teens and MKI can coexist !!!!
Secondly, we would have very little idea about what is in the radar and it very well may happen that US hits a kill or dumb switch the moment there is a conflict with Pak. Chances of this happening are much lesser with others as we would have the source codes and thus a fair bit of knowledge of the system and it's operation.
C) If in future we wish to use stuff like Nirbhay or Astra etc. we would have to go to Americans which will not be the case with other contenders.

Don't get me wrong, I think that technological package offered by both the teens is probably the best, but the strings pulling then down mean that the teens actually are less stronger than some of the others.

Rafale, EF can very well use all the weapons we want to use with them (Indian, Russian, European, Isreali and even American). It is upto us. Now can we say the same thing about the teens.

And please stop using Israel as an example. Israeli and Indian scenarios are very very different. Israel and Pak are like Unkil's kids and India is a cow that Unkil (actually everyone) is trying to milk as hard as it can so that it can keep on feeding it's children.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Feb 2011 09:57

USS Abraham Lincoln provides air support to Afghanistan

Interesting bit of info on the F-18:

The F-18s also use their sensors to try to locate possible improvised explosive device (IED) or roadside bomb positions.

And then there is the ship's detachment of EA-6B Prowlers - electronic jamming aircraft. They also have a role in countering the IED threat, but just how remains murky.

"I must be a bit careful with this one, because it gets classified fairly quickly," says Lt Cdr Thomas Huerter, the commander of the Lincoln's Prowler detachment.

The planes have the ability "to influence the electromagnetic spectrum", he says rather elusively.

"That gets into a lot of operational capabilities that I can't really get into. But the counter-IED threat is an enormous effort across the force, and just about everyone has a piece of it, and - sure - we have a piece of it."

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 01 Feb 2011 09:58

Hey, taking tejas three legged Cheetah, metaphor to MMRCA, will it be proper to call teens as 4 legged cheetah but tied around a tree with a chain?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2011 09:59

I don't think any of these mftrs would give 100% deep ToT. The precision engineering jobs will be retained by the supplying nation., hence those would have to be knock down kits.

--
^^no. it would be 4 legged cheetah with brain implants and remotely operated and programmed. But, IAF may have to accept what these implants are telling our babooze.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 01 Feb 2011 12:29

NRao wrote: ...
And then there is the ship's detachment of EA-6B Prowlers - electronic jamming aircraft. They also have a role in countering the IED threat, but just how remains murky.

"I must be a bit careful with this one, because it gets classified fairly quickly," says Lt Cdr Thomas Huerter, the commander of the Lincoln's Prowler detachment.

The planes have the ability "to influence the electromagnetic spectrum", he says rather elusively.

"That gets into a lot of operational capabilities that I can't really get into. But the counter-IED threat is an enormous effort across the force, and just about everyone has a piece of it, and - sure - we have a piece of it."

I have wondered... about those IEDs that have command wires with a trigger-man on the end... if it would be possible to impart an electric charge to the command wires by way of EM beams (perhaps from a radar array), sufficient to cause the premature detonation of the bomb. Otherwise, might they be able to 'ping' the command wires and get a return signal when bouncing a radar beam off of them? Consider that the command wires are essentially antannae, and that detonators may not require a large charge to prime them. Any thoughts on this from the BRF brain trust?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Feb 2011 13:04

Reading the article in Flight about the LCA,where it is stated that the IAF will in all probability not use the Tejas in "high intensity combat" (because of its many acknowledged shortcomings),using the Flankers and other aircraft in service plus the MMRCA winner,the 40 (+80 MK-2 planned),will be in IAF service more of a bonus,most probably defending airfields,bases and other vital installations at home rather than penetrating enemy airspace in strike/air dominance missions.The MMRCA will also have to do duty until sufficient numbers of the FGFA/PAK-FA arrive,needing to be both long-legged and highly survivable.There are some crucial factors to be taken into account in decisionmaking.

1.Control.
Total control over production,weapons,spares,technology,etc.Flight uses the phrase "operational independence" which is being bandied about by our defence-wallahs,meaning impervious to sanctions,which hurt the chances of US aircraft.In the Indo-Pak equation,with a spat between both countries,the US being supplier of arms to both could impose sanctions for either or both,thus affecting the chances of India scoring an outright victory if Pak was on the mat preventing us from delivering the killer blow.The Rafale and Typhoon are touting this as one their USPs.Will the Gripen's (US) engine be its achilles heel? On this point the Russian bird is probably the strongest contender,but with the FGFA deal being so huge and of primary importance for the future,putting all one's eggs into the same basket is unlikely.The French would come in second here wihth the Typhoon a close third on the list.

2.Cost.
It is evident that if the LCA had delivered,as many foreign experts say,we would not have needed the MMRCA at all.Does this indicate that a less expensive single-engined aircraft like the Gripen ,easier to acquire in larger numbers too,would have a distinct advantage over heavier twin-engined aircraft? Gripen's touting that it is also easier to maintain a single-engined aircraft needs to be examined for real.Price will definitely be a key factor especially when the disparity in price between single and twin-engined fighters may be very substantial.With a huge outlay required both for the FGFA and AMCA,acquiring large numbers at an economical price may look ver attractive.Acquiring more upgraded Flankers to meet any interim "heavy" strike requirement would be one answer in case the need is felt later.

3.Capability.
Requirement for a "bomb truck + air superiority fighter".Here raw capability in each task in the Indian environment and in the context of Pak/Sino threats (JF-17,J-10,F-16 only,'cos when China's F-20 arrives we would also have our own FGFA ready to take care of it) has to be evaluated.It is something that we will not know about unless it is leaked.The AESA radar aspect comes into play here,performace on each type,cost and TOT.The latter with a big Q mark on the American birds.While it has the best known radar on th SH,the others too promise their own wares.Weaponry superiority is also vital here,Meteor,etc. vs the rival AAMs and air-launched ASMs.Future growth /upgrades within the design so that it can last out 3 decades of service lies within this overall "capability" factor.

These three "C" factors to me will be crucial to the final decision.Tale your pick as to which is the most important!

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 01 Feb 2011 13:35

Philip wrote:Reading the article in Flight about the LCA,where it is stated that the IAF will in all probability not use the Tejas in "high intensity combat" (because of its many acknowledged shortcomings),using the Flankers and other aircraft in service plus the MMRCA winner,the 40 (+80 MK-2 planned),will be in IAF service more of a bonus,most probably defending airfields,bases and other vital installations at home rather than penetrating enemy airspace in strike/air dominance missions.The MMRCA will also have to do duty until sufficient numbers of the FGFA/PAK-FA arrive,needing to be both long-legged and highly survivable.There are some crucial factors to be taken into account in decisionmaking.

1.Control.
Total control over production,weapons,spares,technology,etc.Flight uses the phrase "operational independence" which is being bandied about by our defence-wallahs,meaning impervious to sanctions,which hurt the chances of US aircraft.In the Indo-Pak equation,with a spat between both countries,the US being supplier of arms to both could impose sanctions for either or both,thus affecting the chances of India scoring an outright victory if Pak was on the mat preventing us from delivering the killer blow.The Rafale and Typhoon are touting this as one their USPs.Will the Gripen's (US) engine be its achilles heel? On this point the Russian bird is probably the strongest contender,but with the FGFA deal being so huge and of primary importance for the future,putting all one's eggs into the same basket is unlikely.The French would come in second here wihth the Typhoon a close third on the list.

2.Cost.
It is evident that if the LCA had delivered,as many foreign experts say,we would not have needed the MMRCA at all.Does this indicate that a less expensive single-engined aircraft like the Gripen ,easier to acquire in larger numbers too,would have a distinct advantage over heavier twin-engined aircraft? Gripen's touting that it is also easier to maintain a single-engined aircraft needs to be examined for real.Price will definitely be a key factor especially when the disparity in price between single and twin-engined fighters may be very substantial.With a huge outlay required both for the FGFA and AMCA,acquiring large numbers at an economical price may look ver attractive.Acquiring more upgraded Flankers to meet any interim "heavy" strike requirement would be one answer in case the need is felt later.

3.Capability.
Requirement for a "bomb truck + air superiority fighter".Here raw capability in each task in the Indian environment and in the context of Pak/Sino threats (JF-17,J-10,F-16 only,'cos when China's F-20 arrives we would also have our own FGFA ready to take care of it) has to be evaluated.It is something that we will not know about unless it is leaked.The AESA radar aspect comes into play here,performace on each type,cost and TOT.The latter with a big Q mark on the American birds.While it has the best known radar on th SH,the others too promise their own wares.Weaponry superiority is also vital here,Meteor,etc. vs the rival AAMs and air-launched ASMs.Future growth /upgrades within the design so that it can last out 3 decades of service lies within this overall "capability" factor.

These three "C" factors to me will be crucial to the final decision.Tale your pick as to which is the most important!

Interesting reading!

For the rational man nr 3 would be the natural choice as the most important. But we know that fighter aircraft purchases aren't necessary rational. Therefore I think you should add Nr 4 "Political gain" to that list.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 01 Feb 2011 13:37

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote: I have wondered... about those IEDs that have command wires with a trigger-man on the end... if it would be possible to impart an electric charge to the command wires by way of EM beams (perhaps from a radar array), sufficient to cause the premature detonation of the bomb. Otherwise, might they be able to 'ping' the command wires and get a return signal when bouncing a radar beam off of them? Consider that the command wires are essentially antannae, and that detonators may not require a large charge to prime them. Any thoughts on this from the BRF brain trust?

This gent mentioned using this device in the 1980s. Description starts towards the bottom third of the page.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 01 Feb 2011 13:54

Cross posting..
Air Force MMRCA Competition Contenders to Turn Out at Aero India 2011

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 01 Feb 2011 15:27

^^^
From the above, MIG 35 is also coming... Earlier reports reported Mig 35 is not coming and was construed by many as end of Mig

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Feb 2011 15:43

re IED's, i saw an article recently about using radar to spot disturbed ground where IED's may have been planted - possibly AESA or maybe SAR. e.g. if the ground around a culvert looks disturbed then probability of a bomb being dug in there is high, etc. at the end of the day, some guy with a wire has to go probing in the dirt... scary stuff

a lot of EID's are radio or cell phone controlled, in which case Prowler/Growler can jam or trigger - depending on the sophistication of the device

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Feb 2011 17:19

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Viv S wrote:Precisely why the EF is the best of the lot. Avionics can be upgraded. But its the best airframe available with the most room for a radar or engine upgrade.
Ah yes, the old 'you can always upgrade the avionics' chestnut.

The fact is you can't. EF is already 10 years behind the US in avionics and the only reason they aren't even further behind is the demands of the export market. Once production ends, the EF consortium will have zero interest in funding and producing new upgrades.

With well over 500 units in service, why would they have ZERO interest in funding and producing new upgrades?

Sure you can add in your own 3rd party stuff, but
1) Developing your own upgrades is EXPENSIVE and time consuming.
2) What's available from 3rd parties is always going to be a step behind.

There's a consortium of four countries involved, with India getting a (presumably equal) say in the future upgrade path.

So yes, if you're ok with chronically obsolete avionics, the EF is a fine choice.

Sure it wouldn't at par with the JSF (neither is the SH for that matter) but 'obsolete'?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Feb 2011 17:37

GeorgeWelch wrote: All that demonstrates is the importance of weapons and avionics. No kinetic advantage makes THAT much of a difference, it's all about seeing first and shooting first. Which means avionics. And the SH kills the EF in that department and will for the rest of its lifetime simply because the USN actually cares about keeping current while the euro nations don't.

The USN will gradually move from the F-18E/F to the F-35C as its primary air defence and interdiction platform. Sure, the Super Hornet is still going to serve well past 2030, but it can still be safely said that the EF will be at worst three or four years behind the the SH. Which isn't a lot if you consider the fact that the IAF's aircraft will go through only two (maybe three) upgrades. The EF (in the configuration currently on offer to the IAF) with the 1425 t/r Captor-E will see and shoot the SH first.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 01 Feb 2011 18:20

Here’s one possible solution

Buy X number of Eurofighter and Y number of Mig 29K for IAF. First the IAF should used them and as Tejas production stabilizes start sending them to IN for use on IAC. Eventually in long run even IN should replace them with Naval Tejas and Naval 5th gen. Thus an interim shortfall is fulfilled.

This is one solution that meets most constraints and requirements

Advantages:

1. We can fit both numbers and capability within budget. The relative numbers of X and Y to be determined from unit prices and how to fit them into budget. The Migs serve for numbers whereas EF becomes the new M2K, capability in smaller numbers.

2. ToT obtained from EF.

3. We need a “low cost interim” to fill gaps until MK2 comes up. Gripen is low cost but not interim solution rather permanent. Once it comes in, some screwdriver wallahs and AF ranks will find some pretext or the other to produce more of Gripen than MK2. If Mig 29K’s are present then IAF would want to replace them with MK2 to reduce operational costs.

4. AFAIK Gripen production rate was 14 per year max(Livefist mentioned it perhaps). Even if it could be bought in volumes but if threat was bigger in immediate 1 or 2 years what was the use of getting more number of gripens EVENTUALLY but not having them in numbers when needed the most. Don’t know the production rate of Mig29k. I am assuming it would be higher.

5. It adds only one new variety inspite of two fighters. Logistics chain for Migs is already in place.

6. Mig 29’s local assembly could be set by HAL in a shorter time since some components like the engine are already being assembled and prior experience with Mig

7. Familiarity with Mig29K’s would mean lesser training time required for pilots and to develop tactics. So the deployment to threatened areas could be immediate. Works fine for near term threats emerging.

Disadvantages:

1. Putting up with Mig 29K’s maintenance until MK2 replaces it.

Who will oppose this

1. Gripen lobby in IAF and beyond
2. SH lobby in IN and beyond
3. Folks opposing the Mig 29’s in general, based on maintenance, quality etc but not seeing its role as an “interim” in the big picture proposed here
4. Some folks in IN “might” not like idea of using second hand fighters transferred by IAF. But we don’t look at institutional interest rather overall interest of nation.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 01 Feb 2011 18:22

Avid wrote:I just finished reading the entire report cover to cover (rather than rely on the tidbits posted or the executive summary).

- Rafale is excellent fighter, and is the only one in the pool who can switch from A2A to A2G profile in middle of a mission. Others need configured prior to takeoff.

Ouch, this Tellis guy really need to inform that to the pilots of the Swedish, Czech, Hungarian and South African air forces flying the Gripen. Specially since the Swedish air force pilots have been able to do that since 1996. It´s called multi-swing in english I think. (Not multi-role). But in Sweden multi-swing/role incorporates three things. Fighter, Attack and Reconnaissance, which the the Gripen does all three. How about the rest of the fighters in the tender?

Frankly, can anyone post any BS and lies on this forum and no one is questioning him????

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Feb 2011 18:41

Wickberg,

Good point. But, you see, there is not such thing called a perfect article. Some facts get wrong. Fortunately it is not the article from IAF selectors.

jai · Post by **jai** » 01 Feb 2011 19:27

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Viv S wrote:Precisely why the EF is the best of the lot. Avionics can be upgraded. But its the best airframe available with the most room for a radar or engine upgrade.
Ah yes, the old 'you can always upgrade the avionics' chestnut.

The fact is you can't. EF is already 10 years behind the US in avionics and the only reason they aren't even further behind is the demands of the export market. Once production ends, the EF consortium will have zero interest in funding and producing new upgrades.

Sure you can add in your own 3rd party stuff, but
1) Developing your own upgrades is EXPENSIVE and time consuming.
2) What's available from 3rd parties is always going to be a step behind.

So yes, if you're ok with chronically obsolete avionics, the EF is a fine choice.

What are the basis for this statement ? Does the SH have an IRST right now ?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 01 Feb 2011 19:32

Viv S wrote:With well over 500 units in service, why would they have ZERO interest in funding and producing new upgrades?

Because they never expect to use them.

Any weapon is good enough in peace time.

Their own approach to AESA clearly demonstrates this. If they weren't trying to win the MMRCA, there would still be no plan to ever put AESA on the EF. What does that tell you?

There's a consortium of four countries involved, with India getting a (presumably equal) say in the future upgrade path.

The only 'say' India is going to have is what upgrades it's going to fund itself.

Sure it wouldn't at par with the JSF (neither is the SH for that matter) but 'obsolete'?

Avionics is a very unforgiving world. Either they're better than your opponents or they aren't. And if they aren't, it's going to be a very tough road. And with the EF falling further and further behind, it's going to become and more likely that you're on the short end of the stick.