India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Nov 2011 01:14

but given the scope of mmrca, the pineapples metaphor relates due the ending word "apple". imho, what shukla ji talks is all about alphonso mangoes.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Nov 2011 02:00

Vipul wrote:Ajai Shukla: End this MMRCA hara-kiri.

Five years after that, operational J-20s, of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), will be dominating the Himalayas.

The MMRCA purchase would bring in six squadrons of reasonably good fighters, even if they were outclassed by the PLAAF in war.

How does Ajai Shukla know:

1) Whether the J-20 is stealthy i.e. at what range it could be detected by the radar on a PHALCON /Rafale / Typhoon?

2) At what range can a J-20 detect a Rafale / Typhoon?

3) How susceptible is a J-20 radar that is 'on' to being detected / jammed by a PHALCON /Rafale / Typhoon?

4) At what range can a J-20 shoot at a Rafale / Typhoon i.e. missile range?

5) How susceptible is the guidance system on the J-20's missile to being jammed?

As a defence journalist, it is Shukla's duty to inform himself and inform his readers, rather than try to undermine the leadership of the IAF / MoD making difficult but crucial national security decisions, by nonsensically claiming that the Typhoon and the Rafale are junk compared to the J-20 because J-20 is "5G" and 5G > 4+G.

I wonder if Shukla even has any self-respect.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Nov 2011 02:47

eklavya, the irony is that he does not know but speaks with such authority on the F-35...a less informed reader will wonder what idiots running the MoD/IAF. Secondly, even Lahori Mathematics will never give a fly-away price of $65 million for the F-35. That figure is laughable.

The Chinese have mastered the art of psy-ops against India and other nations (even the US to a certain degree). Give the enemy the impression that you have the capability to produce stealthy aircraft comparable to the class of the F-22/F-35, but the reality is far from different. In India, dhotis shiver each time the J-20 takes to the sky, because the Indian media (many of whom sing the Chinese tune) has made the Indian populace believe...that swarms of J-20s (and other Chinese military equipment like it) are soon going to over run India. Never before has bullsh!t been so wonderfully laid for the gullible Indian public to buy into.

This is like an Indian auto manufacturer announcing that they will produce a rival to the 458 Italia from Ferrari or the Reventón from Lamborghini. You cannot overcome a country (whether it is Italy that makes super cars or America that arguably has some of the best military technology that we know of) that has decades of experience and the technological know-how, no matter how determined you are to make a product that can rival them. It will take a number of attempts before you come to something even close and by then, they will already have something that is the next generation. I believe it is Boeing that has already started the conceptual design of a sixth generation fighter and countries like India and China are still mastering 4+ generation fighters.

While I am not downplaying the Chinese threat, but to overplay the threat plays into the hands of a lot of people and countries. Don't buy into this. While the Chinese threat is very much real, it is foolhardy (financially for one) to overestimate their capabilities.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Nov 2011 03:40

Rakesh

As Cosmo said, A Shukla is doing some 2nd class psy-ops on behalf of Lockheed Martin. Its funny how Shukla talks about cancelling the MMRCA tender and undertaking 5G aircraft procurement from LM as the single vendor, and somehow entirely omits to mention FGFA/PAK-FA in his article!

Sure, the IAF needs to plan to counter the J-20, but first someone should tell us what this J-20 is capable of. Its definitely not agile, I am not convinced that it is stealthy, how much heat does it emit, what radar will it have, what missile, etc etc.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 01 Nov 2011 04:21

The counter to the J-20 is the Sukhoi T-50. The MMRCA is a counter to Chinas J-10B/J-11 and Pakistani F-16/JF-17. I think one can safely assume both Euro Canards compare quite favourably to afore mentioned 4th gen fighters.

Taygibay · Post by **Taygibay** » 01 Nov 2011 04:37

Agreed with all of the above since that strange article was posted.

Good night all, Tay.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Nov 2011 06:35

Ahem, at the risk of going against the tide, I dare say that Shukla does have a point (or two). The MRCA is slated to come in at a time when a) the LCA mk2 with rather robust Gripen NG like capabilities will be ready for induction, and b) The Pakfa will be very close as well. A $ 15 billion investment at this point in time in an a/c that hardly makes a difference to IAF numbers (because it is redundant in light of above and MKI induction) suggests that something went wrong somewhere.

I'd rather have seen a greater emphasis on gobbling up all the used 4gen airframes that can be easily and quickly inducted in IAF inventory. Birds such as Qatari, ex Adla, UAE Mirage 2000s, along with HuAF MiG-29s upgraded to appropriate standards. In a third of the MRCA investment, they could've gotten 60+ a/c in a v.quick fashion. AFterall, the period of great danger imho lies in the next 2-5 years - a boost in numbers at such a time would be excellent (and the MRCA is not going to do this). Even if this were a temporary/interim measure, it would still be worthwhile and they could definitely hold their own vs. current and near future semi-uber PLAAF threats or the v.best that PAF can throw at the IAF. IOWs, the MRCA is not in time to save the day if **** were to hit the fan in the next 5 years, and it will be looong in the tooth post 2025, once the enemy starts inducting 5 gen birds in earnest.

The $ss saved could be used for platforms that are more current than either the Tiffy or the Rafale, namely, Pakfa and perhaps a JV for the AMCA. I've said it before, can this sh*tcan called MRCA and invest in extra LCA ver. 2.0, AMCA, temp solutions as suggested above, and Pakfa. As many might have noticed, I love the Rafale, but there are other deals that could go the French way (another 6+ scorpenes with AIP would be a good idea).

CM.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Nov 2011 06:54

MarcH wrote:The counter to the J-20 is the Sukhoi T-50. The MMRCA is a counter to Chinas J-10B/J-11 and Pakistani F-16/JF-17. I think one can safely assume both Euro Canards compare quite favourably to afore mentioned 4th gen fighters.

Saar please forgive me. You are rehashing the same error made by too many people and it sets off a rant from me.

The counter to the J-20/J-10 and J-11 is not the T-50/MMRCA. the counter to the J-20 would be effective radar and air defence systems along with means to take out their AWACS, refuellers, their radars and air bases. And their satellites if need be.

It is astoundingly absurd to say "The have J-20, we have T-50" Why is it absurd? It is absurd because if they send a J-20 and it is not detected at all we will not be sending up even Kiran defend. Secondly if they send a J-20 and we detect it we will not necessarily be able to identify it or even choose to send a T-50 to counter it.

I repeat. The defence against a sword is a shield. Not another sword. We need swords too, but to chop the other fellow's manhood off, not simply to go clang clang clang clang clang swordfight like the movies. Protect yourself with a shield. Pierce his shield with your spear and lop off his dick.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Nov 2011 08:07

a case in point - compared to any other a/c including JSF, nothing is known about the J-20's intended role and its agility, sensors, flight performance....other than its killer front end looks nothing is known how it will perform...no airshows yet obviously.

I tried yesterday to find credible photos of the chinese HN-1 missile and its launcher which is supposed to be inducted for 10 yrs now and could find nothing. the one pic I found looked like a camouflaged Thawk GLCM launch wrongly tagged with HN-1. the best pics of HN-1 are apparently the Babur pics. and they are supposed to have 3 further generations HN-2, HN-3, DH-10 under the belt now.

as a general thumb rule, if someone has got a great product that performs well like Mig29, Su27, Tu160, F16, F15 they would like to show it off and scare people. if product is weak, has gaps, is still undeveloped there is a tendency to hide it and the chinese take it to extremes.

we need to treat chinese claims not backed by a shred of real data as just psyops posturing. my feeling is they do make 'products' but in small volumes because its seldom quite upto the mark needed for full mass production and scaring people, so they move to the next 'product' to attempt to fix the gaps and so on. we have seen this in engines, missiles, tanks and so on...these orphaned products are then deployed and used by the PLAAF in peacetime mode to gather data and simply because there is no other option due to arms embargo. so in that sense they are different from the IAF which has import door open and refuses to take half-baked products. so they can always tom-tom more than us about using pindigenous products .... wont cut the mustard in a real war though.

both the Tiffy and Rafale will undoubtedly have better avionics, sensors and weapons than the cutting edge of chinese tech J-20. the difference in technology levels in defence between EADS/BAE/Dassault/MBDA and China is just huge at present. as a fighting platform the J-10any is much inferior to the F-16-50+ and there is no clarity when it will match.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Nov 2011 08:35

eklavya wrote:As Cosmo said, A Shukla is doing some 2nd class psy-ops on behalf of Lockheed Martin. Its funny how Shukla talks about cancelling the MMRCA tender and undertaking 5G aircraft procurement from LM as the single vendor, and somehow entirely omits to mention FGFA/PAK-FA in his article!

Sure, the IAF needs to plan to counter the J-20, but first someone should tell us what this J-20 is capable of. Its definitely not agile, I am not convinced that it is stealthy, how much heat does it emit, what radar will it have, what missile, etc etc.

I don't believe Shukla is doing anything on behalf of Lockheed Martin. The folks @ LM knows that Shukla has no relevance on any decision making in the IAF or MoD. I would believe that story line if this was a retired Air Chief or some other senior air force officer making such a claim, but not Shukla. The man is enamoured with the F-35 and thus all logic is thrown out the window. If Lockheed Martin is really selling the F-35 at a fly away price of $65 million...the USAF will be the first customer and even they will not buy that story.

The J-20 is nothing more than a technology demonstrator....heck, the Chinese themselves have said so. It will be a long while before the J-20 is capable of doing anything that the Indian media or Western analysts have predicted it will do. I am not belittling China's industrial or technological capability, but to suggest that they are on par with the Western world (other than the stuff that they have xeroxed and even that has its limitations) is a pure flight of fancy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Nov 2011 08:42

Singha wrote:a case in point - compared to any other a/c including JSF, nothing is known about the J-20's intended role and its agility, sensors, flight performance....other than its killer front end looks nothing is known how it will perform...no airshows yet obviously.

I tried yesterday to find credible photos of the chinese HN-1 missile and its launcher which is supposed to be inducted for 10 yrs now and could find nothing. the one pic I found looked like a camouflaged Thawk GLCM launch wrongly tagged with HN-1. the best pics of HN-1 are apparently the Babur pics. and they are supposed to have 3 further generations HN-2, HN-3, DH-10 under the belt now.

<snip>

both the Tiffy and Rafale will undoubtedly have better avionics, sensors and weapons than the cutting edge of chinese tech J-20. the difference in technology levels in defence between EADS/BAE/Dassault/MBDA and China is just huge at present. as a fighting platform the J-10any is much inferior to the F-16-50+ and there is no clarity when it will match.

Absolutely.

Yesterday I had a good laugh at someone who thought the MKI was a transport aircraft. One needs some special stuff to make a huge plane agile. Power and thrust vectoring are both useful, but the downside is range which relates inversely to power and size.

The J-20 is huge. Why on earth is there an assumption that we will do clangclangclangclang swordfighting and send a T-50? Only in the movies do people armed with two similar swords spend time fighting without doing the obvious thing - that is to cheat and bypass the sword. Climb the balcony and throw a chair, plates, locks - anything till you can escape or kill the other guy with your sword. I suspect a Bison should well be able to deal with a J-20 should the latter be unfortunate enough to tangle with one. Or even less romantic than that. Akash.

Once again thanks for the great info on cruise missiles. I am working on trying to dig up more info.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 01 Nov 2011 09:39

AIR WARS ON THE GROUND

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/ ... craft.html

India eyes RAF’s Typhoon aircraft

Impressed with its ‘top’ performance in the recent Libyan war, govt considers buying 126 aircraft for £7 bn for its air force
Agencies
Posted On Monday, October 31, 2011 at 08:15:55 PM

The RAF’S Typhoon combat jet is the leading contender for bagging a multi-billion pound deal to supply the Indian Air Force with a combat jet.

The ‘flawless’ performance of the Eurofighter Typhoon in the Libyan war has catapulted the aircraft ahead of its main rival to win one of the most lucrative defence deals in recent times.

Wonder who engineered this? And also wonder whether it was necessary to do so after tech evaluations are over. And which catapult did they use?

Now it will be only a question of negotiations and price.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 Nov 2011 12:30

“Omnirole” Rafale Steals Lead Over Eurofighter Typhoon in Libyan Operations

DefenseWorld

While NATO forces fielded the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon in the UN-mandated war against Gaddafi’s forces in Libya, details emerging from briefings by the U.K. and French air forces about the use of their respective fighters tell that the Rafale was the primary attack plane while the Eurofighter Typhoon provided intelligence through its targeting pods.

With the Libyan hostilities over, the Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon face off one another in an estimated $11 billion tender for India’s Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) acquisition, the price bids for which are scheduled to be opened in the first week of November.

The Rafale, which is yet to receive an international order, has never come so close to finding a foreign customer. The Dassault fighter made the shortlist along with the Eurofighter Typhoon after a nearly two year evaluation of European, American and Russian fighters.

No sooner than NATO announced a no-fly zone over the Rebel stronghold of Benghazi in Libya earlier this year, French Rafale and Mirage 2000 jets zoomed across the Mediterranean sea attacking Libyan ground-based military targets, a move which many critics say was prompted to exhibit the French jet’s fighting capabilities to potential customers.

Later at the Paris Air show in June 2011, French Air Force officials briefed the media about what the Rafale jets did in Libya. “The Omnirole” capabilities of the Rafale, meaning air-to-air, air-to-ground and intelligence gathering were used during missions. The Rafales had to scan the skies for fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters besides anti-aircraft missiles of Gaddafi’s forces and attack them during the same mission. Often the mission profile had to be modified during an operation as fresh intelligence emerged of the enemy’s offensive assets.

The Rafale armaments for the Libyan operations included two infrared and two active radar radio frequency MBDA Mica air-to-air missiles mounted on the wingtips and wing root of the plane. The IR seekers on the missiles act as stealthy sensors. For ground attack, there were four Raytheon GBU-12 Paveway 2 laser-guided bombs. French pilots have dropped more than 100 GBU-12 weapons in Libya, officers said. A Thales Damocles laser targeting pod under the wing allows the pilot to achieve precise targeting. A Nexter 30mm canon is fitted on the Rafale for close ground attack.

On different missions the Rafales also carried the Sagem Smart Bomb Unit with GPS/INS guidance. The guided propelled bomb has a 60-kilometer range. The French Air Force also fired 10 MBDA Scalp cruise missiles in deep strike missions, an Air Force officer had said during the briefing. In contrast, the UK Air Force deployed the Typhoon in a supporting role to its older generation aircraft, the Tornado. In a briefing about the Libyan operations, the UK's Commander of Joint Operations (CJO), Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach last week explained that the “complimentary way” in which the Typhoons worked alongside the Tornados, using their targeting pods to create additional intelligence and reconnaissance, “was very important”. The Tornados carried British-designed and British-built Brimstone missiles, which proved to be a world class weapon system, the Air Marshal was quoted as saying in a U.K MoD release. The Brimstone missile have been offered to India as part of the MMRCA weapons package.

In separate briefings, U.K. officials have been quoted as saying that the Typhoon flew 600 combat missions but surprisingly details of its offensive role in terms of enemy targets engaged have not been forthcoming. A briefing was given to top Indian Air Force officials last month about the weapons used by the Eurofighter Tornado and Typhoon. Reports of the briefing tell that MBDA Brimstone air-to-surface missiles were launched from RAF's Tornado GR4 fighters. In addition Storm Shadow missiles were fired from Tornado GR4s to destroy radar stations and anti-aircraft batteries. There has been no mention of what weapons the Typhoon carried.

A Dassault executive who did not wish to be identified said that the Eurofighter Typhoon which is clearly not meant for a multi-mission role played at best a supporting role in the Libyan operations.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 01 Nov 2011 12:33

Vipul wrote:Ajai Shukla: End this MMRCA hara-kiri.

Knife-edge tension is guaranteed as senior executives from Eurofighter GmbH and Dassault assemble on Friday in the office of Vivek Rae, Director General (Acquisitions) of the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The purpose of the gathering: to open commercial bids for the world’s most ill-conceived and biggest international arms purchase. I refer to the Indian Air Force’s harebrained proposal to buy 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) that will be outrun and outgunned by Chinese fighters soon after they enter Indian Air Force (IAF) service.

The opening of bids in any big contract is a tense moment. Eurofighter’s and Dassault’s inordinate anxiety also stems from the fact that the IAF buy is crucial to their future. Eurofighter GmbH faces serious internal problems with partner nations scaling down their orders. India is desperately needed to restore the economics of production. Britain’s Royal Air Force has already slashed its order for Typhoons. And, last week, The New York Times reported that Germany’s Luftwaffe (which ironically spearheads the Typhoon campaign in India) is trimming its purchase from 177 to 140 Typhoons. Dassault is in even direr straits, with Rafale having failed to find a single international customer; there are just 180 Rafale fighters on order, all for the French military, which hardly has a choice.

The only relatively carefree man at the start of that meeting on Friday might be Mr Rae himself, who will be sitting on the defence ministry’s war chest of Rs 42,000 crore. But his good cheer may not survive the opening of bids because the MoD’s estimate – arrived at some six years ago – will almost certainly be dwarfed by the lower bid. Last month the MoD revalued its original estimation in a process called “benchmarking”. But Mr Rae knows that if the winning quote emerges significantly more expensive than the MoD’s “benchmarked” figure, the process will begin anew.

Such an eventuality would be a blessing in disguise; and the best way to sidestep this cockamamie purchase of overpriced fighters that will take heavy casualties in any future conflict with China. Both the Typhoon and Rafale are “4th Generation-plus fighters”, inferior in crucial aspects like stealth to the J-20, China’s “5th Generation” (Gen-5) stealth fighter that took to the skies this year. Admittedly the J-20 would need a decade of flight-testing before it enters operational service, but the first MMRCA would only be delivered to India by 2015-16. Five years after that, operational J-20s, of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), will be dominating the Himalayas. The IAF MMRCAs, already outclassed by 2020, will limp around the skies till 2050 since the MoD will rightly protest that Rs 42,000-84,000 crore have been spent on them.

The IAF sadly is shutting its eyes to this even as China’s rising aerospace profile informs the security calculus of other regional air forces. Japan, South Korea and Singapore are realising that a Gen-5 fleet is needed for a credible defence capability against the PLA. South Korea is set to choose Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightening II, the only Gen-5 fighter on offer in the global market. The Japan Air Self Defence Force (JASDF) too is veering around to the F-35 after Lockheed Martin was denied export clearances to supply Tokyo the F-22 Raptor, unarguably the world’s most advanced fighter. In 2003, Singapore invested money into the F-35 development programme; it is on course to buy the aircraft.

Given that a rising China makes choosing Gen-5 a no-brainer, why then is the IAF (presumably a rational actor) inexplicably buying Gen-4+ fighters? The reason, sadly, is the political-bureaucratic stranglehold over procurement in which any IAF re-evaluation carries a penalty of years of delay. In the early 2000s, when the IAF framed the case for buying an MMRCA, no Gen-5 aircraft were available for sale. The F-35 was under development but was not ready for flight-testing, an essential part of India’s procurement process. Unwilling to wait for a Gen-5 fighter, the IAF scaled down its requirements and initiated an impartial multi-vendor contest for whatever Gen-4+ fighters were there in the market.

Years later, as the IAF finds itself choosing between two Gen-4+ aircraft, it must also note that the F-35 is on the cusp of operational clearance. It’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, has signalled in multiple ways that it would supply the IAF that fighter at a fly-away cost of $65 million per aircraft (significantly cheaper than the Rafale and the Typhoon) with deliveries beginning by 2015. Washington has indicated that any F-35 sale to India would be expeditiously cleared. But for an insecure IAF, used to being shoved around by the MoD, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The MMRCA purchase would bring in six squadrons of reasonably good fighters, even if they were outclassed by the PLAAF in war. Any change at this state, or so the IAF believes and accepts, would require fresh MoD clearances and financial sanctions that could take another three years.

But there is an alternative. The IAF must frankly tell the MoD that the situation has changed, and that national security demands scrapping the overpriced MMRCA procurement and buying the F-35 through a single-vendor contract. The defence of the realm cannot be held hostage to the procedural requirement of multi-vendor bidding; nor is overpaying justifiable if it was done through competitive bidding. New Delhi has recently procured several fine aircraft on a single-vendor, government-to-government basis: the Sukhoi-30MKI from Russia; and the C-130J and C-17 transport aircraft from the US. The procurement of a new fighter that will form the backbone of the IAF for decades must be treated with the same urgency.

j-20 will pose a serious threat in air to IAf'S air domination dreams. but by the time j-20 enters service in PLAAF ranks iaf wil have fgfa/pakfa. plus plaaaf will have around 500 j-11b chinese flankers and 300 j-10a/j-10b. MMRCA can easily defeat these so called chinese fourth generation fighters. there are many issues regarding F-35,EVEN THOUGH it is a good jet:
1.will the export f-35 be as stealthy as the usaf one,,ANSWER IS NO,,its an open secret.
2.f-35 is aerodyanamically very poor with a top speed of 1.6 mach and less thrust to weight ratio. even though it has new generation hms, it still may suffer in dogfights.
3.delays and cost overunns in f-35 programme means IOC in usaf will be achieved by 2016,where as by 2014 or early 2015 we wil get mmrca.
4.india is not a full partner or security cooperation partner like israel and singapore in f-35 programme,so india will not get f-35 before 2018/19 period by the time fgfa enters full service in iaf.
5.even pentagon is contemplating slashing f-35 orders, due to cost overruns,,or even cancelling one of the versions of f-35.
6.f-35 is having problems with many subsystems like helmet mounted display,so recently it has selected bae to develop a new back up hms for f-35 in case the vsi helmet fails to live up to its expectations.
7.cost overruns....initial f-35 may cost over 100 million,,,later on when the production increases the cost might come down to 65 million....

grass always looks greener on the other side ,,but f-35 is not problem free,so iaf is more or less right going for mmrca

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 01 Nov 2011 13:55

nice rafale M on CdG video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... TSfpSv-aHc#!

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 01 Nov 2011 14:01

Guys, duck before you get hit by a lifafa

One needs an AESA to track the EF vs Rafale articles flying around, from Libya that too. What a challenge that was.

France vs. Libya is like India vs. Bangladesh. There was no question and there was no need.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Nov 2011 14:16

saptarishi wrote: j-20 will pose a serious threat in air to IAf'S air domination dreams.<snip>
2.f-35 is aerodyanamically very poor with a top speed of 1.6 mach and less thrust to weight ratio. even though it has new generation hms, it still may suffer in dogfights.

Could you please point me to the source from which you got your information about the J-20's power-weight ratio, top speed and other details. The F35 specs are well known to me.

Thanks in advance...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Nov 2011 15:48

So Ajai Shukla has emerged as the newest pimp for the JSF,which is also way behind schedule,being deserted by the US's closest allies like the Brits,who have drastically trimmed orders,and which will come in at a cost of at least 1.5-2 times that of an MMRCA! An Ox study I posted a year ago,did make a case for the JSF as being the bird needed to meet the PLAAF challenge,instead of the "Euocanards",but surely,for the next decade,a bird in the hand is worth a JSF in the bush? It is why I have advcoated a simpler buy of MIG-35s or even Gripens,less costly and putting our money into the FGFA (Shukla has completely forgotten about this bird in IAF colours which will fly in IAF colours much earlier than the Chinese stealth bird) and development of the LCA Mk-2,so that we have a high-low mix,both in capability and cost.120 MMRCA s wil be expensive no doubt,but fill a vital gap.If wwe can get the manufacturers to immediately transfer two sqds. of Rafales for instance within a year,then the gap will be filled almost immediately.The JSF wet-dreams of AS can then RIP.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 01 Nov 2011 16:31

In him comments he justifies why he missed out PAK-FA. He says PAK-FA is still not the fifth generation fighter yet unless we spend huge sums of money on it. Wait a sec isn't it the same Shuklaji wrote how much the Indian MOD officials was mesmerized by the beauty of PAK-FA.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/01/ ... -next.html

He may be hitting on his old theory of 0.5 square metres of RCS

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Nov 2011 17:02

On Shukla-ji.

I had him when he was running his hatchet pieces on IA and T-90

Chalk up one more for me.

I apply for ahead of the curve award on BRF as well.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Nov 2011 17:03

authuro, does france has or planning to have em catapult?

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 01 Nov 2011 18:34

Philip wrote:If wwe can get the manufacturers to immediately transfer two sqds. of Rafales for instance within a year,then the gap will be filled almost immediately.

I think Rafale production is currently at 8 per year. To go from 8 to 40 in one year is highly optimistic.

We have a better chance of meeting our requirements through EF.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Nov 2011 18:57

Sanku wrote: I apply for ahead of the curve award on BRF as well.

I pray this award be put on hold until you start writing your story again!

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 01 Nov 2011 19:11

Man I used to respect this Shukla fellow. Can someone please tell him, that in war you need an assortment of fighters with diffrent capabilities. You do not fight with only the 5th gen fighter. You need work horses like 21s / jaguar / mirages to do diffrent kind of tactical job.

Further the Chinese J20 may have deep penetration capabilities but can it stop India fighters penetrating into China? I sense lifafa journalism..... I am going to write to Press Council (Justice Katju

) and rant....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Nov 2011 19:19

Sri wrote:I sense lifafa journalism..... I am going to write to Press Council (Justice Katju ) and rant....

Not really , He is just too obsessed with JSF for better or worse. There are people who do get obsessed or have overwhelming love/belief for their favourite bird , lot of pilots do.

No one will pay him to write that as it does not make any difference what blogs , forums or newspaper write.

The paid or sponsored article are carried by trade magazine like Janes , AFM , FORCE and others.

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 01 Nov 2011 19:26

^^^ OK Austin Jee. I will not write to Press council.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Nov 2011 19:34

vishnu.nv wrote:In him comments he justifies why he missed out PAK-FA. He says PAK-FA is still not the fifth generation fighter yet unless we spend huge sums of money on it. Wait a sec isn't it the same Shuklaji wrote how much the Indian MOD officials was mesmerized by the beauty of PAK-FA.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/01/ ... -next.html

He may be hitting on his old theory of 0.5 square metres of RCS

So Ajai Shukla's argument is that the J-20 will be a 5G plane whereas the PAK-FA/FGFA will not be!

Its clear that this guy knows nothing about J-20, FGFA, Rafale, Typhoon, F-35 or anything else with wings.

Perhaps LM should pay Shukla to keep his mouth shut in case their product gets associated with his ignorace

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 01 Nov 2011 19:45

Nick_S wrote:
Philip wrote:If wwe can get the manufacturers to immediately transfer two sqds. of Rafales for instance within a year,then the gap will be filled almost immediately.
I think Rafale production is currently at 8 per year. To go from 8 to 40 in one year is highly optimistic.

We have a better chance of meeting our requirements through EF.

Nick, definitely so. Inspite of having got export orders, the consortium would be willing to pass their committed numbers on to us.

That is something to ponder about.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 01 Nov 2011 20:07

shiv wrote:
saptarishi wrote: j-20 will pose a serious threat in air to IAf'S air domination dreams.<snip>
2.f-35 is aerodyanamically very poor with a top speed of 1.6 mach and less thrust to weight ratio. even though it has new generation hms, it still may suffer in dogfights.
Could you please point me to the source from which you got your information about the J-20's power-weight ratio, top speed and other details. The F35 specs are well known to me.

Thanks in advance...

sir even if their indigenous engine ws-15 fails they might go for 117 article engine,,that will give a thrust to weight slightly better than flankers,if we indians are clever then chinese are not the ones to be mistaken to be fools,even though i am all for mmrca and against f-35,i still feel that chinese may just outsmart us if we are not careful.ANd I BELIEVE IAF IS DAMN CAREFUL,,,so it is proceeding with the mmrca and fgfa,,and in future AMCA...BUT going for f-35 as mr ajai shukla proposes in his article or blog while calling mmrca affair a hara-kiri,,its completely non sense,,,,,I AM ALL FOR MMRCA ,,,i believe f-35 is not a true fifth generation fighter,,same can be saID ABOuT J-20 UNTIL more is know but going by the stealthy design and cockpit pics emerging from the zhuhai air show we cannot just underestimate them.but IMHO going for f-35 to counter j-20 this is like a joke,,this is what i feel,,,SORRY IF ANYONE FEELS something else

Taygibay · Post by **Taygibay** » 01 Nov 2011 20:08

The MRCA is slated to come in at a time when a) the LCA mk2 with rather robust Gripen NG like capabilities will be ready for induction, and b) The Pakfa will be very close as well. A $ 15 billion investment at this point in time in an a/c that hardly makes a difference to IAF numbers (because it is redundant in light of above and MKI induction) suggests that something went wrong somewhere.

AFterall, the period of great danger imho lies in the next 2-5 years - a boost in numbers at such a time would be excellent (and the MRCA is not going to do this)

The $ss saved could be used for platforms that are more current than either the Tiffy or the Rafale, namely, Pakfa and perhaps a JV for the AMCA. I've said it before, can this sh*tcan called MRCA and invest in extra LCA ver. 2.0, AMCA, temp solutions as suggested above, and Pakfa. As many might have noticed, I love the Rafale, but there are other deals that could go the French way (another 6+ scorpenes with AIP would be a good idea).

I selected the above from your post, Cain Marko, because I believe that
they show the underlying problems that bring you to that conclusion.

About the LCA/PAK-FA analysis, I wonder if the timeline for the former
will be met as they have not been so far? About the latter, I believe it
stands apart somewhat from the MMRCA controversy.The T-50 will have
its place in IAF inventory for quite a while and its prospective functions
are those of the high, far and fast domain which the other ACs envisioned
do not truly cover. It is one reason why I always doubted the argument of
the EF's evident air dominance qualities as being in sync with the MMRCA.

About the EF/Rafale's possible induction dates, I stand by the idea that both
could be delivered much faster than the MMRCA's present agenda calls for.
The Rafale being at present more mature can serve as an example since
the production rates have been in excess of planned delivery tempo in order
to compensate for the lack of exports as the French govt had promised.
It would be not only feasible but even appreciated to divert enough planes
( from a line that can be brought up to 20+ units per month ) especially in
view of the fact that the RBE2-AESA is already in production.
Were the numbers of the MMRCA to go up as has been suggested here and
there, the number of fighters produced in the seller's country could go up
and allow, if the implantation in India is hastened too, two squadrons in the
next 18 months so that IOC and training on the type be sped up.

As for "platforms that are more current than either the Tiffy or the Rafale",
the PAK-FA being IMHO of a different nature, the AMCA not being so near,
I'm not sure I can concur.
( F-35 still far away and unproven from capacities to cost, the Typhie and
Raffy are argueably in MMRCA final on their own merits, really. )

ALL THREE POINTS HOWEVER do intersect over timelines.
Let's see why : The MRCA/MMRCA is so darn late;
The LCA has also taken its bloody time.
In an ideal setting, the first call for the MRCA would have seen the induction
of those ACs a long time ago and the discrepancy in time would be void.
In an ideal setting, the LCA would have been a "shorter quiet river" and its
conclusion/delta would be Tejas(Mk2) shaped and reached by now.

Those two drawn out adventures explain the present situation.
( If the Tejas slowness makes sense in view of the scope of indigenous prod,
the (M)MRCA is almost inexcusable. )

As things stand now, your call is perfectly understandable although the
expected gains from the JVs to bring ToT from MMRCA still retain value.
In order to make things better, the extra money saved from anywhere
should really go to the AMCA with all considerations on completing the
project in due time this once, no matter how much foreign cooperation
is required ( as long as it still benefits the Indian mili industry enough ).

About shiv, Singha & Rakesh on the J-20, totally agreed on the fact that it
is but a demonstrator, as of now an empty shell ( what radar, what motor )
and should be finalized by the Chinese before propaganda scares anyone.
The PAK-FA will be there first and time still exists to raise a proper shield.

@ rajanb, great pun(t) return, lol and quite a block by Shukla with next post
on that run. ( So the Rafale did the job of both the EF & tornados and more
( SEAD on first days ), heck that's what it was designed and built for

)

From PratikDas :

France vs. Libya is like India vs. Bangladesh. There was no question and there was no need.

Actually, quite true and a bit sad. Almost an "Armament Salon" demo.

@ Saik, the present catapults on the CDG are steam powered and the
move to EMALS should wait until the second carrier gets underway
which is not up for decision before next year, sadly.

And in closing

I think Rafale production is currently at 8 per year. To go from 8 to 40 in one year is highly optimistic.

The present output is eleven planes per year on a line dimensioned for up to 30.
Eleven is the minimum guaranteed by the French govt.
Don't think, get the facts!

Good day all, Tay.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 01 Nov 2011 20:11

Philip wrote:So Ajai Shukla has emerged as the newest pimp for the JSF,.

So are you wrt Russian equipment and you have much more experience in this field then Col Ajai Shukla will ever have.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 01 Nov 2011 20:48

How did the Rafale and Typhoon perform in Libya? In particular it would be nice to know about mission readiness (how often were they down for maintenance, etc) and ATG strikes. How did they compare?

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 01 Nov 2011 21:20

Vipul wrote:Ajai Shukla: End this MMRCA hara-kiri.
....
Last month the MoD revalued its original estimation in a process called “benchmarking”. But Mr Rae knows that if the winning quote emerges significantly more expensive than the MoD’s “benchmarked” figure, the process will begin anew.
....
....
But there is an alternative. The IAF must frankly tell the MoD that the situation has changed, and that national security demands scrapping the overpriced MMRCA procurement and buying the F-35 through a single-vendor contract. The defence of the realm cannot be held hostage to the procedural requirement of multi-vendor bidding; nor is overpaying justifiable if it was done through competitive bidding. New Delhi has recently procured several fine aircraft on a single-vendor, government-to-government basis: the Sukhoi-30MKI from Russia; and the C-130J and C-17 transport aircraft from the US. The procurement of a new fighter that will form the backbone of the IAF for decades must be treated with the same urgency.

I agree whole heartily with this. India should spend this money on F-35B and F-35A variants provided two conditions are met
1) The plane's should come with the source code for its electronics systems, avionics.
2) The offset clause of MMRCA tender are retained intact, as they are. A few planes, less than 20, to come in a fly away condition and the rest to be manufactured in India.

What F-35A and F-35B bring to our north-east and north-west is complete sky domination. It is a game changer. Coupled with SU-30MKI and the future PAK-FA, they will secure our skies from eastern threats for two decades at least.

Taygibay · Post by **Taygibay** » 01 Nov 2011 22:02

^^^^^^^^^^

1) The plane's should come with the source code for its electronics systems, avionics.
2) The offset clause of MMRCA tender are retained intact, as they are. A few planes, less than 20, to come in a fly away condition and the rest to be manufactured in India.

Christopher, the US do not want to share the source codes with the UK?

If they won't do it for their closest ally and lone tier one partner in the
F-35 venture, why would they do so for India whose military industry
they deem not worthy?

Besides, calling a program which is not on schedule and nowhere near IOC
a game changer is going quite fast in business.
Go AMCA!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Nov 2011 22:13

proper planning, research (user needs) and design could help AMCA arrive early.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Nov 2011 22:26

@^^^ Christopher Sidor:
"I agree whole heartily with this. India should spend this money on F-35B and F-35A variants provided two conditions are met
1) The plane's should come with the source code for its electronics systems, avionics.
2) The offset clause of MMRCA tender are retained intact, as they are. A few planes, less than 20, to come in a fly away condition and the rest to be manufactured in India. "

At most you'll object code that allows you to integrate other weapons. Even if the US allowed source code, the cost of the plane would soar because you'd be purchasing R&D.

The JSF is a bad idea for India. It's a first day of war instrument aided by F22s, Growlers and SHs. Very short legged. MOst of all, it will kill the AMCA

member_20029 · Post by **member_20029** » 01 Nov 2011 22:31

I don't necessarily agree to Shukla's article, but I do find some parts relevant.
here's what I think:

1) according to the RCS analysis of the J-20 by US and UK defense analysts, the J-20 is only front-stealthy (seriously, look at it's ugly, square, butt). Thus, the J-20 would only be feasible as a method of long/mid range ground attack or heavy intercept, not as a method of Aerial superiority. Think about it, the J-20 is MASSIVE, heavy, and slow. There is no doubt that it is not nimble or agile (the canards/all moving tailplanes are cancelled out by the weight and weak engines). Thus, I wouldn't be too afraid about being "outflown or outgunned" over the Himalayas.

2) for you JSF "pimps" out there, LM released a statement (about 0.00000001 seconds after it was rejected for the MMRCA competition) that it would consider adding the JSF to the proposal to sweeten things up....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Nov 2011 22:34

does anyone know of french plans beyond the rafale -- which I assume will remain in service till around 2035 but need its successor to start coming online from say 2030 onward?

are they going to bet totally on UCAV from then on, or a manned platform will still be taken up?

ShibaPJ · Post by **ShibaPJ** » 01 Nov 2011 22:44

Taking a break from my lurking mode, it is amusing to see the to-and-fro that Rafale v/s Tiffy (in this thread) and v/s J-20 (in Chinese Mil thread) discussions have generated. As many have rightly pointed out, IAF decides on the medium- to long-term threat perceptions/ operational needs (MMRCA timelines will only help starting medium-term) and what mix is needed to support those. Given those , IAF already has lots of latest gen (in the region) fighters/ interceptors and future acquisitions (PAK-FA) will only add teeth in this area. What is needed is an excellent bomber (A2G) with multi-role (navy/ A2A, SEAD and others) capabilities to add teeth (Jaguars are already quite long in the teeth) with VLO/ range & stuff. This is, IMHO the most effective role for IAF in medium to long-term. Given this, I believe the choice would become more and more obvious. Also, offset offers and ability to create a world-class MIC would be a big factor (not sure how both bids stack up).

Maybe, a piskological analogy would help (with acknowledged copyrights to Hakimji). Both Rafale and Tiffy claim to equip you with the biggest and baddest available D**ks around to have S*x (As the baddest of them F-22s are not available). Rafale says that (and has proven), it is effective in all dimensions/ areas (both in air and on ground and some other roles etc) and can switch from one position to another with elan

. Whereas Tiffy says (and proven from what we read from Libya), it can only do an aerial act. Down on the ground (i.e. on bed, when you are all ready and salivating) you can't do the act youself, but can help another to do it on your behalf with gentle guidance

. It does promise that you can do it yourself maybe 5 years later (if your ladylove is willing to wait). Given this, my choice would be much simpler. I wonder, what IAF's choice would be??

Taygibay · Post by **Taygibay** » 01 Nov 2011 23:05

does anyone know of french plans beyond the rafale -- which I assume will remain in service till around 2035 but need its successor to start coming online from say 2030 onward?

are they going to bet totally on UCAV from then on, or a manned platform will still be taken up?

The Rafale being inducted yet and not fully developed,
the nEUROn UCAV is the only thing onboard for now, mate.

Either a follow-up to that demonstrator or a stealthier Raffy
but there are no official confirmation for one or the other.

Good day all, Tay.