India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 3

[Cain Marko]

Rakesh Garu, I am not convinced. Here are my reasons:

1) Let us assume that the Tejas-mk1 is ready only by 2015, it would still be v.close to MRCA induction times. Again, it is imho a more suitable replacement of the 21s/27s than the Rafale/Tiffy, which are overkill. And if you need such uber birds to vanquish Cheeni/TSP threats, an even better alternative, the Pakfa is just about expected at the time. Hell, even upgraded MKIs will more than do the trick. The MRCA iows, is being inducted 10 years too late - at a time when it coincides with both the Tejas and the Pakfa not to mention Super MKIs.
2) And this is assuming that they sign off on the MRCA quickly, and induction happens without any delays (unlikely imho).
3) As said before, there are other more cost and time effective alternatives, that can be got as an interim measure. Even if they start inducting the LCA mk1 only after 2015, an extra sqd of MKI (with upgrade) should pretty much provide everything (and more) than 1 sqd of Rafale/Tiffy will. Qatari M2ks too could be renegotiated.
5) As far as the J20 is concerned, I think it is tangential to the current discussion. But then again, if it is that unworthy, then why exactly is a RAfale or Tiffy needed to swat it, can't existing MKI or upgraded version do the same?

So the question remains - why is the MRCA so necessary? Neither the Rafale nor the Tiffy provide anything more than an MKI (esp. upgraded versions), they may provide more than the LCA mk1, but are decidedly lower on the rung vis a vis the Pakfa. The MRCA will fulfil a very limited role in the IAF, and that too for a v.short while as the Pakfa, and LCA II will coincide with its induction.

And such a temporary outcome hardly deserves such a massive bill imvho.

[Cain Marko]

We are overlooking an important fact here, Tiffy/Rafa have a more immediate role of dealing with swarms of PLAAF MKk and other derivatives.
LCA in its current form and Pak-Fa that will come only in the future can not offer us this.

Yes, but the MKI surely can Koti saar. In what great numbers will the MRCA be available when the Pakfa is being inducted or the Tejas II? 1 or 2 sqds at best, which means that if "swarms" of PLAAF flankers have to be dealt with, numerically, the Rafale/Tiffy, will still be quite inadequate. So instead of getting those 1 or 2 MRCA sqds, I'd rather see funds devoted to an extra MKI + Mirage 2000-5 + SMT. They'll do the job just fine I think.

Add to this a deep upgrade for the MKI, more AWACS, and $$s pumped in setting up a production line of Tejas that can churn out 20+ airframes from the get go, and imho, you have the numbers/quality necessary to deal with said threats.

$ 13-20 billion for the MRCA at this stage seems like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Too late. I daresay even the good colonel made a point when he brought up the JSF. If only it came without strings.

[koti]

MKI can sure do that. But IAF wanted for something that has a single pilot and is lighter(Mirage). That was the initial requirement ain't it.
And regarding the compensation instead of MMRCA(Tara/Tiffy), I would have preferred Mig-35(MMRCA) rather then more MKI and Mirage 2000-5. Cheap, no need for absorption time.

But looking at it from the current POV canceling a done deal and is not so wise. This opens up window for unkhil to fool around and the ToT we were to get will be sealed out.

I see a lot of this ToT going into AMCA, along with prospective partnerships.
And I need not say about the Political benefits here.

[koti]

$ 13-20 billion for the MRCA at this stage seems like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Too late. I daresay even the good colonel made a point when he brought up the JSF. If only it came without strings.

Ironic.
I feel the same too. But I will forgive my government overspending rather then doing another Arty or AJT saga with MMRCA.

[Cain Marko]

^ I feel your pain brother! And then, that Rafale would look rather nice in IAF colors I suppose.

[Badar]

Pak-Fa will be able to match or out perform the J20 when they come.

Do we know enough to say that? It might be comparing apples to oranges for all we know.

Even if they are roughly comparable or even if there is an edge going to the PAKFA what matters is that we will be importing the fighter while Chinas' is a domestic production with attendant cost impacts. And to say nothing of the fact that Chinese defense budget is four times our.

While a FGFA might match the J-20, how will we match the PLAAF fleet with IAF fleet?

[Singha]

we will be license producing some birds like mrca and pakfa, while domestically producing the tejas and using older existing a/c.

the plaaf might be let us assume 100% domestically procures all its new platforms. they would continue to use the su27 & su30 imports for another 20 yrs.

can it be proven that PLAAF production cost will be cheaper than ours?
can it be proven that we will or will not face hurdles in obtaining the latest tech (assuming we cannot develop it locally like engines or aesa radar) and prc will not face hurdle in matching the latest spec kit?
would the euro/us arms embargo be removed soon - giving them access to latest components?

[Badar]

we will be license producing some birds like mrca and pakfa, while domestically producing the tejas and using older existing a/c.

the plaaf might be let us assume 100% domestically procures all its new platforms. they would continue to use the su27 & su30 imports for another 20 yrs.

can it be proven that PLAAF production cost will be cheaper than ours?
can it be proven that we will or will not face hurdles in obtaining the latest tech (assuming we cannot develop it locally like engines or aesa radar) and prc will not face hurdle in matching the latest spec kit?
would the euro/us arms embargo be removed soon - giving them access to latest components?

Singha, we will be paying "license fees" through the nose, as well paying cash upfront for importing a large fraction (cost wise) of critical tech that will not be ToT'ed. So in general, yes PLAAF purchases will make lower economic impact than IAF's will.

It is also quite reasonable to assume that PLAAF production cost will be cheaper than ours. One, China buys in larger volumes. Two, the eco-system in which PRC aviation industry exists it much richer technologically, well diversified and at a higher technological grade than the Indian industry. Third, PRC end users are willing to support local development by acquiring low capability initial marks and then funding gradual sustained improvements. This is in contrast to the the Sky or nothing approach in India. This will again have a non-trivial impact on costs.

PRC will likely face hurdles, but it is simply better equipped than India is a number of key parameters (economic muscle, focused leadership, bigger talent base both management and technical, more mature heavy and high-tech industry, refined conventional and non-conventional technology acquisition programs, key investment in medium term applied research etc etc).

Going forward China will be like Russia of yore, i.e. less dependent upon access to key western technology and largely autonomous military-industrially. It will be able to hold its own with the rest of the world in military technology by and large despite some deficiencies in some areas. We will still be stuck JV'ing and ToT'ing for the foreseeable future.

[koti]

Why not more EF?
Seems th UK has to go alone with development of N-Typhoon.
So much for the joint venture.

[Viv S]

Why not more EF?
Seems th UK has to go alone with development of N-Typhoon.
So much for the joint venture.

From the same link -

"The Admiral's comments were wrongly attributed and in certain cases not even raised during the course of his speech or at the event itself as the article alleges," said Ward.

"Had the journalist sought to contact ADS, we could have verified whether these comments were made, but their lack of contact suggests they have accepted at face value the second hand reporting of what has turned out to be an unreliable source. In doing so they have potentially damaged the reputation of a senior member of our armed forces - certainly they have thrown into question their own personal credibility and ultimately the paper for which they write."

[koti]

I read that Viv saab.

The Admiral's comments were wrongly attributed and in certain cases not even raised during the course of his speech or at the event itself as the article alleges

It does not however deny the allegation. Quite possible the Admiral blew the whistle in advance or expressing his frustration.

Anyway I will refrain from further annoying anyone unless I get a second and more reliable source. (Maybe times itself)

[eklavya]

Rakesh Garu, I am not convinced. Here are my reasons:

1) Let us assume that the Tejas-mk1 is ready only by 2015, it would still be v.close to MRCA induction times. Again, it is imho a more suitable replacement of the 21s/27s than the Rafale/Tiffy, which are overkill. And if you need such uber birds to vanquish Cheeni/TSP threats, an even better alternative, the Pakfa is just about expected at the time. Hell, even upgraded MKIs will more than do the trick. The MRCA iows, is being inducted 10 years too late - at a time when it coincides with both the Tejas and the Pakfa not to mention Super MKIs.
2) And this is assuming that they sign off on the MRCA quickly, and induction happens without any delays (unlikely imho).
3) As said before, there are other more cost and time effective alternatives, that can be got as an interim measure. Even if they start inducting the LCA mk1 only after 2015, an extra sqd of MKI (with upgrade) should pretty much provide everything (and more) than 1 sqd of Rafale/Tiffy will. Qatari M2ks too could be renegotiated.
5) As far as the J20 is concerned, I think it is tangential to the current discussion. But then again, if it is that unworthy, then why exactly is a RAfale or Tiffy needed to swat it, can't existing MKI or upgraded version do the same?

So the question remains - why is the MRCA so necessary? Neither the Rafale nor the Tiffy provide anything more than an MKI (esp. upgraded versions), they may provide more than the LCA mk1, but are decidedly lower on the rung vis a vis the Pakfa. The MRCA will fulfil a very limited role in the IAF, and that too for a v.short while as the Pakfa, and LCA II will coincide with its induction.

And such a temporary outcome hardly deserves such a massive bill imvho.

PAK-FA will be ready by 2025, not 2015.

http://www.readability.com/read?url=htt ... 04394.html

As for Super MKI, would love to see a comparison of its specs/timeline/costs vs. the Rafale and Typhoon.

The IAF is not very happy with the capabilities of the Tejas Mk 1, which is why the Tejas Mk 2 is necessary / being developed and funded. Even so, 40 Tejas Mk 1 have been ordered, and when those are ready, inshallah Mk 2 will be in production.

[eklavya]

The IAF is not very happy with the capabilities of the Tejas Mk 1, which is why the Tejas Mk 2 is necessary....

And all this while I thought upgrading capabilities of combat aircrafts is a natural progression all over the world....not yet come across any combat aircraft that is still flying with the original configuration after some years of induction....

Ajatshatru,

The Tejas Mk 1 is underpowered. Which is why the Tejas Mk 2 with major structural changes is required to be developed. The lack of power issue with the Mk 1 cannot be solved with time alone, a new airframe capable of housing a bigger engine is required.

[Cain Marko]

PAK-FA will be ready by 2025, not 2015.

http://www.readability.com/read?url=htt ... 04394.html

As for Super MKI, would love to see a comparison of its specs/timeline/costs vs. the Rafale and Typhoon.

The IAF is not very happy with the capabilities of the Tejas Mk 1, which is why the Tejas Mk 2 is necessary / being developed and funded. Even so, 40 Tejas Mk 1 have been ordered, and when those are ready, inshallah Mk 2 will be in production.

That article about the Pakfa is seriously of the Russian DDM variety - and has confused the Pakfa with the Pakda - the strategic bomber being planned to replace the Tu-22/160.. Most sources point out that Russia aims to get the Pakfa in around 2015, which explains why it is ordering such limited numbers of Su-35.

INdia targets induction of the same around 2017, some (2 sqds?) of them will be single seater Pakfas and the rest shall be FGFA.

From DID:

Feb 9/11: Indian defence minister AK Antony reiterates their target of a 2017 induction for the FGFA.

“Sukhoi Company has completed the preliminary on-land and in-flight activities which involved all 3 engineering prototypes of the Frontline Aviation Advanced Airborne Complex (PAK FA).... These prototypes were used for testbed strength tests, on-land optimization of fuel systems and other work towards flight trials. The flying prototype has made 16 flights…. enables execution of a complete program of flight trials…. Vladimir Popovkin, the Russian Defense Minister First Deputy, in his interview to the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper estimated the Russian Air Force’s demand for the 5th-generation fighters at 50 to 100 units. It is planned to complete all tests of the PAK FA airframe in 2011-2012, and to sign a contract in 2013 for a pilot lot of ten aircraft for testing the model’s entire weapons suite.”

July 13/10: RIA Novosti quotes senior Russian figures. Russian Air Force chief Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin confirms the expected delivery dates of over 60 planes, which they hope to begin in 2015-16, but equipped with older, “non-fifth” generation engines from existing SU-30 family planes.

Yes, it sounds rather optimistic but the target dates are certainly no where close to 2025. So, as a matter of being fair if we stick to the targeted induction date of MRCA in the next couple of years, it is only fair to stick to official timelines for the Tejas and Pakfa, optimistic as they seem. The MRCA coincides directly with the Tejas, and the Pakfa is just a couple of years down the road after the MRCA.

As far as the idea that the Tejas mk1 is underpowered goes, the IAF seems to have no such issues with the MiG-21 for which the Tejas is the best replacement, which has an even worse TWR or even the Mirage-2000 (with a comparable TWR to the LCA), which it has happily chosen to upgrade for an astounding $ 5 billion!

[Yogi_G]

The Tejas Mk 1 is underpowered. Which is why the Tejas Mk 2 with major structural changes is required to be developed. The lack of power issue with the Mk 1 cannot be solved with time alone, a new airframe capable of housing a bigger engine is required.

i remember, quite some time back, it was taboo to say that mk1 was underpowered. A very valid counter posed was that data be presented to back up the claim. So where do stand on this now?

[eklavya]

The Tejas Mk 1 is underpowered. Which is why the Tejas Mk 2 with major structural changes is required to be developed. The lack of power issue with the Mk 1 cannot be solved with time alone, a new airframe capable of housing a bigger engine is required.

i remember, quite some time back, it was taboo to say that mk1 was underpowered. A very valid counter posed was that data be presented to back up the claim. So where do stand on this now?

No taboo, just a fact. Which is why Mk 2 with the larger 414 engine is being developed.

[aditya.agd]

In October 2011, Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne stated that India is first approving the finalists' industrial offset offers, and allowing each time to make a final bid. A total cost based on life-cycle cost, purchase cost, and technology transfer value for each competitor will be calculated.

I am eagerly waiting for this announcement like many others.......

[eklavya]

INdia targets induction of the same around 2017, some (2 sqds?) of them will be single seater Pakfas and the rest shall be FGFA.

There is no engine, major avionic systems are under development, and a huge amount of testing and integration that has to be done. Going by the normal timeline of fighter aircraft development, the earliest this reaches IAF squadron service (if it satisfies IAF ASRs) is 2020s.

as a matter of being fair if we stick to the targeted induction date of MRCA in the next couple of years, it is only fair to stick to official timelines for the Tejas and Pakfa, optimistic as they seem.

MRCA contenders are proven platforms with limited additional development requirements. No one takes 2017 seriously for FGFA.

As far as the idea that the Tejas mk1 is underpowered goes, the IAF seems to have no such issues with the MiG-21 for which the Tejas is the best replacement, which has an even worse TWR or even the Mirage-2000 (with a comparable TWR to the LCA), which it has happily chosen to upgrade for an astounding $ 5 billion!

IAF flies MiG-21 in 2012 out of necessity, not out of choice. It would have liked a replacement 10 years ago, if not earlier.

IAF is looking to upgrade its Mirage 2000, to face the challenges of the future. MRCA is also required to face the challenges of the future.

It is not at all clear which challenge the Tejas Mk 1 will be able to face. To say it is better than a Bison is to damn it with faint praise.

[member_22605]

The Tejas Mk 1 is underpowered. Which is why the Tejas Mk 2 with major structural changes is required to be developed. The lack of power issue with the Mk 1 cannot be solved with time alone, a new airframe capable of housing a bigger engine is required.

i remember, quite some time back, it was taboo to say that mk1 was underpowered. A very valid counter posed was that data be presented to back up the claim. So where do stand on this now?

My dad had a Maruti 800 and my uncle bought an accent and we all felt the 800 was terribly under-powered and later when i bought a punto 1.4 i felt the accent was nowhere near the punto be it the Blue & me or the other gizmos. The accent uncle later bought a cruze and my dad now feels the punto is a brick on wheels and is nothing when compared to the cruze, though it is a generation ahead of the accent and two generations ahead of the 800.
Now where is the problem?

[SaiK]

^the problem is none tried bmw.

[eklavya]

My dad had a Maruti 800 and my uncle bought an accent and we all felt the 800 was terribly under-powered and later when i bought a punto 1.4 i felt the accent was nowhere near the punto be it the Blue & me or the other gizmos. The accent uncle later bought a cruze and my dad now feels the punto is a brick on wheels and is nothing when compared to the cruze, though it is a generation ahead of the accent and two generations ahead of the 800.
Now where is the problem?

raghuk, nice story. In wartime, the life expectancy of a pilot in an underpowered aircraft is somewhat compromised. I would rather have 1 aircraft that will beat the enemy than 3 that are known to be worse than the enemy's fighter.

[member_22605]

My dad had a Maruti 800 and my uncle bought an accent and we all felt the 800 was terribly under-powered and later when i bought a punto 1.4 i felt the accent was nowhere near the punto be it the Blue & me or the other gizmos. The accent uncle later bought a cruze and my dad now feels the punto is a brick on wheels and is nothing when compared to the cruze, though it is a generation ahead of the accent and two generations ahead of the 800.
Now where is the problem?

raghuk, nice story. In wartime, the life expectancy of a pilot in an underpowered aircraft is somewhat compromised. I would rather have 1 aircraft that will beat the enemy than 3 that are known to be worse than the enemy's fighter.

Oh sure, so do i, but you must definitely have information which proves beyond doubt that the LCA is less capable(or worse as you put it) as compared to any of the potential adversary's A/C. Thanks in advance!

[rajanb]

Be Indian, buy Indian. Indica is best!

But seriously, It is clearly an issue of role and affordability.

The envisaged roles are different and neither the MKI or LCA, in greater numbers will help. The accent is on roles and not numbers. Affordability is correlated to risk perception and to mitigate that risk and the ToT is to jumpstart our fledgling aviation design, build and test capabilities. This is not to take away any credit for the fabulous job our guys are doing on the LCA.

Guys remember that the AF has spent years on the MMRCA and by now they know the role they want it for.

And there is not much in the public domain about "active stealth". Its not only about A2A or A2G. It is also their perception of each contenders survivability and quick turn around maintenance, which translates to "sneak, peek, destroy and return to fight another day". They don't need an aircraft in their hands to strategise. They know enough about the capabilities. They need the aircraft in their hands to devise the tactics to deliver its strategic role.

And my gut tells me that they want the Raffy!

[eklavya]

Oh sure, so do i, but you must definitely have information which proves beyond doubt that the LCA is less capable(or worse as you put it) as compared to any of the potential adversary's A/C. Thanks in advance!

raghuk,

PLAAF has several hundred Su-30 class a/c, whereas PAF has several dozen F-16 Block 50 class a/c. The only way Tejas Mk 1 can play in the same ground as these bad boys is if mummy, daddy and daada-ji are around. Mummy (AWACS) will see the bad boys coming, and tell little Tejas Mk 1 to go and hide, while daddy (Su 30 MKI) and daada-ji (Rafale/Typhoon) go and beat the bad boys. Some may say its best not to let little Tejas play in such bad neighbourhood.

[rajanb]

^^^^ Sure. And an unknown, unwanted aircraft called the Gnat was beating the cr@p out of that generations best: The F-86

[RKumar]

PLAAF has several hundred Su-30 class a/c, whereas PAF has several dozen F-16 Block 50 class a/c. The only way Tejas Mk 1 can play in the same ground as these bad boys is if mummy, daddy and daada-ji are around. Mummy (AWACS) will see the bad boys coming, and tell little Tejas Mk 1 to go and hide (It will kick a**), while daddy (Su 30 MKI) and daada-ji (Rafale/Typhoon) go and beat the bad boys. Some may say its best not to let little Tejas play in such bad neighbourhood.

To be precise china has

100 Su-30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKK
210 J-10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10 (Which can't be Su-30 class, J-10B can be in the daddy league)
120 J-11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11 (Which again is not Su-30 class)

So where we see several hundred Su-30 class planes ..... less we say about pak is the better ... during kargil they could not even keep the plane in air ... it is just hot air.

LCA will counter J-11, J-10A and FC-20 any given day .... machine is as good as pilots .... we know that our pilots are better and superior to both mentioned countries.

[Cain Marko]

raghuk, nice story. In wartime, the life expectancy of a pilot in an underpowered aircraft is somewhat compromised. I would rather have 1 aircraft that will beat the enemy than 3 that are known to be worse than the enemy's fighter.

Oh sure, so do i, but you must definitely have information which proves beyond doubt that the LCA is less capable(or worse as you put it) as compared to any of the potential adversary's A/C. Thanks in advance!

Kahey ka underpowered? The mk1 has a TWR that is better than anything in the IAF fleet barring the MiG-29 and Su-30MKI. Here are the facts:

Tejas mk1:
Empty weight ~ 6500kg (should be less for production variants), Max Power: 8500kg/f (Ada site actually shows 90).
TWR w. 4 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM + 1/2 int fuel (~2000kg) = 8500:8500 OR ~ 1.00

Mirage 2000:
Empty weight ~ 7600kg, Max power: 10000kgf
TWR w. 4 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM + 1/2 int fuel (~2750kg) = 10000:10350 OR 0.96

Gripen C:
Empty weight 6500kg, Mak power: 8000kg/f
TWR w. 4 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM + 1/2int fuel (~2000kg) = 8000/8500 OR 0.94

Let us not even bring into the picture birds like the MiG-21, 27 or Jaguar.

This whole underpowered Tejas thing is a red herring imho. What the AF is doing is not too different from what the IA has done to the Arjun it seems. They want the bird to come in just perfect, which they very well know is impractical - no AF does this. Sure, the Tejas has certain issues such as a lower G limit or AoA, but as the flight envelope is expanded, these will get resolved.

And chalo, supposing that the mk1 is not good enough to meet certain exotic A2A IAF conditions, surely it is more than capable in the A2G scenario? What is the problem here? Start replacing the floggers, which seem to be crashing left and right. It makes a far better self escorting a/c than both the Jag and the MiG-27, and even the current specced Mirage 2000.

Sorry for my skepticism, but after ACM Major, who I thought was exceptional in his support for the LCA, IAF's interest in the bird has been somewhat lacklustre imvho. The idea it seems is to give the bird token orders/support, while running after latest and greatest imports Mark my words, when the s**t really hits the fan, it'll be the LCA and existing inventory that will make a difference and NOT fancy toys people are hankering after.

[Cain Marko]

Be Indian, buy Indian. Indica is best!

But seriously, It is clearly an issue of role and affordability.

The envisaged roles are different and neither the MKI or LCA, in greater numbers will help. The accent is on roles and not numbers. Affordability is correlated to risk perception and to mitigate that risk and the ToT is to jumpstart our fledgling aviation design, build and test capabilities. This is not to take away any credit for the fabulous job our guys are doing on the LCA.

Guys remember that the AF has spent years on the MMRCA and by now they know the role they want it for.

But Rajan if you think about it - until only 5 years ago the role envisaged by the IAF was clearly met by a Mirage 2000. What have they learnt in 5 years that suddenly makes a Rafale/Tiffy so critical? As said before, the only thing that has changed is the GOI and its policy to include US h/w as a gesture during the Nuke deal. But what that has achieved is a complete mix up of fighter roles. As a result we had everything from light (gripen) to medium (f-16/Rafale?) to heavy (Shornet) in one race.

And if we objectively assess the situation, it becomes rather clear that the immediate role that the IAF needs to fulfill is that of a lightish-medium bird - a replacement for those a/c that are going to be numberplated, namely, the MiG-21 and 27. And the LCA mk.1 should do this quite well. So where is the need for exotica?

And there is not much in the public domain about "active stealth". Its not only about A2A or A2G. It is also their perception of each contenders survivability and quick turn around maintenance, which translates to "sneak, peek, destroy and return to fight another day". They don't need an aircraft in their hands to strategise. They know enough about the capabilities. They need the aircraft in their hands to devise the tactics to deliver its strategic role.

But if the Tiffy is chosen, what happens to the need for active cancellation? I think in terms of turnaround maintenance, the Tejas should have an edge as its supply chain is mostly homegrown.

And my gut tells me that they want the Raffy!

Yeah, well if the HAVE to do it, then I'd want a Rafale too.

[Cain Marko]

To be precise china has

100 Su-30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKK
210 J-10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10 (Which can't be Su-30 class, J-10B can be in the daddy league)
120 J-11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11 (Which again is not Su-30 class)

So where we see several hundred Su-30 class planes ..... less we say about pak is the better ... during kargil they could not even keep the plane in air ... it is just hot air.

LCA will counter J-11, J-10A and FC-20 any given day .... machine is as good as pilots .... we know that our pilots are better and superior to both mentioned countries.

This whole idea of comparing birds 1vs.1 is irksome. It is not as though a) the whole PLAAF is going to come south - its premier assets are any way geared towards it major population centers/threat perceptions - USN, Taiwan, Japan, Soko. b) The LCA mk1 will obviously not be required to take on elite Plaaf fighters without adequate support since such fights are likely closer to home and in a defensive setup.

For deep strikes/a2a battles in Chinese airspace, the MKI is more than adequate. What niche then, is the MRCA needed for? And even if such a niche exists, why can't Mirage 2000s, and MiG-29s fulfill it? And if it is to be said that these are too few, just hold on a bit, and you'll have more Tejas 2.0s come in. Difference in induction times would be approx. 3 years, can't we figure out a way to close this gap?

What is happening here is not cutting the cloth as per needs but setting up needs as per the cloth - iows, messed up.

[Gurneesh]

Sorry for my skepticism, but after ACM Major, who I thought was exceptional in his support for the LCA, IAF's interest in the bird has been somewhat lacklustre imvho. The idea it seems is to give the bird token orders/support, while running after latest and greatest imports Mark my words, when the s**t really hits the fan, it'll be the LCA and existing inventory that will make a difference and NOT fancy toys people are hankering after.

The delays in getting LSP7/8 which are meant for IAF to flog and form opinions, doctrines etc. is not helping the matter either.

I think in 2010 IAF enthusiasm was getting higher by the day but 2011 seems to have dampened that.

Lets hope for a better 2012.

[kelesis]

Dassault magazine 148 - Rafale Mission Nucléaire

From Rafale News :

The last issue of Dassault Magazine has a nice article by Henri Hémon about the nuclear Rafale which are operated by the 01.091 Gascogne squadron.

Operational since July 2010, the sqadron primary mission is the nuclear deterence with the ASMP-A nuclear missilec(along with 2x2000L drop taks and 6 mica). According to pilots the training focuses on low altitude terrain following and inflight refueling. Each mission lasts between 5 to 6 hours and is usualy performed at night (using NVG) without electromagnegnic emission to insure the discretion of the attack. Hence a digital map is prefered to the radar in order to achieve the terrain following function.

However, the radar and the link16 can be used at any moment to engage hostile fighters as the Rafale also carries 6 BVR mica missiles. That's a huge improvement compared to the Mirage 2000N which only had 2 magic II short range missiles for its selfdefense. With such a missile load, the Rafale can protect its own refueler and is much more difficult to intercept than its predecessor.

Besides the nuclear mission, the Gascogne is also tasked with conventional reconnaissance (reco NG pod) and air to ground missions with classic GBU, or stand off AASM and Scalp missiles. It is worth noting that all those capabilities were demonstrated by the squadron during the Libyan conflict. That was possible because the pilots comes from difference specialized squadrons within the French Air Force: The core of the staff are former Mirage 2000N pilots/WSO completed by pilots who are expert in Air defense, conventional strike and reconnaissance (former Mirage 2000 C/D/-5 and Mirage F1 CR/CT pilots).

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2012/01/ ... e-148.html

[ramana]

^^^^ Sure. And an unknown, unwanted aircraft called the Gnat was beating the cr@p out of that generations best: The F-86

Rajanb, It was the IAF pilots' tactics that did the job and not just the plane.
Again the man behind the machine.

However should India always handicap its fighting forces due to politicians inclinations?

[Cain Marko]

Sorry for my skepticism, but after ACM Major, who I thought was exceptional in his support for the LCA, IAF's interest in the bird has been somewhat lacklustre imvho. The idea it seems is to give the bird token orders/support, while running after latest and greatest imports Mark my words, when the s**t really hits the fan, it'll be the LCA and existing inventory that will make a difference and NOT fancy toys people are hankering after.

The delays in getting LSP7/8 which are meant for IAF to flog and form opinions, doctrines etc. is not helping the matter either.

I think in 2010 IAF enthusiasm was getting higher by the day but 2011 seems to have dampened that.

Lets hope for a better 2012.

Speculation alert!

There could be one very fair reason the IAF might be wary of the Tejas (apart from the long time being taken) - the IAF's strong need for strategic independence. It does not want to be dependent on any nation in any form that could compromise its operations - neither Russia nor the US. The ADA's proclivity towards US hardware/expertise, be it in raising the flight envelope, the fbw affair, or the powerplant chosen, might have resulted in the IAF's token interest. It is interesting to note that all MRCA candidates that fielded a solid US made component never made the final cut - F-16, F-18 and even the Gripen. Perhaps the IAF simply finds it too risky to have a large part of its fighter fleet fall victim to US sanctions or Russian shenanigans?

It'd be interesting to see if the selection of the GE F414 over the EJ-200 had in any way dismayed the IAF. In such a case, all I can say is , Viva la Rafale!

[nachiket]

CM, the LCA's suitability as an alternative to the MRCA notwithstanding, don't you think that after spending so much time and effort in the tender and evaluations process it would be criminal to cancel the deal now? (not that it won't happen).

[nachiket]

It'd be interesting to see if the selection of the GE F414 over the EJ-200 had in any way dismayed the IAF. In such a case, all I can say is , Viva la Rafale!

If that was true, the IAF should have made it clear to the ADA that an american engine was unacceptable right at the start right?

[Cain Marko]

CM, the LCA's suitability as an alternative to the MRCA notwithstanding, don't you think that after spending so much time and effort in the tender and evaluations process it would be criminal to cancel the deal now? (not that it won't happen).

I am not sure Nachiket, IF the bird's role can be performed by more price, labor, and operationally effective substitutes, it might be criminal NOT to cancel the deal. That is actually what I'm trying to say - the MRCA is not convincing - no point making a blunder just because so many have been made till now.

However, IF the need is critical and cannot be resolved via other options (LCA, extra MKI, M2k, SMT et al), then might as well bite the bullet and buy the Rafale.

Apart from my speculation above, I do think that the MRCA serves as a hedge against failure/inordinate delays in the LCA or Pakfa. Sort of a fallback - rather slim chance and expensive too.

If that was true, the IAF should have made it clear to the ADA that an american engine was unacceptable right at the start right?

Indeed, and may be they did but were shot down? It is evident from the Rajkumar book that the AF felt rather dismayed by the support given to technocrat "lightest/greatest" type ideas (re. the FBW for ex), but there was little they could do about it. Marietta was chosen, sanctions were imposed, program was delayed; GE was chosen, sanctions were imposed, program was delayed. Kind of iterative and eminently discouraging to an AF that is trying to meet its operational requirements.

And despite the above loop, in the 2000s post sanctions, we see that again a GE engine was chosen, LM was given preference in consultancy, and then to top it all, a GE engine is chosen for the future variant as well. Same cycle being repeated? IAF might be wary and decide that might as well not hope to satisfy op. requirements with a techie's favorite toy.

Like I said, just speculation, take it fwiw. But somewhere it might play on minds that being sanctioned twice, and rejected once in such a critical program by one country, it might not be wise to put more eggs in the same basket?

[SaiK]

Yes.. our strategies don't line with planning and processes. They are dysfunctional especially when you consider various ministries involved to stamp out a deal. If the checks and balances are done for an well driven objectives, then I see, but if it is all about bad politics and corruption,then it might as well be canceled.

Putting all eggs on a home made basket is still considered by many that is strategic as well. We don't invest in strategies, and make them as products.

[Philip]

DTI Jan '12."Eastern Promise".

Article on the MMRCA deal and poss. of the EF winning it.Most of it about improvements to the fighter,AESA,Meteor integration,TVC,etc.TVC because a "Sea Typhoon",discussed with India ,requires mods. to the EF as the "approach AOA,size of radardome" makes it an "unacceptable downward view for the pilot".Therefore,TVC is required to "trim the aircraft at flatter alts".Now this looks as if the aircraft (Sea Typhoon) is nothing moe than a "paper plane" and our naval LCA is further along the development road by comparison.It also makes it far easier to acquire the naval Rafale instead, already flying and in service,has seen combat too,than be hooked into an expensive developmental phase for the "Sea Typhoon" seen only on paper! One further quote from an "experienced observer",who has been saying right from "2009",that "the Typhoon will be a great aircraft-------when it is finished" ! Pointing to the slow pace of upgrades and the "complex 4-country negotiations preceding each phase of the programme".

It further says that "although the Indian-European program will be challenging for either aircraft,an MMRCA win would push the pace on Typhoon (*funded with Indian money no doubt!),with a rapid schedule encompassing configuration,development and testing,tech transfer and the establishment for co-production".Wow! That sure looks like a lot of developmental work,testing,tech-transfer,blah,blah.Doesn't it all look very familiar with another aircraft being developed called the ....Tejas? Great.We will have two parallel programmes and many experts can now get their doctorates and Padma awards on comparing and contrasting the exciting gestation and "process" of the two projects and record the results.What a great scientific research opportunity in aerospace!

In short,if we go in for the Typhoon,we are getting a very large menu-like those eateries which boast of hundreds of dishes ,offering you the choice of how you want the dish cooked,"Mongolian" style (raw) or spicy "Indian" (masala-fried and overcooked),and after choosing a mix,get a fix that later in the night makes you run to the loo to either throw up or dump down! From the reams of info about the status of Typhoon where Tranche-3 is yet to arrive in style,we are -if we choose the Tiffy,going to get an incomplete aircraft to meet our needs,but offering ,like a magician or peddlar of snake oil,"a cure for all ills",which will cost us a pretty penny for developing the same,money which would be better spent in finishing the LCA's development instead.

The Rafale is the better aircraft to buy as it is a "finished product",both for the IAF and IN ,if the IN also wants it.One that will not also come with tortuous "5-nation negotiations" for future development at "every stage",when India also joins the gang of four! This situ with the Tiffy is however the perfect set-up for babudom which will relish the innumerable foreign jaunts to 4 EU nations in turn, to discuss,negotiate,bargain,barter,(buy vast quantities of EU goodies for personal use on every trip),etc.If I was in the MOD right now I would plump for the Tiffy,well knowing that the posibilities for "further advancement" of the personal kind is limitless.With the Rafale,the aircraft parameters for such frivolity that we have seen with the LCA's tortuous development,is limited .We will be getting an aircraft better developed to fight our wars and at least the arguable "equal" of the Tiffy combatwise.Choosing the Rafale would be the most sensible of the two,but we do not know at what price the French have quoted and with all this talk of "offsets",etc.,which are welcome, but frankly tangential to the fundamental need for a fighting flyer,are the bells and whistles that delight babudom and red-tapism.They can spin this deal out for decades.Just imagine the negotiations/bargaining if one wants the tiniest component changed at a P-5 meeting! The hidden costs of such EU babudom we know only too well with the state of the Zero...sorry,Euro.

I therefore feel that buying the Rafale would be the best option ,with just one nation to deal with,but the "unknown is always more attractive to the known.....the grass always greener on the other side of the hill".One will have to consult again the ...oracle!

[Viv S]

DTI Jan '12."Eastern Promise".

Article on the MMRCA deal and poss. of the EF winning it.Most of it about improvements to the fighter,AESA,Meteor integration,TVC,etc.TVC because a "Sea Typhoon",discussed with India ,requires mods. to the EF as the "approach AOA,size of radardome" makes it an "unacceptable downward view for the pilot".Therefore,TVC is required to "trim the aircraft at flatter alts".Now this looks as if the aircraft (Sea Typhoon) is nothing moe than a "paper plane" and our naval LCA is further along the development road by comparison.It also makes it far easier to acquire the naval Rafale instead, already flying and in service,has seen combat too,than be hooked into an expensive developmental phase for the "Sea Typhoon" seen only on paper! One further quote from an "experienced observer",who has been saying right from "2009",that "the Typhoon will be a great aircraft-------when it is finished" ! Pointing to the slow pace of upgrades and the "complex 4-country negotiations preceding each phase of the programme".

We've got orders for 45 MiG-29Ks and the Indian Navy's committed to the Tejas program (with a potential order of upto 40 units). There's little incentive to pursue the Sea Typhoon or for that matter the Rafale-M.

It further says that "although the Indian-European program will be challenging for either aircraft,an MMRCA win would push the pace on Typhoon (*funded with Indian money no doubt!),with a rapid schedule encompassing configuration,development and testing,tech transfer and the establishment for co-production".Wow! That sure looks like a lot of developmental work,testing,tech-transfer,blah,blah.Doesn't it all look very familiar with another aircraft being developed called the ....Tejas? Great.We will have two parallel programmes and many experts can now get their doctorates and Padma awards on comparing and contrasting the exciting gestation and "process" of the two projects and record the results.What a great scientific research opportunity in aerospace!

Aside from the AESA and possibly CFTs, everything IAF required is available right now as part of the ongoing P1E upgrade. The AESA will be available in the required timeframe, while CFTs can be adapted without any airframe modification when they become available.

Future developments like the LERX, TVC, EJ-2xx, GaN are all on paper right now and not critical to the competition.

In short,if we go in for the Typhoon,we are getting a very large menu-like those eateries which boast of hundreds of dishes ,offering you the choice of how you want the dish cooked,"Mongolian" style (raw) or spicy "Indian" (masala-fried and overcooked),and after choosing a mix,get a fix that later in the night makes you run to the loo to either throw up or dump down! From the reams of info about the status of Typhoon where Tranche-3 is yet to arrive in style,we are -if we choose the Tiffy,going to get an incomplete aircraft to meet our needs,but offering ,like a magician or peddlar of snake oil,"a cure for all ills",which will cost us a pretty penny for developing the same,money which would be better spent in finishing the LCA's development instead.

#

That's very colorfully put, but what is it you want from a Eurofighter that's not available?

The Rafale is the better aircraft to buy as it is a "finished product",both for the IAF and IN ,if the IN also wants it.One that will not also come with tortuous "5-nation negotiations" for future development at "every stage",when India also joins the gang of four! This situ with the Tiffy is however the perfect set-up for babudom which will relish the innumerable foreign jaunts to 4 EU nations in turn, to discuss,negotiate,bargain,barter,(buy vast quantities of EU goodies for personal use on every trip),etc.If I was in the MOD right now I would plump for the Tiffy,well knowing that the posibilities for "further advancement" of the personal kind is limitless.

Would you rather they spend five years (judging from the Mirage deal) negotiating the terms of the eventual Rafale upgrade during innumerable jaunts to Paris? And only then accept that there's no way untwist those arms, eventually acquiescing to Dassault's terms.

With the Rafale,the aircraft parameters for such frivolity that we have seen with the LCA's tortuous development,is limited .We will be getting an aircraft better developed to fight our wars and at least the arguable "equal" of the Tiffy combatwise.Choosing the Rafale would be the most sensible of the two,but we do not know at what price the French have quoted and with all this talk of "offsets",etc.,which are welcome, but frankly tangential to the fundamental need for a fighting flyer,are the bells and whistles that delight babudom and red-tapism.They can spin this deal out for decades.Just imagine the negotiations/bargaining if one wants the tiniest component changed at a P-5 meeting! The hidden costs of such EU babudom we know only too well with the state of the Zero...sorry,Euro.

The offsets amount to over $6 billion. They're certainly not tangential to the country's interests. The domestic industry is depending on this deal to provide a major financial and technology fillip to Indian capabilities, the qualitatively superior offer will have an edge and rightly so, given that technical issues are no longer predominant.

I therefore feel that buying the Rafale would be the best option ,with just one nation to deal with,but the "unknown is always more attractive to the known.....the grass always greener on the other side of the hill".One will have to consult again the ...oracle!

If India is looking looking for a program like the Su-30MKI, an aircraft that we produce completely in-house and export parts for, the Eurofighter makes more sense. In addition, there's distinct possibility of India becoming a training and maintenance hub for friendly air forces like those of Oman and Malaysia, both of which will follow India in opting for the EF.

[Viv S]

Kahey ka underpowered? The mk1 has a TWR that is better than anything in the IAF fleet barring the MiG-29 and Su-30MKI. Here are the facts:

Well.... TWR is a useful statistic but it provides only a partial picture. The Tejas has a large wing area for its size, leading to higher parasitic and wave drag, an effect which will be even more pronounced at transonic and supersonic speeds. I wouldn't dismiss the IAF's concerns without more detailed information.

This whole underpowered Tejas thing is a red herring imho. What the AF is doing is not too different from what the IA has done to the Arjun it seems. They want the bird to come in just perfect, which they very well know is impractical - no AF does this. Sure, the Tejas has certain issues such as a lower G limit or AoA, but as the flight envelope is expanded, these will get resolved.

The orders so far total 8 LSPs and 40 SPs. That's not an insubstantial quantity; the IAF's Mirage fleet for example is 'just' 51 strong. Its enough to keep the line humming till the Mk2 arrives on scene.