MRCA News and Discussion

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 22 Apr 2009 15:27

Saab presentation to Holland give price and package on 85 Gripen NG.

6 billion USD for everything. With simulators, training, Flight test equipment and so on.

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab ... 170409.pdf

And they offer SELEX AESA to Netherlands just like to Brazil.

The SELEX AESA radar comes from a proven family of AESA systems sold across the world including the US. The SELEX AESA radar for Gripen NG is a high performance fire control radar designed to complement the multirole/swingrole capability of Gripen NG. It provides unrivalled operational benefits through its unique wide-field of view “Swashplate” concept. This concept has proved to outperform traditional fixed positioned AESA radars. This totally European solution can easily be adapted to Dutch operational concepts.

EW system included:

The Electronic Warfare System includes the following items: Radar Warning Receivers, Missile Approach Warning System, Laser Warning System, Counter Measure Dispensers, Internal Jammer, Jammer Pod & Towed Decoy.

+ IRST and HMD

The IRST system includes the following items: Sensor Head Unit & Processing Unit.
The IRST is an alternative search, track and guidance system. The IRST is a passive sensor and is used if the pilot for detection risks decides not to use Radar or any of the other sensors
integrated in the Gripen NG.

The HMD system includes the following items: Helmet assembly, Electronic Unit, Helmet Tracker System Detachable Day Camera, Detachable Night Camera, Laser Protection Visor and Helmet Camera Release Unit. The Helmet-Mounted Display gives the Gripen pilot the ability to impose computer generated images and target information on real-life view (augmented reality, giving the pilot a tactical advantage. The Gripen pilot is also able to direct a missile or
designate a target by using the HMD. The HMD is completely integrated in the helmet, and can be used in addition to nightvision goggles, protective visors or other equipment such as a day/night camera.

The kit:

85 Gripen NG Aircraft (1 Flight Test Aircraft)
- Engine
- Radar
- Flight Test Instrumentation Equipment
- Display System

Training and training aids
- Full Mission Simulator
- Mission Trainer
- Virtual Maintenance Trainer
- Desktop Training System
- Computer Based Training System
- Pilot Training
- Maintenance Training
- Training for Operation & Maintenance of Mission Support Equipment and Training Devices
Other

- Role equipment (Aircrew Equipment, Helmet Mounted Display Systems, IRST Systems, Electronic Warfare Systems, Fuel Drop Tanks, Pylon Sets)
- Mission support equipment (Mission Support Systems, Digital Map Generating System, Threat Library Support System, Maintenance Ground Support
Systems, Radio Frequency Planning System)
- Logistic Support (Ground Support Equipment, technical publications, facility requirements, Consumable Spare Parts, Field Service Representatives,
Pilot Support)

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 22 Apr 2009 18:27

Cost issues with EF

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 22 Apr 2009 18:32

dorai wrote:Saab presentation to Holland give price and package on 85 Gripen NG.

6 billion USD for everything. With simulators, training, Flight test equipment and so on.

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab ... 170409.pdf

85 Gripen for 6 Billion isnt it pretty Cheap? so including TOT even if we get 140 Gripen NG for 12 Billion,could mean Death Knell for LCA,if Gripen is selected for MRCA

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 22 Apr 2009 20:26

Last figures for Rafale: the next order of 60 F3+ Rafales is scheduled this year and should cost 4.7bn€. This means 78.33m€ per aircraft VAT (19.6%) included. As foreign countries don't pay it, the basic export price must be around 63m€.

source: debates at our parliament (http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/cr ... p#INTER_19)

"Soixante autres exemplaires du Rafale seront également commandés, pour un montant de 4,7 milliards d'euros"

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 22 Apr 2009 20:56

Jean_M wrote:Last figures for Rafale: the next order of 60 F3+ Rafales is scheduled this year and should cost 4.7bn€. This means 78.33m€ per aircraft VAT (19.6%) included. As foreign countries don't pay it, the basic export price must be around 63m€.

source: debates at our parliament (http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/cr ... p#INTER_19)

"Soixante autres exemplaires du Rafale seront également commandés, pour un montant de 4,7 milliards d'euros"

As far as I know Dassault offered 96 Rafales to Saudi Arabia 2006/07 for a total price of 6b€, thats a unit cost of 62,5 m€/ 81m$. Can the price still be the same?

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 22 Apr 2009 21:25

I only gave you flyaway price, I bet the deal with the Saudis included a training and/or weapon package. So yes the price did increase a bit as figures were around 50-55m€ for flyaway F3 rafale in the early 2000s. Don't forget we are speaking about F3+ now (AESA, M88-ECO, NG FSO etc...).

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 22 Apr 2009 21:56

NRao wrote:Sajith_J,

Has the "offer" of F-35 been ever taken off the table? I am not aware of that.

What has changed over time (I called it dynamics earlier) is the dependencies: only F-35 or F-16 + 5th Gen tech -> F-35. The F-35 was "offered" even when Min George Fernandez(sp?) was the DefMin. It peaked in 2007 (as posted above), then came the offer of a F-16 with F-35 techs, with the hope that they could perhaps even beat the FGFA commit with the Russians.

I have not seen anything that says that LM is not willing to offer the F-35 (an in, Boeing was not willing to offer the F-15).

I only heared of the F16IN now and later F35 offer, if you say there was an offer of only F35 I will belive it. But if it is still on offer now, is there a single reason why we should think about F16IN? And what techs do F16IN and F35 share, I heard about similarities of the AESA radar, but what else?
F16IN vs F16 block 50/52+ and J10 - only advantage at is AESA radar
F35 vs F16 block 50/52+ and J10 - better AESA radar, more range and most important STEALTH!

The qualitive edge that IAF woul get against PAF and even more important against PLAAF with F35 and FGFA would be tremendous and I doubt that they won't take this chance. But as I said, if we get it only if we take F16 IN now the whole offer is worthless.

NRao wrote:Sajith_J,
One more think. Specifically WRT to IN, they cannot buy a plane and try and fit it into a ship. The aircraft AND its carrier go hand-in-hand. I do not know if any of the Indian proposed aircraft carriers would actually be able to handle the F-35. They may, but I am not sure about it.

Why not? The F35 B can start and land vertically, Britain, Italy, Australia and possibly Spain will use this type on their carriers with ski-jump. So these type should start even from the Russian Gorshkov and land vertically. And there was reports that IN shows interest in F35 B,

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2009 22:28

Why not? The F35 B can start and land vertically, Britain, Italy, Australia and possibly Spain will use this type on their carriers with ski-jump. So these type should start even from the Russian Gorshkov and land vertically. And there was reports that IN shows interest in F35 B,

Yar, air crafts on a carrier need to be taken to a hanger - so lifts need to be designed for them, the hangers need to be designed for them, the deck itself needs to be designed for them. Weight, fuel, spare parts, etc, etc, etc.

Give In some time, let them deal with the current set. IF they decide on the F-35 they can make modifications to some future carrier/s.

JMTs.

BTW, these countries also expect the F-35 to take off normally - I think and land vertically. Am I correct?

Just verified it - they have a ski-jump.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Apr 2009 00:10

narayana wrote:
dorai wrote:Saab presentation to Holland give price and package on 85 Gripen NG.

6 billion USD for everything. With simulators, training, Flight test equipment and so on.

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab ... 170409.pdf
85 Gripen for 6 Billion isnt it pretty Cheap? so including TOT even if we get 140 Gripen NG for 12 Billion,could mean Death Knell for LCA,if Gripen is selected for MRCA

IIRC the Swedish Airforce had to pay around 25-30 mill.$/plane for their last batch of Gripen C/D. I suppose that was more or less fly-away price since all the infrastructure and such were already in place. Still, it was cheaper then the contracted price with SAAB, that´s allways a nice surprise. And pretty rare when it comes to these kind of deals I suspect.

What SAAB is offering now to Norway, Denmark, Netherlands etc (and I suppose India) really does include everything including fuel, training etc for a period of 20 years. So countries who buys it only really does have to pay the pilots wagers for the next 20 years. That is at least how I understand the proposals to Norway and Denmark. And IF the operational costs (and such) are higher then contracted the Swedish government is an insurance that they will pay the extra costs. (The reason they dare to do this I suppose is that having an operational fleet of Gripens for some 13 years have provided enough experience that the operational costs actually proved to be less then first calculated)

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 23 Apr 2009 01:29

NRao wrote:
Why not? The F35 B can start and land vertically, Britain, Italy, Australia and possibly Spain will use this type on their carriers with ski-jump. So these type should start even from the Russian Gorshkov and land vertically. And there was reports that IN shows interest in F35 B,
Yar, air crafts on a carrier need to be taken to a hanger - so lifts need to be designed for them, the hangers need to be designed for them, the deck itself needs to be designed for them. Weight, fuel, spare parts, etc, etc, etc.

Give In some time, let them deal with the current set. IF they decide on the F-35 they can make modifications to some future carrier/s.

JMTs.

BTW, these countries also expect the F-35 to take off normally - I think and land vertically. Am I correct?

Just verified it - they have a ski-jump.

At present only the U.S. Navy is to use the F-35C variant with short take off and conventional landing. As as the carriers used by U.K and Italy are of smaller displacement, then have opted for F-35B.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Apr 2009 02:04

that Gripen proposal to the Netherlands for 85 Gripen NG at $6 billion does sound very good, especially because it includes spares/support/training and infrastructure setup. i don't think that the Rafale or Typhoon will be anywhere near as cheap. I can't see how fuel costs are included in the proposal, because that would vary with the cost of ATF per region and the number of hours that the particular Air Forces fly. however, operating costs for a single engined F-414 powered Gripen will obviously be lower than those of every other fighter, including the F-16IN (which has a thirstier and more powerful GE engine). if it comes down to a question of cost (L1 tender), the Gripen may well become a very strong contender (and if politics doesn't play a big role).

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Apr 2009 02:50

Kartik wrote:that Gripen proposal to the Netherlands for 85 Gripen NG at $6 billion does sound very good, especially because it includes spares/support/training and infrastructure setup. i don't think that the Rafale or Typhoon will be anywhere near as cheap. I can't see how fuel costs are included in the proposal, because that would vary with the cost of ATF per region and the number of hours that the particular Air Forces fly. however, operating costs for a single engined F-414 powered Gripen will obviously be lower than those of every other fighter, including the F-16IN (which has a thirstier and more powerful GE engine). if it comes down to a question of cost (L1 tender), the Gripen may well become a very strong contender (and if politics doesn't play a big role).

Fuel costs can easily be figured out by calculating the numbers of flight hours per year and pilot and just put that in the contract. I believe SAAB did that already in the deals with the Czheck Republic and Hungary. Things like inflation and increasing fuel costs over the years can also be figured out by economical geniuses I suppose. ATF?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Apr 2009 03:18

Wickberg wrote:
Kartik wrote:that Gripen proposal to the Netherlands for 85 Gripen NG at $6 billion does sound very good, especially because it includes spares/support/training and infrastructure setup. i don't think that the Rafale or Typhoon will be anywhere near as cheap. I can't see how fuel costs are included in the proposal, because that would vary with the cost of ATF per region and the number of hours that the particular Air Forces fly. however, operating costs for a single engined F-414 powered Gripen will obviously be lower than those of every other fighter, including the F-16IN (which has a thirstier and more powerful GE engine). if it comes down to a question of cost (L1 tender), the Gripen may well become a very strong contender (and if politics doesn't play a big role).
Fuel costs can easily be figured out by calculating the numbers of flight hours per year and pilot and just put that in the contract. I believe SAAB did that already in the deals with the Czheck Republic and Hungary. Things like inflation and increasing fuel costs over the years can also be figured out by economical geniuses I suppose. ATF?

that would be Aviation Turbine Fuel. it costs a lot in India. and what Saab would need to do is prove that its lifecycle costs (which include fuel costs) are lower than the cost for other competitors, but that is not going to be a part of the price of the package.

as regards the Hungarian and Czech deals, they were basically lease-to-buy deals, so there the number of hours flown made a difference to the value of the deal, especially to Saab, if the airplanes were returned at the end of the lease period. for an outright purchase, the cost of fuel is never included in the deal's price. its not included in the price quote for the Netherland's Gripen NG offer.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 23 Apr 2009 05:52

There's two prices mentioned by Saab to Holland and this one I posted does not include fuel or upgrades. They offer all that in a seperate 30-year life cycle package. Combined these 2 packages is nearly half the price of F-35. At least in Holland.

Either way I think this ($70 m) must be the maximum price of a Gripen since it's offered with so much extras and also some NATO equipment that other countries don't need. And sims and training tools. Scaled to 126 it becomes 8,8 Bn.

But I think the Super Hornet will be offered surprisingly low as well, I wouldn't be surprised if SH slides in between Gripen and F-16 on price.

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 23 Apr 2009 13:15

RBE2 AESA validation campaign is ending. First induction into forces scheduled for early 2012.

Thales, DGA Test Radar for Rafale
By pierre tran
Published: 22 Apr 2009 14:15

PARIS - Thales and France's Délégation Générale pour l'Armement (DGA) procurement agency have completed a latest series of tests for the RBE2 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, the defense systems company announced April 22.

The tests were conducted on a Rafale strike fighter at the Cazaux flight test center in southwest France from February to March.

These trials were intended to provide "functional validation of the radar's operating modes," Thales said in a statement. "This milestone marks the latest step towards qualifying the RBE2 AESA radars this year in readiness for delivery of the first two units to Dassault Aviation during the first quarter of 2010."

The new radar is designed to boost range by more than 50 percent compared with the Rafale's current passive array radar, offering compatibility with the Meteor beyond-visual-range missile. The equipment also is intended to improve reliability; deliver high-resolution synthetic-aperture imagery in the air-to-ground mode; and be more resistant to jamming.

The sensor is due to be fitted on the Rafale in 2011 for delivery to the French Air Force early in 2012, Thales said.

France hopes to sell the Rafale to Brazil, Libya, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4052320&c=EUR&s=AIR

skher · Post by **skher** » 23 Apr 2009 16:57

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rafal ... ce/450268/

Manu Pubby
Posted: Thursday , Apr 23, 2009 at 0244 hrs IST
New Delhi:

Days after Dassault’s Rafale fighter was knocked off the $10-billion contract for providing combat aircraft for the Indian Air Force, French Ambassador Jérôme Bonnafont met senior Defence Ministry officials to enquire about the status of the deal.

It is learnt that the Ambassador met Defence Secretary Vijay Singh on Tuesday and talked about the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) deal among other things. Sources said Bonnafont inquired about ‘media reports’ that talked about the oust of the French fighter from the mega deal.

The Ambassador is believed to have been informed that the selection process for the contract was still on and it would take a few weeks before proceeding to the next stage.

However, sources in the ministry maintain that the French fighter would not make it to the next stage as it has not met the technical requirements set in the tender that was floated in 2007.

The tedious process for purchasing the 126 fighters to boost dipping force levels of the Indian Air Force (IAF) will now proceed to the next stage of flight trials where the aircraft will be tested in difficult weather conditions. Trials are expected to take place in Bangalore, Jaisalmer and Leh.

The summer trials are set to start within three months and the remaining five contenders will be sent letters to bring in their aircraft for evaluation shortly.

The IAF is keen to conclude the contract as fast as possible given that its fighter levels had come down to an all time low of 32 squadrons against an official level of 39.5 and a ‘desired’ level of 42 squadrons. The most optimistic predictions too suggest the final signing of the contract not before 2011, which would mean that the first fighters would land in India by 2013.

Not again...DDM at work.Dunno which development is true.Is it out or NOT out?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 23 Apr 2009 17:36

Its most probably out, and french are trying their best to get it back

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 23 Apr 2009 18:37

Jean_M wrote:RBE2 AESA validation campaign is ending. First induction into forces scheduled for early 2012.

These trials were intended to provide "functional validation of the radar's operating modes," Thales said in a statement. "This milestone marks the latest step towards qualifying the RBE2 AESA radars this year in readiness for delivery of the first two units to Dassault Aviation during the first quarter of 2010."

The new radar is designed to boost range by more than 50 percent compared with the Rafale's current passive array radar, offering compatibility with the Meteor beyond-visual-range missile. The equipment also is intended to improve reliability; deliver high-resolution synthetic-aperture imagery in the air-to-ground mode; and be more resistant to jamming.

France hopes to sell the Rafale to Brazil, Libya, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4052320&c=EUR&s=AIR[/quote]
So they have no hope for India or why isn't it mentioned?

No, really good news for the Rafale to have the AESA working, not sure how far the Eurofighter radar is, but Gripen NG might be the last to be ready.

Jean_M wrote:I only gave you flyaway price, I bet the deal with the Saudis included a training and/or weapon package. So yes the price did increase a bit as figures were around 50-55m€ for flyaway F3 rafale in the early 2000s. Don't forget we are speaking about F3+ now (AESA, M88-ECO, NG FSO etc...).

I guess so, the EF that won was also offered with training, simulators and logistics.

But if you compare that €63 mil/$82 mil for Rafale and $70 mil for Gripen NG, the price difference is not as big as I thought.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 23 Apr 2009 18:42

This thread is becoming a joke as DDMities infested news worms are seeping in. mrca has become a more or less poker game.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Apr 2009 18:57

^^Well, we have no other option other than to discuss what happens in the news media. Else, you may want to request for a title change for this thread to regulate ddm-postings.

.

As of now, it is a poker game as it appears for all MMRCA contenders. It is indeed shame of France to even get into a tussle with MoD and DDMities under the heading "failure on disqualifications due to not meeting technical specifications". This is not a joke for Rafale if they do prove it so!

Coming to think of it, it puts even MoD in shame for such headings (come on.. Rafale is not a bad a/c)., unless its a high political drama, to explore the "real possibilities" [check history events with france], and a last ditch effort to get the frenchies come up to realization of the new world requirements, that is changing capitalism even in the NATO countries. Raptor program is facing issues. Obama is all after env and cost cutting. There may be heavy pressure form the business community about survival for the next 20-40 years. France will fail miserable if they don't qualify under "Technical Requirements".. its serious business for them, much more than MoD.

I'd say, let the DDM be what they are.. a well known ass it is, and its easier to infer from it, as of now.

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 23 Apr 2009 19:50

Rafale is OUT....

The best aircraft suited for IAF was Rafale (Politically, Technically and Economically) ...

So the stage is set for Unkil's Hornet-the only fighter with IRST on a Fuel Tank ...may be this approach makes Hornet
(already an elephant kinda fighter plane ) more maneuverable ....

Looks our beloved MOD feels that, Hornet is best suited to be paired with Su-MKI in an attack mission...and we will be reading, our great Indian journos will be publishing the number of Hornets went down and pilots/lives lost in the mission.

I think French GOV should ask and publish the response from MOD (where exactly Rafale failed to meet Technical parameters..) I assume the loophole was searched using BIG MICROSCOPE for Rafale ...but big black wholes of Hornet is allowed to pass thru.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 23 Apr 2009 21:51

narayana wrote:
dorai wrote:Saab presentation to Holland give price and package on 85 Gripen NG.

6 billion USD for everything. With simulators, training, Flight test equipment and so on.

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab ... 170409.pdf
85 Gripen for 6 Billion isnt it pretty Cheap? so including TOT even if we get 140 Gripen NG for 12 Billion,could mean Death Knell for LCA,if Gripen is selected for MRCA

sir
not 140, it is170 or more

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 23 Apr 2009 21:58

Ajatshatru wrote:Jamal wrote:

Moreever we are participating in PAK-FA,as a equal partner.
Apart from an equal partner in perhaps funding of this programme, please let me know how are we an 'equal partner' in any other aspect of this programme?

This should be the skill of money,which we lack. Money counts a lot!!!!!!!!

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 23 Apr 2009 22:14

narayana wrote:
dorai wrote:Saab presentation to Holland give price and package on 85 Gripen NG.

6 billion USD for everything. With simulators, training, Flight test equipment and so on.

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab ... 170409.pdf
85 Gripen for 6 Billion isnt it pretty Cheap? so including TOT even if we get 140 Gripen NG for 12 Billion,could mean Death Knell for LCA,if Gripen is selected for MRCA

What ever we get from others ,we should continue with our projects like LCA.It will help us in good bargain for deals and for natonal pride.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Apr 2009 00:16

skher wrote:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rafal ... ce/450268/

Manu Pubby
Posted: Thursday , Apr 23, 2009 at 0244 hrs IST
New Delhi:

Days after Dassault’s Rafale fighter was knocked off the $10-billion contract for providing combat aircraft for the Indian Air Force, French Ambassador Jérôme Bonnafont met senior Defence Ministry officials to enquire about the status of the deal.

It is learnt that the Ambassador met Defence Secretary Vijay Singh on Tuesday and talked about the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) deal among other things. Sources said Bonnafont inquired about ‘media reports’ that talked about the oust of the French fighter from the mega deal.

The Ambassador is believed to have been informed that the selection process for the contract was still on and it would take a few weeks before proceeding to the next stage.

However, sources in the ministry maintain that the French fighter would not make it to the next stage as it has not met the technical requirements set in the tender that was floated in 2007.

The tedious process for purchasing the 126 fighters to boost dipping force levels of the Indian Air Force (IAF) will now proceed to the next stage of flight trials where the aircraft will be tested in difficult weather conditions. Trials are expected to take place in Bangalore, Jaisalmer and Leh.

The summer trials are set to start within three months and the remaining five contenders will be sent letters to bring in their aircraft for evaluation shortly.

The IAF is keen to conclude the contract as fast as possible given that its fighter levels had come down to an all time low of 32 squadrons against an official level of 39.5 and a ‘desired’ level of 42 squadrons. The most optimistic predictions too suggest the final signing of the contract not before 2011, which would mean that the first fighters would land in India by 2013.
Not again...DDM at work.Dunno which development is true.Is it out or NOT out?

Manu Pubby was the author of the first couple of articles that claimed the Rafale was out. to save face, now he's coming up with more of his "sources" in the ministry. the IAF has rejected the claim that the Rafale is out and I will take their word, rather than some Manu Pubby "source".

Devesh Rawal · Post by **Devesh Rawal** » 24 Apr 2009 00:51

Tired of people bashing up the SH. Yeah I'm biased, maybe because it buzzes over my head every other day.
F-16s, Mig-35s and Gripens (they are meant for mass production, cheaply) won't last the number of flying hours a SH or a Rafale will last.

If you are sincere in this question of which is the only "operational" aircraft with all the tech requirements of the IAF, that could possibly be inducted tomorrow, the SH is the only answer - flight profiles, AESA, hardened structure, even cost. If the US lets Boeing make a sweet deal with India, there's no way this one can lose.

Forget about the russians developing next gen AESA for the Mig-35 (we'll get it with the FGFA anyway and an MKI upgrade program). Why buy b***d AESA systems based on an US spec from Thales or anyone else, just get the APG-79 as it exists today. Get the squadron strength up now, get ready for TSP to disintegrate. Heck our IAF SH's can even fly off the USN CVN's if need be (maybe I'm reading too much of Shankar's scenarios

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Apr 2009 03:01

Devesh Rawal wrote:Tired of people bashing up the SH. Yeah I'm biased, maybe because it buzzes over my head every other day.
F-16s, Mig-35s and Gripens (they are meant for mass production, cheaply) won't last the number of flying hours a SH or a Rafale will last.

please provide the number of total flight hours (Total technical life) of the SH and Rafale to back up your claim. both the Gripen and F-16 have a TTL of 8000 hours, so you need to prove that the SH and Rafale have greater TTLs.

If you are sincere in this question of which is the only "operational" aircraft with all the tech requirements of the IAF, that could possibly be inducted tomorrow, the SH is the only answer - flight profiles, AESA, hardened structure, even cost. If the US lets Boeing make a sweet deal with India, there's no way this one can lose.

Boeing is on record as stating that the first SH will join IAF 36 months after the deal is signed. how is that faster than any other contender ? what do you mean by "flight profiles", "hardened structure" ? just trying to use some fancy language ?

Forget about the russians developing next gen AESA for the Mig-35 (we'll get it with the FGFA anyway and an MKI upgrade program). Why buy b***d AESA systems based on an US spec from Thales or anyone else, just get the APG-79 as it exists today. Get the squadron strength up now, get ready for TSP to disintegrate. Heck our IAF SH's can even fly off the USN CVN's if need be (maybe I'm reading too much of Shankar's scenarios

the Zhuk AE is ALREADY under development, so its not a scenario that is just on paper. and in case you don't know, there is a premium on ToT. if Raytheon can transfer the required technology for the APG-79 then well and good. else, its better to go with a European solution.

Devesh Rawal · Post by **Devesh Rawal** » 24 Apr 2009 04:56

Kartik, I am a newbee to posting in BR and only sparked by my interest in Aircraft. So no dis-respect to you or anyone else who has inside info.

I cannot find the information on the Rafale anymore.
Here is the SH lifecycle from a recent post (note that this is for the regular hornet, and the SH should be better):
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/04/n ... p_041609w/

The Navy has already extended Hornets’ original lifespan from 6,000 flying hours to 8,000. The latest plan calls for stretching that to 8,600 hours, which will add about two years of service life and cost about $500,000 per aircraft, Architzel said.

The 6000hrs F-16s were the older blocks (didn't realize that), so my apologies. Here is a clean analysis (may have been posted before):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 6-life.htm

The Boeing rep said something along the lines of going well beyond that presumably for life cycle:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 41729.html

One of the concerns here in India is the cost of owning and maintaining combat fighters over their lifetime,” said Vivek Lall, Boeing IDS vice-president and India country head. “The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet offers a very attractive life-cycle-cost dynamic, since the fighter won’t need a scheduled visit to a maintenance depot until it has clocked a minimum of 6,000 hours of flying time, and even well beyond that

My reference to hardened structure is nothing new - the hornet (both versions) are designed to take the punishment of hard landings and corrosion, more so than the competition. Flight profile was an nod to again it being designed for the A2G / Strike role as a primary requirement, compared to the F-16 (air superiority) role.

I acknowledge that ToT will be crucial as you point out. I don't dispute that - but if we do get a satisfactory conclusion of that from Raytheon, then it will be for a mature system, right? That's all I wanted to say (we are saying the same thing).

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 24 Apr 2009 06:31

Sontu wrote:Rafale is OUT....

The best aircraft suited for IAF was Rafale (Politically, Technically and Economically) ...

So the stage is set for Unkil's Hornet-the only fighter with IRST on a Fuel Tank ...may be this approach makes Hornet
(already an elephant kinda fighter plane ) more maneuverable ....

Looks our beloved MOD feels that, Hornet is best suited to be paired with Su-MKI in an attack mission...and we will be reading, our great Indian journos will be publishing the number of Hornets went down and pilots/lives lost in the mission.

I think French GOV should ask and publish the response from MOD (where exactly Rafale failed to meet Technical parameters..) I assume the loophole was searched using BIG MICROSCOPE for Rafale ...but big black wholes of Hornet is allowed to pass thru.

Good morning.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Apr 2009 07:05

Rafale out of contest, diplomatic push by France
Manu Pubby Posted: Thursday , Apr 23, 2009 at 0244 hrs IST Indian Express

vs.

Indian Air Force says Rafale still in fighter competition
By Siva Govindasamy DATE:20/04/09 Flight International

DDM ahead!

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 24 Apr 2009 07:16

SaiK'ji, my personal opinion is that Rafale is still in. Given what happened with Gripen, I need more solid sources than "unnamed sources", to believe that a particular contestant is out of MMRCA. That's just my opinion.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Apr 2009 07:22

I agree. BTW, just asking .. who is controlling the technical evaluation process? IAF or MoD or a joint team?

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 24 Apr 2009 12:42

I want to make some remarks regarding the F-18. First of all, I think it is the most potent striker of the lot. BUT, and that hasn't been discussed here that much, the airframe isn't exactly a wonder of aerodynamics.
There are some compromises that were made to make it a better carrier aircraft. For example it's technically straight wing. It gives the Hornet great lowspeed handling and high alpha capabilities, and makes it safer for carrier operations as well as improving it's bringback capability.
On the other hand, it gives it very high drag in transsonic and supersonic flight regimes.
To make it even worse, it suffered from wing flutter during development. This was solved partly by software (limiting flight envelope), partly by adding aerodynamic surfaces, that again increase drag.
Problems with weapons seperation lead to outward canted pylons, once again, at the cost of increased drag.
In the air intakes, there are RCS blocker. As the name implies, they reduce the frontal rcs, but at the cost of decreased engine performance. Those things look a bit like the first compressor stage, if you look into the air intakes.
In the end, you get with the Hornet most probably the most mature overall avionics and weapons package, but in the least performant airframe.
It is somehow the counterconcept to the Eurofighter Typhoon. (Great transsonic and supersonic performance, but very basic a2g munitions selection, and the AESA only availble as tech demonstrator).
Interesting times for the Indian evaluation team.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Apr 2009 13:31

MarcH , the point being Avionics , Weapons System , EW , Radar can always be upgraded during a aircraft life cycle , these systems might receive a software upgrade in blocks or a hardware one , to refine and improve performance.

But the airframe and aerodynamic characterictics of an aircraft cant be improved since it is quite fundamental to an aircraft.

So if F-18 indeed suffers all that fundamental weakness in its aerdynamic characteristics then its no good and does not add any value.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 24 Apr 2009 14:50

Kartik wrote:that would be Aviation Turbine Fuel. it costs a lot in India.

What is so special about ATF prices (30 -31 Rs/litre) in India?

http://www.indiajournal.com/pages/event.php?id=6686

ATF in Delhi will cost Rs 31,926 per kl as against Rs 29,925.97 per kl (presently).

Cheers....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Apr 2009 15:09

This is what I've been saying all along.The F-16 AND F-18 (which was the losing design for the USAF) are decades old in design.The ageing aerodynamics are being given the equivalent of an IV dose to keep it alive in this ,its last avatar.All the other aircraft are newer,with the MIG-35 having the best aerodynamics ,acknowledged by western pilots,and have considerable upgrade potential for the future.various air forces have made projections and say that the F-18 cannot overcome current Chinese Flankers,which are inferior to Indian Su-30MKIs.The only jewel in the two US aircraft are their AESA radars and whether the US will hand over the tech to India remains a moot question.The Typhoon is probably the most sophisticated,very expensive,but has to prove its AESA radar if it stands a chance.The MIG-35 displayed at Aero-India flew with its AESA radar,with an even more powerful one that will take part in the contest.The Gripen NG is a very cost effective solution too,filled with advanced tech and in the days of recession,is the dark horse.The Rafale's goose is going to end up as "foie gras" from the looks of it and it really is a mystery why.

While they have no aircraft on offer,watch for any Israeli activity on offering an AESA radar,as the LCA is going to fly with an Israeli one.This might complicate the picture.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 24 Apr 2009 15:40

Germany puts pressure on the UK to stop delaying their financing of Tranche 3A Eurofighter. This is the consortium India is being offered to join... there's an old saying "The more chefs..the worse the soup" or something like that

http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollar ... 4720090424

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Apr 2009 15:41

Philip wrote:This is what I've been saying all along.The F-16 AND F-18 (which was the losing design for the USAF) are decades old in design.The ageing aerodynamics are being given the equivalent of an IV dose to keep it alive in this ,its last avatar.All the other aircraft are newer,with the MIG-35 having the best aerodynamics ,acknowledged by western pilots,and have considerable upgrade potential for the future.various air forces have made projections and say that the F-18 cannot overcome current Chinese Flankers,which are inferior to Indian Su-30MKIs.The only jewel in the two US aircraft are their AESA radars and whether the US will hand over the tech to India remains a moot question.The Typhoon is probably the most sophisticated,very expensive,but has to prove its AESA radar if it stands a chance.The MIG-35 displayed at Aero-India flew with its AESA radar,with an even more powerful one that will take part in the contest.The Gripen NG is a very cost effective solution too,filled with advanced tech and in the days of recession,is the dark horse.The Rafale's goose is going to end up as "foie gras" from the looks of it and it really is a mystery why.

While they have no aircraft on offer,watch for any Israeli activity on offering an AESA radar,as the LCA is going to fly with an Israeli one.This might complicate the picture.

I had a question. The Mig-35 may very well have the best aerodynamics of the lot, and it needs that to be successful in its primary role ... that of an air-superiority fighter. But does the IAF really need another one of those? Don't the MKI, Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s (latter 2 after upgrade) take care of that requirement?? Won't it be prudent to think of augmenting our strike forces. To a layman, the F-18SH seems to offer an excellent strike package (especially the weapons like JDAM and co.) in addition to providing the IAF with the best BVR combat platform in the region.

The only problem I see is that the F-18 is likely to be a lot more expensive compared to the Mig-35 and may not fit the budget.

Ajay K · Post by **Ajay K** » 24 Apr 2009 16:07

Any details of air-ground role enhancements of Mig-35? Either navigational or targeting. I have not seen the Mig-35 deliver any ground attack ordinance.

jmaxwell · Post by **jmaxwell** » 24 Apr 2009 16:42

nachiket wrote:...
I had a question. The Mig-35 may very well have the best aerodynamics of the lot, and it needs that to be successful in its primary role ... that of an air-superiority fighter. But does the IAF really need another one of those? Don't the MKI, Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s (latter 2 after upgrade) take care of that requirement?? Won't it be prudent to think of augmenting our strike forces. To a layman, the F-18SH seems to offer an excellent strike package (especially the weapons like JDAM and co.) in addition to providing the IAF with the best BVR combat platform in the region.
...

Totally agree that we need a strike fighter. This is what the PAF aircomodore Kaiser Tufail has to say about the Kargil conflict:

Operations by IAF started in earnest on 26 May, a full 16 days after commencement of Pakistani infiltration across the LOC. Strafing and rocketing of intruders’ positions by MiG-21, MiG-23BN and MiG-27 was the salient feature of this initial phase. All operations (except air defence) came to a sudden standstill on 28 May, after two IAF fighters and a helicopter were lost – a MiG-21 and a Mi-17 to Pak Army SAMs, while a MiG-27 went down due to engine trouble caused by gun gas ingestion during high altitude strafing. (Incidentally, the pilot of the MiG-27 Flt Lt Nachiketa, who ejected and was apprehended, had a tête-à-tête with this author during an interesting ‘interrogation’ session.)
The results achieved by the IAF in the first two days were dismal. Serious restraints seem to have been imposed on the freedom of action of IAF fighters in what was basically a search-and-destroy mission. Lt Gen Mehmud’s rant about a ‘Stinger on every peak’ seemed true. It was obvious that the IAF had under-estimated the SAM threat. The mood in Pak Army circles was that of undiluted elation, and the PAF was expected to sit it out while sharing the khakis’ glee.

The IAF immediately went into a reappraisal mode and came out with GPS-assisted high altitude bombing by MiG-21, MiG-23BN and MiG-27 as a makeshift solution. In the meantime, quick modification on the Mirage-2000 for day/night laser bombing kits (Litening pods) was initiated with the help of Israelis. Conventional bombing that started incessantly after a two-day operational hiatus, was aimed at harassment and denial of respite to the infiltrators, with consequent adverse effects on morale. The results of this part of the campaign were largely insignificant, mainly because the target coordinates were not known accurately; the nature of the terrain too, precluded accuracy. A few cases of fratricide by IAF led them to be even more cautious.