MRCA News and Discussion

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Apr 2009 19:43

well i ain't really educated, i agree, i dont need to be educated, coz i got everything i need and like always i am also used to people who dont have much, talking about how filthy a person who has got everything is. so get in line.

---Nayakuddin and fellow comrades get yourselves a bag of popcorn and some beer; this is even more entertaining than Lalloo's speech---

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Apr 2009 20:12

why not take the fun to nukkad instead?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Apr 2009 20:17

Guys, no irrelevant discussion here please. Take it as a warning.

Ari Samir · Post by **Ari Samir** » 28 Apr 2009 00:07

AmitR wrote:
keizer wrote: LM has offered F-16s with source codes and the f-18IN comes with source codes as well. now as long as EUVA restrictions are eased and we are given a clean waiver on many of those restrictions and tot the US companies will win. The mig-35 is indeed customizable but by the time we customize it, the price will shoot up, the process takes a lot of time and by 2013 our force levels will be far below min. requirements. I am sure we wont take that gamble and will order one of the teens. I dont understand why we keep talking about the French, they are out , so need for any further discussions. as per today's news the tranche 3 EF looks to be in danger and i doubt this aircraft will comes for less than 130 million a piece.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8017207.stm

The fact is the only aircraft that can satisfy our Navy, Army and AF is the f-18IN or f-35. F-18IN is ideal and can be used for all 3 for their respective missions. The f-16 having an old airframe is also a wrong statement. The F-16IN looks far different and uses the latest CRCs in the airframe, hence the aiframe is far more advanced and newer than the mig-35 airframe which by all means looks like a patched up mig-29. moreover f-16IN will also feature ram materials and its rcs is far lower than any of the contenders. plus f-16 comes with ability and ready to fire mode for missiles like Aim-120 C/D, Aim-9x block 2, Python-5, Asraam, Iris-T, Mica, Magic missiles. It also comes with software to fire Skyflash, Alarm missiles, Apache missiles, AS30L LGB and Popeye-2. not to mention it is also capable of delivering Delilah which we already have. It also has a higher combat range than the mig-35. On any given day the f-16IN is a better option to the mig-35. mig-35 is a default option if none of the other contenders meet minimum contract requirments.

Rafale has been written off due to French negligence, they seemed to have blown off our people repeatedly when we turned to them for questions and secondly, they don't show the possibility to delivering AESA by 2013, since the French AF will start recieving it starting end 2012. Secondly the fact that Rafale falls short in weapons, costs and other tehnical requirements. Though a good aircraft Rafale has been sighted by countries like Japan, Singapore as being difficult to use and fly.

F-18IN comes with a possibility for a growth version of the GE 414 turbofan on request, the new engine has 29,000 lbs output has been ground tested already, which increases its range by around 20-25 % and thrust from 98kn to roughly 118KN and makes the SH even flightier. moreover we must remember that we hold options for 74 more aircraft and the last of the 126 fighters will be made in India by around 2020, now block 3 SH will be ready by then incase we want to order 74 more. now block 3 will have MATV, supercruise and unrefueled combat radius of over 1000NM and newer cutting edge avionics, engines etc, by then the engine output would have reached 130KN. hence the ideal option is still the SH.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... eopts.html
Keizer this sounds like a sales pitch from an American Agent.
Everything you say is fine on paper. But if tomorrow tensions ratchet up in South Asia, can Americans be relied upon to provide the systems and not embargo us. What can a GE414 engine or block 10 SH gonna do if can't get in the air due to paucity of spares and missiles.

Besides all the technology and weapons what we need the complete freedom of using the weapons as and when needed. If that cannot be guaranteed in future then buying such expensive tin planes is not worth the trouble.

One smart way to bypass probable US sanction will be to ask for (1) a good buffer of spares including engines and (2) a complete MRO facility as part of the deal. This is applicable for Gripen or Eurofighter as well, because Europeans can impose 'effective sanction' without calling it a sanction. For example, post 1998, Europeans did not formally impose sanctions, but kept all our request for supply pending. And Russians ? In cae of hostility between China and India, I think what Russia will do is also to refrain from supplyig anything to either countries citing 'neutrality.'

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 28 Apr 2009 10:06

Ari Samir wrote:One smart way to bypass probable US sanction will be to ask for (1) a good buffer of spares including engines and (2) a complete MRO facility as part of the deal. This is applicable for Gripen or Eurofighter as well, because Europeans can impose 'effective sanction' without calling it a sanction. For example, post 1998, Europeans did not formally impose sanctions, but kept all our request for supply pending. And Russians ? In cae of hostility between China and India, I think what Russia will do is also to refrain from supplyig anything to either countries citing 'neutrality.'

So all roads lead to Rafale

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 28 Apr 2009 11:06

Meteor lacks the range and is simply to expensive. besides it wont be ready before 2015, by that time we'll have our own Astra-2 longer range version of home made AAM.

Meteor lacks the range ? It is going to be the longest AAM with an active seeker on service. Astra 1 is not ready for induction yet. Arthuro

iggy him

keizer · Post by **keizer** » 28 Apr 2009 11:50

Meteor wont be ready till 2015 and wont sell for less than 1 million pounds a unit, i really think its absolutly criminal paying such a high price for missile. We can develope our own version of a ramjet propelled Astra with a longer range seeker for a much lower price. Besides Aim-120C-7/D, Astra are both effective enough to deal with any Chinese or PAki aerial threat. Aim-120 has proven itself against targets like the mig-25/mig-29 that usually can out run the missile the moment its fired.

The chinks or PAkis have nothing that go as fast. Besides in any case of infiltration, it will be the SAM systems like the Spyder-MR, MR-SAM, Akash, S-300, Akash-2 that will account for most kills and since we are mostly very defensive i think Meteor is pretty much useless. The Akash missile is un-detectable by most aircraft since it is guided by ground radar, the enemy wont even know what hit him, the meteor can be detected. SAMs are cheaper as well. We just need a shite load of them; Spyder-SR (python-5) for short range low level incursions, radar coverage provided by Raytheon/Thales G-400 low level radars, Sypder-MR (Derby), medium range protection, Akash 1 and Akash 2 can be used for infiltrations during missions behind enemy lines. They can protect our aircraft while they are busy blowing enemy shit up. This is where the F-18IN armed with lowcost precision weapons can do some real heavy damage, its netcentricity unmatched at current standards, with mkis or mig-29 smts playing air defence roles, the f-18IN can go to work in very few sorties inflicting massive damage to all kinds of enemy ground/sea threats.

SAMS are a cheaper more effective option and we possess the technology that makes the launching of a SAM impossible for any PAki aircraft to detect except may be the block 52. The SAM will also destroy more than half of chink fleet without much of a fight. The only aircraft that pose any real threat are F-16 block 52, Su-30mk, J-10, J-17 and Paki mirages. The rest of their fleet will fall to the ground thanx to our SAMs. Our aircraft will carry AAM as a defensive measure, just like we did in Kargil with our mig-29s flying around with R-77s, in most cases the moment we fire a long range missile doesn't matter if its a Aim-120 C/D or Astra, the Pukis will turn tail and run back like scared pussies they are. In order for them to turn tail and run we need a long range missile like Aim-120D, we fire first, he is dead 90% of time, even if he isn't he wont come back, besides a full-scale war will quickly turn nuclear we wont even need any aircraft, our ICBMs will take off from land, subs and our neighbors are covered knee deep in fallout.

India doesn't start wars, we end them, dont need missiles like Meteor. What we need a AEGIS for sea based protection against incoming ballistic missiles and finish our AAD/PAD in time for induction massive numbers, we also need hypersonic interceptors to deal with Chinki ICBMs and long range radars with detection ranges over 1500km.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 28 Apr 2009 12:10

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

If true, its all the Frenchie's fault... they have no right to crib about it now.

What I do suspect very seriously is that this is actually an MoD-IAF ploy to get Rafale off its high-horsed siesta. Given that IAF is doing the technical evaluation, all they'd have to do is to give out info that Rafale is out to a known leak, and wait for things to happen...

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 28 Apr 2009 14:46

I am sorry admins to post unthreadly like that but as sarang said enough is enough ...

***Parshuram, I am removing the contents of your post because we don't want this particular line of discussion as it is simply a distraction here. One's claims regarding one's wealth or position and counterclaims of the same are irrelevant here. Trust the admins to take appropriate action. ***

keizer · Post by **keizer** » 28 Apr 2009 15:25

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Apr 2009 17:43

I agree with that k prasad, also note rafale was reluctant at bangalore air show and for them afghan khan support is more important than mmrca contract.. the history goes like this:

1. IAF drafts for M2K orders
2. Politicians et al.. play swords
3. French crazy attitude.. with drew M2K from mrca.
4. Slammed IAF strategies and super imposed with their own by asking us to buy 40 Rafales out right!.. no ToT.
5. Amrikka steps in, Russians announce 50-50 partnership, Ef2K welcomes to join in, Gripen says sleep with it, and finally Franch said.. OK Rafale is available for ToT.
6. Rafale failed to show up at Bangalore.
7. Afghanistan is more important for them..
8. MoD per DDM, says they are not interested as well.

they don't care.. and they don't think like the rest. let them be what they wanted to become.

we still have strong participation from very interesting to fantastic offers.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 28 Apr 2009 18:50

SaiK wrote:I agree with that k prasad, also note rafale was reluctant at bangalore air show and for them afghan khan support is more important than mmrca contract.. the history goes like this:

they don't care.. and they don't think like the rest. let them be what they wanted to become.

we still have strong participation from very interesting to fantastic offers.

May be, just may be!
Frenchies know something that we all do not know. They have been our weapons supplier for a long time and surely have the contacts in the Indian establishment to know who is going to win the mrca race. Can you think for a while that the whole deal thing may be just a big farce and the winner has already been fixed. Maybe the Americans did not sign the nuclear treaty without a reason.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Apr 2009 19:11

thats plausible given events thus far.. but also think about why would russkies, eye-rope-eans would want to take it any further then, if its all farce. unless, more than 50% of the contenders feel the same, then your assumptions gets a stronger basis to become a fact.

again.. never know from the corruption angle.. but my large feeling is soya bean khans would not get into a deal with such an angle.. again i'd be damn wrong as it would sensationalize and even put obamic freedom under peril.

we don't want another set of cbi files, and stupid charges flying from all quarters, ddm, babooze, while the b!@#!$% swindle for mmrca. let this be all gov-gov purchase, without any agency or middleware pieces. if there is one, then we have to focus our efforts to bring it out right now.

the best way, is deep prodding, and finding the reasons.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Apr 2009 19:14

SaiK,

A couple of quibbles, if you do not mind. It is Dassault that is THE problem and NOT "French". IIRC, the French Govt has gone out of their way to make this happen. ALL the idiosyncrasies are from the vendor - direct.

Next on the topic of imposing the 40 Rafales without ToT: they offered 40 Rafales OUTSIDE the MRCA deal - to get the Indian AF squads closer to recs (that was their argument anyways). The MRCA deal was in addition to that with ToT.

added l8r:

Withdrawing of M2Ks was also, IIRC, because they could not keep the lines open. Imagine this is 2009 and they had to keep the stuff mothballed to allow India to make a decision.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Apr 2009 20:01

if i had 2 million d-assault shares, i'd have voted to keep mothballing since this is one of the biggest orders.. and of course, per wiki they do have quite a list of customers to keep it going.

furthermore, if they were expecting to be competing, then going by the list of countries, it is very evident that none can afford rafale, while phasing out their existing mirage fighters. luckily, we have allocated some money to IAF for upgrading the mirages we have.

its important to note that the seller better understand us better than themselves to be successful.

imho

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 28 Apr 2009 20:18

SaiK wrote:I agree with that k prasad, also note rafale was reluctant at bangalore air show and for them afghan khan support is more important than mmrca contract.. the history goes like this:

1. IAF drafts for M2K orders
2. Politicians et al.. play swords
3. French crazy attitude.. with drew M2K from mrca.
4. Slammed IAF strategies and super imposed with their own by asking us to buy 40 Rafales out right!.. no ToT.
5. Amrikka steps in, Russians announce 50-50 partnership, Ef2K welcomes to join in, Gripen says sleep with it, and finally Franch said.. OK Rafale is available for ToT.
6. Rafale failed to show up at Bangalore.
7. Afghanistan is more important for them..
8. MoD per DDM, says they are not interested as well.
they don't care.. and they don't think like the rest. let them be what they wanted to become.

we still have strong participation from very interesting to fantastic offers.

Oh please...

french commoner (as I am) POV:

1,2,3: at first the m2k deal was supposed to be a mutual agreement. politics took their time (from what we heard, on the indian side as well as the french) and Dassault had to close the production line for obvious cost matters (as well as doubts on the outcome of discussion). As NRao said, they were right: what should have been their deal is now a tender and is still running... (and please don't believe every french is such a caricature or come visit us to see by yourself - willful guide here

)

4: NRao answered you

5: Yeah right, our people is slow on commercial matters (you could say french collective mind is a craftsman/engineer mind instead of a seller's one). Considering that Dassault first tought the m2k deal was a done deal, they had to take the blow, then forget their hopes on m2k, put Rafale on the table and in the end give ToT guaranties. I think it would take some time to anyone to change its mindset that way.

6: don't understand either. Being Cartesian to the extreme, I bet some thought flight eval were more relevant than a commercial show. Anyway it's another event showing that Dassault doesn't seem to put high hopes on this deal anymore.

7: Yes and no: our presence here is more political than anything else but I admit Dassault see it as a good way to get its "combat proven" label and enhance its system serviceability/get stats. Well these can become commercial strengths... We'll see in time if it was a good choice but it indeed was a risk we could have spared.

8: When you aren't interested in something, you don't bother taking actions that would obviously raise some warning/interest in its mind...

if i had 2 million d-assault shares, i'd have voted to keep mothballing since this is one of the biggest orders.. and of course, per wiki they do have quite a list of customers to keep it going.

Nope, you'd have voted scrapping it 'cauz the other way would have lowered your dividend

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Apr 2009 21:03

if i had 2 million d-assault shares, i'd have voted to keep mothballing since this is one of the biggest orders.. and of course, per wiki they do have quite a list of customers to keep it going.

Ah. I see. Shares. I love that too. I would do that too to keep my share prices (artificially) up.

Who in the wiki list would have bought more M2Ks? I do not recall anyone saying they would buy any more brand new M2Ks. (BTW, Dassault was willing to pack its line and ship it to India ......................... IF AT ALL, it would have been India (the sole place to build M2Ks) that would have had to fulfill any new orders. Am I right?)

BTW, LM will have to close their F-16 line too ................................ for the same reason. In fact, IIRC, Pakis got F-16 aid because the line would have otherwise closed. Again those shares rear their ugly head ................. again.

Can BR buy shares?

On a serious note, Dassault is in a mess and gets further in a mess and has no strategy to get out (glad I do not own any shares). However, when I look back (love that 20/20 hind sight) I think it was great that India did NOT buy those M2Ks. IF (BIG IF) India does this deal right, India should get a boat load of goodies.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Apr 2009 21:47

BTW, Dassault was willing to pack its line and ship it to India .........................

rao sahib, really? did the ddm-ers got you as well?

Can BR buy shares?

quite an interesting thinking.. a "mrca fund" that would buy the most likely winner

. may get whacked by defence ministry though.

F16 on the same boat as Mirage? F16s will go on more than what we all think. futhermore, they are definitely better positioned to support parts manufacture even after shut down of any new assemblies. On the same lines, why a closing down F16 when F18s are still been chased after US navy? By no means ToT equals transfering of assembly lines to India.

BTW, we need to understand that ToT per RFI/RFPs (my assumptions) sure is not technology blue prints of the product, and how its made from scratch but a production line setup and assembly line technology transfer. The core parts will be still from the sourcing nation. No country, including russians will allow that (again i am reading more into ddm here).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Apr 2009 22:49

rao sahib, really? did the ddm-ers got you as well?

Where are all those BR Talibans (students I mean) when I need them most?

Will check with Dassault CEO and get back to you on that one.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Apr 2009 23:00

SaiK,

I do not want this "discussion" to go too much longer, and, I normally do not like to post from other "chat site", but I have found a partner to shoot you down.

You probably know this person for all I know.

swerve

April 18, 2009 (so the news is taja)

Here we go again . . . how many times does this have to be said?

Check the timescales! Dassault stopped Mirage 2000 production because it didn't have any orders. It wasn't a matter of choice, but force majeure. No sales = no production.

India had spent 7 years asking Dassault for information but not ordering Mirage 2000s, and then at the point where Dassault had to decide whether to spend a lot of money mothballing the line so it would be possible to resume production, changed the terms of the requirement, postponed a decision to a point which the IAF & MoD knew was after Mirage production would end, & invited bids from other suppliers. What does that sound like to you? To me, it sounds like India saying to Dassault "We've lost interest in the Mirage".

Dassault actually offered India the Mirage 2000 production line, & full rights to build as many M2Ks as India wanted, & modify them freely. India said no.

Or he must have been reading the same Dassault DDM as me? That is my recollection too.

We have to come to a quick agreement here. MoD is a goofball? Can we agree on that?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Apr 2009 23:27

i'd have to sadly agree at above par.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Apr 2009 02:08

keizer wrote:Meteor wont be ready till 2015 and wont sell for less than 1 million pounds a unit, i really think its absolutly criminal paying such a high price for missile. We can develope our own version of a ramjet propelled Astra with a longer range seeker for a much lower price. Besides Aim-120C-7/D, Astra are both effective enough to deal with any Chinese or PAki aerial threat. Aim-120 has proven itself against targets like the mig-25/mig-29 that usually can out run the missile the moment its fired.

The chinks or PAkis have nothing that go as fast. Besides in any case of infiltration, it will be the SAM systems like the Spyder-MR, MR-SAM, Akash, S-300, Akash-2 that will account for most kills and since we are mostly very defensive i think Meteor is pretty much useless. The Akash missile is un-detectable by most aircraft since it is guided by ground radar, the enemy wont even know what hit him, the meteor can be detected. SAMs are cheaper as well. We just need a shite load of them; Spyder-SR (python-5) for short range low level incursions, radar coverage provided by Raytheon/Thales G-400 low level radars, Sypder-MR (Derby), medium range protection, Akash 1 and Akash 2 can be used for infiltrations during missions behind enemy lines. They can protect our aircraft while they are busy blowing enemy shit up. This is where the F-18IN armed with lowcost precision weapons can do some real heavy damage, its netcentricity unmatched at current standards, with mkis or mig-29 smts playing air defence roles, the f-18IN can go to work in very few sorties inflicting massive damage to all kinds of enemy ground/sea threats.

SAMS are a cheaper more effective option and we possess the technology that makes the launching of a SAM impossible for any PAki aircraft to detect except may be the block 52. The SAM will also destroy more than half of chink fleet without much of a fight. The only aircraft that pose any real threat are F-16 block 52, Su-30mk, J-10, J-17 and Paki mirages. The rest of their fleet will fall to the ground thanx to our SAMs. Our aircraft will carry AAM as a defensive measure, just like we did in Kargil with our mig-29s flying around with R-77s, in most cases the moment we fire a long range missile doesn't matter if its a Aim-120 C/D or Astra, the Pukis will turn tail and run back like scared pussies they are. In order for them to turn tail and run we need a long range missile like Aim-120D, we fire first, he is dead 90% of time, even if he isn't he wont come back, besides a full-scale war will quickly turn nuclear we wont even need any aircraft, our ICBMs will take off from land, subs and our neighbors are covered knee deep in fallout.

India doesn't start wars, we end them, dont need missiles like Meteor. What we need a AEGIS for sea based protection against incoming ballistic missiles and finish our AAD/PAD in time for induction massive numbers, we also need hypersonic interceptors to deal with Chinki ICBMs and long range radars with detection ranges over 1500km.

have you read about the no-escape zone of the Meteor and how it can shut off its motor and then restart it later to be able to actually maneuver when its most needed against a target which is maneuvering at the terminal stage ? no other missile will have any energy left at the fag end of its flight to engage a maneuvering target.

secondly, if the Meteor does live up its hype, its well worth its price. a enemy fighter will cost anywhere from 5-100 times the price of a Meteor (from a bog simple F-7G to a Eurocanard/F-35/F-22 class fighter).

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 29 Apr 2009 04:37

SaiK wrote:the thing that mig folks would allow us to integrate western stuffs in to russian platforms makes it nothing near all eggs in one basket. that thought should be erased for mig 35. if IAF wants, migs would allow us to use Kaveri-ng into mig35 or GE414 into it, for that matter. it can fire astra, ks172, meteor, python, court israeli 2052 or enhanced elta-drdo-2052 that LCA is going to house rather, making it a highly valuable venture with migs.

they are open to a 50-50 venture. the possibilities are endless. the eggs can hatch, to the exact genetics to which IAF wants. war clones tailored to meet IAF's requirements can be met

Of course open to a 50-50 venture sounds good, but is it realistic? What can we really integrate in Mig 35?
Kaveri which is inferior to the new Mig 35 engine and do you really believe that US will give us GE414 for Russian Migs and that Russia would allow to use it?
Sure we can put SOME western stuff on it like we did it at the MKI, but at the end we still would have a Russian fighter, with Russian engines, most of the weapons will be Russian and so on. So there would be a heavy dependence on Russia, which won’t be healthy for IAF!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Apr 2009 17:46

Sajith_J wrote: Kaveri which is inferior to the new Mig 35 engine

K is not inferior. K is just incomplete, thats all.

do you really believe that US will give us GE414 for Russian Migs and that Russia would allow to use it?

I do. Russia will allow is my near correct assumption.

Sure we can put SOME western stuff on it like we did it at the MKI, but at the end we still would have a Russian fighter, with Russian engines, most of the weapons will be Russian and so on. So there would be a heavy dependence on Russia, which won’t be healthy for IAF!

[/quote]

Mostly russian, yes. but the mission computer, ECM, and certain avionics as in MKI could be Indian, plus we could add more like an improvised kaveri staging from an american version if need be (that was just a pointer to be open about integration, thats it). In addition, an 2052 aesa (350km range) means, quite a lot of integration with source code available to fire vympels, rafaels, and other desh born astras, including the joint missiles we developed with russkies - brahmos (possibly ks172 in the future).

The 50-50 partnership, would enable us to "composit-ize" to maximum possible, the russian airframes, and further gives us valuable aspects of tinkering with the migs platform, including redesign of air intakes, etc. to reduce IR signature.

Mig is a good company to buy, besides being publicly said, its available for partnership on an equal basis for us. No one else have said that, except the typhoon walas where they only promised a future for the same and not for the current MMRCA rfp.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 29 Apr 2009 22:33

Gripen NG AESA has new revolutionary design offering wider field of view.

Advanced mission capabilities provided with the Gripen NG AESA Radar

Improved Target Tracking
With the inherent beam agility, target tracking
can be more adaptive and time efficient. This
will increase the radar tracking performance in
a dense target environment. This facilitates the
ability to choose the right target for weapon
engagement, and to prepare the weapon with
more accurate data i.e. enhance the fire control
capability.
The beam agility will also increase the capability
to perform search for new targets within a larger
search volume while retaining the target track
updates for current tracks. This will increase the
pilot’s situation awareness.

Wide field of regard
With the swashplate solution the Gripen NG
AESA radar has the ability to cover a scan angle
up to ±100°. This will increase situation awareness
and be used to increase the quality of SAR
images. In BVR combat, wide angle scan also
allows the aircraft to maintain track on the target
whilst executing a 90° manoeuvre. This minimises
closure rate with the target, places one’s own aircraft
in the enemy’s clutter return and still allows
full guidance of BVR missiles.

Mode Flexibility
With the beam agility it is possible to interleave
different modes. This capability further increases
the situation awareness for the pilot. For example,
the pilot can use Air-to-Ground modes in parallel
to Air-to-Air search and track.

Low Probability of Intercept
The AESA radar has qualities that makes the
aircraft more difficult to detect by an enemy and
thereby increases the aircrafts survivability. These
qualities include lower radar cross section, ability
to operate with reduced output power levels
and side-lobe levels, and the agile beam used for
random search and track patterns.

Flexible beam and waveform control makes it
possible to optimize modes for long and short
range target acquisition. The AESA system is
also able to be cued by other onboard sensors,
eg Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) or by data
from off-board resources such as Erieye. This will
increase the pilot’s situation awareness and make
it possible to take action earlier.

Improved Electronic Counter-
Counter Measures
Future adaptive beam forming facilitate improved
target detection in presence of several jammer
signals. Situation awareness can then be maintained
even in a dense RF-environment. This is
important for survivability.

Increased Operational Availability
The modular design of the antenna, including
the large numbers of transmit/receive modules,
ensures graceful degradation. This means that the
antenna will maintain excellent performance even
with a percentage of failures. This ensures high
availability which is an essential pre-requisite for
high intensity operations.

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/8E65 ... _Radar.pdf

X-post from Keypub forums. Posted by signatory

These links show the advantages of such an assembly as normal fixed AESA radars have a narrower field of view.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... a6c47c0879

http://www2.theiet.org/oncomms/pn/radar/Roulston.pdf

Sajith_J · Post by **Sajith_J** » 01 May 2009 14:25

SaiK wrote:
K is not inferior. K is just incomplete, thats all.

I'm sorry, but 52Kn thrust of Kaveri instead of 62,5Kn thrust and 3D TVC of the Mig engine seems to me way inferior.

SaiK wrote:I do. Russia will allow is my near correct assumption.

Doubful and means nothing to US.

SaiK wrote:The 50-50 partnership, would enable us to "composit-ize" to maximum possible, the russian airframes, and further gives us valuable aspects of tinkering with the migs platform, including redesign of air intakes, etc. to reduce IR signature.

That is the first time that I heard about a partnership of Mig 35? Can you give me a link to that? Till now I just heard about customize it like the Mki in case of avionics and SOME other stuff. That makes it way less then 50 %!
Also we are looking for a complete and ready aircraft, to fill the gap and give us new capabilities. So why should we waste more time in redesign the air intakes?

To me Mig 35 is the perfect example of you get what you pay for! We pay less, but also get less!
ToT of nearly nothing useful and new than the AESA radar, cause the engine is only an improved version of the RD33 that we already build and weapons are also the same that we can get for Mki.
Comprare that to Full ToT of Rafale! AESA radar, Spectra EWS, total different avionics (IAF love French avionics) and weapons (Meteor, Mica, AASM) and we can put Kaveri on it too.
What would improve our capabilities more, to get ToT of more Russian stuff that we already have or get through Pak Fa JV, or to get western ToT too?
We pay 40 Mil $ and get only a good a2a fighter, but it's a2g capabilities are more than doubtful. It's base is an air superiority fighter and only a prototype is avalable yet. Also even it is the biggest aircraft in size and weight (comes close to Mki) it offers the least weapon stations and only an average payload. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the life cycle costs of F16 IN and Mig 35 with all the advntages it has through the similarities to Mig 29. And when it comes to costs, we should kepp in mind that we might be the only operator of this a/c. Not even Russia plans to use it for the AF. So how good is the future of it and who will pay for upg?

It's simply cheap, that's all that Mig 35 offers, nothing else, or superior and it will clearly raise the dependense to Russia.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 May 2009 17:51

I'm sorry, but 52Kn thrust of Kaveri instead of 62,5Kn thrust and 3D TVC of the Mig engine seems to me way inferior.

a plain comparison of thrust is not nearly enough parameters to compare two jet engines.
for its design role, in LCA TVC is mostly irrelevant.

note, I'm not saying that kaveri is better or worse than rd-33, just that the above method doesn't prove either way.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 01 May 2009 18:33

Rahul M wrote:
I'm sorry, but 52Kn thrust of Kaveri instead of 62,5Kn thrust and 3D TVC of the Mig engine seems to me way inferior.
a plain comparison of thrust is not nearly enough parameters to compare two jet engines.

Rahul,

Which engine are the Russians planning to use on the Mig-35 with the 62.5 KN thrust? I thought they were planning to use the RD-33MK but that has a rated thrust of arund 53 KN?

-Vivek

Abhishek Banerjee · Post by **Abhishek Banerjee** » 01 May 2009 20:12

looking at the state of affairs of indian MRCA, if the indian goverment babus have their way, they will select HYANDAI VERNA

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 May 2009 20:16

mea culpa vivek, hadn't paid attention to the figures.
here's the specs : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-33
the base line RD-33 is a little lower on thrust and I guess it had serious problems with smoke.
dunno about things like SFC.

the mig-35 version (sea wasp ?) is supposed to have a dry thrust of around 53 kN, about the same as the kaveri.
...............
AB, we all get tired with GoI but no non sequiturs please, it only gets down-hill from there.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 02 May 2009 15:47

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ft/356861/

India set to build Medium Combat Aircraft

Ajai Shukla / Bangalore May 02, 2009, 0:11 IST

With India’s home-built Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) — the Tejas — flying successfully through its testing process, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has now signed up for an indigenous Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA). Within days, the IAF and a team of aircraft designers will formally set up a joint committee to frame the specifications for India’s own MCA, which will be built largely in Bangalore.

The MCA’s design team will centre on the agencies that have built the LCA: the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA); the National Aeronautics Laboratory (NAL); Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL); and a host of Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) laboratories that will develop futuristic sensors and systems for the MCA.

The director of ADA, Dr PS Subramaniam, confirmed to Business Standard, “The joint committee is likely to be formed within two or three weeks. This committee will finalise what will go into the MCA, as well as the budget and development schedule.”

According to Dr Subramaniam, the programme will aim to develop the MCA and build five to six prototypes at a cost of Rs 5,000 crore. That is approximately the same amount that has gone into the LCA programme.

With this, Indian aeronautical designers will be working in all the fighter categories. In the light fighter category (10-11 tonnes), the Tejas LCA is expected to get operational clearance in 2011; the MCA will be India’s first foray into the medium fighter category (14-15 tonnes); and in the heavy fighter category (20 tonnes plus), currently ruled by the Russian Sukhoi-30MKI, Indian designers plan to partner their Russian counterparts in developing the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA).

Interestingly, the decision to develop an indigenous MCA comes alongside the overseas procurement of 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for an estimated Rs 50,000 crore. Senior IAF planners point out that the MMRCA procurement is unavoidable for replacing the MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s that will become obsolete while the MCA is still being developed.

By 2020, when the IAF’s current fleet would have been largely phased out, MoD planners forecast a requirement for at least 250 medium fighters. This has raised hopes amongst the MMRCA contenders (the US F/A-18 and F-16, Russia’s Mig-35; the Eurofighter Typhoon; and the Swedish Gripen) that the winner could end up supplying twice as many fighters as the current tender. But a successful Indian MCA programme would cap the MMRCA procurement at 126 fighters. After that, the MCA production will kick in.

The MCA designers plan to pursue technologies superior to anything currently on offer. The ADA director points out, “None of the MMRCA contenders will be state-of-the-art in 2015-2017. But the MCA will; it will incorporate the technologies of the future, which currently feature only on the US Air Force’s F-22 Raptor.”
India’s aeronautical designers see the MCA programme as crucial for taking forward the expertise that has been painstakingly accumulated in the Tejas LCA programme. The IAF is in agreement; and the Rama Rao Committee, set up for restructuring the DRDO, has recommended that programmes must be created to provide continuity for designers.

Says a senior MoD official: “With great difficulty we have built up a team that can design a complete combat aircraft. After a couple of years, when the LCA goes into production, there will be no design work left. Without another aircraft programme to work on, we will lose this team, having attained this level.”

SGupta · Post by **SGupta** » 02 May 2009 18:49

The MCA will feature new technologies available only on the F-22 and the Indian defense establishment will deliver in 6-8 years, by 2015-2017. Somebody is smoking something. Its simply not going to happen and India will continue to issues with current technology being available for the IAF and other branches of the military. Couple this with the fact that Chinas economy is poised to become the largest in the world by 2020, with the commensurate increase in spend on military spending, the thinking in India had better become as sharp as if somebody had a gun pointed to ones head.

If India cannot manage its development and procurement process well and get those processes in order in the very near term ......

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2009 20:09

SGupta, are you talking politics and babooze or our capability?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 May 2009 20:49

My gut says the MCA is doable.

The biggest challenge is the engine. I suspect they have most, if not all, the rest under "control". They already have a model that went through a wind tunnel, so they have must have made substantial progress in many respects. Then they have the experience from the LCA to boot.

This time around they can afford to bite a bit more than they think they can chew. Take more risks.

JMTs.

wig · Post by **wig** » 02 May 2009 22:01

i am sure we can develop mca. the concept to commissioning will be quicker this time. the designers will have the lca experience. besides i am sure that as design and commissioning experience grows the time span of the mca from design board to operable machine will be shorter than lca. cheerio!

Yogesh · Post by **Yogesh** » 02 May 2009 22:15

Every one out here thinks that since we have some experience at hand (LCA program) in terms of fighters building techs & with babus, IAF changing demand from time to time! (?) and on the top of everything an alarming, quite feasible truce with chinks in near future !!, we would be able to overcome hurdle relatively easily (sounds sweet my ears and my heart too

)...

but it is the time (more precisely the next govt. at helm) which would say how things would turn !!

SGupta · Post by **SGupta** » 02 May 2009 23:02

SaiK,

I think Indians individually are extremely capable but when you mix this up with politics, Babooze, Natashas and who knows what else this makes a mess of what is needed for rapid development. When you ask is it our capability, I would answer yes, not because I don't believe the ability to get it right is there, but other aforementioned factors that are controllable wind up mitigating the process. The experience with the LCA will allow the MCA work to be done higher up the learning curve but when I read futuristic technologies like on the F-22 will be integrated into the MCA it smacks of a wishlist from somebody that will never get delivered and cause constant scoping problems with the program and consequently delays.

I am reading the tea leaves here and hope I am completely wrong regarding speed of MCA delivery. India needs to develop this and other capabilities with respect to warfare to survive.

Regards,

Yogesh · Post by **Yogesh** » 02 May 2009 23:09

SGupta wrote:SaiK,
India needs to develop this and other capabilities with respect to warfare to survive.

Regards,

If we keep this single point in mind, we would develop the jet even prior to the designated time!!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 May 2009 23:12

SG, which technology exactly are you apprehensive about ?
"futuristic tech like f-22" means nothing. AFAIK, the MCA is not supposed to feature any tech that won't be possible to complete in time.

sam_kamath · Post by **sam_kamath** » 02 May 2009 23:20

SGupta wrote:SaiK,
I think Indians individually are extremely capable but when you mix this up with politics, Babooze, Natashas and who knows what else this makes a mess of what is needed for rapid development.

Dude Indians are extremely capable but each one of us have BIG egos. If they have a strong willed leader on the top they will do it, the catch is they need one and only one undisputed leader not several people whom they have to please...
It is the concences building attitude that gets us down... you can please some people all the time, you can please all the people some times but you cannot please everyone all the time. If you have a leader who can stand up to that small percentage of people and say yes there will be mistakes i take responsibility then you have a leader who can do it for Indians..
if only we had one