MRCA News and Discussion

[Philip]

..Contd.The F-17 was rescued from the dustbin by the USN,which wanted a twin-engined successor to the Phantom.The design was mildly tweaked to turn it into making the F-18.Its aerodynamic configuration has little changed ever since.The MIG-29 Fulcrum and SU-27 Flanker arrived a decade later,in the '80s,first seen at Farnborough in the west I think.The MIG-29 was a smaller "lighter" version of the Flanker to operate in tandem with the larger Sukhoi.The aerodynamics of these two aircraft are very similar and have proved to be incredibly agile when equipped with TVC especially and have been showstoppers ever since introducing new aerodynamic manoeuvres like the cobra,kulbit,etc.The Typhoon and Rafale are technologically the most modern of the lot,along with the much smaller Gripen,which should really be a rival to the LCA and the Sino-Pak J-17.

The big Q that I ask is ,with the pricing given in an earlier post,why should we buy the F-18SH at approx $85-100 million per unit,in the final avatar of the '70s design,when we have a vastly superior aircraft in the Su-30MKI,which is going to be even more advanced with more powerful engines with 3-D TVC,conformal AESA in the wings,etc.,and a concealed weapons bay in the fuselage for carrying weaponry,making the aircraft stealthy,which will not cost as much as the F-18,as we are already prodcuing the aircraft in India! The upgraded MIG-29/35 will come in far cheaper,if a cheaper single seat alternative is required and the Rafale and Typhoon of newer vintage and technology,will come in at around the same price of an F-18.I think that with the recent scandal of MOD documents,Lockheed have shot themselves in the foot and mouth and because of Pak operating the type,will fall at the first hurdle.With almost all the Us's allies plumping for the JSF to replace their F-16s and F-18s in a few years time,there is really no reason why we should be the very last country to buy either of these two types which are going to be pensioned off by 2015.It would be a collossal waste of money.Had we been offered the JSF,it would've been a whole new ball game.

[Cybaru]

From what I know, I would like an AC that is able to overpower the enemy without firing a shot. Give me a G version first (of any AC, not just F-18). Look at Kargil situation. Even with terrain issues, height issues, ratio issues, attack vs. defence issues - who won?

Kosovo, helped USAF define the "G" version. But unfortunately they aren't going to give us the version that would be useful for us.

For us it makes more sense to make a custom build MKI-SEAD version. Work with Irkut, DRDO, french, Israelis and custom build an extra order of 40 odd planes dedicated for SEAD. These planes have the payload, legs and the extra spare energy required for a Wide area Jamming and Radar busting roles.

We will have to snoop and build our own threat library over time.

[NRao]

CY,

absolutely. By G I did not mean a US version. I would actually prefer an Indian version. (I am getting very tired of suggestions that India should work with .................. We will never get out of this mode it seems. Very tiring.)

BUT, on the flip side, it is also very tiring to hear about range, engines, dog fights, when there are SO MANY more newer things (some in open source, the other not - granted). BUT, I am telling you that this MRCA discussion is way out of scope even today in 2009!!!!

The world has moved on.

I am not so concerned about the US making money on a line that they will toss out. I am concerned about India buying something that could be outdated because Indians never moved on. The problem here is Indians - lack of vision.

As an example the MKI is "vision" - even today. I am not sure I can make the same statement about even the Su-35 - but perhaps I do not know too much about the Su-35, possible.

[Cybaru]

Nrao,

I hear what you are saying. But I didn't say it in the aspect that it is normally used. Working with thales, irkut, saturn, irbis who are all sub-vendors in a non-issue as long as we are in the drivers seat and we know what we want. It will take time but its better than ordering an awesome plane like F-18G, which will be a cripple when delivered. We won't be able to change or do anything with it other than the narrow spectrum it will work in. We cannot have a complete Try-Learn-Change-Try cycle with it, which is absolutely necessary to build confidence that is neeeded to really use it in the field. Most of these special units are work-in-progress type of machines. They don't have a baseline config like with other units. These will be uber specialised units that will need best-of-breed guys who know the risks and understand what it takes to be out there behind enemy lines.

We may need more power for all the electronics to work. - Bigger, more efficient engine.
We may need more shielding in the cockpit for the pilots,
We may need changed setup in the cockpit for all the special jammers, EW we want to put on the plane.
We may need pretty tight coverage against IR/Radar guided missiles as these things will be flying into enemy territory trying to get lit up. Heavy duty MAWS.
We will need new radar, EW sensors, Wide area Jammers, and new munitions.

[sunilUpa]

Ok...Lockmart episode is getting uglier.

France's Dassault targets Lockheed in combat aircraft deal

The gloves are off in the competition to sell India 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for an estimated Rs 50,000 crore. Two days after Business Standard reported on the sudden replacement of Lockheed Martin India’s CEO, Lockheed’s French rival, Dassault Aviation — whose Rafale fighter is pitched against Lockheed Martin’s F-16 IN in the MMRCA tender — is contemplating asking the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) to disqualify Lockheed Martin from the tender. The reason: sources in Dassault allege that Lockheed Martin has illegally obtained access to classified documents relating to the competition.

Approached for details of Dassault’s decision, the company’s Indian representative, Pusina Rao, told Business Standard over the telephone from Paris, “Dassault executives are in discussions and will soon reach a final decision on what action it will initiate against Lockheed Martin. In any case, the French government will have the final word, since there are political repercussions involved.”

Sources close to the MMRCA contract point out that tension has been growing between Dassault and Lockheed Martin since the end of 2008, when the Indian media reported that Dassault had been eliminated from the MMRCA contract because it had not fulfilled some of the technical requirements spelt out in the Indian tender. Weeks after the report — and apparently after French President Nikolas Sarkozy spoke to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over the phone — it was announced that Dassault was very much in contention.

But Dassault believed that Lockheed Martin was responsible for those reports. Now, Dassault is determined to get back at Lockheed Martin, citing charges of corruption in clear violation of the guidelines in India’s Defence Procurement Policy-2008 (DPP-2008).

All this brings out another question, how come Lockmart CEO was allowed to skip? He was breach of law of the land!

[GeorgeWelch]

The MIG-29 Fulcrum and SU-27 Flanker arrived a decade later,in the '80s

MiG-29 first flight: 1977
Su-27 first flight: 1977
SH first flight: 1995

The Typhoon and Rafale are technologically the most modern of the lot

Rafale first flight: 1986
EF first flight: 1994

What makes Rafale more modern?

No AESA
No helmet mounted sight
No towed decoy
No laser designator

Some of these are coming, but they aren't operational yet.

why should we buy the F-18SH at approx $85-100 million per unit

We don't know the price.

conformal AESA in the wings,etc.

There is no truth to this.

and a concealed weapons bay in the fuselage for carrying weaponry

You will never make the existing MKIs stealthy.

If you're talking about some future design, well it isn't here yet and the MRCA is about what's available now. There is MCA and FGFA for the future.

which will not cost as much as the F-18,as we are already prodcuing the aircraft in India!

1. You aren't producing this theoretical super flanker now
2. If the SH wins, you will be producing that in India too

which are going to be pensioned off by 2015.

The SH will be the backbone of the USN fleet through the 2030s.

[NRao]

And, Phillip, for the nth time, India was offered the JSF. LM has always said that the F-16 would incorporate plenty of JSF techs and therefore (for better or worse) it could be a good lead into the JSF. (NOT my comments or inclination.)

Also, when did the MKI come out with all those goodies? Concealed weapon bay for MKI? Are they redesigning the whole damn thing or what?

[Gagan]

Ajai shukla:
France's Dassault to ask for Lockheed Martin to be blacklisted in India's medium fighter tender

Approached for details of Dassault’s decision, the company’s Indian representative, Pusina Rao, told Business Standard over the telephone from Paris, “Dassault executives are in discussions and will soon reach a final decision on what action it will initiate against Lockheed Martin. In any case, the French government will have the final word, since there are political repercussions involved.”

tension has been growing between Dassault and Lockheed Martin since the end of 2008, when the Indian media reported that Dassault had been eliminated from the MMRCA contract because it had not fulfilled some of the technical requirements spelt out in the Indian tender. Weeks after the report — and apparently after French President Nikolas Sarkozy spoke to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over the phone — it was announced that Dassault was very much in contention.

But Dassault believed that Lockheed Martin was responsible for those reports. Now, Dassault is determined to get back at Lockheed Martin, citing charges of corruption in clear violation of the guidelines in India’s Defence Procurement Policy-2008 (DPP-2008).

The games we play.

[Bhaskar]

Nearly half of Russian air-to-air missiles with IAF are faulty: CAG report
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=10985
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=10986
First the Mig 29's being structurally flawed and now this...

[sunilUpa]

^^^ Gagn, Bhasksr Atleast take the time to read the couple of existing posts before posting!

[Cain Marko]

MiG-29 first flight: 1977
Su-27 first flight: 1977
SH first flight: 1995

The Typhoon and Rafale are technologically the most modern of the lot

Rafale first flight: 1986
EF first flight: 1994

What makes Rafale more modern?

No AESA
No helmet mounted sight
No towed decoy
No laser designator

Come on guys, the gent is referring to the hornet as the basis of the superhornet and the former was a 70s design. No two ways about it. It is the same with the MiG-35 or the F-16blk60. By your logic, the blk70 F-16 is a 2010 design? Or the MiG-35 is a 2010 design?
Sure, the shornet is a far cry from its predecessor but you simply can't ignore the heritage, it is totally obvious. In fact as a turner, burner aerodynamic performer, the shornet is the worst of the legacy lot esp. in the super sonic regime. The fulcrum or the flanker are ahead in all flight regimes, while the hornet/shornet may have an edge over the viper/eagle at slower speeds. Unfortunately, the super hornet is even worse than the original hornet in this regard. There is simply no argument here, lets not make one.

When it comes to this criteria, the eurocanards are later designs and as such are made for first class performance in all regimes and at least in the supersonic part, they are ahead of all legacy birds even the flankers and fulcrums (to what extent one does not know, but at least marginally or they would not be able to supercruise). There is little argument here either. Subsonic, the russkis probly still rule thanks to their original design as well as the use of TVC.

So yes, the Rafale is more modern. It now does come with an AESA, the Damocles I think has also been tested as LDP, and quite importantly has an IIRST/FLIR/Missile combo that the shornet simply can't touch.

The most important point however, is really quite simple: you can keep on upgrading the rafale/tiffy and even the flanker to catch up with and even surpass the teens in terms of electronic gear. But the teens can't do jack to catch up with the ecanards or the flanker/fulcrum to match flight performance. That advantage stays constant. Over the lifetime of the aircraft (next 40 years), the f-16/18s will fade fastest and be overcome the most easily by a powerful (and rich) china, the fulcrum comes next followed by the flanker and lastly the eurocanards, esp. the twin engined birds.

The competition that the teens offer is only in terms of avionics, sensors and EW gear, nothing else. And here they are competitive, certainly not the best for the above three elements cover a whole gamut of factors in some of which the eurocanards and even the russkies are probly superior.

CM.

[GeorgeWelch]

By your logic, the blk70 F-16 is a 2010 design?

No, it has the same basic fuselage as the F-16.

By comparison the SH has:
- new wings
- new fuselage
- new cockpit
- new engines
- more carbon-fiber components
- 40% more range

In other words it's a new plane.

Initially it shared the forward fuselage with the F-18, but that was replaced with a new design that had 40% fewer parts.

Sure, the shornet is a far cry from its predecessor but you simply can't ignore the heritage, it is totally obvious.

Having a 'heritage' does not mean it's the same plane.

So yes, the Rafale is more modern.

It first flew almost a decade before the SH, so no.

It now does come with an AESA

AESA isn't scheduled to enter serviced with Rafale until 2012
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... Production

the Damocles I think has also been tested as LDP, and quite importantly has an IIRST/FLIR/Missile combo that the shornet simply can't touch.

1. Damocles does NOT provide IRST.
2. Rafale gets IRST from OSF.
3. OSF is no longer included with Rafales, and won't be until a new model OSF is released . . . in 2012.
4. Damocles has nothing on the ATFLIR pods of the SH (which are already fully integrated and in service).

The most important point however, is really quite simple: you can keep on upgrading the rafale/tiffy and even the flanker to catch up with and even surpass the teens in terms of electronic gear.

The problem with that theoretical scenario is that it takes someone to fund it, and the reality is that the Eurocanards have been been FAR behind the USN in funding upgrades. The SH got AESA in 2005, which is going to be 7 years before the Rafale is SCHEDULED to receive it.

The fact is that no one has shown the kind of demonstrated commitment to keeping their planes current as the USN.

But the teens can't do jack to catch up with the ecanards or the flanker/fulcrum to match flight performance.

And technology advances and missiles become better and better, that becomes less and less relevant.

That advantage stays constant. Over the lifetime of the aircraft (next 40 years), the f-16/18s will fade fastest and be overcome the most easily by a powerful (and rich) china, the fulcrum comes next followed by the flanker and lastly the eurocanards, esp. the twin engined birds.

In 20 years ALL the planes in the MRCA competition will be horribly obsolete because they won't be stealthy.

At that point, any incremental advantage in kinetics is pointless.

The only way to survive will be the latest ECM/ECCM gear. And there's only one competitor I would count on to still be integrating all the latest survivability gizmos 20 years from now: the USN.

The competition that the teens offer is only in terms of avionics, sensors and EW gear, nothing else.

1. That is the most important part of a fighter these days.
2. The SH also offers guaranteed cutting-edge upgrades over its lifetime, something the other competitors just can't promise.

[ramana]

CM<, Can you bulletize your points?

[Raveen]

That was an impressive argument...very well thought out...impressive...KUDOS

[GeorgeWelch]

Actually it appears that the OSF-NG will NOT have IRST, only a TV channel.

Apparently the french think the view provided by the IR MICA missiles will be 'good enough'.

Thus it appears that the SH will have the superior IRST when its system comes online in 2012-2013.

[Samay]

Nearly half of Russian air-to-air missiles with IAF are faulty: CAG report
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=10985
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=10986
First the Mig 29's being structurally flawed and now this...

Just the tip of the iceberg ,called defence purchase .
Looks like babus have sold out ., we will get more info on this in war ,when rambhas will fall like flies ,
like the need of mrca which was felt during kargil .
Seems like ruskies are going to lose the contract
even def minister can see that mig29 has structural flaws. ,
I wonder what CAG was doing when they purchased a thousand bvr missiles ,.

[Cain Marko]

No, it has the same basic fuselage as the F-16.

By comparison the SH has:
- new wings
- new fuselage
- new cockpit
- new engines
- more carbon-fiber components
- 40% more range

In other words it's a new plane.

Initially it shared the forward fuselage with the F-18, but that was replaced with a new design that had 40% fewer parts.

Err, so the fuselage alone is such a decisive factor that makes the shornet a new plane as compared to the f-16blk60, which has almost all the above?. Of course that means the MiG-35 is a 2000s design, right? Good heavens, the basic shape/lines of the bird has not changed since the 70s. In either case, the point is moot since it flies even worse than the original.

Having a 'heritage' does not mean it's the same plane.

Never said it was the "same" plane. That is obvious. What heritage in this sense means is that its flying characteristics will largely be derived from the previous version. Unfortunately for the shornet it is not much of an improvement in this sense.

It first flew almost a decade before the SH, so no.

Amazing logic this Folks we can now safely assume that the MiG-21 Bison or the MiG-29K is a more modern design than the F-22 since its first flight was a little later than the F-22.

AESA isn't scheduled to enter serviced with Rafale until 2012
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... Production

Check out the swiss competition, the production variant AESA was offered on the Rafale. It is ready although the Adla induction may take a little longer. 7 years btw, is hardly a big deal since the europeans chose a totally different route to develop AESAs.

1. Damocles does NOT provide IRST.

It does to some extent (just like the ATFLIR) and is used by the Mirage-2000 as well. You mentioned laser designation, the damocles does in fact do this just like the litening or the sniper.

2. Rafale gets IRST from OSF.

Indeed. And it is something the shornet simply does not have.

3. OSF is no longer included with Rafales, and won't be until a new model OSF is released . . . in 2012.

Any source for this? Never heard of a rafale in service or offered for export without OSF. Of course, they are working on a newer version to be ready by 2012. Lets not confuse the issue.

4. Damocles has nothing on the ATFLIR pods of the SH (which are already fully integrated and in service).

Boss, the damocles is an LDP/FLIR just like the ATFLIR. Only the ATFLIR has to be carried on a pylon for A2A missions, which will never be the same as carrying it integrated as the OSF. Again, OSF is beautifully configured for the A2A environment unlike the ATFLIR. The OSF can provide info for completely passive attacks esp. with the Mica IIR. There is simply no such feature on the Shornet. They are hoping to catch up using a bloody EFT with an IRST. Go figure.

The problem with that theoretical scenario is that it takes someone to fund it, and the reality is that the Eurocanards have been been FAR behind the USN in funding upgrades. The SH got AESA in 2005, which is going to be 7 years before the Rafale is SCHEDULED to receive it.

You wish! The Rafale has a production variant (fully tested) AESA ready and has been offered to customers. IN fact all the MRCA runners will offer such equipment. The Adla never went with it because they didn't seem to find the need for it earlier. The RBE-2 Pesa was considered more than enough. Ditto with an HMS.

The fact is that no one has shown the kind of demonstrated commitment to keeping their planes current as the USN.

BS. Continous upgrades are a part of most professional forces. The IAF does the same with the MKI. The Adla with the Rafale, the RAF with the Tiffy. shall i go on? However, there is no denying that the U.S. is often the first to use the most expensive tech. Not that others can't field it in relatively quick time, its just that they don't/didn't have the $$$s.

And technology advances and missiles become better and better, that becomes less and less relevant.

To think that flight performance on fighters is increasingly irrelevant is bordering on lunacy, All recent designs from the Raptor to the Eurocanards to the Pakfa do/will incorporate huge gains in aero-performance over their predecessors. This is especially the case with 4.5 gen types.

In 20 years ALL the planes in the MRCA competition will be horribly obsolete because they won't be stealthy.

So go ahead and buy a dump truck? Good grief, there is no definite indication that in the next twenty years india will face purely stealth type threats. Stealth is a part of the threat matrix but is not the whole game. The IAF needs to get the best bang for their buck (and it is a LOT of money) in every sense, esp. performance.

If a lack of stealth was to make all the MRCA birds obsolete in 20 year, wonder why the IAF plans to use it for 40 years?

At that point, any incremental advantage in kinetics is pointless.

Actually, if two stealthy a/c with similar sensors face each other, it is precisely the kinematics that will come into play. Even today, at BVR ranges, a/c that can turn-burn are definitely preferred.

The only way to survive will be the latest ECM/ECCM gear. And there's only one competitor I would count on to still be integrating all the latest survivability gizmos 20 years from now: the USN.

Nice try! But 20 years down the road, who knows what the world will look like. at the moment the economic picture hardly looks promising for the U.S.

1. That is the most important part of a fighter these days.
2. The SH also offers guaranteed cutting-edge upgrades over its lifetime, something the other competitors just can't promise.

[/quote]

Aircraft avionics/sensor are one part of the picture, other aspects such as flight performance are equally important. Otherwise, we might as well integrate sooper-dooper gadgets on a cessna. As far as upgrades are concerned, traditionally, the IAF has always been a v.late upgrader. 30 years from now will the USN even use the F-18E/F? A much better guarantee is the Rafale because unlike the USN, the Adla simply has no option (JSF).

CM.

[Shameek]

Broadsword Report - Dassault targets Lockheed

Dassault is asking for Lockheed to be blacklisted. I hope this does not cause further delays.

[Kartik]

That is why the date of design becomes most important.The oldest are the F-16 and F-18 (originally F-17),which were contenders for the USAF,The winner was the F-16.More later.

Philip, please, the fact that the SH is NOT the same as the F-17 or F-18 A/B/C/D has been discussed several times on BR..and while I'm not in favour of the IAF getting a US fighter, its plain ridiculous that you downplay their capabilities to such a degree..had the PAF been getting Super Hornets, I can imagine how much the IAF would've been concerned at that development..

the SH was a re-designed fighter, with dimensions that do not happen to be the same as the F-18 A/B/C/D, with which it shared the OML only for certain sections, but with newer engines and higher payload. and if you have been associated with a remake of a legacy design, you'd know that it means that a very large number of its internal systems are basically re-designed to accomodate for the size, re-engining and payload increase and the entire aircraft recertified. there is a vast difference, airframe wise, between the Hornet and Super Hornet, even more so than the MiG-29 and MiG-35.

and while its airframe and flight characteristics are definitely not be the best around, its sensors, weapons and reliability make it a solid performer, one that actually does the job it was designed to do (or to be more precise, re-designed to do in the 1990s), to the USN's very great satisfaction, rather than looking great in fanboy contests.

a sexier design like the Tomcat had its fans in the aviation community, but for the people on the ground or the ship, its maintenance issues meant that operating it was a very costly affair in terms of maintenance man hours as well as operating costs and availability (which is actually a very under-rated, but very crucial issue) was poor. except for the role of Fleet Defence which the Tomcat was inherently superior for, the Hornet and SH do all other roles that the USN wants, better.

anyway, the flight evaluations will grade both the flight performance as well as the avionics, weapons, etc. the SH will lose out to the rest in the first factor, but will be tough to beat in the other two. cost wise, it may be more competitive than the Rafale and Typhoon, which could give it an edge.

[GeorgeWelch]

the basic shape/lines of the bird has not changed since the 70s.

No, it has a new shape. There are similarities in the shape, yes, but they are different. The SH is 25% larger for goodness sake!

What heritage in this sense means is that its flying characteristics will largely be derived from the previous version.

The SH has very different aerodynamics than the Hornet.

Unfortunately for the shornet it is not much of an improvement in this sense.

It depends on what flying characteristics are important to you.

It succeeded because it improved what was most important to the USN: range and bring-back capability

Amazing logic this Folks we can now safely assume that the MiG-21 Bison or the MiG-29K is a more modern design than the F-22 since its first flight was a little later than the F-22.

No, those were upgrades to existing planes, not new planes. The SH is a new plane.

7 years btw, is hardly a big deal since the europeans chose a totally different route to develop AESAs.

It's only 7 years (and 9 years for the EF) because industry begged and pleaded with the French government to fund AESA development so the Rafale would have a shot at export competitions.

On their own, the French had no interest in AESA.

And even after it's developed, they have no interest in retrofitting it into the rest of the fleet.

Once the Rafale line is shut down and no more export sales are possible, it will be impossible to get the French to fund new updates.

Contrast that with the USN who immediately recognized the value of AESA and developed it because THEY WANTED IT and have committed to retrofitting ALL SHs that can be upgraded. Not because of any concerns about export sales.

3. OSF is no longer included with Rafales, and won't be until a new model OSF is released . . . in 2012.

Any source for this? Never heard of a rafale in service or offered for export without OSF.

http://www.electronicaviation.com/aircr ... Rafale/819

The DGA also described Rafale's OSF ("Optronique Secteur Frontal") as "obsolescent" and production has been cut back to just 48 units, rather than the planned number, which was to have been sufficient to equip all F1 and F2 versions.

The OSF can provide info for completely passive attacks esp. with the Mica IIR. There is simply no such feature on the Shornet.

Nor is there on the Rafale any more.

They are hoping to catch up using a bloody EFT with an IRST.

Better than relying an on AAM.

You wish! The Rafale has a production variant (fully tested) AESA ready and has been offered to customers.

Did you read the article I linked?

Customers will be able to get an AESA equipped Rafale . . . in 2012 (at the earliest)

IN fact all the MRCA runners will offer such equipment.

In their offers they claim they will have it at some future date. But none of them except the SH and F-16IN have it now.

The Adla never went with it because they didn't seem to find the need for it earlier.

Or perhaps they didn't have the money.

The RBE-2 Pesa was considered more than enough.

Also from the electronicaviation.com article:

Dassault have called the RBE2 radar 'fatally flawed' alleging that its range was "inadequate" and averring that the Rafale therefore relied on AWACS support to overcome this

If I were India, I would be more disturbed that the DGA was comfortable with such an obsolescent system and saw no need to upgrade it until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the new era.

The fact is that no one has shown the kind of demonstrated commitment to keeping their planes current as the USN.

BS. Continous upgrades are a part of most professional forces. The IAF does the same with the MKI.

When is the MKI getting AESA?

The Adla with the Rafale, the RAF with the Tiffy. shall i go on?

And none of them keep up with the USN.

However, there is no denying that the U.S. is often the first to use the most expensive tech. Not that others can't field it in relatively quick time, its just that they don't/didn't have the $$$s.

Well yes, that is the point isn't it?

And technology advances and missiles become better and better, that becomes less and less relevant.

To think that flight performance on fighters is increasingly irrelevant is bordering on lunacy

Lunacy is to think that improved kinetics will enable you to outfly the latest missiles.

In 20 years ALL the planes in the MRCA competition will be horribly obsolete because they won't be stealthy.

So go ahead and buy a dump truck?

You have to look at what factors will be most important to survivability in the future.

Kinetics are nice, but they are FAR down the list below such items as ECM/ECCM.

And for ECM/ECCM, I would trust the SHs future far more than any of the others.

Good grief, there is no definite indication that in the next twenty years india will face purely stealth type threats.

I'm not just talking about stealth planes.

I am talking about advanced SAM networks. Which country devotes the most money and research into penetrating the most sophisticated SAM networks?

I'm talking about all enemy planes being fitted with super powerful long-range AESA radars and super-maneuverable long-range missiles.

When the enemy can see you from a long way away and fire a powerful missile towards you, which offers better protection:
1. Trying to dodge a 30-G missile with a 10-G plane (impossible)
2. Letting the ECM hopelessly confuse the missle and guide it astray.

The key for (2) though is that you have to stay absolutely current. Being 7-10 years behind is just deadly.

If a lack of stealth was to make all the MRCA birds obsolete in 20 year, wonder why the IAF plans to use it for 40 years?

Because there are always 'low-threat' situations like the US in Afghanistan.

And in a low-threat situation, the kinetics don't matter anyways.

Even today, at BVR ranges, a/c that can turn-burn are definitely preferred

That's a fool's game, especially as missiles improve.

Far more effective to have the latest ECM/ECCM gear.

The only way to survive will be the latest ECM/ECCM gear. And there's only one competitor I would count on to still be integrating all the latest survivability gizmos 20 years from now: the USN.

Nice try! But 20 years down the road, who knows what the world will look like. at the moment the economic picture hardly looks promising for the U.S.

20 years from now, the US will still spend substantially more on its military than any Euro country.

Aircraft avionics/sensor are one part of the picture, other aspects such as flight performance are equally important. Otherwise, we might as well integrate sooper-dooper gadgets on a cessna.

I never said flight performance isn't important. Where you mess up is saying that it is EQUALLY as important as avionics/sensors. Clearly it is not, not even close in fact.

30 years from now will the USN even use the F-18E/F?

Yes, in fact, it will make up the majority of its fleet.

A much better guarantee is the Rafale because unlike the USN, the Adla simply has no option (JSF).

The problem is that France has already demonstrated it is perfectly content with obsolescent equipment because they never have to use it. That is not an option for the US. I think it's fairly safe to say that the US will be involved in more conflicts and more dangerous conflicts than France over the next 20 years.

[Raveen]

again very well thought out...bout K n G...great arguments

[ramana]

Broadsword Report - Dassault targets Lockheed

Dassault is asking for Lockheed to be blacklisted. I hope this does not cause further delays.

In US that kind of behavior would lead to being debarred from contracts.

Ask Boeing with the rocket launcher competetion in during Clinton Admin..

[Cain Marko]

GWelch,

I frankly will not get into a needless argument, least of all one that takes up so much time.

My basic premise was:

The shornet has some pretty nasty airframe flaws and there seems little progress in trying to fix these. All fixes so far have been bandaids with side-effects. I've already mentioned that the shornet does have certain strong points esp. as related to the USN.

The Rafale or other MRCa candidates otoh, do not suffer from these. To push it as though it is flawless or the greatest and the best is ridiculous in view of the shortcomings.
Not to say the other a/c don't have downsides - but these being related to equipment/avionics/sensors can be overcome as has been evident with the progress of the eurocanards as well as mig.

As a fighter (in terms of turn rates, acceleration, speed, climb rates, supercruise, range etc etc), the shornet lags behind by a good distance. How anyone can just gloss over this is quite frankly beyond my limited comprehension.

CM.

[Shameek]

In US that kind of behavior would lead to being debarred from contracts.

I agree. But how do you think this will effect the schedule? I hope things dont get postponed as far as the process with the other vendors goes.

[GeorgeWelch]

The shornet has some pretty nasty airframe flaws

It's a little slower and draggier, but hardly 'nasty'.

It is very safe, reliable, rugged and maintenance friendly.

As a fighter (in terms of turn rates, acceleration, speed, climb rates, supercruise, range etc etc), the shornet lags behind by a good distance. How anyone can just gloss over this is quite frankly beyond my limited comprehension.

You can't just look at the past, you must also look to the future.

Missiles and sensors have improved so much that it's a different world than it was 20 years ago, and 20 years from now the difference will be even more pronounced.

Engaging in a 'dogfight' will be at best mutually-assured suicide. Your ONLY hope is that your countermeasures are effective. Similarly, penetrating a moderns IADS requires the absolute latest tech. Being 7-10 years behind is not good enough and will just get you blown out of the sky.

Given the supreme importance avionics/sensors/ecm/etc play now and will play in the future, it makes sense to hitch your wagon to the horse that has demonstrated the most commitment ($$$) to keeping their fleet current.

The USN is tasked with some of the most difficult missions in the US military. They have to be able to take all comers with no outside support and no excuses. It is their duty to be able defend against or attack anyone in the world and it's a duty they take seriously. And they have the resources to do it.

Need I remind you that the SH has at least 2 kills against the Raptor, which enjoys far superior kinetics to any of the MRCA competitors?

Underestimate the SH at your own peril.

[Bhaskar]

^^^ Gagn, Bhasksr Atleast take the time to read the couple of existing posts before posting!

What the hell are you talking about? Understand what you are posting before posting anything.

[Kartik]

Actually it appears that the OSF-NG will NOT have IRST, only a TV channel.

Apparently the french think the view provided by the IR MICA missiles will be 'good enough'.

Thus it appears that the SH will have the superior IRST when its system comes online in 2012-2013.

though you must hand it to them for really choosing a wierd location for the IRST..they're looking to place the IRST on the centerline fuel tank..there are quite a few emergencies where SOP requires the punching of drop tanks, and here we have a crucial sensor (which costs millions of dollars) located on what is meant to be expendable. unless those drop tanks are non-jettisonable. but even then, it means a draggier frame if the pilot should need to use the IRST. in air-defence configuration the centerline fuel tank may be nearly always used, but the compromise solution of putting the IRST on the centerline fuel tank just doesn't go down well..

and thats what some people argue is the problem with the SH, and its a valid point..issues crop up which are solved in ways that compromise the flying performance of the fighter itself. like the canted pylons for instance and in this case, the lack of space in the nose for an IRST..

[sunilUpa]

^^^ Gagn, Bhasksr Atleast take the time to read the couple of existing posts before posting!

What the hell are you talking about? Understand what you are posting before posting anything.

If you had bothered to read the title of the thread, it is MRCA News and Discussion. Neither the RVV-AE missiles already in the IAF inventory nor Mig-29 are any part of 'MRCA news and discussion'. If you had also bothered to read Indian military aviation thread, the news you posted was already posted on July 15th.

As to Gagan, the news he posted was already posted just two psts above his.

All I was aking you guys is to read what is posted and the thread title before posting (even after your editing it is still OT).

That's what I was talking about...got it? Now Shoo..

[Raman]

I have no dog in this fight, but I feel compelled to chime in.

Going by GeorgeWelch's argument, why does the USAF bother with F-22, etc. Why not load up a B-52 up to its gills with ECM/ECCM and 100x Amraam?

Of course ECM and ECCM matter ... but so does kinematics, even for BVR fights. It's not a question of out-running a missile, but getting into a situation where your missile will out range your opponents because of additional energy imparted to the missile through additional altitude and velocity, and denying your opponent that same advantage. BVR tactics hinges on sprinting and shooting (maximize A-pole) and decelerating and cranking (minimize E-pole). The SH may excel at the decelerating due to its angled pylons and tank-mounted IRST , but is going to be a sub-par performer for everything else.

That said, the SH is a very mature striker and may be an excellent complement to the MKI, which can provide top-cover.

Unfortunately, I don't trust the Americans --- they are far too heavily invested in the Pakistanis in terms of geo-politics, blood, treasure, equipment, history, etc. I've always thought that it would be better to start off the US-Indian military engagement through munitions (JSOW, SDB, etc.) and then slowly escalate into larger items (e.g., attack helicopters) instead of a big-bang $10B deal without a history of understanding of each other's idiosyncrasies.

[Kartik]

Unfortunately, I don't trust the Americans --- they are far too heavily invested in the Pakistanis in terms of geo-politics, blood, treasure, equipment, history, etc. I've always thought that it would be better to start off the US-Indian military engagement through munitions (JSOW, SDB, etc.) and then slowly escalate into larger items (e.g., attack helicopters) instead of a big-bang $10B deal without a history of understanding of each other's idiosyncrasies.

I agree with what you say here..with very little US equipment in service, its a big risk to induct a US type in such large numbers all of a sudden, without first experimenting with smaller and less important equipment. thats when the IAF would come to know what the drawbacks and advantages to having the US as a supplier can be..

[GeorgeWelch]

Going by GeorgeWelch's argument, why does the USAF bother with F-22, etc. Why not load up a B-52 up to its gills with ECM/ECCM and 100x Amraam?

Because kinetics do matter.

Just not as much as everyone seems to think.

And the SH isn't nearly as bad as some here make it out to be. Maneuverability is perfectly fine, range is fine, top end speed isn't the best, but most planes never use it anyways.

It's not a question of out-running a missile, but getting into a situation where your missile will out range your opponents because of additional energy imparted to the missile through additional altitude and velocity, and denying your opponent that same advantage.

There are certain situations where that can happen, but it is rare and certainly beyond risky to rely solely on that as a means of avoiding danger. You never know when the enemy will sneak closer than you expect.

Unfortunately, I don't trust the Americans

Fortunately, it's not actually that risky for the Indians.

1. Local production of most items and blueprints/plans for the rest makes it embargo-proof.
2. A large stockpile of spares protects against any sudden disruption in supplies.
3. In even the absolute worst case scenario of the the entire SH fleet being grounded, it's not the IAF's top-of-the-line fighter. There will be 200+ Su-30MKIs plus modernized MiG-29s and modernized Mirages that should be more than capable of dealing with anything Pakistan can put together. And that's just until the FGFA/MCA/LCA come online.

In a war with China, any of the other suppliers would be far more likely to buckle to China's demands, so the US would actually be the safest choice.

[putnanja]

Even with blueprints etc, it is not easy to produce the required items on very short notice. If the US enforces sanctions during war to force India to end its campaign against its sidekick, then with all the blueprints in the world, India won't be in a position to get the spares out immediately. There will be long lead time for India to produce any part.

Keeping a large stockpile is putting lots of money to keep a big inventory. And if some of these parts have short shelf life, then it will be a waste too. And as can be seen recently, US is putting lots of pressure on India to talk to pakistan, which to many Indians is equivalent to US being asked to talk to bin-laden and make peace.

Why go to all these efforts if we can get comparable planes without associated risks from other countries?

[GeorgeWelch]

And if some of these parts have short shelf life, then it will be a waste too

If there are critical parts with a short shelf life, then they should be locally manufactured. But what would that be? Most of the plane is metal, carbon fiber and silicon.

Why go to all these efforts if we can get comparable planes without associated risks from other countries?

It would be wrong to assume that the other countries carry no risk.

Britain just embargoed parts for Israel's patrol boats.
France turned over the codes for Argentina's Exocets to Britain while they were at war.
All the EU embargoes China because of 'human rights abuses'.

And Russia, well Russia already has influence over an uncomfortably large portion of the IAF's fleet, I'm not sure it would be prudent to give them more.

There is no such thing as a 100% reliable supplier. In matters of national security, it is incumbent on you to take steps to protect yourself. These steps should be taken regardless of who is chosen.

[Raman]

It's not a question of out-running a missile, but getting into a situation where your missile will out range your opponents because of additional energy imparted to the missile through additional altitude and velocity, and denying your opponent that same advantage.

There are certain situations where that can happen, but it is rare and certainly beyond risky to rely solely on that as a means of avoiding danger. You never know when the enemy will sneak closer than you expect.

George,

It is equally (if not more dangerous) to rely purely on ECM/ECCM especially when missiles can HOJ. When you prosecute a BVR contact, you commit fully and give yourself the best advantage. That means giving your missile the best kinematic advantage, cranking and, of course, utilize ECM/ECCM as necessary.

A pilot can much better judge the geometry and physics of a fight (i.e., kinematics) and prosecute or break away from an engagement. It is far more dangerous to "play the music" (ECM/ECCM) and hope that the opponent's radar and missiles get confused when the opponents own ECM/ECCM capabilities are unknown (e.g., China).

There is no such thing as a 100% reliable supplier. In matters of national security, it is incumbent on you to take steps to protect yourself. These steps should be taken regardless of who is chosen.

That is a given. However, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. We have worked with the French and Russians, and for better or worse, known how they operate. We do not have that knowledge with the US, which is a far riskier situation. The only "deep" engagement we had with the US in the field of military aviation was with LCA's FBW system ... and we all know how that ended up.

[GeorgeWelch]

It is equally (if not more dangerous) to rely purely on ECM/ECCM

Is it more risky to rely solely on kinetics or solely on ECM?

I would say kinetics is obviously the riskier choice because you simply can't outfly today's and tomorrow's missiles.

especially when missiles can HOJ.

That is why the comment about being on the cutting edge and not 7-10 years behind is so important.

It is also why towed and air-launched decoys are important

[Bhaskar]

What the hell are you talking about? Understand what you are posting before posting anything.

If you had bothered to read the title of the thread, it is MRCA News and Discussion. Neither the RVV-AE missiles already in the IAF inventory nor Mig-29 are any part of 'MRCA news and discussion'. If you had also bothered to read Indian military aviation thread, the news you posted was already posted on July 15th.

As to Gagan, the news he posted was already posted just two psts above his.

All I was aking you guys is to read what is posted and the thread title before posting (even after your editing it is still OT).

That's what I was talking about...got it? Now Shoo..

If your not aware already, the thing is that Mig-35, which is an upgrade to the Mig-29 is in the MRCA race.
As this being a big deal ($10 billion) then certainly, countries press for their own aircraft to win.
A country's past record has a hand in determining the possibility of it's plane winning the MRCA.
If the Mig-29's were structurally flawed, and half the russian missiles were faulty, then certainy the IAF will doubt the capabilities of the Mig-35.
And i only edited the title so both of my links can fit in.
I dont think it was off topic, but ur stupid post certainly was. Now get back to the topic. shoo..

[Devesh Rawal]

I don't claim to know anything about the real Indian defence establishment.

[speculation on]
From the recent noise about the lack of reliability of Russian hardware to the geopolitical French warmth, the most obvious mind setting seems to suggest that two of the perpetrators have jumped into the front:
SH (Boeing push)
Rafale (political push)

I think this is going the SH way, with us following the OZ example eventually to convert 30-odd options to the Growler standard. Why not? This is a surely a potent threat to countering and exercising against the "friendly" north. Forget TSP, can't keep thinking about Indian force projection, through that prism anymore. Growing up and becoming a dominant air power with capability to attack. Period.

EADS will be kept happy supplying the MRTT. Sorry Typhoon, you're good but we have the MKI already.

Lockmart will be very happy to convince the GOI that the F-35 is a better bet than the FGFA (in 2 years time). Just like US think tanks, IAF/Navy will start pushing the same doctrine - no need for an expensive F22-type, go for mass production, easy to acquire alternative. Having already deployed SHs, network centricity takes top priority, not airframe capability. Since TSP acquired F-16s and we got Mig-29s, how many dogfights or bvr engagements to date? Exactly. How better to do it than get both Boeing and LockMart into the Indian establishment (sarcastic, but benefit for both parties).


So in my mind the big question is Rafale or SH.
Rafale does not have a Growler equivalent does it?

Like others have pointed out time and time again, India's true independence and bargain rights can only be proven in a solid MCA program applying the many lessons learnt from the LCA and acquisition of the MRCA.
jai ho!

[Philip]

"..lack of reliability of Russian hardware".This is a myth,as the SU-30MKI programme has shown,of which we are buying even more of the type,as well as the MIG-21 Bison upgrades.In fact,both the MIG-27 and MIG-29 are being upgraded,with Russia upgrading the MIG-29.At Aero-India this year,the MIG-35 reportedly flew with an AESA radar,flown by IAF pilots.I do believe that ALL the contestants will fly their aircraft in the evaluations with a functioning AESA radar if it is a key requirement of the brief.

As to my remarks about the SH,one cannot deny that the SH is an upgrade of the basic F-17/18,just look at it and the earliest examples.It is NOT a "new" aircraft,no matter how good the upgrades.As said before,it is also the last avatar of the basic design which dates back from the '70s.The fact of the matter is that who is buying the F-18 these days when the JSF a totally "new"aircraft with "new" tech. is availble to US allies? Even Oz is buying a few more Sh's as an "interim" buy due to the delay in the arrival of the JSF.As I've said,both the US aircraft are not worth spending $85-100 million per unit,though the F-16 might come in at under that figure.Pak operates it and the latest Chinese version of the Lavi (itself an F-16 copy),the FC-20,will be in the same class.

Aerodynmaically,as a BAe pilot told me at Aero-India who has flown almost all the types,Typhoon included,Russian aerodynamics are superior to western designs,and the MIG-35 superior to anything flying.However,while the MIG-35 can possibly beat the pants off any of its competitors in dogfighting,the MIG-35 has to prove that it has a BVR missile and AESA radar equal to the rest and that its strike capabilities in terms of GA/strike with stand-off PGMs meet requirements, as well as range and endurance with the max payload demanded in any climatic condition.The life cycle of the engine,etc. and the ease and cost of maintenance,ready availability of spares,cost of training,cost per unit including weaponry, cost per flying hour,capability for major upgrades,etc.,become the deciding factors.My fear for the MIG-35 is that its cost might be too little per unit when compared with the rest ,as babudom loves a costly buy! The Typhoon and Rafale are the 5* offerings.One is eagerly looking forward to see what the "taste" of the IAF and the defence establishment is going to be,Bourbon,Vodka-Absolut or Stolichnaya,Champagne or a cocktail of Scotch,Schnapps and Grappa!

There is no point in buying an aircraft that has little room for major upgrade within the next two decades which will arrive only in 2012 if a decision is taken expeditiously as scheduled.The IAF will be operating even better versions of the Flanker,which will have 5th-gen tech. in them,plus by 2015 have the new 5th-gen fighter in initial service,as it is going to begin test flying later this year.In fact the vastly superior SU-30MKis upgraded, will most probably be even cheaper than the MMRCA.One can only reason the MMRCA buy as a desire to have a smaller single seat aircraft given the shortage of pilots being experienced.The MMRCA must be a cost-effective and contemporary solution to serve the IAF for 2-3 decades at least if we are going to spend a minimum of $10billion,which might swell if the order reaches 200 aircraft!