MRCA News and Discussion

kit · Post by **kit** » 12 Aug 2009 19:11

I am wondering how this 'strategic' angle is to turn out , militarily Russia is of more strategic value to India but economic and political 'strategic' value is more for the USA.Sweden has none and Europe is the dark horse, France is somewhere in between Russia and America,but since they were kicked out once its likely that they are not serious contenders.That leaves just the Mig 35 and F 18., once the 'strategic' considerations come in.At least things have become a bit clearer.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Aug 2009 19:37

Austin,I think an old IDR had a feature on the MIG-35,showing its 360 degree coverage for its IRST sensors,located at spots on the fusellage.An interesting motto of the late Adm.Gorshkov,which hung in his office,which I've used in another post,that "Better,is the enemy of good enough"!This something that the IAF should ponder upon while making their choices for the MMRCA.As I posted earlier,A Ford or Skoda will do the job just as efficiently as Merc. or Beemer.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Aug 2009 19:44

Sanku wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=11094
it seems like mig-35 and amrikans fighters are going to lag in the race.
No it says strategic considerations, that a pretty way of saying that IAF requirements are going to be given the shaft and PMO is going to decide which a/c to buy, which we know will be from our strategic partner only.

Yup, the IAF doing all the tests is so that the govt can later claim that they went by IAF's recommendation. Of course, the full IAF report isn't going to be made public until much later. See how the bofors gun was scuttled earlier even though according to IA , it met or exceeded the GSQR. Shiv Aroor had posted the documents on his blog.

Given that F16 is pretty old frame, a old lady in a new dress, that only leaves the SH, though it may not be IAF's choice.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Aug 2009 22:51

Yeah even I have the same thinking , if we can get Mig-35 with what ever IAF demands at say $ 5 Billion .... why spend $10 billion on Rafale ?

If Mig-35 can do 85 % of what a Rafale can do at 50 % of cost then its a good enough to beef up squadron strength with logistic advantage to add.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 12 Aug 2009 23:40

Does anyone know the RCS of the Mig-35? It doesn't seem to have a lot of modifications done to it to reduce the rcs but I could be wrong.
Austin: do you truly believe that if the Mig-35 is chosen all the aircraft will be procured for 5+ billion. Russia will somehow demand the full 10 billion that's always quoted. Plus the Russian AESA is further behind in development than the French or Swedes, there is no way that it will be as capable when tested in the field trials.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Aug 2009 23:41

Austin wrote:If Mig-35 can do 85 % of what a Rafale can do at 50 % of cost then its a good enough to beef up squadron strength with logistic advantage to add.

Indeed! Unless the IAF absolutely wanted a marginal esoteric capability provided only by a western a/c and also because they emphasized western a/c for the sake of western a/c (Diversification). IN this case, I hope the Rafale gets the nod.

The Gripen NG would really have been an excellent choice had Saab chosen to go with EJ-200 or preferably even Al-31 engines - it may even turn out cheaper than the 35 in terms of lifetime ownership (debatable, but it is certainly closest to the fulcrum in terms of costs). It also offers some excellent "western" top-end technology, great TOT and offsets. Unfortunately carries a sanction susceptible American engine - the GE 414.

CM.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Aug 2009 23:44

I am still thinking EF2K is sooo strong! (strategically speaking)

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Aug 2009 23:54

b_patel wrote:Does anyone know the RCS of the Mig-35? It doesn't seem to have a lot of modifications done to it to reduce the rcs but I could be wrong.
Austin: do you truly believe that if the Mig-35 is chosen all the aircraft will be procured for 5+ billion. Russia will somehow demand the full 10 billion that's always quoted. Plus the Russian AESA is further behind in development than the French or Swedes, there is no way that it will be as capable when tested in the field trials.

Last I read was about 0.8 msq on a roosi forum. But they have touted a 5 - 10 X reduction for the longest time so 0.5 - 1msq clean makes sense. The russkis have very elaborate RAM application to achieve RCS reduction. Based on this (and the use of composites), they have had some good results. Eg. Su-35 @ less than 3 msq. The IAF MiG-21 i think enjoys some of this and has been found elusive even to E3s

As far as russia demanding a $ 10 billion tag for the 35, they'd have to provide some major justification for such a cost increase over the MiG-29K, which came at a mere $ 46 million including support, training, sims etc. Even the Su-30 is offered @ $ 45-50 million. A mere AESA and optional TVC is hardly going to warrant a dramatic increase in price. No, I think the russkis are smart enough to know that this is their trump card and will probly offer the entire production line, TOT, export licenses et al @ a very competitive price ($ 50-60 million per bird). They may demand however, that at such a low price a quantity worth the entire $ 10.2 billoin be bought, close to 200 a/c. Just guessing though.

As far as the AESA goes, we'll see. Just when everyone had poohpoohed their prowess in radar mfg, they suddenly demoed a working miniature AESA @ AeroIndia 07. Came from nowhere. I wouldn't take them lightly at all. It all depends on the size of the TRMs too, perhaps if Micran can still not make 'em small enough they'll go with the germans.

CM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2009 02:35

SaiK wrote:I am still thinking EF2K is sooo strong! (strategically speaking)

And, why may I ask? Seriously.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2009 02:37

b_patel wrote:
So, not ToT of EF.
The "four" will build and sell and EADS will provide more in terms of offsets it looks like to me. Is that right?
There will be TOT for the EF the requirements of the MRCA state that (I think). India would most likely build certain components of the eurofighter for future sales/orders. Obviously you can't Include India as the fifth partner they didn't do any of the work for the EF! But I think EADS would consider India as a fifth partner for future Tranches of the aircraft. India would have a say in what is upgraded etc. (I think thats what EADS refers to when they call India a "partner"). I mean lets face it they are about to purchase almost the same as any of the partner nations 200+ aircraft. Im assuming India exercises its option for the additional aircraft.
The EF or the Rafale should win this, EADS and Dassault are desperate for an order of this magnitude. They are doing what they have to in order to secure this deal. If they weren't so desperate I doubt EADS would make the offer of India becoming their preferred "partner". They didn't do it for Saudi Arabia.

Either I misinterpreted or you did not read the EADS Prez comment:

Yes. It must be different because I would like to point out that India has the great opportunity to become our industrial partner. However, it cannot be that we say “Okay. India could become a fifth partner and then we divide everything through five instead of four.” Of course this is not possible, let us be clear among ourselves.

India is NOT the fifth partner.

Ted Kotcheff · Post by **Ted Kotcheff** » 13 Aug 2009 03:02

IMHO, while brain addled Bo may support Pukis now, in a decade or two, the chinkus are gonna whack Unkil in every department and before that happens, Unkil would be running to India to save their posterior.

So strategic, political or whatever it may be, in retrospect, buying the whorenet may not be a bad idea w.r.t EUM. India would have unlimited rights to use it against pakisatan or chinkus. As to the capabilities of the fighter, that's a different question.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2009 03:03

saptarishi wrote:
Philip wrote:Lt.Gen. Utterback,whom I quoted earlier,the head of the US's 18th Air Force,says in an aviation mag,that he "flew the SU-30MKI" (this means that India allowed him to fly our most sophistiucated air dominance aircraft) and tried every way in which to destabilise the aircraft but couldn't.He was full of praise for it said that it was very easy to fly and reliable and also better than the MIG-29 (not MIG-35).Given his views on the Flanker,why should we even consider buying old hags from the US?
one thing is for sure nobody wants f-16in,,,f/a-18in has a good chance because of apg-79, ge-f414-400 being married to LCA andsome amount of US political pressure,but again,USA will offer limited tech transfer,,,i don't know whether source codes will be offered ,,then there will be monitoring the weapons up for sale,,,,further if there is a war with the porkis,,USA may restrict their use stating that no ''MAJOR NON NATO ALLY WILL BE HARMED USING USING US WEAPONS''. in such case we will be at a disadvantage,,,moreover rafales,typhoons ,mig-35s are sufficient i think,,,,,full TOT on AESA,, full transfer of source codes,,,GOI will have a tough task ahead of them

Well, techs in the US do not stand still. Besides Boeing and LM, although they do compete, they also collaborate too:

http://www.answers.com/topic/f-16-fighting-falcon

The F-16E/F is outfitted with Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, making it only the third fighter to be so equipped.[57][59] Northrop Grumman has continued to develop this system into the Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR).[60]

In July 2007, Raytheon announced that it was developing a new Raytheon Next Generation Radar (RANGR) based on its earlier AN/APG-79 AESA radar as an alternative candidate to Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG-68 and AN/APG-80 for new-build F-16s as well as retrofit of existing ones.[30][61] On 1 November 2007, Boeing selected this design for development under the USAF’s F-15E Radar Modernization Program (RMP).[62]

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Aug 2009 03:57

the strategy to be pally with unkil is one thing, and being strategic to be independent from his toys is entirely a different thing. how are we saying strategic means any concrete case is valid for an abstract term. btw, the same can turn back being strategically tied with russia or france. imho, we have to decide what strategic means, given what params.

we all are guessing here.. why not mine is valid guess on equal terms?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Aug 2009 05:38

some interesting details from the latest issue of AW&ST regarding the Typhoon.

- during next few months, they aim to have in place, upgrade plans, which include integrating the Meteor ramjet powered missile and a radar with AESA. By year end the industrial team will try to pinpoint the cost and timeline for fitting an AESA on the Typhoon. and although Eurofighter CEO Enzo Cassolini deems the technology "mature", he says meeting a 2013 in-service deadline will be difficult.

- Moving ahead on the radar is crucial for export campaigns, particularly India and Japan

- Another Eurofighter related question concerns the member state's competing AESA initiatives. The UK is pursuing a separate research activity through Selex Galileo's British operations, and Germany, italy and Spain are focused on the Euroradar consortium effort involving EADS, Indra and the Italian arm of Selex Galileo. The shape of an industrial team for the production system is not yet finalised

- Tranche 3A cost $13.1 billion for 112 fighters, but Cassolini claims that the fly-away cost of a Typhoon is only Euro 59 million, which is $80.37 million. The reason for the high Tranche 3A contract cost was that the contract included nearly Euro 2.5 billion in non-recurring engineering and certification work to deal with parts obsolescence and to cover some upgrades not in the Tranche 2 system.

- The UK is trying to include 24 Typhoons that it bought but transferred to Saudi Arabia, as part of its Tranche 3A commitment. The reason it did so was to jump-start deliveries to Saudis, and now the UK is posturing to have other Typhoon partners accept that its Tranche 3B commitment can be met by securing further export orders..

(my point- maybe something that the UK could look at - transferring some of its 18-20 Typhoons ordered under T3B, and giving a discount to India on those Typhoons, and using those 18-20 that will be sold as flyaway units to reduce its commitment due to funding issues)

- Apart from parts obsolescence issues, the Tranche 3A aircraft are basically similar to the Tranche 2 aircraft, despite 5 years having passed since that configuration was frozen. In parallel, industry is working on Phase 1 Enhancement program to add, among other features, new weapons to Tranche2 versions, as well as a LDP.

-A so-called Phase 2 Enhancement plan is also planned, although at this point, its cost, timeline and scope have not yet been identified. Casolini expects govts to employ more of a "a la carte" approach to upgrades, in which only some countries will sign up for individual features (my point- something to keep in mind for the future as IAF specific upgrades will be natural). But that would come at a price, because in-service support costs would increase as more and more configurations have to be supported.

-Integrating Storm Shadow and Taurus and adding the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) are nominally on the agenda for that phase, as well as CFTs for extended range.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 13 Aug 2009 05:39

Ted Kotcheff wrote:So strategic, political or whatever it may be, in retrospect, buying the whorenet may not be a bad idea w.r.t EUM. India would have unlimited rights to use it against pakisatan or chinkus.

I have nothing against day dreaming as long as it doesn't impact the decision making.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2009 06:13

IMHO, the EF has just too long a to-do list. And then considering that UK is tossing their "Tranche" overboard, I just do not think it is worth it - risk too high. Four partners, no ToT, offsets are meaningless (from what I can see).

My vote: single engine: Gripen, two engines: Rafale.

Russia gets FGFA, so they cannot cry. (I do not trust their 'we are buying XXX MiG-35s for our AF'. Bunk.

End of day: F-18 is coming, obviously no one in ND (NOT IAF) is listening to me.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 13 Aug 2009 06:18

NRao wrote: End of day: F-18 is coming, obviously no one in ND (NOT IAF) is listening to me.

I have been saying that too from day one. The IAF knows that what it wants might not necessarily be what is finally selected. So they go through the motions, and they get what the govt wants them to have.

My vote: single engine-none , better have souped up LCA. dual-engine: Rafale

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2009 08:29

Price is a key trump card the Russians hold ( including TOT cost ) , Even with all the bells and whistles that IAF wants or expects it wont be surprising Mig-35 costs under $50 million.

Mig has nothing to looose from here and every thing to gain , they have a good product to sell , price is what they can control and logistics advantage adds the icing.

A MMRCA win will change their fortune for good and we can extract the best price for it.

If Mig is desperate to win , they will come up with a good product to satisfy IAF.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Aug 2009 08:36

Price is a key trump card the Russians hold ( including TOT cost ) , Even with all the bells and whistles that IAF wants or expects it wont be surprising Mig-35 costs under $50 million.

have to agree here. And it seems that this might just be what the IAF/GOI are looking for: Cheapest fighter that meets the RFP, a marginal extra performance is not going to matter it seems. At least according to this report:

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... st/366826/

The IAF’s answer was an unambiguous negative. “We will not be comparing the aircraft with one another. We have made out a “Compliance Matrix”, and we will only require each fighter’s performance to comply with what we have demanded in the RfP (Request for Proposals, or the tender). There are no extra points for having, say, 50% extra capability. Each contender just has to meet the IAF’s laid down requirements.”.......

In that case, the cheapest bid will win, with the MoD evaluating costs on a “Life Cycle” basis. That includes all the costs over a 30-40 year life-cycle, adding the per unit purchase price to the costs of technology, indigenous manufacture, infrastructure, repair and maintenance, operating expenses, and a host of other hidden costs. The IAF calls it “Cost of Ownership”; this method of calculation is being adopted for the first time by India for a capital equipment purchase from abroad.

Western vendors, whose military equipment has traditionally had higher ticket prices, claim that the “Cost of Ownership” calculation will tilt the equation in their favour, especially when compared with Russian equipment that they accuse of being maintenance-heavy, demanding vast quantities of spares, and spending more time on the ground than in the air.

I think "western" vendors may be surprised on how much the newer fulcrums might have trimmed excess baggage in terms of maintenance, the IN deal is a good indication.

CM.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 13 Aug 2009 08:41

Cain Marko wrote:have to agree here. And it seems that this might just be what the IAF/GOI are looking for: Cheapest fighter that meets the RFP, a marginal extra performance is not going to matter it seems.

Actually the report states a contradiction between the MoD and the IAF statements. The MoD assured EADS that extra performance would result in more brownie points while the IAF reportedly denies it.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Aug 2009 08:51

shameekg wrote:Actually the report states a contradiction between the MoD and the IAF statements. The MoD assured EADS that extra performance would result in more brownie points while the IAF reportedly denies it.

Yup you are right. Mixed signals there. My point should have been that if it is the latter case - "bang for the buck" with no real importance to additional ability, then the super fulcrum stands a better chance.

Not that the fulcrum is a slouch. I am guessing it'll be up there with the best in some of the criteria.

CM.

nishug · Post by **nishug** » 13 Aug 2009 10:15

Cain Marko wrote: Yup you are right. Mixed signals there. My point should have been that if it is the latter case - "bang for the buck" with no real importance to additional ability, then the super fulcrum stands a better chance.

Not that the fulcrum is a slouch. I am guessing it'll be up there with the best in some of the criteria.

CM.

The point is what extra capability manufacturer is providing than “Compliance Matrix” ..... if we already have that capability in Su30 MKI why duplicate it and pay more ?

smestarz · Post by **smestarz** » 13 Aug 2009 13:47

I was thinking of what I would look in an MRCA from laymans prespective

1. The Aircraft should be single engine Turbofan (definately not F-16 anyway)
I am looking at Single engine as one engine is easier to maintain than 2.
If case of twin engline, the speed would be good but then if one engine fails the plane cannot take off. But if twin engine fails when flying there is good chance it will return. But maintaining two engines need twice the man hours
Turbofan engine as they give a better range and endurance, turbojet give a good speed.

2. Hard points, external (about 11-13) thats how it will be able to hit anything in force.

3. Airi intakes, Possibly two in the body (not 1 like F-16) or one intake behind the pilot just after the air brake

Shall think of more

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2009 16:53

Austin wrote:Price is a key trump card the Russians hold ( including TOT cost ) , Even with all the bells and whistles that IAF wants or expects it wont be surprising Mig-35 costs under $50 million.

Mig has nothing to looose from here and every thing to gain , they have a good product to sell , price is what they can control and logistics advantage adds the icing.

A MMRCA win will change their fortune for good and we can extract the best price for it.

If Mig is desperate to win , they will come up with a good product to satisfy IAF.

Austin ji,

Post makes total sense.

However, my question is on what basis can they maintain "services" for the life of this air craft in the IAF?

I totally agree with your argument that they have nothing to lose, etc, etc, etc. But that by itself poses a problem. The concern I have is that the "MiG-35" will be a an Indian plane, I really do not see anyone else flying it the way the IAF will - from a dependence PoV that is.

I recently saw one article stating that the RuAF is buying them too - something to do with "35" being a lucky number - it stated that the RuAF is buying Su-35 and MiG-35!!!!!!! OK, let us assume they are really serious (I have my mega doubts). Even then there will be a total of some 250 MiG-35s in the world. Add another 150 (exports to Liberia, Alegria, Libya, Iran, whatever), so 400. The question I still have is how on earth is anyone going to maintain a reliable supply of parts, etc for the next 25-30 years?

Please keep in mind that there will be NO AF (including the RuAF) that will reply on the MiG-35 as much as the IAF and therefore none of those AFs purchasing the plane would, IMVVHO, make any difference.

To me the MiG-35 is like the printer I buy - real cheap ................... then I am socked with the escalating cost of teh ink cartridges that I HAVE to buy.

I am sold on the original cheap price.

Any thoughts? Am I all goofed up on some args?

Which is why I said earlier, IF the MiG-35 is totally manufactured in India and the RuAF buys the entire plane from India - parts and all, looking at it from all angles, I just cannot see this is a viable alternative (granted commonality with MiG-29, ease of support, etc). (From my PoV, this AF - from what I have read - I suspect you know a lot more - is not that far advanced - correct me if need be.)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Aug 2009 17:12

MIG-29 engines are already being made in India,making the 3-D TVC upgrades locally will be an easy task.The IN is buying the 29K,about 40+ and will require support too.If the MOD/IAF believe in a large degree of standardisation in aircraft types,support and maintenance,training,etc.,all coming in at a very cost-effective price,the MIG-35 is going to be hard to beat,barring the fact that the major part of the IAF will continue to be of Russian origin.Not actually a bad thing given the words of praise from the US general about our Flankers.

I suspect that for the LCA,the IAF/MOD have decided to acquire as much western tech for this bird,as both the engine and radar will be wetsern/Israeli.In addition,the Jaguar upgrades will also feature a western engine.As for the advantages of a twin-engine dofighter,in the Indian context,with so many aircraft being lost to bird hits,apart from battle damage,merely selecting ANY twin-engined fighter would save several aircraft and their pilots in the long term.I do not see the Gripen arriving in this deal unless the LCA programme suffers a severe time-consuming setback in developing the MK-2 version.Let's see which decisions are taken first.The engine for the Jaguar upgrade and the engine for the LCA before the MMRCA is selected.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 13 Aug 2009 17:27

I think IAF comments are most sensible
They have clearly mentioned that cheapest plane which satisfies all the criteria of RPF will be selected.

I think it also reflects what is going in their mind.

All know,very soon world will move on to 5th Gen planes. Apart from American, Russian/Indian, Indian, Chinese 5th Gen planes will be available by the start 2020.

The moment they are available, the best of MMRCA contender with very fancy prices will become obsolete.

Considering the same, IAF perhaps has decided to purchase that aircraft which will deliver all the parameter, it feels will required in next 1 decade at the economical price

It will be foolish to continue production of 4.5 gen a/c then at rate which will be more than / equal to 5th gen aircraft

Thus the need of hour is to select most cost effective aircraft which satisfies all requirements and is easily inducted with least efforts and requires no major infra headache

Mig 35 outscores all the others on this note.

-Nitin

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Aug 2009 19:40

shameekg wrote:Actually the report states a contradiction between the MoD and the IAF statements. The MoD assured EADS that extra performance would result in more brownie points while the IAF reportedly denies it.

Just hoping there might be some Chankian thinking here. If some of the high priced western jets start to pull out before the trials the IAF may miss the chance of getting a close look at the tech and capabilities of those jets. So the MoD has to assure them that they actually have a chance to win the contract even if they don't.

Actual outcome can be predicted better by relying on IAF's statements henceforth (if the MoD doesn't gag them ofcourse).

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 13 Aug 2009 20:36

The IAF’s answer was an unambiguous negative. “We will not be comparing the aircraft with one another. We have made out a “Compliance Matrix”, and we will only require each fighter’s performance to comply with what we have demanded in the RfP (Request for Proposals, or the tender). There are no extra points for having, say, 50% extra capability. Each contender just has to meet the IAF’s laid down requirements.”.......

The bolded part is the reason why Boeing lost out to Airbus in the USAF tanker bids. The A330 based plane was chosen as it had better capabilities in terms of fuel and cargo compared to 767. However, both of the planes met the RFP and the Boeing plane was a bit cheaper. USAF went in bang-for-buck and the US congress/media made such a big noise about ignoring US company that it was cancelled.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2009 20:51

ALL that is true:
* IAF has to go by the RFP - at a minimum
* IAF has its matrix
* IAF has ............................

BUT,

MoD too exists and so does the PMO and CCS and ABC. And, there in lies the potential problem. I say potential because we do not know if there is a real difference in opinion or it is a made up one.

All we do know is that there is a technical preference and then a potential political one too.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 13 Aug 2009 22:58

IAF/MoD will have to be very careful in evaluating Mig’s proposals. The gap between promises and actual delivery is widening for Russian companies mostly because competence levels of Russian companies are going down. A great product and competitive price is not an end of the competition but only a good starting point. Capacity, capability and finances of the vendor are what determines overall long term success of any project.

Bigger EU and US companies have sales figures ranging from $10 to $100 Billions giving them large head room to keep-up the smooth functioning at cutting edge of the technology.

It'll be a shame if after orders are placed we have years of delays in delivering first batch of aircrafts and than again issues with ToT, spares and operational issues. Mig/Russians have good friendly intentions but capacity to deliver has to be ascertained by the buyer. Sufficient performance warranties (guaranteed by reputed insurance company) should be included in the contract to ensure vendors do not over promise to win the contract.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Aug 2009 23:20

vardhank wrote:Also, are we looking only at single-seaters? Which versions of the SH, Rafale and F-16 have been offered?

I can't find that article anywhere now, but I remember having read that the breakup of single seaters to twin seaters was around 86 to 40. the higher number of single seaters will reduce the pressure on the IAF to train so many pilots/WSOs, although its experience with the Su-30MKI has made it believe that 2 pilots in the cockpit are more effective than 1, which is why the PAK-FA for the IAF will have a twin-seater variant as well, which the RuAF is not interested in.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Aug 2009 23:42

smestarz wrote:I was thinking of what I would look in an MRCA from laymans prespective

1. The Aircraft should be single engine Turbofan (definately not F-16 anyway)

If case of twin engline, the speed would be good but then if one engine fails the plane cannot take off. But if twin engine fails when flying there is good chance it will return.

Turbofan engine as they give a better range and endurance, turbojet give a good speed.

Name one of the MRCA candidates that uses a turbojet engine..the entire point is moot, to be very polite. and the F-18, Typhoon, Rafale are all twin-engined- is their top speed higher than the F-16 and Gripen NG ?

2. Hard points, external (about 11-13) thats how it will be able to hit anything in force.

payload is important, but did you even consider the RCS of the fighter with 11-13 hardpoints, all loaded, which will light up the fighter like a christmas tree in a forest ?

3. Airi intakes, Possibly two in the body (not 1 like F-16) or one intake behind the pilot just after the air brake

Shall think of more

reason ? I can only think of the RCS reduction due to a Y shaped intake, but on the Typhoon, there is a serpentine duct that reduces the compressor head-on RCS anyway. the F-16 and MiG-35 may be the only fighters in the competition that lacks any such feature.

and how can the intake be behind the pilot just after the airbrake ? the airbrake when deployed would disrupt airflow into the intake in the configuration you just described..and in most cases, the airbrake is way back, below the vertical stabilizer, or like on the Su-30, its dorsally located, midway..how on earth could the intake be located so far behind ??

which fighter are you even referring to with these "laymans" criteria you just listed ? and anyway, what have layman got to do with the MRCA selection. its beyond the layman's scope of knowledge to even think of the factors that will decide the selection.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Aug 2009 01:30

Russia aims to start making MiG-35 fighters for India in 2013
FWIW: Thanks to Tango @ Keypubs: red comments are mine.

NIZHNY NOVGOROD (central Russia), August 13 (RIA Novosti) - Production of MiG-35 multirole fighters offered for sale to India cannot start before 2013 or 2014, a Russian aircraft maker said on Thursday. no different from any other mrca bird

Russia's MiG-35 Fulcrum-F, an export version of the MiG-29M OVT (Fulcrum F), is a highly maneuverable air superiority fighter, which won high acclaim during the Le Bourget air show in France last year.

"We have begun testing the MiG-35 fighter for the Indian tender," said Alexander Karezin, general director of the Sokol company based in Nizhny Novgorod.

Six major aircraft makers - Lockheed and Boeing from the United States, Russia's MiG, which is part of the UAC, France's Dassault, Sweden's Saab and the EADS consortium of British, German, Spanish and Italian companies - are in contention to win the $10 billion contract for 126 light fighters to be supplied to the Indian Air Force.

Sokol earlier said that the first two MiG-35 aircraft would be delivered to India in August for test flights prior to the award of the tender. In late 2009, Russia will conduct a series of flight tests with live firing for an Indian Air Force delegation at one of the testing grounds on the Russian territory. this is interesting, we may see two new airframes pretty soon

The fighter is powered by RD-33 OVT thrust vectoring engines. The RD-33 OVT engines provide superior maneuverability and enhance the fighter's performance in close air engagements.

Moscow said if MiG-35 wins the tender, Russia is ready to transfer all key technology to India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and provide assistance for the production of the aircraft in the country. just as we expected, the roosis offers here will be hard to beat imho

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090813/155803391.html

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Aug 2009 02:44

Cain Marko wrote:Russia aims to start making MiG-35 fighters for India in 2013
FWIW: Thanks to Tango @ Keypubs: red comments are mine.
NIZHNY NOVGOROD (central Russia), August 13 (RIA Novosti) - Production of MiG-35 multirole fighters offered for sale to India cannot start before 2013 or 2014, a Russian aircraft maker said on Thursday. no different from any other mrca bird

Russia's MiG-35 Fulcrum-F, an export version of the MiG-29M OVT (Fulcrum F), is a highly maneuverable air superiority fighter, which won high acclaim during the Le Bourget air show in France last year.

"We have begun testing the MiG-35 fighter for the Indian tender," said Alexander Karezin, general director of the Sokol company based in Nizhny Novgorod.

Six major aircraft makers - Lockheed and Boeing from the United States, Russia's MiG, which is part of the UAC, France's Dassault, Sweden's Saab and the EADS consortium of British, German, Spanish and Italian companies - are in contention to win the $10 billion contract for 126 light fighters to be supplied to the Indian Air Force.

Sokol earlier said that the first two MiG-35 aircraft would be delivered to India in August for test flights prior to the award of the tender. In late 2009, Russia will conduct a series of flight tests with live firing for an Indian Air Force delegation at one of the testing grounds on the Russian territory. this is interesting, we may see two new airframes pretty soon

The fighter is powered by RD-33 OVT thrust vectoring engines. The RD-33 OVT engines provide superior maneuverability and enhance the fighter's performance in close air engagements.

Moscow said if MiG-35 wins the tender, Russia is ready to transfer all key technology to India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and provide assistance for the production of the aircraft in the country. just as we expected, the roosis offers here will be hard to beat imho
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090813/155803391.html

its all nice to say things like "transfer of key technologies", but the Russian track record hasn't been stellar, when you look at the T-90 fiasco. I think that the Saab offer will be the best, and their track record of offsets and on-time delivery is really impressive.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 14 Aug 2009 03:01

Cain Marko wrote:
Russia aims to start making MiG-35 fighters for India in 2013
FWIW: Thanks to Tango @ Keypubs: red comments are mine.
Quote:
NIZHNY NOVGOROD (central Russia), August 13 (RIA Novosti) - Production of MiG-35 multirole fighters offered for sale to India cannot start before 2013 or 2014, a Russian aircraft maker said on Thursday. no different from any other mrca bird

Russia's MiG-35 Fulcrum-F, an export version of the MiG-29M OVT (Fulcrum F), is a highly maneuverable air superiority fighter, which won high acclaim during the Le Bourget air show in France last year.

"We have begun testing the MiG-35 fighter for the Indian tender," said Alexander Karezin, general director of the Sokol company based in Nizhny Novgorod.

Six major aircraft makers - Lockheed and Boeing from the United States, Russia's MiG, which is part of the UAC, France's Dassault, Sweden's Saab and the EADS consortium of British, German, Spanish and Italian companies - are in contention to win the $10 billion contract for 126 light fighters to be supplied to the Indian Air Force.

Sokol earlier said that the first two MiG-35 aircraft would be delivered to India in August for test flights prior to the award of the tender. In late 2009, Russia will conduct a series of flight tests with live firing for an Indian Air Force delegation at one of the testing grounds on the Russian territory. this is interesting, we may see two new airframes pretty soon

The fighter is powered by RD-33 OVT thrust vectoring engines. The RD-33 OVT engines provide superior maneuverability and enhance the fighter's performance in close air engagements.

Moscow said if MiG-35 wins the tender, Russia is ready to transfer all key technology to India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and provide assistance for the production of the aircraft in the country. just as we expected, the roosis offers here will be hard to beat imho

Maybe I read this differently than you do CM. But doesn't the article suggest that it would take longer than 2013-2014 for deliveries to begin. It says production will begin in 2013 thats a whole lot different from Delivery will begin in 2013. The EF and SH have both stated that they can start deliveries in 2013 if the winner is announced sometime next year. I assume the Mig-35's would be ready in 2015ish.
Its nice to know that they are willing to transfer all key tech, but it still doesn't impress me as much as the EF, Rafale, and SH do. Plus even if Russia inducts the Mig it will be in very small numbers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Aug 2009 03:35

I feel that it is far better to invest in the FGFA with the Russians. I feel that Russia will be very competitive in and around 2015 - give and take some.

But this MiG-35 needs to be put to bed.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Aug 2009 07:50

Kartik wrote:its all nice to say things like "transfer of key technologies", but the Russian track record hasn't been stellar, when you look at the T-90 fiasco. I think that the Saab offer will be the best, and their track record of offsets and on-time delivery is really impressive.

Frankly, in almost any case of hardware purchase, the russkis have always been most willing to transfer technology and at levels deeper than rivals. The Su-30MKI is a prime example, they were even willing to part with SCB tech for the Al-31s iirc. Arihant is another. Yes there have been fiascos, but you simply don't see others willing engage at such levels (with the french being a somewhat exception, however, the missile seeker issue showed them in poor light esp. when mukherjee was DM).

In case of the Gripen, while the willingness seems to be there, the engine issue (being american) seems like a bit of a question mark. How can they transfer tot to engines or related parts if they don't own IPR?

CM.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2009 08:16

getting gripenNG would be equivalent to F18 in risk, but with a extra intermediary in between to slow things down.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Aug 2009 08:45

b_patel wrote: Maybe I read this differently than you do CM. But doesn't the article suggest that it would take longer than 2013-2014 for deliveries to begin. It says production will begin in 2013 thats a whole lot different from Delivery will begin in 2013. The EF and SH have both stated that they can start deliveries in 2013 if the winner is announced sometime next year. I assume the Mig-35's would be ready in 2015ish.

I think the production timeline they put forth is based on the RFP. Production should not be a problem because I remember Pavel Vaslow pointing out that they could start producing a given configuration within months of signing the dotted line. This was at the AI07.

Its nice to know that they are willing to transfer all key tech, but it still doesn't impress me as much as the EF, Rafale, and SH do. Plus even if Russia inducts the Mig it will be in very small numbers.

Well yes, the EF and the Rafale, I'd agree. THese are the best a/c in the race on a number of parameters. But the fulcrum has certain v.unique advantages, price should be one of them.
As far as it being inducted by the VVS goes, this is hardly an issue considering the TOT involved, not to mention the IAF's already extensive experience with its predecessor. Again the IN fulcrum deal, plus the Baaz upgrade have some heavy indian involvement reducing the dangers that caused problems during the 90s. The MKI is again a v.good example to follow. In many ways it would be good to see a somewhat exclusive bird in IAF hands and the super fulcrum could be it.

Too many doubts exist regarding the the super hornet -
- not very impressive in the air superiority role since it was clearly designed as bomb truck for a force that would deploy it after bringing to bear overwhelming air superiority, a luxury the IAF simply does not enjoy - neither against china and perhaps not even Pakistan.
- Although it should get the job done against a blk 50 f-16, once the chinese get their acts together on their flanker knock off and the J10, it'll be hard pressed.
- Then there is the issue of cost, esp. when it comes to infrastructure, the IAF simply does not have any experience with the americans. They'll have to start from scratch, a v.pricey affair esp. if the FAB deal is any indication. Of course this problem is shared by the EF-2000 as well.
- no commonality in weapons either. Further, restrictions in usage are a definite possibility.
- And then there is the big question over TOT and sanctions.
- If all of this is not enough, its weight and size and role overlap the MKI's in the IAF. It seems definitely in the heavy category.

All of the above adds up to make the fat hornet a truly ponderous problem . Considering this, I'd rather have seen the U.S. offer a truly exclusive deal for India with an F-16 XL type.

CM.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 14 Aug 2009 09:50

Cain Marko wrote:Too many doubts exist regarding the the super hornet -
- not very impressive in the air superiority role since it was clearly designed as bomb truck for a force that would deploy it after bringing to bear overwhelming air superiority, a luxury the IAF simply does not enjoy - neither against china and perhaps not even Pakistan.
- Although it should get the job done against a blk 50 f-16, once the chinese get their acts together on their flanker knock off and the J10, it'll be hard pressed.

But do you think the MRCA is meant to take on the air superiority role? We will still have the MKI for long range and the LCA for the short range A-A roles. And when it comes to BVR engagements, the Hornet should not do too badly with the AESA.