MRCA News and Discussion

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Aug 2009 21:15

Singha wrote:sounds like the two hornets landed, the kc10 flew on slowly, turned left and went in again to land from the east.

so the eagle has landed in the coop. gee my skin is being irradiated by the APG79 already...I feel smarter...more networked....

Damn I wish I could have been there! I've gone through four aircraft museums since I came to the states last year. Saw everything from the Enola Gay to the F-22 but no Superbug!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 14 Aug 2009 21:16

RaviBg wrote:
george welch wrote:Except the whole point of the MRCA is to be an INTERIM type to keep the numbers up until FGFA/MCA/LCA get on their feet.
...
ALL of the MRCA competitors will be obsolete against 5th generation planes, so worrying about that seems silly. The MRCA is stopgap measure targeted towards TODAY, and against today's threats the SH is very potent.
...
...
No way does India go in for interim options. I will bet my bottom dollar that whatever aircraft India chooses will be in service for at least 20 years

Well sure it will be in service for say 40 years, but it won't be a front-line aircraft facing front-line threats for that that long, perhaps 15 (for any MRCA contender)

That doesn't mean the aircraft would cease to be useful at that point, just that they would no longer be the sharp point of the spear

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Aug 2009 21:20

Singha wrote:
so the eagle has landed in the coop. gee my skin is being irradiated by the APG79 already...I feel smarter...more networked....

Actually that is a side effect of this

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Aug 2009 01:47

F-18s to fly over Bangalore today

...
Two F/A-18s — one single-seater and the other twin-seater — will take part in the MMRCA flight evaluation trials (FET) starting August 17. Bangalore has been chosen the venue for the evaluation under normal climatic conditions.
...
The IAF’s test pilots on the Indian Evaluation Team — Group Captain Dixit and Wing Commander Chauhan — will also get to fly and experience first hand the American fighter’s flying characteristics.

The team also has three flight test engineers, and representatives from the Defence Ministry, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, the Defence and Research Development Organisation, the Directorate-General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance and the Air Headquarters.
...
...
Following the F/A-18s into Bangalore for the flight trials will be the F-16s, which Lockheed Martin are flying in from the United Arab Emirates (the only air force whose F-16s are equipped with active electronically scanned array radars). The French Rafale is scheduled to be in Bangalore from September 21, while the MiG-35 will arrive in October. In November, the Indian evaluation teams will emplane for Germany and Sweden to familiarise themselves with the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Gripen JAS-39. Both fighters are expected in Bangalore next February and March.
...
...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Aug 2009 02:40

nachiket wrote:
Singha wrote:sounds like the two hornets landed, the kc10 flew on slowly, turned left and went in again to land from the east.

so the eagle has landed in the coop. gee my skin is being irradiated by the APG79 already...I feel smarter...more networked....
Damn I wish I could have been there! I've gone through four aircraft museums since I came to the states last year. Saw everything from the Enola Gay to the F-22 but no Superbug!

I saw a Super Hornet demo last year at McChord AFB..simply superb low speed antics and was able to pull really short and sharp turns..and the way the guy would accelerate away after going slow, punching the burners and making the twin F-414s roar, was exhilirating..the F-16 display was very tame by comparison.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Aug 2009 04:18

much before the superbugs and eurofitters landed, the mmrca was all about between france and russia.. and after the super duper offer chestbeats, the french team has bungled on contractual papers, had tussle with gripen, bad names etc.. while russkies are silent and doing nothing to win the order, and relying on the past scratchbacks.

the pain is not the russkies racing on the tech front, but its more on the fact, that they take 1 step forward on tech, and 4 step backwards on price jacking. this is one of the russkies biggest faults since year 2000.

otoh, ef2k has a clean stake if the prices are arround 50M euros., that should include good range aesa, source code help, integration of other weapon systems, and more simply put, they are very close to rafale in every spectrum of analysis.

rafale may be better, but their dealings have had a little snoot considering ef2k. lets wait till the typhoons land, and hopefully a tranche 3 one, at least loaded with bear somewhere in Germany or GB.

the top three still are ef2k, rafale and the bug, that just edjed out mig35 on the strategic angle. but iaf and others here might get tickled on the other report.

the saga begins or continues?.. will be only known, when anthony retires!

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 15 Aug 2009 08:47

nashCS wrote:Yep. They looked twin seaters, gray colored and a full bubble canopy. The KC 135 looked pale gray

From RaviBG's post it seems like there is one single seater and one 2 seater.

Kartik wrote:I saw a Super Hornet demo last year at McChord AFB..simply superb low speed antics and was able to pull really short and sharp turns..and the way the guy would accelerate away after going slow, punching the burners and making the twin F-414s roar, was exhilirating..the F-16 display was very tame by comparison.

There is an airshow coming up near where I stay. Will try to get some videos of the Shornet.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Aug 2009 11:11

Famous saying,"the first shall be last and the last shall be first"!So let the Super Horny perform its tricks first,after all "age before beauty" what?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 15 Aug 2009 11:47

Ajai Shukla : The great Indian duel

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Aug 2009 12:09

does the usn blue angles still use F18 c/d or shifted to e/f ? I saw a c/d show once over bangor, maine...pretty impressive (and risky) low level crossing moves.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 15 Aug 2009 12:38

Production of MiG-35 multirole fighters offered for sale to India cannot start before 2013 or 2014
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090813/155803391.html

Moscow said if MiG-35 wins the tender, Russia is ready to transfer all key technology to India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Aug 2009 12:46

Philip wrote:Famous saying,"the first shall be last and the last shall be first"!So let the Super Horny perform its tricks first,after all "age before beauty" what?

Since you keep repeating that the SH is a rehashed version of the F-18 hornet and hence "old", I'd say the Mig-35 is a rehashed version of the Mig-29. So here's an interesting fact:

Mig-29 first flight - 6 October 1977
F/A-18 Hornet first flight - 18 November 1978

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Aug 2009 13:07

Dmurphy wrote:Ajai Shukla : The great Indian duel

From the above article,

...the air force has — to use an automobile analogy — set out to buy a Maruti-type car, but invited Rolls Royce, Jaguar, BMW and Audi to the bidding, along with Maruti and Hyundai.

Very apt description IMO.

But he is slightly wrong about this part:

Four of the fighters in the fray (F/A-18, MiG-35, Eurofighter and Rafale) are expensive, two-engine powerhouses in the 25-30 tonne range..

Despite being twin-engined the Mig-35 would still be the cheapest of the lot and (saying this at the risk of being killed by Shankarosky, Philip and Austin

) the least technologically advanced.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 15 Aug 2009 13:13

dinesha wrote:Production of MiG-35 multirole fighters offered for sale to India cannot start before 2013 or 2014
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090813/155803391.html
Moscow said if MiG-35 wins the tender, Russia is ready to transfer all key technology to India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

It's information from Nizhni Novgorod 'Sokol' plant chief . Indeed they can start ser production of MiG-35 only after preparation, but another plant in Lukhovitsy (Moscow district) already has the production line for MiG-29K and MiG-35 . Seemingly it's not an official position but only 'Sokol's chief sentence. I read before that they plan to start MiG-35 production in Lukhovitsy in parallel with MiG-29K.

Only 18 plane, if I dont mistake, would be produced abroad of-the-shelf. The remained - are expected to be produced in India.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 15 Aug 2009 13:15

dinesha wrote:roduction of MiG-35 multirole fighters offered for sale to India cannot start before 2013 or 2014
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090813/155803391.html
Quote:
Moscow said if MiG-35 wins the tender, Russia is ready to transfer all key technology to India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

Then it boils down to what exactly constitutes "key technology". What if they say the technology to make engines doesn't constitute "Key Technoology" where as the tech to make tri coloured paint to be put on the plane does?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 15 Aug 2009 13:44

Singha wrote:does the usn blue angles still use F18 c/d or shifted to e/f ?

They're just shifting to c/d, they have been a/b

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Aug 2009 19:03

Not quite correct,the F-18 was derived from the YF-17 which lost to the F-16.This aircraft was flying in the '70s! If one goes by the same yardstick,then the MIG-35 first flew in ....2007 and the Super Horny first flew in Nov.1995!!! So even granting that the Super Horny is a "new bird" (with oodles of plastic surgery),it still is 12 years behind the MIG-35.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Aug 2009 19:37

can some compare the diff between F18C/D -> F18E/F and between Mig29S -> Mig35 ?

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 15 Aug 2009 20:23

Russia begins testing MiG-35 ahead of field trials in India

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... ig-35.html
Says
................................

In addition to the built-in IRST system the MiG-35 aircraft is equipped with a podded one.

also

In addition to the "A-A" and "A-S" class weapons applied on the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2 aircraft a number of advanced aircraft armament, which have not been offered earlier for export, is also being included as part of the aircraft's package.

Long range weapons capable of attacking targets without approaching enemy air defence zones are among them.

Curious to know, which are those stand off new armamanets that has not been offerd till date to India ?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 15 Aug 2009 20:24

Philip wrote:This aircraft was flying in the '70s!

Just like the MiG-29 . . . funny you never talk about how ancient that is.

Philip wrote:If one goes by the same yardstick,then the MIG-35 first flew in ....2007 and the Super Horny first flew in Nov.1995!!! So even granting that the Super Horny is a "new bird" (with oodles of plastic surgery),it still is 12 years behind the MIG-35.

The difference is that the SH is actually a new bird and the MiG-35 isn't.

Anyways, the whole argument is pointless because you're arguing about the fuselage which is the least important part of a fighter (unless it brings something game-changing like stealth).

Not saying it is unimportant, just that it ranks behind stuff that like sensors and avionics. If you want to see how 'modern' a plane is, you have to look at the electronics. And in that more important metric the MiG is woefully behind.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2009 20:31

The difference is that the SH is actually a new bird and the MiG-35 isn't.

And, for what it is worth, the SH is in production and has been used. While the home AF of the MiG-35 says it will bu yit to overcome the argument that the RuAF is not going to field the plane.

But, the MiG-35 is cheaper.

Actually, to think of it, on what grounds are the associated costs computed if it is not even in production?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2009 20:37

Sontu wrote: Russia begins testing MiG-35 ahead of field trials in India

The rest are inducted in some AF or the other!! MiG-35 is being tested!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2009 20:47

Dmurphy wrote:
dinesha wrote:roduction of MiG-35 multirole fighters offered for sale to India cannot start before 2013 or 2014
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090813/155803391.html
Quote:
Moscow said if MiG-35 wins the tender, Russia is ready to transfer all key technology to India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Then it boils down to what exactly constitutes "key technology". What if they say the technology to make engines doesn't constitute "Key Technoology" where as the tech to make tri coloured paint to be put on the plane does?

In the case of Russia I think it is up to India - what India is willing to pay for.

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 15 Aug 2009 20:58

GeorgeWelch wrote: The difference is that the SH is actually a new bird and the MiG-35 isn't.
Anyways, the whole argument is pointless because you're arguing about the fuselage which is the least important part of a fighter (unless it brings something game-changing like stealth).

Well George I agree to your above point that F-18 super structure/fuselage is a new structure
than Mig-35 and possibly adopts more stealthier design than Mig-35.But Mig-35 too has applied advanced RAM coating and more IR suppression measures in it's engines.
Also MIG-35's All axis TVC is a good desired feature for IAF with quite matured FADEC fly-by-wire system.
again

you have to look at the electronics. And in that more important metric the MiG is woefully behind .

When you say Electronics/Avionics MIG-35 is woefully behind than F-18 E/F.
Would you please put some details on this point while considering India may configure/customize Mig-35 with Israeli ,French ,Russian and Indian components like it did for Su-30 MKI, specially would like to mention Israeli EL/M-2052 AESA and Russian OLS-35 IRST.

How would you rate a APG-79 against EL/M-2052 and
How would you rate an Yet to develope an US IRST (mounted on external fuel tank ) on F-18 F/F and latest Rusian OLS-35 with 360 degree coverage and longer range.

As I said a superb aerodynamic and extreame manuverable Mig-35 with TVC and cusomized avionics from Israel,France,Russia and India ...I don't think Mig-35 is way behind any other competitors like F-18 E/F, until Boeing offers AN/ALR-94 with F-18 E/F, the only game changer as of now.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Aug 2009 21:06

MiG-29A / MiG-35
Empty Wt: 10900kg/11000-12000kg
MTOW: 18500kg/23500-24000kg
Dimensions:
Length: 17mtrs/ 17 m
Wingspan: 11.3/ 11.3
Internal fuel: 3000kg/5500kg
External fuel: 2000kg?/6500kg
Range - int fuel: 1500km/2200km
Combat Radius = 700km?/1000km+
Engines: RD-33/RD-33MK+3D TVC
Thrust: 50kn:80kn/55kn:90kn
Hardpts: 6+1/10+1
Payload: 3000kg/6500kg+
TWR @ 1/2 int.fuel + 6 AAMs = 1.14/1.16-1.20
Climb Rate: 330mps/300mps

Another important difference is that while the MiG-29 was a stable a/c, the MiG-35/M are all statically unstable or relaxed stability meaning more manouverable. This happened largely due to a shift in COG. Of course there is massive difference in the avionics/sensor/ew package as well.

As far as a flight performance is concerned, the original fulcrum was considered a beauty and sort of unmatched at least in ITRs (other than the flanker). STRs, it was an equivalent or better of the F-15. As AM Masand points out, it was better than the M2k as well.

My guess is that the newer 35 will be better thanks to better wingloading, more thrust and TVC.

CM.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Aug 2009 21:27

Singha wrote:can some compare the diff between F18C/D -> F18E/F and between Mig29S -> Mig35 ?

CM has already compared the Mig-35 and Mig-29.

I got this from wiki
The Super Hornet is about 20% larger, 7,000 lb (3,000 kg) heavier empty, and 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) heavier at maximum weight than the original Hornet. The Super Hornet carries 33% more internal fuel,[18] increasing mission range by 41% and endurance by 50% over the "Legacy" Hornet.

The fuselage was stretched by 34 inches (0.86 m) to make room for fuel and future avionics upgrades and increased the wing area by 25%. However, the Super Hornet has 42% fewer structural parts than the original Hornet design. The General Electric F414 engine, developed from the Hornet's F404, has 35% more power.

Other differences include rectangular intakes for the engines and two extra wing hard points for payload (for a total of 11). Among the most significant aerodynamic changes are the enlarged leading edge extensions (LEX) which provide improved vortex lifting characteristics in high angle of attack maneuvers

RCS Reduction

The F/A-18E/F's radar cross section was reduced greatly from some aspects, mainly the front and rear. The design of the engine inlets reduces the aircraft's frontal radar cross section. The alignment of the leading edges of the engine inlets is designed to scatter radiation to the sides. Fixed fanlike reflecting structures in the inlet tunnel divert radar energy away from the rotating fan blades.

The Super Hornet also makes considerable use of panel joint serration and edge alignment. Considerable attention has been paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities. Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses perforated panels that appear opaque to radar waves at the frequencies used. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to scatter traveling waves away from the aircraft.

Radar: Apg-79 AESA vs APG-73 on hornet
AN/ALE-55 Fibre Optic towed decoy replaces ALE-50 on hornet
Addition of AN/ALQ-24 Jammer
Addition of Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS)
Shared reconnaissance pod(SHARP)

These additions were made in the Block-II SH starting from 2005

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Aug 2009 21:33

Sontu wrote: When you say Electronics/Avionics MIG-35 is woefully behind than F-18 E/F.
Whould please put some details on this point while considering India may configure/customize Mig-35 with Israeli ,French ,Russian and Indian components like it did for Su-30 MKI, specially would like to mention Israeli EL/M-2052 AESA and Russian OLS-35 IRST.

That is only speculation as of now. If the IAF actually does it the Mig-35 would surely become a much more capable fighter than it is now. (I'm especially concerned about the capabilities of the Zhuk-E). But as of now, whatever the Russians field in the trials is what we are going to get. And that does not include EL/M-2052 etc. I really don't think the IAF is looking for an MKI type customization process. It'll cause even more delays in induction.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Aug 2009 21:33

Singha wrote:can some compare the diff between F18C/D -> F18E/F and between Mig29S -> Mig35 ?

F-18C/F-18E
Empty Wt: 11 tons?/14 tons
Mtow: 22 tons?/30 tons
Dimensions;
wingspan: 11.4m/13.4m
length: 17m/18m
Internal fuel: 4900kg/6500kg
External fuel: 3000kg/4500kg
Range: 1800km?/2300km
Combat R: 800km/1100km
Payload: 7000/8000kg
Engines: RD-33/RD-33MK+3D TVC
Thrust: 50kn:80kn/60kn:20kn
Hardpts: 8+1/10+1
Payload: 3000kg/6500kg+
TWR @ 1/2 int.fuel + 6 AAMs = 1.00/1.08
Top Speed: 1.6M/1.7M
Climb Rate: 228mps.
Ceiling: 45-50K feet.

The F-18 was and is an excellent slow speed performer. At higher speeds it starts becoming a bit sluggish, the f-18E more so than the original thanks to some bandaid fixes such as outwardly canted pylons.

The numbers for both the MiG and Hornet are just off hand so there can be unnis/bees difference. The biggest difference between the shornet and fulcrum upgrades imho is the fact that the russkis are v.reluctant to trade off flight performance. THis can be seen from the fact that the airframe is hardly that much bigger vis a vis the F-18C/E. Further, the flight performance of the 35 for the most part should equal if not better that of the earlier variant. The americans seemed to have thought that the hornet is not that great a turner/burner anyway so might as well just focus on the avionics and sensors and make it an electronic wizard.

CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Aug 2009 21:46

NRao wrote:
Sontu wrote: Russia begins testing MiG-35 ahead of field trials in India
The rest are inducted in some AF or the other!! MiG-35 is being tested!!!

Oh come on now Raosaab. That is woeful exaggeration and has little bearing on the race. Otherwise you can always ask questions: where has the Gripen NG been inducted? where exactly has an F-16IN been inducted? Why should it be considered when its maker is about to quit on it? Further, how come the MKI (actually let alone the mki even a vanilla su-30) not been inducted into the VVS? The list goes on saar.

CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Aug 2009 21:56

Actually when comparing the hornet-shornet transition to the fulcrum-superfulcrum transition, a point must be kept in mind. The shornet was already using a heavy percentage of lightweight composites in airframe structure (~ 20% iirc). This meant that the transition was more susceptible to the law of marginal utility and as a result you have a limited gain with a greater sacrifice (bigger, heavier airframe).

In contrast, the original MiG-29 had little use of composite structures. The newer variant based on the IN miG-29K has at least 15% composite structure by weight. Not to mention the fact that the original fulcrums heavier analog instrumentation was exchanged for lighter, digital hardware. This I think contributes to the fact that the super fulcrum gains much more for the sacrifice made (weight/size penalty). In fact while its internal fuel & payload increased by well over 50% (2.5/3.5 tons), its weight increase is probly close to 1 ton. Otoh, the super hornet had to sacrifice 3 tons in weight and size to gain 1.5 tons (25%) in fuel and 1 ton (10-15%) in payload.

CM.

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 15 Aug 2009 22:09

Cain Marko wrote:
Singha wrote:can some compare the diff between F18C/D -> F18E/F and between Mig29S -> Mig35 ?

F-18C/F-18E
Engines: RD-33/RD-33MK+3D TVC
Thrust: 50kn:80kn/60kn:20kn

CM.

Hey CM thanks for the comparision details...but I feel some correction is needed for above set of parameters and data.

Regards,

Dev A · Post by **Dev A** » 15 Aug 2009 22:40

Singha wrote:so the dog and pony show has finally hit the road ! hallejulah !

I am almost 100% now that I spotted the KC10 extender

I got pictures on my Flickr account. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bangaloreaviation and on my blog http://www.bangaloreaviation.com.

It was not the KC-10 Extender, but the DC-10-40I Omega Tanker and two F/A-18F's (one is the same as at Aero India 2009). Came over the airfield did a fly past (may be to scope out the runway), then did a base leg and landed. The lead Hornet did his final turn almost on top of Logica CMG office, could not get a pic since he was already under the tree line (sorry

) but got the wingman and the Omega.

The wingman was a two seater. Does the Hornet come in a single seater variant ?

Regards

Devesh

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 15 Aug 2009 22:46

I think we'll have to clear up one thing... under no circumstances can we say that Mig-35 will win hands down on cost.

The meets RFP-Lowest cost wins requirement means that, since all the competitors are expected to meet the RFP, if not exceed it, we will be looking at deciding this contest only on the basis of cost.

This is where the difference comes in... since the costing is not a UFC (unit flyaway cost) but a TLCC (Total Life Cycle Cost) of ownership, an aircraft that costs more initially, but has a lower cost over life can win. That means that the Mig-35 may end up not being the cheapest of them all.

The other factor is the 10.2 bn $ allocation, which works out to about 81 mn $ per aircraft. However, if an aircraft does come up to above that, then, the mfr will need to be very clever as to the pricing strategy. Perhaps a line of credit, a home government subsidy or something like that... else, there is no way that they can win the contract, however good the aircraft is.

What think???

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2009 23:35

CM,

Sure, you are right. Apologies.

However, one last "dig". I recall our resident expert from Russia had mentioned that the country (geographically) was too large to host the MiG planes (this in response - some year or so ago - to a question as to why the RuAF does not buy the MiG-35). Wonder want has happened since.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2009 23:42

k prasad wrote:I think we'll have to clear up one thing... under no circumstances can we say that Mig-35 will win hands down on cost.

.......................................

What think???

In all seriousness, IMHO, India (and even perhaps Russia) would benefit a LOT more if WE concentrated on the 5th Gen AC. This MRCA circus needs to be given to (serious) jokers.

As much worth it is to India, the MRCA needs to be given a substantially lower "birth".

India for sure, and perhaps even Russia, cannot afford to goof up on the FGFA. There is no way out for that project to come below par.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Aug 2009 00:44

Regarding the Lifecycle costs, this time round, for the MRCA, there will be targets set as well, with penalty payments if the vendor promises a particular performance and then it falls below during operations and rewards for meeting or exceeding the specifications set initially-

take for e.g. the MiG-21 Bison Kopyo radar, where the MTBF promised was nearly 200 hours, but during operations, the IAF had to intervene to even get it to 120 hours after a lot of hand-wrangling..such exaggerated figures (and this is not a Russian specific thing- happens to other vendors as well) at the evaluation stage mean that the calculated Lifecycle Cost for maintenance is lower when the deal is made, but turns out to be much higher as the fighter gets into operation. only that this time around, the contracts will ensure that the vendor will be penalised for such a situation. here, the operational fighters such as the Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet and F-16IN (since its almost 90% a F-16 Block 60) will have an advantage over the Gripen IN and the MiG-35, which are nowhere near being operational and will definitely come with kinks that the launch customer will need to iron out. I'm calling the IAF the launch customer for the last 2 because I'm pretty sure that the Gripen NG or MiG-35 if selected, will not become operational with any other Air Force before ours.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 16 Aug 2009 02:24

Cain Marko wrote:Otoh, the super hornet had to sacrifice 3 tons in weight and size to gain 1.5 tons (25%) in fuel and 1 ton (10-15%) in payload.

It gained 30% in fuel and 30% in payload and 40% in range

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 16 Aug 2009 02:44

Sontu wrote: When you say Electronics/Avionics MIG-35 is woefully behind than F-18 E/F.
Would you please put some details on this point while considering India may configure/customize Mig-35 with Israeli ,French ,Russian and Indian components like it did for Su-30 MKI, specially would like to mention Israeli EL/M-2052 AESA and Russian OLS-35 IRST.

The problem with avionics is that the best are NOT always available on the open market, especially with sensitive yet extremely important items like radars and jammers.

Sontu wrote:How would you rate a APG-79 against EL/M-2052

The APG-79 is far superior. There is simply nothing in its class that is publicly available.

Sontu wrote: How would you rate an Yet to develope an US IRST (mounted on external fuel tank ) on F-18 F/F

Unknown at this point.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Aug 2009 09:39

This line is from wikipedia's Mig-35 page, would like comments, since it sounds patently false.

It was reported that the MiG-35 made its way from Moscow to Bangalore in less than three hours, assisted by in-flight refueling on the way and flying at supersonic speeds.

If it is Moscow and Bangalore the distance is about 6000Kms in 3 hrs gives you like 1.8 Mach over 3 hrs.
Not possible.
Can a clean Mig-35 supercruise?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Aug 2009 09:42

Peter Baynham wrote:The wingman was a two seater. Does the Hornet come in a single seater variant ?

Devesh

The F-18 'E' is a single seater the 'F' is a two seater.

Does the MRCA RFP specify a single seater or a two seater? We know that single engine vs twin engine is not a requirement.

Could those Shornets be an E and an F?