MRCA News and Discussion

[Shankar]

any of you seeing the super bug over bangaluru now??

[Dev A]

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?

The picture of the Shornet I took was the F variant. Unfortunately, I was on the other side of the trees from Logica CMG and the first Shornet did its final turn almost on the runway threshold and I could not get a picture.

I am no authority on the operational aspects of fighters, but from what senior folks at defence related establishments have told me, the fight should boil down to the Rafale vs. F16 vs F/A-18. The Americans will use their clout to scuttle the Grippen, and the Eurofighter is just too expensive.

The procurement will be done to "further a strategic relationship".

Devesh

PS : Request to moderator - Please change my forum name - to DevA?

[Gagan]

PS : Request to moderator - Please change my forum name - to DevA?

Dev D sounds better?

Those were wonderful pictures. What camera lens did you use?
Welcome to BRF.

[Dev A]

PS : Request to moderator - Please change my forum name - to DevA?

Dev D sounds better?
Those were wonderful pictures. What camera lens did you use?
Welcome to BRF.

Thanks. I was not aware of the rule at the time of registering. Gerard sir, please kindly change my name and oblige.

Gagan, used a Nikon D90 with the 70-200 f/2.8 lens. Gives me better flexibility than the 300mm.

Despite Aero India, I was truly stunned by the manoeuvrability of the Shornets. The lead literally turned on a dime on the edge of the runway. Even the Omega Tanker did a pretty radical base and final for a behemoth that it is.

Thanks for the welcome.

Devesh

[Igorr]

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

MiG-35, like MiG-29K, is wider 62 cm in wingspan, higher wing surface.

[prabir]

Does it sound logical ?

Objectives that we need to meet (MRCA and any other big ticket purchases) -

O1- Obtain new technology and internalise it in our own manufacturing capabilities
O2- Short-term measure to make up for depleting numbers before LCA, MCA and 5th generation fighter joins
O3- Meet political objectives to take care of "assertive" China, so that status quo is maintained, while ensuring "affordable defensive posture on the eastern front", maintain status quo on Western Front, build up the economy at the same time. For this, we might have to choose multiple vendors as winner of MRCA tender
O4 - Maintain flow of technology in strategic sectors from Russia
O5 - Collaborate with France to build a formidable and latest air-defense and internalize the technology in our own missile programs
O6 - Give some deals to US also, to maintain their interest. Don't give them everything, but give them something, so that they do not act against our interests (they maintaining benign indifference is what we won't mind)

If we consider these, then,
Something has to be given to Russia (O1,O3,O4)
Something has to be given to France (O5,O1)
and
Something has to be given to USA (O6,O1,O3)

To achieve O2, Mig 35 + some old Mig 29 from Russia which can be upgraded and refurbished won't be bad.
Also, Mirage 2000 from Qatar, France and refurbished and upgraded won't be bad. They will help us achieve short-term goal of building the numbers.

[k prasad]

Devesh Sir, are you the same Devesh Agarwalji?? If so, its great to have you here... and hello

[vasu_ray]

MKI, Rafale and F-18 were in the Reg flag and IAF should have an understanding of this combo, of course everybody was hiding their jewels

[Dev A]

Devesh Sir, are you the same Devesh Agarwalji?? If so, its great to have you here... and hello

Dang!!! Spotted and identified. . I was so hoping to fly under the radar.

It's a pleasure to be here. I hope I can learn from the gurus.

Regards

Devesh

[Nihat]

hardly seen much of you in SSC-India these days Devesh.

[Rahul M]

PS : Request to moderator - Please change my forum name - to DevA?

done. welcome to BR.

[Dev A]

hardly seen much of you in SSC-India these days Devesh.

Loaded out with work, my blog, and spotting. Plus got sick and tired of being the lightning rod. Was reading an interesting article by Swapan Dasgupta about NRIs in today's and remembered SSC days.

Devesh

[nachiket]

The F/A-18F in the pic from bangalore Avaiation seems to be carrying 2 Sidewinders on the wingtip pylons. I thought the weapons trials were supposed to be in the home country.

[enqyoob]

Only slightly OT - great deal for MRCA. MiG-31 + Kaveri engines.

Russian investigators in Nizhny Novgorod are probing the alleged sale of four MiG-31 Foxhound aircraft hulls for $5 each against their combined value of $14.8 million..

sale of items from the Sokol Aircraft Construction plant located in the Russian Volga city of Nizhny Novgorod. .... "... long-range supersonic interceptor aircraft that were not for sale were purchased by a dummy firm, Metalsnab, which was not entitled to trade in arms and military hardware," prosecutors said. A local valuation company undervalued the asking price of the MiG-31 hulls. ... one hull was valued at 153 rubles ($4.9) - this initial price was accepted during bidding and the MiGs were sold at this price. However, one hull actually costs around 116 million rubles ($3.7 million).

[NRao]

The F/A-18F in the pic from bangalore Avaiation seems to be carrying 2 Sidewinders on the wingtip pylons. I thought the weapons trials were supposed to be in the home country.

Weapons trial in the US.

Carrying them to perform realistic maneuvers in Bangaluru is a different matter.

[Cain Marko]

MiG-35, like MiG-29K, is wider 62 cm in wingspan, higher wing surface.

Actually, iirc P. Butowski mentioned that the wingspan is shorter for 35 (11.5m) vs MiG-29K (12m). This was in 2006. But the area for the 35 is greater than the wingarea on the 29A.

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

George,
I could be wrong but the numbers i found are:
The F-18C weighed in @ less than 11000kg iirc, the F-18E ~ 14000kg (increase 3tons/30%).
The F-18C carried about 4900kg internal fuel, the F-18E carries about 6500 (increase 30%)
The F-18C carried about 7000kg external payload, the F-18E carries about 8000kg (increase 15%).
The range certainly improved - esp. with the EFTs. On internal fuel, I don't think the difference was that great thanks to the increase in empty weight.
CM.

[GeorgeWelch]

The F-18C weighed in @ less than 11000kg iirc, the F-18E ~ 14000kg (increase 3tons/30%).

F-18C: 11,200 kg
F-18E: 13,900 kg

24% increase

The F-18C carried about 7000kg external payload, the F-18E carries about 8000kg (increase 15%).

I have the F-18C at 6,215 kg and the F-18E/F at 8,050kg, which is 29.5% more.

[Cain Marko]

Cruise missiles (in the quantity the US has) and B-2s do not give air superiority.

When you destroy radar and communication nodes, it pretty much nullifies the enemy AF's ability to do anything worthwhile. Why do you think there were not that many A2A battles in the Gulf wars? Much of the IRAF's ability was destroyed on the ground either through massive TLAM swarms, F-117 strikes or B-52 strikes via LACMS in the initial stages itself. And no, hornets, tomcats did not play that important a role initialyl.

Not necessarily. The brunt of the fighting would definitely fall on the carriers.

Nope, it'll be F-22s, F-35s, B52s will go in first along with massive TLAM type attacks. Just as in the Gulf war 1991.

Completely false. Carriers are designed to kick the door open. If they had to rely on the USAF to pave the way for them, there wouldn't be any real need for them.They are used in 'peacekeeping' operations now, but that is simply to share the load with the USAF, not because that is what they are limited to.If that was all they were good for, it would be far cheaper and more effective to simply scrap the naval air wing and transfer all assets to the USAF.

Man I don't believe this.

Around 20% of the sorties launched by U.S. air power came from the carriers in the Gulf and the Red Sea.

again,

January 15 arrived and Iraq remained in Kuwait. The coalition�s attack, named Operation Desert Storm, began on January 17.� Soon after midnight, a force of Lockheed F-117A Nighthawks flew into Baghdad. And although Baghdad had seven times the defenses of Hanoi during the Linebacker II raids, these stealth airplanes slipped silently through them, dropping Paveway laser-guided bombs on various sites around the city. Tomahawk missiles launched from aircraft carriers were also hitting various targets.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... r/AP44.htm

Nine minutes before H-Hour, an F-117A dropped the first bomb of the war, striking a hardened air defense intercept operations center (IOC) in southern Iraq, then continued on to drop a second bomb on a regional air defense sector operations center (SOC) in western Iraq. The helicopter and F-117A attacks created gaps in Iraqi radar coverage and in the C2 network for the non-stealth aircraft which followed. Meanwhile, other F-117As were about to destroy several high-priority targets.
At H-Hour, 0300, two F-11 7As dropped the first bombs on Baghdad. Shortly thereafter, TLAMs began to strike targets in the Baghdad area. Each F-117A carried two 2,000-lb hardened, penetrating laser-guided bombs (LGBs) and, within the offensive's first minutes, bombed crucial installations in Baghdad and elsewhere. Each aircraft had an individual route through the Iraqi air defense system and a tailored target attack plan. The F-117A by virtue of its stealth characteristics allowed operations without the full range of support assets required by non-stealthy aircraft. Typically, F-117A sorties used no direct airborne support other than tankers.
An initial Coalition air task was to fragment and eventually destroy the Iraqi IADS. The initial fragmentation was accomplished by the early attacks by Apache helicopters, F-117As, cruise missiles, F-15Fs, and GR-1s. Once the IADS was nullified, the enemy became increasingly vulnerable to attack and destruction from the air.
F-117As reached into the heart of downtown Baghdad to strike the Iraqi Air Force headquarters accurately. Ignoring flak, tracers, and SAMs, they systematically hit vital targets. One pilot high over Baghdad that night reported seeing Iraqi AAA wildly spraying fire over Baghdad, hitting the tops of buildings. AAA fire and expended SAMs probably caused some collateral damage inside the capital. Because of the density of the threat and the requirement to minimize collateral damage, F-117As, attacking at night, were the only manned aircraft to attack central Baghdad targets. The only weapon system used for daylight attacks on central Baghdad were TLAMs, which also struck at night. F-16s, B-52s, F/A-18s, A-6s, and A7s attacked targets in the outskirts of the city. RF-4s, TR-1s, and U-2s flew over Baghdad later in the war, when the threat was reduced.
The first wave of attackers actually encompassed three separate groups that included 30 F-117s and 54 TLAMs. Within the first five minutes, nearly 20 air defense, C3, electrical, and leadership nodes had been struck in Baghdad; within an hour, another 25 similar targets had been struck, as well as electric distribution and CW sites. By the end of the first 24 hours, nearly four dozen key targets in or near the enemy capital had been hit. These installations included more than a dozen leadership targets, a similar number of air defense and electric distribution facilities, 10 C3 nodes, and installations in several other target sets. This was not a gradual rolling back of the Iraqi air defense system The nearly simultaneous suppression of so many vital centers helped cripple Iraq's air defense system,

Notice any F-18s/14s from carriers being mentioned here?

and began seriously to disrupt the LOCs between Saddam Hussein and his forces in the KTO and southeastern Iraq. Nonetheless, the Iraqis always retained some ability to recover at least partially, given enough time and resources. Consequently, target categories required constant monitoring to measure residual capability and recovery attempts. Restrikes and attacks on new targets were used to maintain the pressure. As a result, according to DIA and CENTCOM intelligence reports, it became increasingly difficult for the Iraqi political and military leadership to organize coherent, timely, and integrated responses to Coalition actions. In part, this was due to physical destruction of hardware and systems, such as C3 links or CPs. It also was due to the psychological impact of the Coalition attacks. Leaders could not gather timely information on what was happening. When they did get information, they learned specific parts of the Iraqi government and military leadership had been destroyed, sometimes to the extent that individual offices had been bombed and eliminated.
First-day TLAM attacks, launched from cruisers, destroyers, and battleships in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, were coordinated with F-1 17A and other manned aircraft during the initial attacks as part of the carefully crafted Strategic Air Campaign. The Aegis cruiser USS San Jacinto (CG 56) fired the first TLAM from the Red Sea. USS Bunker Hill (CG 52) followed moments later from the Persian Gulf. In the first 24 hours, 116 TLAMs from seven warships hit 16 heavily defended targets in Baghdad and its vicinity, damaging electrical power facilities and C2 capabilities.
Conventional ALCMs also were used in the opening hours of the air campaign. B-52s that had taken from Barksdale AFB, LA, more than 11 hours before H-Hour launched 35 ALCMs to attack military communications sites and power generation and transmission facilities.

- Fas.org

You call that "kicking open the door" with F-18s??? In the gulf war, US air assets in neighboring regions (saudi for ex) along with tomahawks did a massive job in nullifying any air threat whatever. India neither enjoys such overwhelming superiority over its neighbors nor the tech advantage. It needs a/c that can provide air superiority as much as strike capability. The shornet will not be able to do the air superiority part in another 10-15 years against upgraded j10s, flankers imho.

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.

I was not talking of stealth a/c but of upgraded flankers and J-10s with AESAs.

You don't understand how much development work goes into getting a new plane ready.

Perhaps not, but it remains that the XL was pretty much ready in the late 80s for the USAF and was offered as the ATF. As such, for the mrca the U.S. was in a position no different from either the Gripen NG or the MiG-35.

The US has about 5 F-35's flying TODAY and the production line ALREADY EXISTS yet it still won't be ready for the MRCA deadline.

Hello! The JSF is a bloody new program, all flight testing, weapons testing is yet to be done. The flight testing on the XL was extensive, the bird was ready against the strike eagle for heavens sake.

To think you can start up a totally new aircraft in the time given is absurd.

To offer a bird that as philip points out is virtually 70s tech and flies like a brick is a rip off!

CM.

[Cain Marko]

F-18C: 11,200 kg, F-18E: 13,900 kg
24% increase
I have the F-18C at 6,215 kg and the F-18E/F at 8,050kg, which is 29.5% more.

I got my figures from FAS.org. Perhaps not v. accurate. Still, they are not too far from the ones you put up. But lets not split hair, I was just emphasizing the point that the MiG-29 to 35 transition provided a lot more gains than the hornet-shornet upgrade. I attributed this discrepancy largely to the fact that the hornet already used v.modern composite structures, while the original fulcrum hardly has any. Take for example, the fulcrum's figures:

weight gain increase (at the very worst) - 10%, hornet = 24%
internal fuel cap increase - 45-50% , hornet - 30%
payload increase - greater than 100%, hornet - 25-30%

It is almost as if the MiG-35 is where the F-18C was but with far better specs on every parameter.

CM.

[Singha]

er, how much could land based assets do in a serious attack on the kola peninsula
or kamchatka-vladivostok?

japan and norway would be under heavy air and missile attack from h-hour and the Ru
had a more dense and rugged air defence system with better training than iraq.

in that sense only the fast moving carriers had a chance to unleash full deckloads,
recover and escape.

[kit]

Why isnt the F 35 on offer for India ? Simple question isnt it ? Speaks volumes on how USA wants India to be ! If America is so gungho about India.,why not share technology it will be using itself after a decade ? If India is going for a American plane it has to be F 35 , no F 18 ., because Indian policies and procurement delays mandate that the fighter technology that is to enter service would be current a decade from now.They just want the billions and keep IAF a decade behind their emerging technologies.
A non US aircraft would fit the bill 'strategically' speaking., either the Rafale or Typhoon.

[Cain Marko]

Singhaji,
I assume you speak of a US/Nato vs SU scenario?

er, how much could land based assets do in a serious attack on the kola peninsula or kamchatka-vladivostok?

Plenty - LACMs from B52s for starters, then you have B1s and B2s as well. Perhaps even some RAF vulcans and even tornados might try stunts. Not too far.

japan and norway would be under heavy air and missile attack from h-hour and the Ru
had a more dense and rugged air defence system with better training than iraq.

True, but don't forget NATO assets scattered all over oirope.

in that sense only the fast moving carriers had a chance to unleash full deckloads,
recover and escape.

Saar, how in the world are carriers going to be able to get close enough for their a/c to fly close to soviet airspace, heavily defended as you say, and get away with it? And if they stayed away, what great damage could have been done by hordes of F-18s at such ranges where their payloads would be heavily compromised, buggers would've been sitting ducks for SAMs and flankers and the like. Of course hordes of tomahawks is a different matter.

Still at least they had the F-14 in case air superiority was needed. We are talking about super hornets here. If it had ever come to U.S vs S.U, the CBGs would have relied on TLAMs and not a/c for doing landbased damage at least initially. the airgroups would be mainly tasked with defending the CBG imho.

Anyways, my point is that the US relies on the super hornet, not for air superiority against an uber airforce but as a nice all in one type bird emphasiziing strike, against powers that are unable to put up much of a fight, which is great for the USN. Rest assured, their role in the above scenario would be restricted. It is hardly surprising that the entire program came about only after the collapse of the SU. India otoh, does not have that kind of overwhelming superiority against potential threats and would require a bird, that even in the long term can easily surpass chinese/paki non stealth aircraft.

CM.

[Dmurphy]

Why isnt the F 35 on offer for India ? Simple question isnt it ? Speaks volumes on how USA wants India to be ! If America is so gungho about India.,why not share technology it will be using itself after a decade ? If India is going for a American plane it has to be F 35 , no F 18 ., because Indian policies and procurement delays mandate that the fighter technology that is to enter service would be current a decade from now.They just want the billions and keep IAF a decade behind their emerging technologies.
A non US aircraft would fit the bill 'strategically' speaking., either the Rafale or Typhoon.

IIRC, F-35 IS on offer for India provided India goes in with the F-16. LM has offered the F-35 as a logical successor to the F-16s in future.The only reason its not being offered now is because the F-35 is not expected to be in sync with the MMRCA schedule.

[Singha]

afair, TLAMs would be used ofcourse but the warsaw pact had a vast number of targets
so not possible to cover all by repeat strikes. also at 850kmph, a good point defence system has a chance of knocking it down..even the iraqis inept as they were, managed to shoot a few down with AA guns.

but the USN did have a plan for a 'proactive' and massed attack by 4 x CVN each on
kola peninsula and petrovavlovsk-vladivostok to degrade the USSR submarine and air attack infra thickly deployed there. heavily protected by aegis ships and their interlocking combat system, these task forces could gather around 320 strike/fighters and unleash 320-400 sorties a day for a few days before moving away. many would be CAPs ofcourse to deter backfires.

backfire based would be targeted heavily with SLCM and ALCM ofcourse. but thats
only part of WW3. there are lots of tactical targets the F-18s could go after. and
they could tangle with Mig29/Su15 with a better radar and avionics.

I dont know what it involved, but sounds like they wanted to throw everything at the problem including the (then) F18-A/B

[Cain Marko]

backfire based would be targeted heavily with SLCM and ALCM ofcourse. but thats only part of WW3. there are lots of tactical targets the F-18s could go after. and
they could tangle with Mig29/Su15 with a better radar and avionics.

Don't forget foxhounds as well. And F-18Cs would have had a nightmare against fulcrums.

Imho tactical targets (micro level/ theater level) would be available only after some major strategic (macro level) change had occured. Unless of course if was some sort of proxy war happening in Cuba or something. If the US was looking to hit strategic targets and mvas with a couple of CBGs they'd have gotten casualties that would've made the peacenik brigade at home scream.

A target like murmansk would be more of a strategic asset, trying to bag that with 3-4 cbgs would be like inviting chengiz khan to battle against the nawab of oudh. They'd have to rely on some major players here. The Kola peninsula is where a bulk of the northern airdefence, fleet were concentrated - a decent analysis by SOC @ AFM shows that even today, that area is infested with S300s. Then you have probly tens (even 100s) of SSNs, Cruisers, flankers, fox hounds. No saar, thats a LOT of odds to buck for 300 odd f-18/f-14s.

CM

[rohitvats]

just sighted a F/A-18 Super Bug takeoff from HAL. No afterburner (based on sound signature)...two EFTs...

Damn, these clouds... ..they had to show their face today....depriving this jingo of few pleaures in these times.....

OBTW....my office is bang below the takeoff flight path....EGL.... ....

[kit]

Why isnt the F 35 on offer for India ? Simple question isnt it ? Speaks volumes on how USA wants India to be ! If America is so gungho about India.,why not share technology it will be using itself after a decade ? If India is going for a American plane it has to be F 35 , no F 18 ., because Indian policies and procurement delays mandate that the fighter technology that is to enter service would be current a decade from now.They just want the billions and keep IAF a decade behind their emerging technologies.
A non US aircraft would fit the bill 'strategically' speaking., either the Rafale or Typhoon.

IIRC, F-35 IS on offer for India provided India goes in with the F-16. LM has offered the F-35 as a logical successor to the F-16s in future.The only reason its not being offered now is because the F-35 is not expected to be in sync with the MMRCA schedule.

So does it mean all that 100 s of billions are thrown on a plane that is going to be obsolete a decade from now.Well it speaks volumes for India s far sighted leaders ! I cant think of one plane in the entire contest that wont be obsolete after 10 yr.That makes the technology,manufacturing and industrial offsets as important as the plane itself. .. 'strategic' considerations to throw away your money also doesn't make sense since India still has the largest number of impoverished people in the world.

[Cain Marko]

Here is a break up of a/c sorties during GWI: http://www.leyden.com/gulfwar/sortie.html

Breakdown of Sorties
Of the total of 109,876 aircraft sorties, the percentages by service broke down like this:
* Air Force 59.3%
* Navy 16.0%
* Allied Forces 15.7%
* Marine Corps 9.0%
While Army aviation certainly played a major role in the Gulf War, the figures I have didnÕt separate out their missions as I think the figures deal only with fixed-wing aircraft
Breaking this down even further, we see something like this:
Air Force Missions
* Combat 45%
* Air Force Support 24%
* Other Support 26%
* Defensive Counterair 5%
Navy Missions
* Strike 36%
* Fleet Defense 30%
* Support 34%
Marine Missions
* Combat 84%
* Support 16%

Truly tells you how much the F-18s did in terms of securing the air from enemy fighters.

Btw, F15C flew about 6000 sorties, F15E about 2200, F-18s about 4500 and the F-16 about 13500! The F-14 flew about 4000 sorties.

And yes, the F-18 by far had more losses than any other U.S. a/c (10/36 total). F-15 had 3/36 losses despite more sorties, F-14/36 had one, and the F-16 had 7/36. just some interesting stats I thought. The tornado seems to have equalled the F-18. interestingly, seems like the ones that fly the worst and are jack of all trades get beat the most.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... paper.html
http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html

CM.

[rakall]

just sighted a F/A-18 Super Bug takeoff from HAL. No afterburner (based on sound signature)...two EFTs...

Damn, these clouds... ..they had to show their face today....depriving this jingo of few pleaures in these times.....

OBTW....my office is bang below the takeoff flight path....EGL.... ....

The Yindoo-Yehudi cross-breed radar on top of CABS office -- I hope that is having a useful time measuring the relative RCS of all the MRCA contenders..

[GeorgeWelch]

Cruise missiles (in the quantity the US has) and B-2s do not give air superiority.

When you destroy radar and communication nodes, it pretty much nullifies the enemy AF's ability to do anything worthwhile.

Depends on what the scenario is. If you want to blind them to what you're doing while you invade them that's great, if they're the ones on the offensive, well they don't need as much support to go hit predetermined targets.

Not to mention the US cannot launch enough cruise missiles to destroy all or even most of the Chinese air force's capability.

Why do you think there were not that many A2A battles in the Gulf wars?

Because most Iraqi pilots had the sense to either a) stay home or b) run to Iran

(42 shot down, 137 to Iran)

Not necessarily. The brunt of the fighting would definitely fall on the carriers.

Nope, it'll be F-22s, F-35s, B52s will go in first along with massive TLAM type attacks. Just as in the Gulf war 1991.

Seriously you cannot compare Iraq to a China/Taiwan scenario

1. Who is going to launch all those TLAMs? The USN is not going to send a flotilla of destroyers right up to the Chinese coast to launch TLAMs, that would be suicide. Any destroyers would probably be tasked with CBG protection well away from the action.

The best bet is some SSGNs, but even if all 4 of them launched all their missiles, it wouldn't be enough to knock out all the Chinese bases.

(And B-52s? Are you kidding me? Those would nothing but fodder for China's SAM network.)

2. The basing issue is massively different. Against Iraq the USAF had massive air bases in Saudi Arabia. After China gets done pummeling Taiwan with ballistic missiles the BEST CASE scenario is a couple dozen raptors from places like Kadena and Guam. As Rand studies have shown, even if you maintain optimal sortie ratios and assume every missile load is fully expended and every missile equals one kill, it simply doesn't matter because there is not enough room for more Raptors, there are too many Chinese planes and the sortie distances are so far that they spend most of their time commuting back and forth.

Completely false. Carriers are designed to kick the door open. If they had to rely on the USAF to pave the way for them, there wouldn't be any real need for them.They are used in 'peacekeeping' operations now, but that is simply to share the load with the USAF, not because that is what they are limited to.If that was all they were good for, it would be far cheaper and more effective to simply scrap the naval air wing and transfer all assets to the USAF.

Man I don't believe this.

Why do you think the US invests so much money in carriers? Do they pour so many resources into this one capability simply to enforce no fly zones once the USAF has achieved air supremacy?

Don't be silly, that would be absurd!

Around 20% of the sorties launched by U.S. air power came from the carriers in the Gulf and the Red Sea.

Again the basing situations in Iraq vs China are completely different.

The whole point of carriers is to handle situations like China where there are no convenient bases.

Notice any F-18s/14s from carriers being mentioned here?

So? There were plenty of large airbases available nearby. In such a situation it makes sense to use the USAF. That luxury won't exist in a China scenario and thus we would be much more reliant on carriers.

Some situations are best handled by the USAF (Iraq) and some by the USN (China). That is why we have both.

In the gulf war, US air assets in neighboring regions (saudi for ex) along with tomahawks did a massive job in nullifying any air threat whatever.

Which again won't be possible against China.

India neither enjoys such overwhelming superiority over its neighbors nor the tech advantage. It needs a/c that can provide air superiority as much as strike capability.

Very much like the USN. A carrier air wing operates in isolation. It cannot guarantee overwhelming numerical superiority, yet it is still required to get the job done anytime anywhere against anyone.

It's naval pedigree has made the SH so versatile yet so potent. It can't rely on other planes for anything so it has to be capable of anything. But it's not enough just to be versatile, it has to be powerful because there is not 'Plan B'.

So much is invested into carriers and their air wings because as they say 'Failure is not an option.' It has to be able to take on the best from across the globe and still win. That is the driving mission of the SH and it succeeds admirably at it.

This is why I think the SH would be such a great plane for India. It can do everything AND do it well and do it NOW and in the FUTURE with continual upgrades funded by the USN.

The shornet will not be able to do the air superiority part in another 10-15 years against upgraded j10s, flankers imho.

The USN disagrees and is more than happy with the SH against any 4.5++++++++++++ generation aircraft.

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.

I was not talking of stealth a/c but of upgraded flankers and J-10s with AESAs.

Then SHs will perform admirably against them.

You don't understand how much development work goes into getting a new plane ready.

As such, for the mrca the U.S. was in a position no different from either the Gripen NG or the MiG-35.

Which is why you should be cautious of these half-baked offers with glowing promises to do everything and do it quickly.

The US has about 5 F-35's flying TODAY and the production line ALREADY EXISTS yet it still won't be ready for the MRCA deadline.

Hello! The JSF is a bloody new program, all flight testing, weapons testing is yet to be done. The flight testing on the XL was extensive, the bird was ready against the strike eagle for heavens sake.

Getting a plane flying is the easy part. It is integrating all the avionics into a seamless killing machine that is difficult and why airplane development has become so much slower.

Flight testing for the aerodynamics sure, but flight testing to make sure everything always works together in every situation is something else indeed.

To offer a bird that as philip points out is virtually 70s tech and flies like a brick is a rip off!

So you would say the MiG-35 should be eliminated for being 70's tech too?

The SH is hardly a brick, it is very maneuverable. Besides, I've never seen a Mach 1.8 brick. Coincidentally, that is the same speed as a Rafale, is it a brick too?

And the reality is that most combat is performed at subsonic speeds and the SH's subsonic acceleration is great.

[GeorgeWelch]

Why isnt the F 35 on offer for India ?

Because it would not be ready in time for the MRCA deadline.

If India is going for a American plane it has to be F 35 , no F 18

I could make quite an argument for the F-35, I think it would be great for India, BUT it did not meet the qualifications for this contest so I restrict myself to what is in the competition.

While they did not offer the F-35 for the MRCA, they did offer it to India separately:

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3461

News agencies reported that last week top executives from Lockheed Martin met with officials from the Ministry of Defence and conveyed to them that the United States had made the F-35 Lightening-II was available for IAF's 5th generation fighter requirements.

however

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... ers-01929/

Chief Marshal Tyagi became quite specific here, noting that despite US invites to related events, his force “has not expressed interest” in the US-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[Singha]

although most of you dont like it - I think the f-solah-70 would be cheaper in long run than f-18.
two engines needs more crew to keep uptime on same as single engine. f-solah also has a faster top speed , better mover at high speeds, no penalty of naval std undercarriage, fires the same weapons, has integrated irst , equal or better avionics and self defence, a equally good engine from same vendor (GE-)

onlee question would be APG79 -vs- APG80 . the APG79 may have a bigger aperture and hence better range, but afaik northrop-grumann who makes the APG77 (king khan radar) and also owns the JSF APG81 radar makes the APG80 ... said to be 'better' tech than the APG63 and APG79 of raytheon .. allegedly?

spooky auto targetting , SAR/ISAR etc has been talked about for these radars in A2G mode.

the 1st gen efforts like caesar, nora, el2052 etc wont be close.

[GeorgeWelch]

Anyways, my point is that the US relies on the super hornet, not for air superiority against an uber airforce but as a nice all in one type bird emphasiziing strike, against powers that are unable to put up much of a fight, which is great for the USN.

If carriers were only for opponents unable to put up a fight, there would be no need for carriers.

Just because you've only seen carriers against 3rd rate forces should not lull you into thinking they are incapable against 1st rate opponents. They get paid the big bucks specifically to be able to take on the best anywhere anytime.

[macharls]

Two F-18 landed @ HAL today , at 11:30 hrs.

[NRao]

Here is a break up of a/c sorties during GWI: http://www.leyden.com/gulfwar/sortie.html

Truly tells you how much the F-18s did in terms of securing the air from enemy fighters.

Btw, F15C flew about 6000 sorties, F15E about 2200, F-18s about 4500 and the F-16 about 13500! The F-14 flew about 4000 sorties.

And yes, the F-18 by far had more losses than any other U.S. a/c (10/36 total). F-15 had 3/36 losses despite more sorties, F-14/36 had one, and the F-16 had 7/36. just some interesting stats I thought. The tornado seems to have equalled the F-18. interestingly, seems like the ones that fly the worst and are jack of all trades get beat the most.

CM.

errrrr. Dessert Storm. 1990's?

F-18E/F in 2000+?

[Austin]

I probably will be very hesitant in choosing an American aircraft , even if they offered a B-2 for free and took care of maintenance , coz I dont know how long the current honeymoon will last.

[nrshah]

I probably will be very hesitant in choosing an American aircraft , even if they offered a B-2 for free and took care of maintenance , coz I dont know how long the current honeymoon will last.

Bulls eye

-Nitin

[Singh]

Dev D sounds better?
Those were wonderful pictures. What camera lens did you use?
Welcome to BRF.[/quote]

Thanks. I was not aware of the rule at the time of registering. Gerard sir, please kindly change my name and oblige.

Devesh[/quote]


Just heard a huge roar at 02:56.... but by the time i could run out our building it was lost.
Did anyone manage to catch a glimpse of it???

Wish i could somehw get d timetable as to when these machines r gonna fly

[Philip]

Acquisition of JSF type of multi-role aircraft with STOVL capabilities is vital for both the IN and IAF,as such aircraft can be based on our islands without the need for large conventional air bases.The UK used such hidden bases for their Harrier GR aircraft in Germany during the Cold War and even when given their locations,rrecce aircraft could not spot the camouflaged Harriers.Now,the problem with the JSF is that almost everyone is lusting after it (US allies),but its development hasn't yet taken off with even the conventional engined variant inordinately delayed sending costs even higher per aircraft.It is why Oz is buying 24 F-18SHs,but wants no more of the type ebcause they are incapable of meeting future threats.

Therefore,we must develop a STOVL version of the 5th-gen fighter.With three carriers in the pipeline and a few more amphibs too,which need an embarked aircraft for supporting amphib landings,the number could go upto 180-200 for the IN alone.The IAF would also be at an advantage having such aircratf closer to the borders in the north and east,especially to meet the challenge from China.All our air bases will come under massive Chinese missile attack,and the survivability of our key Flankers will pose a big problem.I had suggested using IN Sea Harriers during the Kargil War,which could attack the peaks more accurately,sadly not taken up by those at the helm.I remember the embarrassment and silence of an IAF worthy when I proposed such a role for the aircraft at a military function during the war (we had just lost a few aircraft),which was attended buy officers of all three services.The IN station chief was very diplomatic to his IAF counterpart.

The Swedes fell that the final decision could take upto 3 years! By then,will some of the aircraft being considered be of any use for the IAF in ther future,since after the decision is taken,it will take about 5 years to supply the AIF with the lot! Developing the LCA as a low cost aircraft indigenously built for the IAF,pursuing with focussed agression the 5th-gen fighter-to counter air forces equipped with the JSF and F-22 and the future Chinese stealth fighter are the key priorities.In the interim,we must keep on acquiring "more of the same" of aircraft in service to make up numbers.The most cost-effective bird should be acquired,if at all.

[shiv]

Two F-18 landed @ HAL today , at 11:30 hrs.

Saw both of them take off this afternoon.