All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
The F-15's combat record is bloated beyond imagination as is the F-16's. The F-15 never went into combat without AWACS support and faced an enemy with inferior aircraft. The F-15 is an amazing aircraft i don't doubt that but its not all that.
May be in this MMRCA competition we should fit fighters against each other!!!!
It might be the only way to get people to believe that I am right, that the EF is the best Air superiority fighter out of the contestants. But I think the SH would have the advantage with the APG-79 though.
I agree with u. EF is the best among competitors. Even I want India to go with it. But that machine cost u $122million each!!!! Cool!!! Still I want them to go for it. But why do u rate F-18 so high?
None of these beat the MKI. The MKI is one hypermaneuverable sensor-laden bomb truck with immense range and payload capacity.
NONE of these have the range, payload capacity or the maneuverablity of the MKI. Their sensors are comparable, with the exception of an AESA radar on the MRCA and the PESA on the MKI.
No, the Rafale, Typhoon and SH are more than a match for the MKI. Im sorry to break you bubble but the MKI isn't the ultimate fighter. Its RCS is too big, the SH, Rafale, Typhoon would pick it up easily. It is the fighters largest weakness. Also their sensors are not comparable, the MKI has nothing like Spectra for an EW suite. Maneuverability means nothing to the Meteor ( I highly doubt TVC will help the MKI here). You even say that the MKI is a bomb truck; its sometimes referred to as an air-dominance fighter. But it will have a tough time winning an A2A battle against the SH. There is no way that it will beat the EF armed with Meteors. I admit that the MKI beats all three in range and payload (For now) but that's about it.
can u pls explain more about Meteors in EF?? I think ur giving emphasis on radar and all electronic stuffs. Even if F-18 picks up Su-30 150kms away, it cant shoot down it till it is in the missile range, which is about 30-50kms. Su-30 would have picked up F-18 in that distance, then it is all evens Stevens. Also, it is very difficult to shoot down an aircraft which is more than 100kms away. Because Su30 can take evasive action.
But that machine cost u $122million each!!!! Cool!!! Still I want them to go for it. But why do u rate F-18 so high?
I know its expensive but India is more than capable of affording it. If it wasn't it wouldn't be in the competition.
I rate the F-18 so high because of how capable it is. While it might not be as maneuverable as the Mig, EF, or Rafale. Its avionics package more than make up for it. The APG-79 is the best exportable AESA available. IT has the smallest RCS besides the EF which is incredible considering the size of the aircraft. Its a larger aircraft than the Rafale but has a smaller RCS. The biggest bonus for the Super Hornet is that it will have a steady stream of upgrades for it due to the USN. There is already a block III version planned which reduces the frontal RCS and increases the range of the SH. THE US might not offer this but there is the option for India to acquire some Growlers in the MRCA order. It would be a sure bet to tip the contest in the US's favor.
can u pls explain more about Meteors in EF?? I think ur giving emphasis on radar and all electronic stuffs. Even if F-18 picks up Su-30 150kms away, it cant shoot down it till it is in the missile range, which is about 30-50kms. Su-30 would have picked up F-18 in that distance, then it is all evens Stevens. Also, it is very difficult to shoot down an aircraft which is more than 100kms away. Because Su30 can take evasive action.
The Meteors public range is 100km+, I can assure you that it is much farther than that; it should rival the AIM-Phoenix in terms of range (180 KM+). It was designed specifically to counter Russian Su's and Migs. It was meant to take out long range targets in heavy ECM conditions. The meteor will be the EF primary BVR missile.
True currently with the retirement of the Phoenix the US doens't have a BVR missile in the Meteor range. So the F-18 would rely on the AIM-120D (the newest version of the AMRAAM). The AIM-120D offers about 40-50% increase in range compared to the AIM-120C7 whose range is 105KM. While I don't know the actual range of the newest AMRAAM i can say that if the SH picks up the MKI at 150KM ish it should be able to lock on and fire the 120D. While the new AMRAAM has improved kill probability it doesn't mean that its a sure kill. The SU-30MKI does have impressive ECM's but the SH would be able to fire the first shot (or multiple first shots). The R-77 on the SU-30MKI has a longer range but the BARS radar would not be able to pick up the SH at 150KM (I don't think). So the advantage lies with the F-18.
ook, enough of your BS..the Mirage-2000 was integrated into the IAF in as much time as any other newly inducted fighter..the only difference was the generational gap between fighters of the Mirage-2000 class and MiG-21s and MiG-23s.
you still have not mentioned any figures about how long it took to fully ope rationalize mirage 2000 by IAF compared to Su-30 or Mig 29 .Generalization serve no other purpose but to obscure the main point of argument
FYI, the IAF has a longer history of operating French aircraft than Russian aircraft, including Ouragans, Mysteres and Alizes. IAF technicians are known to have been blown away by the Mirage-2000's ease of maintenance as compared to any Russian fighter and that includes the MiG-29, the Mirage's peer.
this is plain stupid logic - just count the number of russsian aircraft of all types from mig 21 to 27 to 29 to 29 k to mi 17 -to il 76 to an 32-to an 12-to ka 31 to mi 8 to mi 26 - compared to IAF experience with russian aircraft and weapon systems french aircraft and system is a complete wash out
and just to blow holes into your "how long it took IAF to integrate Mirage-2000" BS, read the article by Air Marshal Harish Masand in Vayu Aerospace on the face-off between the Mirage-2000 and the MiG-29, which at that time was just being inducted. the Mirage-2000 was already well established in IAF squadron service by then.
are you saying mirage 2000 is better aircraft in roles mig 29 perform ?
and if there was any hiccups, it was primarily because of how advanced the Mirage-2000 was compared to MiG-21s and MiG-23s that the IAF operated at that time.
that only proves what i was saying it takes time whenever a new weapon system is being integrated -we are used to advanced russian system through su-30 and simply dont have enough time to try and test a new one
the Mirage and its systems are less maintenance intensive, implying greater up time and aircraft availability- check with your sources for which squadrons have the highest availability among the IAF squadrons.
Mirages have highest availability true but does not mean they are the best - IAF pilots will vouch for MIG 29 in any air combat that is why in kargil Mirage 2000s were escorted by and protected by Mig 29 S in case you dont know -and unconfirmed reports 2 f-16 s locked on and maybe shot down by mig 29s . the mig 29s were never locked on by any falcon.However much later two Mirage 2000 S were locked on by f-16s and the radar track was shown to us ambassador .recall the incident
the Mirage has much greater airframe life: 7500 hrs vs. 6000 hrs for the MiG-29K, and only around 3000 hours for the MiG-29A that the IAF operates. a refit will extend that life, but by only around 1000 hours or so.
it is subjective and entirely speculative comparison -the real figures widely vary
now lets take the modern RD-33K engine for the MiG-29K, which is advertised as offering 1,200 hr MTBO (mean time between overhauls). However, based on IAF and Luftwaffe experiences with earlier models of the engine found that most engines require overhaul after 300-700 hours. Compare this to the M53P2 of the Mirage-it is of modular construction. This eliminates the need for complete overhaul at specified periods. The twelve modules that make up that engine can be exchanged or replaced during regular engine inspections, simplifying the entire process a great deal.
the so called experience also says Israelis developed python 5 and mated to their mirage and falcons just to counter the russian mig 29s with r-73
there are benefits to having western fighters and Russian fighters and the IAF recognises this and always has. but to suggest that all of India's defence and progress has only been due to Russian equipment and Russian help is ridiculous to say the least.
i provided the detailed list item wise -please refute it point wise then i can add another equally long list
why not publish a counter list of french assistance or American assistance for that matter
But I know it won't make any difference to you, so you can go back to your inane "Russian women are most beautiful and intelligent and gutsy and I wish I could marry one" or "we should bow down to and thank Russians for everything" or "MiG-35 has already gotten into pole position" type posts.
i was provoked into that statement - when some one could not refute with logic bent down to the level of personal slander
conveniently ignore that a final MiG-35 demonstrator prototype with the required structural mods has not yet been seen flying.
so was su-30 dear so was su-30 till we ordered it - now it is the mainstay of IAF strike power all the mirage 200o with their enviable service life and MTBF statistics
and with the Russians now saying that a 650 T/R module Zhuk AE radar is all they intend to provide, and the reason offered is that it gives adequate performance as is- rather than scaling it up to a level that matches what the IAF wants. all of which conveniently fits in with the recent reports of their near bankruptcy, so no money left for any further development, huh ? after all, engineering work is costly and Russia is not the USSR where unlimited funds were available.
any system design is always a matter of compromise agility vs stability .size vs performance,fuel consumption vs climb rate - and who says we cannot achieve the desired detection and tracking range with 650 T/R modules -simply reading of leaflet statistics you have any idea of T/R module characteristics of russian and american ones -if so please eleborate
and for all their bluster, the RuAF won't put its money where its mouth is and order MiG-35s for itself. the argument about large Russian airspace hardly holds when the MiG-35's range is so much larger than that of the MiG-29.
Russia did not go for su-30 also till we went for it -that does not prove anything
My gut feeling says that F-18 will win the competition. But I dont think we can trust U.S. regarding technology transfer.
I don't know about the TOT. I don't think that the US will screw india over with it. India is way too important of a defense customer to do that. If the MRCA deal goes very well TOT wise etc it will open more opportunities for American defense companies to win contracts. India will be a huge defense buyer the US would be stupid to jeopardize that by screwing india with the TOT on this order. Most people on this board are anti-American (defense equipment wise) and nothing the US does will change their minds. IF the US wins the MRCA deal and it goes bad the US could loose other potential deals it is currently competing for (Attack helicopters, Heavy transport (C-17)) and will loose any chance of India exercising its options for the C-130J and P-8I. That's a lot of money right there which at this point Boeing and LM cannot afford to loose.
Russia did not go for su-30 also till we went for it -that does not prove anything
Russia has not purchased the Su-30. They are developing the Su35BM which is a further development of the MKI. And it actually does prove something. Why purchase an aircraft that the host country will not induct into their air force? If the Russians don't have confidence to induct an aircraft into their own airforce why should india take the chance in its airforce.
But for Russian help in 1971 war, i dont know if we wud have been in a position as we are today.
It was the Soviets not Russia.
But, the Soviets also prevented India from taking on Pakistan in the west - at the behest of the US!!
And, recall Tashkent.
You make it sound as though the Soviets were just walking along and India got herself into trouble and then asked the Soviets for help.
Russia has been paid for her troubles.
India IN FACT bailed out Russia when the Russians needed help to survive the drunken years. Without MKI who knows where Sukhoi would have been. In fact I would like to argue that Russian defense has relied on Indian funds for the past 10-15 years. Without those funds they would not be afloat today.
Tashkent was 1965 when we did not shared strategic relations with Soviet. Strategic relations vide friendship treaty was signed by Mrs Indra Gandhi in Aug 1971 with Soviet which had a provision of counter measures by one in case other is attacked. It is this provision which makes strategic relations. All stupid trade figures, big statements on culture / governing style (Democracy) does not make two countries strategic.
With respect to payment to soviet for their troubles, i did not know if India had money enough to purchase 3/4 veto which soviet exercised. Neither did i know we had money to lease Soviet Nuke submarines and other warship when SO CALLED STRATEGIC PARTNER send nuke propelled CBG against us. Poor me, i always read India was poor country then.
With respect to bailing Russia, did we gave them interest free loans? Or grant? Or we gave sukhoi blank cheque with a provision to repay after 100 years. We paid for what we bought. We purchased from them not because we felt pity for their state. we purchased because they offered us the best that was available in the world. MKI (1998) is still better than than anything that is offered thru MMRCA(2014), better than anything in the world even today only exception being F 22 raptor. Hope ten years hence we dont start claiming we gave Russians their 5th gen fighter
NRao wrote:
Russians have given us technology and help which others will not even talk of. Can any one get a nuke submarine from America / UK? We cannot even get consultancy for LCA which is not a match to F22 /F35 they have.
Sure, they have and thanks for that.
BUT India has paid a price for it. It did not come free.
On consultancy for LCA, wonder why India could not rely (again?) on Russia for it.
There are two periods: Soviets and Russia. They have very little in common because when the SU split a lot of techs went along with other nations that were formed out of the SU. Russia today has a great deal of brain power - no two ways, but seems to have lost much in funds and engineering capabilities.
The fact of the matter is that Russia (NOT Soviets) are under a bind. While they have lost a great deal (understandably), the US in particular has gained a lot.
From a political PoV too, today, India is better aligned with the US - even with all the -ves the relationship has.
We have to let go of teh Soviet era - it cannot come back. And, the Russians are very nearly in the same boat as India in many ways: the two together - IMHO - can go somewhere. BUT the Russians are no longer the power the Soviets were - in any respect. The best the Russians have done is to propose to buy 48 Su-35s!!!!!! While India is inducting 220 or so in the same period of time (and with the potential to make the MKI far better without Russian help).
With respect to decision to go for American consultancy and not for Russian, I think we already have paid price when all the softwares /codes of FBW was confiscated after nuke test though they have been written by our engineers/scientists with less than 1% help of LM.
Weak decision as usual by weak nehru type dimplomacy.
with respect to two periods, yes definitely there are two periods. Russians might have lost a good deal of expertise but still their expertise is second none to world. It is only that last 2 decades their economy did not allow them to experiment too much. But now with revival, tigers are roaring again (India / Russia)
Ya from American POV, India has to be better aligned to them where they can dispose off productions of their multinationals. No co incident this tilt towards India has been after the growth of Indian economy and purchasing power of Indian middle class which is more than the entire population of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Where ,the so called partnership between WORLDS OLDEST AND WORLDS LARGEST DEMOCRACY as often quoted by American ministers, was when they decided to sanction us / sent nuke cbg.....etc
Russians still are very powerful, atleast enough to deter American in every aspect. Where were Americans who only made hue and cry when Georgia was attacked. They made huge statements, threatened to take counter measures... just to feed the hungry new agencies. Americans know they still cannot take Russia and that is what makes Russia powerful.
With the rise of Russia / China / India, world is not a uni polar. In bi polar world, u cannot keep yourself non aligned(A mistake we did in 1950s) China on the other hand joint Soviet is now way ahead of us. On the other hand none of American ally has risen to match China /India. Look at japan / Australia... If we have to join one group let us join the one who has good intentions and is equal in every aspect to other. Also, with Russia re attempt to develop sophisticated systems after economic revival, we will always be their partners (Pak fa / MTA / Space etc) unlike with Americans where we always will be dumped with systems (of course stripped off) so that their companies can earn profits
I would like to ask u about nuclear and missile technology. I know that this is not the right thread for it. Anyway, these are my questions:-
1) Who is willing to share missile and submarine technology with India??
2) Who can be the best partner for India in defense deals?
Gentlemen,we are getting off at a tangent with pro or anti Russia/US viewpoints.Let's try and objectively discuss the pros and cons of each contender with as much factual data available.
What I've done with my recent posts is to show the cost of acquiring the F-18SH based upon prices quoted for Brazil and for Oz (ordered).These are not life cycle costs at all.If an aircraft is to last for 25-30 years,will such a small inventory of missiles and munitions be sufficient? What about life-cycle hours for the engines? Some of these details cannot be obtained accurately here,but the overall "package" with the important key features can.
Most importantly though,is the real reason and need for the IAF acquiring an MMRCA.This as said before,must be viewed holistically in the context of the overall future plans of the IAF.Any air force faces the question and decisions relating to numbers and obsolescence,modernisation of the fleet with new aircraft ,upgrades,etc.In another post elsewhere,I've quoted from a British defence expert in the decision making loop,of how it amazes him how weapon systems take so long to arrive or be developed and when they finally arrive at hugely inflated costs,they never perform as intended.Adm.Gorshkov famously had this motto on his wall,"Better is the enemy of Good". The MMRCA acquisition must be viewed in this overall context.
Now for pro and anti stances.We all know the huge contribution that the Soviet Union/Russia mad to ensuring India's security in the past and the present current cooperation in developing joint weapon systems like Brahmos and the 5th-gen fighter,not to mention the ATV,Akulas,etc! If Russian systems and their support is so pathetic,we would not be partners with them on these vital defence projects.Therefore,let's put to rest once and for all the "anti-Russia" whine.
Nevertheless,the Russian arms industry today is a far cry from the times of the Soviet Union when it led the world in so many categories.That it has the capacity for cutting edge systems is not being questioned.The SU-30MKI is one such exapmle in the aircraft industry which is offering the to us the MIG-35,"the pinnacle of the Fulcrum development" as the IDR put it in a feature some time ago.The Russian aircraft industry,which during the Yeltsin years almost went to pieces.It has now been integrated into the OAK or united aircraft co.,under Alexei Federov,streamlining all design studios and production facilities.However,some of these remain outside Russian soil today,like the production of the IL-76s,other transport aircraft, etc,which were made in the Ukraine,Belarus and other Soviet Republics.This reorganisation and restructuring will ensure a more cost-effective aircraft industry for Russia.The question of spares,support,etc. do not therefore appear to be major hurdles.We have the history of the enormously successful SU-30MKI programme with us.Despite this record though,if MIG aircraft production is transfered from its current facilities into a new one,as Zhukovsky is being turned into the "equivalent of Toulose or Seattle",the costs of the venture might,experts say,increase for the MIG-35 affecting its chances in the MMRCA contest.MIG plans to double Fulcrum exports with the upgraded versions being far more capable than the earlier MIG-29s.A synergy between the Sukhoi and MIG bureaus is being achieved with the restructuring benefiting both design bureaus.In the case of Soviet aircraft manufacturing facilities now outside Russia,the reason why after sales support was lacking in the past,Russia now plans to manufacture almost all those aircraft and their components within Russia in this restructuring programme.Similarly,the Russian helo industry has also been merged,with new designs and a healthy order book in hand.
In the case of Russian weaponry,almost all the current AAMs and munitions use on the SU-30MKI will be available for the MIG-35,plus some new ones under development and upgrades of R-77/73s,etc.This will result in huge cost savings with common weaponry for these two aircraft,PLUS the weaponry being developed for the 5th-gen fighter.So some can see the enormous advantages if the MIG-35 is chosen.What are its drawbacks though? Other than a desire to also acquire current western technology,the only question mark is how effective is its AESA radar when compared with the other contenders.An Israeli AESA radar can be used on the aircraft if felt neccessary though,as it is on offer for the LCA and even the SU-30MKI flies with Israeli avionics input.If the MIG-35 meets the IAFs requirements and comes at a reasonable cost,it will win hands down,as even politically,it will face little opposition when compared with acquiring a US system,where all the three service chiefs have written to the MOD warning it against signing an EUM under its current conditions which would drastically curtail our defence preparedness.
Similarly,the pros and cons of the other contenders can be evaluated.All things being equal,the cost per unit along with accompanying "tricks" and "goodies" will be the key factor.With the requiremen of the IAF being both "quality and quantity",if the SU-20MKI and 5th-gen fighter are to represent the qualitative aspect of the IAF,then the LCA and MMRCA will need to repressnt the quantitative aspect of the fleet.That being the case,the most expensive fighters in the contest (F-18SH,Typhoon and Rafale)will have to pull rabbits out of their hats if they are to succeed against their more cost-effective rivals (Gripen,F-16 and MIG-35).Of the top three,I feel that the Rafale has the best chance of all western aircraft,as France has offered its own aircraft for a "quick fix" of 40+ to increase rapidly its induction into service,apart from our happy experience of operating the Mirage-2000 as has been pointed out in above posts.
Last edited by Philip on 27 Aug 2009 13:45, edited 2 times in total.
I think ur right. MIG-35 appears cost effective. Russia is blackmailing India now a days. They are getting into extortion techniques to be sure. Their MIG-35 will come cheap, but when? May be we will cross 200 MIG-35s by 2030!! We need a reliable partner. India has ordered 40 Su-30s few months back. So Russia has to understand that India cant afford to wait for their weapons for ever. India should look to tilt towards western technology from now onwards.
India is loosing the edge to PAK. India can never be compared to China, since chinese are in front always. I would say Rafale, since French are reliable. They are also helping us with nuclear technology. I think we need to work with French, since their diplomacy doesn't depend on neither U.S. nor European interest.
Can you please let me know your thoughts?
Avinash black mail is too harsh a word to say about half a century old trusted strategic ally
regarding cost escalation there is much more than meets the eye particularly the Goroshkov deal
I strongly believe apart of the escalation went to meet the cost of Russian consultancy and support for Ariahant project if not all of it .130 + russian engineers and technicians were with us during the development phase and hopefully still there
sure we need technology from all over world but it has to have reliability and cost effectiveness .You must be knowing what happened to LCA team who got kicked out after pokhran 2
Similarly,the pros and cons of the other contenders can be evaluated.All things being equal,the cost per unit along with accompanying "tricks" and "goodies" will be the key factor.With the requiremen of the IAF being both "quality and quantity",if the SU-20MKI and 5th-gen fighter are to represent the qualitative aspect of the IAF,then the LCA and MMRCA will need to repressnt the quantitative aspect of the fleet.That being the case,the most expensive fighters in the contest (F-18SH,Typhoon and Rafale)will have to pull rabbits out of their hats if they are to succeed against their more cost-effective rivals (Gripen,F-16 and MIG-35).Of the top three,I feel that the Rafale has the best chance of all western aircraft,as France has offered its own aircraft for a "quick fix" of 40+ to increase rapidly its induction into service,apart from our happy experience of operating the Mirage-2000 as has been pointed out in above posts.
agreed from a diffrent point of view -the two countries which have consistently helped India in her strategic high technology projects is Russia and France so the real competition will be between rafale and mig 35 - but mig 35 being much cheaper will be easier to add in larger numbers whcih is the primary requirement today
I would like to ask u about nuclear and missile technology. I know that this is not the right thread for it. Anyway, these are my questions:-
1) Who is willing to share missile and submarine technology with India??
2) Who can be the best partner for India in defense deals?
- only russia
- ofcousre russia
and add who supported india in international forums in conflict times
-russia
who gave india the cryogenic engine technology-russia
who gave our first supersonic aircraft
who helping with semi cryogenic engine development
speed of manufacture if also a factor between Rafale and Mig-35. The Russians have gone on board to say that Mig-35 will be ready for delivery only by 2013 or 2014 whereas IAF has been on record as saying that they want to start induction 3 years time or say around 2012.
I used the term blackmailing, since I read an article where Russians have clearly told India that for other deals (Ships, submarines, etc) to go through smoothly and quickly (time frame+5-10 yrs delay ), India should opt for MIG-35. I found this is very disappointing.
They have become greedy. This is a new world order. Russia is competing with China to become world's 2nd super power, not India.
If u were given an option to buy a car between a Russian made and an European or U.S. made, then what would you do?
Dont misinterpret me. If China attacks India, then u cant expect Russia to join us. So, we need a best force. You have to fight ur battle. We need a best deal. We didnt have the choice in other deals (submarine, aircraft carrie, etc)..But we have now in MMRCA... So why not?? We will still take whatever Russia has to offer if it is worth.
If u were given an option to buy a car between a Russian made and an European or U.S. made, then what would you do?
Dont misinterpret me. If China attacks India, then u cant expect Russia to join us. So, we need a best force. You have to fight ur battle. We need a best deal. We didnt have the choice in other deals (submarine, aircraft carrie, etc)..But we have now in MMRCA... So why not?? We will still take whatever Russia has to offer if it is worth.
Russia today is not soviet union of yesterday and hence the difference in approach .They are into capitalist system but still not learnt all the ropes to survive
so what they are doing is a package offer lumpsum type of deal
like akula +backfire + carrier
They also inbetween and still some extent in financial problem -whole world knows it
They are not greedy -still apple to apple russian systems are worlds cheapest
point is we got too usd to buying a mig 21 type for 3 crores and paid in useless rupees in 60 s
so when they ask world market price we cry"greedy"
Gentlemen,we are getting off at a tangent with pro or anti Russia/US viewpoints.Let's try and objectively discuss the pros and cons of each contender with as much factual data available.
What I've done with my recent posts is to show the cost of acquiring the F-18SH based upon prices quoted for Brazil and for Oz (ordered).These are not life cycle costs at all.If an aircraft is to last for 25-30 years,will such a small inventory of missiles and munitions be sufficient? What about life-cycle hours for the engines? Some of these details cannot be obtained accurately here,but the "package" with the important key features can.
Most importantly though,is the real reason and need for the IAF acquiring an MMRCA.This as said before,must be viewed holistically in the context of the overall future plans of the IAF.Any air force faces the question and decisions relating to numbers and obsolescence,modernisation of the fleet with new aircraft ,upgrades,etc.In another post elsewhere,I've quoted from a British defence expert in the decision making loop,of howit amzes him how eapon systems take so long to arrive or be developed and when they finally arrive at hugely inflated costs,they never perform as intended.Adm.Gorshkov famously had this motto on his wall,"Better is the enemy of Good". The MMRCA acquisition must be viewed in this overall context.
Now for pro and anti stances.We all know the huge contribution that the Soviet Union/Russia mad to ensuring India's security in the past and the present current cooperation in developing joint weapon systems like Brahmos and the 5th-gen fighter,not to mention the ATV,Akulas,etc! If Russian systems and their support is so pathetic,we would not be partnesr with them on these vital defence projects.Therefore,let's put to rest once and for all the "anti-Russia" whine.
Nevertheless,the Russian arms industry today is a far cry from the times of the Soviet Union when it led the world in so many categories.That it has the capacity for cutting edge systems is not being questioned.The SU-30MKI is one such exapmle in the aircraft industry which is offering the to us the MIG-35,"the pinncale of the Fulcrum development" as the IDR put it in a feature some time ago.The Russian aircraft industry,which during the Yeltsin years almost went to pieces.It has now been integrated into the OAK or united aircraft co.,under Alexei Federov,streamlining all design studios and production facilities.However,some of these remain outside Russian soil today,like the production of the IL-76s,other transport aircraft, etc,which were made in the Ukraine,Belarus and other Soviet Republics.This reorganisation and restructuring will ensure a more cost-effective aircraft industry for Russia.The question of spares,support,etc. do not therfore appear to be major hurdles.We have the history of the enormously successful SU-30MKI programme with us.Despite this record though,if MIG aircraft production is transfered from its current facilities into a new one,as Zhukovsky is being turned into the "equivalent of Toulose or Seattle",the costs of the venture might,experts say,increase for the MIG-35 affecting its chances in the MMRCA contest.MIG plans to double Fulcrum exports with the upgraded versions being far more capable than the earlier MIG-29s.A synergy between the Sukhoi and MIG bureaus is being achieved with the restructuring benefiting both design bureaus.In the case of Soviet aircraft manufacturing facilities now outside Russia,the reason why after sales support was lacking in the past,Russia now plans to manufacture almost all those aircraft and their components within Russia in this restructuring programme.Similarly,the Russian helo industry has also been merged,with new designs and a healthy order book in hand.
In the case of Russian weaponry,almost all the current AAMs and munitions use on the SU-30MKI will be available for the MIG-35,plus some new ones under development and upgrades of R-77/73s,etc.This will result in huge cost savings with common weaponry for these two aircraft,PLUS the weaponry being developed for the 5th-gen fighter.So some can see the enromous advantages if the MIG-35 is chosen.
What are its drawbacks though? I do understand the need not to place all our bets upon just one horse,but we've already effectively divided our acquisitions between Russia,Israel (largest supplier now),Europe and some less critical
acquisitions even from the US.Other than a desire to also acquire current western technology,the only question mark is how effective is its AESA radar when compared with the other contenders.An Israeli AESA radar can be used on the aircraft if felt neccessary though,as it is on offer for the LCA and even the SU-30MKI flies with Israeli avionics input.If the MIG-35 meets the IAFs requirements and comes at a reasonable cost,it will win hands down,as even politically,it will face little opposition when compared with acquiring a US system,where all the three service chiefs have written to the MOD warning it against signing an EUM under its current conditions which would drastically curtail our defence preparedness.
Similarly,the other contenders can be evaluated.All things being equal,the cost per unit along with accompanying "tricks" and "goodies" will be the key factor.With the requiremen of the IAF being both "quality and quantity",if the SU-20MKI and 5th-gen fighter are to represent the qualitative aspect of the IAF,then the LCA and MMRCA will need to repressnt the quantitative aspect of the fleet.That being the case,the most expensive fighters in the contest (F-18SH,Typhoon and Rafale)will have to pull rabbits out of their hats if they are to succeed against their more cost-effective rivals (Gripen,F-16 and MIG-35).Of the top three,I feel that the Rafale has the best chance of all western aircraft,as France has offered its own aircraft for a "quick fix" of 40+ to increase rapidly its induction into service,apart from our happy experience of operating the Mirage-2000 as has been pointed out in above posts.
Now to be fair to the US,it also wants a strategic relationship with us because of China,same situ as was during the JFK years ,I've pointed out in another thread,but with one major difference.That unlike the JFK tilt towards India then,it will never give up Pak being given first bite at the cherry because it cal control the Paki military and ruling elite more successfully than that of India.A famous retd. Pak Air Cmde.,who was sacked for giving Zia a tongue lashing to his face,in his recent book bemoans the act of Pak giving the US base facilities for secret U-2 flights over the Soviet Union during the Cold War.Gary Powers was shot down in a famous event of the Cold War.That act he said compromised Paki sovereignity and allowed the nation to come under US control which remains to this day.It is this hard fact which to me should automatically disqualify the US from the deal,the terms of which they will engineer to ensure that India does not gain superiority over Pak in military terms.Why then did they supply Pak with sub-Harpoon and air launched missiles for their subs and P-3 Orions,plus several hundred AIM-120 AMRAAMs to fight the Taliban's "air force" and "navy"?!
On cost alone,the deal with Russia as reported for the lease for 10 years for two Akula-2+ SSGNs,is a mere $700 million for the package (JDW)! In addition,the subs cannot be stopped form carrying Indian developed 1000km+ cruise missiles,making them also able to carry part of our strategic deterrent,as the cruise missiles have more range than the K-15s aboard the Arihant.AFter 10 years,the subs will most probably be offered to us at depreciated/discounted prices.For the price of 126 F-18SHs,we could get even if the cost per sub is raised to $0.5 billion,40-50 SSGN/SSBNs of cutting edge technology!
The political considerations being made about Russia vis-a-vis China/India are specious.Even recent Russian anlysts warn about China in the long term,its geo-political ambitions,lusting after Russia's Far Eastern mineral wealth,Chinese reverse engineering Russian weapon systems without approval,etc.,which is why Russia is denying China top tech items.China is still without a naval carrier fighter,as Russia is very hesistant to sell them the SU-33 or the MIG-29K.Even if they do sell them a carrier fighter,the level of tech will be far less than either that on Russian or Indian aircraft.The US is most unlikely to come to India's aid in any spat with China,because China holds so much of US "paper",some 3 $trillion! India has to defend itself by itself.We can count upon some diplomatic help from our friends and military aid,but any fighting we do will be borne entirly by us.Even in this comparison,the US will come at the bottom of the pile for support in any spat with either Pak or China.
Last edited by Philip on 27 Aug 2009 14:39, edited 1 time in total.
Will u accept If they take 5 yrs more than any other country to deliver?? We need to build our forces in eastern front man. China has over 2 lakh forces there. Pakistan Air Force is much stronger now. Situation is not so cool as Indians feel. China-Pak relations are threatening India. They are planning to build a highway between Chinese occupied Kashmir to Pakistan occupied Kashmir. We need to survive. It is very important for us not to loose another inch of homeland to a foreign country. I guess u have heard of Chinese incursion in Ladakh.
You make valiant statements on the Mig 35, missiles etc, spare parts etc and declare there is no problem???
eg.
That it has the capacity for cutting edge systems is not being questioned
This reorganisation and restructuring will ensure a more cost-effective aircraft industry for Russia.The question of spares,support,etc. do not therfore appear to be major hurdle
Huh????
These are your own personal view and the facts on ground do not support that
This aircraft is being scraped together from pieces here and there. No supply chain exists for it. Vendors are making the odd piece and then waiting for moolah before they can or will do any more. Thats not a supply chain I am willing to trust
And what they are making is technologically behind (note a lot of things on MKI are not Russian)
Bottom line it is not about being pro Russia - Its about recognizing that the Russian military industrial complex is in many parts broken and will continue to slip further and we cannot afford to waste time and resources on this.
Again I personally thinks the Gripen suits IAF requirements - but it screws the LCA up.
The MRCA should be able to deliver on the air-leg of nuclear triad. It should be an ideal supersonic/hypersonic alcm launch platform. Would make the mrca acquisition more meaningful.
(MBDA sets up hypersonic facility)
I guess this is a key asset to support developpment of the successor of ASMP-A (when ONERA is in it, expect black programs) and maybe a naval antiship hypersonic variant (maybe a european program as we are also using european credits here). This should benefit Rafale, but I doubt Nuclear capacity is openly offered on export markets.
Two pages before, I was asked about RBE2 AESA, Meteor and MICA IR future. The first operational AESA antennas should be induced with the last 4 F3 rafale (from the current batch) which means around 2012. As of today, it is said that 4 prototype arrays are used for test, radar modes development and commercial demos.
Due to the requirements of UAE deal, integration of Meteor has been advanced and is now scheduled for 2015 (originally 2018). I do not know if it is yet tested with the AESA variant of RBE2 but it should be the case as the current RBE2 PESA doesn't allow it to be used in all the intended scenarios.
MICA IR future is unknown... I mean we will certainly persist in the long range multi-purpose IR missile choice, but there's nowhere to be hear about MICA body or seeker enhancement. Quite strange for an already 10/15 years old missile. Either the seekers are good as they are and good to go for another 10 years (some seem to say IR can see (but what?) at 30km+, the EM variant has been used for ASTER missiles), either we are lackings funds for a better version yet and not too worried as meteor is coming. Must be somewhere between both... I think we'll hear some news when we'll see more VLO aircrafts induced (F35 as well as PAK-FA).
Surya,the info I've posted and given below has been collated from the latest and past issues of mags like Flight Intl.AWST,IDR,Jane's,etc.which have special features like "In from the Cold" about the Russian aerospace industry and what is happening,plus some info from other sources.The Moscow air show is on and there is a lot of news about the restructuring that has taken place.The views about the Russian aircraft have been taken from the analysts and armed forces experts like Gen Utterbeck who flew the SU-30MKI,posted earlier.These experts are of the opinion that the MIG-35 is a hot favourite as Federov,now the head of Russia's OAK (United Aircraft Corp.) was earlier the Russian head of Irkut which swung the deal for the SU-30MKI,a project that saw the successful integration of both western,Indian and Russian equipment into the SU-30MKI and knows the IAF's requirements and its fighting philosophy best.Best put in athletic lingo,the MIG-35 has the "inside lane".
However,there's "also many a slip 'tween the cup and the lip" as any golfer will tell you.MIG's production facilities may be shifted in the restructuring and if this happens,production costs per aircraft will definitely go up.OAK which employs 100,000,want (like Air India!) to cut that figure by half.Basically the MIG-35 has twice the performance of the MIG-29 in terms of range,payload and comes with a 3-D TVC for close combat and missile dodging.There is no other aircraft other than the Harrier which can come close to it in the close-combat role (British Typhoon pilots opinion too at Aero-India this year).Furthermore,all the AAMs that can be carried on the SU-30-MKI and most of the air-to-ground munitions can be carried by the MIG-35.Given the experience of the Indian Sukhois,integrating an Israeli EL-2025 AESA radar is also an option if the IAF prefers it to the Russian ones developed.MIG also have another trick up their sleeve,as they could offer some of the technology developed for their I-42 5th-gen fighter which is in hibernation as the funds aren't enough for developing both the Sukhoi PAK-FA and the (smaller) I-42.MIG-29 engines for upgraded MIG-29s are being made in India,the IN is buying the MIG-29K,support facilities are being set up for the same,so from all angles the MIG-35 would be the easiest aircraft to integrate into the IAF's fleet in the most cost-effective manner.
However,would we want to place all our eggs in the Russian basket,especially as we are to get the ultra-capable stealth fighter the 5th-gen from a joint programme with them? At what price could a contemporary westrn multi-role fighter be acquired with the latest western technology with it which would help the LCA prgramme as well? This is the other option.Initially the IAF only wanted more later versions of the Mirage-2000.We must remember that the LCA project HAS to succeed,especially as the Chinese have successfully developed their own light multi-role fighter the J-17 which Pak is acquiring and building at home.Therefore,what overall synergy can be obtained from a western option for the IAF's force structure? Here,to my mind,the rafale is the clear favourite,as we've had a very good experience with the Mirage-2000 and if the French can give us a dela whereby they replace in time all the Mirages with Rafales,plus provide us with the first two squadrons of rafales very qiuickly from their existing inventory,it will be hard to beat...but at what cost? French goods do not come cheap.Neither will the Typhoon,which will cost more and the prices given for the F-18SH for Brazil and OZ appear quite extraordinary.
Apart from looking holistically at the overall health and needs of the IAF,the overall prioriites of he nation too should be examined.I think that almost all BRitons feel that the key priority is for us to build asap our 5 SSBNs and acquire/build another 5-8 SSGNs to support the SSBNs and provide the IN with a very powerful underwater sub fleet which can operate both within the IOR and into far east and Pacific waters to counter China.Developing our ICBM and LR cruise missiles is part of this exercise.Therefore,with our beggarly attitude towards the armed forces and their needs,the aircraft whcih can provide the IAF's requirements at reasonable cost,and carry some cutting edge tech as a bonus,will be hard to beat.
Perhaps we could draw up a matrix with a comparative study of the various birds,their key components like radar,weaponry,range,costs,etc.,as well as the political preferences, so that we get a clearer picture to evaluate the rival bids.
This should benefit Rafale, but I doubt Nuclear capacity is openly offered on export markets.
I am aware of MTCR and the fact that the unnamed hypersonic french alcm will be a french-only effort.
However it is open fact that india's mirages are nuclear capable. And the MRCA will most definitely be nuclear capable to form the air leg of the nuclear triad.
Last edited by Drevin on 27 Aug 2009 19:25, edited 1 time in total.
I fully understand what you are saying - no disagreements there.
Suffice it to state that let us agree to disagree.
On my part I am not willing to make a decision based on emotions. I just do not see a need to shackle future Indian gens because those Indians in the past made mistakes.
Secondly, the current states - both Russia and India - are no where close to the old Soviets and India (IMHO of course). I just do not see India being in that predicament in the near future and would hate for Indians to deal with other nations with a burden or guilt. Certainly do hope that the IAF picks what is good for her - MiG-35, so be it. And that the politicians find a finer way out (hate this dowry business: US gets $x billion, France Y billion, Russia Z billion .......).
The time is fast approaching when Indians need to build self confidence and respect, IMHO. Even companies like TCS are getting cheap - going the wrong way.
Jean_M wrote:Due to the requirements of UAE deal, integration of Meteor has been advanced and is now scheduled for 2015 (originally 2018).
Since the aesa is going to be available by 2012 I am guessing meteor testing using the aesa-rbe2 will not start before that. 2015 seems way into the future Thanx for info.
Jean_M wrote:Due to the requirements of UAE deal, integration of Meteor has been advanced and is now scheduled for 2015 (originally 2018).
Since the aesa is going to be available by 2012 I am guessing meteor testing using the aesa-rbe2 will not start before that. 2015 seems way into the future Thanx for info.
THAT is a universal problem. Only a need can get a vendor to conduct the proper R&D, etc. EADS, Dassault nor MiG have an internal (national) need for a lot of what the MRCA needs and so naturally they are not funding it.
It is true of the US too - except that they have a need (for use and just to keep in front of the pack).
Also, funds. Who among all these vendors have proper, continuous funds?
NRaoji I think the reason is not funds ...... bottomline ...... France is equally interested in the MICA series and doesn't care too much about the success/failure of meteor.
Look how much they have invested in ASMP-A's hypersonic successor. They have built a first-of-its-kind facility that can simulate mach 7.5 environments. One can argue that this hypersonic missile is meant to ensure the lethality of Frances air-arm of its nuclear triad. Hence the heavy investment. But they already have ASMP-A mach 2.5/3 500-600km alcm. Meteor should have been a priority.
It seems that France is very happy with the MICA for now. The answer most likely lies in what Jean_M said...."MICA's seeker is so good they are not thinking of meteor".
But, as your own post suggests, France (in this case) is funding what SHE considers important to her.
Similarly, IF what is is important to India is NOT important to a source country they will not fund it and more than that their interst will be ONLY related to a sale. (That is natural.)
Which is why I would like the MRCA to be a part of the country of origin's AF too. To the extent possible, but a serious part, not just to make a sale.
The point I am trying to make is that they have the funds but the products that are being funded are being prioritized. However this prioritization doesnot have any logic for which I gave two examples.
1. Mirage 2000N and Rafale F3 are certified to carry ASMP-A which is a long range supersonic nuclear ALCM. This should have been good enough till 2020.
2. Meteor is expected to be the bvraam of choice for many european countries. Infact tons of money is being poured in by the eurocanard manufacturers in an attempt to gear up for the arrival of meteor ( all the aesa radars of eurocanards are being developed etc)
The priority should have been meteor. And there are funds. Looks like only SAAB is keen on it.
Drevin wrote:NRaoji I think the reason is not funds ...... bottomline ...... France is equally interested in the MICA series and doesn't care too much about the success/failure of meteor.
Look how much they have invested in ASMP-A's hypersonic successor. They have built a first-of-its-kind facility that can simulate mach 7.5 environments. One can argue that this hypersonic missile is meant to ensure the lethality of Frances air-arm of its nuclear triad. Hence the heavy investment. But they already have ASMP-A mach 2.5/3 500-600km alcm. Meteor should have been a priority.
It seems that France is very happy with the MICA for now. The answer most likely lies in what Jean_M said...."MICA's seeker is so good they are not thinking of meteor".
jmt
another point is that their MICA stocks are relatively new..they have enough shelf life in them to not be discarded for new hyper-expensive Meteors till 2015-18.
Look at it from the Adl'a point of view, their MICAs are adequate for their air to air threat perception as of now. thats the excuse that even UK and others used to slide the date for Meteor integration out to 2015 for the Typhoon, saying that their AMRAAMs and ASRAAMs are adequate for what they believe their current air threat is. they want the Meteor in-service around the time that the PAK-FA starts to enter service for the RuAF. the fact that Russians have not come up with any big leap in air-to-air weaponry contributes to this lack of funding for Meteor integration. the upgrades to the R-77 and R-73 are limited to some seeker upgrades and a little expansion in envelope and range. if there was a new missile with a significantly improved kinematics and range and end-game maneuvering and energy, the French and the other European partners would all rush to get the Meteor integrated to their respective platforms (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen) and into service.
Cool!!! Still I want them to go for it. But why do u rate F-18 so high?
), India should opt for MIG-35. I found this is very disappointing. 
2015 seems way into the future