MRCA News and Discussion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2009 15:46

I think that the evaluation of the contenders has been pretty good.

There is an old IDR feature on the MIG-35 which spells out in detail the huge difference between the MIG-29 and the 35.Performance virtually doubles in terms of payload,range and life-cycle costs.In addition,there is considerable enhancement in composites used for stealth.Russia has two AESA radars developed and apart from this,the cocktail of western ,Indian and Russian eqpt. used for the SU-30MKI so successfully can be replicated with the MIG-35.Costwise,figures given by members and myself show that almost all the western contenders have unit prices of around $100 million+.In comparison,the F-22 comes in at not less than $250-300 million,JSF at around $150-200 million and the F-18 too (prices for Brazil calculated to be a staggering $150 million+ for such an old design).The Gripen will keep company with the MIG-35 pricewise, and probably a little costlier will be the F-16.The US is cleverly targeting the F-16 vs the MIG-35 and the F-18 against the rest.The Gripen is too close to the LCA and will be its competitior,has lesser chances as the Swedes also have little political clout.
With the Indian army wanting about 10,000 crores + for the long delayed artillery needs,money is going to be a crucial factor here too.

An interesting news item,that the Russians have not yet decided what to do with the 18 Flankers (the first lot) it is acquiring from India.Since we have a shortfall of aircraft in the IAF as of now,with several sqds. "numberplated",it would be better for us to keep these aircraft longer until extra new SU-30MKIs arrive.Russia has also placed an order for a large number of MIG-31s with new extra long range missiles.This is an aircraft type (MIG-25)which we earlier operated and would do us no harm to acquire a sqd. or two of them dedicated to hunt down Paki and Chinese AWACS,etc.

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 01 Sep 2009 16:11

Philip wrote:I think that the evaluation of the contenders has been pretty good.

There is an old IDR feature on the MIG-35 which spells out in detail the huge difference between the MIG-29 and the 35.Performance virtually doubles in terms of payload,range and life-cycle costs.In addition,there is considerable enhancement in composites used for stealth.Russia has two AESA radars developed and aaprt from this,the cocktail of western ,Indian and Russian eqpt. used for the SU-30MKI so successfully can be replicated with the MIG-35.Costwise,figures given by members and myself show that almost all the western contenders have unit prices of about $100 million+.The F-22 comes in at not less than $250 million,JSF at around $200 million and the F-18 too (oprices for Brazil a staggering $150 million+).The Gripen will keep company with the MIG-35 pricewise and probably a little costlier will be the F-16.The US is cleverly targeting the F-16 vs the MIG-35 and the F-18 against the rest.The Gripen is too close to the LCA and will be its competitior,has lesser chances as the Swedes also have little political clout.
With the Indian army wanting about10,000 crores + for the lond delayed artillery needs,money is going to be a crucial factor here.

An interesting news item,that the Russians have not yet decided what to do with the 18 Flankers (the first lot) it is acquiring from India.Since we have a shortfall of aircraft in the IAF as of now,with several sqds. "numberplated",it would be better for us to keep these aircraft longer until extra new SU-30MKIs arrive.Russia has also placed an order for a large number of MIG-31s with new extra long range missiles.This is an aircraft which we earlier operated an dwould do us no harm to acquire a sqd. or two of them to hunt down Paki and Chinese AWACS.

India is increasing the defence budget to $40 billion during 2009-2010. This should makeup for lack of funding for the Army. The point is we need MRCA as badly as we need artillery.

Philip,

What do u think? Which is the best fighter in this competition? let's take out the cost factor. I believe that
1)Rafale/F-18/EF2000 can come in the price tag of $90-100 million
2)F-16/Grippen/MIG-35 can come in the price tag of $60-80 million :-
a)Since MIG-35 cant be delivered till 2014, the chances are not so good for MIG.
b)Since F-16 is already owned by Pakistan, IAF might be reluctant.
c)Grippen will not fetch us anything in world political arena

So, I believe that the competition is among Rafale/F-18/EF2000.

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 01 Sep 2009 16:15

R Arun wrote:
avinash.rd wrote:Hi All,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/busin ... ted=1&_r=1

The Rafale and EF2000 were offered at $95 million each to Singapore and South Korea. So my point is if we go for one of them, then we might get at the $95 million each including the complete technology transfer. I m just guessing here. But I feel it is worth.
for a lower price we can get a more capable SU35.

I agree. But when? Su-35 ordered by Russian Air Force takes priority over any other orders by any other country. If Su-35 enters this competition, then it will definitely give other fighters run for their money.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 01 Sep 2009 16:27

Germany brought twice as many support personnel with them for 2 months of 4-jet Eurofighter deployment under the NATO Baltic Air Policing than the Czech Air Force took with them to support 4 Gripens during 4 months.

Same number of jets, same mission, but twice as many people for the support.

That makes me wonder if things like wages for support staff is included in how life cycle costs and operational costs is calculated in the MMRCA.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2009 16:39

The very fact that the IAF's earlier intention was that the MMRCA deal would be an "interim" acquisition to keep numbers of multi-role aircraft healthy,with the retirement of hundreds of MIG-21s and other MIG series aircraft,plus the late arrival of the LCA.The air dominance role has been suitably filled by the SU-30MKI .I don't think that with the 5th-gen fighter about to fly and even more capable upgraded SU-30MKIs which are in the pipeline (which will contain many 5th-gen features also being planned for the SU-35) will enter IAF service.will we need the MMRCA for the role that our Flankers are fulfiling.With the decision to build extra upgraded Jaguars and upgrades for MIG-27s,MIG-21 Bisons and MIG-29 too (MIrage-2000?A Q mark here) ,have ensured that if all goes according to schedule,we will have a respectable amount of 3rd gen.aircraft in service for strike and close-support,with better munitions and stand-off weaponry.

The MIG-29Ks are coming off the assembly lines and the same line can easily be used to produce MIG-35s,as there is supposedly approx. 75-80% of commonality with the 29K.Production could start as early as the end of the year if need be.The only Q about production is the Russian decision in the reorganisation of the Russian aerospace industry,is to transfer all MIG series aircraft to a new location,which means huge costs in setting up the new facilities.Russian experts say that if this is done,there will definitely be an extra cost factor involved ,which might make the aircraft less attractive for the IAF.The attractive cost of the 35 package for its excellent capabilities seems to be the MIG-35s key card in the hand.

Good point about the Gripen's small support staffing!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Sep 2009 17:36

CM,

MRCA , if quickly inducted, may just about arrest further decline in squadron strengths. For restoring # of Squads to 39.5 units, we would need LCA to come online too.

Katareji,

That IF is a pretty big one imho. As per conservative estimates (based on IAF statements) it will be around April-May next year till flight evals are completed. Then come all the lovely phoren trips to assess weapons/sensor capability in respective countries (no less than 5). Expect another 6 months. So 2010 is gone. Next comes the excruciating process of streamlining by the IAF, then haggling between vendors and GOI - at least another year! Decision will be in late 2011 or 2012 (don't forget the role elections might play as well).

Induction is in three years of decision as per RFP. So about 2014-15 is the earliest we'll see MRCA in IAF colors in any strength. IAF force levels deplete to lowest levels around 2012 when the older MiG-27s and MiG-21bis are all retired. What you will have around then will be:
126 MiG-21 bison (6.5 sqd)
66 Mig-29 upg (3 sqd)
50 Mirage 2000 (3 sqd @ 12 each)
160 Su-30MKI (9 sqd)
120 odd Jaguar ( 6.5 sqd)
60-80 MiG-27s. (4 sqd)
16-20 LCA (1sqd)
TOTAL = 33 sqds

This will be the low point for the IAF. Thereafter, the LCA will start coming in numbers + remaining Su-30s will continue for a couple of years. So the numbers will start increasing and shortfall will decrease anyway.

The best way to increase sqd strength till 2012 is by increasing MKI numbers, no wonder the russkis were offering Su-35s (single seaters). I'd think at least 1 or 2 more sqds of MKI are on their way - bought off the shelf, delivered by 2012. V.similar to the 40 ordered during Tyagi's time.

So, considering the timing of the MRCA as well as the force levels, I'd think that the MRCA can in no way alter the state of affairs by 2012. And by the time it starts to come in force (2015), the IAF will have other options, perhaps even the Pakfa, LCA for sure. To restate my original point, the MRCA is no more for arresting shortfall, it is probly to hedge and complement the MCA.

CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Sep 2009 17:42

For god sake, buy anything before we loose any more land to others.
May be China should occupy India. that might make us more efficient

Don't know what in my post prompted that gawdy rant, but I suggest you relax a bit. I am not the one making decisions - just throwing light on what seems to me, the logic behind the MRCA. As far as "buying anything" goes, did you or did you not read the part about buying additional MKIs (20-40)?

CM.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2009 17:50

...complement the MCA,which CM should be in my opinion,a stealthy UCAV! There is going to be a huge need in the IAF for a future stealth HALE UCAV that has a long loiter time of at least 24 hrs+,that can carry in an internal weapons bay a variety of LR missiles,Brahmos and cruise missiles,also armed with N-warheads.This will mirror the emerging programmes in the US to develop a new stealthy unmanned strategic bomber.Given that we do not need a alrge aircraft,our chief and only enemies being Pak and China,an aircraft that can fly deep into Chinese territory,launch its N-tipped missiles and return home.The USN is going to operate in the coming years its own stealthy UCAV .With the 5th-gen fighetr,SU-30MKIs in large numbers,MMRCA medium multi-role aircraft and the LCA,who needs another medium sized manned aircraft at all?With the experience gained form the LCA and the experience being gained from the 5th-gen fighter,the MCA should be an unmanned bomber that will deliver the bang where it must for our bucks!

PS:Immediate need.That's why I suggested that we do not send back the 18 SU-30s frist acquired from Russia...for the time being until new SU-30MKIs+ arrive in large numbers.The 18 Flankers will be the equivalent to at least 36+ early MIG-21 Fishbeds being pensioned off?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Sep 2009 18:00

Philip wrote:...complement the MCA,which CM should be in my opinion,a stealthy UCAV! There is going to be a huge need in the IAF for a future stealth HALE UCAV that has a long loiter time of at least 24 hrs+,that can carry in an internal weapons bay a variety of LR missiles,Brahmos and cruise missiles,also armed with N-warheads.This will mirror the emerging programmes in the US to develop a new stealthy unmanned strategic bomber.Given that we do not need a alrge aircraft,our chief and only enemies being Pak and China,an aircraft that can fly deep into Chinese territory,launch its N-tipped missiles and return home.The USN is going to operate in the coming years its own stealthy UCAV .With the 5th-gen fighetr,SU-30MKIs in large numbers,MMRCA medium multi-role aircraft and the LCA,who needs another medium sized manned aircraft at all?With the experience gained form the LCA and the experience being gained from the 5th-gen fighter,the MCA should be an unmanned bomber that will deliver the bang where it must for our bucks!

Philip, the idea for a UCAV is sound. But all literature on the MCA so far suggests that it is manned. And there seems to be IAF support for this route. I think India will be a bit late in getting the latest and greatest UCAVs for a number of reasons.

PS:Immediate need.That's why I suggested that we do not send back the 18 SU-30s frist acquired from Russia...for the time being until new SU-30MKIs+ arrive in large numbers.The 18 Flankers will be the equivalent to at least 36+ early MIG-21 Fishbeds being pensioned off?

Those MKs have been flogged something fierce, but if they have any life left in them, its worth squeezing the last drop. Are they still at Pune? Irrespective, one feels there is a reason the russkis are again offering the Su-35 (despite being rejected earlier for the MRCA), I think they know that additional flanker orders from the IAF are inevitable, word probly is out. The last time - if you remember, the French suddenly made a proposal for 40 rafales, it sounded ridiculous at the time but soon thereafter the IAF ordered 40 extra MKIs. This offer by sukhoi might be similar. (this actually is not my idea, a bloke called Teer (hint: there is a bit more to him than meets the eye

) put it up at AFM, I just feel it has merit.

CM.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Sep 2009 18:05

Thats the beauty of the Gripen - the Swedes have beautifully thought of a product to patrol their vast reaches, cost effectively, link as part of a system, network, quick turnaround, minimal support considering their expensive labour yada yada.

I know IAF pilots who have flown it and they have been impressed with it.

except for the hot and high ops - where I am not sure it has been tested - it should be the most effective

The unfortunate fact of it falling close to the LCA category and the lack of any political benefits is the drawback

So from pure expediency and political support - I agree with Singha - solah makes sense. The 18 is technically a much heavier category -

Darn tough choice for the IAF

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Sep 2009 18:27

Surya wrote:So from pure expediency and political support - I agree with Singha - solah makes sense. The 18 is technically a much heavier category -

Hardly! The solah/atharah are totally new for the IAF. The setup (infrastructure) as well as operationalization will be a drag - it'll take time to induct these.

If it is numbers that they want on the double (short term) they certainly have better choices:
1) Another sqd or two of MKI.
2) A sqd or two of SMTs from Russia
3) Qatari M2ks
4) converting 2 sqds of MiG-21bis to bison std.
5) Hold on to the Su-30Ks for all that they are worth. Last I checked there were still sunning in pune.

CM

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Sep 2009 19:55

well M2Ks would be good but thats not happening - we lost the chance by dithering.

I mentioned solah wrt to the MRCA contenders NOT outside that group.

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 01 Sep 2009 21:54

I just went through an interesting shot taken at MAKS2009:

http://imgsrc.ru/tand/15090179.html?#bp

This looks a lot like a modernized rafale's FSO IR channel. The top of the equipment ressemble the half left part of FSO which tend to confirm what I previously told you about FSO-IT having only an optic channel and leaving empty the space previously occupied by the original IR channel "just in case". I guess Sagem has felt an export potential for this even if french DGA didn't want it. If I'm not mistaking, that's good news as it means that a full fledged FSO is available to export markets.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 01 Sep 2009 23:54

let's take out the cost factor

Many of us believe cost will not be/should not have considerable weight. We should buy the best no matter cost.

However, I am afraid it is only wishful thinking.

No surprise when IAF says no extra points for offering specs more than/exceeding those required by Air staff requirements...

It will be foolish to put excessive money on an costlier aircrafts which offers more than required simply because no matter what it offers, still it will not match 5th Gen F/a that are not more than 5/7 years away.

Even the most optimistic estimate will start delivery of MMRCA by 2015 when PAK FA (Single seater) would have achieved its IOC/FOC and FGFA(two seater) in user trials and hopefully NGFA/MCA in prototype stage.

Also, LCA Mk2 would have entered production stage. Not to mention, MMRCA is because of delay of LCA

I don't see any rationale behind running 3 production lines - PAK FA / FFGA, LCA, and MMRCA - also prob MCA a shortwhile after that.

No matter what MMRCA offers, the main stay of IAF will be 5th Gen aircrafts.

A lot of things depends on flight test of Pak Fa scheduled in this year.

If things look impressive / convincing in the flight tests, i would not be surprised to see MMRCA being called of

I will not put my money on 4.5 gen aircraft when i can get 5 gen on the same price

-Nitin

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Sep 2009 00:37

Cain Marko wrote: If it is numbers that they want on the double (short term) they certainly have better choices:
1) Another sqd or two of MKI.
2) A sqd or two of SMTs from Russia
3) Qatari M2ks
4) converting 2 sqds of MiG-21bis to bison std.
5) Hold on to the Su-30Ks for all that they are worth. Last I checked there were still sunning in pune.

CM

IMO,

1) probably the fastest and most cost-effective option up-front. however, keep in mind that Su-30MKIs are heavy fighters and their cost of operations is the highest among all fighters in the IAF (got this from a source on orkut !). it may not be prudent to keep adding more of the biggest birds because they will eat up a large chunk of the operational budget. 230 MKIs offers a very large and capable force whenever they are fully inducted.

2) I don't know if the IAF may even bother to look at the SMTs, going by what happened in the 1990s when they rejected MiG's offer for these. the Algerian return of its 30 odd MiG-29SMTs was a rather embarrassing affair for MiG, and it wouldn't have done MiGs image any good (even if Algeria's return was politically motivated or whatever). if the option 1 and 2 were the only ones available, I'm pretty sure the IAF would opt for 1

3) This would be only 1 squadron worth of fighters. if Qatar is willing to negotiate again (since last time, they felt that the MoD basically made a fool out of them by offering a very low sum), then these are pretty capable birds..I remember reading that at one time, the IAF even assumed that it was going to get these, and had made plans of basing them at Amritsar. anyhow, with Mirages having a service life of 7000 flight hours, even 60-70% service life intact would mean at least 2 decades of service.

4) there may not be aircraft with enough hours on their airframe for it to be worthwhile to spend $5-6 million on converting them to the Bison standard. from what I remember, the IAF had already selected those airframes with the highest number of flight hours left, and sent them for the Bison upgrade.

5) as per earlier BRF discussions, these had used up nearly 60-70% of their service life. it was also stated that it was prohibitively expensive to rebuild them to the MKI standards. also, the IAF had already signed a replacement deal, whereby these Su-30K and MKs were to be replaced by new-build Su-30MKIs in a buy-back deal.

link

India's orders for the Su-30MKI count 32 aircraft produced by Irkut, 140 license-built by HAL, 18 Irkut produced Su-30MKIs as Su-30K replacements, and an additional batch of 40 license-built aircraft is being considered.

It may be more prudent to concentrate on getting the LCA into squadron service as fast as possible instead of these stop-gap solutions. ordering another squadron of the LCA Mk.1 may not be a bad idea, and at a later date, these could be upgraded to the LCA Mk.2 standard, just as Sweden did with its Gripen A/Bs to C/Ds.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 02 Sep 2009 01:09

CM,

By 2020 all Migs (except Mig29s) and older Jags would need to be retired, so quick induction of MRCA is necessary to not only have a replacement aircraft but a fighting Airforce/doctrine on that platform. If induction starts early it'll be easier/smoother for IAF to retire older migs in time.

Artillery for Army
Subs for navy and
MRCA for IAF are the most glaring gaps in operational preparedness IMO.

All three of them need a matured, ready to use on first day platform from a well established supplier equipped to handle large contract. Gold plating, customization and hybridization should be minimized for these three projects.

I think we had 16 Mig 21 squads, they'll all need to go by 2020 gradually. Atleast 10 of these would need to go by 2012-15.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Sep 2009 01:27

Katareji,

I am not arguing about the need for an MRCA, if the IAF finds it necessary, then so be it. I just don't think it will come fast enough to plug the immediate holes though circa 2012. Once the MRCA and LCA come online in force circa 2015, the falling numbers can and probly will be arrested one way or the other. Around 2017, the IAF will have its sanctioned strength and is expecting to start getting Pakfas. So there is no concern about replacing Jags, MiG-27, Bisons. Post 2015, between the LCA, MRCA and Pakfa, the picture looks good.

It is the period till around 2012-14 that is a concern and I was suggesting possibilities of addressing this v.short term outlook.

Kartik,

If they can indeed get the LCA up and running for a couple of extra sqds, that would be simply excellent. Even if the original order of 20Mk1 + 12 trainer + 8 LSP is ready by 2012-14, it will certainly help. But they'd still have a solid shortfall of a good 4-6 sqds.

My guess is that they will inject something somewhere with a sqd of MKIs the most likely choice and the SMTs least likely.

CM.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 02 Sep 2009 01:40

[quoteThats the beauty of the Gripen - the Swedes have beautifully thought of a product to patrol their vast reaches, cost effectively, link as part of a system, network, quick turnaround, minimal support considering their expensive labour yada yada.][/quote]
Besides the favorites to win: SH Typhoon Rafale the Gripen should be the darkshorse. People write it off as it will be too close to the LCA MkII but that is still a long way from completion. who knows if it will even match the gripens capabilities. The gripens quick turnaround time is very impressive. 10 minutes to refuel and re-arm. Also it's ability to fly from roads is huge; India wouldnt have to station all of the gripens at airfields which is a huge advantage, the gripens could operate from almost anywhere in India. Thailand and South Africa both operatethe gripen and have never complained about it's capabilities. So the desert and tropical environments wouldn't be a problem For the gripen in India.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Sep 2009 03:13

b_patel wrote: Thailand and South Africa both operatethe gripen and have never complained about it's capabilities. So the desert and tropical environments wouldn't be a problem For the gripen in India.

Thailand hasn't recieved a single Gripen as yet, so why would they complain about it ? South Africa has only a few twin seaters and its first single seater only flew sometime back in Sweden. neither have any major operational experience with the Gripen as yet, so I wouldn't pass judgement on how good the Gripen is in the hot and humid or hot and dry conditions. so far, its only been used extensively in the cold weather climes of Europe.

it may well turn out that it doesn't have any major issue in the hot and humid conditions, but you cannot use Thailand or South Africa as examples to support such an argument.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Sep 2009 03:41

very interesting discussion on Keypub forums by 2 posters named "Signatory" and "Rumcajs" on the Czech experience with their Gripens..Rumcajs' post sheds a different light on the Gripen's operational availability in the Czech AF.

Keypub thread link

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2009 04:18

if Kaveri doesnt materialize (the injin stories amke is scary) and will use the GE engine. So if the Grippen comes on board with its GE engine, will that make both fleets subject to US sanctions if they dont like us? Whatever is chosen should be bulletproof from US sanctions.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Sep 2009 08:16

Kartik,

Any idea whether the M2k had problems at high altitude? It certainly does not have a fulcrum or eagle type thrust. I'd think that if it did ok @ Leh, the GripenNG too would be fine. As far as the super hot/dry desert conditions, I think these MRCA birds are getting away scott free. They will all be there in relatively pleasant temps - august through February. I'd have liked to have seen them in the blistering conditions during May.

Problem with Gripen it seems is that while it looks great on paper, it has not done too well in competitive bids. The dutch race surely comes to mind. There seems to be a lot of hype around this bird and it is hard to distinguish the chaff from the wheat.

CM.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Sep 2009 08:37

Cain Marko wrote:Kartik,

Any idea whether the M2k had problems at high altitude? It certainly does not have a fulcrum or eagle type thrust. I'd think that if it did ok @ Leh, the GripenNG too would be fine. As far as the super hot/dry desert conditions, I think these MRCA birds are getting away scott free. They will all be there in relatively pleasant temps - august through February. I'd have liked to have seen them in the blistering conditions during May.

Problem with Gripen it seems is that while it looks great on paper, it has not done too well in competitive bids. The dutch race surely comes to mind. There seems to be a lot of hype around this bird and it is hard to distinguish the chaff from the wheat.

CM.

funny you mention it, because I cannot recall having seen or heard of Mirages operating out of Leh. being single engined, they do have much lower payload capacity when operating from such a high base as Leh and the climb rate is crucial. Jaguars tried and didn't succeed in being based of Leh, especially due to their lack of excess thrust.

actually operating fighters from Leh is not an old IAF practice..they only began with the Fulcrums. T/W ratio will be crucial at such an altitude, and I'd think that the Typhoon and Rafale, with their high T/W ratios will easily handle the Leh leg of the trials..the Typhoon especially, with its very high spare reserves of power would clear the surrounding mountains easily.

in the IAF currently, its the MiG-29s that operate from Leh, a flight of which were stationed. I had pictures of IAF MiG-29s at Leh that a friends friend, who is a Fulcrum pilot had taken, but I can't find them now. the only time I've seen IAF pilots wear jackets while getting into an aircraft !

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Sep 2009 08:53

Kartik wrote:in the IAF currently, its the MiG-29s that operate from Leh, a flight of which were stationed. I had pictures of IAF MiG-29s at Leh that a friends friend, who is a Fulcrum pilot had taken, but I can't find them now. the only time I've seen IAF pilots wear jackets while getting into an aircraft !

The MKIs could probly do it too. Btw, didn't an LCA with EFTs land and take off from Leh?

in terms of the MRCA, i'd think most of them would be able to take off with some useful loads, I am not too sure about the Gripen NG/Shornet though. in terms of power they come at the bottom of the lot, with the EF-2000, followed by Rafale and the MiG. Still, they should certainly manage A2A load outs i guess since their twr would be only fractionally lower than current IAF baaz.

And yes, it is supposed to be bitter cold there, knew some one who was up there just around the 62 fiasco.

CM.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 02 Sep 2009 09:38

Cain Marko wrote:I am not too sure about the Gripen NG/Shornet though. in terms of power they come at the bottom of the lot

The SH has the most power of any plane in the MRCA.

It is specifically optimized for low-speed operations.

It should be one of the best performers at Leh.

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 02 Sep 2009 10:09

Cain Marko wrote:
For god sake, buy anything before we loose any more land to others.
May be China should occupy India. that might make us more efficient
Don't know what in my post prompted that gawdy rant, but I suggest you relax a bit. I am not the one making decisions - just throwing light on what seems to me, the logic behind the MRCA. As far as "buying anything" goes, did you or did you not read the part about buying additional MKIs (20-40)?

CM.

I am sorry. It was not against u.

I am aware of it. I think 40 Su-30s wont make so much difference. Since Chinese incursions are so rampant across J&K and in Arunachal Pradesh. What if they construct bunkers within our borders?? This so called MMRCA circus has to end soon. I think if we consider all the points that we have discussed so far, the clear favorites are EF2000/Rafale/ F-18. So I feel India should go for one of them.
Chinese Air Force has about 2200 - 2500 combat aircrafts. But Indian Combat force is about close to 600 now. It is due to grounding of Mig-21s, etc. Pakistan Air Force is stronger now. We should leave this our Indian attitude. delaying things indefinitely by assuming lot of things. Why do we worry about defence budget so much??? Security is as critical as education, etc for a country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

As per the above link we are in 9th place in defense expenditure. Even countries like Italy spend more than us. Do u think Italy has got any border disputes like we do? We are facing the might of China and ready to die Pakistanis.
I believe these 2 countries really have a chance now to occupy disputed regions.

I agree it is a big deal but I dont think we have to delay it by so many years. LCA project was started long back. Look where it is now!!!

Why cant we be more efficient. Why don't we take our country seriously???

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Sep 2009 10:19

The SH has the most power of any plane in the MRCA.

Proof? At least not with the current set of 414s which were evaluated in india. The way I see it, with 50% internal fuel + 6 AAMs the EF-2k will lead, followed by the MiG or Rafale. Then you'll get the F-16, shornet and lastly the GripenNG.

CM.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 02 Sep 2009 10:58

Cain Marko wrote:
The SH has the most power of any plane in the MRCA.
Proof?

afterburning thrust
SH: 44,000lbf
EF: 40,000lbf
MiG-35: 39,600lbf
Rafale: 34,000lbf
F-16IN: 32,000lbf
Gripen-NG: 28,000lbf

Now yes, TO performance is also affected by weight, but the SH has the most raw power of any plane in the MRCA, which is what I said.

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 02 Sep 2009 11:20

GeorgeWelch wrote:
afterburning thrust
SH: 44,000lbf
EF: 40,000lbf
MiG-35: 39,600lbf
Rafale: 34,000lbf
F-16IN: 32,000lbf
Gripen-NG: 28,000lbf

Now yes, TO performance is also affected by weight, but the SH has the most raw power of any plane in the MRCA, which is what I said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_Competition

As per the above article, thrust/weight is the highest for EF2000 among the 6 fighters. I believe it matters the most when it comes to the speed and agility. But F-18 can carry higher payload.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 02 Sep 2009 11:39

avinash.rd wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_Competition

You will see that the t/w figures are calculated differently for each aircraft.

For instance:
MiG-35 = 39,600lbf afterburning / 33,069lb empty = 1.197

The SH is listed as having an 0.93 t/w ratio, yet it weighs less and has more thrust than the MiG-35!

using the 'MiG-35 calculation' we get:

44,00lb afterburning / 30,564 empty = 1.439

Another way to look at it is 'lifting performance'. If we say that high altitude robs a plane of 25% of it's lift capability, how much useful load can it still carry?

MTOW * 0.75 - empty weight = load that can be carried in reduced lift situation

Rafale: 20,500lbs
SH: 18,936lbs
F-16: 16,300lbs
EF: 14,600lbs
Gripen: 11,435lbs
MiG-35: 4,488lbs

(Yes, I know this is very crude, but it still makes an interesting point)

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 02 Sep 2009 12:18

GeorgeWelch wrote:
You will see that the t/w figures are calculated differently for each aircraft.

For instance:
MiG-35 = 39,600lbf afterburning / 33,069lb empty = 1.197

The SH is listed as having an 0.93 t/w ratio, yet it weighs less and has more thrust than the MiG-35!

using the 'MiG-35 calculation' we get:

44,00lb afterburning / 30,564 empty = 1.439

Another way to look at it is 'lifting performance'. If we say that high altitude robs a plane of 25% of it's lift capability, how much useful load can it still carry?

MTOW * 0.75 - empty weight = load that can be carried in reduced lift situation

Rafale: 20,500lbs
SH: 18,936lbs
F-16: 16,300lbs
EF: 14,600lbs
Gripen: 11,435lbs
MiG-35: 4,488lbs

(Yes, I know this is very crude, but it still makes an interesting point)

I would like to know one more thing. Which fighter will be able to move faster and will be agile with its peak load or may be at 50% of its peak load? Because these factors decide the fighter capability in dogfight. We are up against F-16 of PAF and Su-30 or 27 of Chinese Air Force. The selected fighter should be able to take on these adversaries' fighters in dogfight. We are up against large no of combat aircrafts (approximately 2300 of Chinese air force+ around 500 to 530 fighters organized in 27 front-line squadrons). This is a huge huge no..

My point is the selected fighter should be able to establish air supremacy in our skies especially in disputed regions need it in large no also. May be 180-200. So the best bet would be for Rafale/EF2000/F-18.

Establishing the air supremacy can win u the conflict as we have seen in the past.

One more important point :- I have read some time back. India needs at least 60 squadrons to counter Pakistan and China in case they join hands for any conflict!!!!

So, Indians should not be worried about the cost of MMRCA.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 02 Sep 2009 12:29

I would like to know one more thing. Which fighter will be able to move faster and will be agile with its peak load or may be at 50% of its peak load? Because these factors decide the fighter capability in dogfight.

The EF hands down, it was designed with dogfights in mind. The SH might have more thrust with its engines and a better T/W ration (i don't know the exact T/W of both fighters) but it wasn't designed with agility in mind.

One more important point :- I have read some time back. India needs at least 60 squadrons to counter Pakistan and China in case they join hands for any conflict!!!! [/quote
60 squadrons? Are you sure i remember hearing it was close to 50ish but i might be wrong. That's a lot of planes for india.

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 02 Sep 2009 12:37

b_patel wrote:
I would like to know one more thing. Which fighter will be able to move faster and will be agile with its peak load or may be at 50% of its peak load? Because these factors decide the fighter capability in dogfight.
The EF hands down, it was designed with dogfights in mind. The SH might have more thrust with its engines and a better T/W ration (i don't know the exact T/W of both fighters) but it wasn't designed with agility in mind.

One more important point :- I have read some time back. India needs at least 60 squadrons to counter Pakistan and China in case they join hands for any conflict!!!! [/quote
60 squadrons? Are you sure i remember hearing it was close to 50ish but i might be wrong. That's a lot of planes for india.

Yes. If India gets to a point where it has to tackle both China and Pakistan combined at the same time. Otherwise, IAF claims 42 squadrons. I believe they are not considering Chinese threat so seriously!!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 02 Sep 2009 12:42

avinash.rd wrote:I would like to know one more thing. Which fighter will be able to move faster and will be agile with its peak load or may be at 50% of its peak load? Because these factors decide the fighter capability in dogfight.

That actually doesn't matter that much in a dogfight, much less aerial combat in general because you can't outmaneuver (or outrun) a missile.

Far more important is your sensors, your capability to counter your opponent's sensors and your missiles.

With HMS and HOBS missiles, getting into a WVR dogfight is mutual suicide.

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 02 Sep 2009 12:54

GeorgeWelch wrote:
avinash.rd wrote:I would like to know one more thing. Which fighter will be able to move faster and will be agile with its peak load or may be at 50% of its peak load? Because these factors decide the fighter capability in dogfight.
That actually doesn't matter that much in a dogfight, much less aerial combat in general because you can't outmaneuver (or outrun) a missile.

Far more important is your sensors, your capability to counter your opponent's sensors and your missiles.

With HMS and HOBS missiles, getting into a WVR dogfight is mutual suicide.

GeorgeWelch,

Tel me something. Do u really believe that a fighter like F-15/EF2000/Su30 MKI cant outmaneuver a AAM assuming that it spots the missile early??

Also, I would like to make a point, that an aircraft like Rafale can carry lot and lots of load, but if it cant defend itself till the end of its operation, then it makes that aircraft less effective.

I believe for modern fighters, these are the most important factors:-
1) Stealth features :- I believe the minimum features present in EF2000 makes it the best in the competition.
2) Avionics :- again EF2000
3) Speed and Agility :- If u can go to a place and drop the bombs before the enemy can react is very important.
Again EF2000
4) Payload and range of weapons :- Rafale wins in this aspect.

Note:- I have considered only fighters in the competition.

This is a nice article on "How India can hasten its climb as a superpower":-

http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/27g ... rpower.htm

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 02 Sep 2009 14:04

avinash.rd wrote:Tel me something. Do u really believe that a fighter like F-15/EF2000/Su30 MKI cant outmaneuver a AAM assuming that it spots the missile early??

Absolutely not

Missiles travel much faster and can take much higher Gs, it's simply not possible.

Now, of course I'm not talking about a missile that is at the absolute limit of it's range and has lost all kinetic energy.

But if you are within the range of a missile your only hope is that you can distract it (jammer/towed decoy/flares/etc) or that it just fails on its own.

avinash.rd wrote: I believe for modern fighters, these are the most important factors:-
1) Stealth features :- I believe the minimum features present in EF2000 makes it the best in the competition.

I believe the SH has a smaller RCS than the EF.

avinash.rd wrote: 2) Avionics :- again EF2000

Which part of the avionics do you think the EF is ahead in?

This is the same EF that STILL doesn't have an AESA roadmap

avinash.rd wrote: 3) Speed and Agility :- If u can go to a place and drop the bombs before the enemy can react is very important.

Sorry, smart munitions have rendered this largely moot.

avinash.rd wrote:4) Payload and range of weapons :- Rafale wins in this aspect.

SH carries more than the Rafale and has the largest range of weapons now and in the future.

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 02 Sep 2009 14:14

GeorgeWelch wrote:
avinash.rd wrote:Tel me something. Do u really believe that a fighter like F-15/EF2000/Su30 MKI cant outmaneuver a AAM assuming that it spots the missile early??
Absolutely not

Missiles travel much faster and can take much higher Gs, it's simply not possible.

Now, of course I'm not talking about a missile that is at the absolute limit of it's range and has lost all kinetic energy.

But if you are within the range of a missile your only hope is that you can distract it (jammer/towed decoy/flares/etc) or that it just fails on its own.

avinash.rd wrote: I believe for modern fighters, these are the most important factors:-
1) Stealth features :- I believe the minimum features present in EF2000 makes it the best in the competition.
I believe the SH has a smaller RCS than the EF.

avinash.rd wrote: 2) Avionics :- again EF2000
Which part of the avionics do you think the EF is ahead in?

This is the same EF that STILL doesn't have an AESA roadmap

avinash.rd wrote: 3) Speed and Agility :- If u can go to a place and drop the bombs before the enemy can react is very important.
Sorry, smart munitions have rendered this largely moot.

avinash.rd wrote:4) Payload and range of weapons :- Rafale wins in this aspect.
SH carries more than the Rafale and has the largest range of weapons now and in the future.

So, u believe that SH is the best among these fighters?

One more point. Rafale carries more payload.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 02 Sep 2009 14:37

All those who single out Russian equipment for delays and lack of TOT and well everything except maybe Global warming:

HAL blames BAE Systems for Hawk delays

Ajai Shukla / Hal & Bangalore September 02, 2009, 0:39 IST

Now Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), under sharp attack for the delays, has unequivocally blamed BAE Systems, UK, for failing to properly honour its contract to transfer technology, design drawings, tools, manufacturing jigs and components essential for smoothly rolling out the Hawk in India.
HAL Chairman Ashok Nayak has listed out for Business Standard a string of lapses by BAE Systems, which, he alleges, is behind this delay. “This is the first time that BAE Systems has transferred technology for building the Hawk-132 AJT abroad. Some of the jigs (frames on which aircraft parts are assembled) and tooling that they supplied HAL relate to earlier models of the Hawk, which has gone through several versions over the years.”

For the Champions of Eurofighters, ofcourse, all this is hogwash.

peace · Post by **peace** » 02 Sep 2009 14:48

the best for iaf is rafale it is a true mrca good in air-to-air and excelent in a-t-g, if dassualt can procure a good aesa radar i think iaf will go for it.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 02 Sep 2009 15:19

U.S. Air Force invests in Uppsala

On Friday, it became clear after months of negotiations. Sweden and the U.S. puts a joint development order on the AAC Microtec, former Ångström Aerospace. The order is to develop technologies to reduce the micro-electronic components, and is worth around 20 million crowns.

- The goal for the Swedish part of the order is to significantly shrink the electronic components for the Swedish fighter aircraft JAS 39 Gripen.

It says Rickard Nordenberg, strategic adviser in aeronautics at the Defense Materiel Administration, FMV.

The agreement means that Sweden was the first country in the world may be part of a unique American Standard to shrink and to develop interfaces for interconnecting electronic systems.

The standard, known as the Space Plug and Play Avionics, SPA, to be able to apply to electronic devices in everything from aerospace systems to satellite technology.

The U.S. Air Force is a partner and will also convey unique hardware to Sweden.

AAC Microtec will contribute his unique skills on the miniaturization of electronics.

- AAC Microtec will help Gripen manufacturer Saab to reduce PCB and parts of the circuit board and build small computers, less than a small coin, "says Rickard Nordenberg.

For Gripen part is intended to reduce electronic parts volume up to 300 times, and weight up to 70 times, in the aerospace, electronic warfare and sensor systems.

- By making these components substantially much smaller Gripen becomes lighter and smarter. The plane weighs less and you can fit more electronics systems, "says Rickard Nordenberg.

By establishing the SPA standards in Sweden, is the idea in the U.S. that it will also be gaining a foothold in other parts of Europe.

- AAC Microtec will act as a catalyst for the standard and pass it on to other technology companies in Canada and Europe, "says Rickard Nordenberg.

Why does the United States release it to Sweden as the first country?

- Simply because we believe we have one of the foremost companies in the world to develop components for the aerospace field with the help of the standard. Americans themselves say that they need three-four years of intensive research efforts to catch up.

United States may, in turn, part of the further development of technology to miniaturization components, which, among other things, can be used in the country's aerospace and space programs.

AAC Microtec: The biggest thing that has happened to us

- The biggest thing to happen to our space activities. The U.S. military has identified us as a key player in the field of miniaturized electronics.

So says AAC Microtec CEO Fredrik Bruhn agreement with FMV and the U.S. Air Force.

The agreement gives AAC Microtec, as the only company outside the U.S., access to information on the new standard SPA, which also will be on developing.

- Thanks to that we get an exception in their export control laws. For us as a small company, it is a great door opener for American companies, "says Fredrik Bruhn.

Work on the standard will give AAC a technical advantage.

- It is important for the entire industry. It will be quicker and cheaper to connect for example a new sensor in a fighter aircraft.

AAC Microtec was founded as a spin-off from the Ångström Lab at Uppsala University for five years ago. The new agreement means that the present staff of 20 persons will increase by five people.

google translated from

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_m ... 628356.ece

http://www.aaerospace.com/index.htm