MRCA News and Discussion

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 24 Sep 2009 07:21

I value Igorr's contributions to this thread even when I don't find the Mig-35 the most appealing. Few people bring as much information as he does.

RameshC, do you think you could let this one rest?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Sep 2009 07:37

Hey ramesh

Go easy on Igor. while I have jumped on him for T90\arjun - in this case it is all foreign vendors.
he is defending his plane

let him do so.

If we did not have so many Russian weapons and if their supply chain was not so effed up - it would be a nice plane to take a look at.

Now shankarosky on the other hand feel freen to beat him up ...

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 24 Sep 2009 09:58

Reading last three pages, is like reading western PR propaganda against Soviet Union technology base, based on twisted numbers and hype.

Seems Boeing has joined BRF in psy-op war.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 24 Sep 2009 10:12

After tracking this thread for more than an year, I now for real feel that it is going down the hill.

I must thank Dervin for the way he thrashed me after my first post. That gave me an idea about how to be on BR. Even now when I try to make a post I think thrice whether its going to add any value or will just increase my post count. I am no where near the mark where I want to be, but do readily accept that BR enligtened me, which I feel when I talk about defence & foreign relationship related issues among my friends

But is BR right now missing the plot by turning too polite. MRCA thread is becoming far worser and is almost becoming a to be ignored thread. I have read many times, post by other memebers, stating how BR miss few of it eminent members. I don't think we want to miss any more.

JMT

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 24 Sep 2009 12:12

vishwakarmaa wrote:Reading last three pages, is like reading western PR propaganda against Soviet Union technology base, based on twisted numbers and hype.

Seems Boeing has joined BRF in psy-op war.

I agree with you vishwakarmaa. Tall claims by many about the capabilities of SH have now reached a level where an independent observer may call it ridiculous. “A good soldier never underestimates his opponent’s weapon”. A SH pilot will surely admire Mig 35 but Boeing PR may not.

I don’t think there is any merit in underestimating the quality of Soviet weapons. Soviet weapons may not be hi-fi but serves the purpose very well. For eg: AK 47, Mig 25, Brahmos, Tu 95 Bear etc etc etc. Whether one accept this fact or not is a different thing.

Personally I am a big fan of Soviet Union for all the support they gave India in the past. India became a growing economic superpower only now, but we had a past which most of us would love to forget. There is no reason to doubt or forget an old friend just because we are getting new.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 24 Sep 2009 12:22

My personal preference though still remains the Rafale , with them bagging the Brazilian order they would only be happy to ramp up production which in turn may decrease per unit cost , good reliable BVR missile package and jet to some extent has proven itself in a bomber role in Afghanistan (although not much of task).It's an all round very attractive package , especially as It's considered an improvement on the much appreciated Mirage 2000 operated by IAF.

Some time back it was rumoured that Rafale was out of the competition on technical grounds , could this be because the M88 does not meet IAF thrust requirements.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 24 Sep 2009 12:45

RameshC wrote: your getting the meaning of FOC and IOC wrong, both are required to be done in the home country by the home vendor, basic FOC is crucial in order for any vendor to give a couple of years gurantee on the aircraft, without which no one is going to buy it. .

Citation: "Dassault will complete integration of the radar with the Rafale in 2011, in time for delivery should Dassault win all or part of the MMRCA order.'

- So how it can make the plane IOC relevant to India, can you explain me?
Zhuk-AE IS already integrated with the aircraft, have to say...

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 24 Sep 2009 12:47

rajeshks wrote:
vishwakarmaa wrote:Reading last three pages, is like reading western PR propaganda against Soviet Union technology base, based on twisted numbers and hype.
Personally I am a big fan of Soviet Union for all the support they gave India in the past. India became a growing economic superpower only now, but we had a past which most of us would love to forget. There is no reason to doubt or forget an old friend just because we are getting new.

alas rajeshks we have forgotten that when we were at war with pakistan usa denied us the f-86 sabre and patton tanks and give them to pakistan...
they denied us the use of space technology and it was the soviets who gave us the tech and also helped us with su-30 mki,t-90,INS arihant,brahmos.pakfga,s-300,mig-29 etc, etc...........
well even if us tech si better what use will it have when in times of conflict usa will deny us the parts,spares,weapons etc. as they have done in the past........
and all you SH lovers please comment...............

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 24 Sep 2009 12:49

any news on when the mig 35s are flying in

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 24 Sep 2009 13:00

Igorr wrote:
RameshC wrote: your getting the meaning of FOC and IOC wrong, both are required to be done in the home country by the home vendor, basic FOC is crucial in order for any vendor to give a couple of years gurantee on the aircraft, without which no one is going to buy it. .
Citation: "Dassault will complete integration of the radar with the Rafale in 2011, in time for delivery should Dassault win all or part of the MMRCA order.'

- So how it can make the plane IOC relevant to India, can you explain me?
Zhuk-AE IS already integrated with the aircraft, have to say...

hi igor
well for me only rafale or mig-35 serves the purpose...iam considering cost,political and ToT functions as well.........
well your point is valid...
but my preference for rafale is because of it's precision guided weapons where i feel that rafale has got an edge over mig-35.......
is the zhuk-AE working in any of the russain air force or navy planes....

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 24 Sep 2009 13:47

We may have to separate our love towards Soviet Union from the MMRCA contest. GoI had announced that it will be on the basis of merit plus some political consideration. My personal opinion is our primary objective with MMRCA contest should be to build a strong defence industry (public + private) in India. The actual plane that gets selected be the secondary goal. We don’t need the best machines in the world to deal with Pak/China. So ToT for the plane and weapon systems should be given top priority. Such collaboration with Russia or France will bring its own political mileage.

I know most of these topics were discussed here many times. But its natural that when situations change old topics may become relevant and gets repeated.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 24 Sep 2009 13:49

Personally I am a big fan of Soviet Union for all the support they gave India in the past. India became a growing economic superpower only now, but we had a past which most of us would love to forget. There is no reason to doubt or forget an old friend just because we are getting new.

Having said this, my personal favourite is Rafale simply because we need something to throw at China that they haven’t seen.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 24 Sep 2009 13:53

the Zhuk AE has just begun testing while the RBE-2 AESA on Rafale has completed testing. IOC and FOC have little to do with the a particular radar but the basic airframe, fbw, payload functioniality, flight envelope limits, MTBF and service aspect of every single part that is on every aircraft. Rafales's new AESA has been cleared for production. migs radar has just begun phase-1. mig may fit the bill in terms of tot, politics and cost but falls short in the real multirole aspect of air combat as well as timing. the US is offering a lot of tech transfer for Brazil with all tech needed to maintain, operate and upgrade the aircraft, now this is for a deal of 36 to 120 aircraft, how much more tech will they give for a deal with 126-200 aircraft? so spares is not an issue because they will be made in India, IAF is not so naive that we buy US platform and not have full-tot on parts, spares, lots of weapons, besides SH and F-16IN if chosen will probably have a lot of Issy PGMS and EU weapons as well. plus if the mig is chosen chances are most of the local manufacturing will be done by state owned companies thus slowing down the private sector, Rafale, f-18SH, F-16IN, EF actually want to tap more into the private sector as well.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 24 Sep 2009 14:02

RameshC wrote:the Zhuk AE has just begun testing while the RBE-2 AESA on Rafale has completed testing. IOC and FOC have little to do with the a particular radar but the basic airframe, fbw, payload functioniality, flight envelope limits, MTBF and service aspect of every single part that is on every aircraft.

1) Just wrong information, look here. Zhuk-AE has completed all its tests before the tender.
2) A radar is the critical point in all the aircraft weapon system. How can it be a 'little to do' issue, I can only wonder.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 24 Sep 2009 14:15

The question is will it be avalibale for evaluation during the trials. I assume that it will be available. Also did they successfully integrate the weapon with radar.

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 24 Sep 2009 14:26

How does MIG 35 fare with F-18 ? and lets the divide battle field into WVR and BVR.
Russians advertise it as 4 ++ generation fighter.
Can anybody demistify this fight for me ?

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 24 Sep 2009 14:30

just for starters

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... mig-35.htm

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 24 Sep 2009 14:41

i meant radar and weapons testing, the RBE-2 AESA was proven long time ago but just because its been tested doesnt mean anything, weapons trials is what matters, Rafale with this new AESA has completed weapons trials which is exactly what Russia is doing now with the mig and the swedes with the Gripen Ng. sure radar is crucial but Radar isn't needed for IOC, IOC is where they test the safety or the aircraft, its functionality, its service aspects, problems in designs etc. FOC is where you begin to see the strengths and weakness of the envelope, its launch sequence, MTBF of crucial parts etc. LCA for instance will get IOC without radar, but FOC will only come after radar along with weapons trials are complete and saitisfactory. The mig-35 will recieve IOC next year end and another two years for FOC. Without FOC no aircraft is put to full scale production. the f-35s radar has been tested for a long time but means nothing because weapons trails is where they really see if the aircraft and radars are doing what they are designed to do. because as of now the aircraft is still experimental. i am sure the mig will have radar during our weapons trials but even then it looses because when IAF pilots for to the US or france to drop some PGMs from SH or SV or Rafale, they will know exactly how much more flexible these aircraft are compared to the mig. once they start to test weapons like JDAM, JDAM-ER, LJDAM, paveway 1,2,3, SDB, JSOW A/C , SLAM, SLAM-ER, CBU-97/105 SFW, AAGRM, Harpoon, Upgraded mavericks, etc. they are bound to be very impressed. plus the roles Rafale and SH can play awacs roles, SH can also play tanker roles and i dont mean just buddy refueling. intimate air support, larger payload and more strikes per sortie is what the Rafale, SH can do, they also carry more A2A missiles than the mig. sure the mig may be class of its own in air defence all that means nothing when the Rafale or SH pilot has more missiles to feed you. no self respecting pilot would ever let a mig come close.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 24 Sep 2009 15:13

Russia's Phazotron NIIR corporation said on Thursday it has developed a new-generation airborne radar for MiG-35 fighter jets which participate in the Indian fighter tender.

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

One of the selection criteria in the tender is that the fighter's radar must have an active phased array radar with a target detection range of at least 130 kilometers (about 80 miles).

"We have met this requirement of the Indian tender and built the Zhuk-AE active phased array radar with a proven range of 148 kilometers," said Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director.

The X-band radar can track 30 aerial targets in the track-while-scan mode, and engage six targets simultaneously in the attack mode.

Tishchenko said the detection range could be increased up to 200 km (125 miles).

Russia's MiG-35 Fulcrum-F, an export version of the MiG-29M OVT is a highly maneuverable air superiority fighter, which won high international acclaim.

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

The first demonstration flights of two MiG-35s in the Indian tender will be carried out in late October-early November in north-eastern India.

The aircraft will conduct live-firing tests of on-board weaponry on a testing range in southern Russia in March-April 2010.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090918/156168548.html

there are two distinct parts of an radar integration

- electronic /mechanical integration qualified by detection of a calibrated sized target both stationary and moving at the specified distance
this has been done
- integration of the radar with fire control computer for weapon launch -expected to be done by early 2010

the completion of first part shows the radar has good design better in fact than any american aesa on offer
second part completion will prove how the capability of the radar has enhanced the strike combat capability of Mig35

since the trial and ressult are not expected to be completed only in mod 2010 -if Mig35-zhuk ae proves its claim then maybe we should not grumble when the order goes Russia way

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 24 Sep 2009 15:18

Role Multi-mode radar
Band I-J (8-12 GHz)
MTBF 106 hours
Entered Service 1983
Dimensions
Volume 0.42 m³ 14.8 ft³
Weights
Basic weight 204 kg 450 lb
Performance
Range (air-to-air, fighter target) 111 km 60 nm
Main air-to-air modes Range-while-scan, track-while-scan, velocity search, gun director
Main air-to-ground modes Doppler beam sharpening, ground mapping, terrain avoidance, sea-surface search, air-to-surface ranging, fixed- or moving-target tracking, precision velocity update and SAR processing

http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?t ... _AN/APG-65

this is the specification of APG 65 the radar we are likely to get - as of now Zhuk AE specifications are much superior

BurhanGabaji · Post by **BurhanGabaji** » 24 Sep 2009 15:37

Hello To Everyone.This is my first Reply,although i have been reading this daily & thoroughly.So wish me luck! .Coming to the Topic.

As per my understanding, we all very well know and been discussing the pro's & con's of each aircraft in depth. What i feel is that the tender should be divided between two vendors. And they should be Superhornet(SH) & Migs. SH has the real combat expereince but with a heavy price tag. Similarly Mig 35 performace cant be ruled out.An ideal division would be a split of 50 SH & around 75 Migs.
The pros of this division are:
1)We very well can be in the budget(although we need to increase to certain extent)
2)Politically we would be entertaining both the powers. As Russia is one of our trusted supplier.One can imagine all are weapon programs with out their assistance. Out ruling Russia would defiantely give a negative impact on all joint developments specially FGFA where our major contribution is only money.
US partnership is still in testing phase. We cannot fully trust US but we can test them. Has US shared any of their technologies to us?. Are they willing us to involve in any of their developments?. The answer is No. So one should not forget a relation of 40 - 50 years with respect to a relation which is lesser than a decade.
3) 2 -3 squadrons of SH on Chinese front & 4-5 squadrons on Pakistan front or a mix can be leathal. Chinese would get a taste of SH and for Pakistan Mig 35 would be more than enough.
4) This would give us leverage on both(SH & Mig) the front.With the time we can decide who get's a upsell based on performance & price.
5) We will be making our supplies guaranteed inspite of US sanctions or Russia's word changing aproach.
6) We would be getting 36 aircrafts( 18SH + 18 Migs) within 3 years ( If migs are delivered).
The cons of the divisions are
1) Migs deliveries are not guaranteed. But i feel with proper contract & evaluation in place we can make the the deliveried guaranteed.
2) Establishing & maintaining the production & MRO lines of 2 diverse aircrafts is challenging.
Note:
Rafale: With Rafale i dont see any politically leverage. As in future we might see that same Rafale might be sold to Pakistan.No guarantees on that.Again it does not have real combat expereince. Theres an advantge that French are heavily rellying on Rafale for their current n future needs. But our future is FGFA & TEJAS MK2. So in between 20-25 years should be secured with SH & Migs. By the time we would be doing mass production of FGFA & MK2.Again in case of Rafale cost is also an negative factor.
EF: Its a consorium, with high price tag and lots of diplomatic gliteches. Although its a good development but not worth investing.
Gripen & F16IN: Gripen would replicated by further developments of Tejas and F16 is been there with Pakistan for over 2 decades on which they are very well trained.

Looking forward for the heathy comments on my post.Thanks.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 24 Sep 2009 15:54

This thread in particular is starting to read like, a string of commercial propaganda by Sales Departments of American aerospace companies. All carried out with the same brazen American sales pitch style of heaping rubbish on anyone who happens to differ. People are resorting to name calling and impoliteness to somehow get their Yankee points across.

Now is this a set of random phenomena or a conscious decision o the part of BR managers to promote US policies and products?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Sep 2009 15:57

Now is this a set of random phenomena or a conscious decision o the part of BR managers to promote US policies and products?

precisely. we are all paid by the CIA.

now what is your idealistic self doing here ? you better have a good reason for that or I'll start handing out warnings. your silly insinuations have been tolerated long enough.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 24 Sep 2009 16:02

^^You are welcome to do anything my friend

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Sep 2009 16:08

seeing that I didn't ask permission from you I'll ignore the last post.

I will ask one more time, do you have a good basis to insinuate that BR admins promote american products/interests ? if not, stop trolling.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 24 Sep 2009 16:12

What i feel is that the tender should be divided between two vendors. And they should be Superhornet(SH) & Migs. SH has the real combat expereince but with a heavy price tag. Similarly Mig 35 performace cant be ruled out.An ideal division would be a split of 50 SH & around 75 Migs.

Splitting the order is not a good idea. We are demanding 60% ToT from the vendors. That demands something from our end also. We should have the capability (both men and infrastructure) to absorb what is being transferred. Already our resources are scarce and we may end up learning nothing. So while selecting the machine give consideration to the tech we want and try to absorb it as soon as possible. Our future lies in LCA and MCA, everything else is a temporary arrangement.

From a squadron strength point of view splitting the order may be good. But even though we are losing on quantity front we are improving on the quality front. For eg: one MKI may very well replace 2-3 Mig 21s its replacing.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 24 Sep 2009 16:20

rajeshks wrote:The question is will it be avalibale for evaluation during the trials. I assume that it will be available. Also did they successfully integrate the weapon with radar.

The trials include the weapon use (in domestic country however). So the integrated work of the systems including radar, IRST and the missiles is checked. They of course have integrated the offered Russian weapons with Zhuk-AE radar. Otherwise, the radar cannot be called ready for tender. Besides it was not a super-hard work, since Zhuk-AE was developed on basis of Zhuk-ME radar, which is now in serial production. But if India wants a third party missile they yes, have to do some additional work for integration.

ezra · Post by **ezra** » 24 Sep 2009 16:39

It is clear that the defence force and the airforce in this case have short terms goals ie: to bring up the strength of its squadrons to an optimal level to meet the current challenges and the long term goal of self sufficiency in designing and building its own aircraft and systems.
The choice of aircraft will therefore in my opinion have to be one from the company which offers the most value in transfer of technology to achieve the long term goal.
Considering that most of the aircraft being evaluated are of equal quality and would not compromise on performance the additional cost for aircraft from the company offering the most value in TOT must be endured to achieve the desired end.

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 24 Sep 2009 17:42

Shankar wrote:
Role Multi-mode radar
Band I-J (8-12 GHz)
MTBF 106 hours
Entered Service 1983
Dimensions
Volume 0.42 m³ 14.8 ft³
Weights
Basic weight 204 kg 450 lb
Performance
Range (air-to-air, fighter target) 111 km 60 nm
Main air-to-air modes Range-while-scan, track-while-scan, velocity search, gun director
Main air-to-ground modes Doppler beam sharpening, ground mapping, terrain avoidance, sea-surface search, air-to-surface ranging, fixed- or moving-target tracking, precision velocity update and SAR processing

http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?t ... _AN/APG-65
this is the specification of APG 65 the radar we are likely to get - as of now Zhuk AE specifications are much superior

I agree with you.Both can track 20 targets at a time,
prioritise 6 potential targets simultaneously and ranges around 140-160 even though the russians say that they can have a futher increase in the range by locating it further back on the nose of mig 35.
But the ranges might be underplayed for APG 79.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 24 Sep 2009 17:48

Hi Guys...It is my first post..!!!

Well...I think it is good to experiment and go out for something new...but it is not that good in our situation .... where we are

1. lacking in number of aircraft.
2. facing fleet aging problem.

I think we should stick some tested friend....and then we have only two options.
1. Mig-35
2. Rafale
well...If I am given a verdict...Mig-35 gonna get the upper hand.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 24 Sep 2009 18:14

Still completely fail to understand why or how the LCA "Mk II" can ever replace the Gripen NG and why so many feel that it has to be one or the other ...

To be sure ... I am a huge fan of the LCA and wish it speedy development ... BUT ... consider the following ...

1. If the IAF does not see the Gripen NG and the LCA Mk 2 as interchangeable products ... then why do some BRfites?

Also consider the following ...

1. The Gripen has been flying for thousands of hours in service with Air Forces. Not so with the LCA.
2. The NG has proven super cruise capabilities .. the prototype is highly evolved presently and will be developed enough for them to demonstrate to India in a few months. The LCA Mk 2 is still far behind in the development cycle ... not blaming them .. just stating a fact.
3. There is a 250 plus order book for the Gripen ... not so with the LCA yet.
4. It has its own unique data-links, a pretty unique swash-plate AESA, different avionics, a different man-machine interface, different capabilities and different life-cycle costs.

Development of the LCA is key for the evolution of our indigenous production and manufacturing capabilities ... but why compare the two ... just because they are both "small" fighters ? Lets be fair here ... there is no comparison ... we may as well be comparing the F-22 with the LCA.

Finally ... I see no reason, whatsoever, why HAL should potentially feel threatened by the Gripen product ... They have spent decades in trying to develop the LCA ... made massive progress ... encountered failures as well ... but at the end of the day .. its unfair to them as well to have their product compared to a jet with its own development cycle ...

Let HAL build the LCA without having to glance over their shoulder on what Gripen is doing and most importantly, lets all hope that the Indian Air Force gets to choose the plane it truly wants ... whether it is the Gripen NG or the Super Hornet ... I just hope this is not a political choice ... that would really be unfortunate.

Thanks
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor
NDTV

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 18:25

RameshC wrote: sure radar is crucial but Radar isn't needed for IOC, IOC is where they test the safety or the aircraft, its functionality, its service aspects, problems in designs etc. FOC is where you begin to see the strengths and weakness of the envelope, its launch sequence, MTBF of crucial parts etc. LCA for instance will get IOC without radar, but FOC will only come after radar along with weapons trials are complete and saitisfactory. The mig-35 will recieve IOC next year end and another two years for FOC. Without FOC no aircraft is put to full scale production.

what does mean by "IOC"

IOC means aircraft and its radar are at least air to air capable and ground attack capability are added further subsequently

and how LCA will get IOC without radar when IOC means fighter being at least air to air capable

IOC is acheived with radar with air to air modes initially and aircraft being air to air capable only,
this was true for UAE F16blk60 when radar needed software work

this was true for f22 when it had only air to air capability and apg77 had only air to air modes and same was true for su30mki in 2003

but as far as mig35 # 154 which is flying for last 5 years has achieved IOC and FOC already with all weapons and zhuk me radar in early 2005 when it was shown in AERO INDIA 2005,and now achieved same with ZHUK AE radar,

when zhuk ae has finished all it flight test on # 154 aircraft why russians keep doing same thing again and again on same aircraft to get IOC and FOC uselessly.

APG81 is far from induction in 2013 thats why no weapons trial has been done with radar.but this was not the case with apg80 for UAE

and for weapons trials with zhuk ae if they have tested radar they must have tested weapons as well, they are not going to call some media persons to show hey guys come and see we are going to held weapon testing .

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 24 Sep 2009 18:29

Vishnu wrote:Still completely fail to understand why or how the LCA "Mk II" can ever replace the Gripen NG and why so many feel that it has to be one or the other ...

To be sure ... I am a huge fan of the LCA and wish it speedy development ... BUT ... consider the following ...

1. If the IAF does not see the Gripen NG and the LCA Mk 2 as interchangeable products ... then why do some BRfites?

Also consider the following ...

1. The Gripen has been flying for thousands of hours in service with Air Forces. Not so with the LCA.
2. The NG has proven super cruise capabilities .. the prototype is highly evolved presently and will be developed enough for them to demonstrate to India in a few months. The LCA Mk 2 is still far behind in the development cycle ... not blaming them .. just stating a fact.
3. There is a 250 plus order book for the Gripen ... not so with the LCA yet.
4. It has its own unique data-links, a pretty unique swash-plate AESA, different avionics, a different man-machine interface, different capabilities and different life-cycle costs.

Development of the LCA is key for the evolution of our indigenous production and manufacturing capabilities ... but why compare the two ... just because they are both "small" fighters ? Lets be fair here ... there is no comparison ... we may as well be comparing the F-22 with the LCA.

Finally ... I see no reason, whatsoever, why HAL should potentially feel threatened by the Gripen product ... They have spent decades in trying to develop the LCA ... made massive progress ... encountered failures as well ... but at the end of the day .. its unfair to them as well to have their product compared to a jet with its own development cycle ...

Let HAL build the LCA without having to glance over their shoulder on what Gripen is doing and most importantly, lets all hope that the Indian Air Force gets to choose the plane it truly wants ... whether it is the Gripen NG or the Super Hornet ... I just hope this is not a political choice ... that would really be unfortunate.

Thanks
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor
NDTV

Since when did the Armed Forces have the freedom to choose what they really wanted? Case to point, they are not allowed to conduct "active patrolling" like the Chinese have been doing, either in Pangong Tso where they sideswipe our poor jawans in dinghys with fast boats or point rifles at us in the finger area. How are our brave soldiers ordered to react? By waving banners in Chinese requesting the Chinese to kindly / please go back to their side of the LAC. Our netas are a spineless bunch and they do not allow outr military to reach its full potential by several means - including not giving them the freedom to choose the best equipment. It is high time for India to increase its defence budget to atleast 2 times the current levels and fast. I for one would like to see at least 60 modern and operational fighter squadrons plus at least 5 more mountain divisions facing the Chinese.

Admins: Sorry if this is off topic. But ..

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 18:32

Rahul PS wrote:But the ranges might be underplayed for APG 79.

radar range for air to air and air to ground should meet requirement stated in RFP as Mr Ajai shukla pointed out
no extra points for longer range radar

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 24 Sep 2009 18:39

The cost of an A/c is not just the purchase cost, but also the lifecycle cost of the aircraft.
Including the support functions....etc...
P.S: I will elaborate on this post later. (Meeting to attend

)

IIRC...vivek or someone had done a small study on this....

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 24 Sep 2009 18:51

Baldev wrote:
Rahul PS wrote:But the ranges might be underplayed for APG 79.
radar range for air to air and air to ground should meet requirement stated in RFP as Mr Ajai shukla pointed out
no extra points for longer range radar

If the reports are to be believed there will be no extra points for anything that exceeds the minimum requirements which makes the weapons testing and advanced trials a farce. They should just go for the cheapest aircraft which meets all requirements.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 18:56

nikhil_p wrote:The cost of an A/c is not just the purchase cost, but also the lifecycle cost of the aircraft.
Including the support functions....etc...
P.S: I will elaborate on this post later. (Meeting to attend )

IIRC...vivek or someone had done a small study on this....

even life cycle cost of aircrafts is secondary thing

first is cost of procurement of aircrafts with TOT,means if gripen ng can be procured at less than half the cost of f18,rafale for equally advanced technology

main thing is industrial base need to be created for the production and support of fighters for over 40 years of service.

industrial base will provide spares,engine overhaul,avionics overhaul for over 40 years etc.

ground based infrastructure for aircrafts at each AFB,
not only this every aircraft needs separate technical support for its avionics and other parts right at each AFB at all times.

in MRCA IAF will require at least 1000 air to air missiles and similar amount of air to ground PGM to buy these weapons we need to spend few billion more.every new fighter needs different weapons,so for support of every new weapon there is need of separate trained personnel at each AFB

mid life upgrade cost.

life cycle cost of aircrafts is shadowed by the all the points mentioned above

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 18:59

johnny_m wrote:If the reports are to be believed there will be no extra points for anything that exceeds the minimum requirements which makes the weapons testing and advanced trials a farce. They should just go for the cheapest aircraft which meets all requirements.

you got the point which makes gripen as winner

if we consider MR SHUKLA's statement not true that there are extra points for more capable fighter which exceeds requirements in RFP then RFP requirements are totally farce,this brings f15 and su30 into competition which are more capable than any MMRCA,f15 and su30 can simply claim our fighters exceed RFP requirements

so govt. will adhere to this that there are no extra points for extra capable fighters.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 19:27

one gentleman already pointed out before about reopening mig21 production line costing each aircraft less than 10 million.

if new mig21 with kopyo M radars are produced for about 10 SQs these aircraft will be able to handle adversary 300 JF-17,70 F16BLK52,150 J-10 along with mig21 bisons

jf1-7,f16blk52,j10 will be used long time to come so these can be countered by new built mig21s one on one

no need to talk of air to ground capability or bomb truck etc etc here

we need these aircrafts as sole intercepters not to allow enemy aircrafts to enter our airspace and will payoff money spent on them.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 24 Sep 2009 19:50

LCA wont have radar when it gets IOC has nothing to do with radar but the crucial elements like airframe, fbw, the design, the structure, its open architecture, its cockpit functionality, its basic flight envelope, the basic maintenance. not all weapons require radar and those weapons like dumb bombs, LGBs, IR missiles will be tested. it will get IOC by next year year just like the mig-35. There is no need for IOC for aircraft like f-16 because they recieved their IOC ages ago, any new block only requires a few weapons trails and its all operational, mig is a new platform, it needs it basic IOC which it wont recieve till next year. IOC requires any new design to be flown a certain number of hours, their radar may be ready the aircraft isn't until they fly their own set number of minimum hours to show it has potential, normally its a few thousand hours of flying, in order to find MTBFs on all parts, they fly it till parts start wearing out and determine the maintenance schedule, all this is done before IOC. After IOC the aircraft's flight limits, maintenance limits, operational limits are known now the aircraft and its operators can go in for establishment of tactics and appropriate usage of weapons according to all roles the platform can execute, only after basic doctrine of well tested operational roles, tactics and weapons deployment has been done, the aircraft is given a FOC.

by the way the first production F-35 wont be as late as the 2015, by 2014, f-35 production would have begun in Italy, yes USAF should start recieving F-35s by end 2013 , Israel 2014.

In the US things work differently, coz you see state owned companies dont make planes like in Russia and India. A competiton is always started, specs are given and the ideal bidder wins the contract to build. This is the reason for their dominance in technology. so when LM's YF-22 won the competition it got its basic IOC and USAF flight test & validation process , production f-22s would have slight design changes and they would under go Operational evaluation at Nellis's weapons school and more upgrades are added in blocks, the design reached FOC in 2007.

All this matter less because mig wont be ready for production before 2013 so its out out out, if we wanted an aircraft by 2015 we would have simply ordered the F-35 which out performs all the others.

the Apg-79 allows the SH deploy weapons like JSOW which can hit a target over 580km away, now, no other contender can boast that, though we cant buy that weapon, we know we can integrate some of our own long range weapons a later stage, it plays awacs roles everytime it get into the air, it can command over 36 aircraft in battle, distributive targeting and not just track them. Its 4th gen radar, plus like said before the Russian radar has an mtbf of 600hrs while the apg-79 doubles that. the mig is also worst aircraft to maintain in the competition, all the others boast easier and lower maintenance. IAf is not going to wait so long for an aircraft we barely have any, we loose around 10 per year in crashes by the time the first one arrives in 2013 we would have lost atleast another 30 aircraft in crashes. most of the will be migs. so we need an aircraft that will arrive pronto and i mean late 2012, early 2013 and Gripen, SH, SV and Rafale are better options any day, even after 40 years they will more advanced than any mig ever was. mig is out. pure technical point of view the SH wins because its got good price and capability ratio, it can play all roles a fighter can, its got safe past record no crashes due to technical failure, top notch weapons , large enough orders from USN to ensure future upgrade path, delivery possible on time, fast production rate, new growth engine already there, block 3 work goin on, F-18 Growler undergoing upgrades, testing has begun with bio fuel blends (its a greener aircraft), reducing the cost of fuel everytime you fly. for all the nasty things it can do to an incoming target its actually going to have a low carbon foot print, Darwin would be proud of this aircraft, even mother nature would be proud of this aircraft. screw the mig, it was always too smokey, so much pollution when a migs around.