MRCA News and Discussion

Baldev · Postby **Baldev** » 01 Oct 2009 07:11

why not just induct mig29k with zhuk ae in IAF,not to mention all f18 have folding wings too :mrgreen:

at 75 million each aircraft*126=9.5 billion

NRao · Postby **NRao** » 01 Oct 2009 07:28

They should have bought the M2k line long back.

MoD is very strange most of the time. Like I said it is only two-three Kargils a year, for 10 years, that can change them. Else they will be in la-la land all the time, shuffling files and waiting for retirement. Ok. Not that bad.

rajeshks · Postby **rajeshks** » 01 Oct 2009 12:06

Cain Marko wrote:
SaiK wrote:so you are saying nothing other than france and russkies works fine for us?

For sure, yes because the IAF has hardware from both these makers (flankers/migs & M2ks). So far no problems in terms of heat and take offs. Jags too i guess. The EF-2K should be fine considering its reserve of excess power. I wonder how the Gripen will fare though - it surely does not have as much power as the 35, Rafale or EF-2K. But it is not as bulky as teens.

CM.

Earlier we had only one or two suppliers so we might have ignored such small issues... now customer is the king.

rajeshks · Postby **rajeshks** » 01 Oct 2009 12:15

NRao wrote:They should have bought the M2k line long back.

MoD is very strange most of the time. Like I said it is only two-three Kargils a year, for 10 years, that can change them. Else they will be in la-la land all the time, shuffling files and waiting for retirement. Ok. Not that bad.

M2k was a good machine but it doesnt make much sense to buy planes which can fly for < 20 years. cost of infrastructure plus acquisition cost might be equivalent to that of new planes. Probably thats the reason why IAF/MOD decided to go for new machines.

Compared to any of us IAF/MoD has more information on the threats we face & our capabilities. That might have told them to go for new machines with better technologies. I would prefer to support the professional advice of IAF guys than blaming the red tape.

rajeshks · Postby **rajeshks** » 01 Oct 2009 12:27

Cain Marko wrote:
I would have thought that all planes need some amount of "cover", if not hangers at least cover the cockpit?

I have seen images of fighter cockpits being covered by gunny sack type materials, a good soaking would keep cockpit materials relatively in the shade and cool.
CM.

I used to wonder about this. Plastic is sensitive to heat, wires can lose insulation. Even an ordinary car will have lot of problems if exposed to sun for long. Compare that to an advanced fighter with lot of electronics in it. Only the cockpit is covered and rest of the body is exposed to direct sunlight. Even if we take into consideration the superior quality of materials used to build an aircraft, long exposure can still cause problems.

johnny_m · Postby **johnny_m** » 01 Oct 2009 16:13

Actually the Gripen is designed to operate amongst the elements (not hear rather snow and cold, then again neither was the Russian jets). It is designed to be hid among tree cover and operate from road strips.

rajeshks · Postby **rajeshks** » 01 Oct 2009 16:36

johnny_m wrote:Actually the Gripen is designed to operate amongst the elements (not hear rather snow and cold, then again neither was the Russian jets). It is designed to be hid among tree cover and operate from road strips.

Considering this I think Pakistan needs Gripen more than India.

Philip · Postby **Philip** » 01 Oct 2009 17:55

The MIG-35 with 3-D TVC and an AESA radar is a superior aircraft to even the highly upgraded and capable MIG-29K.In effect it is a smaller and should be cheaper version of the larger Flanker.A key factor will be what BVR missiles are mated with the radar to give the aircraft the key BVR advantage.As for strike roles,the Russians have a variety of missiles and ordnance that will suit the IAF,especially as comonality with ordnance on the SU-30MKIs is a bonus.

Baldev · Postby **Baldev** » 01 Oct 2009 18:24

Philip wrote:The MIG-35 with 3-D TVC and an AESA radar is a superior aircraft to even the highly upgraded and capable MIG-29K.In effect it is a smaller and should be cheaper version of the larger Flanker.A key factor will be what BVR missiles are mated with the radar to give the aircraft the key BVR advantage.As for strike roles,the Russians have a variety of missiles and ordnance that will suit the IAF,especially as comonality with ordnance on the SU-30MKIs is a bonus.

for BVR not to mention
80km range fire and forget IR R27
110 km range fire and forget passive homing R27
110km range R77

for short distance 40km range R74 which outclasses all other short range IR missiles

36T IR seeker on R27 locks on its target from 8NM

Rahul M · Postby **Rahul M** » 01 Oct 2009 18:59

baldev, info/link on r-74 please.
TIA.

Baldev · Postby **Baldev** » 01 Oct 2009 19:23

Rahul M wrote:baldev, info/link on r-74 please.
TIA.

you already know this its RVV-MD with 60 degree offboresight

sumshyam · Postby **sumshyam** » 01 Oct 2009 19:31

Rahul M wrote:info/link on r-74 please.

Something that I found...but perhaps it is about R-73....I really didn't get anything about R-74...!!!

http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/10/vympels-r-27-r-73-aams.html

Rahul M · Postby **Rahul M** » 01 Oct 2009 22:35

baldev, don't think anything comes close to the python-5 at the moment.

btw, the AIM-9X apparently has a 90 deg off boresight capability.

KrishG · Postby **KrishG** » 01 Oct 2009 23:08

Rahul M wrote:baldev, don't think anything comes close to the python-5 at the moment.

btw, the AIM-9X apparently has a 90 deg off boresight capability.

Btw. What short-range missile is EADS offering on Typhoon ?? The British use ASRAAM and others use the IRIS-T.

Rahul M · Postby **Rahul M** » 01 Oct 2009 23:17

don't know for sure but I guess choice will be given to the user. MBDA being as multinational as EF could be the sole offering too in ASRAAM.

btw, wiki says quoting AWST that ASRAAM is being considered for the m2k upg.

rajeshks · Postby **rajeshks** » 01 Oct 2009 23:22

Philip wrote:The MIG-35 with 3-D TVC and an AESA radar is a superior aircraft to even the highly upgraded and capable MIG-29K. In effect it is a smaller and should be cheaper version of the larger Flanker. A key factor will be what BVR missiles are mated with the radar to give the aircraft the key BVR advantage.As for strike roles,the Russians have a variety of missiles and ordnance that will suit the IAF,especially as comonality with ordnance on the SU-30MKIs is a bonus.

The main worry is Mig35 will inherit both strengths and weakness of larger Flanker, say RCS & weapons. Also will it give us any advantage incase of a conflict with china?

rajeshks · Postby **rajeshks** » 01 Oct 2009 23:36

Baldev wrote:for BVR not to mention
80km range fire and forget IR R27
110 km range fire and forget passive homing R27
110km range R77

for short distance 40km range R74 which outclasses all other short range IR missiles

36T IR seeker on R27 locks on its target from 8NM

R27 is getting old. Is it a good idea to buy more R27 missiles?

Baldev · Postby **Baldev** » 01 Oct 2009 23:54

rajeshks wrote:
Baldev wrote:for BVR not to mention
80km range fire and forget IR R27
110 km range fire and forget passive homing R27
110km range R77

for short distance 40km range R74 which outclasses all other short range IR missiles

36T IR seeker on R27 locks on its target from 8NM

R27 is getting old. Is it a good idea to buy more R27 missiles?

missiles never gets old as long as its got good seeker and guidance don't forget AIM7 with upgrade still in production

mk80 seeker of r73 missiles will be fitted to r27 which gives better offboresight

koti · Postby **koti** » 01 Oct 2009 23:57

rajeshks wrote:The main worry is Mig35 will inherit both strengths and weakness of larger Flanker, say RCS & weapons. Also will it give us any advantage incase of a conflict with china?

As for the advantage.... In terms of numbers- Yes
In terms of quality- It has always been and Yes.
In terms of international support in case of a hostility - It doesn't matter at all. And Yes.

IAF is in no way inferior to PLAAF in terms of sophistication of equipment. The only disadvantage it has is with the numbers.
With the staggering difference in price for the aircraft, none justify their cost against a Mig-35.

And again, none of our adversaries have any thing comparable to APG-79 or such.

rajeshks · Postby **rajeshks** » 02 Oct 2009 00:05

koti wrote:
rajeshks wrote:The main worry is Mig35 will inherit both strengths and weakness of larger Flanker, say RCS & weapons. Also will it give us any advantage incase of a conflict with china?

As for the advantage.... In terms of numbers- Yes
In terms of quality- It has always been and Yes.
In terms of international support in case of a hostility - It doesn't matter at all. And Yes.

IAF is in no way inferior to PLAAF in terms of sophistication of equipment. The only disadvantage it has is with the numbers.
With the staggering difference in price for the aircraft, none justify their cost against a Mig-35.

And again, none of our adversaries have any thing comparable to APG-79 or such.

But PLAAF knows the strengths and weakness of R73, R27 & R77. They might know how to jam R77 active seeker, how to break the radar lock etc etc.

koti · Postby **koti** » 02 Oct 2009 00:16

rajeshks wrote:But PLAAF knows the strengths and weakness of R73, R27 & R77. They might know how to jam R77 active seeker, how to break the radar lock etc etc.

It is not that significant IMO.
In that case Pakis and through them PLAAF, IranAF, Syria etc should have be at a great advantage against Israeli AIM's.
I would welcome more technical explanation from anyone though.

prabir · Postby **prabir** » 02 Oct 2009 00:17

Does the so-called commie Airforce called PLAAF have the advantage to train with the best in the world ?
West sees them as a long term threat.
Russians see them as someone with whom they are going to fight a war.

All we need is rectify the mistakes of the past which allowed our squadron strength to deplete. We have to make right decisions quickly.

Shankar · Postby **Shankar** » 02 Oct 2009 00:44

baldev, info/link on r-74 please.
TIA.
baldev, info/link on r-74 please.
TIA.

Russian missile design house Vympel unveiled two previously classified air-to-air missiles (AAMs) at the show, the K-37 long-range active-radar-guided AAM and the K-74 infra-red-guided short-range missile.

The K-74 is a development of Vympel's R-73 (AA-11 Archer), with the main difference being an improved infra-red (IR)-seeker. Both have the same basic airframe.

The K-74 seeker has a maximum off-bore-sight angle of 60¹, compared to 40¹ for the basic R-73. The design bureau adds that, as a consequence of using the improved Arsenal design bureau IR seeker, maximum engagement range is improved by around 30%.
Along with an improved seeker design for the K-74 (the K designator denotes that it has yet to enter service with the Russian air force), Vympel says that it looked at alternative thrust-vector designs.

Three thrust-vector configurations were considered: the twin inceptors fitted to the basic R-73, an all-moving nozzle, and four independent inceptors.

While the four-inceptor design proved to be the lightest, it was also the least robust, and the all-moving nozzle suffered from hot-gas leakage through the spherical seal. Vympel opted to continue with the approach initially used on the R-73.

Work on the K-74 is understood to have begun in the mid-1980s. Vympel is also offering an upgrade which would take the K-74's improved IR seeker and marry it to an air-force inventory of R-73 airframes.

Vympel also displayed an R-73 with a laser fuze, and says that this variant is already in service with the Russian air force.

While the K-74 is likely eventually to enter the air force inventory, the future of Vympel's other debut weapon is in greater doubt.

The K-37 is the successor to the R-33 (AA-9 Amos) and was intended to provide the primary AAM armament of the upgraded Mikoyan MiG-31M Foxhound B. It is also likely to have been intended as the main armament of the intended successor to the MiG-31M, Mikoyan's Project 701. The MiG-31M, however, has effectively been cancelled.

Vympel and MAPO MIG are looking at retrofitting the K-37 to the variants of MiG-31 now in the Russian air-defence forces inventory. The design bureau says that no approach to the defence ministry will be made until after the planned integration of the air-defence forces with the air force has taken place.

The K-37 differs from the R-33 in having an active-radar seeker, rather than a semi-active one. The K-37 is also described by Vympel as a statically unstable aerodynamic design - the R-33 was stable.

Opting for a statically unstable design required a considerably more sophisticated flight-control system, but it means that the missile is considerably more manoeuvrable than the R-33.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/19 ... siles.html

saptarishi · Postby **saptarishi** » 02 Oct 2009 00:59

mig-35 will get great weapons,all derived from the pak-fa project, like

rvv-sd--110km range airtoair missile--russian analog of meteor and amraam c7

r-vv-md-russian answer to python 5 and aim-9x-40km range

Baldev · Postby **Baldev** » 02 Oct 2009 03:58

rajeshks wrote:But PLAAF knows the strengths and weakness of R73, R27 & R77. They might know how to jam R77 active seeker, how to break the radar lock etc etc.

amraam is sold all over so every country knows about it, same is the case with Russian missiles

sumshyam · Postby **sumshyam** » 02 Oct 2009 06:17

Baldev wrote:
missiles never gets old as long as its got good seeker and guidance don't forget AIM7 with upgrade still in production

I thought every think has a shelf life....and also when we talk of upgrade ...I think it simply means that very thing is loosing foot with time..i.e. to get old...isn't that.....my friend..??

sumshyam · Postby **sumshyam** » 02 Oct 2009 06:20

koti wrote:.
I would welcome more technical explanation from anyone though.

two pages explains something about radar lock and how to brake it..!!!

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZJQ31WqojjoC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=break+the+radar+lock&source=bl&ots=uaCfZXY0TT&sig=l1R4t8bjoTolSSPG8Xg5J4H7eBo&hl=en&ei=Mk3FSuK8CozykAWfnoE2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=break%20the%20radar%20lock&f=false

johnny_m · Postby **johnny_m** » 02 Oct 2009 07:03

Something posted in the MRCA thread in keypublishing forums. Looks rather good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-_OWMDN64M

Baldev · Postby **Baldev** » 02 Oct 2009 08:14

sumshyam wrote:I thought every think has a shelf life....and also when we talk of upgrade ...I think it simply means that very thing is loosing foot with time..i.e. to get old...isn't that.....my friend..??

what is the technical proof that its loosing foot :?:

sumshyam · Postby **sumshyam** » 02 Oct 2009 08:46

Baldev wrote:what is the technical proof that its loosing foot

There is no need to have a technical proof..just logical....new technologies comes from the graveyards of old ones...it is like...you eat when you are hungry...!!!

and I am just a b.tech student....not yet mature enough to prove or disprove anything technically...but can you..??

Yogi_G · Postby **Yogi_G** » 02 Oct 2009 08:49

johnny_m wrote:Something posted in the MRCA thread in keypublishing forums. Looks rather good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-_OWMDN64M

I have seen this one before, I think it was posted before in BR. the guy in the video mentions the F-18 as a 5th gen aircraft, is he using the Chinese convention (rest of the world+1) for the gen of the aircraft? BTW is the guy from the Australian forces or the US? Never did get a clear look of the full uniform...

Kartik · Postby **Kartik** » 02 Oct 2009 09:10

johnny_m wrote:Something posted in the MRCA thread in keypublishing forums. Looks rather good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-_OWMDN64M

a very impressive video on the Super Hornet. displays its amazing nose-pointing ability even when fully loaded, although the maneuvers seem to lack speed and acceleration, but that may be true of any fighter which is fully loaded and doing those maneuvers. I've seen a SH display myself and when seen from a stationary ground position near the display, its display is truely great. those GE F414 EPE engines would really come in handy on this fighter.

rajeshks · Postby **rajeshks** » 02 Oct 2009 10:26

koti wrote:
rajeshks wrote:But PLAAF knows the strengths and weakness of R73, R27 & R77. They might know how to jam R77 active seeker, how to break the radar lock etc etc.

It is not that significant IMO.
In that case Pakis and through them PLAAF, IranAF, Syria etc should have be at a great advantage against Israeli AIM's.
I would welcome more technical explanation from anyone though.

All this countries dont have the capability to reverse engineer the missile. China has that and they may not tell everyone everything they know.

Baldev · Postby **Baldev** » 02 Oct 2009 19:30

sumshyam wrote:
Baldev wrote:what is the technical proof that its loosing foot

There is no need to have a technical proof..just logical....new technologies comes from the graveyards of old ones...it is like...you eat when you are hungry...!!!

and I am just a b.tech student....not yet mature enough to prove or disprove anything technically...but can you..??

better leave thinking with just logic and start thinking technically and even first year engg. student is mature enough to think technically

no missile ever gets old with upgrades whether its AIM9/7 or R27 and this makes some logic.

flip some pages back which shows detection and lock on ranges of various seekers used on R27 which shows why R27 still holds its ground

Baldev · Postby **Baldev** » 02 Oct 2009 19:34

Rahul M wrote:baldev, don't think anything comes close to the python-5 at the moment.

btw, the AIM-9X apparently has a 90 deg off boresight capability.

yes python5 can even be fired off shoulder no escape

sumshyam · Postby **sumshyam** » 02 Oct 2009 20:32

Baldev wrote:
no missile ever gets old with upgrades whether its AIM9/7 or R27 and this makes some logic.

My friend...Just read the two below...I think they will covey you my massage that every thing do have a life...!!!

http://www.deagel.com/news/Royal-Navys-Seawolf-Missiles-Life-Cycle-Extended-Through-at-Least-2017_n000004629.aspx
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA329324

As far as thinking technically concerns...I would like to say that don't leave in hypothetical paradise. What we have is just some news...nothing technical is available for free....!!!

Thinking technically is quite good...but believe me....even if given a hand on anything...we are talking of...we will not be able to understand all those.

Even HAL agrees to it....I think that is MOD do not go for 100% of ToT.....just because they can't consume all the technologies with their present state of understanding and also of infrastructure.

If you have something technical in your understanding...I personally would be pleased to learn all that...and would be obliged to you....but if you are thinking talking of some news or just free available data is technical...I find it ridiculous.

Well enough of off-topic discussion...please return to topic...if wanna reply this post..reply at

sumshyam@yahoo.co.in

Regards.

koti · Postby **koti** » 02 Oct 2009 22:27

koti wrote:
rajeshks wrote:But PLAAF knows the strengths and weakness of R73, R27 & R77. They might know how to jam R77 active seeker, how to break the radar lock etc etc.

It is not that significant IMO.
In that case Pakis and through them PLAAF, IranAF, Syria etc should have be at a great advantage against Israeli AIM's.
I would welcome more technical explanation from anyone though.

And also buying planes(weapons) from US means complete dependence on GPS. And we know what GPS can do to you if US has other plans. In case of conflict, we may find our munitions not working to take out key targets
(Generals, command centres, air bases)allowing US to maintain so called balance in the region.

Apart from Russian weapons a hell lot of varieties from Rafael, MBDA, DRDO :-)

etc can be easily put on MiG's. I don't think this would be so easily possible with US equipment.

Guddu · Postby **Guddu** » 03 Oct 2009 06:35

Some updates on the Brazilian MRCA competition...from Strat. This line of reasoning has implications for the Indian contest too.

"At one point, Saab was the outside bidder. But it has recently offered to sell its Gripen NG at half the price of the Rafale, and is offering to move 50 percent of manufacturing to Brazil. The Rafale is estimated to cost $130 million, with the F/A-18E/F estimated at $90 million and the Gripen NG at $60 million. Boeing has reportedly countered the Saab price cut and the French bid by offering Brazilian suppliers contracts to build some parts of the F-18."
"But the Saab offer has thus far intrigued Brazil’s aircraft manufacturer Embraer (one of the leading regional jet manufacturers in the world) because it is the only one that offers an actual manufacturing deal with Brazil. While Dassault and Boeing have improved their initial tenders by offering technology transfers, only Saab is ready to give Brazil the opportunity to manufacture parts of the aircraft. Embraer has therefore come out publicly supporting the Gripen bid, which is a significant show of support — a central tenet of the tender has from the beginning been to allow Embraer to acquire technology on how to manufacture a modern jet fighter. Therefore, even though the Gripen NG may not have outmatched the U.S. and French planes in performance, the more extensive manufacturing experience would likely help Brazil in terms of independence in military aircraft production. "

johnny_m · Postby **johnny_m** » 03 Oct 2009 06:52

The key is SAAB offered to fully finance the purchase price of the FX-2 with low interest from Swedish Banks. I am sure such a deal with India (even if not for the full contract) will have some impact.

Baldev · Postby **Baldev** » 03 Oct 2009 07:37

sumshyam wrote:
Baldev wrote:
no missile ever gets old with upgrades whether its AIM9/7 or R27 and this makes some logic.

My friend...Just read the two below...I think they will covey you my massage that every thing do have a life...!!!

http://www.deagel.com/news/Royal-Navys-Seawolf-Missiles-Life-Cycle-Extended-Through-at-Least-2017_n000004629.aspx
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA329324

As far as thinking technically concerns...I would like to say that don't leave in hypothetical paradise. What we have is just some news...nothing technical is available for free....!!!

Thinking technically is quite good...but believe me....even if given a hand on anything...we are talking of...we will not be able to understand all those.

Even HAL agrees to it....I think that is MOD do not go for 100% of ToT.....just because they can't consume all the technologies with their present state of understanding and also of infrastructure.
Regards.

nothing technical is available for free.... :eek:

actually this is the case with US military hardware they don't publish any

everything do have life only when nothing much can be done with particular system in terms of upgrading it so its discarded but this isn't the case with missiles.

AIM 7/9 still hold their edge in combat with upgrade which predates R27 by over 1.5 decade so R27 looses its edge only when there are no upgrades available or if its never been upgraded

i posted actual data produced by the manufacturers and exporting monopoly not just some news

all the figures here discussed were produced by AGAT,VYMPEL,ROSOBORONEXPORT not leaving anything on hypothetical paradise.

shelf life of missiles is 8-10 years without maintenance which can be increase with upgrade.

any missile fitted with newest guidance,seeker is always a threat.and R27 is cheaper to produce.

Who is online