MRCA News and Discussion

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Oct 2009 01:13

NRao wrote:We can expect - and hope it does not happen - with the MiG-35 too. In fact the MiG-35 should be worse than this. Just an observation.

The Indian Air Force’s plans to induct upgraded MiG-29 by March next year has been hit due to delay at the Russian end with the first lot of six aircraft likely to come in only by early 2011.

“Originally, the upgraded MiG-29s were to join the IAF squadrons at Adampur airbase in Punjab by March 2010. But now, there will be a delay of another eight to 10 months and hence, we expect it only in early 2011,” a senior IAF officer said on Sunday. Under the US $ 950-million contract signed in March 2008 for upgrading 60-odd MiG-29s operated by IAF’s three squadrons, the IAF planned to fit Series-3 version of RD-33 engine to increase its thrust from 8.3 ton to over 9 ton, apart from improved avionics, modern weapon systems and Beyond Visual Range missiles.

“The idea is to upgrade the MiG-29 from an aerial interceptor, air superiority aircraft to a multi-role fighter-bomber aircraft capable of striking mobile and stationary targets on the ground and at sea with high-precision weapons in all-weather conditions beyond visual range,” the officer said. While the first six aircraft would be upgraded by the original equipment manufacturer, the remaining aircraft would be attended to at the IAF’s Nashik-based 11 Base Repair Depot with kits supplied by RAC-MIG. The upgrading is happening on the basis of the new requirements for the MiG-29s that IAF had indicated to the
OEM, based on an assessment it had made for the future role of the fighter aircraft.

“The upgrade will increase the service life of MiG-29 from the existing 25 years to 40 years. The upgrade of all the aircraft was originally envisaged within three years. But now, it could take another year or more to complete,” he added. This will include replacing existing on-board radars with the advanced multi-functional Zhuk-ME radar and a new weapon control system. The package is also expected to include state-of-the-art avionics and cockpit ergonomics, along with an increase in fuel capacity.

The twin-engine MiG-29s will carry sophisticated air-to-air and high-accuracy air-to-ground missiles such as R-27, R-60Mk and R-73, and ’smart aerial’ bombs. The upgrade programme ran into rough weather after a Russian Air Force MiG-29 crashed in December last forcing the IAF to ground all its aircraft to carry out extensive checks.

With Russia identifying structural faults in the aircraft’s tail fins, the IAF went about checking the tail fins of the MiG-29s in its squadrons.” Half-a-dozen of the MiG-29s in our fleet were found with faults in the tail fin and these had to be replaced. On the MiG-29s from the same batch of aircraft as the Russians, we did further checks to rectify structural faults completely,” an IAF engineer said.

Did not notice the bolded part until now.

Come now Raoji, I know you think the U.S birds are not a bad choice, but that report is a bit below the belt don't you think?

Firstly, 1 years delay is hardly that surprising - could be because of a number of reasons including IAF requirements (they are known to be pretty tough customers, very hard to impress). More importantly, what defence acquisition does not suffer such problems - scorpenes, LCA, even the LM engines on the Shivalik, the list is endless.

Also, that article is full of inaccuracies - that the IAF checked its 29s after the russian case is not surprising, but no aircraft was grounded for the same reason. A bit of a hit job there by the journo if you ask me. Smear - wherever possible looks like.

Aircraft are known to go through structural problems with time - the USAF eagles are a famous example, hell even newish Shornets had some problems with the wings. The VVS Mig-29s had prolonged exposure to weather and I believe are not as well maintained as the IAF Baaz. And it shows because the the IAF baaz was not grounded.

And then based on this obviously jaundiced report to imply that the mig-35s will run into trouble! Come sir - let us be fair, surely this does not behoove an estd. BRF oldie? The MiG-29K on which the 35 is strongly based has hardly suffered such difficulties and is about to make a grand entry into the IN.

CM.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Oct 2009 01:20

NRao wrote:We can expect - and hope it does not happen - with the MiG-35 too. In fact the MiG-35 should be worse than this. Just an observation.

shetty wrote:The Indian Air Force’s plans to induct upgraded MiG-29 by March next year has been hit due to delay at the Russian end with the first lot of six aircraft likely to come in only by early 2011.

now read this
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=11785
so which one you want to believe

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Oct 2009 01:43

wow! CM, you still want that mig35! for IAF.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Oct 2009 01:54

SaiK wrote:wow! CM, you still want that mig35! for IAF.

whats wrong in this

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Oct 2009 02:00

CM,

Apologies. I did not mean the entire article and should have edited the bold-ed section. I really have no clue about the fin problem.

However, I have given my theory of why the MiG-35 will be delayed in an earlier post. And, I think it still holds, this article seems to provide a data point in support of my theory.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Oct 2009 02:03

SaiK wrote:wow! CM, you still want that mig35! for IAF.

There was a point in time when I wanted everything related to the MiG moved to India and India actually supply MiG-35s to Russia.

I still think that would be a great move. Let the design ops be in Russia, but I would love to see the manufacturing move to India - granted some things will still need to come from Russia.

However, that is dependent on Russia funding at least 48 MiG-35s right now.

BTW, is there any talk of PAK-FA techs creeping into the MiG arena? There has got to be something/s that can be migrated over.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Oct 2009 02:11

SaiK wrote:wow! CM, you still want that mig35! for IAF.

Not necessarily - just pointing out what I thought were erroneous conclusions based upon a faulty DDM piece.

Frankly, it is hard to judge the a/c involved. Esp. since the criteria are somewhat unknown. Is the IAF truly looking for quick, gap fillers through this particular deal?While that seemed to be the case initially, iNcreasing it does not seem so - the process has become a convoluted quagmire. Now it looks like the IAF would prefer to fill the quantity gaps via additional MKIs and perhaps LCAs.

I think increasingly, tHe MRCA could be a complement/backup to the MCA - the Rafale/Tiffy or even the Gripen NG might be a good idea even in smaller numbers if need be. This brings about the requisite variety that gives the IAF a degree of strategic comfort as well tactical flexibilty.

The teens are simply not platforms of the future and for this reason have little appeal. I can't imaging trying to keep an edge with an F-16 30 years down the road. Nightmare. THe fulrum too suffers a bit from this but is slightly better off because of a better aero design and further room to improve at cheap prices.

Only the Eurocanards offer something here - esp. the Rafale and the Gripen with their willingness to work with customized options.

CM.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Oct 2009 02:16

NRao wrote:I still think that would be a great move. Let the design ops be in Russia, but I would love to see the manufacturing move to India - granted some things will still need to come from Russia.

However, that is dependent on Russia funding at least 48 MiG-35s right now.

BTW, is there any talk of PAK-FA techs creeping into the MiG arena? There has got to be something/s that can be migrated over.

funding is main problem in US,EUROPE for development of military systems for which there is always need of few billions to start project

huge funding doesn't matter in Russian case there is no need more than few millions.but by the way why Russians need to develop mig35 again when its already developed.

even if funding is the case there is no need of Russian air force buying 48 mig35 for development of mig35,
e.g if Russians can develop mig29k and sell 16 of them for 750million so its very clear they can also develop mig35 by spending not more than 100million.

even if the funding question still arises not to forget IN wants 30 more mig29k for about 1.2-1.3 billion which provides enough funding for mig35 development.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Oct 2009 02:26

NRao wrote:
SaiK wrote:wow! CM, you still want that mig35! for IAF.
There was a point in time when I wanted everything related to the MiG moved to India and India actually supply MiG-35s to Russia.

I still think that would be a great move. Let the design ops be in Russia, but I would love to see the manufacturing move to India - granted some things will still need to come from Russia.

However, that is dependent on Russia funding at least 48 MiG-35s right now.

BTW, is there any talk of PAK-FA techs creeping into the MiG arena? There has got to be something/s that can be migrated over.

Moving the entire mfg line to INdia ought not to be that far fetched. In fact, I'd expect MiG/UAC to pull a stunt of that nature. The Russians might not fund 48 35s but they may fund a few 29Ks, which is v. close. Pakfa tech is already creeping in - the OLS I think is a good example. Not to mention the composites. There is simply no fulcrum ever produced that is close to being what the IN is getting, the 35 should be better.

But like I've said, I am not too sure about fulcrums being the IAF choice. Nor am I too convinced. They'd better throw in the kitchen sink (which they seem willing to) to make it worthwhile.

CM.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Oct 2009 03:09

I think asking any nation to move their factory especially strategic and defence sector is a far fetched dream.. its all on the wall .. they may still want our money onleee.

for example france.. they even went ahead and scrapped m2k rather give to us at a hefty price. they would just not give tech like that., even if its oldie (i know we have different stories on these). so the only option, is LCA, or a beefed up LCA that may perhaps bring in techs for MCA. Keeps both DRDO and IAF happy.

Techs include, Snecma or EJ200 engines, Elta 2052, missile systems, integration codes, etc.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Oct 2009 04:45

Parijat Gaur wrote:
SaiK wrote:would france and russia allow a nuke brahmos be put on rafale?
The point is moot. There is little chance that rafale airframe would be able to support bramhos. Even for MKI (which is a heavy figher), it was not easy.

the point is not moot. the Rafale can carry a 2000 lb GBU-24 bomb, first on the centerline station and even on the innermost wing pylon. A Brahmos air to ground version is a lightened missile (2500 kgs) because its booster is shortened. It is theoretically possible to do the same thing that has been done on the Su-30MKI- bulk up the centerline pylon station to be able to carry the heavier Brahmos air to ground weapon. earmark a squadron to be the nuclear strike squadron and only upgrade those particular aircraft (just as I don't believe that all Su-30MKIs will undergo the upgrade to be able to carry the Brahmos air-ground missile). the only question is ground clearance requirements. anyway, Brahmos Corp can be tasked with lightening the missile further to carry a nuke payload at a slightly slower speed than the current Brahmos.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Oct 2009 05:17

Kartik wrote:
Parijat Gaur wrote: The point is moot. There is little chance that rafale airframe would be able to support bramhos. Even for MKI (which is a heavy figher), it was not easy.
the point is not moot. the Rafale can carry a 2000 lb GBU-24 bomb, first on the centerline station and even on the innermost wing pylon. A Brahmos air to ground version is a lightened missile (2500 kgs) because its booster is shortened. It is theoretically possible to do the same thing that has been done on the Su-30MKI- bulk up the centerline pylon station to be able to carry the heavier Brahmos air to ground weapon.

there is no need to carry brahmos on either on mig35 or rafale its pointless,there are lighter missiles for these fighters with larger warhead which can go farther than brahmos

air launched brahmos is most optimized against surface ships and to carry it over open oceans most optimized brahmos carrier is su30,

su30 carrying brahmos can go much farther on internal fuel compared to rafale doing the same

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 08 Oct 2009 06:54

Igorr wrote: I try to do it with kid skin gloves only, don't I.
If seriously, the designation 'commercial' would be a stupid name for a fighter, wouldn't it. It was a bad joke of a journalist indeed, translated to English like as being serious. It's an example how a joke can become 'truth'

What about the IL 78MKI then was it a Naval tanker

there is no need to carry brahmos on either on mig35 or rafale its pointless,there are lighter missiles for these fighters with larger warhead which can go farther than brahmos

air launched brahmos is most optimized against surface ships and to carry it over open oceans most optimized brahmos carrier is su30,

su30 carrying brahmos can go much farther on internal fuel compared to rafale doing the same

The Brahmos is a rather long missile, Su 30 can carry it because of the sheer size of its airframe. The Rafale for example cannot carry it in the centre pylon because then the nose gear won't probably come down. I think Su 30 is the only fighter which will be able to carry it.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Oct 2009 07:01

Baldev wrote: there is no need to carry brahmos on either on mig35 or rafale its pointless,there are lighter missiles for these fighters with larger warhead which can go farther than brahmos

air launched brahmos is most optimized against surface ships and to carry it over open oceans most optimized brahmos carrier is su30,

su30 carrying brahmos can go much farther on internal fuel compared to rafale doing the same

thats your opinion. I was saying that India should develop an air-launched missile like the ASMP-A, based off the air-launched Brahmos, but modified to be lighter and have a lower speed, yet supersonic, because the kinetic energy of the weapon would be useless for a nuke warhead, although it would make it very difficult to intercept. and what source do you have for your claim that the air-launched Brahmos is optimized against surface ships ?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 08 Oct 2009 15:06

rajeshks wrote: Thats bcoz the best Mig we had was optimised for A2A role and other Migs didnt have PGM capability. This is not the case with russian machines now.

There will be new problems and new solutions. And every type of plane has some adv and disadv.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 08 Oct 2009 15:12

shameekg wrote:
RKumar wrote:The reason for the sad smiley is US origin, it has too many strings attached and many unknown unknown (Which we will know only with time). But it is the plane which can bring new technology and fits in our budget.
Thats the case with the F-16 also. Which new technology are you looking at? Just the AESA or something else?

Do by any chance do we have any fighter US plane?? We have already Fr, Ru and Gb planes but not US. Many will say it will be a nightmare to support all types of planes. I do agree but then we will retire some old planes. Not only MiG, I hope. So I think we take Gb planes out and US in for this generation. In 2040-2050 onwards, it should be In (majority - 70%), Ru (- 30%).

Regarding F-16 please read

RKumar wrote: F-16 -> towards end of life from orgion country but proven - 5 points

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 08 Oct 2009 15:17

Kartik wrote: the point is not moot. the Rafale can carry a 2000 lb GBU-24 bomb, first on the centerline station and even on the innermost wing pylon. A Brahmos air to ground version is a lightened missile (2500 kgs) because its booster is shortened. It is theoretically possible to do the same thing that has been done on the Su-30MKI- bulk up the centerline pylon station to be able to carry the heavier Brahmos air to ground weapon. ..........................Brahmos Corp can be tasked with lightening the missile further to carry a nuke payload at a slightly slower speed than the current Brahmos.

Kartik, GBU-24 is 2000 lbs (NOT 2000KGs) ~ equals about 900 Kgs
Brahmos air launched is 2500KGs. Neither would it be possible to lighten the missile enough (it is already lightened from around 4 tons). Nor would it me possible to strengthen the centerline pylon to carry something 2.5 times as heavy.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Oct 2009 15:22

thats your opinion. I was saying that India should develop an air-launched missile like the ASMP-A, based off the air-launched Brahmos, but modified to be lighter and have a lower speed, yet supersonic, because the kinetic energy of the weapon would be useless for a nuke warhead, although it would make it very difficult to intercept. and what source do you have for your claim that the air-launched Brahmos is optimized against surface ships ?

That ASMP is one helluva design - Mach 3, 500km range, approx 800kg mass + 300kt warhead!
THe Brahmos airlaunched is 2.5 tons! My guess is that it carries a far larger warhead. My concern with the Brahmos on a rafale or fulcrum would not just be weight but also size - on the fulcrum, it'd probly interfere with the nose wheel. The rafale is even smaller.

CM.

adel ansari · Post by **adel ansari** » 08 Oct 2009 16:18

Does any1 know that When does the Gripen NG come for tests.. I am dying to see this bird in Indian Colors..
It truly is a beauty and also can pack a punch.. I for sure know that IAF pilots really like this bird and are all for it. I have some close friends who are in IAF and they really do vouch for this bird..
All this talk about being similar to LCA doesn't hold ground.. Gripen NG will b a more advanced version with increased payload (It has overcome its major drawback) and is absolutely perfect to play second fiddle to Monster (MKI) and will come cheaper then anyother contenders with maximum TOT and assured help on LCA... IMO its the best offer we could get...But Alas we have inefficient babus who will take decisions and have a feeling they will mess up and India will lose a great offer for some crappy kickbacked deal...Hope I am proven wrong....

Hey Gurus please throw some more light on this beauty's functionality..(hope you all will give an unbiased opinions..also Vishnu Som has been on flight and seems quite impressed with the bird and the over offer of SAAB)...

Thanks ....

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 08 Oct 2009 16:21

johnny_m wrote:
Igorr wrote: I try to do it with kid skin gloves only, don't I.
If seriously, the designation 'commercial' would be a stupid name for a fighter, wouldn't it. It was a bad joke of a journalist indeed, translated to English like as being serious. It's an example how a joke can become 'truth'
What about the IL 78MKI then was it a Naval tanker

It means something different:
M - modernizirovannyi (modernized)
K - konvertirovannyi (converted)
I - indiyskiy (Indian)
It's per Russian wiki article
As a rule, there is no at all such designation 'kommercheskiy' (commertial) in Russian MIC. Insted there is 'E' - means 'exported variant', like Zhuk-ME (modernized exported) or Zhuk-AE (active exported). Club-E (exported) etc.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 08 Oct 2009 16:39

akash wrote:Does any1 know that When does the Gripen NG come for tests.. I am dying to see this bird in Indian Colors..
It truly is a beauty and also can pack a punch.. I for sure know that IAF pilots really like this bird and are all for it. I have some close friends who are in IAF and they really do vouch for this bird..
All this talk about being similar to LCA doesn't hold ground.. Gripen NG will b a more advanced version with increased payload (It has overcome its major drawback) and is absolutely perfect to play second fiddle to Monster (MKI) and will come cheaper then anyother contenders with maximum TOT and assured help on LCA... IMO its the best offer we could get...But Alas we have inefficient babus who will take decisions and have a feeling they will mess up and India will lose a great offer for some crappy kickbacked deal...Hope I am proven wrong....

Hey Gurus please throw some more light on this beauty's functionality..(hope you all will give an unbiased opinions..also Vishnu Som has been on flight and seems quite impressed with the bird and the over offer of SAAB)...

Thanks ....

IT WILL ALSO COME WITH A WARNING "This a/c cannot be used during the war".

Just the way Swedes stabbed us in the back at time of Kargil while refusing to supply ammunition. If Israelis were not their to help us......
No Ef2k is coming with complete tot of ej200 engines, GaN chips.

adel ansari · Post by **adel ansari** » 08 Oct 2009 16:59

Manish_Sharma wrote:
akash wrote:Does any1 know that When does the Gripen NG come for tests.. I am dying to see this bird in Indian Colors..
It truly is a beauty and also can pack a punch.. I for sure know that IAF pilots really like this bird and are all for it. I have some close friends who are in IAF and they really do vouch for this bird..
All this talk about being similar to LCA doesn't hold ground.. Gripen NG will b a more advanced version with increased payload (It has overcome its major drawback) and is absolutely perfect to play second fiddle to Monster (MKI) and will come cheaper then anyother contenders with maximum TOT and assured help on LCA... IMO its the best offer we could get...But Alas we have inefficient babus who will take decisions and have a feeling they will mess up and India will lose a great offer for some crappy kickbacked deal...Hope I am proven wrong....

Hey Gurus please throw some more light on this beauty's functionality..(hope you all will give an unbiased opinions..also Vishnu Som has been on flight and seems quite impressed with the bird and the over offer of SAAB)...

Thanks ....
IT WILL ALSO COME WITH A WARNING "This a/c cannot be used during the war". Just the way Swedes stabbed us in the back at time of Kargil while refusing to supply ammunition. If Israelis were not their to help us......
No Ef2k is coming with complete tot of ej200 engines, GaN chips.

Ya but things have changed now, haven't they?
India by the time it will get its MRCA delivered (2014) will hopefully be in a very strong position economically and no one will supposedly want to spoil ties..

IT WILL ALSO COME WITH A WARNING "This a/c cannot be used during the war".
So will any other a/c.. be it french or europeans and we all know uncle sam.. they can impose restrictions too..the only one we can be assured of is Russia but buying MIG would defeat the whole purpose of the tender exercise of hedging your risk against one vendor..

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 08 Oct 2009 17:24

SaiK wrote:for example france.. they even went ahead and scrapped m2k rather give to us at a hefty price. they would just not give tech like that., even if its oldie (i know we have different stories on these). so the only option, is LCA, or a beefed up LCA that may perhaps bring in techs for MCA. Keeps both DRDO and IAF happy.

Always, always the same complaints... You were offered the full production line (and this means heavy tech transfers) but took to much time to take it, thus lost it ! We couldn't maintain it for decades while there was no orders...

About Rafale heavy hardpoints, the three central ones are qualified fo 2000l tanks so they should be able to carry at least 1.6 ton each.

However, If you were to develop a new version of your Brahmos Missile for Rafale, what about this design ?
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyper ... .html#more

Actually, Aldebaran will weight 11 to 12 tons, which means at least 3.5t for each hardpoint (see at the end of pdf, p60-63)
Given the design, I even suspect the centerline point to carry more than the two underwing, there should be no worries about Brahmos weight. I would rather wonder about available space.

http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/T. ... er2008.pdf

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Oct 2009 18:20

Kartik wrote:
Baldev wrote: there is no need to carry brahmos on either on mig35 or rafale its pointless,there are lighter missiles for these fighters with larger warhead which can go farther than brahmos

air launched brahmos is most optimized against surface ships and to carry it over open oceans most optimized brahmos carrier is su30,

su30 carrying brahmos can go much farther on internal fuel compared to rafale doing the same
thats your opinion. I was saying that India should develop an air-launched missile like the ASMP-A, based off the air-launched Brahmos, but modified to be lighter and have a lower speed, yet supersonic, because the kinetic energy of the weapon would be useless for a nuke warhead, although it would make it very difficult to intercept. and what source do you have for your claim that the air-launched Brahmos is optimized against surface ships ?

its simple,for our western neighbour we don't need air launched brahmos moreover they don't have anything to counter brahmos so need need to launch missile from air but can be launched from ground

secondly against china brahmos missile range is totally inadequate,so its better to use longer range subsonic cruise missile

last option for air launched brahmos remains is anti ship missile because its supersonic but its range here is again inadequate but this problem can be overcome by using long range fighter or bomber which can fly at long ranges

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 08 Oct 2009 19:03

Ya but things have changed now, haven't they?
India by the time it will get its MRCA delivered (2014) will hopefully be in a very strong position economically and no one will supposedly want to spoil ties..

IT WILL ALSO COME WITH A WARNING "This a/c cannot be used during the war".
So will any other a/c.. be it french or europeans and we all know uncle sam.. they can impose restrictions too..the only one we can be assured of is Russia but buying MIG would defeat the whole purpose of the tender exercise of hedging your risk against one vendor

Are we investing 10 billion dollar in a machine that cannot be used during the war ? Have the French put a condition that Mirage 2000 cannot be used in a war ?
Then what will be the purpose of the aircraft ? Only for peace time flying ? If that is the case, why we are evaluating the performance of each aircraft ?

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 08 Oct 2009 19:04

RKumar wrote: Do by any chance do we have any fighter US plane?? We have already Fr, Ru and Gb planes but not US. Many will say it will be a nightmare to support all types of planes. I do agree but then we will retire some old planes. Not only MiG, I hope. So I think we take Gb planes out and US in for this generation. In 2040-2050 onwards, it should be In (majority - 70%), Ru (- 30%).

Regarding F-16 please read
RKumar wrote: F-16 -> towards end of life from orgion country but proven - 5 points

It does not matter whether we have a US plane or not. We are not trying to make a collection of aircraft from all over the world. You mentioned new technology that we would gain by buying an US plane. Please let me know what you are referring to by that.
You still want to be dependant on US and Russia in 2040? I would hope by then we are 100% Indian or close to that. Besides the MRCA is not for 2040. Lets keep it to the next 5-10 years.

Regarding the F-16, the same thing holds as for the F-18. Both have a US origin and both are based on old designs.

My question to you is what makes you favour the F-18 more besides wanting to have a wider variety of aircraft.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 08 Oct 2009 19:58

shameekg wrote: Besides the MRCA is not for 2040. Lets keep it to the next 5-10 years.

I do not understand....I think It would take around 10 years to introduce all 126 birds....!!!

and then...they will not be of any use..???

Please explain..!!!

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 08 Oct 2009 20:00

It will take another 2 years or even more to decide which plane to buy, and hopefully a contender doesnt lodge some protest if he is kicked out.

Then it will take another 5 years atleast to assemble those 100 odd planes

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 08 Oct 2009 20:25

shameekg wrote:You still want to be dependant on US and Russia in 2040? I would hope by then we are 100% Indian or close to that. Besides the MRCA is not for 2040. Lets keep it to the next 5-10 years.

There is a big difference what I want and what we can achieve. I want India to be self dependent. Personally, I favour scraping MRCA and put pressure on HAL to deliver results. We deliver better result under pressure then otherwise. But that is not the point we are discussing here. We are buying a plane which we can use at least for 25 years. Hopefully, In next 5-7 years we will introduce 126 planes. And I don't think we will start retiring them. As far as US or Russian is dependent, please check we are doing joint development with Russia for FGFA. I am quite sure by then we will still be using some Russian planes. So they are going to stay.

shameekg wrote:Regarding the F-16, the same thing holds as for the F-18. Both have a US origin and both are based on old designs.

We are buying a old technology. MRCA is for 4-gen AC not for 5th gen. I don't understand why you can not understand F-16 will out of service from the country of origin

shameekg wrote:My question to you is what makes you favour the F-18 more besides wanting to have a wider variety of aircraft.

I don't want to collect souvenirs from all over world. All planes have their + and - points.

Until we reach 50% self dependence, we should not dependent on any one country (Does not matter even if it is Russia). At this moment we have zero percent of Indian origin FULL AC, so here comes the second player into picture. So from this point Russia is out.

My personal favourite is French Rafale, but that bird is expensive. We don't have unlimited money like some Arab country that we can buy it based on the capabilities. And unfortunately, we have their plane in our inventory. It seems we can't afford it and so we have second type of plane in our inventory.

Eurofighter, first it is not a British plane, it is a Euro plane. Build by 4 countries, out of these 4 countries 2 (br, it) are ready to leave at any given point of time. They are waiting for an excuse to do so. When the partner countries are interested in F-35, why India should buy it. Would you buy plane, where there is no guarantee and stability of the project. But we have British planes in our inventory, again bad luck we have third type of plane in our inventory.

Saab Gripen NG... it is close to LCA MK 2. Why we should buy it unless we want to kill LCA Mk2. Thank GOD we don't have any plane from this country.

Last is our friends with unknown unknown rules US with F16 and F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet (may I call it SH toooo long to type)

F-16 will out of service from the country of origin and I don't want to put 10b$ for old horse.

Only options left is SH, introduce in 1999 with US Navy. So it is relatively newer then F16 (inducted in 1978). So we end up with having a collection of souvenirs

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 08 Oct 2009 20:42

sumshyam wrote:I do not understand....I think It would take around 10 years to introduce all 126 birds....!!!

and then...they will not be of any use..???

Please explain..!!!

I did not say they will not be of any use. It was a response to RKumars statement of being dependant on Russia/US in the 2040/2050 timeframe. Assuming the MRCA birds are all in by 2015-2017, thats still more than 20 years away from 2040, by which time I hope we will be much more self reliant and not having more of such MRCA competitions. Till then these will serve their purpose.
I hope that explains it.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 08 Oct 2009 20:51

shameekg wrote:I did not say they will not be of any use. It was a response to RKumars statement of being dependant on Russia/US in the 2040/2050 timeframe. Assuming the MRCA birds are all in by 2015-2017, thats still more than 20 years away from 2040, by which time I hope we will be much more self reliant and not having more of such MRCA competitions. Till then these will serve their purpose.
I hope that explains it.

I hope, we will not be dependent on any country but we will be still using our assets, in which we have invested. There is a big difference

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Oct 2009 21:02

well... make no mistake, the khans would never sell us the teens (forget its capability), to deliver nukes on its platform, or allow us to modify the platform in the future as the french or russkies will perhaps allow us at a squeezing cost.

so if we pay the right money and get the right platform, we can do the "yes we can", and later "and we did" dances but only if we have these strategies and plans drafted ahead for mmrca.

imho, we don't want to miss our relationship with elta folks, and their associate for LCA can benefit MRCA as well, perhaps calling it the next gen aesa (MMR-II) for mmrca. its a damn good engagement to have, plus they have a ton of missiles and are willing to port and code for russkian ones as well, hence maintaining logistics.

EF2K could be a killer a/c if Rafale bungles on the mmrca order. They are willing to collobrate with us on various terms., unlike unkill. Its all upto our order, and our requirements and budgets.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 08 Oct 2009 21:04

RKumar wrote: There is a big difference what I want and what we can achieve. I want India to be self dependent. Personally, I favour scraping MRCA and put pressure on HAL to deliver results. We deliver better result under pressure then otherwise.

HAL is not Ekalavya, they can't learn every thing their own. Also acquiring knowledge and skills will take its own time, there is no shortcut for that. With MMRCA we are trying to speedup the process. Get some initial boost through ToT and leverage on that.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 08 Oct 2009 21:37

RKumar wrote: I hope, we will not be dependent on any country but we will be still using our assets, in which we have invested. There is a big difference

Hope is very beautiful word which should be used carefully for its cuts you in pieces if it does not materialize.

There is not sign of our learning anything except a ray of light from IN.

rajeshks wrote: HAL is not Ekalavya, they can't learn every thing their own. Also acquiring knowledge and skills will take its own time, there is no shortcut for that. With MMRCA we are trying to speedup the process. Get some initial boost through ToT and leverage on that.

Why do you thing TOT will help us? We have earlier produced Mig 21 / Jaguars etc. But even with all those experience, we need to look a foreign partner to develop even basic first stage trainer.

If at all we want TOT to help us, we need to rope companies like L & T /TATA to manufacture license versions. They will atleast try to develop something out of it or ever reverse engineer or copy in chinese style. No matter whatever we blame china on copying others, fact is they are ahead of us...

-Nitin

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Oct 2009 21:46

we have to be very careful in the acronymn TOT.. it does not mean anything concrete.

we could have technology learnings right from fixing precision engineering to screwdriver and interface with highly complex systems to how to fire them. it depends on our requirements.

this is where on such abstract defns, big companies make billions and swindle tax payers money.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Oct 2009 22:54

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejourna ... 91651.html

Radar revolution..

its dated.. however, we should hear much more now.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 08 Oct 2009 23:14

RKumar wrote: There is a big difference what I want and what we can achieve. I want India to be self dependent. Personally, I favour scraping MRCA and put pressure on HAL to deliver results. We deliver better result under pressure then otherwise. But that is not the point we are discussing here.........................................
.......................Only options left is SH, introduce in 1999 with US Navy. So it is relatively newer then F16 (inducted in 1978). So we end up with having a collection of souvenirs

You are considering the date of the original induction for the F-16 and not that for the F-18. The F-18 was inducted in 1983 and is not that new either. While we are looking at the Super Hornet, we are also looking at the F-16 IN which is not that old.
Then there is of course that 'unknown' that you mention with regards to the US which plays a big role when push comes to shove. Even I would like to see these aircraft being used to their fullest potential and not stuck/grounded due to some clause or sanction.
We dont have unlimited money, but the Rafale is a part of the competition for a reason. And if it meets the requirements the best, it will be chosen. And being a much more 'newer' aircraft, its scope for the future is probably much more than the F-18 can be.

As to the 2040 discussion, I know we are collaborating with Russia for the FGFA. But it does not have to be Russia and USA/other country in the future for our aircraft. It can be Russia and India if the LCA and MCA are achieved to their full potential. But thats a discussion for another forum.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Oct 2009 23:53

aditp wrote:
Kartik, GBU-24 is 2000 lbs (NOT 2000KGs) ~ equals about 900 Kgs
Brahmos air launched is 2500KGs. Neither would it be possible to lighten the missile enough (it is already lightened from around 4 tons). Nor would it me possible to strengthen the centerline pylon to carry something 2.5 times as heavy.

thanks for pointing out nothing. I too said 2000 lbs only, so whats the need to paint it in colours and highlight it as if said the GBU-24 was 2000 kgs ?

The point I made was that with suitable structural modifications, a Rafale could carry a 2000 kg weapon on its centerline- it is possible to beef up the centerline max. load with a heavier structure, as is being done for the Su-30MKI. I don't think that anyone on BRF can say outright that its not possible, since only Dassault engineers would know if its impossible or not.

The same was true for the air-launched Brahmos as well- no IAF fighter could carry it, so they reduced its weight, shortened the booster and now are structurally modifying MKIs to carry it. if a requirement is stated, Dassault could look into it.

hence a lightened Brahmos variant, with an even smaller booster and reduced length and a much smaller top speed would definitely reduce weight further. as I mentioned earlier, the kinetic energy of the missile is not useful for a nuke strike, since its not supposed to score a direct hit on a target like regular Brahmos missiles do- rather its supersonic abilities make it an ideal nuke cruise missile because its extremely difficult to shoot down such a missile in its terminal stages or indeed any stage, plus its proven so development time would be much shorter. the only question is whether India could develop a nuclear warhead for such a missile.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Oct 2009 00:13

Baldev wrote: its simple,for our western neighbour we don't need air launched brahmos moreover they don't have anything to counter brahmos so need need to launch missile from air but can be launched from ground

secondly against china brahmos missile range is totally inadequate,so its better to use longer range subsonic cruise missile

last option for air launched brahmos remains is anti ship missile because its supersonic but its range here is again inadequate but this problem can be overcome by using long range fighter or bomber which can fly at long ranges

going by your attitude of finding excuses for why a Brahmos variant cannot be used for nuclear strike, I'd say that the Harpoon II is good enough for anti-ship strike and the IAF has Jaguar IM's with these missiles specially for the anti-shipping role. so why even bother with Brahmos for the Su-30MKI with all the flight testing and integration if there is already another missile in the IAF that can do the role ?

you haven't given a single good reason for why a lighter Brahmos variant used for nuke strike, like the ASMP-A would be a bad idea. if developed indigenously, there is no 300 km MTCR restriction, and a lower max speed will give higher range if designed well, even for a smaller missile with a much smaller booster. as for range, the Rafale's unrefuelled range is good enough to strike China, thank you very much and with IFR can strike even deeper. and if all you want is that someone says that the MKI should carry it, then there you go- put it on the MKI to carry it deep into China- happy now ?

anyway, found an article on wikipedia that states that Su-30MKI's don't need any structural mods to fit the air-launched Brahmos

PUNE: An expert committee from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Indian Air Force (IAF) has ruled out any structural
modification to the advanced Sukhoi-30 MKI, if it has to be fitted with the supersonic Brahmos cruise missile.

The development assumes significance as the IAF had expressed reservation on the feasibility of fitting the three-tonne missile on a Su-30 MKI, saying the excessive weight was incompatible for the fighter fleet.

In May, A. Sivathanu Pillai, the chief controller (R&D ), DRDO, had told TOI that decks have been cleared to conduct the first trials of the air-to-land version of Brahmos from a Sukhoi-MkI fighter jet by next year end.

“A joint team of experts from the IAF, the Sukhoi Design Bureau, Brahmos Aerospace and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited was constituted to conduct a feasibility study,” a senior official told TOI , confirming the development.

“The expert committee has come to the conclusion that no structural changes are required in the aircraft to fit the Brahmos,” the official said. Experts are now working to accommodate at least two missiles in the aircraft, he added.

“The challenge is to try and fit one missile under each of the two wings of the Su-30 MKI,” the official said, adding that the integration trials of a dummy missile are scheduled in the first quarter of next year.

Efforts are also on to modify the control panel in the cockpit, which will allow the pilot to fire the missile at ease. With the induction of the 290-km range cruise missile, the city is poised to emerge as the country’s top strategic defence base. The IAF’s Lohegaon base here is the only one with two squadrons of the Su-30 MKI.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the air-launched Brahmos is optimized for anti-shipping missions.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2009 03:12

but is it not the air launched brahmos to be redesigned to weigh much lesser than the surface one? by how much anyone knows?