MRCA News and Discussion

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 26 Oct 2009 20:26

Katare wrote: If you can do more sorties per day from more airbases because you don't need that many spare parts/technicians and aircraft design allows you to do quick & simple large LRU replacement than the aircraft is offering you multiplier effect. You are not buying 126 MRCA but a few more than that.

These are probably some of the reasons that IAF has always liked M2K over rest of the types in its inventory.

say - india buys rafale and HAL produces its spares with TOT
and HAL also produces spares for su30mki

by the way what will be the difference between the quality of spare parts produced by HAL for both fighters and these spares will be produced at same place for both fighters by same people haha

and you forget mig21 in 2001-02 took 55000 sorties

what mirage2000 could do mig29 can't and vise versa

but still m2000 is no match for mig29 in air to air combat but after both aircraft will be equally good

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Oct 2009 20:36

HAL will never do it from scratch.. there would be big suppliers, and the most important ones (core) form either france or russians or whoever (most likely EADS nations) it is.

The production engineering and assembly jigs are itself a precision engineering aspects, especially to do with say koraput or engine manufacturing and other test facilities. I can give you specs , and supply with parts, give you diagrams, and defy you to fix the turbofan fix and generate the rated thrusts. its hard (precision engineering for production)!

quality comes from within! attention to details helps.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 26 Oct 2009 21:01

Baldev,

What a childish comment man! But again it's MRCA thread so all good!

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Oct 2009 21:25

SaiK wrote:HAL will never do it from scratch.. there would be big suppliers, and the most important ones (core) form either france or russians or whoever (most likely EADS nations) it is.

The production engineering and assembly jigs are itself a precision engineering aspects, especially to do with say koraput or engine manufacturing and other test facilities. I can give you specs , and supply with parts, give you diagrams, and defy you to fix the turbofan fix and generate the rated thrusts. its hard (precision engineering for production)!

quality comes from within! attention to details helps.

With EADS offering partnership, HAL would be given a percentage workshare, such as manufacturing the left wing. Other EU partners will be manufacturing other parts of the Eurofighter. And just like partner nation, HAL will also get its own final assembly line. So no one nation will be producing every component of the Eurofighter; it's more of a collaborative effort of partner nations.

As for other MRCA contenders, they are offering "as much" TOT "as India can absorb". This is a cryptic way of saying that India can the TOT if it is willing to pay for every bits and pieces .... which is prohibitly expensive. So if India wants TOT, then it will have to identify which critical technologies it really wants access to (and which specific parts within that) and at what cost/budget. For tgis reason, it is easy to see why India will not be producing every component of the MRCA even with TOT on offer.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 26 Oct 2009 21:46

Katare wrote:
RaviBg wrote:RameshC's posts somehow imply that IAF losses are more because of Russian aircraft and buying US aircraft would reduce the accident rate of IAF.
Ravi,
But this may be true! In numerous debate that happened on BRF over the years, all concluded that there simply is not enough open source data to compare and conclude either way. Conditions, size of open sky and flying pattern are vastly different which makes it difficult to conclude/compare based on data. But generally Russian's made simple, robust and low cost hardware as compared to western philosophy of gold plating a smaller number of platforms using their vastly superior resources. One can deduct from above that western aircraft would have better safety record by design. Although you can't prove it because of the complexity of the issue and lack of data. You can take a dig on it yourself and see if you can collect enough data to show it one way or the other.

It may also be untrue!! In numerous debates, what has been established was that accident per 10,000 flying hours for IAF isn't that far off from other comparable air forces ( those whose pilots fly atleast 150-200 hours per year etc). And it has also been established over the years that even western aircraft have had bad patches once they crossed 15-20 year service. Mig-21 wasn't the first aircraft to be called flying coffins. In fact, it was F-104, an american plane. The accident rate of sea harriers is pretty high too. Look up articles on the web. Not just IN, even US Marine corps claim that sea harrier accident rate was the highest among all their aircraft.

Half of Sea Harrier fleet gone in 20 years

Far From Battlefield, Marines Lose One-Third of Harrier Fleet

The Osprey, the new aircraft for Marines has had a lousy record so far too.

We have had SU-30MKI for close to 10 years now, and the accident rate has been pretty low. We lost just one and the cause for that was known too( pilot error due to the wrong placement of FCS computer switches).

To claim that accident rate for IAF due to russian aircraft it may be true without adequate data isn't right. There's is an article by Wg Cmd Suresh(retd) from HAL which talks about an issue with hydraulic systems of Jaguar which HAL diagnoised and fixed, which was later applied to all jaguar aircrafts worldwide. The manufacturing techniques, the design etc has all changed over the last few decades. Plus what was necessary for former SU is not the same for Russia now. The quality of all aircraft, whether russian or US or europe has all increased over the years.

One shouldn't also forget that most of the aircrafts are designed to work with the host country's climate. India has its own challenges like hot and humid climate, hot and dry, dusty environment, lot of birds near IAF bases etc. It will take some time to identify the issues when working in India and to fix them accordingly. And issues like fatigues etc change based on the weather and climate. What works fine for 20 years in colder climates may not work in Indian weather.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Oct 2009 23:06

precisely.. ToT is not needed for a technology that we already into, (LCA/MKI), where getting the components from external sources as long as it falls within our strategic and defence doctrine (ie, no sanctions, no spare parts supply blockage, sudden taxes, and increase in price at strategic times, etc..), we should be open to supplies from external since delivery schedule and IAF requirements supercedes other aspects.

In the areas where we need to concentrate more are the skills that we need to attain maturity in the areas of precision engineering (turbofans, stealth structure if any..) and advanced systems like radars, and other avionics, special parts. This is where we need more focus.

ToT is only to satisfy our local industires, and not IAF (largely speaking), within the scope of RFP (whaterver was that).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Oct 2009 22:42

http://www.eurofighter.com/news/200900731.asp
a lil old news.. but:

The Tranche 3 € 9 billion contract
112 aircraft, including 241 engines,..
including weapon systems..!?

but the cost conversion is very interesting! @=$13.3billion.

with in very flexible range for IAF, perhaps with ToT!
and long term partnership, that aids and helps PAK-Fa and FGFA.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Oct 2009 23:23

Venu wrote: Wiki's MiG-35 page is updated lately and it has a MiG-35 comparison pic with Canards

its wikipedia. anything can be uploaded, and it need not be accurate. as far as the MiG-35 that was flight tested by the IAF, it hasn't got canards or TVC. its most likely (99%) the same ones that we saw at MAKS 2009.

I have seen many many and many pics and videos of MiG-35, but never observed the canards on it (Had no problem with my eyes, what-so-ever).

because its not been seen on the MiG-35 as yet. the MiG-29OVT with TVC can perform all its stunning aerobatics without any need whatsoever for a tri-plane layout. even the new Su-35 with TVC lacks canards, so, its pretty much safe to say that its not going to be seen on production MiG-35's either.

Are these canards considered intially and dropped later as they offer nothing special? or are they considering to have them included in it now, just to lure we Indians knowing our obsession towards Canards ( I am talking about MKI here. Don't chide me flz , on my very first post if I am overboard)

I won't chide you, but the fact is that the canards don't "lure" the IAF and nor is it "obsessed" with canards. it’s a ridiculous statement that’s all. just because the Russians needed a triplane layout to counter the TVC on the Su-30MKI, doesn't mean that the IAF is crazy about canards. the IAF won't go on looks, please be clear about that. unless they offer benefits such as higher AoA limits, more maneuverability, etc. that weigh over the added structural weight and complexity of the FBW, they will not be chosen. its precisely for this reason that the Tejas doesn't have any canards, which by itself should shatter any such myth about Indian's "obsession" with canards.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 28 Oct 2009 02:23

http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20091027/81 ... -spac.html

Asked about field evaluation trials of the medium multi-role combat aircraft, Naik said: 'We have finished the trials of F-16, F/A-18, Rafale and the MiG-35. All (aircraft) are going neck and neck'.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Oct 2009 02:35

yeh yeh!~... that leaves EF2K in a different league.

b+
http://www.eurofighter.com/medialibrary ... diaID=8050

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2009 12:38

Wonder of wonders! After pooh-poohing the value of TVC,especially on Russian birds like the Su-30MKI and the MIG-35,the manufacturers of the Eurofighter Typhoon have suddenly discovered its virtues and are offering their experimental TVC module which weighs "only 40-50KG" as a value additoon option to the aircraft.Remember that the TVC module on the Typhoon is not yet in service or flying wheras the MIG-35 and SU-30MKI have been for some considerable time now,as the IAF well knows.

Now what are thee great suddenly discovered advantages? Better dogfighting ability at slower speeds,better engine life and economy, as movable elements like canards,etc. need not do so when the TVC is in operation,etc.Pilots on simulators where the aircraft is equipped with TVC have been amazed at the results,which they earlier thought were just meant to wow crowds at air shows! Flight Intl. in its latest issue featuring military engines has a detailed feature on this.

This will no doubt be offered to the IAF for the MMRCA deal,as a key advantage that the Eurofighter has over its other western rivals putting it into "pole position' as far as the need for a western aircraft and associated tech is the key factor in the deal.This also by default ups the ante and advantage that the MIG-35 has over all its rivals,as if TVC is now being so officially touted as a key force-multiplying factor as much as AESA radar is,then the pioneers of TVC,the Russians have a clear advantage.

There is another angle to this, which I spotted and mentioned during my report at Aero-India,that the EJ TVC engine displayed only in a graphic/pic,might have been offered for the LCA.Some analysts however say that the "light" LCA will be handicapped with the extra weight of TVC added,but if equipped with the more powerful EJ engine might meet IAF requirements.The low-key manner in which this was displayed at the EF's stall indicated (as if it was an experimental project) that it did not want to attract too much attention to this extra capability of the aircraft enabling it to steal a yard over its rivals.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 28 Oct 2009 14:33

India should be front-runner in space technology: Air chief

Asked about field evaluation trials of the medium multi-role combat aircraft, Naik said: 'We have finished the trials of F-16, F/A-18, Rafale and the MiG-35. All (aircraft) are going neck and neck'.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 28 Oct 2009 14:37

shravan wrote:India should be front-runner in space technology: Air chief

Asked about field evaluation trials of the medium multi-role combat aircraft, Naik said: 'We have finished the trials of F-16, F/A-18, Rafale and the MiG-35. All (aircraft) are going neck and neck'.

A PSYOPS by the air chief?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Oct 2009 15:26

It looks as if I am the only Grippen fan here... if the original purpose of the MMRCA is to be adhered to, this is the one to buy.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 28 Oct 2009 16:23

In 50 odd years of total dependence on the Russians, why have'nt the Indians been able to muster at least a few critical technologies - Jet Engines form instance?

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 28 Oct 2009 17:30

Tanaji worte:
It looks as if I am the only Grippen fan here... if the original purpose of the MMRCA is to be adhered to, this is the one to buy.

Mein hoo naa

I want to see MRCA number increased to 200 with 120 Gripen MKI's and 80 MiG-35 MKI's. I know many won't like this.

Anthony Hines wrote:
In 50 odd years of total dependence on the Russians, why have'nt the Indians been able to muster at least a few critical technologies - Jet Engines form instance?

The question should be, In the last 50 yrs when did India really had the real expertise to master these technologies? Its only in this decade that we really started catching up (or atleast trying to) with the world in cutting edge technologies. Earlier it was all like, You Sell - We Buy - How it Works, You Tell. Also, Please not that in the last 50 yrs, we not only used Russian but also many british, french and american stuff.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Oct 2009 18:10

Tanaji Hell no

Me too

even Philip - agrees that the Gripen is the logical choice based on reqmnts and leaving aside politics etc.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 28 Oct 2009 18:20

MK80 seeker of R73

17cm in diameter
30cm long
weighs 6kg.

http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/aa11mk80.jpg
The project office in Ukraine Arsenal ESET has produced a newer version of the MK-80 (left). . The Mk-80 has an IR detector cooled medium wave highly sensitive, with spherical optics, high resistance to countermeasures and clutter-return of the soil, and selection of point of impact on target. The minimum range is 300m and a maximum of 10km (or 15km in ideal conditions), with
viewing angle of + / -75 º and screening ratio of 60 ° / s

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Oct 2009 19:01

Philip wrote:Wonder of wonders! After pooh-poohing the value of TVC,

thats news? perhaps they meant as a qualifier for their next feature/product enhancement aspect, and envying MKI/OVT.

also, the germans love the 29-ovt. btw, i don't think EJ200s have 360* vectoring? or the open source does'nt say so.
--

PS: does :

The three ring system is not the only unique feature of the nozzle. In previous convergent/divergent systems the reaction bars or struts have been connected to the divergent section at a single point. This limits their deflection range thus imposing limits on achievable thrust vectoring (typically to no more than 20°). The ITP TVN however uses a dual point hinged connection allowing a far greater range of movement to be achieved (according to ITP, studies indicate 30°+ can be achieved). By careful placement of the struts, problems with the nozzle petals overlapping or colliding are also removed.

Click either image for alternative versions

Rig trials of 3DTVC equipped EJ200 © ITP R&D

Since rig trials commenced in 1998 the TVC equipped EJ200-01A has run for 80 hours (February 2000) of which 15 hours were at full reheat (including sustained five minute burns) during 85 runs. These trials have included over 6700 vectoring movements at the most severe throttle setting and 600 throttling cycles under the most demanding vectoring conditions. These trials demonstrated full, 360° deflection angles of 23.5° with a slew rate (the rate at which the nozzle can be directed) of 110°/s and a side force generation of some 20kN (equal to approximately to one third of the total EJ200 baseline output). These vectoring trials have included both programmed ramp movements and active joystick control. The studies have also verified the MTU developed DECU (Digital Engine Control Unit) software and FCS connections.

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 29 Oct 2009 01:49

So who wants to buy the F-18, F-18 or the EF?

_________________________________________
CYBERWAR
Old Trick Threatens the Newest Weapons
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/scien ... nted=print

By JOHN MARKOFF
Despite a six-year effort to build trusted computer chips for military systems, the Pentagon now manufactures in secure facilities run by American companies only about 2 percent of the more than $3.5 billion of integrated circuits bought annually for use in military gear.

.....In the future, and possibly already hidden in existing weapons, clandestine additions to electronic circuitry could open secret back doors that would let the makers in when the users were depending on the technology to function. Hidden kill switches could be included to make it possible to disable computer-controlled military equipment from a distance. Such switches could be used by an adversary or as a safeguard if the technology fell into enemy hands.

A Trojan horse kill switch may already have been used. A 2007 Israeli Air Force attack on a suspected partly constructed Syrian nuclear reactor led to speculation about why the Syrian air defense system did not respond to the Israeli aircraft. Accounts of the event initially indicated that sophisticated jamming technology was used to blind the radars. Last December, however, a report in an American technical publication, IEEE Spectrum, cited a European industry source in raising the possibility that the Israelis might have used a built-in kill switch to shut down the radars.....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Oct 2009 02:12

The radar was from Russia?

SShah · Post by **SShah** » 29 Oct 2009 02:43

It is well known that Syria had russian radars and AA batteries in place at the time of the Israeli air attack. Besides, Syrian radar site(s) was struck with a combination of electronic attack and precision bombs to allow the Israeli force to enter and exit Syrian airspace unobserved. After the incident, Russia sent a team of specialists to investigate the failure. Today, Iran is worried about Israel's electronic attack capabilities and just the thought of this incident causes shivering chills to the Iranians. SH, F16s etc has nothing to do with what happened in Syria, though, it is entirely possible that when we import a foreign product, it may carry unwanted/hidden items.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2009 03:17

that is precisely we need to ToT! .. the kill switches.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Oct 2009 03:21

SaiK wrote:that is precisely we need to ToT! .. the kill switches.

Embedded. You will need to ID it first, then toss the entire chip/board and then replace it with an equivalent.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2009 03:32

it should be drafted against demurrage $$$.. ask /find field programmable gate arrays... source code control and get everything can be done to remove/replace them.

i am sure, if we do find them, we have every right to throw them off!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Oct 2009 04:30

Tanaji wrote:It looks as if I am the only Grippen fan here... if the original purpose of the MMRCA is to be adhered to, this is the one to buy.

There's Wickberg (if he still frequents BRF) and also Dorai. most people on BRF tend to like the Gripen, accepting that it’s a great aircraft for its size, and in the NG form, will be a very capable aircraft. and most people also accept that Saab is likely to be the most compliant of all the companies participating in the MRCA tender, for IAF related customisation, ToT and for making India a future hub for the NG.

its just that the love for the Tejas exceeds that liking, and the fear that if the Gripen IN is chosen, then there will be those (including in the IAF) who will try to sabotage the Tejas Mk.2 by arguing about their sizes being nearly the same and hence try to curb its induction in large numbers. other than that, the Gripen IN is the best bet for being inducted in very large numbers, gain good amount of ToT, get as much customisation as the IAF wants, and all at an affordable price. the only question mark will remain on how much more can be stuffed into its airframe in future upgrades, but maybe future electronics and avionics will get even smaller, allowing for upgrades within the available space constraints.

There is an article in this week's AW&ST that refers to this issue- albeit on the F-16 Block 50. South Korea is looking to upgrade its F-16s with an AESA- the Raytheon RACR and Northrop Grumman SABR. it states that like the RACR, Northrop Grumman deliberately got the SABR AESA radar (which is scaled down derivative of F-16 E/F Block 60's APG-80 AESA) integrated and working on the F-16 Block 50 because it was the most difficult model of the F-16 to get this done on. the reason being that there was very little space left after all the upgrades the various blocks of F-16s have been getting over last 2 decades. any older Block can be upgraded more easily than the Block 50 with the AESA SABR since it works on the available cooling and power output of the F-16. Makes me wonder how much more there is that can be done with the F-16 IN in the future.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 29 Oct 2009 18:19

Hi there .. there was a briefing from "team Hornet" yesterday ... which included participation from GE and Raytheon ...

Here are a few of the major points ...

As far as the transfer of source codes for AESA is concerned ... they are still at the "Can't discuss in an open forum ... lets see how this plays out" mode. At the same time, the fact that India has agreed to the US end user agreement during Hillary Clinton's visit here means that the full up Super Hornet IN ... inclusive of the upgraded GE F-414 engine, the APG 79 AESA and other key systems are cleared for transfer ... so its quite possible that the version of the AESA offered will be full-spec ... In fact, I am sure, India would not accept anything less than that ...

Secondly February 2010 is the big date for the IAF and the next phase of the Hornet trials ... There will be an evaluation of the following ...

1. Mission systems flight evaluation
2. AESA
3. FLIR
4. EW
5. Weapon delivery
6. Maintenance evaluation
7. Technical evaluation.

All this will be done at the Naval Air Station Lemoore in California, the same base from where I flew the second of my Super Hornet sorties.

Boeing reps repeatedly state that the AESA will be evaluated in conjunction with other systems ... ie ... the data link, FLIR etc to showcase the full package ...

As far as AESA is concerned ... the Boeing, Raytheon team seemed to take on their European rivals who are still developing/integrating their product. They explained how it took EIGHT years for the APG-79 to move from low rate initial production to first operational deployment. The dates are as follows ...

* June '03 ... Low rate initial production
* December '06 ... Operational evaluation completed.
*'07 ... Initial Operational clearance
* 07/'07 ... Full scale production approva
* 05/'08 ... First operational deployment.

The APG-79 has 1000 hours mean time between failures, more than 75,000 operational flight hours, its been approved for sale to India and will be sustained in US service beyond 2035.

The proposed GE F414 EPE (Enhanced Performance Engine) for India offers a 20 per cent increase in thrust and a 1 per cent reduction in fuel burn. The F414 is itself in the 22,000 lb thrust class, 170 lb/second airflow. Engine change is done in under 30 minutes, interchangeable left and right engine installation. No need for a functional check flight after engine change. No throttle restrictions while in operation (I have personally witnessed this ... its amazing ... you can pretty much do what you want with the throttle ... slam it to burner and take it back as much as you want ... nothing happens).

They WILL offer the Indian Air Force an out and out 9g fighter ... this has been a promise made by the Boeing team. I was led to believe this involves changes in the flight control system ... the airframe itself is OK for 9g.

The bottom line ... this is a rugged, proven, operational platform, which is now available to India at a cost NOT too much over its single engine competitors in the MMRCA race.

As far as their performance in the trials in Bangalore are concerned ... they say that they are satisfied with what they were able to demonstrate to the Indian Air Force but reiterate that its the IAF which has to be satisfied.

Thats it for the moment folks.

Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor
New Delhi Television (NDTV)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2009 18:25

Abstract
The European AMSAR programme (Airborne Multi-role Solid-state Active Array Radar) undertaken by GTDAR, a company owned by Thales (France), SELEX SAS (UK) and EADS (Germany) under contract to the French Authorities acting on behalf of the French, German and United Kingdom Ministries of Defence, aims to demonstrate the capabilities of AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) based airborne radar systems. The programme started in 1993 bilateral with France and UK whereas Germany joined 1995 during Phase 1. Phase 2 started in 1999 and is divided into three Sub-phases 2A, 2B and 2C with a duration planned to at least 2010. The main objectives are the demonstration of airborne AESA technology in flight, including real time AESA Software and Adaptive Beam-Forming (ABF) techniques. The programme content as well as current achievements are described in this paper.

from this 2007 ieee abstract, thales is very much on AMSAR... btw, 2010 is nearing for 2C, that means we should have 2B news. any one has latest info on this?

Why AMSAR scores over other AESA is its GaN based.. and its important we could jumpstart ahead, and join the raptoriskies world..

From Janes, abstract:-

Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar.

Description
GTDAR (originally standing for GEC Thomson DASA Airborne Radar) is a joint European Economic Interest Group (EEIG) that comprises Selex Galileo (formerly BAE Systems Avionics and then Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems), Thales' Aerospace Division (formerly Thales Systemes Aeroportes SA) and EADS Defence Electronics and is tasked with the development of future radar technology for use in European combat aircraft. Baseline programme targets included the development of radar upgrades for combat aircraft such as Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Tornado and Mirage and a sensor for new build installations aboard future European fighters. With the support of the United Kingdom (UK), French and German Ministries of Defence, GTDAR has executed the AMSAR programme under contract from the French DGA/SPAé, with work being divided equally between the three named contractors. AMSAR also involves participation from government laboratories including the Centre Electronique de l'Armement (CELAR) and the Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aérospatiales (ONERA) in France and Forschungsgesellschaft für Angewandte Naturwissenschaften (FGAN) in Germany.Functionally, AMSAR will employ an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) that will comprise a fixed antenna and up to 2,000 gallium arsenide, monolithic microwave integrated circuit transceiver modules that will provide independent control of phase and amplitude and a multibeam capability. The level of beam agility envisaged will offer simultaneous air-to-air, air-to-ground, terrain following and terrain avoidance operating modes. In addition, the technology will provide multiple jammer nulling, stealthy functionality, low probability-of-intercept (low sidelobes), multistatic operation and a wide bandwidth. The programme concept also involves development of multiple
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Rad ... rance.html

BTW, going for EF2K or Rafale (hopefully, they would give us the 2C version of AMSAR), makes MRCA inventory for IAF, not to worry for another 60 years down the line, with various upgrades (for example with EADS-India joint typhooon consortium), could produce wonders.. and the EJ200 for LCA, and futher Kaveri boosting up to EJ200 standards, makes future upgrade paths.

Going for Rafale or especially EF2K *(if what they say, is what they would do), then India is pretty much in the driver seat.. FGFA and PAKFA will definitely get a booster technology platforms in EF2K/Rafale (whoever supplies GaN AMSAR to us).

There were quite a number of people here, not quite happy about EF2K providing GaN based AMSAR to India.

I am for EF2K, since so far they have not mucked up with us (viz. France).

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 29 Oct 2009 18:26

@Vishnu

what about others...I mean any details for Mig35 or Rafale.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 29 Oct 2009 18:32

The most aggressive media campaigners in the MMRCA campaign are Boeing, Lockheed and Gripen. There is a language issue with the Russians who run a media campaign thats a shade disorganised. Quite frankly, I have been rather disappointed with Dassault and Eurofighter. I did make a concerted effort to reach out to them for my series, the Jet Set ... but they didn't seem terrible interested ... and haven't really been in touch with me at all !

Cheers
Vishnu

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 29 Oct 2009 18:44

read this as well

http://translate.google.com/translate?p ... ry_state0=

N Jhawar · Post by **N Jhawar** » 29 Oct 2009 18:47

[quote="Baldev"]by the way was Israel on war with Syria? if not then whats the point of crossing border?
and what does this say

Yada Yada Yada.......

----------------------------

Baldev, can you explain how is this post related to the rest of the thread?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 29 Oct 2009 18:47

Vishnu wrote:The most aggressive media campaigners in the MMRCA campaign are Boeing, Lockheed and Gripen. There is a language issue with the Russians who run a media campaign thats a shade disorganised. Quite frankly, I have been rather disappointed with Dassault and Eurofighter. I did make a concerted effort to reach out to them for my series, the Jet Set ... but they didn't seem terrible interested ... and haven't really been in touch with me at all !

Cheers
Vishnu

At a glance, it would appear that perhaps Dassault and EADS are either too arrogant, too disinterested (unlikely, considering the magnitude of order) or they feel that their chances are too slim to even bother.
But I somwhow do not think so. Perhaps they understand India more than others.
What does media campaign achieve? It obviously does not sway IAF, it is only to sway common public in their favour.
But in India, general public is least interested in MRCA. Most would not even have heard of it. Try to use words like AESA, TVC, IRST or FLIR before them and you would know what I mean. Hell, I doubt they know (or care) the difference between F-18 and F-16.
So, the whole purpose of media campaign for defence products is most ineffective in India.
Better to just impress the IAF. That is the only useful thing that they can do.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 29 Oct 2009 18:49

Vishnu wrote:The most aggressive media campaigners in the MMRCA campaign are Boeing, Lockheed and Gripen. There is a language issue with the Russians who run a media campaign thats a shade disorganised. Quite frankly, I have been rather disappointed with Dassault and Eurofighter. I did make a concerted effort to reach out to them for my series, the Jet Set ... but they didn't seem terrible interested ... and haven't really been in touch with me at all !

Cheers
Vishnu

Vishnu as of now only PHAZATRON NIIR has revealed ZHUK AE for MIG35

not to forget NIIP which revealed AESA radars for PAK FA,SU30 will have its OWN version of AESA radar for MIG35 and similarly PHAZATRON NIIR will have its own version of AESA radar for SU30/27.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 29 Oct 2009 18:51

N Jhawar wrote:
Baldev wrote:by the way was Israel on war with Syria? if not then whats the point of crossing border?
and what does this say

Yada Yada Yada.......

----------------------------

Baldev, can you explain how is this post related to the rest of the thread?

if you don't like it will delete post

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 29 Oct 2009 19:15

Hi Gaur ... I disagree entirely ... Obviously, the IAF is the final (hopefully !) decider on the MMRCA competition ... but the media coverage of the MMRCA competition is something they follow VERY VERY closely. As an example, I know copies of the Jet Set were internally distributed within the Air Force and any number of IAF officers have discussed my experiences in having flown sorties on 4 of the 6 competitors. They were certainly interested to know what I had on say maintenance aspects etc. They now have all of this in writing from the competitors ... and they are in the process of flying the jets themselves ... but there has certainly been curiosity in all of this.

As far as a larger audience is concerned ... its all about presentation. While a larger audience may not know the difference between an AESA and non-AESA radar ... they would certainly be interested once its explained/presented in a manner which is interesting and informative. Whats more, fighter jets lend themselves to singularly exciting footage ... often viewers build an interest in a subject based on what they see.

Also ... as a truism ... one I entirely believe in ... its almost, ALWAYS, wrong to assume that ones viewer is dumb. Aviation, as a subject, may not appeal to all ... but then no issue necessarily does. There is, however, an audience which follows aviation/science/engineering/defence very closely and this is something that does appeal to them. Would we have pitched the Jet Set series on a super prime time 10 pm slot had it not been anything but acceptable to a larger audience ?

Incidentally ... someone from EADS did get back to me to say that it was perhaps a mistake on their part to not be involved in the Jet Set series but by then the series had aired !

Cheers
Vishnu

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2009 19:19

...but vishnu, your opinion has more matters.. than ours!.. in the sense, its million bang for the buck, since an edit could reach millions. your writings can turn many a decision maker think. see.. ours is a democracy., but imho, more than citizens, the media has much more responsibility, and should have non prejudicied approaches, just reporting what you see and hear.

JMT.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 29 Oct 2009 19:35

Agree completely ... reporting this entire thing is a huge challenge ... and being non-prejudiced is critical. All I can say is that I have a personal favourite in this MMRCA race ... and I would love to get into the debate on why that jet is better than the rest ... but thats a temptation I am avoiding ... I am neither an engineer nor a pilot ... and, quite frankly, as an enthusiast, I am not qualified to lend an informed opinion ... All I can do is explain what I have seen and been told ... but, as I see it, there has not yet been any significant bias by anyone in reporting the MMRCA because of a vested interest ?

Cheers
Vishnu

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 29 Oct 2009 19:38

Thanks Vishnu for putting this up ....

The proposed GE F414 EPE (Enhanced Performance Engine) for India offers a 20 per cent increase in thrust and a 1 per cent reduction in fuel burn. The F414 is itself in the 22,000 lb thrust class, 170 lb/second airflow.

Just wondering if "GE F414 EPE" is being evaluated for LCA !! In that case the afterburner thrust would be around 118 KN .... and I am sure that will permanently resolve the thrust issue of LCA ... even for the future requirement.

The question is how much extra effort it would be required to replace GE404 ....

Any idea !!!

Thanks,
-Sanjib

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2009 19:57

Very good Vishnu!~ we need you that way.. and at the same, interestingly bring out the best info for us.