MRCA News and Discussion

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Dec 2009 18:54

yea yea yea

another Air marshal says something and it gets quoted with nary a thought or context

well talk to some mig 23 pilots and they would say how they managed to get behind a mig 29

does not mean the 29 is not a good idea

every aircraft has its plusses andminuses.

but overall the M2k is more versatile than the existing 29

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Dec 2009 19:16

Surya,the AM wrote a lengthy article in an issue of VAYU describing in detail how the MIG-29 was superior to the M-2000 every time they flew against each other at Pune and how the Mirage CO just couldn't believe it, finally squaring off with the AM himself...and lost! A Brit pilot at Aero-India this year,who has flown almost all western types,including those contesting, told me how "nothing flies like the (MIG) 35" and that "even the earlier MIG-29 is fantastic aircraft" (he flew German MIG-29s).He however touted the Typhoon as having the best cockpit interface with the pilot,the ease with which info was delivered to the pilot making his job easier and said that the Typhoon could even take on the SU-30MKI.Whatever the truth of that claim,his praise for the MIG-29/35 was genuine.The aerobatic performance of the MIG-35 at Farnborough was the best ever,said Flight Intl.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Dec 2009 19:22

w/o doubt the aerobatics is fantastic but that is only one factor out of a dozen, on many of which the mig-29 lost out to the M2k. IIRC ACM Tyagi also said something to this end "what matters is what's inside" while in russia after witnessing a Mig-29OVT (?) display. '35 wasn't flying back then.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Dec 2009 19:36

Yes,this is what I've also said a long time ago,but what the IAF want in all round terms is still a mystery,as we're evaluating apples and oranges and pears,instead of evaluating different kinds of apples.It would be difficult though for the IAF to acquire an aircraft which has a key performance factor inferiority.Hence the US pilot's statement too preferring the F-15 Strike Eagle to the F-18SH.

With the unfolding drama of Headley and the dawning in the minds of our Intel fraternity,that the US knew about 26/11 before it happened,indicates the close relationhip US intel agencies have with the very people whom they claim to have perpetrated the cruel attacks.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Dec 2009 20:14

Philip

and you will find M2K guys who say they have thumped Mig 29s effortlessly.

you will find Jag guys who managed to shake a SU 30

that does not mean a Jag is better than a SU 30

these articles have to absorbed in the proper context.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 22 Dec 2009 20:15

Kartik wrote:
Kanson wrote:I guess Rafale has something similar. Dont know abt Typhoon. Reg. LCA, drdo people talked about embedded systems in this aspect. One can expect similar system in Mk1 or Mk2.

LCA has less no. of parts. But LRUs... hmm, i dont know.
the LCA also has self-diagnostic systems..this is from Harry who was on BRF and Keypubs earlier, so I believe it to be true.

Thanks. Now-a-days, it is common to expect every machine to have some form of self-diagnostic system. LCA's current flying prototypes have some form of SDS that can be dubbed under one roof as telemetry. Question is how comprehensive and smart they are to be reliant and responsive. It will mature over time.

REg. LRUs as RahulM mentioned its improving, once the production commences any persisting issues will be ironed out.

BTW, in which way is Harry associated with LCA ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Dec 2009 20:59

Mashallah the best MRCA for India is F-15I, a somewhat modified F-15K with indo-israeli EW vs khanate EW to give us better programability control.

the F-15E and its successors although not as speedy as the F-15C still retains the
same wing and intakes, designed for top speed in Mach2.2 range - faster than any fighter flying today except M2K-C which matches it.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 22 Dec 2009 21:12

With the MKI around only a moron will buy riff-raff like F-15I/J/K/L. Even singapore stopped at 8 F-15's bacuse they knew it really doesn't match the malaysian MKM's. They really wanted the eurofighter though.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 22 Dec 2009 21:35

vavinash wrote:With the MKI around only a moron will buy riff-raff like F-15I/J/K/L.

with this line...Americans are out of the race...

arya · Post by **arya** » 22 Dec 2009 22:08

narayana wrote:IS this LCA thread or MRCA,im confused

Sir, you r not alone

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Dec 2009 00:06

Surya wrote:Philip

and you will find M2K guys who say they have thumped Mig 29s effortlessly.

you will find Jag guys who managed to shake a SU 30

that does not mean a Jag is better than a SU 30

these articles have to absorbed in the proper context.

And can you quote any of these "Jag guys", "M2k guys" etc with a source? At least here you have someone go on the record. No doubt pilot statements are often full of bravado, but if one checks with the ground reality (in this context) there is a lot of credibility to these statements. They are also supported by what Harry pointed out as a 7:1 kill ratio in favor of the fulcrum, A2A. What is the ground reality?

1) The MiG-29 has a clearly superior TWR that allows it to turn and burn better. With the M2k, you better get fulcrum (or solah) in the initial stages where the high speed of the M2k and its wonderful ITR could be put to use. Otherwise, you are in deep doodoo. The slower it gets, the better the 29 gets, iirc it does not require TVC to manage Cobra type manouvers.This corresponds to what AM Masand says. It also corresponds to what Adla pilots said when they met the flanker in Garuda. I believe the HAF pilots had similar tales vs. the F-16.

2) The MiG-29 in the IAF has a better radar (better range) and BVR missile combo (R-27).

3) The MiG-29 has an hms/off boresight missile combo in the r-73, which again, the M2k does not. It is now quite well established that this gives the fulcrum an indecent edge as USAF pilots found when matched against derated Luftwaffe fulcrums. It was no wonder that the Israelis were quick to follow in developing the Dash/Python series.

4) The MiG-29 has an IRST system that can allow it to make passive attacks without warning.

Based on the above well established facts, the article of Masand or the score pointed out by Harry hardly seem like bravado. There are other anecdotes to support this but I won't go into them as of now.

It is another matter that the M2k is a true multirole platform with a superb A2G ability, and has excellent serviceability rates (I am not sure the latter advantage is more a result of the break up of the SU or inherent issues with the fulcrum). But as an air superiority platform, let us give credit where it is due.

CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Dec 2009 00:09

Singha wrote:Mashallah the best MRCA for India is F-15I, a somewhat modified F-15K with indo-israeli EW vs khanate EW to give us better programability control.

the F-15E and its successors although not as speedy as the F-15C still retains the
same wing and intakes, designed for top speed in Mach2.2 range - faster than any fighter flying today except M2K-C which matches it.

Hello saar! Are we phorgeting the F series from the other side of the world - fulcrum, flanker, foxhound.

CM

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Dec 2009 00:15

arya wrote:
narayana wrote:IS this LCA thread or MRCA,im confused
Sir, you r not alone

Since you are still relatively new - the MRCA thread is similar to el nukkad string albeit with more context. As a result you will even see forum bosses get into it here and let their guard down a bit. So, relax and enjoy. THe thread has currently brought out some v.knowledgeable members to the fore and the back and forth is eminently readable (not to mention informative), a rarity in the MRCA threads.

Regards,
CM.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Dec 2009 00:26

CM

To quote they would have to go public - one hopes they do when they are out of the force

Also I did not say it was bravado. Another well know AM who pushed for the Mirages in Kargil has a diff view.

Next time u r in for a mini meet or if you meet Kapil - if my friend is in town he can tell you how in Mig 23s they utilised some of the limitations of the Mig 29 (most of us know of one

) to create problems for the Mig 29. Does not mean the 23s shot them down easily but the 29s were not feared.

As for the Jaguar - when you come across some senior Jag guys - ask them

But bottom line as you agree on some level - there are a number of parameters to consider and overall the M2K is a more valuable fighter. Thats all I am pointing out to Phillip

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Dec 2009 00:46

Surya wrote:But bottom line as you agree on some level - there are a number of parameters to consider and overall the M2K is a more valuable fighter. Thats all I am pointing out to Phillip

But is it really more valuable now? With the MKIs taking up so much of the multirole tasks, and the fulcrums about to get major capability upgrades in the same direction, plus the imminent arrival of the Tejas and far superior Pakfas + MRCA? Is the Mirage 2000 really so valuable that a $ 1.8 billion upgrade should be considered?

Why not let it live another few years with some inhouse tinkering and then withdraw it from service circa 2020? At 40 million USD a pop for upgrades, they could be easily replaced by a mix of MKIs + Tejas for example.

Perhaps the Israeli option is worth considering. EL-2032 + DashV + Derby/Python would provide adequate a2a capability for now. JMT.

CM

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Dec 2009 00:49

perhaps it will be better to do a LUM upgrade, like the LUSH ?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Dec 2009 00:54

CM

my arguments were for the Mig 29 THEN and only in the context of philips post.

(note - personally I love the 29 goes back to the days when it came in to Lohegaon and I was student in pune- a purely emotional aspect that I have learnt to discard)

now its a totally diff proposition and yeah the value propostion of the M2K for 1.8 B is not as much but I was not arguning that.

I have evolved into a system view and frankly have no fascination with all the fancy flying stunts.

The aircraft that integrates best witht he System which the IAF has envisioned is what matters.

That covers logistics, electronic, networking, weapons etc

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Dec 2009 00:57

one reason why the IAF is still interested in keeping the M2k for the next decade might be that it is the only one capable of carrying the israeli PGMs and stand-off weapons like the crystal maze. it's a capability haze against any delay with the MRCA (which probably will be western and can be fitted with western and israeli weapons)

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Dec 2009 01:17

Surya wrote:CM
my arguments were for the Mig 29 THEN and only in the context of philips post.

I know and although it is still debatable, I will not persist. The way I see it, the fulcrum had a niche role in the IAF and as an air sup bird, it guarded the gates well. As such it was better suited to this role than any other a/c in the inventory. The Kargil conflict was simply out of context for the fulcrum that was not intended for strike missions at all. Things will change now though - for the upgrade that the baaz is getting will make it a serious player in a variety of roles.

(note - personally I love the 29 goes back to the days when it came in to Lohegaon and I was student in pune- a purely emotional aspect that I have learnt to discard)

wisened up with age, eh

?. Oh well, we have enough fanboys as it is (but just for that you will not be allowed official membership to the fulcrum fan club)

I have evolved into a system view and frankly have no fascination with all the fancy flying stunts.The aircraft that integrates best witht he System which the IAF has envisioned is what matters.That covers logistics, electronic, networking, weapons etc

True, the ballet of the fulcrum/flanker is not my cuppa either although it does have its uses. In case of a systems view, one would think that the MiG-35 would be an ideal candidate, considering the commonality in components between the 35, Baaz and the IN K. Still, I don't think this will happen - for better or worse, the IAF is set upon a western a/c and at this point seems to have put the need to diversify higher up than the need to standardize.

CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Dec 2009 01:20

Rahul M wrote:one reason why the IAF is still interested in keeping the M2k for the next decade might be that it is the only one capable of carrying the israeli PGMs and stand-off weapons like the crystal maze. it's a capability haze against any delay with the MRCA (which probably will be western and can be fitted with western and israeli weapons)

In that case, an Israeli upgrade would be ideal. I bet the NAL boys can do enough to make the vajra last another decade.

CM

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Dec 2009 01:22

CM

not age

just the travails of my friend in the 90s as they went to the Russians desperately for spares and were kept asking for dollah dollah.

Just interviewed an ex NAL boy last week - not good - lots of waste and no focus and direction is his claim- so who knows

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Dec 2009 01:26

NAL is supposedly more interested in theory than making actual flying objects.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Dec 2009 02:59

Rahul

His biggest grouse was that a lot of sophisticated equipment is gathering dust.

He said life was comfortable , car, house etc. but the lack of direction and a feeling of drifting forced him to go the oracle operator route.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Dec 2009 11:57

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Dec 2009 11:59

An interesting report in Flight about the Typhoon's engine johnnies (EJ) trying to develop a TVC (and AESA) for it! In another post here,we were supposed to have been offered the same-task of co-developing the TVC EJ engine.Now the SU-30MKI already has 2-D TVC and the MIG-35 comes with 3-D TVC (the same std. engines being already made here with the MIG-29 upgrades),why on earth should we want to tie up with EJ (unless it is for the LCA,where some have questioned the usefulness of a TVC engine for so small a fighter,extra weight,etc.) when we already have a deal going on with the Russians? It is most interesting however to see what advantages TVC gives,less fuel burn,extra thrust during takeoff,agility,etc.,thanks to the feature which some have pooh-poohed on the MIG-35.So TVC is not just a novelty and does make a difference in performance and EADS,the Typhoon manufacturers are offering this for their aircraft as an extra advantage over their rivals (apart from the MIG-35),in the hope that they will also swing the engine contest for the LCA where GE is their competitor.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 23 Dec 2009 14:50

One has to study the lift (payload) vs range capability at high altitudes to decide the winner isnt it? I think testing at Leh will be the key determinant in the MRCA contest and the IAF will select the bird which offers them a sustained force projection advantage over the PLAAF in Tibet!

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 23 Dec 2009 15:20

Another aspect which proves detrimental to the 2 candidates from the Us of A is the fact that they come with a lot of strings attached in "fine print".

An incident of malicious spyware in US systems which cannot be remedied post technology transfer has also surfaced (I'll try and reference the source in a later post). This development is obviously unrelated to the MRCA competition but could surface at inopportune moments if we go for unkle's birds! Just my 2 cents.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 26 Dec 2009 16:33

Pentagon Contract Announcement

Lockheed Martin Corp., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded an $841,877,905 contract to provide for 24 F-16 Block 52 aircraft, advanced counter measure system electronic warfare system, along with associated support equipment, alternate mission equipment and support elements for the government of Morocco.

At this time, $672,782,163 has been obligated.

So....Block 52 costs 35.078 Million $ each...!

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 26 Dec 2009 21:03

F-16 and F-18 are old wine in a new bottle.
Buying these from US will serve no purpose for India unless it is accompanied by a compelling political package from US. Like what help US would provide in case of hostilities with China.

Otherwise, India interests are best served by buying MiG 35 from Russia and some from France / EU for their technology.

To keep US happy, we can always buy non-lethal supplies from them.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 26 Dec 2009 21:16

prabir wrote: To keep US happy

huh...!

When did Indian foreign policy become slave of US...?

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 26 Dec 2009 21:31

x-posting from the Indian Navy thread 'cause of the involvement of the Grippen NG

has not been posted here I believe

Saab touts Sea Gripen for India and Brazil

Saab is responding to an Indian Navy (IN) request for information (RfI) regarding future carrier-capable fighters with a new development of the Gripen NG, dubbed the Sea Gripen.....

....Jane's understands the RfI has been issued to Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin, Sukhoi and Saab. While India is notionally developing a naval version of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, the RfI is a recognition that this troubled programme might not be able to deliver an operational combat aircraft in the necessary timescale. India hopes to commission IAC 2 and 3 in the second half of the next decade.....

....designs for a navalised Gripen date back to the 1980s in Sweden.....The Sea Gripen would be part of the long-term industrial development package for India and Brazil, should either country select the Gripen NG. The Indian RfI also makes a specific request that India's chosen aircraft should be exportable. {?? Does it mean India should be allowed to export the licensed-produced aircrafts to any country of its choice [no such arrangements for Jags & Flankers??] - prospects of NLCA doesn't sound very bright I think OR Does it mean that if IN feels it no longer requires the imported aircrafts it should be free to sell it to a 3rd party country w/o issues - then it could mean nice things for the NLCA}

....Gripen has a built-in carrier capability that was part of the original design consideration. It is made for precision landings on a short strip. The aerodynamics, handling and landing qualities are all there.....

.....The Sea Gripen is made possible by the inherent performance characteristics of the Gripen and the structural changes introduced with the Gripen NG. It has been designed to operate from 'full-spec' carriers at a maximum take-off weight of 16,500 kg and a landing weight (with weapons and fuel) of 3,500 kg. The same basic design parameters make it well suited to STOBAR operations.....

The result will be an aircraft with an empty weight of under 8,000 kg with a total fuel and weapon load of around 8,500 kg. Combat radius is estimated at around 1,250 km in a maritime strike profile or 1,400 km in an offensive counter-air profile. For carrier operations the aircraft will have a service life of 8,000 flight hours with an even distribution between shipborne and land-based operations.

....So we need a new nose gear and undercarriage and we'll have to change some of the internal structure, but it's been analysed and it's possible. We built an arrestor hook into the Gripen NG proposal for Norway. That will have to be strengthened for carrier ops, with a new attachment point, but the work is there.....

"The Gripen already has a salt water protection requirement. It does need more study but we already have an aircraft designed to operate in -50°C and +50°C, from the Arctic to hot-and-high with severe humidity. We don't build fighters for nice sunny days." Saab expects to make initial presentations to the IN in January 2010 and submit an RfI response the following month.

A comment posted there

That being said, I’ve heard that the Swedes had approached India for industrial collaboration when they started the Gripen project, but the all knowing wise Indian bureaucrats sat on the proposal.
Is it true? Had read of the Singaporeans wanting to come aboard the LCA programme though.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 26 Dec 2009 21:35

F-16 Viper Cockpit Tour, Test Pilot, Edwards AFB

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Dec 2009 22:24

That was nice elevator tour of the F-16 cockpit. (Very impressed with the communication ability of "Deuce". Very nice to listen to someone who can be so clear and fluid.)

So, the "side stick" being at the right, would it favor a right-handed pilot more?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Dec 2009 00:26

sumshyam wrote: So....Block 52 costs 35.078 Million $ each...!

without any spares (engines, pylons, etc.) support, documentation, weapons, training systems, and ground support equipment. add all that and you have a much larger bill to pay.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Dec 2009 00:28

NRao wrote:That was nice elevator tour of the F-16 cockpit. (Very impressed with the communication ability of "Deuce". Very nice to listen to someone who can be so clear and fluid.)

So, the "side stick" being at the right, would it favor a right-handed pilot more?

the dexterity would depend on practice..I'm a right-handed guy who plays video game console directional buttons only with my left hand because of a habit I picked up playing games on the computer, where the left hand was on the keyboard and the right on the mouse.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 27 Dec 2009 01:20

sumshyam wrote:
prabir wrote: To keep US happy
huh...!

When did Indian foreign policy become slave of US...?

To keep US happy and yet do what we want. This is how Chinese have managed to hold on to an artificial exchange rate w.r.t dollar and caused trade imbalances.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 27 Dec 2009 12:09

If ppl on the forum have been reading the news about the Queen Elizabeth class carriers probably being sold to IN in not so distant future, the naval version of the Eurofighter Typhoon would be readily compatible with such a carrier, would'nt it? The IN could impact the MRCA in this manner in the sense that the naval version and the AF version would be more suited to forward land based naval assets

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 27 Dec 2009 12:26

Klaus wrote:If ppl on the forum have been reading the news about the Queen Elizabeth class carriers probably being sold to IN in not so distant future, the naval version of the Eurofighter Typhoon would be readily compatible with such a carrier, would'nt it? The IN could impact the MRCA in this manner in the sense that the naval version and the AF version would be more suited to forward land based naval assets

What naval version? At least do a basic reading before posting anything you like.

ADDED LATER: If you are referring to the proposed naval version of Typhoon, it is just a paper plane. There are no orders for it. At present, "no" naval Typhoon exists.

MadhuG · Post by **MadhuG** » 27 Dec 2009 16:42

Kartik wrote:the LCA also has self-diagnostic systems..this is from Harry who was on BRF and Keypubs earlier, so I believe it to be true.

Harry passed away in May 2007. Cause is heart attack.

Link to the news item

I was his classmate in college. He did have an amazing knowledge about military technology as ascertained from his interaction with a defense scientist at the IIT-Madras tech seminar on the LCA in 2004.

One of his articles: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_521.shtml

He forbid me from revealing his true identity online. But now that he has passed away, I feel everyone needs to know the real person.

RIP Harish Balaji K.

PS: Sorry for the off topic post.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 27 Dec 2009 17:53

^ sad news that.
RIP Harish Balaji aka B Harry