MRCA News and Discussion

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 18 Jan 2010 05:30

LoL yeah, like IAF will go for Rafale or Eurofarter at 140 mil each with almost no advantage over MKI

. Mig-29K only cost 41 mil with spares and ammo, wow what a steal. Compared to the 40 mil just to upgrade a piece of outdated crap like mirage2k that's simply god sent. Not to mention relics like F-16 blk 52 which sell for 62 mil per pop with no TOT or guarantee of spares or sanctions.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Jan 2010 05:35

vavinash wrote:LoL yeah, like IAF will go for Rafale or Eurofarter at 140 mil each with almost no advantage over MKI . Mig-29K only cost 41 mil with spares and ammo, wow what a steal. Compared to the 40 mil just to upgrade a piece of outdated crap like mirage2k that's simply god sent. Not to mention relics like F-16 blk 52 which sell for 62 mil per pop with no TOT or guarantee of spares or sanctions.

Please think before you type. While the 40 mil price for upgrade was astronomical, the IAF mirages aren't outdated crap. before the Sukhois arrived it was the best multirole fighter in IAF's inventory. It proved itself quite well during the Kargil ops. Apart from being able to fly both escort missions and drop LGBs (which the Mig-29 couldn't do) it maintained the highest sortie rate among all fighters used during kargil. Its an extremely versatile fighter and the IAF pilots seem to love it. Think about why the original IAF request was for 126 Mirage 2ks before this whole MRCA tamasha started.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jan 2010 07:04

Not to mention relics like F-16 blk 52 which sell for 62 mil per pop with no TOT or guarantee of spares or sanctions.

(Aside: "No ToT or guarantee of spares" is understandable since it is an age old nara, you know, the tail is ....... BUT, it is refreshing to read a post that thinks that there is no guarantee of sanctions.)

However, on ToT. Not to start a flame here, but, we should have a decent picture of what ToT really mean from the MKI experience. Are there any figures that show what was expected vs. what India got vs. what India expected and did not get (if we can separate them in any way that would be great). TIA.

negi · Post by **negi** » 18 Jan 2010 07:37

The benefits of ToT are constrained by the kind of capability one's in house military Industrial complex has, for instance despite all the knowledge transfer in terms of the processes and blue prints of SCB design at the end of the day it is upto the customer to do what it takes to build a modern jet engine's SCB from scratch . From our past experience with U-209, FH-77 bofors or even Mig-29 deals it is clear that the extra money which was paid to the OEM as part of ToT has been a sheer waste (unless license produced maal qualifies to be considered as a ROI ) . For eg. right now HAL is still sourcing the AL-31FP from NPO Saturn for the MKIs being built in India .

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jan 2010 07:47

negi wrote: For eg. right now HAL is still sourcing the AL-31FP from NPO Saturn for the MKIs being built in India .

Thx. That was a good start.

However, can we apply all that you said to just the MKI (IF possible - I am not sure if it is. Is it?).

So, was the AL-31FP supposed to be built in India, and if so, why is it still sourced from them?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jan 2010 09:14

iirc, it was to boost production rate as IAF was very critical on schedule.

http://www.hal-india.com/EngineKoraput/Products.asp

Per this link, HAL koraput can build the al-31fp from raw materials.

Now, if it can produce these raw materials from scratch, only midhani can help. But midhani is yet to prove itself for Kaveri parts, and if Kaveri II gets the SC blades from midhani, then we have to prove it that we can get to the precision jigs and satisfy HAL koraput in the production engineering and setup.

Long way to go, in terms of home grown tech in these precision engineering areas.

Only, if we have more investments into these core requirements, and have a vision, we can establish ourselves to share something among the top 3/4 nations.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jan 2010 20:05

Crossposted froom the IN thread,quotes from Adm (retd) Arun Prakash,former CNS and an aviator to boot,on the MMRCA contest in the "F" mag not too long ago.His views on the various contenders.It gives us an insight into the thinking of at least one of the top brass also an NSAB member..

Trying to understand the reasons for the multitude of aircraft in the race,the good admiral had this to say:

"...for perhaps political reasons,the RFP seems to have cast its net too wide,including two distinctly different categories...firstly 4th gen. machines (MIG-35,Gripen,Eurofighter,Rafale,Typhoon),have got mixed up with aircraft which first flew in the 1970s and are now at the "sunset phase" of their service life."

The good admiral is echoing what many have been saying on this thread that the two US warbirds are old ladies with too much make-up! Another point he made about the requirements,was that the aircraft will also be tasked with carrying part of the air-launched strategic deterrent.If so this makes survivability in the face of enemy defences land and air,a major factor in the contest.It will also make stealth an important factor to be considered.This is perhaps because at the moment the third leg of the triad,the SSBNs are far from operational and until the "8,500km" ICBM arives and is mated with the ATVs,half the burden of our strategic deterrent will be borne by the IAF and carrier based IN strike aircraft.This also makes out a strong case for at least one dedicated SU-30MKI/SU-34 longrange strategic bomber squadron in addition to the other needs of the IAF air dominance and tactical needs.

PS:Reg. the JSF and stealth,many western analysts have said that the JSF willbe despite all its composites and stealth shaping,be anything but stealthy when loaded with its weaponry! In such a scenario,the aircraft would've lost its stealth advantage against less stealthy aircraft and the greater engine power available of its twin-engined rivals would even the odds very much.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jan 2010 20:18

The topic is getting old, but, I am VERY glad the good Admiral did not bring up the age old argument about sanctions.

And, give the MRCA process a few more years and we can be sure that even his list of non-1970 vintage planes will be old.

The good Admiral missed the memo on the F-18 not being old?

1970s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amazing. And that too in 2010 we accept this kind of crap!!

(Not surprised. Russia is building the next MBT and India is busy finding out which among Arjun or T-90 is better!!!)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jan 2010 21:35

Regarding JSF, it is for IN.. and MRCA is mostly for IAF, if I am right. Who knows, IN might just go for JSF for ADS-1 and 2, as nLCA is behind schedule.

BTW, meteor can be fired from Rafale, EF2K and Gripen, and mostly all of them share similar AESA tech. specs. [expected 2015]
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/dat ... etDT01.jpg

April 2010:-

aviationweek wrote: The AESA and Meteor are seen as critical for export campaigns for the Eurofighter, which is trying to secure orders in several countries, most significantly India and Japan where the consortium faces stiff competition. In India, Typhoon is due for its flight trials in April, with further flight tests in Europe due in the second quarter of 2010.

In a sense, only EADS and Gripen has not bagged orders yet from India. France got Kaveri, Russia pakfa and the mig29k, Boeing -c17, LM->JSF for IN (projection).

EADS vs. Gripen.then!?. It would be a kill if Gripen goes with Israel to table their latest AESA version for IAF.

That means EADS gets some 100 odd engine orders for first two squadrons of LCA. If Sweden should take up a sale for IA (guns), then there is a higher probability EADS gets MRCA. All these, if one goes by the theory, that we are really thinking about world wide stores integration and logistics handling capability [perhaps a niche, we can get into that no one has ever done].

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 18 Jan 2010 21:52

THere have been 10000 posts saying that if F16 and F18 are old hags so is the Mig 29 - but Philip seems oblivious to it

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 18 Jan 2010 22:12

Surya wrote:THere have been 10000 posts saying that if F16 and F18 are old hags so is the Mig 29 - but Philip seems oblivious to it

yup u r right,mig-35 is also an old hag,but it boasts of a much better airframe compared to yankeee F-birds, in terms of agility with TVC, IT beats the eurofighter and rafale hands down, but it lacks composites like f/a-18e/f ,so iaf should avoid the f-birds and mig bird,.
we have already given too much to the russians, 1647 t-90s, 230[+50] su-30mki, gorshky, 45 mig-29k,80 mi-17, a-50 awacs platforms,il-78mki, in future we will get 250 PAK-FA/FGFA AT 100$ MILLION EACH PLUS WE ARE ALSO PROVIDING 5$ BILLION [50 percent] for pak-fa's development and also we might order AMUR 1650 for second line of six submarines,so russian stomachs should be full. american kitty gets,6 c-130j, 10 c-17 globemaster,8 p-8i,further deals like 145 m777 artillery guns,15 chinooks, 22 apaches and 6 kc-767 midair refuellers will surely go to usa, so i think an european bird should win,particularly eUROFIGHTER OR GRIPEN ,considering rafale's high costs.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 18 Jan 2010 22:49

Much better airframe than the F 16 is debatable. So is its superiority in maneuvering to the Euro Birds especially the typhoon and Rafale even without the TVC.

Nice theory about the IAF trying to satisfy everyone. The MRCA will most likely be a U.S bird.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Jan 2010 22:52

vavinash wrote:Mig-29K only cost 41 mil with spares and ammo, wow what a steal. Compared to the 40 mil just to upgrade a piece of outdated crap like mirage2k that's simply god sent. Not to mention relics like F-16 blk 52 which sell for 62 mil per pop with no TOT or guarantee of spares or sanctions.

where does it say that the MiG-29K costs $41 million with spares and weapons ? for all you know there may be separate contracts to be signed for those. BTW, there was a clause in the original MiG-29K contract that said that if the options were to be converted before 2012, the price had to be very close to those of the original MiG-29K. We'd heard about escalation of price, but looks like those reports were not true.

As to what you wrote about the Mirage-2000, I'm hoping the moderators look into it. Your language really doesn't suit what has been and remains, one of IAF's best fighters. I don't think you need to be reminded that till the arrival of the Su-30MKI a few years ago, it was the most versatile fighter in India, and tasked with the nuclear strike role as well.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jan 2010 22:55

johnny_m wrote: The MRCA will most likely be a U.S bird.

This can't be an axiom since you said "most likely". What is your theory?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Jan 2010 23:01

NRao wrote:However, on ToT. Not to start a flame here, but, we should have a decent picture of what ToT really mean from the MKI experience. Are there any figures that show what was expected vs. what India got vs. what India expected and did not get (if we can separate them in any way that would be great). TIA.

Its an interesting point you make here. I have to find that link now, but I had read a rather long and detailed Govt. report on the ToT for the MiG-21 Bison upgrade. Apparently, ToT for some components that were upgraded, was meant to be done for free as per the original contract, but was reneged upon by the Russians, who never really provided the promised ToT. There was as it was put, a fundamental difference in what they thought it implied and what India thought it implied.

And has everyone here forgotten the T-90S issue where barrel and armour technology was not transferred for so long so that HVF Avadi was not able to produce them in numbers, which led to another direct import order from Russia ?

My point being- have some perspective. the Russians are friends, yes, but they are also hard bargainers now and will not easily part with their IP, and why should they ?

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 18 Jan 2010 23:50

SaiK wrote:
johnny_m wrote: The MRCA will most likely be a U.S bird.
This can't be an axiom since you said "most likely". What is your theory?

My theory is simple. The Big Euro Canards are not affordable. The Super Hornet is not either if you see some reports.

That leaves us with the MIG the Gripen and the Viper

The Gripen is the best choice but may lose out because of Sweden's lack of political muscle.

The MIG will lose out because of the whole Russian fleet argument,

That leaves us with the Viper with LM showing willingness to sell the F 35 to the NAVY IAF may also be interested in it. Super Hornet as per some reports could also be affordable. And with IAFs love affair for American stuff its hard to look past these two.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 18 Jan 2010 23:58

Kartik wrote: As to what you wrote about the Mirage-2000, I'm hoping the moderators look into it. Your language really doesn't suit what has been and remains, one of IAF's best fighters. I don't think you need to be reminded that till the arrival of the Su-30MKI a few years ago, it was the most versatile fighter in India, and tasked with the nuclear strike role as well.

Ah come on.. You are taking something he said about cost of a plane personally now... I like what u write, but this is going too far...

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 19 Jan 2010 00:30

i think the winner will be gripen. reasons

1. it has parts from every part of the world and will keep e.one happy
2. get us the max ToT -- we could integrate russian weapons
3. get us a fighter along the lines of m2k which the IAF wanted anyway
4. links to bofors -- might get us ToT for the famed guns. if howitzers are going out-of-fashion due to the pinaka-m777-120mm combination, why do we need new ones? get ability to service/add FH77B and we are done
5. israeli aesa is a definite possibility
6. possiblily of entire production base shifting to india
7. news item that MoD babus visited gripen factories etc.
8. cheapest amonst the lot
9. the proposed selex AESA seems to be no slouch and gets us an alternate provider than USA for one of the most sensitive tech on the fighter.

more TBD

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 19 Jan 2010 00:32

big drawback

too close to LCA for comfort.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 19 Jan 2010 00:34

not necessarily. might actually help us with LCA due to the similarity. indian needs are too big to say that LCA will be affected by a similar aircraft. i think the ability to integrate russian weapons will be a huge factor.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jan 2010 00:48

Billions to Russia (old lady and all).

Billions to Israel.

Billions to France.

Now Billions to US.

What about India?

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 19 Jan 2010 00:50

price for peace i guess...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Jan 2010 01:04

Cybaru wrote: Ah come on.. You are taking something he said about cost of a plane personally now... I like what u write, but this is going too far...

no, I don’t think its going too far. it’s the same attitude that leads to nicknames like "Widow Maker", "Flying Coffin", etc. People who don't appreciate what service a particular fighter has provided would use such language. To call the Mirage-2000 a piece of crap, is ignorant to say the least and a very provocative statement. it might be his opinion, but if nothing, it reveals a lot about how much he knows about the IAF.

I mean has this fellow once spoken to a Mirage pilot or technician and heard what they say about it ? Does he even know what reputation that fighter holds in the IAF ? Just because its not Russian doesn't mean you can call it anything.

Its provided superb service to the IAF and calling it a piece of crap is utterly ridiculous. Might there have been a reason why the IAF wanted 126 Mirage-2000-5s and not MiG-29M2s for its original MRCA ? Its fine that the upgrade is costly, and its upto the GoI to decide whether its worth it or not. capability wise, a Mirage-2000-5 is every inch a competitive aircraft and a viable fighter for another decade and half. but to call such a fine fighter that has for 2 decades been the pride of the IAF, a piece of crap..wow. what temerity !

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 19 Jan 2010 01:11

V_Raman wrote:price for peace i guess...

Still cheap compared to the price europe paid for peace.. two world wars, 50 million lives, lost all colonies... if brothers take arms against each other then the price is always high... starting from kurukshetra.

the reality is we live in a world were everyone is pushing their interests and we need such fancy stuff to keep ours.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Jan 2010 01:37

Philip wrote: The good admiral is echoing what many have been saying on this thread that the two US warbirds are old ladies with too much make-up!

so it would seem that most customers the world over have a penchant for "old ladies with make up" or are too blind to be able to tell the difference since they perform well enough where it matters and have plenty of experience that some virgin can't replicate. maybe so many customers world wide believe in "cover the face and **** the base" (as we used to say in college) since they don't seem to mind these "old ladies with make up". Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Australia, Poland, Chile, etc. must all fall under this category. Because the F-16 Block 50 still has customers, repeat orders.

Lets take a look at the Russian entry- the beautiful Russian "young maiden" (as you'd like to portray the MiG-35) with the new face (new forward fuselage) and enhanced butt (newer RD-33MK Sea Wasp engines) that emits less pollution (MiG-29 was a "young woman" infamous for emitting dark smoke up her derrierre whenever she was pushed hard at some throttle settings) and a stronger build is someone who has undergone heavy surgery to look young. and how many suitors does this Russian bombshell have, apart from India who is a perennial customer of Russian delights ? Yemen ? hardly a worthy suitor, you'll agree.

OTOH, some of the MiG-35's cousins were recently sent back home by their customer, Algeria after it found that "jo ladki dikhaayi thi photo mae, woh saali bheji to alag lagti hain paas se. upar se peti pack maal ke badle use ki hui maal bheji" ! those Algerian MiG-29SMTs were essentially rebuilds of old stored MiG-29As.

Whom are you kidding trying to pass the MiG-35 as a new generation fighter in the same league as the Rafale or Typhoon that only began in the 1980s? I can bet you that 30-40% of its design data is retab (meaning unchanged) with the MiG-29A (I know firsthand how much changes in "new generation" avatars of old designs since I'm working on one). and the MiG-29A was designed originally in ? yep, the 1970s, even though it emerged in the 1980s. you can google it yourself to get those timelines.

Another point he made about the requirements,was that the aircraft will also be tasked with carrying part of the air-launched strategic deterrent.If so this makes survivability in the face of enemy defences land and air,a major factor in the contest.It will also make stealth an important factor to be considered.This is perhaps because at the moment the third leg of the triad,the SSBNs are far from operational and until the "8,500km" ICBM arives and is mated with the ATVs,half the burden of our strategic deterrent will be borne by the IAF and carrier based IN strike aircraft.This also makes out a strong case for at least one dedicated SU-30MKI/SU-34 longrange strategic bomber squadron in addition to the other needs of the IAF air dominance and tactical needs.

there is simply no point in adding the Su-34 to the IAF's inventory, specifically to act as a nuclear strike bomber. A few Su-30MKIs adequately upgraded and earmarked for such a role would suffice. Anyway, as of now, the task is being done by some special Mirage-2000s.

PS:Reg. the JSF and stealth,many western analysts have said that the JSF willbe despite all its composites and stealth shaping,be anything but stealthy when loaded with its weaponry. In such a scenario,the aircraft would've lost its stealth advantage against less stealthy aircraft and the greater engine power available of its twin-engined rivals would even the odds very much.

who are these western analysts that don't know that the F-35 is designed to carry a huge load of internal fuel as well as internal carriage of missiles and bombs ? it will only be during long distance ferry flights that the F-35 will need external drop tanks, like the F-22. in combat, it will carry everything internally and radar waves won't magically get through the bomb bay and bounce back off the weapons. so, its RCS will remain as is whether carrying internal weapons or flying clean.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Jan 2010 02:52

SaiK wrote:iirc, it was to boost production rate as IAF was very critical on schedule.

http://www.hal-india.com/EngineKoraput/Products.asp

Per this link, HAL koraput can build the al-31fp from raw materials.

Saik I know that manufacturing AL-31FP in Koraput is part of the MKI deal but it will take some time before they roll out a license built AL-31FP right from scratch , the facility only started overhauling the RD-33 engines back in 1997-98 and as per the engine division their current blade manufacturing unit (BMU) is only supposed to fabricate the blades for AN-32, Mi-17 and Mi-8 aircraft.

I don't have access to any info which categorically states that Koraput engine division facility has started fabricating SCBs for the AL-31FP series .

On SCB front I am only aware of

this

(President Kalam visited DMRL Hyderabad and was shown SCBs for the Kaveri ).

Also on MKIs ToT we all saw an article posted by Austin in KeyPublishing fora (reposted here too).

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... tcount=610

Does the raw material for Su-30MKI come from Russia?

Yes, the kits come from Russia which includes 100 per cent raw material, casing and forgings, standard parts and bought-out ready material like bearings, connectors, switches, circuit-breakers and so on. These parts, though small are not economical enough to be made here. While in the earlier Russian aircraft, we were making nuts and bolts here, in the case of Su-30MKI, the Russians insisted that everything come from there, including readymade articles for which license has not been transferred. These include undercarriage and the ejection seats. This decision is based on cost-effective analysis and time frames. But there are still nearly 40,000 parts like brackets, panels and major structural frames, spars, longerons, wings, control surfaces and fins that are made here.

--OT but I guess since this is MRCA dhaga

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jan 2010 05:24

So, ToT can be agreed upon, but over time ToT MAY not be economical. Then there is the other factors -ToT cannot be absorbed for technical reasonS. And, of course, GoI could always either forget to sign or prefer not to sign proper papers .......................

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jan 2010 05:40

NRao wrote:So, ToT can be agreed upon, but over time ToT MAY not be economical. Then there is the other factors -ToT cannot be absorbed for technical reasonS. And, of course, GoI could always either forget to sign or prefer not to sign proper papers .......................

IMHO, the bolded part is un acceptable. Then don't ask for ToT at all, if we are not capable.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Jan 2010 05:51

Nrao ji from what I gather the issue is with Jingo's interpretation of ToT come to think of it based on my knowledge of Indian military HW complex ToT only facilitates license production of the platform involved anything beyond this would require the relevant organization or institute to indulge in what might be called as reverse engineering.As for economics involved in absorbing and exploiting the technology again it is a chicken and egg problem if one has really mastered the technology to a level that the technology involved can be exploited to fabricate a new range of products for a given market , economics will automatically fall in place in fact this would then look a lucrative area to invest into. For eg.Koraput engine division has been manufacturing R25 and R29B class turbojets for a long time and same is the case with Bangalore's engine division which makes Jaguar's Adour MK811 class engines but we have not seen any of these relevant entities go beyond license production , now if any of these divisions would have been able to use the technology to make a turbojet/turbo fan for even a trainer aircraft or for civil aviation (the small 2/4 seater types) they could have captured a niche low budget market in India and possibly in other developing countries (ALH is a nice example) .

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jan 2010 07:18

I do think a little orthogonal on reverse engineering. I think HAL could start a reverse engineering division to become a chinese counterpart. But, from a grand vision of Imitate, Innovate and Invent (3i) policy.

If China can avoid copyright laws, then HAL should be able to do it.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Jan 2010 09:02

All this TOT business is boggling the old lemon. WHere is GJ? IIRC, HAL Koraput will start truly making the engine from raw materials (I assume critical components that were transferred under TOT and not nuts/bolts, which we can produce sans TOT if necessary) only post 2010. So soon enough.

No need to feel bad - whats the need to TOT screwdriver tech? Critical components that can cause issues are all that truly need TOT. We see this in the BARS NO11M - I do believe the beast is manufactured inhouse!

JMT.

CM.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Jan 2010 09:18

^ CM the concept of ToT needed to be revisited as I believe we on the forum at times take it for granted that ToT translates to immunity from sanctions which might not be the case , even leaving the COTS/OTS aside an assurance regarding the ToT from supplier does not mean self sufficiency with regards to production and maintaining the platform in question. I just thought this needs to be discussed given the liberal usage of the term 'ToT' in the forum and all this when I myself don't know answers to all the questions.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 19 Jan 2010 10:54

NRao wrote:Billions to Russia (old lady and all).

Billions to Israel.

Billions to France.

Now Billions to US.

What about India?

forgot the offsets

,its billions to indian industry tooo

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jan 2010 20:45

Kartik,the good admiral,an aviator,ex-CNS and on the NSAB has put the MIG-35 into a different category from (his description) the US's "sunset" birds.Don't you think that his words and expereince count for something? Secondly,I have never said that the MIG-35 is technologically as advanced as the Eurofighter,which comes in at twice the cost,but has capabilities in ceratin areas that are the equal of it.The question with the MMRCA deal is what the IAF wants right now to make up numbers and we are trying to find out the ordser of priority capability wise from various sources.For the future 5th-gen stealth fighter,we have thrown our hat into the ring with the Russian Pak-FA,so a cost-effective 4th-gen+ fighter would suffice very well for now,but not a "sunset" bird!.As for who are the analysts commenting about the JSF's vulnerability?Please read the latest issues of AWST,Flight,etc. and see the debate going on.It is an acknowledged fact that the JSF has limited space in its internal weapons bay,just enough for a few missiles and with weaponry carried on wing pylons, "poof" goes its stealth.There is an on-going debate about how effective stealth is and will be a few years from now with new methods of detection and what amount of stealth is worth the cost.It is why the SU PAK-FA 5th-gen fighter is rumoured to have only 35% of composites while India wants it to have 65%.In view of the JSF's shortcomings,The Japanese have thus virtually demanded from the US the F-22 instead,not the JSF,and have warned that they might choose the Typhoon instead or develop their own stealth fighter (programme in the works) instead.

Regarding my comments on the US trying to make us buy their aircraft which are going out of production (F-16/F-18/C-17),here is Craiog Hoyle's quote from Flight Intl's issue 5-11 Jan .

the manufacturer must find a new customer for the Super Hornet this year to keep the multi-role fighter in production beyond 2011.."

This is why the GOI is in such indecent haste to "stroke" US arms manufacturers (as MMS has presumably earlier promised on the side),who desperately need new orders to keep their aircraft business from slipping into the red.Look at the hard facts.The F-16 is almost out of production (every US ally including Pak has it in service ),the F-18SH's last order a year ago was for 24 from Oz at $100milion a piece (!),which categorically stated despite heavy US pressure to buy more,that it "didn't want anymore" and was buying it only because of the delay in the arrival of the JSF.OZ analysts have even gone so far as to say that late model Flankers are far superior to the JSF too and Chinese numbers of Flankers could even defeat US F-22s say US analuysts.The C-17 is on its last legs of production,desperately waiting for Congress to approve 3-7 new ones and even F-22 poduction will case next year! The only new contemporary aircraft that will be in production from the US's manufacturers will be the JSF.

Compared to the US,the Europeans are on a better footing with the Gripen,Rafale and Typhoon all in production,even Italy's lightweight multi-role jet trainer.Russia too is busy with orders for Sukhoi's Flankers and MIG-29s and 35s with work for a few years still on both these types.Here is another comment on the IAF's choice.

..the pace of its selection is likely to be a cause of frustration....It is unclear whether India will narrow th field once the current evalkuation process is completed.

India will also have an eye on Russia's Pak-FA 5th-gen fighter..

The IAF will have a very hard task in choosing the winner,as one,there are just too many classes of aircraft (single and twin engined ones,light,medium and and heavy).What is the key priority?AESA radars?All are offering the same.What are the minimum performance paramaters and is their going to be any weightage for a radar or other system exceeding it? Finally at what cost,pricewise and political?

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 19 Jan 2010 21:06

saptarishi wrote:
NRao wrote:Billions to Russia (old lady and all).

Billions to Israel.

Billions to France.

Now Billions to US.

What about India?
forgot the offsets ,its billions to indian industry tooo

Offsets are only excuse ,for not developing capabilities,and to shut up the critics for inappropriate deals .
Taxpayer's money finally goes to those who organize the deal ,
Armed forces won't get latest technology weapons, and it will be costly too (for the taxpayer), and which never fulfills their requirements in quantity.
We can take the examples from what's happening.

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 19 Jan 2010 21:23

kartik,

I really agree with your points regarding the US F-16 and F-18.

I think the Gripen or one of the euro -birds would be a better choice.

C-17 is something i have always opposed. Unless the damn thing vertically takes off there is no point paying 250 Million for a transport. 100 million for a Souped up F-18E/F is really a bad deal.
JSF is a real small bird with real short range etc.

A question for all infidels here. If there is a war like the World War 2 a brutal long slug fest, where a lot of countries change hands. What are the chances any of these hi-tech 4+ birds the EF's , rafales , F-teen series will be serviceable and working. I think a 1970's A-6 Intruder like bomb trucks would be the best option in that case

dukenukem · Post by **dukenukem** » 19 Jan 2010 21:55

bhavani wrote:kartik,

A question for all infidels here. If there is a war like the World War 2 a brutal long slug fest, where a lot of countries change hands. What are the chances any of these hi-tech 4+ birds the EF's , rafales , F-teen series will be serviceable and working. I think a 1970's A-6 Intruder like bomb trucks would be the best option in that case

Nukes will start flying long before we run out of fighters.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jan 2010 22:00

Big questions for the Mig folks:

Can't the following fit in for the Mig29 upgrades?
1. Mig35 engine
2. 360* TVC
3. AESA Radar
4. OLS-30
5. Any new weapons?
6. Any new skins?
7. Any new electronics or computing?

My answer would be Yes., and we just wasted an intermediate upgrade. Well, if it is all politics, we have enough Mig29s to become Mig35s.

I don't think MRCA is drafted after Mig29 specs.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 19 Jan 2010 23:25

Saik.

Getting the MIG 35 AESA into Mig 29 A upgrade will be a tricky business. it will need extensive modifications with respect to power and cooling as well. There is a reason why the Americans have developed a new AESA( scaled down APG 79 with less power and cooling requirements than APG 79/80) for F 16 upgrades rather than go for the APG 80 in Block 60.

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php ... te=release

I think the upgraded IAF MIGs will be similar to the K models the navy use and if reports are to be believed it would have a superior radar.

Philip,

The F 18 Super Hornet is not a sunset bird either, it is scheduled for USN service well in to 2030s.

The F-16s are still selling like hot potatoes. Lockheed for example expects 200+ orders for it outside the MRCA competition. Its scheduled retirement date with the USAF is mid 2020s even then there will be a lot of F 16s being used world wide. In effect it is safe to say that there would be more F 16s operational than there will be Eurofighters, Rafales, MIG 29 variants, Gripens or Super Hornets in the next two-three decades.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jan 2010 23:31

MRCA thread so will keep it brief.

Words of Amd should count. Absolutely.

BUT, fact trump even his words.

It is one thing to say that the F-18 is a old plane. True. But which F-18 model is old? Certainly not the E/F/G variants.

However, in politics or to push one vendor over the other the statement "F-18 is old" stands. Not in logic.

And, it is one thing for a retired Adm to "get it". It is another to waste pages on BR.