Philip wrote: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?
Of course Admiral Arun Prakash's word counts for a lot. In this case however, his words are a total generalization and I don't agree with him and since you do, you could answer some questions for me. But we've gone through this umpteen times and your point of view doesn't change at all. Other posters have also mentioned the things I'm going to mention, and this time I hope you actually answer some of the questions.
My first question is, how does the F-18 E/F, which was a program that began as a derivative of the F-18A/B/C/D in the 1990s, become a fighter at the "fag end of its life" or a "sunset bird" ? Such a term may apply well to the F-18A/B/C/D that is being operated by the USN, RAAF, Kuwait, Switzerland and Finland. They have had minor upgrades done, but it is not sustainable beyond 2020 and they may anyway run out of service life by then.
The SH is the only fighter along with the F-16 Block 60 that has an operational AESA radar and the USN itself took more than 2 years to fine-tune it and perfect tactics to use with it. Even now they claim there is more that can be done with it. Is this operational experience of no use at all? Even in WVR combat, the combo of JHMCS+AIM-9X is a formidable threat to any fighter. If the MiG-35 had these operationalised, I can bet you'd be tom-tomming it, as you should, since it’s a big capability jump.
The USN is even now inducting the SH into service. Are you saying that the USN will use the SH for 10 years and then retire them since you claim that the SH will be "totally obsolete" by 2020? If the USN keeps it in operation (and it will since it’s not affordable to replace all SHs with the F-35), it will have upgrades done periodically to keep it current.
The SH is not on par with the Typhoon or Rafale, because it’s an evolutionary bird that in many ways carries forward the disadvantages of the carrier-optimized original design (the low wing-sweep for instance, which makes its transonic performance not so hot). Here the MiG-35, another evolutionary design, has a distinct advantage because the original MiG-29 design was aerodynamically excellent and had no vices that were inbuilt to make it most suitable for carrier ops. However, it’s a plain falsehood to call it a "sunset bird". With 8000 hours on its airframe, the SH will last for 35 years at least and the USN (which BTW is the 4th largest air force in the world) has repeatedly stated that it will be using SH and F-35's side by side. Avionics and sensor integration wise, the SH is on par with the best in the world and I don’t think anyone will dispute that. The only thing I hate about it is the placement of the IRST in the central drop tank, which will put limitations on it in combat.
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.
I'm not a big SH supporter, but I don't like it being called names that do not reflect reality either and plenty of people have this penchant for calling fighters they don’t like, some ridiculous name.
You can talk about its A2A performance not being as good as the MiG-35, F-16, Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen and I’ll agree with that, but I do believe that it brings very significant capabilities (especially A2G) that are proven. In A2G role, the US fighters have a big leg up over the others, even the Rafale, whose A2G ordnance is limited compared to the SH in this regard and in many cases very expensive compared to more affordable US munitions (check out the cost of an AASM).
Second question - name one country that has MiG-35s on order. Does the RuAF, which is so enthusiastically ordering Su-35s calling it a 4++ fighter, and taking in Su-34s, upgraded Su-25s and Su-24s, ordering any MiG-35s? Why is it not the launch customer for the MiG-35 if it’s in the same league as the Typhoon and Rafale, both of which have quite a bit of home support?
Even Sweden, which is trying to find a customer for the Gripen NG has announced that it will bring the Gripen NG into service into the Flygvapnet when the other customer does. Just a token number (10 units), but it makes it easier for the customer when someone else also experiences the birth pangs of inducting a new fighter into service and shares the risks. Issues that arise will get resolved faster, and initial training can be done together, making it faster, more economical and effective. That makes the MiG-35 the only fighter in the MRCA competition that has no previous customer, and if chosen, will definitely have the IAF in the launch customer role. Any problems and we'll be the ones left resolving it. Of course, the RuAF by then will have no interest in the MiG-35 because there will be the PAK-FA to concentrate on. Even for the F-16 Block 60, UAE was apparently not happy with niggling system issues related to the radar and avionics because it was the launch customer and that has apparently made them averse to the idea of being first users. It won’t be a big problem for the F-16IN anymore since LM engineers would’ve learnt a lot from that experience and solutions will be ready for the existing issues.
My problem with the MiG-35 is that it looks like a last ditch attempt to get MiG some more part of the IAF pie and no other air force else seems to share the same enthusiasm for this fighter the world over. As it is already we have a huge number of Russian fighters in service and our next FGFA is also Russian, so if we go for the MiG-35, we’ve pretty much handed over to Russia and any of its potential future dictator/democratic President/PM the stick with which to beat us if we don’t see eye to eye or dare to diversify our arms sourcing. Its simply not wise to let any other nation be able to influence us too much, not the US nor Russia.
Name one competition other than ours where the MiG-35 is a competitor. the F-18E/F is entering RAAF service (albeit as a stopgap measure to tide over F-111 retirement and late entry of F-35s), is entered in competitions in Japan, Brazil, India, Denmark, Kuwait and pulled out of Switzerland on its own when they felt that the requirements didn't suit them. It’s not a hot favourite in any of these competitions, but at least it qualified to get past the requirements stage and I’ve never heard any reports from these nations where its said that the SH is in its “sunset stage”. In Japan the F-35 or Typhoon will be chosen eventually, with an outside chance for the F-15SE (if Boeing offers it as well), in Brazil it has hardly any chance against the Rafale or Gripen NG (politics and ToT being defining factors) and in Denmark its too early to be able to say anything, although my wild guess is that they’ll eventually end up being F-35 customers and Kuwait will likely buy Rafales.
Ok, you may argue that the Su-30MKI did not have any customer when the IAF went for it and that’s valid, but we all know how many years it took for the Su-30MKI Phase3 to become operational AFTER the first Su-30K/MK was inducted. Even then, most of the Su-30MKI's technologies existed on the (then) Su-35 demonstrator or in other forms, but putting it all together into one coherent, integrated airplane was a big effort and it took time.
Such a scenario, if repeated for the MRCA, would mean that the IAF would not be able to induct 126 MRCAs even by 2020, even assuming that the first batch arrive in 2013, which we all know is not going to happen. When you get a fighter that requires minimal changes in configuration for IAF specs, and does not require extensive development, integration and testing, the induction can be much faster and it can be assimilated and operationalised much faster because you won't have differences in capabilities of batches (like Su-30MKI Phase 1, 2 and 3). No need to send them back to BRDs or HAL to get earlier batches upgraded to latest spec.
This could be a problem with most of the European fighters as well, since the Typhoon has no AESA chosen, far from being operationalised for its Tranche 3B config, which is the one EADS is likely offering us. So, if the Typhoon is chosen, the first few aircraft will likely be watered down variants as later batches get to the final specs and the first are retrofitted. The Rafale F3+ configuration is only slated to enter service in 2013 or so, and without an export customer (like UAE) to bankroll such developments, even that may not happen in time because the Adl’A is not so keen on those enhancements.
And the Su-30MKI procurement was done at a time when the IAF had ONLY 2 options- Su-30MKI or Mirage-2000-5, with the MiG-29 (SMT?) not even being considered despite being offered. This is from a GoI report. The Mirage-2000-5 was considered too expensive and being a smaller platform than the Su-30 meant that it had less capabilities payload and range wise and growth potential. Today, there are many more options, so there is no need to go through an extended development period just because it was done for the Su-30MKI when we had no other option.
So, there is a question mark over what the IAF wants and I guess it’s up to them to decide whether or not it matters to them- a mature fighter that has most of the advertised capabilities already in service, and one which can be brought into frontline service immediately with these capabilities. Here the US fighters fit in. Or one where the OEM is putting some custom-built parts in demonstrators and then hopefully will be able to eventually get all the capabilities it promised, productionised and in-service by the timeline that the IAF sets for it? This is unfortunately the case with the Typhoon as well, where the AESA is not even decided as yet. Phazatron hasn't yet shown the final Zhuk-AE with 1000 T/R modules and maybe we haven't even seen the final MiG-35 airframe as yet! The Gripen NG is only now beginning to fly with the Raven ES-05A and there is a lot of additional development to be done. Of course, there are other factors to be considered as well, but these are the areas where the US fighters have a leg up. The biggest drawback with the US fighters will be over the issue of ToT and source codes. If they don’t give these, or if their offers are not acceptable, reject them. Simple. Operational sovereignty over our fighters is mandatory and non-negotiable and if the US cannot guarantee that, then no point buying them. Ability to integrate the Astra will require radar source codes and if the US offers some dumbed down export version APG-79 or APG-80, and then reject them. However, there is no need to call them “sunset birds” because frankly, they are very capable fighters and if PLAAF or PAF was inducting either in large numbers, they would concern the IAF very greatly.
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!.
Agree with your first point. However, just because the FGFA is Russian, in the interests of India’s future strategic interests, its better to diversify, spread our money around. India has invested billions of $ in Russian arms for the future and Russians needn’t feel slighted if the MiG-35 is not chosen. I’m pretty sure that the MiG-35 will be the cheapest along with the Gripen NG, followed by the F-16IN, but the IAF has stated that performance will also matter, and only then will it draw its top 2-3 choices. Otherwise EADS would’ve pulled out long ago as would have Dassault, since they both know that they are not cost-competitive.
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.."
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.
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.
Frankly speaking, it’s the MiG-35 which is an “endangered bird”. If we don’t buy it, the current MiG-35 demonstrator will most likely end up as a company test bed with company funded development and the famous MiG design bureau will likely be left with no fighter to peddle except the in-service MiG-29K variant and maybe some MiG-35 type land-based cousin. It may notch some sales with countries like Yemen, Myanmar or Syria, but that will be about it.
The F-16’s production line is assured till 2013, but I do agree that it’s not nice to know that if chosen, the only active F-16 or F-18 assembly line will end up most likely being in India itself. However, we’ve faced this situation before, when the IAF wanted Mirages that Adl’A was not inducting itself and most likely would’ve had us with the only Mirage-2000 assembly line in the world. It was acceptable then, so why not now? It would be hilarious if PAF then tried to buy any F-16s, which would’ve been made in India..
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.
Wait.. The Gripen needs orders- badly. Flygvapnet orders cannot bring the Gripen NG into production and you can only keep an assembly line active for so long on drip-feed orders like those that Thailand placed. They have work converting Gripen A/Bs to C/Ds for the Flygvapnet, but that work will be over in 2012 or 13. Saab recognizes this and works on its advantages- superb marketing, complete ToT of those components whose technology it can transfer, comprehensive offset packages, and the offer of a lot of customization if the customer wants it.
The Typhoon is so darn expensive that the UK has basically said that it has used up its entire allocated budget for that acquisition without reaching the numbers it had allocated the money for in the first place. Only the RAF is really keen on a decent A2G capability (even now it’s only Austere) whereas the Luftwaffe, Italian AF and Spanish AF are happy to use it in the Air Interceptor role because their budgets won’t allow both acquisition and capabilities. Basically, the Typhoon is simply unaffordable in the numbers that the IAF wants. It looks great, accelerates wonderfully and may be a top-notch transonic performer, but it’s just too expensive.
..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..
Reports indicate that the IAF will choose its top 3 fighters and the GoI will begin price negotiations with these 3, after which it will be a combination of a political decision as well as the cheapest of the 3.
