MRCA News and Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Feb 2010 22:26

The analysis of putting India on par with Chinese behavior should be taboo. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. If we had wanted to become china like, then it does not take seconds to change our strategic course.

It is entirely up to the khans to satisfy the RFP, and the best candidate wins. If this is a fear of technology being transferred and copied to other places without paying attention to IPR and other laws, then it can't be just India. We respect it as the khans would.

Bottom line, the losers are who think that way.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 17 Feb 2010 23:41

we don't really need to behave like Chinese, who will always want to steal a technology, violate IPR. Such actions do not result in long term engagements.

Because of this attitude of theirs, can they boast of any ally who is respected ?

We should play by the rules and develop our Industries.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 18 Feb 2010 00:20

Eurofighter's mission in India: Making the shortlist
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... st/386053/

The IAF has already tested four fighters in this six-aircraft, $11-billion contest to select a Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA): the American F/A-18 Super Hornet and the F-16IN Super Viper; the French Rafale; and the Russian MiG-35. On the heels of the Eurofighter will come the last contender, Sweden’s Gripen NG.

After the flight trials are over, IAF sources tell Business Standard, the competition will narrow to three or four contenders; two fighters, they say, have already performed below par. Then, the commercial bids will be opened; Ministry of Defence (MoD) procedure mandates that the lowest bidder wins the contract.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Feb 2010 00:21

shukla wrote: It took well over 5 years for Boeing to develop its APG - 79. The vice president seems overly optimistic.. It doesn't look as if the EF will have AESA on time for first batch of EF's, just in case IAF plums for the EF.. Thats going to be a huge disadvantage to the already overpriced EF. I wonder if having an aircraft like the F/A-18 with a mature AESA would be a huge advantage..

Please check your facts- it was Northrop Grumman that developed the APG-79 and not Boeing. Boeing doesn't make any AESA radars. Raytheon and NG are the big players in this field in the US. And the Euro-radar program has a long history as well with development having been going on for some years now. They've already test-flown an AESA version of the CAESAR radar on the Typhoon, so its not like they're going to start from scratch. Anyway, here again Britain is taking the lead in capability development with the contract that they signed with Selex. Being an independent program from the Euro-radar consortium's AESA radar program, there is a big likelihood that Typhoon customers around 2015 will have 2 choices- either a Selex swash-plate configuration with the radar being similar to the ES-05A Raven, or the Euro-radar Captor-E that will most likely have been an evolution from the CAESAR demonstration program. The biggest problem with the Typhoon's development has been that funding is always in a bind- one customer wants something, another doesn't, so the question of who funds what becomes a priority. And then, based on shared funding from all 4 development partners, its obvious that the first capabilities added will be what is a common capability requirement for all 4 nations. Its only now with export competitions that the AESA radar has become a priority item on the Typhoon.

And of course the prize item on the Super Hornet is the APG-79, but the question for the IAF is whether the full-spec APG-79 will be offered or not, and since India wants the source code, the bigger question is what will they actually be willing to offer ? Will they be playing tricks with semantics of what they will offer only to later on state that it cannot be given because it wasn't part of the contract in the first place ? This is not some paranoid scenario, but something that is realistic, because US legal gurus are very very experienced in large scale contracts, whereas past experience shows that Indians can get conned in the legal arena with regards to defence contracts.

Using an "export" version of the APG-79 with dumbed down capabilities as some US analysts have been suggesting will be very very unpopular with desi jingos, but for the GoI it may not make such a big difference because the GoI in most cases is only concerned with appearances. Only if the IAF absolutely refuses to take such a watered down APG-79 variant and on that basis rejects the SH, will the GoI be forced to reject it as well. Similar things have happened on the Scorpene where there was something shown to the public to show indigenisation, with something else happening in reality and with separate contracts being required to be signed later with DCNS to even get an operational Scorpene.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Feb 2010 00:26

NRao wrote: IF it is really the Euro, that is to e blamed, then it could be a diff story WRT India. But, my guess is that the French air craft is actually more expensive - just because the amount they have solely invested in it and with so few sales.

I'm not an expert on international finance, but the Euro's strength against the dollar is a big part of the cost difference in export competitions between European fighters and US fighters. In this regard, the weakening of the Euro against the dollar due the crisis in Mediterranean economies will only work in the favour of European defence firms trying to compete against US firms. If the Euro and US dollar are on par, there will not be much of a cost difference between the Rafale and the F/A-18 and I'm saying that based off the prices quoted for the Brazilian contest.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Feb 2010 00:28

two fighters, they say, have already performed below par

which of in these are those two?

SH
F16
R?
M35

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Feb 2010 00:35

Kartik wrote:Please check your facts- it was Northrop Grumman that developed the APG-79 and not Boeing

No, it was Raytheon. Northrop Grumman developed the APG-80 for the F-16 Block 60.
Raytheon also developed the Apg-63 v2 for the F-15 while Northrop Grumman developed the Apg-77 for the F-22.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Feb 2010 00:38

SaiK wrote:two fighters, they say, have already performed below par

which of in these are those two?
SH
F16
R?
M35

Wasn't there some news about the SH having problems during Hot weather trials?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Feb 2010 00:49

shukla wrote: I agree, i think the Euro is only one part of the problem.. but from Dassaults point of view,convenient and easy to blame I guess..

and what are you basing your claim on? Stop making statements that are backed up by nothing but guess work. Dassault's entire supply chain, with its major suppliers right down to those that supply its fasteners, are paid in Euros, not US dollars. For approximately the same work done on a US fighter and a European fighter, the Europeans need to pay for labour and engineering in Euros, not US dollars. and when you add that up, you end up with a bill in Euros, not US dollars. do the conversion and you'll see how the fighters built using Euro as the currency then ends up costing more than those built using the US dollars as currency.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Feb 2010 00:50

nachiket wrote:
No, it was Raytheon. Northrop Grumman developed the APG-80 for the F-16 Block 60.
Raytheon also developed the Apg-63 v2 for the F-15 while Northrop Grumman developed the Apg-77 for the F-22.

My mistake. I apologise for that.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Feb 2010 01:29

nachiket wrote: Wasn't there some news about the SH having problems during Hot weather trials?

it wasn't a news report, rather some reliable first-hand info that came in..reportedly, fine dust and sand particles got into the avionics in Jaisalmer and it had some reliability issues. It likely also had some issues at Leh, but that is pure speculation, since Boeing didn't blow its trumpet about how well they did in Leh, unlike how they went ga-ga when they broke their speed record over Bangalore. Also didn't do particularly well in the air-to-air arena, but did very well in the air to ground role.

The F-16 Block 60 did better it seems in performance and air-to-air. BTW, there is also another thing that was mentioned- that the IAF isn't happy with the MiG-35's airframe-
the gripe was that its essentially still a MiG-29 airframe..which is true of course, since the MiG-35 demonstrator is a MiG-29M2. Looking at the MiG-29K, the airframe is improved, so that gripe may well go away when the IAF evaluators look at the MiG-29K eventually. Oh and the Typhoon guys wanted their flight evaluation to be done in hot weather so taht they could demonstrate
the very high T/W ratio of the Typhoon. February-March won't be as hot as mid-summer, but it'll still be in the mid-30s in the afternoon.

Babui · Post by **Babui** » 18 Feb 2010 01:46

When all is said and done....the MMRCA winner should be able to take on the best the Pak/PRC airforce can throw at us. It seems that the Typhoon is the only one that can beat the F-16 in air-to-air and at least be equal to the SU-27. While lifecycle costs are important, it makes no sense to spend billions on an aircraft that cannot go mano-a-mano with enemy aircraft.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Feb 2010 01:51

Kartik wrote:... BTW, there is also another thing that was mentioned- that the IAF isn't happy with the MiG-35's airframe-
the gripe was that its essentially still a MiG-29 airframe..which is true of course, since the MiG-35 demonstrator is a MiG-29M2. Looking at the MiG-29K, the airframe is improved, so that gripe may well go away when the IAF evaluators look at the MiG-29K eventually. Oh and the Typhoon guys wanted their flight evaluation to be done in hot weather so taht they could demonstrate
the very high T/W ratio of the Typhoon. February-March won't be as hot as mid-summer, but it'll still be in the mid-30s in the afternoon.

This is news to me. There might be several things to be unhappy about with the Mig-35 but the airframe is not something I would have put my finger on. What is wrong with the Mig-29's airframe? The aircraft's agility and maneuverability are beyond question. The F-16's airframe hasn't changed either from the original. I am not sure what the IAF evaluators were expecting

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Feb 2010 01:53

Babui wrote:.... It seems that the Typhoon is the only one that can beat the F-16 in air-to-air and at least be equal to the SU-27...

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Babui · Post by **Babui** » 18 Feb 2010 02:05

f-16.net has plenty of discussion of f-16 vs typhoon (with the typhoon coming up best in the A-to-A role...the discussions have links to various articles over the years). The MKI went head to head against the Typhoon in Indradhanush 2007 (admittedly without thrust vectoring or the NIIP radar in use). There was some discussion then that the Typhoon had done well against the MKI (there was 'unofficial' news that they had scored kills against our pilots).

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 18 Feb 2010 02:53

Babui wrote:When all is said and done....the MMRCA winner should be able to take on the best the Pak/PRC airforce can throw at us. It seems that the Typhoon is the only one that can beat the F-16 in air-to-air and at least be equal to the SU-27. While lifecycle costs are important, it makes no sense to spend billions on an aircraft that cannot go mano-a-mano with enemy aircraft.

How do you know the NG/Rafale cannot?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 18 Feb 2010 08:21

nachiket wrote:
Kartik wrote:... BTW, there is also another thing that was mentioned- that the IAF isn't happy with the MiG-35's airframe-
the gripe was that its essentially still a MiG-29 airframe..which is true of course, since the MiG-35 demonstrator is a MiG-29M2. Looking at the MiG-29K, the airframe is improved, so that gripe may well go away when the IAF evaluators look at the MiG-29K eventually. Oh and the Typhoon guys wanted their flight evaluation to be done in hot weather so taht they could demonstrate
the very high T/W ratio of the Typhoon. February-March won't be as hot as mid-summer, but it'll still be in the mid-30s in the afternoon.
This is news to me. There might be several things to be unhappy about with the Mig-35 but the airframe is not something I would have put my finger on. What is wrong with the Mig-29's airframe? The aircraft's agility and maneuverability are beyond question. The F-16's airframe hasn't changed either from the original. I am not sure what the IAF evaluators were expecting?

Exactly my thoughts. I always considered Mig-35's airframe as its strongest point. Its proven to be highly agile and its maneuverability is in no doubt.
Kartik,
May I know from where did you hear the gripe of IAF regarding Mig-35's airframe?
Also, AFAIK, the airframe of Mig-35 is closer to Mig-29k than MiG-29M2. At least this is what I have inferred from Igorr's posts.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 18 Feb 2010 09:07

Here's the MiG-35D airframe 154
The 2 photos below are of the MiG-29M2 & the last is its 'post-conversion' avtaar

I dont see any changes, will the 'actual' factory-made MiG-35 be (slightly) different ?

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 18 Feb 2010 10:05

Mission shortlist

Looks like Eurofighter consortium is betting big on MMRCA order.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 18 Feb 2010 11:03

Gaur wrote:
nachiket wrote:
This is news to me. There might be several things to be unhappy about with the Mig-35 but the airframe is not something I would have put my finger on. What is wrong with the Mig-29's airframe? The aircraft's agility and maneuverability are beyond question. The F-16's airframe hasn't changed either from the original. I am not sure what the IAF evaluators were expecting?
Exactly my thoughts. I always considered Mig-35's airframe as its strongest point. Its proven to be highly agile and its maneuverability is in no doubt.
Kartik,
May I know from where did you hear the gripe of IAF regarding Mig-35's airframe?
Also, AFAIK, the airframe of Mig-35 is closer to Mig-29k than MiG-29M2. At least this is what I have inferred from Igorr's posts.

THe IAF will find some reason to gripe about the 35, it has to because doctrine demands diversification. The gripe could simply be that the definitive 35 airframe has not been seen (and rightfully so). My guess is that the two birds that have been thrown out arne the Gripen (if flight evals have taken place) and the 35 OR the 35 and the 18 (possibly 16 too).

The big euro birds - rafale and tiffy will not be thrown out by the IAF imho.

CM.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 18 Feb 2010 12:41

After Brazil, UAE..Iraq interested in the Rafale?

http://tacticalreport.com/view_news/Ira ... _2000/1077

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 18 Feb 2010 12:50

Advanced Information Management System for F-16..

Northrop Grumman reached a milestone for its information management technologies following a successful demonstration with the U.S. Air National Guard.

U.S. company Northrop Grumman says its Advanced Information Management System was integrated into two Air National Guard F-16 fighter aircraft LITENING pods during a demonstration at Camp Lejeune, N.C.

The demonstration, part of a contract with the Air Force Research Lab, is an effort to merge the "Joint Battlespace Infosphere's information brokering capabilities into Northrop Grumman's high-speed recording and tactical dissemination capabilities," a release said.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 266258816/

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Feb 2010 12:53

The Russian should have got the real Mig-35 prototype out of the factory by now and given IAF the feel what the real thing is about rather then some convert.

It does not matter if the radar etc is at n-1 level right now since they can catch up with it , but they should get the real bird with RD_33MK engine or what every they have to offer and not just show scale model

This is like shoddy job from Mig , if they have a good machine to offer they should have pulled up all their stocks and got this ready before MMRCA test in India.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Feb 2010 13:31

The MIG-35 with its first AESA radar did fly during the last Aero-India and IAF pilots were given demos,according to some post-show reports.The only factor in doubt is MIG Corps production rate/cost if as planned they shift their existing production facilities as planned in the reorganisation of the Russian aircraft industry.If it happens,then the cost of an aircraft could go up as investment in new facilities would have to be factored in.As a "smaller single-pilot Flanker",it makes sound economic and operational sense to acquire the aircraft regardless of the MMRCA deal which seems to have a different agenda -not just keeping numbers happy,as even the previous un-upgraded versions of the MIG-29 were far superior (several earlier posts on the subject quoting IAF exercises) to our Mirage-2000s that we have.The cost of a MIG-35 in comparison to an SU-30MKI should be worked out,as we would primarily be dealing with Pak's new Chinese fighters being acquired in large numbers,which are inferior to the MIG-35 and most probably even the LCA.

The PAk-FAs arrival has changed the game.If it is going to be available at a cost of just $100m per aircraft,when compared with the Raptor's cost,more than twice ($240m) and the JSF ($160m),buying a $80-100m western fighter that compares unfavourably even with the SU-30MKI looks like an absurd proposition.The rejection of the IAF's Airbus A-330 tanker acquisition (on the cost front),is an indication that to the MOD,costs do matter very much despite the soundbites of all the bells and whistles that obne is hearing from the stables of the various manufacturers,who are ramping up their PR "production" like lawyers raising their voices in court when their arguments are weak!

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 18 Feb 2010 14:24

Then, the commercial bids will be opened; Ministry of Defence (MoD) procedure mandates that the lowest bidder wins the contract.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... st/386053/

This is not good thing to hear as this will relegate the French Rafael and EF-2000 Typhoon. If price is taken into consideration than F-16IN is the most likely contender to win as most of us expect it to meet the requirements.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 18 Feb 2010 14:40

Babui wrote:When all is said and done....the MMRCA winner should be able to take on the best the Pak/PRC airforce can throw at us. It seems that the Typhoon is the only one that can beat the F-16 in air-to-air and at least be equal to the SU-27. While lifecycle costs are important, it makes no sense to spend billions on an aircraft that cannot go mano-a-mano with enemy aircraft.

I seriously doubt this as both the Rafael and Typhoon are technologically advance to over perform the F-16 in A2A warfare. MiG-35 to will be able to out perform the F-16 in WVR scenario due to its superior maneuverability. As a matter of fact all the MRCA contenders will be able to take on the PAF F-16Blk-50/52.

PLAAF still doesn't have a technological advantage over IAF, all their fighters are inferior to those of the IAF. Its also unlike that Chinese have developed capability to make indigenous fighters like J-10 superior even to the F-16s.

The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI's observed superior manouevring in the air
http://www.defencetalk.com/raf-eurofigh ... bat-12480/

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Feb 2010 15:41

This is Dhurandhar News Network - DNN breaking news:

Eurofighters in town....repeat Eurofighters in town....two aircraft - Single and double seater plus the A310 AAR......the two fighters were close and to the port side of the AAR...the formation went direct overhead the HAL airport and then the two fighter birds peeled off and came in to land but did not do so......it was touch and go....another turn and then came the landing.....man, these birds are big.....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Feb 2010 16:33

Was on the Golf course an hour ago. 2 Eurofighters and a tanker flew in formation, peeled off over HAL airport did a chuker and landed.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 18 Feb 2010 16:58

After the flight trials are over, IAF sources tell Business Standard, the competition will narrow to three or four contenders; two fighters, they say, have already performed below par

Any guesses as to which ones they might be

Only 4 contenders have undergone trials thus far namely F-16 , F-18 SH , Rafale and Mig-35.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 18 Feb 2010 17:59

WOW.. F/A-18's may have DAMT (Direct Attack Moving Target Capability) - a lethal, interoperable and cost-effective precision strike weapon system that can engage moving targets - as early as 2012..That would be awesome!

Just a bit of background for those interested.. In 2003, after the Iraq war, realised that their strategy of 'shock and awe' works but with immense collateral damage (both infrastructure & human life). There was a need to look for an solution as effective but without unwanted damage. They realised that about 3/4th of all targets were mobile.. Thats were need for precision guided bombs was first universally acknowledged. Thats where JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), JSOW (Joint Standoff Weapon) and SDB (Small-Diameter Bomb) came in.

But the results were still suboptimal.. Walks in DAMT.. an ideal solution for precision striking of mobile targets.. RFI's were floated in 2008, to companies, Boeing, LM and Raytheon. Boeing makes the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Lockheed Martin the Dual Mode laser guided bomb (LGB), and Raytheon the LGB. They werfe all given a year to modify their systems.. After intense trials in 2009, Boeing finally emerged the winner.. The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo, was awarded an $11,392,787 firm-fixed-price contract for the production acceptance test and evaluation of the direct attack moving target capability. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo., and is expected to be completed in February 2012.

Incidentally, I believe that the F-35 already possess this capability (for land based systems) courtesy Northrop Grumman using the JSF's Joint STARS (radar system).

Rear Adm. William Shannon, Program Executive Officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons at Patuxent River, Md., approved DAMTC’s milestone, which authorizes Production Acceptance Testing and Evaluation to confirm the industry’s product meets Navy performance requirements.

The DAMTC capability provides tactical flexibility for use on all F/A-18 Hornet, Super Hornet and AV-8B aircraft. Since the Navy already utilizes the JDAM infrastructure, the DAMTC modification kit will require minimal logistical adjustments, saving time, money and manpower.

The next milestone is expected fall 2010, when the Navy requests permission to procure approximately 700 units to facilitate operational testing before entering full rate production. Initial operating capability is scheduled for winter 2012.

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/13237/

I wonder if India will ever have access to the all future tech & upgrades (assuming that India wont settle for anything less than the full current spec) if the SH ever wins..(or the F-16 for that matter)

nitinm · Post by **nitinm** » 18 Feb 2010 19:19

The Eurofighter Typhoon is my favorite to win the contest, it is the best option. It surely is technologically the best aircraft in the group, second only to the F22 in the world!

With Eurofighter offering India to become the 5th partner in the consortium, it will become supplier for one of the most potent platform in the world, that is a great opportunity in itself. India can position itself as a defense equipment provider on a global stage.

US equipment comes with too many strings attached, watered-down avionics, end use monitoring, discontinuation of supplies under sanctions, etc. It makes sense to buy very specialized equipment like the Boeing P8 from them, but not fighters!

Rather than buy the the Mig-35, why not just get more MKIs? That way the consistency in platform will help reduce costs and bring the cost of MKIs close to the cost of MRCA target, but then we would have the MKIs!

The Gripen is kind of a mistery to me but the fact that it has a GE engine is a deal breaker for me! Also, Sweden doesn't have much to offer to India politically. The Gripen is kind of cute though!

I think the Rafale is very potent also but then we are already buying too much from France and France has been consistently supplying "stuff" to Pakistan. Got to blow one of these deals off to teach them a lesson!

The price might be higher than any other aircraft on the block, but I firmly believe the kill ratio of a Typhoon compared to any Paki or Chinese aircraft will be way higher than any other aircarft. What India needs to do is negotiate hard and get the necessary technology to improve on other projects that it might be working on! Most importantly the EJ-200 engine and the AESA radar to share with the LCA project.

Also a very important factor to keep in mind is that buying defense equipment is as much about geo-politics, if not more, as defense. There was a good reason for India to take a long time finalizing the deal, because meanwhile the supplier would not supply to any rivals of India and also government can get more leverage on other negotiations. But now the time has come, I think!

The Typhoon gives India political leverage over a lot of countries that are in the consortium. This will probably pay for the $10bn in itself!

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 18 Feb 2010 21:21

Typhoon in Bangalore
Typhoon-1
Typhoon-2
Typhoon-3

darshand · Post by **darshand** » 18 Feb 2010 21:45

neeraj wrote:Typhoon in Bangalore
Typhoon-1
Typhoon-2
Typhoon-3

Typhoons yes - but not the ones in Bangalore.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 18 Feb 2010 21:57

I think playing nearly a 100M for a 4.5 generation fighter like the EF is crazy. Since this program was meant for replacing the M2K, I think we should stick with an aircraft in that class and get a light/cheap/multirole fighter, as we already have planes in the heavy range of the spectrum.

It appears that we have a disadvantage in numbers compared to the neighbors, and we need to address that while keeping a tight lid on costs that these planes will incur. IMVHO we should go with either the Mig35 or the Gripen.

We have a great plane coming some years from now in the PakFa let us save some $$ for that.

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 18 Feb 2010 22:07

Carl_T wrote:I think playing nearly a 100M for a 4.5 generation fighter like the EF is crazy. Since this program was meant for replacing the M2K, I think we should stick with an aircraft in that class and get a light/cheap/multirole fighter, as we already have planes in the heavy range of the spectrum.

It appears that we have a disadvantage in numbers compared to the neighbors, and we need to address that while keeping a tight lid on costs that these planes will incur. IMVHO we should go with either the Mig35 or the Gripen.

We have a great plane coming some years from now in the PakFa let us save some $$ for that.

This has been extensively discussed in previous threads. Eurofighter is no more expensive than the SH or the Rafale. Also, the MRCA itself has evolved into more of a luxury cum political purchase rather than a stop-gap measure.

vsharma · Post by **vsharma** » 18 Feb 2010 22:11

darshand wrote:
neeraj wrote:Typhoon in Bangalore
Typhoon-1
Typhoon-2
Typhoon-3
Typhoons yes - but not the ones in Bangalore.

Did somebody get a chance to capture photos of the ones which came down to Bangalore today?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 18 Feb 2010 22:22

sourab_c wrote:

This has been extensively discussed in previous threads. Eurofighter is no more expensive than the SH or the Rafale. Also, the MRCA itself has evolved into more of a luxury cum political purchase rather than a stop-gap measure.

I have read the previous threads and if the other planes work out to the same amount then they should be out of our range as well, in any case, regardless of politics, we have to keep a tight control on costs instead of plumping for the most exciting plane.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Feb 2010 23:35

is it the lowest bidder from :

1. after IAF sorts and filters the top finalist?
or
2. the initial bidders who participated in the evaluation?

If the answer is 2, then MoD is crazy! /sorry [corruption loophole #1].

if 1, imho, IAF must <onlee send /onlee> top two a/cs to MoD for choice.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Feb 2010 02:35

Gaur wrote: Exactly my thoughts. I always considered Mig-35's airframe as its strongest point. Its proven to be highly agile and its maneuverability is in no doubt.

airframe means the way the aircraft is built- what methods are used to manufacture it, what tolerances does one see between panels. what you're talking about is the aerodynamics, which are undoubtedly excellent on the Fulcrum- not the airframe build quality. the airframe is designed to withstand 9G loads as are all other fighters, so its not extraordinary there. and while its fashionable to say that hey the Russians did it because they thought it was built to be rugged, that they knew that the boundary layer near the skin was so thick that drag wasn't such a big issue and so on, the fact is that its a considerable factor in RCS. poor panel fits and large gaps between panels lead to RCS spikes and no 4th-5th generation fighter will be considered acceptable if built using 3rd generation techniques.

If you look at even a Tejas, its build quality is far better than the MiG-35 or MiG-29OVT, both of which are essentially converted MiG-29Ms.

Kartik,
May I know from where did you hear the gripe of IAF regarding Mig-35's airframe?
Also, AFAIK, the airframe of Mig-35 is closer to Mig-29k than MiG-29M2. At least this is what I have inferred from Igorr's posts.

the MiG-35's airframe is exactly the same as the MiG-29M2 (the one that had MRCA painted on it). the MiG-29M2 demonstrator was converted into a MiG-35 prototype. OTOH, all MiG-29K/KUBs are new builds and I think that shows in their build quality.

and the source for this is someone who was held in the highest regard at BRF, JCage.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Feb 2010 03:13

How can one determine whether a plane's build quality is "good" or "bad" etc.?