MRCA News and Discussion

[SaiK]

The private-public participation in this MRCA is only after the contract is signed and deal is done, and the first check from gov arrives for the winner. I don't think, going by current EADS ventures or Boeing ventures for partnering into various other areas (may be related), as a direct relationship with this MRCA contract. Hence, all those offsets must be spawned off after the contract.

Agree on this, then it must be on the low bid price since energizing our local industry comes off the contract rather based on already active local entities supplying for MRCA contract.

Bottomline, We can't assume this would not be a lowest bidder wins.

[Carl_T]

Ok, from wikipedia. Why does the MKI have bad build quality? I think the F-16 looks not so good.

The problem lies with you. You are being unbiased. Why not come with a pre defined bias that something is better than the other because they said so on Discovery channel? Then you will begin to come to grips with the scientific process involved in build quality judgments.

I am very confused.

[nachiket]

Carl_T, haven't you ever heard of sarcasm?

[Carl_T]

I think Mig-29 with the hooded look is the most beautiful of 4th gen fighter, the single seater Mig-29K of IN looks stunning and now the new PAK-FA looks more beautiful than any other 5th gen fighter out there.

I think su-30variants are the best looking 4th gen.

But F-22 is best looking 5th gen fighter. Way better than the Pakfa.

[Carl_T]

Carl_T, haven't you ever heard of sarcasm?

I have but it is difficult to determine various shades of meaning online.

[Carl_T]

The F-22 looks like a shark that is smirking at you. Badass. Now the Boeing JSF entry, that was something!

[vcsekhar]

You hit the nail on the head about that one. The unoffcial name for the boeing plane was "monica" after you know who based on the large air intake

The F-22 looks like a shark that is smirking at you. Badass. Now the Boeing JSF entry, that was something!

[SaiK]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE6 ... arketsNews

India speeds up $11 bln fighter jets purchase

er pardon me.. does this mean that the decision will come this decade itself?

may be our beloved babu was hinting that the RFP modifications has done to increase mach requirements to be 2.0, to narrow down the list.

[Cain Marko]

Are you sure its a 29K with 35 avionics suite ? My understanding is they will be the real Mig-35 that will do weapons trial in Russia that will have larger wings and 10 hardpoints. They are building 2 prototypes right now one single seater and the other twin seater. You may be right that it could be a 29K convert but any source ?

Austin, for the weapons trials that are to take place soon, I do believe there was an article posted (was it by you or NRao? - cannot remember) that spoke of the russkis using a 29K airframe to hook up the Zhuk A for the trial. (added l8r: here is that source, it was your post on Pibu's "Future Fulcrums". Says this: "...for a prototype of this variant (i.e. the MiG-35) a series production of the MiG-29K is being used, the fighter (as in the MiG-29K variant) is fitted with the definitive ZHuk A radar - with more than a 1000 TRMs (as opposed to BORT 154 with only 680 TRM)"). In other words, the current MiG-35 we keep seeing is the same old MiG-29M (MRCA which was shown to RMAF and the Austrians) albeit with a different avionics/sensor set including the 680 module AESA that was unveiled in AI 09. This is only an interim proto, the MiG-29K based version will be much closer (if not THE definitive variant) to the real 35. I look forward to it - the airframe, as we know is already quite improved, and the 1000+ TRM Zhuk A sounds excellent. I am sure the IN will be eyeing it closesly irrespective of the IAF's interest/indifference.

As far as the airframe itself is concerned, the MiG-35 will have 90% ++ commonality with the K, the Wing area will be smaller (not larger) by just a little bit since the since the 35's wingspan will be slightly less than the K (11.36m vs 11.99?). Further, the crank that you see in advertised 35 models is I think simply a result of taking away the large aileron that you see on the K. And yes, it will be a good deal lighter, approx 800kg iirc, which would put it at around 11600kg empty, giving it a super TWR, v.close to the Tiffy.

The ability to carry extra hardpoints will come from denavalizing the aircraft, IOWs, I am guessing that dumping the carrier ops gear, folding wing mechanism etc will allow the 35 to carry an additional hp on each wing (outboard station).

I agree with the view that spending $100 million on a fighter thats as good as Su-30MKI is not worth the money , considering that few years from now we will get a 5th gen fighter for the same or slightly more amount.

I feel spending less on a capable fighter is worth ( any thing between $40 - 45 million not a single penny more that that with all TOT ) and increasing the numbers of MMRCA to 200 - 250 fighter to meet the requirement of numbers , either F-16IN or Mig-35 should be a good choice price/cost effectiveness.

It seems that the MRCA competition is no more geared purely towards arresting numerical shortfalls in the inventory. As such, the desire to acquire western technology is what drives the MRCA bid imho. Hence, the euros along with the americans have better chances. The 35 is unlikely to see IAF colors, however, its naval counterpart will see greater numbers within the IN.

Its also worth pursuing Su-35 in 2 to 3 more squadron as the Su-35 will outclass all the 4++ gen fighter in most combat regime and will have supercruise capability and get AESA fit on all MKI/35

Wait for the MKI upgrade, should be equivalent or better than the Su-35 imho.

CM

[SaiK]

For interoperability I can understand the more NATOish our planes could interface with, the better would be for joint ops. But, from a strategic sense, and if that enables a superior technology or by way of being discrete (for example communications and encryption), SIGINT, should help us engage even the best forces in the world. Isn't that our core strategy?

Another example would be passive sensors and tracking at a bandwidth and LPI mode, that no others use.

[khukri]

[
Who would know better about the actual effects of those incidental disruptions than the people who do wind tunnel tests and assess fuel consumption and aerodynamic characteristics of the individual design in question?

Agreed, but since imperfections cannot be replicated exactly from unit to unit, their effect, however small, will vary from unit to unit. Any standard, deliberate disruptive solution will, therefore, not be as precise a solution as it might be with a better finish. All other things being equal, a better finish should go a longer way in producing a more predictable airflow disruption solution.

The other, more serious effect, of course, is the possible radar reflection from the imperfect finish - but I'm not an authority on that subject - so thats just a layman's point of view.

[Cain Marko]

The IAF and perhaps even large parts of the technocrats are not in favor of the fulcrum as is evident from Kartik and VCSekhar's posts). I am not entirely sure if this is the right approach but thats what we seem to be seeing.

The idea (it seems) is to get any bird but the MiG-35. And to do this they'll have to dump the bird early (tech evaluation) because later it's bid will only get stronger. The IAF knows this, so do the babus/technocrats. There is little doubt that the MiG-35 will be the lowest bidder - and that by a v.long shot too. The deal for extra MiG-29Ks is a v.good indication of what a MIG-35 could cost. My guess is they will keep it well below the $ 60 million mark inclusive of all goodies, TOT, etc etc. Nothing can challenge that - not even the Gripen. And then come all the advantages of having commonality with the rest of the fleet (baaz + IN fulcrums)

The IAF/MOD has tried to nullify this advantage via the cost of ownership clause, but increasingly russian birds do not seem to be the same old, rusty, maintenance intensive machines they once were. Now the gap is certainly closer, uptimes are excellent and airframe lifespans are v.comparable to western counterparts.

The complaints against the fulcrum saw plenty of limelight -
- Early complaints - poor maintenance, support smokey engines, poor range, payload capacity. All rectified via MiG-29M, set up of depots within India to ensure proper supply of parts, RD-33MK engines, and willingness to setup mfg. facilities inhouse etc
- Slightly later complaints - it will not see service in the VVS (never mind that the F-16blk60 or the Su-30MKI or the GripenNG also suffer from similar issues), anyways, the russians have ordered naval fulcrums to somewhat mollify this fear.
- Miscellaneous and sundry complaints aka "khoka" complaint - When many issues seem to have been licked, they called it a "khoka" - no good electronics/sensors etc, however, now this too seems to have been overcome. Whats left?
- Latest complaint - poor fit-finish and mfg techniques, therefore RCS spikes! Damn, I can understand rivets and poor finishes causing troubles with RCS on VLO frames like the F-22. But on birds that hang EFTs and weapons?? In any case, the russians have already demonstrated decent capabililty in reducing RCS, the Bison is a v.good example.

The detractors in places of power are quickly losing options imho, they better find a good complaint pretty soon or the russkis are going to be v.hard to kick out. If they are kicked out for paltry reasons, rest assured, they will cause a stink and will have to be mollified one way or another. Extra MKI/MIG-29K anyone?

CM.

[Cain Marko]

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).

Rumors, and more rumors! Don't let the phoon boys on the solah forum get you. The solah is in its old age, both the rafale and tiffy, not to mention the Su-35/MKI+ will be more than a match for it (blk 60 included). The Gripen NG or MiG-35 too have plenty to offer against the solah, A2A, although the match might be a bit closer.

Re. Indradhanush, iirc the idea that the MKI was toast came from a v.poor source that has been regurgitated ad nauseam. IIRC, it was in a letter to the editor at AFM that some bloke supposedly with inside sources mentioned how the tiffy boys came back with "wide grins" on their faces after having put the MKI in its place. Neither the IAF nor the RAF have said anything to validate this.

The upcoming INdradhanush in October might shed some more light. We'll see.

CM.

[Kartik]

The problem lies with you. You are being unbiased. Why not come with a pre defined bias that something is better than the other because they said so on Discovery channel? Then you will begin to come to grips with the scientific process involved in build quality judgments.

is that all you've got ? sarcasm and the implication that my opinion is biased ? any worthwhile points to be made on how the MiG-29s did not actually have poorer build quality ? or maybe even Air Marshal Harish Masand, a MiG-29 fighter pilot is also biased when he stated in the Vayu article that "the first thing that struck anyone that saw the MiG-29 and Mirage-2000 parked side by side in Poona was the finish and polish, as it had struck me in October 1987 when Joe Bakshi's Mirages and our 29s were parked together in Hindon for the Air Force Day display over Palam. More than the sheer difference in size between the two aircraft were the clean lines of the 2000 compared to the brutish rough finish and slightly wavy surfaces of the 29. While the finish on the 29 was much better than the earlier MiG-23 or MiG-21, it was still nowhere close to the aerodynamically and aesthetically soothing finish of the 2000."

I hope you won't question his opinion at least with sarcasm and implied bias or something heard of or seen on Discovery channel.

Who would know better about the actual effects of those incidental disruptions than the people who do wind tunnel tests and assess fuel consumption and aerodynamic characteristics of the individual design in question?

I'll tell you what - Do you know what design criteria is used for designing panels on aircraft ? do you know how much is the maximum acceptable aerodynamic deflection for a given panel that is used on a civilian aircraft for cruise conditions ? I'll tell you how much it is because I've used it at work and you're free to go query someone else you know who is a designer- it has to be below 0.01% of the streamwise wave length of the panel, otherwise its not considered acceptable for aerodynamic smoothness requirements. which means you cannot have wavy panels or nice big gaps between panels because they increase drag. oh, and these criteria are set by none other than the aerodynamics group, so these are arrived at by wind tunnel testing only primarily. When we had an issue with a venting duct and requested that its implementation schedule be kept such that it protrude 3 degrees more into the airstream than it was earlier, the first guys to shoot down the request were aero guys. Western military aircraft have equally stringent rules that are used as guidelines by designers and analysts for the panels they use.

and this is no quirk just to make it look nice. the F-22 is what it is- super costly and with a very low RCS because the tolerances used in building it are tighter than any aircraft ever built before. please go to youtube and watch a video where its weapons bay opens and closes- you won't even see a crack when it closes- that’s how tight its tolerances are. the reason being that it is important to keep any surface imperfections or gaps minimised on 4th and 5th generation fighters to keep their RCS as low as possible.

[Kartik]

The IAF and perhaps even large parts of the technocrats are not in favor of the fulcrum as is evident from Kartik and VCSekhar's posts). I am not entirely sure if this is the right approach but thats what we seem to be seeing.

The idea (it seems) is to get any bird but the MiG-35. And to do this they'll have to dump the bird early (tech evaluation) because later it's bid will only get stronger. The IAF knows this, so do the babus/technocrats. There is little doubt that the MiG-35 will be the lowest bidder - and that by a v.long shot too. The deal for extra MiG-29Ks is a v.good indication of what a MIG-35 could cost. My guess is they will keep it well below the $ 60 million mark inclusive of all goodies, TOT, etc etc. Nothing can challenge that - not even the Gripen. And then come all the advantages of having commonality with the rest of the fleet (baaz + IN fulcrums)

you're missing out on a crucial aspect here CM- the life cycle costs. the IAF knows very well how much maintenance man-hours go into the MiG-29, so miraculous differences between the MiG-29 and MiG-35 will not be easily swallowed by the technicians who are part of the evaluation teams. the Gripen's per hour flight cost and the number of maintenance man-hours required per flight hour are going to be the lowest in the competition and that is undisputed. the F-16IN's cost per flight hour and maintenance man-hours per flight hour will also be lower than the twin-engined MiG-35's. you need to inspect, maintain and overhaul half the number of engines with a single engined fighter, so over 40 years that’s quite some savings. you need fewer spare engines, fewer spare parts and that also translates to savings over 40 years. even if you consider that the newer RD-33MKs have better MTBO figures, and assume that they're as good as the F-414G and the GE-F-110 in this respect, they're still twice in number compared to those of the Gripen and F-16IN simply because the MiG-35 is twin-engined.

The IAF/MOD has tried to nullify this advantage via the cost of ownership clause, but increasingly russian birds do not seem to be the same old, rusty, maintenance intensive machines they once were. Now the gap is certainly closer, uptimes are excellent and airframe lifespans are v.comparable to western counterparts.

now, now, now CM this is a very unfair accusation ! its quite the opposite actually. the MoD/IAF know very well how much it actually costs to own and operate Russian fighters- and there is a big difference between simply purchasing up-front and owning and operating as well.
the difference is due to the design philosophy difference- that of when you design some part to fail at 500 hours on a western fighter which makes it costlier, whereas on Russian fighters they would've designed a similar part whose MTBF will be around 200-300 hours and will be that much cheaper to build and buy. you simply will have lower up-times as you need to keep repairing some or the other sub-system that fails early precisely because it was designed to be cheap and afforable up-front. now from an Indian perspective, its pertinent that they actually take into account both up-front purchase costs as well as the total cost of own since its our money that is being spent both up-front and over the total life-span of the aircraft.
and you are discounting the fact that western fighters have traditionally had life-time total technical lives that were nearly double or more than similar generation Russian fighters ? so while you'd end up paying double or more for acquisition, you also had a fighter you could use nearly twice as long. For instance, the Mirage-2000 at 6000 hours TTL is twice that of the MiG-29's original TTL, which got extended to 3500 hours after NAL did some fatigue testing. Hornets of the USN are being hoped to last as long as 8000 hours and F-15s are estimated to have 12000 hours TTL or so..its only now that the MiG-35 has overcome that with 6000 hours TTL. the MiG-29K's is somewhat lower AFAIK..

The complaints against the fulcrum saw plenty of limelight -
- Early complaints - poor maintenance, support smokey engines, poor range, payload capacity. All rectified via MiG-29M, set up of depots within India to ensure proper supply of parts, RD-33MK engines, and willingness to setup mfg. facilities inhouse etc
- Slightly later complaints - it will not see service in the VVS (never mind that the F-16blk60 or the Su-30MKI or the GripenNG also suffer from similar issues), anyways, the russians have ordered naval fulcrums to somewhat mollify this fear.
- Miscellaneous and sundry complaints aka "khoka" complaint - When many issues seem to have been licked, they called it a "khoka" - no good electronics/sensors etc, however, now this too seems to have been overcome. Whats left?
- Latest complaint - poor fit-finish and mfg techniques, therefore RCS spikes! Damn, I can understand rivets and poor finishes causing troubles with RCS on VLO frames like the F-22. But on birds that hang EFTs and weapons?? In any case, the russians have already demonstrated decent capabililty in reducing RCS, the Bison is a v.good example.

The detractors in places of power are quickly losing options imho, they better find a good complaint pretty soon or the russkis are going to be v.hard to kick out. If they are kicked out for paltry reasons, rest assured, they will cause a stink and will have to be mollified one way or another. Extra MKI/MIG-29K anyone?

you forgot to add the fact that the poor spares support for several years meant that it was a severe operational handicap. this was not some minor quibble. for all the crying over US sanctions, most people gloss over the pathetic product support that MiG gave, which made it lose a lot of goodwill that was built up in the IAF over decades of interaction and use of their products. they back-tracked on technology transfer guarantees on the MiG-21 upgrade. they deliberately went slow on ToT for the T-90 that ended up in more direct-supply purchases- don't for a minute believe that it was a coincidence that such a thing happened even after we'd paid to assemble 1000 T-90s in India itself.
alright, lets assume that such a bad situation will never arise again, but why would you want to give one nation complete control over 70% of your fighter fleet ? what strategic sense does it make ? why shouldn't you try and buy political goodwill in some other country when you're already buying billions of $ worth of arms from Russia already ? we've bought or are buying 45 MiG-29Ks from them, are upgrading our MiG-29s there, are buying into a partnership on our 5th generation fighter..pray tell me why should every single deal go to the Russians ? and if this doesn't and they raise a stink, then should we forever keep importing from them only or else face the consequences ?

[negi]

Kartik valid points on build quality and design philosophy behind RU supplied platforms but lets keep stuff like ToT and goodwill or even strategic sense behind buying from RU out of this for I guess it will only derail the topic (unless you wish to persist ). I mean we have the GOI and our Babus to blame for the goof up for we messed it up with Bofors and U-209s and now we hear similar things about Scorpene as well .

Buying an offensive platform from US needs to be discussed in detail and stuff like US paranoia with regards to India's NWS status , obsession with control over end use and tendency to use arms embargoes as a political tool on freuqnet basis make it unsuitable for a trust worthy supplier of such a large order of offensive platform/s.

Btw that TTL figure for F-15 is impressive and why is it higher than the hornets (because the latter is meant for carrier based ops ?)

[Kartik]

Kartik valid points on build quality and design philosophy behind RU supplied platforms but lets keep stuff like ToT and goodwill or even strategic sense behind buying from RU out of this for I guess it will only derail the topic (unless you wish to persist ).

Buying an offensive platform from US needs to be discussed in detail and stuff like US paranoia with regards to India's NWS status , obsession with control over end use and tendency to use arms embargoes as a political tool on freuqnet basis make it unsuitable for a trust worthy supplier of such a large order of offensive platform/s.

Btw that TTL figure for F-15 is impressive and why is it higher than the hornets (because the latter is meant for carrier based ops ?)

ok I won't discuss that issue. But what is amazing is that the F-15E is believed to have a TTL of 18,000 hours (!!) before the airframe life is finally exhausted and no more extension is possible. In cost terms, that is equal to 1 Su-30MKI airframe being exhausted of all TTL and being re-procured 2 more times to get 18,000 hours (i.e if the MKI is at 6000 hours). That alone adds up to $135 million in up-front procurement costs for 3 Su-30MKIs (approx. $ 45 million each) , which compares quite favourably with the F-15E that is believed to cost around $100 million each. nations that use their F-15s more sparingly like Israel or Saudi Arabia will have very long life spans for their F-15 fleets. And while that is a simplistic comparison, the factor that defines the extreme airframe life is that the mission durations are long, and the stresses of more number of landings are reduced. For instance, a small fighter like the MiG-21 will not have a sortie that lasts more than 30-40 minutes before the pilot lands. 200 such landings in a year consume only 100 hours on the airframe. However, it is the number of times it lands that is wearing out the airframe fastest and 6000 such landings will make up only 3000-3500 hours on the MiG-21 airframe. In contrast, the F-15E will on average fly 1-2 hour sorties and sometimes several hour sorties with multiple tank-ups. If he is not carrying heavy ordnance on every sortie, and mainly training with lower Gs, the airframe is not stressed too much. So, the F-15E will, for 6000 landings, have flown on average 10-12,000 hours maybe.

The original F-15A and C were designed to 4000 hours (or x number of cycles, which I don't know the figure for), but in the 1990s, the service life was extended to 8000 hours after fatigue tests were carried out and once again, the service life was extended in 2000s to keep them in service beyond 2014. Truly, the rate at which the USAF uses up airframe life is staggering, mainly thanks to their mission profiles, that include very long duration flights, in-flight refuelling and long ferry flights as well. As the IAF begins to adopt such mission profiles more and more during training, the airframe life on our fighters too will start to clock up quite fast. However, if the number of sorties (known as GAG cycles for ground-air-ground) themselves are kept in check, the Su-30MKI (for instance) airframe will surely last longer, maybe even a couple of thousand hours longer.

RAF Typhoon Tranche 1's with their 6000 hour airframe life will start running out of airframe life by 2020 itself. mainly thanks to exhaustive training and a smaller fleet having to take up more duties. Having the duty of training a large number of pilots may involve more GAG cycles and flying at edges of envelope more often than in a combat squadron, so the first training squadrons will definitely phase out fast.

And yes, for naval aircraft, the stresses of carrier landings are themselves the biggest constraining factor. In fact, I think their life is also rated on the number of carrier landings carried out (cycles), similar to . If a naval Super Hornet can go upto 8600 hours and with a service-life extension, go up another 1400 hours or so, then a land-based Super Hornet can surely go longer, because the stresses of land-based operations are lower. The sink-rates at landing are lower and the Super Hornet essentially whether land or carrier based, carries the same landing gear and structures. So, while some say it’s a disadvantage in that you have additional weight you're lugging around because it was designed as a carrier fighter, OTOH, its service life will be likelier to be longer than any other MRCA contender.

[Austin]

On twin engine versus single engine debate there were some studies done which says that in peace time operation the twin engine increased the safety and reliability factor of fighter 3x - 4x times over single engine fighter and during war the twin engine provided additional safety and thrust net.

So IAF really has to decide what its need are on one end of the spectrum you have the lightest Gripen to the most expensive Rafale/Typhoon competing for the same piece of cake , the IAF has to take a blame for this as it is not sure what fighter class it is looking for.

If one argues in the past Mig cost of ownership were not that great , one can also argue that it did not cost much for GOI then to purchase these fighter , most of the time these were available on easy credit with chai,coffee and woodland shoes being bartered to buy these planes and on many occasions the 20 year credit was so lenient that they turned out to be toys gifted for free , compared to India purchasing Western Fighter with precious hard currency then.

If India is ready to buy stuff with hard currency than Russia too has improved its TCO on its weapon platform , What they offer with Mig-35 and what the actual deal is on the table is best decided by MOD/GOI/IAF since no one is privy to what each party has to offer.

If Mig-35 wins on its over all merits (i.e cost/effectiveness/offsets) to the satisfaction of IAF/GOI then why not ?

I think the argument that the MMRCA is the last opportunity to catch up with technological/industrial capability etc are all BS , every defence deal after MMRCA will be touted as the last big opportunity until we have the next big deal and next big opportunity for money to change hands and that too will be labeled as the last opportunity for Indian aerospace/defence industry to catch up irrespective if the industry manages to catch up or not.

IMO the best deal is what gives the most and what cost the lowest with the optimum cost effectiveness ratio , if this turns out to be F-16 great if its Mig-35 great , ideally this should be Govt to Govt deal to root out any corruption charges that will turn out within few months of deal getting sealed and can just turn out to be the breaker.

The argument that we need to spend the most to get the best as this is the last opportunity is the hype by people who wants to make the most out of this mother of all deals

[Singha]

the track record of the su30 over 15 yrs of hard flying in India bears out the twin engine = safer theory given other stuff like engines are well maintained and built to newer stds.

in the usaf, I believe F16 of similar vintage and engine has higher accident rates than F15?

[shukla]

Boeing Curries Favor in India

[Gaur]

Wait for the MKI upgrade, should be equivalent or better than the Su-35 imho.

CM

Cannot be. HAL is still in the process of absorbing Al-31FP tech. No way that we are going to upgrade the future batches of MKI with 117S. Without that, Su-35 would be a much better platform. But this is a discussion for another thread.

[Austin]

117S can never be plug and play upgrade on MKI because of larger dia of fan and consequently larger intake needed as seen on Su-35S.

I dont think IAF ever complained of thrust on MKI

[Cain Marko]

now, now, now CM this is a very unfair accusation ! its quite the opposite actually. the MoD/IAF know very well how much it actually costs to own and operate Russian fighters- and there is a big difference between simply purchasing up-front and owning and operating as well.
the difference is due to the design philosophy difference- that of when you design some part to fail at 500 hours on a western fighter which makes it costlier, whereas on Russian fighters they would've designed a similar part whose MTBF will be around 200-300 hours and will be that much cheaper to build and buy. you simply will have lower up-times as you need to keep repairing some or the other sub-system that fails early precisely because it was designed to be cheap and afforable up-front. now from an Indian perspective, its pertinent that they actually take into account both up-front purchase costs as well as the total cost of own since its our money that is being spent both up-front and over the total life-span of the aircraft.
and you are discounting the fact that western fighters have traditionally had life-time total technical lives that were nearly double or more than similar generation Russian fighters ? so while you'd end up paying double or more for acquisition, you also had a fighter you could use nearly twice as long. For instance, the Mirage-2000 at 6000 hours TTL is twice that of the MiG-29's original TTL, which got extended to 3500 hours after NAL did some fatigue testing. Hornets of the USN are being hoped to last as long as 8000 hours and F-15s are estimated to have 12000 hours TTL or so..its only now that the MiG-35 has overcome that with 6000 hours TTL. the MiG-29K's is somewhat lower AFAIK..

Kartik, not trying to be fair/unfair, just that I think the IAF is pushing for what it always wanted - a western type, like I said, I don't really blame them. I understand that russki birds are traditionally more expensive to operate/maintain; I am not arguing this, my point is that these differences have reduced over time, the current SU-35 for example is considerably better quality than a vanilla 80s flanker, ditto with the fulcrum. What this means is that the cost of life time ownership, which was a weakness for the russian bird seems to have been overcome, leaving little choice to refuse it on those grounds! This criterion, imho, was definitely put in place to level the playing field a bit in favor of the western birds (my guess no more).

Digression: As to the merit in designing an uber aircraft to last for 50 years, one could question such a philosophy considering that in 50 years the design would probly be obsolete. Funny irony though is that while we still see 50s designed and 80s manufactured MiG-21s slogging it, much of the western countries which came up with designs that emphasize longlasting quality at uber prices are already moving on to newer designs. France and the M2k is a nice example. Another irony, while 70s era western designs meant to last a lot longer (better fit/finish etc) are completely outclassed by later designs (eurocanards for example), russki designs still give the latest ecanards a run for their money! Strange stuff.

Back to topic: I am yet to see a cost analysis which actually shows that over the entire lifetime of the aircraft (including purchase costs, additional maintenance on russian birds etc), russian aircraft are more expensive to own. Can some knowledgeable person conjure up something? Hint/nudge Kartik/Negi saar.

In terms of the MRCA, perhaps the Gripen has a chance for all the reasons you point out, but here too I am not sure because in terms of total cost you have to take into consideration the set up of infrastructure for weapons/parts/aircraft that is pretty much already there for the fulcrum. From a v.simplistic viewpoint, the entire procurement cost of the 230 Su-30MKI equals around $ 8.5 billion. If you take a western equivalent, the procurement cost along with the kind of TOT that was made available would be greater by orders of magnitude. Now over a period of time, say 40 years, no aircraft, western or otherwise, will go without MLUs irrespective of whether the airframe needs life extension or not. Here again the cost of the western upgrade is considerably more even if the upgrade itself is not so dramatic. The M2k vs. Baaz upgrade is a case in point. So over a period of say 40 years, would the MKI be cheaper than the F-15? I'd say yes. 230 strike eagles or even Mirage 2000s or Tornadoes would've cost India a figure that is unimaginable. Then the cost of transfer of tech and inclusion of indian components (even if allowed by the US) etc, set up of an entirely new supply chain etc. Before you know it, it is the time to upgrade the bird so as to keep it current!

It can also be said that upfront costs are more critical because over time, the value of the upfront costs will certainly escalate. What is purchased for $ 10 billion today might be well worth 20 billion 15 years down the road. So the cost of a western bird purchased at $ 100 million or more might well be equivalent to $ 300 million in due time, proportionally the cost of a russian a/c purchased at $ 50 million will be only $ 150 million in the same time frame. Of course, I s'pose the bean counters will try to figure this in, but it makes upfront costs that much more difficult to bear.

you forgot to add the fact that the poor spares support for several years meant that it was a severe operational handicap. this was not some minor quibble. for all the crying over US sanctions, most people gloss over the pathetic product support that MiG gave, which made it lose a lot of goodwill that was built up in the IAF over decades of interaction and use of their products.

Didn't forget Kartik, I did include support in there. I agree that this situation left a real bad taste. But what has been the situation over the past 5-8 years? Have things improved? Current uptimes seem to be good. No reason why things shouldn't stay that way. Further, supply/spares issues were not restricted to russian equimpment as we all know, the Seakings and even today the Hawk have had some problems. At least the russians had some reason since the existence of the country itself was at stake; what excuse can england/bae come up with?

IN any case, comparison with US sanctions is quite unfair imho - one (or was it two? or three?) was a policy/deliberate decision (some would say a v.capricious, shortsighted one at that) which held India back for decades and now holds the whole world ransom; the other was borne out of a situation that the russians had little control over when their entire lifestyle turned upside down overnight.

they back-tracked on technology transfer guarantees on the MiG-21 upgrade. they deliberately went slow on ToT for the T-90 that ended up in more direct-supply purchases- don't for a minute believe that it was a coincidence that such a thing happened even after we'd paid to assemble 1000 T-90s in India itself. alright, lets assume that such a bad situation will never arise again,

Kartik, from what I gather TOT is never easy for any vendor, it is something that is not parted with too willingly, and there will always be haggling/reluctance here. The americans simply won't do it. The french will do it at a premium price but even here there are issues (scorpenes as well as the issue with missile technology which led pranab mukherjee to express great displeasure in france a few years back). Every vendor wants to make money on IP, and I doubt things would be any different with other countries. That such issues came with the russkis at a time when they were really hurting for $$s or when they were just finding their feet is hardly surprising. After some decidedly painful wrangling, things were/are sorted out.

but why would you want to give one nation complete control over 70% of your fighter fleet ? what strategic sense does it make ? why shouldn't you try and buy political goodwill in some other country when you're already buying billions of $ worth of arms from Russia already ? we've bought or are buying 45 MiG-29Ks from them, are upgrading our MiG-29s there, are buying into a partnership on our 5th generation fighter..pray tell me why should every single deal go to the Russians ? and if this doesn't and they raise a stink, then should we forever keep importing from them only or else face the consequences ?

No, you misunderstood me. I am not saying that they should buy the 35 from Russia, but that they have made some silly decisions that are leading them into a pickle. For instance, the Mirage 2000 purchase should have been a done deal, but they opened it up. When the whole purpose (in IAF viewpoint) is to procure a bloody western jet @ decent prices, why were the Russkis even allowed to compete? Even with the new DPP brought in by the MMS govt. why were the russians invited when it is amply clear that what they offer is not what is wanted? If they kept Sukhoi from entering the fray, they could've kept mikoyan out as well. Now, the russkis have responded and increasingly the technical/financial reasons for refusing what looks like a pretty competent russian bid, are withering away, on what grounds will they kick mig now? They have let the russian bear in the door and it will not be easy to shut it out.

These are some piss poor choices by those in power, when the refusal comes I doubt it will be based on technical evaluations, which means the russkis will be pissed. This of course, would require adequate compensation. Thats all. But then again, may be this is all part of a chankian plan, perhaps they know what they are doing and all will be well, we'll see. I am sure you'll excuse me if I have doubts though.

CM

[Cain Marko]

117S can never be plug and play upgrade on MKI because of larger dia of fan and consequently larger intake needed as seen on Su-35S.

I dont think IAF ever complained of thrust on MKI

MKI thrust is an enigma within an enigma (or is it engine!) Btw, I didn't know that the Su-35 had larger intakes, any source, pics?

Cannot be. HAL is still in the process of absorbing Al-31FP tech. No way that we are going to upgrade the future batches of MKI with 117S. Without that, Su-35 would be a much better platform. But this is a discussion for another thread.

Gaur, there are many paths that lead to the same goal it is said. If a higher thrust engine is deemed essential, there are ways to do it. But yes, as things stand, the 35 can supercruise while the MKI cannot.

CM.

[Cain Marko]

ok I won't discuss that issue. But what is amazing is that the F-15E is believed to have a TTL of 18,000 hours (!!) before the airframe life is finally exhausted and no more extension is possible. In cost terms, that is equal to 1 Su-30MKI airframe being exhausted of all TTL and being re-procured 2 more times to get 18,000 hours (i.e if the MKI is at 6000 hours). That alone adds up to $135 million in up-front procurement costs for 3 Su-30MKIs (approx. $ 45 million each) , which compares quite favourably with the F-15E that is believed to cost around $100 million each.

Don't understand this. The original F-15 was designed for 4000 hours. An MLU that cost about $ 3 billion will give it the extra lifespan you speak of taking it to a total of 16000 hours. Why is this not possible on the MKI? The MiG-29 was originally slated for 2500 hours as you point out, however, the IAF is about to add another 4000 via the SMT upgrade. Doesn't this make its TTL 6500 hours? Point is, how does this make cost of ownership more for the russian frames? Firstly, they seem to have the same amount of lifespan as their counterparts (possibly more) after upgrades and extension and the like of course. And their upgrades seem to cost a lot less. I mean $ 1 billion for 60 MiG-29s to get another 4000 hours on them sounds super bang for the buck. Even if the Mirage 2000 airframe does not really need an airframe extension, it still costs a bloody packet more. Its not like western aircraft go the whole hog (6000 hours) without any MLUs whatever. And when the time for MLU comes, they sink a pretty deep hole in the pocket.

CM

[Willy]

These are some piss poor choices by those in power, when the refusal comes I doubt it will be based on technical evaluations, which means the russkis will be pissed. This of course, would require adequate compensation. Thats all. But then again, may be this is all part of a chankian plan, perhaps they know what they are doing and all will be well, we'll see. I am sure you'll excuse me if I have doubts though.

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

I think the additional Mig-29K deal is to placate the Ruskies. Also some big civilian nuclear deal is going to be signed when Putin comes. So the Ruskies are being kept happy.

[RKumar]

Interesting comments

On February 19, 2010, at 10:05 PM, SamJack59 wrote: The price offered will be one of the key aspects but not the biggest. They've asked for a large amount of Transfer of Technology. However, the POTUS would prefer against transferring key technologies including but not limited to engine manufacture (Single Crystal Blades) as well as materials technology. Boeing by itself might offer a great price and back it up with excellent manufacturing methodologies. but will be hamstrung by the customers not signing the CISMOA or agreeing to accept similar terms to protect both our IP and potential use against US allies. GE will gain the most with the transfer of technology aspect since they are pretty much on the verge of winning the other 100 engine contract and will anyways set up a manufacturing facility in collaboration with the customer. The decision is therefore in the hands of the POTUS and not the Indians. Give them a price and let them have the damn birdies without too much pomp. We need Boeing to do keep doing better!

[shukla]

Interesting comments

However, the POTUS would prefer against transferring key technologies including but not limited to engine manufacture (Single Crystal Blades) as well as materials technology.

I've always thought that the LCA engine deal will be a good clue to find out how strongly the winds of change are blowing in US direction. EADS has offered TOT including (SCB). I think it would have a huge bearing and early pointers as to where the MMRCA deal is headed..I guess it would only make sense to have a common engine on the LCA & MMRCA from a logistics and maintenance point of view..

[Philip]

I posted a few eeks ago details of a conversation I had with a former VCoAS,reg. the MMRCA deal,where his preference was for a "twin-engined" aircraft because of the Indian environment,where birdstrikes were the cause of many crashes."The pilot would have to eject" if there was engine trouble he said.Thisfactor,apart from poor indigenous quality (check the excellent book on the IAF's Flankers,there's a pic showing both a Russian and Indian built 30MKI.The Indian built fighter unlike its Russian counterpart showed its peeling paint on the tailfins,an acknowledged problem),cheap spares (bought after the SU collapsed from diverse sources),etc.The two recent crashes of a MIG-27 and MIG-21 could've perhaps been averted if the aircraft were both twin-engined.In the Flanker book,there is a pic showing one TVC engine nozzle in a psition indicating that it had been shut down due to engine trouble.

Therefore,my preference would be first for a twin-engined fighter for the MMRCA deal primarily because of this key factor.There is one relevant question though that the MOD must ask the IAF.If TOT .foreign tech is the need of the hour,why do we then need to buy an expensive aircraft for the same purpose?Why not instead buy the best key components were we are sorely lacking in expertise,like engine tech offered,with a plan to design and develop jointly a wide range of aero-engines for all aircraft right from turboprops,IJTs upto engines for heavweight fighters.This way we would have acquired the capability of designing and building at home the whole range of contemporary engines.The same could be done for AESA radaras,avionics,weaponry,etc.In fact,we are doing just that for the LCA! So the entire issue of "TOT" and the opportunity for "western tech" should be re-examined,as the same could easily be obtained in the LCA project itself.

The MMRCA contest could then keep as its main aim getting an aircraft that meets all the IAF's peformance parameters at reasonable cost, which also comes "without any political strings",which would place us in an acute crisis should we be at war with Pak or China in the future.

[nrshah]

CM/Austin...

I could not have written better... However just to summarise

1 - Please not compare cost of single engine fighter with twin engine
Reason - IAF goofed up... It is not sure of its requirements.....

Compare twin engine fighter with another twin engine fighter - MIG 35/ F 18/ Rafale and Typhoon

If we compare cost, also compare benefits in terms on increased safety - around 3/4 time especially in India

2 - Just saying Life cycle cost of western fighter is better because life frame has more hours of life is not done
Reason - no matter the life of airframe, aircraft has to go for MLU to retain their cutting edge

Thus cost of update is crucial -Example- cost of Mig 29 upgrade is less 960mn USD against over 2bn USD for Mirage

Operating cost of Russians is significantly better than before

By that logic MIg 21 has the best airframe..... F15E with 18K hours of life may not see an active service for 5 decades but Mig 21 with less than 3000 hour has seen

3 - Initial cost is not better representative - life cost is important... Ok only for countries having huge budget
While above is ok for countries having huge budget, a budget constraint countries does think in the terms of initial cost
In case of India, Our economy is estimated to grow by 8-9% for atleast next 1/2 decades. Our DM recent statement that defense allocation will grow in proportion to same will only mean by next two decade our defense budget will increase to over 100 bn USD. This will allow us to bear some what higher operating cost... But currently since budget is limited, acquisition cost is more crucial.

4 - Sanctions are not same as inadequate support during 1990's
While sanctions are deliberate, it was poor economy and other factors out of control of even government of russia
which resulted in poor spares. Even RuAF suffered from these. It was not a unique thing for us.

We cannot have friends for good. When they are thier best, we are ok.. but if they have some issues, we quit them saying inadequate support???

With growth in russian economy, the same is not the case......

In kargil, countries like Israel and Russia supplied parts out of their own stock... we fear and all know even if dont admit, had those equipments be American origin, forget spares of USAF/USN stock, in transit spares would have been diverted

While we can fight with presumed low quality equipments of Russian origin, we dont want to buy so called fancy high tec stuff that comes with lot of strings and agreements (both restrictive and Intrusive) with constant fear that some bug will make missile not able to be launched during crucial times

5 - We are cursing Russian technology transfer for its poor execution. We curse because we did not get any contract of TOT from US/EU... And now when we have some we are only witnessing their execution is not better.. example scorpenes and Hawk

6- One F 15E (100 Mn USD) has life time of 18K hours which is equal to 3 MKI (135 Mn USD) is not the correct way of assessing things. At the time of war with PRC, 3 MKi will be helpful rather than 1 F 15E.

7 - Should we make 70% of our fighter fleet dependent on one nation (read Russia)... If we look around, we find air force of nations like Israel, South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Australia and Japan that are more than 95% dependent on US or rather 100%.... Thus, it seems we can.. Depends upon the partner whom we want to depend on and level of blackmail he is expected to exercise... Since last 4 decades our experience with Russians have been very good. They have helped us in times of crisis... They ward off the threat of 7th Fleet in 1971, exercised Veto multiple times to save us from US sponsored politics, have given us defense equipments on terms no body could thought of to be paid over multiple decades and in INR (Austin dada, u forget INR), are leasing us nuke submarine, help us building our SSBN and above all freedom to use them in our national interest. We never went back to them seeking permission for use of Mig 29 or mig 27 or any other during Kargil or any other time.

[Philip]

(cont. above post)...or like the Chinese reversed engineered without permission all manner of aircraft,engines,subs and missiles!

[nitinm]

All said.....when a Su-30MKI costs about $40m, why are we buying aircrafts that are less potent for twice the price? Isn't it primarily for AESA radar and some other critical technologies?

I think the choice between the single engine/light aircrafts (Gripen, F-16) and the rest will depend on the IAFs outlook of the Tejas LCA. I think the LCA is now looking good, especially the Mk-II. If that be the case, doesn't make sense to buy Gripen or the F-16! When the tender was floated, the case was completely different. That time the IAF wanted a hedge against the complete failure of the project.

The other thing is, if the rest of the aircrafts are going to cost 2x of what a MKI costs, then again there is a problem! I think the price of these aircraft has exceeded what was expected by IAF. The tender was floated under very different circumstances, lot has changed since. The IAF has quietly ordered more MKIs to take the total to 280 by 2015. The Mid-Life upgrade is going to add a AESA radar, stealth skin and a more powerful engine to an already amazing platform.

In my view, now the deal is primarily about getting the engine & AESA technology. The question is, at what cost? If the price doesn't work out, rather than make a disappointment about cancelling the deal, GoI/IAF is probably just going to let it die out. Use the potential deal as a carrot for some favors on other deals and to exert international influence.

If you have noticed, the MoD also approved the deal with Snecma to further develop the Kaveri engine. If it was going to depend on the MCRA get the engine for Tejas, it wouldn't have done so! Probably the winds are changing.....more indigenization.....less MRCA!

I would personally think it makes a hell lot of sense to buy 120 more MKIs over and above the planned 280. Meanwhile keep working with a partner to get a new AESA radar technology (maybe Israel), develop Kaveri engine with Snecma and expedite the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA)!

[Mihir.D]

The best solution to this whole MRCA farce is go make a single seat MKI and dump all the western equipment we can get our hands on irrespective of whether it comes from UK,France or US.
Order another 150 MKI tilll 2015 and start inducting the PAK-FA.

Please don't bash me , I am just another newbie

[Dmurphy]

Please don't bash me , I am just another newbie

OK.
But for the 100000th time, MRCA is not just about more numbers!

[NRao]

Thisfactor,apart from poor indigenous quality (check the excellent book on the IAF's Flankers,there's a pic showing both a Russian and Indian built 30MKI.The Indian built fighter unlike its Russian counterpart showed its peeling paint on the tailfins,an acknowledged problem),cheap spares (bought after the SU collapsed from diverse sources),etc.The two recent crashes of a MIG-27 and MIG-21 could've perhaps been averted if the aircraft were both twin-engined.In the Flanker book,there is a pic showing one TVC engine nozzle in a psition indicating that it had been shut down due to engine trouble.

Therefore,my preference would be first for a twin-engined fighter for the MMRCA deal primarily because of this key factor.

That should wipe out the MiG-35 in that case. MiG is "collapsed" anyways.

What am I missing here? Why is a MiG in the race at all? ?????????????????????

All said.....when a Su-30MKI costs about $40m, why are we buying aircrafts that are less potent for twice the price? Isn't it primarily for AESA radar and some other critical technologies?

................................................................................

I would personally think it makes a hell lot of sense to buy 120 more MKIs over and above the planned 280. Meanwhile keep working with a partner to get a new AESA radar technology (maybe Israel), develop Kaveri engine with Snecma and expedite the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA)!

Old news: Oct, 2009 :: No Good Choices for the Indian Air Force

Whatever the IAF’s reasons for wanting a new aircraft, the government means to use the deal to make international political capital, gain leverage in bilateral relations, and cement a strategic partnership.

MMS has said so, trying to find a link to it.

[nitinm]

The best solution to this whole MRCA farce is go make a single seat MKI .....

I think that is an excellent idea! A single-seat fighter with added payload capacity would be great!

[karan_mc]

Single seat MKI was proposed by Russia long time ago when search for MMRCA had just begun ,i think Russian even had proposed a single seater ,single engine aircraft if funded by india to be designed by mig or sukhoi i don't remember much or it was just a theory ??, i am pretty sure MMRCA is all about Numbers now there is nothing new other then AESA which this aircraft's will bring that will be superior to Mig-29k or MKI , i was always in favor of more MKI or Air force version of mig29k aka 35

[Surya]

As I look at the Naval Mig 29Ks for a moment the emotional side of loving the Migs takes over before I have to remind myself of the risks of the supply chain.
Also looking at the 29s sitting on land - a stark reminder of thecrap we had to deal with on the Gorshkov


Sigh

[nitinm]

Old news: Oct, 2009 :: No Good Choices for the Indian Air Force

You are right....old though, I just came to the conclusion independently! I also mentioned some of the things in this link in my previous post about geo-politics!

Anyways, I think Karnad's criticism about UAVs is not fair. It takes many advanced technologies to make a successful UAV and they cannot be learned independent of actually building a current generation manned aircraft.

Also, missiles are no replacement to fighters. If that be the case, the current military aviation technological landscape would have been very different. The current frontier of technology for Indian Air Force clearly is space/UAV based surveillance and network centric warfare. We have the fire power!

On the other side because of India's lack of civil aviation sector there are major challenges procuring force multiplier aircrafts like aerial re-fueler, AWACS, etc. Without a major fundamental research base, India is struggling with sensing technologies of all types (radars, synthetic aperture, etc). The rest is looking good!

there is nothing new other then AESA which this aircraft's will bring that will be superior to Mig-29k or MKI

I think we are undermining what AESA means! In BVR warfare, this is what will determine who will get shot down! AESA has changed the paradigm completely! Also, the number of applications this technology has is incredible, India needs the ToT for other application! It would happily pay $1-2bn for the AESA radar technology!

Like Surya also pointed out, you can't depend on ANYONE! The waters of International politics are full of dangers! You need all the technology inhouse, especially for a country of India's size and ambition. One that does now want to "ally" with anyone!

[Austin]

MKI thrust is an enigma within an enigma (or is it engine!)

There is no enigma or any thing of that sort , AL-31FP has a thrust rating of 12.5 T and in emergency mode you can take it higher thrust for short burst.

That needless enigma is create by GJ guy because MKI is like his first love

I remember for few years we had this enigma of MKI having rear facing radar .....

Btw, I didn't know that the Su-35 had larger intakes, any source, pics?

Yes check this link

The aircraft's engines have also been improved to the 117S and the air intakes are enlarged.

and this

It features a fan 3% larger in diameter (932 mm versus 905 mm) pics

Bottom line is there is no plug and play replacement for 117S engine on MKI/MKK/MKM.... legacy fighters types one needs to at the least change to larger intake.