MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 03 May 2010 19:15

shukla wrote:Could this be the game changer for the Rafale??

UAE May Fund Next-Gen Rafale

Privately, French Air Force officials worry about taking in the 2000-9, which will mean operating and supporting a mixed fleet when the Rafale was intended to replace seven different types of aircraft in the Air Force and Navy.


How about French offering all of these 2000-9 to IAF for free if we buy 126 Rafales (with upgraded engines funded by UAE and other things). The downside is Thales will make the price much more higher as they'll have to pay Royalty to UAE for uprated engines etc.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 03 May 2010 19:16

bhavik wrote:
Pratyush wrote:CT time guys,


A little bird tells me that the MMRAC competition is just a cover for the framing of GSQR for and Tejas MK 2 and the proposed AMCA/ FGCA.

Why you ask??


Because it allows the Indian Mil Industrial complex a good hard long look at what is relative state of the art in the Combat aviation today. How the same can evolve in the future etc.

Else how do you explain the presence of “Light Grippen ”

CT time off

Back to lurking.


This is exactly what happened to Arjun.
Should'nt IAF start replacing Mig21's with tejas with huge orders by now. Mk2 upgrade can happen later like Jag/Mig29/Mirage Upgrades....?

Aapke muh mein Ghee Shakkar!!! :D

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 03 May 2010 19:58

This is exactly what happened to Arjun.
Should'nt IAF start replacing Mig21's with tejas with huge orders by now. Mk2 upgrade can happen later like Jag/Mig29/Mirage Upgrades....?[/quote]
Aapke muh mein Ghee Shakkar!!! :D[/quote]


I agree.... IAF should start replacing Mig21 with Tejas....

Why are they not doing? Is Tejas not capable as compared to Mig21?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 03 May 2010 20:20

Check LCA thread.

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby bhavik » 03 May 2010 20:30

NRao wrote:The MKII, it seems, will require some modifications (to accommodate the new engine). Making structural changes to a used frame does not seem to be a good idea - from a structural PoV - it may be great from an "order", "keep the line moving", etc PoV.

(Note that with a larger engine there will other things that change: radar, cooling capabilities, etc. So we could expect the MKII to be a totally different animal with the same skin.)

Next is there a fear that the LCA would be killed for good? I cannot think of another reason to be in a haste to bring LCAs en-mass. For, the LCA components seem to be gaining more value than the LCA itself (as we post).


Do we know for sure that structural changes are required?
Also what all in planned in Mk2? Leaving apart engine ?
I guess 100 odd LCA's MK1 engine are still better choice than mig21 defending our border.

If product specs change what can be done to what has been built already.
e.g in 2004 who thought of a new engine and Mk2?
Why could not IAF see that they would have needed a better engine?
IAF acting like kid spoit for choices ...
Like for PAKFA .. it will fund and wait few more years for 2 seaters PAKFA rather than single seaters.

I am sure one day will come
LCA MK3 = MCA MK1

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 03 May 2010 22:04

Shatack wrote:well novegians, dutch and even swedish are such messy when evaluating fighters, no? that they not buy the plane for their own AF!

south african use the gripen NG? anyway they got so few gripens they have lot space of time to shines them , missing so much operational theater! lol

Jesus christ. I thought I told you to read up on the subject before opening your mouth on this again, what is it that you don't understand?

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Igorr » 04 May 2010 02:09

Some news about MiG-35, translated from ''Take-Off' journal.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 04 May 2010 02:29


The latest AW&ST mag has some good details on the MiG-35 weapons trials in Russia in April (thanks Austin) by Maxim Padyushkin. They have, for the first time, demonstrated the test firing of a R-77 (RVV-AE) guided with target updates from the Zhuk-AE. They also demonstrated the use of the TV-guided KAB-500 bombs with target data being provided by the Zhuk-AE. The Russians demonstrated this to an IAF team which was present during the demos. And the R-77 being offered for the MRCA competition is the RVV-SD, the newer version of the R-77, with longer range of 110 km and heavier by 30 kgs or so. I'd expect the same for the K-74 as well.

As it turns out, Bort 961 is a single seater and Bort 967 is a twin seater and these two prototypes participated in the trials. A total of 18 sorties were undertaken during the weapons trials. The report didn't explicitly state it but what I could understand from it was that they still haven't brought out the production standard Zhuk-AE and are making do with the 684 T/R module Zhuk-AE version. The target detection range for this version of Zhuk-AE is quoted at 130 km max and they expect it to go up to 180 km for the full-size Zhuk-AE.

They also demonstrated radar bench-tests to show its integration with other air-launched weaponry to the IAF.

And another point that will drive discussions on BRF for a while- they have officially offered the complete ToT for AESA technology used on the Zhuk-AE and have offered it (or possibly a variant) for the LCA Mk2.


Now, this brings me to the Gripen NG. the Selex-Ericcson Raven ES-05A radar on the Gripen NG is still in development and hasn't yet been used to test fire any weapon..I'm not sure if they've even integrated any weapon as yet (i.e. if it requires re-integration since the back-end of the ES-05A and the PS-05A are reportedly quite similar and they will share somewhat similar algorithms. Radar experts could shed some light on this). I wonder if Saab will demonstrate weapons firing with a Gripen D and demonstrate radar bench tests for the ES-05A to show its anticipated performance specs.

Another article in AW&ST by Neelam Matthew deals with the delays in the MRCA contest that have led to expiring of the bids and the re-bidding that was invited. The article clearly mentions that when contacted, IAF officers involved with the evaluation have made it clear that they are only concerned with aircraft performance. Cost is not their concern as it will be dealt with by those above them (politicians, babus). So, in the final analysis, when a list of the top 3 finalists is provided to the GoI, the IAF may indeed only choose the top performing aircraft, ignoring their costs and other criteria like sanctionability, ToT, etc. That indicates that these factors are not on their evaluation matrix and they are sticking to it but at the same time giving leeway to candidates when required (like Saab with the Gripen NG demonstrator). They will draw a shortlist of top 3 that will meet their requirements and then they'll leave it to the GoI to decide and negotiate with the chosen ones to select the final winner.

What makes it interesting is that this may well pave the way for the top 3 most expensive fighters (Typhoon, Rafale and SHornet) to qualify for the final list, provided they do happen to display the best performance of the candidates. If the cheaper candidates (MiG-35, F-16IN and Gripen IN) don't match the performance of the top 3 expensive ones, then they will likely not stand a chance..

And since the currency rates will be frozen on the date that all bids are recieved, the US firms are getting jittery as the USD has been growing stronger on the back of the recent EU economic crises (Greece, Portugal, etc.) and the resulting fall in the Euro. This will mean that the EU bids will be more competitive than they were say, a year ago.

Now please don't come up with conspiracy theories about the re-bidding having been done deliberately to make the EU nations more competitive. I doubt that any bright spark in the MoD or IAF could've seen the EU economic crises coming last year when they were setting up the trial schedules for the Typhoon and Gripen in early April and mid-April respectively. The reason I say that please don't discuss that aspect is because BRF is rife with very little technical and too much of this type of debates and this has led to a dumbing down of this forum to a great degree.

narayana
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 12:01

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby narayana » 04 May 2010 09:44

UAE may fund Rafale NG (Next Generation) fighter aircraft

If this is going to happen, PAF will get their hands on it for sure,it would be better to select EF for MRCA,and partner with them on tranche 3.

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 04 May 2010 10:11

Come on man, do you really think Pak can afford enough Rafales to pose a threat? :D

narayana
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 12:01

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby narayana » 04 May 2010 12:29

Carl_T wrote:Come on man, do you really think Pak can afford enough Rafales to pose a threat? :D

They cant afford even a square meal,but they are known for the tactics to squeeze what they need,they were allowed to smell what f-16 block 60's are, so we cant rule out possibility of the Rafales in PAF either as freebie or at a throw away cost.

Dont forget the brotherhood

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby bhavik » 04 May 2010 13:03

narayana wrote:
Carl_T wrote:Come on man, do you really think Pak can afford enough Rafales to pose a threat? :D

They cant afford even a square meal,but they are known for the tactics to squeeze what they need,they were allowed to smell what f-16 block 60's are, so we cant rule out possibility of the Rafales in PAF either as freebie or at a throw away cost.

Dont forget the brotherhood


Also don''t forget they are perennial beggaristanis with donors like chinis and unkill.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 May 2010 13:45

Tx guys for the AWST updates about the MMRCA race.Yes,it is just as an ex-AM said,that the IAF would offer the GOI a choice of suitable aircraft with their comments,plus and minus points of each and leave it to them to decide,of course in "consultations" (!).The final decision will be political,but price will be a key factor too,judging from earlier Congress attitudes,when the Scorpene deal was being signed,PC objected to the extra costs.There is no way that Pranab either will agree to buy the most expensive of the lot if there are huge differences from other contenders.

Ravishankar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 30 Aug 2008 16:32

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Ravishankar » 04 May 2010 14:05

No delay in fighter jet tender process: IAF chief

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 421357.ece

sunnyv
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 25 Feb 2010 15:38
Location: INDIA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby sunnyv » 04 May 2010 14:13

@ Kartik

We had a article covering the Report about flight performance of aircrafts ,
As per article - officer in charge told that "There is no extra point for demonstrating extra features, when we are evaluating an aircraft we only look for our req and whether aircraft can demonstrate that , if it does then a tick is put for that criteria . If a particular aircraft has anything special it dosen't count."

Now my Question is -As per your post only top3 performing aircrafts will make it to final three and less capable will be eliminated , but if all are equal in as per req of IAF asked ,how list will be generated .
Bcoz cost and Geo-politics strategic benefits are domain of MoD not IAF , and ministry will decide that .
It would be difficult for IAF to decide whom to leave and whom to carry, if a 60mill plane gives what you need similar to what 90mill is also giving , how can IAF be unbiased towards additional feature like Supercruise ,TVC ,Ga-Ni chips etc.

Regards

avinash.rd
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 25 Aug 2009 11:56

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby avinash.rd » 04 May 2010 15:05

sunnyv wrote:@ Kartik

We had a article covering the Report about flight performance of aircrafts ,
As per article - officer in charge told that "There is no extra point for demonstrating extra features, when we are evaluating an aircraft we only look for our req and whether aircraft can demonstrate that , if it does then a tick is put for that criteria . If a particular aircraft has anything special it dosen't count."

Now my Question is -As per your post only top3 performing aircrafts will make it to final three and less capable will be eliminated , but if all are equal in as per req of IAF asked ,how list will be generated .
Bcoz cost and Geo-politics strategic benefits are domain of MoD not IAF , and ministry will decide that .
It would be difficult for IAF to decide whom to leave and whom to carry, if a 60mill plane gives what you need similar to what 90mill is also giving , how can IAF be unbiased towards additional feature like Supercruise ,TVC ,Ga-Ni chips etc.

Regards


I believe the company which will make a lowest bid out of the 4 finalists will win. I believe there will be 4 not 3 finalists as per old articles. The finalists will be determined by keeping the most important requirement in mind - the TOT transfer.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 May 2010 16:27

"UAE going to fund future Rafale upgrade",How? By India paying for its old MIrages?!!!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 May 2010 17:22

narayana wrote:UAE may fund Rafale NG (Next Generation) fighter aircraft

If this is going to happen, PAF will get their hands on it for sure,it would be better to select EF for MRCA,and partner with them on tranche 3.


[[ First: IMVVHO, idrw needs to provide links when it cuts-pastes entire articles!!! As in this case: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=CVS ]]

On PAF, I am posting in 2010. By 2040ish the Indian economy is supposed to be bigger than that of the US and second only to the Chinese!!!!!! Even if it is not THAT large, I think it is time we learn to live without the hyphen. It is high time that Indian "netas" (!!!! who? :roll: ) learn to throw their weight around. By the time the IAF gets these puppies India should have enough leverage. Why this ancient, previous life fear?

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby bhavik » 04 May 2010 17:31

NRao wrote:
narayana wrote:UAE may fund Rafale NG (Next Generation) fighter aircraft

If this is going to happen, PAF will get their hands on it for sure,it would be better to select EF for MRCA,and partner with them on tranche 3.


[[ First: IMVVHO, idrw needs to provide links when it cuts-pastes entire articles!!! As in this case: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=CVS ]]

On PAF, I am posting in 2010. By 2040ish the Indian economy is supposed to be bigger than that of the US and second only to the Chinese!!!!!! Even if it is not THAT large, I think it is time we learn to live without the hyphen. It is high time that Indian "netas" (!!!! who? :roll: ) learn to throw their weight around. By the time the IAF gets these puppies India should have enough leverage. Why this ancient, previous life fear?


Only if PAF and their Chinibhais let India live peacefully till 2040.

Only weight our current silly netas have is around their fat bellies. I doubt they would be throwing around much of it.
I guess only strong leader we last had after sardar patel and lal bahadur was indira gandhi. Indian Economy was zero and even basic foodgrains like wheat were imported. Still we had triumph in 71.

Instead of hoping economy will give us power automatically our actual policy should be
Prepare for worse, Hope for the best. AND Never underestimate your opponents.

MadhuG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 27 Dec 2009 15:36

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby MadhuG » 04 May 2010 20:16

NRao wrote:IAF to start airfield modernisation soon

The project includes supply, testing, integration and sustenance of the Instrument Landing System (ILS), the Distance Measurement Equipment, the Tactical Air Navigation System, the Air Traffic Management System, and the CAT-2 Airfield Lighting System.


This project is meant for the C-130Js and M/MRCAs. Perhaps it would be nice to follow this project - it may provide clues as to which AC is selected.

Very true, N Rao. Could it also be a hint that the Gripen is not among the leading contenders?

I wish Dassault and SAAB could combine to build a new AC in future. Cutting edge and affordability all in one package. Could give EADS a run for their Euros.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 05 May 2010 01:15

sunnyv wrote:@ Kartik

We had a article covering the Report about flight performance of aircrafts ,
As per article - officer in charge told that "There is no extra point for demonstrating extra features, when we are evaluating an aircraft we only look for our req and whether aircraft can demonstrate that , if it does then a tick is put for that criteria . If a particular aircraft has anything special it dosen't count."

Now my Question is -As per your post only top3 performing aircrafts will make it to final three and less capable will be eliminated , but if all are equal in as per req of IAF asked ,how list will be generated .
Bcoz cost and Geo-politics strategic benefits are domain of MoD not IAF , and ministry will decide that .
It would be difficult for IAF to decide whom to leave and whom to carry, if a 60mill plane gives what you need similar to what 90mill is also giving , how can IAF be unbiased towards additional feature like Supercruise ,TVC ,Ga-Ni chips etc.

I believe that the Eurofighter Typhoon top execs' interviews have clarified that aspect a bit. They made it clear that they were worried that if the IAF was simply going to tick boxes and not look into the additional performance aspect of each contender, then each and every one of the MRCA candidates would clear. The reason being that (as one industry exec put it) the requirements are not that stringent and all of the candidates would comfortably pass them during the flight trials. They all have already cleared the technical rounds. And obviously, being the most expensive of the lot but also providing (probably) the best pure performance and potential than all the rest, EADS were keen to see that additional points or weight was allocated for exceeding the requirements.

The IAF has clarified to EADS that additional performance will be taken into account and its not just a matter of ticking boxes based on minimal performance goals being met. the EADS chief said so during interviews.

I'm guessing that weightage is given to each factor and the IAF will have an equation or a formula (similar to how the USAF evaluates its tanker contest) that takes into account this weightage. And a final score for each contender is taken at the end which will decide who goes into the final lists.
The US Tanker requirement had a set of mandatory requirements and non-mandatory requirements. If the candidates met the mandatory requirements, then a price check was done and whichever was cheaper would win. If prices were equal, then non-mandatory requirements would be checked and the USAF would be willing to pay 1% of the overall value of the contract more for the aircraft that exceeds the baseline performance.

I'm not saying that the IAF has adopted the same practice, but it’s a good barometer of how an evaluation may be conducted. The IAF may have changed their evaluation to also include non-mandatory requirements into their total score formula- only those who are familiar with the evaluation process will know. For instance, the IAF may say that
-take off from x feet with y payload at z altitude and z1 temperature is a mandatory requirement and anyone who meets the requirement gets a tick and a score
-however, if you can also take off from (x-50) feet with the same y payload at z altitude and z1 temp then you get an additional score that will eventually add up in the formula.

There is a good reason for the above requirement - in a war situation, a cratered runway may still be available and the ability to take off from a really short runway is a major benefit in a war time situation. so the IAF may confer additional points for such capability. Similarly, they may set such requirements for avionics, radar, flight performance, maintenance requirements and so on. And one can also see that some other practices may eventually filter in as well, which were not originally mandated- for instance the recent "hot refuelling" of the Gripen. It shows the IAF that here is an aircraft that in a war can maintain a sortie rate that will easily surpass any of the other fighters. Obviously it’s a huge advantage because with good serviceability and very low turn-around times alongwith hot refuelling ability, you have a fighter that automatically becomes a force multiplier..fewer airframes can maintain a non-stop CAP or QRA.

Anyway, this is a complex process and it is difficult to say who is a favourite and who isn't.
Unfortunately, we haven't had any journalists taking a good long look at the evaluations and the process. Vishnu Som would be the ideal journo to take it up or maybe Pushpinder Singh Chopra in Vayu Aerospace since they have good industry and defence contacts..sometimes I wish I was a journo and had that many connections. My gripe is that for such a huge and important deal, there is still not so much clarity on the exact process of evaluation. There is plenty at stake and many new processes that are going to be put to the test and yet there is very little spotlight on them (such as DPP 2009 and DPP 2010).

When one reads AW&ST or Flight International one would be amazed at how much details (and technical as well as business information) are available on much much smaller deals or programs due to the very advanced nature of their journalism as well as the spread of their aerospace industry. Those who talk about aviation there have more than just a basic idea of aerospace matters. Not so in India. Most desi journos seem to prefer sensationalism (maybe because it takes a lot less effort and brains) but few ever delve into the details that really matter. Maybe its because they don't understand the subject matter (just as I would make a hopeless journo if I wrote about software) or maybe they don't want to invest that much effort because our aerospace industry is very limited and the circulation of pure aerospace or defence magazines is extremely small for the size of India..and maybe its also because of the secretiveness of our military and bureaucracy. I hope things improve as blogs like livefist, tarmak007 take root and grow. I have always hoped that BRF itself would grow into a defence magazine as well, kind of like Vayu..easier said than done though and would require tremendous dedicated efforts.

Which brings me to another of my perennial gripes- the general dumbing down of BRF discussion levels. It apalls me when some numbskulls on this forum talk nonsense about "knowing" that a particular fighter will win regardless of the complexity of this process just because he likes the US or Russia. IMO, the average posts on BRF nowadays are on a level that a child in 10th grade would write. All they seem to understand is a bit of strategy that anyone can pick up and they feel that having a large post count matters. What matters is the quality of their posts. Where is the industry experience seen on BRF that would lend the kind of posts that actually deal with real-world issues instead of fantasizing about a particular strategic relationship or having nightmares about another ? Which is why every time I meet or see someone remotely associated with Indian industry and armed forces I ask them to visit BRF and hope that they become regulars. I guess that just doesn't work. Just look at BRF archives from 3-4 years ago and see the level of discussion that went on then. If you didn't know something you didn't open your mouth lest you end up looking like a fool. I lurked on BRF for 3 years from 1999 when I finished 12th to 2003 when I graduated and only in 2004 even registered because I thought I could contribute.

Anyway, this post isn't going anywhere. Sorry for going so OT.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6210
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 05 May 2010 01:28

Kartik wrote:
Which brings me to another of my perennial gripes- the general dumbing down of BRF discussion levels. It apalls me when some numbskulls on this forum talk nonsense about "knowing" that a particular fighter will win regardless of the complexity of this process just because he likes the US or Russia. IMO, the average posts on BRF nowadays are on a level that a child in 10th grade would write. All they seem to understand is a bit of strategy that anyone can pick up and they feel that having a large post count matters. What matters is the quality of their posts. Where is the industry experience seen on BRF that would lend the kind of posts that actually deal with real-world issues instead of fantasizing about a particular strategic relationship or having nightmares about another ? Which is why every time I meet or see someone remotely associated with Indian industry and armed forces I ask them to visit BRF and hope that they become regulars. I guess that just doesn't work. Just look at BRF archives from 3-4 years ago and see the level of discussion that went on then. If you didn't know something you didn't open your mouth lest you end up looking like a fool. I lurked on BRF for 3 years from 1999 when I finished 12th to 2003 when I graduated and only in 2004 even registered because I thought I could contribute.

Anyway, this post isn't going anywhere. Sorry for going so OT.


I guess the loss of gurus like JCage, Arun_S and more recently n^3, etc. has contributed to this. But I don't think it can really be helped.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 05 May 2010 02:14

nachiket wrote:
I guess the loss of gurus like JCage, Arun_S and more recently n^3, etc. has contributed to this. But I don't think it can really be helped.


yes its been a huge loss. Harry (very unfortunate), George J (doesn't post any longer), JC, Arun_S..Dilip is very quiet..there were a few guys who knew what they were talking about like Siva, a guy who was at ADA and then went to the US to study and stopped coming to BRF..nowadays the signal to noise ratio on BRF is very low. need to sift through posts upon posts to find something worthwhile.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Hitesh » 05 May 2010 02:49

I really don't understand why EuroTyphoon is part of the competition because it directly competes with the MKI programme and we all know how excellent the MKIs are.

Besides if you are going to spend 11 billion dollars for 126 this is a long term plan not an intermediary plan. Thus I would up the order from 126 to 250 and replace the decreasing number of combat squadrons that IAF has available. Based on that number, I would select a plan that would replace IAF's MiG 23s, Jaguars, and Mirages which are deep interdiction strike planes and ground attack strike planes.

Based on that, IAF should either select F-18s SuperHornets (two engine) or Gripen (one engine and its low price would mean that IAF would have a much easier time increasing the number from 126 to 250). EuroTyphoons share too many similarities with MKIs that it would not make sense to buy Typhoons but more MKIs and customize them to have air to ground attack roles additionally to its air to air combat roles and besides the Typhoons are too expensive. It would be far more effective and cheaper to buy more MKIs.

Rafale has longer range but its AESA has not been developed yet and not demonstrated the seamless integration that F-18s display, and it is too expensive.

Gripen does it all but as a poor man's substitute and a good one at that.

F-16s - forget it. Old airframe model and little growth. It is the little boy who could on steroids.

MiG-35s- IAF has shown that it wants to get rid of its dependence on Russian platforms (the incident with the great difficulty of procuring spares for MiG-29s that it practically led to an effective grounding of the MiG-29 fleet until spares could be procured comes to mind) so that is a big negative. I really don't see a positive side to the logistics issue because MiG-35s are basically new models and airframes and will share little in common with IAF's MiG-29s and thus logistics will be different anyway.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 571
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nrshah » 05 May 2010 09:39

No delay in fighter jet tender process: IAF chief http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article421357.ece

...To a query on the American Defence Security Cooperation Agency notifying the Congress on the possible sale of 10 Boeing C-17 transport aircraft to India through the Foreign Military Sales route, Air Chief Marshal Naik said the IAF expects the U.S. to send a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) soon.

“They will send us a letter of LOA from their side and the progress will continue. We expect it shortly,” he said....


I hope some one would have questioned them on priority of the following viz a viz C 17 Transport aircraft...
1 - Refueler aircrafts (And the rationale for canceling the proposal when we are ok for this utter expensive purchase)
2 - Selection of Tejas MK2 Engine (it was to be completed by March)

Had it be been in some one from MOD, we could have also asked for Artillery guns, All weather fighting capabilities of our tanks, submarines, inadequate radar coverage, obsolete SAM etc...Hope one of the journalist ask to concerned official.. i want so see their explanation

Sorry for OT

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 05 May 2010 14:48

MadhuG wrote:Very true, N Rao. Could it also be a hint that the Gripen is not among the leading contenders?

Why, and what do you base that on? From what I could make out of the article, it's just a normal modernization. A CAT-upgrade i.e is to help out landings in bad weather. Any aircraft chosen for the MMRCA benefits from field upgrades.

I wish Dassault and SAAB could combine to build a new AC in future. Cutting edge and affordability all in one package. Could give EADS a run for their Euros.

Since they're already cooperating on the nEURON project I expect to see more cooperation between SAAB and Dassault in the future. This is beneficial for both and will soon become a must to keep costs down, I have trouble seeing France make a plane like the F-35 or the F-22 on it's own.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 05 May 2010 16:01

Kartik,I've been advocating for years that we BR) should get registered as a mag,then many doors will open to us as it does for the free press and we will have better access to institutions,etc.At least a BR "Annual" should come out.We see a few thick "annuals" on Indian Defence,costing around Rs.500-750/- each year,which are very poorly put together and can be scanned within 15 minutes for their worth.I've spoken to Shiv many times about this.Years ago we had the "Monitor" (meant to be the forerunner of a mag) which had some excellent contributions from members on a variety of subjects.In recent years,the technical ability of many BR members to understand the nuances of issues/eqpt. is impressive.I'm sure that we can bring out an "Annual" this year and apart from just tracking the developments of the past year and future trends,it could include some very insightful articles on the issues facing each service,etc.

There are those in the media,senior figures, who could advance our cause for accreditation,the offer was made much earlier when Uncle George was in charge,but we have to take the first step.Perhaps Shiv could later this year arrange for a meeting so that we could take BR to another level.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 05 May 2010 17:47

X-Posting:

Juggi G wrote:Flight Trials Underway For Sukhoi Displays
Aviation Week
Flight Trials Underway For Sukhoi Displays
May 4, 2010
By Neelam Mathews mathews.neelam@gmail.com
NEW DELHI

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

Around 350 Su-30MKI Aircraft are Ultimately Required by the Indian Air Force.



A M/MRCA within a M/MRCA?

Looks like some one in the IAF/MoD (and the Godly FinMin) has been reading BR (for some time now). That is what, about 3X the initial "requirement" of the MKI and 2X that of the M/MRCA?

There you go, wish for it often enough and it happens.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 05 May 2010 20:19

Philip wrote:Kartik,I've been advocating for years that we BR) should get registered as a mag,then many doors will open to us as it does for the free press and we will have better access to institutions,etc.At least a BR "Annual" should come out.We see a few thick "annuals" on Indian Defence,costing around Rs.500-750/- each year,which are very poorly put together and can be scanned within 15 minutes for their worth.I've spoken to Shiv many times about this.Years ago we had the "Monitor" (meant to be the forerunner of a mag) which had some excellent contributions from members on a variety of subjects.In recent years,the technical ability of many BR members to understand the nuances of issues/eqpt. is impressive.I'm sure that we can bring out an "Annual" this year and apart from just tracking the developments of the past year and future trends,it could include some very insightful articles on the issues facing each service,etc.

There are those in the media,senior figures, who could advance our cause for accreditation,the offer was made much earlier when Uncle George was in charge,but we have to take the first step.Perhaps Shiv could later this year arrange for a meeting so that we could take BR to another level.


Philip that would be a great idea and if it does come through, could be momentous for Indian defence. Currently only Vayu is even worth mentioning in this regard. Wasn't there an article somewhere (India Defence Review ?) that spoke of the recent growth spurt in Indian defence reporting even though the majority were just rags that got advertising revenue thanks to the US firms now competing in India ?

Regarding press accreditation, it can definitely help posters too. I was even toying with the idea of contributing to a Serbian defence mag of which a friend is an editor, so I could get press accreditation..that does help a lot when it comes to getting people to talk at air shows. Yes I remember the BR Monitor. They even got some journalists like Hormuz Mama to contribute there.

Can a new thread on this be started ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 05 May 2010 20:39

Kartik wrote:Can a new thread on this be started ?


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4188 ?????

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 06 May 2010 09:22

cross-posting from Keypub forums. confirms that the twin seater Bort 967 was a modification of a serial built Bort 947 MiG-29 KUB. so the whole talk about 11 hardpoints on the MiG-35 is likely to just stay that- talk. BTW, Beetle is the english translation of Zhuk and in Russia they call an AESA as AFAR.

Russian aircraft-construction corporation “MiG” continues the flying preproduction tests of the deeply modernized fighter of generation “4+” MiG-35. The prototype of the one-place version of aircraft (onboard of №961) was built with the past summer at the series plant of company in [Lukhovitsakh]. At the same time on the base of the first experiment MiG-29[KUB] №111 (onboard of №947) was prepared the prototype of two-place version MiG-35[D] (№967).

In October last year both machines participated in the stage of demonstration flight tests in India within the framework the tender MMRCA, which foresees acquisition by Indian VVS of 126 average multifunctional fighters. After the return to Russia the aircraft passed the planned modifications, in course of which two-place aircraft, in particular, was modified for the installation of prototype RLS Afar “Beetle- AE” of the development of corporation “[Faztron]-[NIIR]”, are earlier than passed flight tests on aircraft- demonstrator MiG-35 №154.

By present spring all three machines entered the sequential stage of tests, conducted from the airfield of Leahs [im]. OF [M].[M]. Gromov and foreseeing the flying finalizing of onboard systems, and also flights with different configurations of external suspensions.


link

palash_kol
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:07

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby palash_kol » 06 May 2010 10:13

Kartik wrote:cross-posting from Keypub forums. confirms that the twin seater Bort 967 was a modification of a serial built Bort 947 MiG-29 KUB. so the whole talk about 11 hardpoints on the MiG-35 is likely to just stay that- talk. BTW, Beetle is the english translation of Zhuk and in Russia they call an AESA as AFAR.

link


Yeah...right...

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 06 May 2010 10:26

palash_kol wrote:
Kartik wrote:cross-posting from Keypub forums. confirms that the twin seater Bort 967 was a modification of a serial built Bort 947 MiG-29 KUB. so the whole talk about 11 hardpoints on the MiG-35 is likely to just stay that- talk. BTW, Beetle is the english translation of Zhuk and in Russia they call an AESA as AFAR.

link


Yeah...right...


what ? you got something to say ?

palash_kol
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:07

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby palash_kol » 06 May 2010 10:44

Kartik wrote:
palash_kol wrote:Yeah...right...


what ? you got something to say ?

Nothing...Mr. Kartick...I have seen many of your posts and I have agreed with your opinion. :)

Devesh Rawal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 09:01
Location: USA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Devesh Rawal » 06 May 2010 11:06

Saw some news about development in the US for a JAGM (similar concept to the JDAM) to replace Mavericks and other precision ground attack missiles.
Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) is a cost-effective, low-risk solution to meet the program needs among the U.S. Army, Navy and Marines Corps in developing an air-to-surface missile to replace the current BGM-71 TOW, AGM-114 Hellfire and AGM-65 Maverick missiles. Raytheon and Boeing have teamed to develop JAGM, a leveraging of the two companies’ respective strengths.


Today's news is that it has been tested on the SH:
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1555

Could this be a viable system made available for integration on the IAF's platforms like the LCH and LCA, beyond the MRCA (provided of course one of the american birds make it)? Is this a factor that would tilt the playing field?

Some more info:
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/jagm/

I searched and didn't find anything on this from before. I hope I am not repeating old news.

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 06 May 2010 18:18

the US arms industry keepsing churning out new weapons and JAGM is very advanced version of the brimstone with a trimode seeker and can be used against various target like tanks, bunkers, buildings, boats etc. matter of fact even the simple Aim-9x block 2 a2a IR missile now has A2G ability. question is will India go for platforms like SV or SH that offer such abilties and flexbility of weapons like SDB, JDAM-ER, LJDAM, SLAM-ER (can hit moving land and maritime targets), CBU-105 SFW WCMD, Latest paveways, multitrole side winders etc. Depends on what type of weapons were tested during trails on various platforms.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ssion.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 06 May 2010 20:49

Brahmananda wrote:the US arms industry keepsing churning out new weapons and JAGM is very advanced version of the brimstone with a trimode seeker and can be used against various target like tanks, bunkers, buildings, boats etc. matter of fact even the simple Aim-9x block 2 a2a IR missile now has A2G ability. question is will India go for platforms like SV or SH that offer such abilties and flexbility of weapons like SDB, JDAM-ER, LJDAM, SLAM-ER (can hit moving land and maritime targets), CBU-105 SFW WCMD, Latest paveways, multitrole side winders etc. Depends on what type of weapons were tested during trails on various platforms.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ssion.html



What are SV, SDB, LJDAM, SLAM-ER, CBU 105, SFW and WCMD?

What ancillary equipment is needed to illuminate/mark/track the targets that these munitions are aimed at in terms of AWACS, UAVs, data sharing or fighter based avionics? I would have thought that the ability of anyone to use PGMs is dependent on the latter list and the less we have the less effective the munition is likely to be.

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 419
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby bhavani » 06 May 2010 22:44

shiv wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:the US arms industry keepsing churning out new weapons and JAGM is very advanced version of the brimstone with a trimode seeker and can be used against various target like tanks, bunkers, buildings, boats etc. matter of fact even the simple Aim-9x block 2 a2a IR missile now has A2G ability. question is will India go for platforms like SV or SH that offer such abilties and flexbility of weapons like SDB, JDAM-ER, LJDAM, SLAM-ER (can hit moving land and maritime targets), CBU-105 SFW WCMD, Latest paveways, multitrole side winders etc. Depends on what type of weapons were tested during trails on various platforms.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ssion.html



What are SV, SDB, LJDAM, SLAM-ER, CBU 105, SFW and WCMD?

What ancillary equipment is needed to illuminate/mark/track the targets that these munitions are aimed at in terms of AWACS, UAVs, data sharing or fighter based avionics? I would have thought that the ability of anyone to use PGMs is dependent on the latter list and the less we have the less effective the munition is likely to be.


SDB - small diameter bomb
JDAM- joint direct attack munition
SLAM-ER - standoff land attack missile Extended range. It is a development of the harpoon missile. There were rumours that our paki neighbours have converted some of thier harpoons into SLAM configuration.

These are all nice marketing terms used by Khan's. JDAM is pretty radical, that is true, but the rest are just derviatives. If we can cook out a land attack version of Kh-35 then we can call it I-SLAM - indian SLAM.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3212
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 07 May 2010 04:12

Kartik wrote:cross-posting from Keypub forums. confirms that the twin seater Bort 967 was a modification of a serial built Bort 947 MiG-29 KUB. so the whole talk about 11 hardpoints on the MiG-35 is likely to just stay that- talk. BTW, Beetle is the english translation of Zhuk and in Russia they call an AESA as AFAR.

Russian aircraft-construction corporation “MiG” continues the flying preproduction tests of the deeply modernized fighter of generation “4+” MiG-35. The prototype of the one-place version of aircraft (onboard of №961) was built with the past summer at the series plant of company in [Lukhovitsakh]. At the same time on the base of the first experiment MiG-29[KUB] №111 (onboard of №947) was prepared the prototype of two-place version MiG-35[D] (№967).

In October last year both machines participated in the stage of demonstration flight tests in India within the framework the tender MMRCA, which foresees acquisition by Indian VVS of 126 average multifunctional fighters. After the return to Russia the aircraft passed the planned modifications, in course of which two-place aircraft, in particular, was modified for the installation of prototype RLS Afar “Beetle- AE” of the development of corporation “[Faztron]-[NIIR]”, are earlier than passed flight tests on aircraft- demonstrator MiG-35 №154.

By present spring all three machines entered the sequential stage of tests, conducted from the airfield of Leahs [im]. OF [M].[M]. Gromov and foreseeing the flying finalizing of onboard systems, and also flights with different configurations of external suspensions.


link


Nice find Kartik. So far, most of what was written in Pibu's "future fulcrums" article has been confirmed (the MiG-29K based 35 for example). However, it would be quite disappointing if these new builds are still toting the 680 trm Zhuk A. IIRC, he had mentioned that a 1000+ TRM version was fitted to this new testbed.


CM

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 07 May 2010 04:37

Nice find Kartik. So far, most of what was written in Pibu's "future fulcrums" article has been confirmed (the MiG-29K based 35 for example). However, it would be quite disappointing if these new builds are still toting the 680 trm Zhuk A. IIRC, he had mentioned that a 1000+ TRM version was fitted to this new testbed.


CM


Thanks CM, but it was someone else who found it, I just cross-posted it.

If you look at the Bort 967 model, it's quite clear that the radome cannot accomodate the 1000 T/R antenna. Its just too small. What is intriguing is that the article clearly stated that only the twin-seater (Bort 967) was modified to accomodate the Zhuk-AE for flight tests and not the single seater Bort 961.

And Bort 961 had the MiG-29K's radome size (which I myself also thought indicated that a full-size Zhuk-AE antenna had been fitted). But now, we can speculate that since Bort 961 doesn't have the Zhuk-AE, then the reason for Bort 961's larger radome is that it probably has the Zhuk-ME removed from the Bort 947 (original MiG-29KUB prototype) when it was modified into Bort 967. Either that or it is radarless and simply carries ballast.

But that may be useless as far as weapons tests go and its better to have the Zhuk-ME than no radar at all for a prototype that is going to be evaluated. On the other hand, they may simply done most of the avionics, radar and weapons tests demos on the twin-seat Bort 967 with the IAF pilot in the front or rear seat. The single seater may have been used to display flight performance..

Tie that in with what AW&ST said recently about the R-77 being test fired from a MiG-35 prototype with guidance being provided by the Zhuk-AE, along with the pic (in that article) of the Bort 967 carrying a single R-77 and they all seem to fit in.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests