MRCA News and Discussion

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 28 Jul 2010 12:04

From this table, the Eurofighter Typhoon and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are fighting it out for the lead in twin-engined class, while the F-16IN Super Viper is obviously superior to the Saab Gripen NG in every aspect.

Given India's needs, the Typhoon would be awesome; but it looks like it will lose to the Super Hornet in the commercial bids later on. But, politically UK/Germany would be more enthusiastic to make lucrative deals than the USA (given it's rigid laws). Tough to guess?

As for now, I think the EF Typhoon, Boeing F-18 Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-16IN Super Viper will definitely move into the next phase. What say?

nits · Post by **nits** » 28 Jul 2010 12:19

Gurus - How much difference does Supercruise makes in combat scenario...

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 28 Jul 2010 12:25

nits wrote:Gurus - How much difference does Supercruise makes in combat scenario...

I guess it depends on the strategy employed by the respective air forces. Look at it this way: Supercruise is an additional capability than can be handy when used right.

Supercruise, all by itself, won't be a game-changer IMHO.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jul 2010 12:34

F-16IN for 30 mil !! ayyo amma, can I get one too.

nits · Post by **nits** » 28 Jul 2010 12:44

smpratik wrote:My view is that the American pitch is very strong and the F/A-18SH is likely to win. Finally the politics is going to choose the fighter. So, here is my analysis http://angle-of-attack.blogspot.com/201 ... angle.html
All the latest news reports suggest that IAF evaluation on the 6 MMRCA competitor will be out soon with the deal being signed within a year after that. One competitor out 4 short listed fighters will be selected for the contract. Now we all know that ultimately the decision will be taken with politics in mind. PM Manmohan Singh himself once said in pretext to MMRCA that the winner of the contract will be the one who's country will have maximum to offer. This really does puts out Gripen's chances to win the contract considering the fact that Sweden doesn't have anything to offer to India apart from the fighter itself.
The Congress Party of India wants India to be a permanent member of UNSC which will give it a serious advantage over its political rivals in the country. All members of UNSC support India for this except the USA and China. Communist China with its egoistic ambition will never support India. Russia has been a long standing supporter of India in all matters and India definitely wants to hold on to this and hence there was report which suggested that India will try to please Russia but its unlikely to give a order of 126 fighter jets to Russia's MiG-35. But it will buy a smaller number (50-60) of these jets to maintain IAF's numbers and make Russia happy. Same goes with France which India has some level of dislike for its military supplies to Pakistan. French competitor, the Rafael is closely matched with American F/A-18SH but it is more expensive than it. France it likely to receive $2.5 Billion* contract to upgrade IAF's Mirage-2000's, this offer was selected over Israel's cheaper offer. India also used this offer to end Pakistan's efforts to acquire similar systems from France for its JF-17 fighter aircraft.
The other aircraft along with Sweden's Gripen that has very less political attraction is Europe's Eurofighter Typhoon. Its extremely expensive and its sponsor countries are no longer inclined to buy it which mean that it will remain very expensive. Plus UK its primary backer will not withdraw its support for UNSC seat even if its Typhoon is not selected. That now leave just the F-16IN and F/A-18 SH both of which are of American origin. USA has long not supported India for the permanent seat but the relations are improving everyday. US sees India as a important ally in Af-Pak situation and against the Chinese and so does India. Multiple contracts were given to USA and USA was the one which got India into the NSG. American stance on the UNSC seat is also changing dramatically with positive comments from American diplomats and envoys. Hence India will try hard to please America by giving the contract to American competitors mostly Boeing's F/A-18 SH instead of the F-16 which is already in PAF's inventory. Hence I conclude that F/A-18SH is the strongest contender to win the contract.

As a newbee this is something i fail to understand... we are compensating everyone just because we need to please Uncle sam...? so we end up spending lot more then the amount which will be given to uncle for whole deal... if GOI was so clear that pressure from uncle will be huge and at end of day they need to bow down to them; then why to indulge in this evaluation exercise and further delay the whole process... just get the jets though FMS route...

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 28 Jul 2010 12:55

Singha wrote: F-16IN for 30 mil !! ayyo amma, can I get one too.

That is just the unit cost, without taking the life-cycle and infrastructure costs into consideration. I read somewhere that it actually swells up to about $63 Million if all the other costs are added up.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Jul 2010 13:12

nits wrote:Gurus - How much difference does Supercruise makes in combat scenario...

Nits, it was debated here in detail, enjoy:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... se#p861355

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 28 Jul 2010 13:24

Singha wrote: F-16IN for 30 mil !! ayyo amma, can I get one too.

I agree some of those costs are way off..

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 28 Jul 2010 13:57

shukla wrote:
Singha wrote: F-16IN for 30 mil !! ayyo amma, can I get one too.

I agree some of those costs are way off..

I got the $30 Million figure for the F-16IN from an article on the MMRCA in the Livefist blog, by Shiv Aroor. I personally have no knowledge of how much each of these fighters really cost. All the price tags are from public domain.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Jul 2010 14:34

So 10 ton Rafale lifts 10 ton with its 50kn - 76kn engines

14 ton SH lifts 7.5 tons with its 70 - 116 kn engines

EF also at 11 ton lifts mere 5 tons with 60 - 90 kn engines.

How come Mig is super-manuering with 53 - 88 kn engines, while teens aren't with their super-powered engines? Is it its airframe design so miraculous other than TVs?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jul 2010 14:56

Manish_Sharma wrote:
How come Mig is super-manuering with 53 - 88 kn engines, while teens aren't with their super-powered engines? Is it its airframe design so miraculous other than TVs?

Probably yes

from some random site:

Because it was developed from the same basic parameters laid out by TsAGI for the original PFI, the MiG-29 is aerodynamically broadly similar to the Sukhoi Su-27, but with some notable differences. It is built largely out of aluminium with some composite materials.

It has a mid-mounted swept wing with blended leading-edge root extensions (LERXs) swept at around 40°. There are swept tailplanes and two vertical fins, mounted on booms outboard of the engines. Automatic slats are mounted on the leading edges of the wings; they are four-segment on early models and five-segment on some later variants. On the trailing edge, there are maneuvering flaps and wingtip ailerons.

The MiG-29 has hydraulic controls and a SAU-451 three-axis autopilot but, unlike the Su-27, does not have a fly-by-wire control system. Nonetheless, it is very agile, with excellent instantaneous and sustained turn performance, high alpha capability, and a general resistance to spins. The airframe is stressed for 9-g (88 m/s²) maneuvers. The controls have "soft" limiters to prevent the pilot from exceeding the g and alpha limits, but these can be disabled manually.

The MiG-29 has two widely spaced Klimov RD-33 turbofan engines, each rated at 50.0 kN (11,240 lb) dry and 81.3 kN (18,277 lb) in afterburner. The space between the engines generates lift, thereby reducing effective wing loading, to improve maneuverability.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 28 Jul 2010 15:36

IIRC, Su-27 and Mig-29 both incorporated results of the same study done on aerodynamics...hence the similarity is design.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 28 Jul 2010 23:38

i hope that IAF releases their list by this month end to end the speculation that is going around.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Jul 2010 01:35

^^They will submit their results to the MoD, not to the media. Unless there is a high level leak in the MoD, we won't find out what the list is.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 Jul 2010 01:38

A>>On a purely technical view point the SH, F16 and rafale should be the best performers as they were the most mature fighters with working/developed AESA and proven multirole performance. So they had certainly more to show during the Indian tests.
-The Typhoon offered very little multirole capability to be tested with no AESA radar. It could certainly not demonstrate as much things as the very versatile and developed F16, SH and rafale.
-The mig35 and Gripen NG are still under development with only a few hundreds flight to their credits. I doubt that they could show all their future system performances yet.

B>>On a political view point the SH, F16 and Typhoon are very strong. For this reason they are the favorite in my opinion with the Typhoon has a dark horse.

-With Germany and England behind the Typhoon bid plus the ability of EADS and BAE to offer a wide range of offset proposition (Airbus etc) makes this bid very very attractive. The EJ200 on the LCA could offer interesting synergies.
-The US has of course a lot of political leverage but there are issue with weapon sales to Pakistan and probably less keen on ToT. That could block a US deal in the end against a Typhoon offer.
-The gripen NG/SAAB offer an attractive proposal but I doubt it could resist to the "heavy weights" in terms of political/offset leverage. Its low price is probably its main card to play
-The Russian proposal has less leverage as many Indian hardware comes from Russia.

Finally the French offer is quite bad in my opinion which makes me quite pessimistic about a rafale success.

1) The french gov has never really pushed this deal. That is striking compared to other rafale sailing campaign like Brazil, UAE or switzerland where Sarkozy and Morin (french mindef) are very active and communicative.
2) Dassault is more keen to circumvent this competition with a direct rafale deal which is a strange attitude. The french government would even like to see India buying back ex UAE mirage 2000-9. Not really a winning and coherent strategy.
3) We can't say that latest franco/indian defense deals/negotiations were very successful with the modernization of the mirage 2000 fleet as an example. For how long this process is lasting now ?
4) No rafale was ever flown to the main Indian air show. This is either a sign of arrogance or giving up. In both case that is not a winner strategy.

C>>In the end I bet on a Typhoon win even if operationally it is probably the contender that is the furthest from Indian operational needs which is more about a platform with serious multirole capability/potential and with a dominant on AtG.

The SH and the rafale are my personal favorite in terms of "indian operational suitability" (leaving aside politics, offsets etc) They have the punch and the range to be very effective deep strike/bomb truck aircrafts while retaining very good AtA performance.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 29 Jul 2010 01:43

shiv wrote: Probably yes

from some random site:

Because it was developed from the same basic parameters laid out by TsAGI for the original PFI, the MiG-29 is aerodynamically broadly similar to the Sukhoi Su-27, but with some notable differences. It is built largely out of aluminium with some composite materials.

It has a mid-mounted swept wing with blended leading-edge root extensions (LERXs) swept at around 40°. There are swept tailplanes and two vertical fins, mounted on booms outboard of the engines. Automatic slats are mounted on the leading edges of the wings; they are four-segment on early models and five-segment on some later variants. On the trailing edge, there are maneuvering flaps and wingtip ailerons.

The MiG-29 has hydraulic controls and a SAU-451 three-axis autopilot but, unlike the Su-27, does not have a fly-by-wire control system. Nonetheless, it is very agile, with excellent instantaneous and sustained turn performance, high alpha capability, and a general resistance to spins. The airframe is stressed for 9-g (88 m/s²) maneuvers. The controls have "soft" limiters to prevent the pilot from exceeding the g and alpha limits, but these can be disabled manually.

The MiG-29 has two widely spaced Klimov RD-33 turbofan engines, each rated at 50.0 kN (11,240 lb) dry and 81.3 kN (18,277 lb) in afterburner. The space between the engines generates lift, thereby reducing effective wing loading, to improve maneuverability.

Very nice, its a treat to see how "Shakhmaty Russians" matched rich unkil's every move with "brain and guts". Though I am not a big supporter of russian equipment bought for india, but what I find disappointing is how less we engage in excercises with them, indics can learn a lot from them 'bout how to tackle more powerful adversaries with ones less resources.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jul 2010 04:16

Powering Up

On Earth Day, April 22, a Green Hornet streaked across the sky above Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

It wasn't the fictional comic-book character, but rather a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet, so nicknamed because it was making a historic test flight powered in part by an environmentally friendly, plant-based fuel.

The fuel was a 50/50 blend of conventional jet fuel and a biofuel that comes from camelina, a hardy U.S.-grown plant that can thrive even in difficult soil and doesn't detract from plants that are considered feed stocks.

Officials involved in the test said the jet performed well, adding to the success the Defense Department has had in testing alternative fuels, including plant-based and synthetic fuels, for use in its military aircraft and vehicles.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jul 2010 07:22

Manish_Sharma wrote: what I find disappointing is how less we engage in excercises with them, indics can learn a lot from them 'bout how to tackle more powerful adversaries with ones less resources.

Not true.

We have bought Russian equipment and learned tactics from them and we have then gone on to develop better tactics than them. That is why the US got surprised when exercising with India and finding that old Soviet tactics (that the US fought in Vietnam and Iraq) for which the US was well prepared did not work.

I find it interesting that fanboyism makes people point out how F 22 will hide behind other unstealthy aircraft but everybody has forgotten how the smaller MiG 21s were hidden behind large target Su 30s.(Cope India) People are not doing any reading outside of BRF and fanboy forums.

Also forgotten (or unread) are the stories of how Indian aircraft flew night sorties at 50 feet above ground level to remain undetected by Paki radar and then appeared at some point to surprise the shalwars off.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 29 Jul 2010 07:54

Can somebody compare the radar signature for the contenders for the MRCA crown.

Which is the most stealth?

Thanks

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 29 Jul 2010 08:36

While correct RCS numbers are always classified according to some reports it goes like this

Rafale=SH>Gripen>Typhoon>F 16>MIG

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jul 2010 09:21

wrong thread

deleted

The message is here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 81#p913281

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2010 12:15

Shiv is spot on.Add to what he has written,the US is scared stiff that hordes of Chinese fighters will overwhelm the F-22s it has in the Pacific in any US counter to an invasion of Taiwan,because the US aircraft will be operating from further afar (Guam),plus carry not enough AAMs to deal with multiple Chinese threats in the form of Chinese Flankers and the swarm of locally designed and built smaller fighters like the JF-17 and J-10.Unless the US can count upon allies in the ASia-Pacific region ,dealing solely with China in any military spat is fraught with danger.No longer can the USN's carrier task forces steam through the Taiwan Straits unchallenged.The MIG-21 Bison surprised the Yanquis very much in the Cope exercises and the virtue of a smaller light stealthy fighter (in large numbers) remains fundamentally sound,especially when its role is meshed with that of larger more capable aircraft like the Flanker.

It is why the "dark horse" in the contest is the Gripen.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 29 Jul 2010 17:22

As I said before, MMRCA being a deal to seal India's effort to get into UNSC was confirmed today. Read today's TOI front page upper right corner. It reads something like this - India signs 57 more Hawks, UK to back India for UNSC seat. I expect similar headline when India signs the MMRCA with the US for Super Hornet.
http://angle-of-attack.blogspot.com/201 ... angle.html

nits wrote: As a newbee this is something i fail to understand... we are compensating everyone just because we need to please Uncle sam...? so we end up spending lot more then the amount which will be given to uncle for whole deal... if GOI was so clear that pressure from uncle will be huge and at end of day they need to bow down to them; then why to indulge in this evaluation exercise and further delay the whole process... just get the jets though FMS route...

Thats very simple, if India does that than there will be a WW3 in the parliament and will cause lot of opposition form loads of people. Quite a few People in this forum will also be one of them. It will also affect India's credibility and will affect other deals too. So best thing to do is just act normal and get the FET's done and act as if you are giving fair deal to everyone.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 29 Jul 2010 17:32

Smpratik,

My views are that India cannot make to UNSC seat without PRC support even when all others (US, Russia, UK and France) favors us.. PRC can at any time veto any such move....

Of course, US could influence PRC about NSG... but UNSC permanent seat is different thing

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 29 Jul 2010 17:43

nrshah wrote:Smpratik,

My views are that India cannot make to UNSC seat without PRC support even when all others (US, Russia, UK and France) favors us.. PRC can at any time veto any such move....

Thats right, but the G-5 (countries who wish to be made a permanent member at UNSC which includes India) won by over whelming majority to go ahead with the next steps at the council some years back. Plus if all the other members agree to support India than the pressure will be on the Chinese to accept India. If they don't than this will seriously damage China's image. Above that these countries specially US, Russia can pressurize them. China will be a hard nut to crack but India-US and others managed that at the NSG and we can do it again but yes I will agree that its a difficult task.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2010 18:16

With an estimated $50 billion to splurge,the GOI will be careful (if it is wise) to spread the risk,by handing out contracts and orders to those best suited from all points of importance,especially that of possible sanctions in any crisis with Pak/China.The most important orders,whci will affect our security the most,must be given to those who are thoroughly dependable and whom we can rely upon to fulfill their obligations whatever the situ."Crumbs" certainly can be handed out to all and sundry!

PS:The PRC will do all they can to blitz India from a UNSC seat,engineering some crisis when the decision has to be taken.It is also most unlikely that they will allow India a "veto vote" and may try to perpetuate the existing UNSC member's retaining their veto.If they do try these stunts,it will in fact diminish the stature of the UN and India could simply walk out with many others similarly affected in protest.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 29 Jul 2010 19:06

smpratik wrote:
Thats right, but the G-5 (countries who wish to be made a permanent member at UNSC which includes India) won by over whelming majority to go ahead with the next steps at the council some years back. Plus if all the other members agree to support India than the pressure will be on the Chinese to accept India. If they don't than this will seriously damage China's image. Above that these countries specially US, Russia can pressurize them. China will be a hard nut to crack but India-US and others managed that at the NSG and we can do it again but yes I will agree that its a difficult task.

Can we give a deal of such amount (11 Bn USD is initial cost which too is probably not enough... Over live time it is likely to be 50 Bn USD deal) just on expectation that the receiving country will influence china to favor our seat....

And believe me china will not surrender to any pressure which will position India at its equal footing.. not atleast something of this importance...

It is like India (assuming having UNSC seat) favoring TSP for it....

Philip wrote:If they do try these stunts,it will in fact diminish the stature of the UN and India could simply walk out with many others similarly affected in protest.

How does that matter saar..., We have seen many drama many times... Does not make any difference except for few statements condemning the same by Indians and other aspiring countries

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2010 19:49

at present rates when is Pakistan expected to outbreed Indonesia and assume the throne of the largest ROP nation?

that will be projected as a reason for ROP block and its biggest and onlee nuclear armed nation to get a permanent seat and do the == thing.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Jul 2010 21:34

pogularocky wrote:

From this table, the Eurofighter Typhoon and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are fighting it out for the lead in twin-engined class, while the F-16IN Super Viper is obviously superior to the Saab Gripen NG in every aspect.

Given India's needs, the Typhoon would be awesome; but it looks like it will lose to the Super Hornet in the commercial bids later on. But, politically UK/Germany would be more enthusiastic to make lucrative deals than the USA (given it's rigid laws). Tough to guess?

As for now, I think the EF Typhoon, Boeing F-18 Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-16IN Super Viper will definitely move into the next phase. What say?

This table has some wrong data.

For instance, the Rafale and Gripen are both 9G fighters, not 8.5G. The Super Hornet for the USN OTOH is an 8G fighter (FBW software limits it to this, but airframe is designed for higher load factor) but for the IAF, Boeing is offering a 9G variant.
The MiG-35 is 9G only, not 10G. Keep in mind that there are different load factors for the airframe and the pilot. The pilot can at most pull 9Gs without blacking out and hence most fighters have this as the limit.

Also, Gripen NG's wing is NOT going to be the same as that of the Gripen Demo, implying larger surface area. It's radar is not a Selex Vixen 500 (which has only 500 T/R modules and was meant for smaller fighters) but the Selex Ericsson ES-05A Raven with 1000 T/R modules and swashplate mounting.

The Typhoon's radar for the MRCA is not the Captor only since there is a Captor M on the Typhoon now- it’s the E-Captor which is AESA. This too is likely to be swashplate mounted instead of fixed. APG-80, APG-79, Zhuk-AE as well RBE-2 AESA are all fixed antennas.

Would also be interesting to note what passive detection features these fighters possess since this is the best way to detect LO aircraft as well as keeping from advertising your own presence
.
for the MiG-35 they have OLS-UEM electro-optical sight in front of the canopy and an air-to-ground OLS-K targeting recon el-op sensor in an under-fuselage pod. Gripen NG will get Selex's Skyward-NG IRST on a nose fairing. Rafale has the OSF (although some reports indicate that the FLIR channel will be removed and only TV channel kept- the pilot will use MICA missile's IR sensor instead) and the Typhoon has the PIRATE. Even the F-16 has an IRST and here the Super Hornet is currently lagging behind with no IRST. The current solution is to fit it in a center-line pod but as is obvious (and I ridiculed that location when I first heard about it) the centerline pod is hardly a smart location for a multi-million $ sensor since the pilot may need to jettison it in flight if he runs into opposition. And now, as seen at Farnborough, common sense prevailed and the plan is to integrate a nose mounted IRST as part of an "International" Super Hornet. So it will eventually get a proper IRST.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Jul 2010 22:15

shiv wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote: what I find disappointing is how less we engage in excercises with them, indics can learn a lot from them 'bout how to tackle more powerful adversaries with ones less resources.
Not true.

We have bought Russian equipment and learned tactics from them and we have then gone on to develop better tactics than them. That is why the US got surprised when exercising with India and finding that old Soviet tactics (that the US fought in Vietnam and Iraq) for which the US was well prepared did not work.

I find it interesting that fanboyism makes people point out how F 22 will hide behind other unstealthy aircraft but everybody has forgotten how the smaller MiG 21s were hidden behind large target Su 30s.(Cope India) People are not doing any reading outside of BRF and fanboy forums.

Also forgotten (or unread) are the stories of how Indian aircraft flew night sorties at 50 feet above ground level to remain undetected by Paki radar and then appeared at some point to surprise the shalwars off.

Shivji, there is a good article by a US pilot in a recent Combat Aircraft magazine. He described his experience during DACT with a Bulgarian MiG-21 in an F-16 and it is both revealing as well as insightful to read what actual combat exercises entail. It blows away the kind of talk that Prof Prodyut Das comes up with about simple upgrades to simple 2nd generation fighters being good enough due to the inherent cost-effectiveness. It ignores the airframe deficiencies at times and takes a very simplistic view of the picture.

For instance, the pilot talks about how the Bulgarian pilot maintained nearly 500 kmph at the final approach to land, which is nearly 200 kmph higher than a F-16's landing speed..the reason is the MiG-21's tendency to have accelerated stall at low speeds, something that he again mentions during the DACT as well, which led to the MiG-21 being out-turned by the F-16 when fighting in the horizontal plane. I'll post more details from the article later. There are points from the article that one can take for the Tejas as well (such as the incredibly small size of the MiG-21 that makes it extremely hard to spot visually when flying low).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Jul 2010 22:20

pogularocky wrote:....

username changed to prastor, if you want you can ask for a human sounding name of your choice.
Rahul.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 29 Jul 2010 22:30

johnny_m wrote:While correct RCS numbers are always classified according to some reports it goes like this

Rafale=SH>Gripen>Typhoon>F 16>MIG

What is the above ranking based on? You say "according to some reports". Can you please list those reports or is the list just your opinion? I ask this because while there is some basic info available on the internet, I have not yet come across any report which gives such ranking. Eg: Rafale and SH have some level of planform alignment, Rafale also has SPECTRA, Typhoon has double s intakes while F-16 has single S intakes. Also I have not come across any stealth features of gripen and Mig-35 (except for perhaps RAM coating which is a common factor for all a/cs). So, please explain me how Rafale and SH are on top? Also, how is gripen more stealthier than Typhoon and F-16?

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 29 Jul 2010 23:43

I said no one knows the real figures. My opinion was based on what i read and i did not try to pass it of as fact.

In recent exercises Rafale did well against the typhoon beating it in A2A. It was said that one of the major reasons for this was Rafales lower RCS wrt typhoon.

On the Super Hornet it has a lot of measures to reduce frontal RCS including radar blockers on intakes.

As for the Gripen the frontal RCS is <1 m2 for the C/D its expected that the NG will have reduced RCS.

The Typhoon also claim to have similar RCS figures.

As for the F 16 it is a legacy design like the MIG and RCS reduction is probably done using RAM coatings on those two fighters, meaning they will still have significantly higher RCS than the newer designs which were designed with low RCS in min

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 30 Jul 2010 00:08

^^
If it is just your opinion then you should specify so and not write "according to some reports" as it adds to the confusion.

As for the Gripen the frontal RCS is <1 m2 for the C/D its expected that the NG will have reduced RCS.

On the Super Hornet it has a lot of measures to reduce frontal RCS including radar blockers on intakes.

You may be correct but unfortunately I am not able verify neither the gripen rcs figure nor the radar blockers in SH intakes. I have searched using google and failed. Could you provide some sources?

Devesh Rawal · Post by **Devesh Rawal** » 30 Jul 2010 03:45

Perhaps one such link:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/ ... G/PGSA.htm

The base radar formula used is (RCS1/RCS2)^0.25. So the F-16C reduced RCS is 1.2 m2, standard fighter is 5 m2. (1.2/5)^0.25 = 0.69. Therefore the F-16C can be detected at 69% of radar range as compared with a standard fighter.

B-52 Bomber 100 m2 bomber range x1

F-4, A-10 25 m2 bomber x 0.71, fighter x 1.5

B-1B Bomber 10 m2 bomber x 0.56, fighter x 1.19

Tornado 8 m2 fighter x 1.12

Generic fighter 5 m2 fighter range x 1

MiG-21 3 m2 fighter x 0.88

F-16C/18C w. reduced RCS 1.2 m2 fighter x 0.7

F-18E, Rafale 0.75 m2 fighter x 0.62

Eurofighter 0.25-0.75 m2 fighter x 0.47-0.62

Exocet, Harpoon missile 0.1 m2 fighter x 0.38

JSF (‘golf ball sized’) 0.005 m2 fighter x 0.18

F-117, B-2, F-22 0.0001 m2 fighter x 0.07

F-117, B-2 F-22 also given as 0.01-0.001 m2, ‘marble sized’ or fighter x 0.12-0.21

F-22 RCS requirement was 1/1000th the F-15. This has probably be exceeded by a large margin. Even if the F-15 RCS is a large 25 m2, the F-22 is 0.025 m2 worst case (fighter x 0.26).

Then from http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html also you can get some of the same information about RCS reduction.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 30 Jul 2010 03:59

^^
I would take the rcs figures with a pinch of salt as the rcs figures of these a/cs have never been disclosed. This is the reason that you will not find rcs figures of the a/cs in any of the reliable web sites.

The APA article on the other hand is informative. Though it does not use the term "radar blocker", it clearly mentions it clearly mentions it in the following text:

The edge alignment of the inlet leading edges is designed to scatter radiation to the sides, and fixed fanlike reflecting structure in the inlet tunnel performs a role analogous to the mesh on the inlets of the F-117A, keeping microwave illumination off the rotating fan blades.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 30 Jul 2010 05:05

You may be correct but unfortunately I am not able verify neither the gripen rcs figure nor the radar blockers in SH intakes. I have searched using google and failed. Could you provide some sources?

No one will be able to give you the real RCS figures b/c a select few people at Boeing, LM, Dassault etc know the actual RCS figures.

Then from http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html also you can get some of the same information about RCS reduction.

Never quote Aussie airpower, its incredibly biast and blows figures and scenarios out of proportion. They have their own agenda there.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 30 Jul 2010 05:24

b_patel wrote:
You may be correct but unfortunately I am not able verify neither the gripen rcs figure nor the radar blockers in SH intakes. I have searched using google and failed. Could you provide some sources?
No one will be able to give you the real RCS figures b/c a select few people at Boeing, LM, Dassault etc know the actual RCS figures.

That is exactly the point. This is why we can only make guesses regarding the rcs of various a/cs.

b_patel wrote:
Then from http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html also you can get some of the same information about RCS reduction.
Never quote Aussie airpower, its incredibly biast and blows figures and scenarios out of proportion. They have their own agenda there.

APA has never been halal at BR. Though many accuse APA of being biased, I have yet to see someone give rationale arguments against their technical assessment of any aircraft. On the other hand, Bill Sweetman has praised APA over its PAK-FA analysis.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest
You cannot get higher praise than be recommended by Bill Sweetman.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 30 Jul 2010 09:06

First something on the Gripen RCS

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... ostcount=1

Gripen has less than 1/10th the average RCS of a F-16C and most likely the lowest RCS and IR signature of any non-stealth fighter today

The Swedish defence research agency names the average rcs of Gripen A to 0.1m2

On Super Hornet and its inlet radar blockers

The F/A-18E/F's radar cross section was reduced greatly from some aspects, mainly the front and rear.[5] The design of the engine inlets reduces the aircraft's frontal radar cross section. The alignment of the leading edges of the engine inlets is designed to scatter radiation to the sides. Fixed fanlike reflecting structures in the inlet tunnel divert radar energy away from the rotating fan blades.[28]
The Super Hornet also makes considerable use of panel joint serration and edge alignment. Considerable attention has been paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities. Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses perforated panels that appear opaque to radar waves at the frequencies used. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to scatter traveling waves away from the aircraft.[5]
It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal RCS an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A ... per_Hornet

Its from wiki but it has citations from good sources.

Will dig up Arthuros report on Typhoon vs Rafale as well in a bit, it clearly says about Rafale's lower RCS wrt to Typhoon.

The RAMs initially used caused the black color of the Rafale C prototype, but special EM-transparent paints were later developed so the aircraft could receive any color scheme. All of those undertakings dramatically reduced the radar cross-section (RCS) of the Rafale, especially from the front. It is very difficult to assess the Rafale's RCS due to the high level of classification, but sources have unofficially said that Rafale has a much lower RCS than the Typhoon, a fighter of roughly the same size.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199 ... afale.html

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 30 Jul 2010 09:59

Marten wrote:"quote from another forum"
"It is claimed"
"Sources have unofficially said"
"Anonymous Internet expert's report"
"Mickey Mouse firmly avowed"

Seriously, stop it! This is sophisticated trolling, nothing more. Unless we have an official study with figures, don't bother posting what mickey mouse or his uncle posted on Wikipedia (and Donald Duck edited out the next day). What a poster said on a different forum is no different from what you say here. There is a reason the stuff is classified and that folks cannot guesstimate it. Internet Air Force Air Marshals don't count.

Please, pretty please do NOT give credence to BS by posting it in the MRCA thread. It doesn't befit BRF.

WOW! Ok. Let me get this straight.

1. Wikipedia info is authentic if the sources cited with the shared information can be confirmed as credible. So, generalizing all information on that site as BS written by cartoon characters is not correct on your part.

2. What if the source blog or forum belongs to a known defense analyst or a journalist or a retired or serving officer? Are you saying his/her posts are just as unreliable as any post on BRF?

3. Do you think any of us would have first hand official classified information (like you put it) on the MMRCA competition? Even if we do, who in their right mind would break the law and share it on BRF for your reading pleasure?

4. Given the above condition, what else are we left with to discuss? Discussions based only on officially disclosed details of the planes in MMRCA... hmmm... Interesting! That'll filter out 90% of this thread... And it would just be a series of news articles pasted one after the other.