MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[Nihat]

MRCA was meant to augment the rapidly depleting IAF numbers and it should remain just that. As far improvement on the tech front is concerned we have the AMCA AND FGFG For that.

[nrshah]

^^^ In fact we have already left behind that stage when M2k was not accepted... With Rafale/tiffy/Mig 35 and F 18E/f, we are looking at best fighters flying today barring raptors and MKI/35... Now we dont want add a new dimension of stealth to it... With all serviceability issues we know of raptor to maintain stealth level, i believe tiffy/rafale is more effective with their decent stealth levels and high availability

[Dharma]

If we opt for F-35 we can forget about the transfer of technology and leave it for the manufacturer to impose restrictions on spares and even a remote kill switch when we really need our MRCA in combat..It reminds me of a proverb that the road to hell is laid with good intentions but since that is not the destination we look forward to ...I think its a bad idea

Maybe the Yanks looked after Mr.Shukla better than the Brits

I assume that the recession has gripped the Brits and whole of europe too hard for them to afford paid news and assesments anymore ...In one way its good for India and we can use this opportunity to leverage the best package for our MRCA from their defense consortium infact even total technology transfer if possible..However, the strategic leverage of the whole of europe is at bottom currently; so it wont be a big advantage in terms of strategic favours but if they are willing to proxy transfer veto capability it might be a cheap deal with VFM indeed..

[P Chitkara]

All of us are assuming that the F-35 is available for sale to us. I believe it will not be sold unless we sign the dotted line which we have been averse to till now.

It will anyway be too expensive, with too many strings attached and a dumbed down version coming too late for us. Why would we want it even after all the too's

[shiv]

All of us are assuming that the F-35 is available for sale to us. I believe it will not be sold unless we sign the dotted line which we have been averse to till now.

It will anyway be too expensive, with too many strings attached and a dumbed down version coming too late for us. Why would we want it even after all the too's

And don't forget that it carries a deadly load of 2 bombs internally.

No. Make that 200 grenades

[Surya]

Did Shukla get a jaunt to LM recently??

[sohels]

Fellow members, please take a look here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8912.html

19. Su-35 v.s other western fighters:

* Theoretically, F-22A shall be able to detect / track Su-35 at the range of 285 to 440 km / 200 to 308 km away in head to head engagement.
* Theoretically, Su-35 shall be able to detect / track F-22A at the range of 29 to 48 km / 17 to 34 km away in head to head engagement.

* Theoretically, EF-2K shall be able to detect / track Su-35 at the range of 153 to 272 km / 107 to 163 km away in head to head engagement.
* Theoretically, Su-35 shall be able to detect / track EF-2K at the range of 150 to 256 km / 90 to 180 km away in head to head engagement.

* Theoretically, Rafale shall be able to detect / track Su-35 at the range of 87 to 130 km / 52 to 91 km away in head to head engagement.
* Theoretically, Su-35 shall be able to detect / track Rafale at the range of 150 to 203 km / 90 to 142 km away in head to head engagement.

Can someone come up with a similar assessment of the MRCA contenders (probable capability at the time of delivery in 2015-17) vs the best operational Chinese and Pakistani fighters please? Kill ratios would be even better.

P.S. - This is my first post, I'm sorry if I'm violating any forum rules/principles!

[Suresh S]

I believe there are no shortcuts. Stairs are much reliable than elevators.

sarkar babu I like that comment a lot. one liner of the day

[nrshah]

Fellow members, please take a look here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8912.html

19. Su-35 v.s other western fighters:

* Theoretically, F-22A shall be able to detect / track Su-35 at the range of 285 to 440 km / 200 to 308 km away in head to head engagement.
* Theoretically, Su-35 shall be able to detect / track F-22A at the range of 29 to 48 km / 17 to 34 km away in head to head engagement.

* Theoretically, EF-2K shall be able to detect / track Su-35 at the range of 153 to 272 km / 107 to 163 km away in head to head engagement.
* Theoretically, Su-35 shall be able to detect / track EF-2K at the range of 150 to 256 km / 90 to 180 km away in head to head engagement.

* Theoretically, Rafale shall be able to detect / track Su-35 at the range of 87 to 130 km / 52 to 91 km away in head to head engagement.
* Theoretically, Su-35 shall be able to detect / track Rafale at the range of 150 to 203 km / 90 to 142 km away in head to head engagement.

Can someone come up with a similar assessment of the MRCA contenders (probable capability at the time of delivery in 2015-17) vs the best operational Chinese and Pakistani fighters please? Kill ratios would be even better.

P.S. - This is my first post, I'm sorry if I'm violating any forum rules/principles!

F 16 is a shitty forum where everything russian is stupid while making F22/35/16 the 10th gen planes....
the above figures does not imply anything...

[koti]

^^^ In fact we have already left behind that stage when M2k was not accepted... With Rafale/tiffy/Mig 35 and F 18E/f, we are looking at best fighters flying today barring raptors and MKI/35... Now we dont want add a new dimension of stealth to it... With all serviceability issues we know of raptor to maintain stealth level, i believe tiffy/rafale is more effective with their decent stealth levels and high availability

M2K was withdrawn from competition by France itself. We haven't rejected it.

And IMO the radar range identification table presented about is utter rubbish.
The Radar frequencies and transponder power levels are vastly varying and are kept highly secret. In this pretext, the quoted numbers would be the Gyan one acquired by watching Discovery channel's education programs.

In real-time quick response battlefield situations, number of sorties, tonnage of munitions dumped, and availability of Ac matters then semi stealth.

There were several instances of F-117's being caught on radars of SA-3. The modern day ground and areal radar technology has come a long distance from 70's era Iraqi and Syrian radars.
This effectively increased the detection envelope for Stealth as we know it.
And all the paranoia about 5th gen fighters wiping out the 4th,4++ gen counterparts can be safely put aside for now.

[sohels]

F 16 is a shitty forum where everything russian is stupid while making F22/35/16 the 10th gen planes....
the above figures does not imply anything...

Nor were they meant to.. I only added the quote for illustrative purposes - a head to head comparison of that nature (detection/engagement distances and kill ratios) would certainly be useful.

[Willy]

Jai, if you are suggesting that in V/STOL mode or operating from High altitude airfields, will the capacity of F-35 to carry munitions decrease? The answer is most probably yes. If you are suggesting that will range be compromised? The answer is yes. The Combat Radius of MIG-35 is 1000-1200 kms, while that of a V/STOL F-35 will be 800-900 kms. Grippens range is similar to V/STOL variant of F-35, while the range of Grippen NG is estimated at 1200-1300, comparable to Mig-35. Rafale has a combat radius of 1800 kms.
But even with these restrictions, F-35 will still be a better fighter than EFT/Rafael/Grippen. It will be a game changer w.r.t to LAC unlike all the other 6 contenders of MRCA can be. F-35 is a 5th generation fighter, while all the other 6 contenders in MRCA are 4 or 4.5 or 4+ generation fighters.

AMCA program need not be hurt by the acquisition of F-35. Rather the experience gained in F-35 can be integrated with AMCA program.

And pray what experience would that be?

[Pratyush]

The people who consider the F35 acceptabe hav no idea of what the HF 73 was and what its non development ment for the Indian aerospace industry.

40 years later we are having this discussion. Just goes to show that we have learnt nothing form our history.

[Singha]

>> Rafale has a combat radius of 1800 kms.

thats probably only with 3 huge drop tanks hence wasting the strongest pylons.

[Cain Marko]

F 16 is a shitty forum where everything russian is stupid while making F22/35/16 the 10th gen planes....
the above figures does not imply anything...

Nor were they meant to.. I only added the quote for illustrative purposes - a head to head comparison of that nature (detection/engagement distances and kill ratios) would certainly be useful.

Sohel, welcome to BRF. That comparison was made by "Toan" iirc. For the most part his work is accurate (based on open source), however, it is a bit dated as well. And for some reason, he exercises little judgement in such comparisons, whereby much of it turns out sounding like the Tiffy PR simulation.

It has only now come to fore that the RBE PESA is far more powerful than previously imagined (as reflected in Toan's comparison). THe Su-35 figures too are a bit off. Undoubtedly, the EF is one of the best in the MRCA race, esp. wrt A2A (not to mention PR). However, the Rafale has its own strengths as was supposedly seen in the ATLC exercises in the UAE. THe Gripen would be number 3 amongst the Ecanards for obvious reasons. The American contenders are older designs so not up to the top 2 euros imho. The MiG-35 has one v.strong point - price; in terms of the all other things it is somewhere close to the Gripen and Solah but certainly more powerful.

CM.

[Juggi G]

The Central Factor in Selecting the M-MRCA

With the technical, flight and staff evaluation of all the six contenders for the126 M-MRCA fighters now done, time has come to seriously look for a national consensus on the parameters of the selection. This is not a simple acquisition and the decision making will be extremely difficult unless we are clear of the key factors that should be decided upon in advance besides the technical specifications met and as no doubt spelt out in the RFP (Request for Proposals). Our decision must be guided by two basic factors: that nearly a decade has gone past from the time that IAF was looking for a ‘Mirage 2000’ type to fill the slot that has come to be described as the M-MRCA (Medium-Multi Role Combat Aircraft). This term is critically important for a number of reasons.

To begin with, like in most countries, the Ministry of Defence (ours is at South Block) would decide the mix of aircraft types that the IAF would need in future, based on the operational tasks and capabilities, that is, the quality and the quantity, while the Finance Ministry at North Block would look closely at the budgetary costs of acquisition as well as the ‘life-cycle’ costs which would have a major influence on defence budgets for the coming decades. An excessively high-performance (beyond the medium level fighter) will lead to higher costs and budgetary commitments which will force the size of the IAF to be curtailed when it actually needs to get back to 39+ combat squadrons and then expand to the Cabinet-sanctioned 50 squadrons. For obvious reasons the bulk of these factors should, and would, remain classified. Yet the informed public in the world’s largest democracy needs to have some idea of at least the parameters that might finally go into decision making.

The most crucial parameter has already been indicated by the very nomenclature which provides the description of the type of aircraft required: that is, a medium sized multirole combat aircraft. The necessity of this class of aircraft has arisen due to a number of factors. Firstly, we need to fill the gap that has already arisen due to life-expiry of a large force of MiG-21s. The only ‘medium’ sized multi-role combat aircraft left in the IAF today is the Mirage 2000 with an inventory of around 50 aircraft. At the level above that, we are already committed to the heavy Su-30MKI being manufactured in HAL for the past few years. And at the lower size level, that is the light combat (multi-role) combat aircraft: we have already embarked on the indigenously designed LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) that was to have replaced the MiG-21s before they went out of service, which Russian-type itself was a ‘light combat aircraft’. The LCA’s glitches, which inevitably exist in all complex new designs (for example, the F-35), would no doubt keep getting resolved as we go along. Of course it would be useful if the vendor selected for the M-MRCA also gives assistance in incorporating the necessary improvements in the LCA to improve upon it.

In the class of heavy multi role combat aircraft, the choice was made (wisely under the circumstances) a long time ago and the Su-30MKI, which is the envy of our neighbours and the satisfaction of the IAF, is already under series production and this type will likely equip over 60% of IAF’s authorised combat force by the time the last Su-30 rolls out of HAL’s Nasik factory. No doubt the FGFA fifthgeneration fighter (which is largely based on Su-30/35 technologies) to be jointly developed by Russia and India would at a later date add to the heavy category. About 16-20% of the authorised combat force (around126-200 aircraft) would then need to be equipped by the medium multi-role combat aircraft, the balance 20%, hopefully by the indigenous LCA. This raises the question of what type and size of aircraft we should looking at, subject to its operational parameters for satisfying the IAF needs.

The cost and performance of a combat aircraft broadly depends upon its size and weight and what avionics and weapons it carries. This parameter would virtually rule out the Boeing Super Hornet (an excellent aircraft in its class) and the MiG-35 (for another reason) but both not too far from the Su-30 in size or origin. It would neither be prudent nor affordable to maintain nearly 80% of the combat force consisting of just heavy multi-role aircraft from a single source for the coming decades since the world situation would no doubt have undergone major changes during this period.

At around 24,000 kg maximum weight, the French Rafale and the European Eurofighter Typhoon also come closer to the upper end of a medium combat aircraft. They offer great advantage in the quantum of fuel and weapon load carried, but it is only actual operation and detailed cost calculations that can tell us of their desirability in our inventory. This leaves us with two types with obvious advantages of being clearly in the category of ‘Medium’ multi-role combat aircraft that have been offered in the RFP: the US Lockheed’s F-16IN Super Viper and the Swedish Saab Gripen NG/IN, both configured specially to meet Indian requirements (hence the ‘IN’ in their nomenclature).

Popular perceptions may opt against the F-16 since this has been mainstay with the Pakistan Air Force since 1982 and recent inductions are raising that force level to as many as 118 F-16s in PAF inventory. These are being upgraded, but are expected to remain somewhat ‘inferior’ to the F-16s being offered to India which should be taken serious note of. While the F-16 would remain the backbone of the Pakistan Air Force, its Indian version would imply a maximum of 16-20% of the IAF combat force level with the Su-30MKI far outstripping it in numbers. There is also an advantage if the United States is willing to transfer (on lease or sale) 100-odd partially used F-16s from its Air National Guard to the IAF.

However, the choice that comes closest to the ‘medium’ multi-role aircraft that the IAF has been seeking since a decade ago (the Mirage 2000 type) is the Swedish Gripen which has maximum and empty weights at around 17,000 kg and 7,000 kg respectively, almost equal to that of the Mirage 2000. Since the Mirage 2000 is not in the running anymore, this makes it necessary to focus on the aircraft type closest to the medium combat aircraft, that is, the Swedish Gripen and Lockheed-Martin F-16, with the EADS Eurofighter Typhoon included at the higher end. Gripen’s manufacturers could also offer some aircraft from Swedish Air Force reserves as an interim. However much would depend upon what is carried by the aircraft in terms of avionics and weapons apart from its flying performance that meets our needs.

But there is a larger issue that should receive serious attention: this refers to the other matter we set out to deal with, that is the impact of acquisitions from abroad on our aircraft industry in the future. It is vital that the next fighter deal must go well beyond simple purchase and even local manufacture of the fighter and its major systems. Even the licence manufacture option leaves the country dependent on external sources of supply. We were lulled in the past into the belief that ‘transfer of technology’ was taking place while and vertical partnerships and, secondly, empower India’s industry through capacity building with acquisition of modern aerospace technology. Both these principles are crucial to strengthening self-reliance through enhancing mutual dependence with countries and their industries that are willing to do so. These are also important for sustaining our broader techno-economic growth rates. But these requirements can be met only through the reality that it was ‘production technology’ that was actually transferred and not the essential design technology and data. This is why we have had to go back to Moscow to upgrade even the comparatively less sophisticated aircraft like the MiG-21. We now have the Su-30 being manufactured under license though we don’t know how much design data is being transferred to HAL. This is probably the reason for Russian discomfort over inclusion of the offsets clause from new purchases from them.

Large investments in defence modernisation with high-technology weapons, particularly the acquisition of new fighters must be leveraged to energise our defence (especially aerospace) industry once it is clear that they fit into our doctrine and strategy in the larger context of what quality and quantity of aerospace forces are required for the next several decades. This should aim to serve two key purposes: build interdependence through horizontal process of acquisition and horizontal diffusion of technology beyond our present vertically organised hierarchical aircraft design and development model remotely, but firmly, managed from South Block. Global trends in aerospace industry on one side and India’s growing technological and economic capabilities on the other, point towards seeking mutual advantages in pursuing the horizontal technology diffusion route. This is where the issue of offsets assumes great importance.

The offsets clause in our procurement policy may be seen by many as infusing FDI to the extent of 30-50% of every contract into our economy. In spite of large reserves of foreign exchange available, future FDI would continue to be an important factor. But this cannot be the primary reason for seeking offsets. We will need spare parts for thirty years or more. In between there will be many requirements of modifications and upgrades of the systems. We should be able to provide as much as possible from indigenous (mostly private) industry through joint ventures that must be negotiated now. The importance and extent of such agreements would be crucial to maintaining high serviceability and low accident rates of the combat force and hence its effectiveness during war over the next three decades, and more.

The IAF’s new fighter would require a mid-life upgrade 10-15 years after it enters service and this should provide a benchmark criterion for offsets to establish the ability to design and undertake that in India. This can be expected only if the prime manufacturers establish the necessary design, development and production facilities in country. The Maruti-Suzuki experience of vendor development which has led to high levels of automotive parts exports needs a special look in this regard. It needs to be remembered that design and development is the foundation for self-reliance and till recently this had suffered in our aircraft industry. The new M-MRCA has already been designed elsewhere. But we still have opportunities to access design and development of components, systems and sub-systems in partnership with foreign enterprises.

Ultimately all this must fit into the principle of broader national interests and (grand?) geopolitical strategy to sustain them beyond system costs and performance factors. The question of American ‘reliability’ will continue to worry a lot of minds for a long time. But in this business, most suppliers would be under the same scanner. European policies in the past have raised doubts about the impact of US policies on even product support and now some EU partners’ differences may also impact their future actions. The Soviet Union (and the relationship it had with us) disappeared long ago and new dimensions are already impacting Indo-Russian arms relationship, not the least of them being the Russian highend military technology flows to China and the China-Pakistan strategic nexus where China is one of the two suppliers of high-technology arms for the Pakistan Air Force. The signals that Moscow is sending out are not very encouraging.

In the ultimate analysis our decision on the new M-MRCA must rest on broader national interests.

Air Commodore Jasjit Singh
Director,
Centre for Air Power Studies

Source: Magazine Scan

[Juggi G]

[Kartik]

This article makes it look like Ajai Shukla has really lost it! The Israelis have one of the strongest lobbies in the Pentagon and White House and just because they purchased the F-35 without having been partners doesn’t mean that the same will automatically apply to India. They have been one of the largest recipients of Foreign Military Aid from the US for decades and this sale too will be partly financed that way. And they have not been able to convince the US to allow them to put their own systems on board as yet although they are still trying. The reasons are simple- once you give away the source codes to allow integration of third party products and software, they will be able to offer upgrades and new products to other customers that might eat into LM and its partners’ business.
As for the threat of Chinese 5th gen fighters, that is something we don’t have to worry about till the 2020s and even then, that won’t mean that all of the PLAAF (and PAF) will somehow morph into 5th gen fighters. The bulk of the PLAAF and PAF are not even 4th gen as of now, and will remain non-4th gen for a while to come. I mean when they look to induct 250 odd JF-17 type 3rd generation fighters with some 4th generation systems, is that something that the MRCA cannot handle? I don’t believe so. Are J-10As and J-10Bs something to be so afraid of? I don’t believe so either. The Su-30MKI and MRCA combine can handle J-10, Su-27, Su-30MKK type threats and the bulk of the PLAAF will comprise these types for the next 20 years.
Some of the key goals of the MRCA competition seem to have been forgotten by Ajai Shukla- if we want ToT, then forget the F-35. This will mean that a very high level of OEM and contractor support will be required to support such a large fleet rather than being largely self-sufficient as we have been with our Su-30MKIs. They will be very reluctant (if it is possible at all) to allow the entire F-35 to be assembled in India rather than just a few parts with the rest coming from the other partner nations. If we want the MRCA to be introduced by 2013-15, then forget the F-35. There is a large line of nations with the USAF and USN at the fore-front who are waiting to induct hundreds of F-35s, so unless the IAF is ok with putting off new procurements till 2018 onwards, the F-35 is a no-go. And anyway, the IAF has already chosen the PAK-FA based FGFA as its primary 5th gen fighter and must now hopefully back the AMCA as its secondary F-35 type strike optimized fighter.
Towards that, the systems for the AMCA must originate from the Tejas Mk2, MRCA, FGFA and there must be iron-clad guarantees in the contract to allow this type of cross-pollination of systems, avionics and possibly even weapons onto the AMCA from the MRCA and FGFA. While the F-35 is a formidable stealthy strike fighter with cutting edge avionics onboard, it is a jack of all trades, and is very very unlikely to have the type of aerodynamic performance that the PAK-FA has shown during its very early flight trials. The only variant that might be of any interest to India, the F-35B STOVL variant has run into a host of problems during development and flight testing and is likely to serve with some restrictions on operations. All in all, before even showing any interest they will need to do their homework about the F-35’s timelines, projected costs, whether or not it is meeting requirements, etc.
My fear is that if the IAF is not sufficiently supportive of the AMCA, then we will see a lobby within the IAF and the govt. that might say that the F-35 can be the IAF’s 5th gen strike fighter, instead of the AMCA. Once we agree to that happening, our fighter industry is gone and with it all the effort and investment in infrastructure that were developed for the LCA. I just hope that the MoD and DRDO are pragmatic and seek a foreign partner (EADS, Dassault, Saab, Sukhoi, any one of them) for the AMCA to make it a more aggressively developed and managed program with access to key 5th gen technologies that both partners can divide up and develop on their own. If they do it for a new MTA then why not for the AMCA which will have to have more cutting edge technologies to tempt the IAF away from the F-35?

[Juggi G]

‘All the Kings Planes…’ Saab’s Jet Fighters in Formation

[Kartik]

Juggi G, thanks a ton for the scans on the missiles contending for the MRCA tender !

[johnny_m]

Juggi I am surprised the ASRAAM was not in the list. Very good read however thank you !

[putnanja]

Thanks Juggi! I wish the author had also included the price of various missiles, and compatibility of the missiles with not just the MRCA, but also LCA/SU-30MKI.

[Juggi G]

You are Most Welcome Guys !
Thankyou for the Appreciation
no biggie

[Thomas Kolarek]

Looks like LM had Ajay on its payroll now. He points negativity towards India in their older brochure and they immediately correct it, they invite him to US so many times which he happily visits, and now he cries for F-35. If we scrap the MRCA as he says, we are going to envy all the six contenders as they had spended millions of dollars to win this.

[GeorgeWelch]

The Central Factor in Selecting the M-MRCA

Who cares what the weight is? You can call the competition whatever you want, its goal is to find a competent gap-filler.

Thus the most important attributes become availability, cost, strategic/technical diversification, etc.

Whether a plane weighs 10,000kg or 25,000kg is basically irrelevant except to the extent it can carry the needed weapons and has room for future upgrades.

[Kronop]

‘All the Kings Planes…’ Saab’s Jet Fighters in Formation

Two are missing in the picture.
Saabs first Jet (piston engine to jet conversion) the J21R which also sported an in house designed ejection seat. Gripen isactually the first Jet fighter using a non-Saab seat design (Martin Baker) even though many of its features are specifically based on Saab's 40 year experience in designing ejection seats


And the iconic J29 Tunnan (the flying barrel) which was one of the best performing fighters of the mid 1950's

[Kronop]

The Gripen is probably the most vulnerable of all of them because the Swedes don't actually own that much of it except the airframe itself.

The engine is US, the radar is Italian, the missile is German, etc. It gives you more points of failure.

Even though Saab does not own the IPR to most equipments in the Gripen Saab has designed the systems and specified exactly how all equpments should perform and interact/interface down to the smallest detail.

While reading this forum and especially the discussion on ToT many times the point of systems dsign and integration knowledge seems to me to be underestimated..
Allthough I do see why the point of building proficiency in the field of Radar and Engine technology is high on the agenda as this is exactly what we did in Sweden after WWII, Volvo Aeron for engines and Ericsson Microwave (now Saab Microwave) for Radar and Avionics.

In fact it took a joint effort of the entire Swedish hi-tech industry to succeed in developing the the Gripen capabilities, and at the same time taking some calculated risks, i.e. taking a chance that some certain key technologies would have advanced enough by the time they where needed in the Gripen programme to solve the problems at hand.

So for ToT, even though Saab does use Aesa radar from Celex and Engine from GE in the Gripen IN there is enough knowledge in engine development and radar tech (even AESA) more or less in house and even missile tech through Saab Bofors Dynamics to keep even the most demanding customer happy.

[putnanja]

Whether a plane weighs 10,000kg or 25,000kg is basically irrelevant except to the extent it can carry the needed weapons and has room for future upgrades.

It is relevant as it has an impact on the costs too. Costs to maintain a twin-engined plane, additional spares, bigger cross section etc.

[Avid]

F-35 gives us some very mouth watering capabilities.

Yes, mouth watering is good description. The mouths of USAF, USN, and USMC have watered so much that they are now dry and the cries to get program on track isn't making much impact because they have gone hoarse.

Some key facts that would give even Shukla-ji a very very long pause:

Development Delays and Risks:
a) In June 2009, 2.5 years of flight testing completed with 100 test flights and about 100 hours of flying. Even this early in testing (with no harsh operating environment and harsh flying conditions and/or manouvers) more than 30% flights required far more than routine maintenance to make it flyable again.

b) In 2009: only 10% of the planned flight test sorties for the year actually took off. (source: Government Accountability Office (GAO) quoted by Defense News)

c) In February 2010, with little over 3 years, less than 2% of JSF flight test program was completed!! (source NY Times)

d) In March 2010, reports indicated further design changes will be made as a result of flight testing. These designs (including lower fuselage) have put into doubt its ability to pentrate air defense systems. Even the powerplant has been redesigned by Pratt and Whitney.

e) In May 2010, leaked USN estimates lifecycle cost will increase from $329 billion to $442 billion (in 2002 USD) for the planned acquisition by USAF + USMC +USN. This is only taking production costs and not including the R&D costs, costs for ship integration, and other operational integration costs. (source: Aviation Week and USN report).

f) In June 2010, only 33% of the planned test activity for the year was completed.

g) By all accounts, the first induction by USAF is not going to happen before 2016 (instead of 2014), with operational status in Nov 2015. The official mandate has been extended by 13 months to 2015 by U.S. Congress (legality implies that buys them 2 years since the extension covers two fiscal years). (source: Defense News)

h) Israel (who's order will definitely be fulfilled before IAF) is not scheduled to begin getting its JSF before 2016. So, if we order F-35 (god forbid!) we will begin receiving it in 2018. LM has already announced a slower production rate than previously anticipated.

i) No aircraft available for flight testing in Indian conditions, and no performance data available for the conditions either.

Technical and Other Requirements Misfit:
a) JSF is primarily designed with air-to-ground attack, and secondary role of air defense (it is definitely not an air-superiority fighter). It does not meet too many of the technical requirements for MRCA (even on paper). A payload for air-to-air role is max of 4 AAM (AIM-120). In ground strike + air defense configuration it can, (2 x 2000 lbs bombs) + (2 AIM 120). That is pathetic!

b) Cannot meet timeline for initial batch delivery in 2012/13.

c) No possibility of local production beyond initial batch.

d) No ToT possible on any critical component.

e) No possibility of adaptation of F-35 to carry other ammunition.

f) No possibility of customizing avionics, or ensuring commonality with other aircrafts in IAF inventory.

g) Cost will be >$112 million per aircraft, not including development cost amortization. By the way, this cost escalation is likely to continue and estimate is about $125 million per aircraft.

h) 23 significant pieces of hardware are supplied by non-U.S. companies -- thereby increasing risks from sanctions.

Myths about JSF/F-35
1. F-35 is not stealth like F-22A/B-2A! It is partial stealth, which too has degraded due to design updates. So you are not really going to get Stealth.

2. F-35 flight envelop is reported to be supercruise only at 30K+ altitude and 50% fuel with 2 AIM-120 internal carriage. Comparatively, F-22A 6 AIM-120, 2 AIM-9, 50% fuel can supercruise from sea level to 40K+ altitudes. (source: AFA.org)

3. For a more recent assessment of JSF's penetration capabilities see this: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

So, I must respectfully disagree with Shukla-ji, and excuse his ill-conceived opinion as transgressions committed under intoxication (hopefully)

Kartik
The Israelis have one of the strongest lobbies in the Pentagon and White House and just because they purchased the F-35 without having been partners doesn’t mean that the same will automatically apply to India.

The military aid to Israel does not come as cash, and much of it as thrust upon them. JSF is likely one such deal. Also notice, it is only 20 aircraft with 72 as option. Perhaps a way to shore up the order book that is depleting rapidly.

[Viv S]

There were several instances of F-117's being caught on radars of SA-3. The modern day ground and areal radar technology has come a long distance from 70's era Iraqi and Syrian radars.
This effectively increased the detection envelope for Stealth as we know it.

Well stealth technology has also come a long way since then. The F-117 first flew in 1981.

And all the paranoia about 5th gen fighters wiping out the 4th,4++ gen counterparts can be safely put aside for now.

The F-22 seems to have steam-rolled all variants of the teen series (incl. the SH) in training exercises. Even if its not quite as good, its not a stretch to assume that the F-35 is significantly better than the EF, Rafale and party.

[Kronop]

Whether a plane weighs 10,000kg or 25,000kg is basically irrelevant except to the extent it can carry the needed weapons and has room for future upgrades.

It is relevant as it has an impact on the costs too. Costs to maintain a twin-engined plane, additional spares, bigger cross section etc.

^^ The operational cost of a fighter is roughly directly proportional to its weight.

The desigh brief for the Gripen was specifically to curb the increasing cost of operation for every new fighter/system taken into service by the Swedish airforce.

The spec called for a 60% cut in operational cost (cost per flight hour produced) compared to the Viggen system it was replacing, a goal that also has been achieved.

[Avid]

The F-22 seems to have steam-rolled all variants of the teen series (incl. the SH) in training exercises. Even if its not quite as good, its not a stretch to assume that the F-35 is significantly better than the EF, Rafale and party.

JSF is not in the same stealth league as F-22. Yes, better than EF etc. but much more easily detected than F-22. At that point, the measly 4 AAM complement max it can carry for air-defense/interdiction role leaves it dead meat to air superiority fighters. Also, consider that its max dash speed is 1.6 Mach (same as LCA!)

[GeorgeWelch]

It is relevant as it has an impact on the costs too. Costs to maintain a twin-engined plane, additional spares, bigger cross section etc.

Yes, I was including all that under 'cost' (not just acquisition cost, but lifecycle cost).

But the relationship between size and cost is hardly straightforward.

For instance, my understanding is that even though the Rafale is smaller than the SH, it costs more to maintain because of more expensive parts.

Perhaps it makes up for it with reduced fuel burn, but that is going to take the kind of detailed study that hopefully the IAF is conducting.

PS: Physical size has very little relationship to RCS. For instance the B-2 is larger than all of them yet has by far the smallest signature.

[GeorgeWelch]

JSF is not in the same stealth league as F-22. Yes, better than EF etc. but much more easily detected than F-22.

Not really. It's signature is only ~10x larger than the F-22. That might sound like a lot, but that only means 2x the range. And when you consider that opponents have had trouble picking it up on radar even WVR, the F-35 will definitely maintain a vast look-first, shoot-first advantage.

At that point, the measly 4 AAM complement max it can carry for air-defense/interdiction role leaves it dead meat to air superiority fighters.

1. 6 AAM is in the roadmap
2. It doesn't matter how many missiles you carry if you get blown-up before you know anyone is there.

Also, consider that its max dash speed is 1.6 Mach (same as LCA!)

With better missiles and targeting, it really doesn't matter. No plane can outrun a Mach 5 missile. In fact, with over-the-shoulder launches, the fleeing aircraft will have a significant kinetic/range advantage over the pursuing aircraft.

None of this is to say the F-35 is the right choice for India of course, just addressing certain arguments.

Again my assumption is MRCA will go ahead as planned and thus talk of the F-35 is moot.

[Surya]

Seriously wtf is shukla thinking???

He used to take 3 steps fwd and 1 backward

but now he has taken 5 steps back

sheeesh

[Viv S]

F-35 gives us some very mouth watering capabilities.

Yes, mouth watering is good description. The mouths of USAF, USN, and USMC have watered so much that they are now dry and the cries to get program on track isn't making much impact because they have gone hoarse.

Some key facts that would give even Shukla-ji a very very long pause:

Even if we assume the production is behind schedule does that imply the aircraft itself is a bad option (the Gripen NG is the prototype stage as well). With production going into four digits, the risk is far less than ... say the MiG-35.

Technical and Other Requirements Misfit:
a) JSF is primarily designed with air-to-ground attack, and secondary role of air defense (it is definitely not an air-superiority fighter). It does not meet too many of the technical requirements for MRCA (even on paper). A payload for air-to-air role is max of 4 AAM (AIM-120). In ground strike + air defense configuration it can, (2 x 2000 lbs bombs) + (2 AIM 120). That is pathetic!

One could argue the F-16 was primarily an air-to-ground aircraft as well. The payload you're referring to is purely internal (not maximum). It can if necessary carry a dirty payload, expend it, jettison hardpoints, and revert to a stealthy configuration.

b) Cannot meet timeline for initial batch delivery in 2012/13.

c) No possibility of local production beyond initial batch.

d) No ToT possible on any critical component.

All true. How valuable is ToT and local production? There seems to be a lot of contempt on the forum for the grand declarations made by the MMRCA contenders.

e) No possibility of adaptation of F-35 to carry other ammunition.

American munitions are usually more capable than their Russian equivalents and provide far better value for money than European products.

f) No possibility of customizing avionics, or ensuring commonality with other aircrafts in IAF inventory.

That's debatable. For 126 aircraft, would a degree of customization not be available, so as to allow it to be interoperable with the IAF's existing fleet.

g) Cost will be >$112 million per aircraft, not including development cost amortization. By the way, this cost escalation is likely to continue and estimate is about $125 million per aircraft.

Not all that much greater than the EF/Rafale. Also, expect their costs to inflate with time as well (the MKI for one wasn't immune).

h) 23 significant pieces of hardware are supplied by non-U.S. companies -- thereby increasing risks from sanctions.

American equipment prone to sanction by a third country? I'm guessing the majority of that equipment is from UK and maybe some from Italy. I don't think we need to be worried about sanctions from those countries if we're reconciled ourselves with an American aircraft.

Myths about JSF/F-35
1. F-35 is not stealth like F-22A/B-2A! It is partial stealth, which too has degraded due to design updates. So you are not really going to get Stealth.

Even the PAKFA/FGFA will probably not feature all-aspect stealth. Its still well in excess of what's on offer from Boeing and the Euros.

2. F-35 flight envelop is reported to be supercruise only at 30K+ altitude and 50% fuel with 2 AIM-120 internal carriage. Comparatively, F-22A 6 AIM-120, 2 AIM-9, 50% fuel can supercruise from sea level to 40K+ altitudes. (source: AFA.org)

I didn't know the F-35 could supercruise.

3. For a more recent assessment of JSF's penetration capabilities see this: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

Ausairpower isn't the most balanced of website out there though its very interesting nonetheless.

The military aid to Israel does not come as cash, and much of it as thrust upon them. JSF is likely one such deal. Also notice, it is only 20 aircraft with 72 as option. Perhaps a way to shore up the order book that is depleting rapidly.

The order book will still dwarf the EF, Rafale, Gripen, MiG-35, F-16E/F put together.

[GeorgeWelch]

f) In June 2010, only 33% of the planned test activity for the year was completed.

This is not correct.

The A-models were slightly ahead of schedule and the Bs were slightly behind, but both were far more than 33%

a) JSF is primarily designed with air-to-ground attack, and secondary role of air defense (it is definitely not an air-superiority fighter).

Completely false. It will be the primary air-superiority fighter for the USAF. It was designed to utterly dominate an evolved Flanker.

In ground strike + air defense configuration it can, (2 x 2000 lbs bombs) + (2 AIM 120). That is pathetic!

That's in stealth mode. How much can the others carry in stealth mode?

[Indranil]

^^^ George I don't like to bash the F-35 or Mr. Shukla.

I agree with you when you say F-35 was not designed with ground attack role, as I have not read anything related to the same. Also, avionics wise, stealthwise, engine wise, and weapons wise F-35 is 0.5 gen ahead of the 4++ gen fighters, as far as I know. However as far as air dominance against the flankers (Su-35) goes, it would not hold much ground. The point is that the Su-35s won't stay this way for long. Tech from PAK-FA will percolate to it within the next decade. It would not disappear from the radar all of a sudden but there is a lot of scope for it grow smaller. For example I am sure they would have a kind of radar blocker for the engine blades. May not be the exact one as the Pak-FA owing to intake lengths, shape etc., but certainly a derivatives. Things like filling in the gap between the engines with an internal bay, etc.

Having said that, Mr. Shukla doesn't make a lot of sense to me when he asks for F-35s. Posters above me have given very valid points. Basically it beats me when he fits F-35 into MMRCA role. He is from the forces. I am sure he knows the value of different roles. F-35 is an overkill by a long measure for the role of the MMRCA. Why would we want to maintain a VLO plane for that role. Where's the need? And in multirole the F-35 will have to go for external tanks and external weapons. VLO goes for a toss there. Even a kid enthusiastic in planes can say that a plane of that stature will have enormous maintenance costs. It might be justified for the top-of-line fighter of an AF. Not for the middle tier!

Would be glad to know your thoughts on the same.

[GeorgeWelch]

> Basically it beats me when he fits F-35 into MMRCA role.

From the perspective of 'we need an immediate gap-filler' (the nominal justification of the MRCA) the F-35 makes no sense.

From the perspective of 'if we're going to spend this much money anyways, it might as well be for something that will still be relevant 20 years from now' the F-35 makes a lot of sense.

What it basically comes down to is that the MRCA competition itself doesn't make a lot of sense as currently structured.

[Kartik]

From the perspective of 'we need an immediate gap-filler' (the nominal justification of the MRCA) the F-35 makes no sense.

From the perspective of 'if we're going to spend this much money anyways, it might as well be for something that will still be relevant 20 years from now' the F-35 makes a lot of sense.

What it basically comes down to is that the MRCA competition itself doesn't make a lot of sense as currently structured.

Why doesn't the MRCA make a lot of sense? Can you elaborate? To me it makes a lot of sense.

The IAF is down to 30 squadrons (around 550-600 fighters) and that is hardly even close to what it wants to be (40 squadrons is the number it is supposed to be and the IAF wants even more for a two-front deterrant posture). It is seeing 270 Su-30MKIs being purchased and around 125 inducted as yet, but these are big jets that are costly to maintain (being twin engined and with redundant systems for each engine) and are very expensive to operate per hour just based on fuel costs, let alone maintenance man-hours per hour of flying.

Most of the MiG-21s except for the 126 Bisons are now gone or on their last few years of operation. If there is no MRCA, then the only way for the IAF to beef up its squadron strength is to induct more Su-30MKIs or more LCAs. Both have limitations, with one being very big and a twin seater and the other is only going to be inducted in numbers when the IAF is happy with its Mk2 variant. In between the IAF has 51 Mirages, 65 MiG-29s, 100+ Jaguars and 100+ MiG-27s. These make up about 350 fighters plus reserves. When the IAF recieves all the 270 Su-30MKIs, the Bisons will be on their way out and the 40 Tejas Mk1 will be in service with Tejas Mk2 deliveries starting. By then the oldest Jags and MiG-27s will be approaching the end of their service lives.

So the Su-30MKI and Tejas inductions can only just about keep the IAF at the level at which it currently is- 30 squadrons. If the IAF has to grow in size, it has to have another fighter that it can induct quickly and hopefully one that is affordable to acquire and operate but also gives the IAF the much needed punch at the mid-tier level. I have said this in the past and so have others, that with 270 MKIs the operational budget will be really stretched. Another big MRCA will certainly put some restrictions on the number that can be bought within a certain operational budget. A single engined MRCA like the F-16IN or the Gripen IN is the one most suited for building up numbers while also being cost-effective. Others (all except MiG-35) have merits but will be costly to acquire and will restrict the numbers that the IAF can purchase.