MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Oct 2010 14:07

We need to have about 900-1000 aircraft in the IAF's inventory.If we go by current trends,the only modern aircraft we will be operating will be the Flankers and the MMRCA when it arrives,around 2014 or so.Upgrades of a variety of aircraft like MIG-29s,M-2000s
( v.expensive ),Jaguars,MIG-27s and the already upgraded MIG-21 Bisons account for about 400+ aircraft.A few hundred MIG-21s will be retired and the LCA is nowhere in its final avatar ready to replace them and wiht the new GE engine,requiring much redesign of wing,fuselage,intakes,etc! Therefore,unless we standardise upon a few types for the future,we will continue to have a "basket" of types leading to huge spares and maintenance problems.

China is mass producing an inferior version of the Flanker that we have and our upgraded Flanksers with AESA radars,TVC,more powerful engines,5th-gen tech sensors,Brahmos missiles,internal weapons bay,etc.,will be required in large numbers on the Chinese front alone.Pak will be getting large numbers of JF-17s,possibly even Chinese J-10s and perhaps even Chinese built Flankers too.Indonesia is to get 180 Flankers as well.Therefore 400-450+ Flankers of which about 150 could be "Super-Flankers" and about 48+SU-34 bomber versions-as the IAF has realised the requirement for a dedicated bomber,will provide the required backbone of the IAF operating in all regions and island territories of the country.Our responsibilities are now expanding prociding security for many IOR nations like the Maldives ,Mauritius,etc.,and even beyond into operations in the S.China Sea and Pacific.To eventuallly have about 50% of the IAF's fleet consisting of Flankers would give us the required striking power and extended range that this magnificent aircraft possesses.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 20 Oct 2010 14:15

Viv S wrote:My point was that a problematic development background doesn't preclude the F-35 from become a successful aircraft. China doesn't have a lot of experience, but they have the second largest defence budget and an increasingly aggressive foreign policy backed up by considerable political will.

I never questioned the success of F35. It was directed to Chinese Jxx. Simply putting doses of money can only be of some help. There is no substitute to gaining exp through trial and tribulation. WS10 being the case in point.

Why not? Given the numerical disparity between the PLAAF and IAF not to mention the PAF in the event of a two front war, I think a large number of fifth generation aircraft would be an excellent option. Also, your those figures you quote will only fructify by 2030 (if 100 AMCAs are to be inducted). And 500 fifth gen aircraft in 2030 isn't unreasonable if you consider the PLAAF has about 400 fourth gen aircraft in 2010. Assuming the PLAAF puts the first J-xx into the air by 2020, they could have 300 by 2030, again a considerable threat.

Will china throw all it's a/f at us in the event of a conflict? The simple answer is No, just as we are not going to throw all our a/f at them in a conflict. Another if and that is a big if is the statement that the chinese will put jxx into production by 2020. I doubt that one. I do agree though that overall numbers need to be beefed up.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 20 Oct 2010 14:21

I was checking the payload of F 35, but strangely on wiki page it is not mentioned among the specifications. I wonder how much payload it'll be able to carry in full stealth configuration. Not much use if it can only drop two 1000 pound bombs. And it its stealth comes off in case rain is happening.

Strategic command also won't be very confident in using this plane for nuke role due to fear of US trojans. I think FGFA and AMCA are going to do the stealth role.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 20 Oct 2010 14:24

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

So has counter stealth, isn't it?

Viv S wrote: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.

Not quite true... there were reports of rafale holding the ground against raptor without single loss... with respect to F35, you are assuming the best case scenario for F35 which might not always be true... You are assuming rafale/ef passive detection will remain passive... you are assuming 100% kill for f35 having no regards to ECM of rafale (spectra) and EF... Again you are assuming the second shot will also be BVR which is not going to happen considering the limited range of missiles...etc

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 20 Oct 2010 14:31

GeorgeWelch wrote: 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.

The statement often used to justify the poor aerodynamics of JSF, but seldom practiced... If Missiles and target is the end of equation, why stealth? Design a big aircraft with big radars (range in excess of 500 kms), design big missiles(again range of 300-500 kms) and just fire them at distance of say 300 kms... Get a huge paylaod, why only 4/6.. Since aerodynamics is claimed to have not relevance... Why they invest in sidewinders? Aren't AIM120D etc doing their job? They are mach 5 missile, no aircraft will outrun them going by the above logic...

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 20 Oct 2010 14:51

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.

Agreed, but is it a option in the first place? Option does not mean some report suggest going for it... There has to be a seller who is ready to sell, there has to be a buyer who wants to buy it. Is uncle ready to sell us? All comments are from LM (not US GOV)... And even they are as future replacement of F16IN if selected. Secondly, does it fit in our requirement? Will US give TOT as required by buyer (India)? If we (US and India) cannot match their terms, we cannot term the suggestion as option/offer. Compare it with MMRCA where all contenders have agreed to TOT, we have tested them as per our requirements etc...

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.

Again agreed. But later blocks were upgraded to a true multirole aircraft. In case of external load being mandatory for its multi role status as your post suggest, making its stealth dead, what is the difference between it and other MMRCA contenders? With only 4 AAM internally, in stealth configuration at least ti can be at best said to be air to ground fighter with secondary air defense role... not truly multirole..> With non stealth payload, things change but the competitive stealth advantaged gets weeded out.

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.

Ya, right might not help us in developing a similar fighter, unless we reverse engineer it... but it still it helps in maintaining operational readiness without our depending on supplies from suppliers atleast for majority of parts (MKI as an example)

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

The point in case is of logistics and flexibility and commonality with existing inventories (however the same can be argued for F18/16 as well that are part of MMRCA

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.

Going by US stand towards it century old allies (remember their order is also sizable), looks dim... but yes debatable

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).

As if JSF will be stable at 112/125MN USD

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.

Agreed

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.

Much better than JSF and probably close to raptor with Sukhoi opting to go for flat nozzle for its engines (hints changes for aft fuselage which is currently non stealth part of pak fa)

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

Agreed, F 35 dont super cruise - Not designed as such

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 20 Oct 2010 14:55

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Avid wrote: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?

Prob nothing... But what will be the cost to the mission with respect to no of aircrafts required (considering payload) and no of sorties ?? Can we (india) afford that? Will ground mission be carried before / parallel to missions for air dominance?

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 20 Oct 2010 14:59

* 5-10 yrs down the line , F35 wont be as invisible as it is today
* As evident from the f22 program and from the experts opinion , F35's maintenance costs are high and after 10 yrs of operation it will zoom to unbearable levels.. which aircraft will be scrapped then ?
Why Mr Shukla didnt point out these points ?
Our choice of 5th gen aircrafts are Pakfa and LCA MK2-S

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 20 Oct 2010 15:04

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Mostly because it's a lot of money to invest in fighters that will soon be obsolete.

Maybe it's just unfortunate timing that forces India to make a move like this, but still it is a tough pill to swallow.

If they were going to make a move like this, they should have done it years ago.

Now, by the time the decision is actually made and work begins, you will almost be upon the induction of the FGFA.

you can debate on timing of MMRCA, but cannot argue on fighters will be soon obsolete... our ACM has repeatedly said our modernization is capability based (which itself is function of threat foreseeable)... What is the threat in next 20 years... J10, J11, JF 17!!! Forget MMRCA, even LCA MK2 will be able to deal with them.... And that make MMRCA very relevant it the region at least...

Are bisons obsolete? They are very capable fighters even now and can take the J 17s(our most imminent threat in near future) on their own...

And when will all the F16 be replaced with 35 in the US? overnight? it will take them atleast 15 years to replace them if JSF are inducted in nos planned

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 20 Oct 2010 15:31

Viv S wrote: Would the Russians still persist with the Su-35 (apart from plug in upgrades) once the PAK-FA nears production?

Russians are opting for 48 SU 35 as of now... In addition, they are also going for Su 34 (around 250 of them) to replace Su 24... SU 34 orders (plans) in general hints that russians dont believe with stealth, the role of Su 34 (non stealth) will become obsolete.

We've got plenty of strike options in the Su-30MKI, Mirage-2000, Tejas and Jaguar aircraft. The MKI in particular with its huge payload and range comfortably outperforms all MRCA contenders at long range strike. With 270 of them to be in service, is the EF/SH/Rafale's relative advantage at strike vis-a-vis the F-35, all that critical? Also, even with a external payload, the F-35 will be stealthier than the Euros or SV/SH.

You are not getting... MKI wont be used for long range strike as regular option... It is primary air superiority fighter for India at least till Pakfa is not inducted in numbers... We cannot use F 35 for air superiority for reasons described by many of my friends in last fews pages... That is where EF/Rafales huge payload comes handy with mKI pressed for air superiority.... For our threats coming from west, even they can establish air superiority in case required.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 20 Oct 2010 15:40

'Out-manuever' is meaningless with modern missiles. As long as you are in range, you can be targeted no matter which direction you're coming from.

And whatever the state of your EW suite, the ability to shoot first is always going to be a decisive advantage

Again, Why aerodyamics? Why they looked at various design to develop JSF? they could just have chosen any design and lace it with Huge radar and large no of ultra long range missiles....

Never knew, all EW suite is waste... Should some one ask IAF not to invest in MAWS etc... Disband DARE as no need to develop EW and all....

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 20 Oct 2010 15:42

Viv S wrote:
At close ranges, HMS and all-aspect high off-boresight LOAL missiles ensure that superior maneuverability does not necessarily guarantee a kill either.

Guarantee? Does F 22 guarantee a kill everytime? So it should be thrown away?

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 20 Oct 2010 15:48

nrshah wrote:not really, unless the figures are accurate or even close to being accurate... here the figures are grossly wrong written to satisfy some Jingoistic ego...

I'm afraid you've missed the point twice. My original post was a request for detection/engagement distances and kill ratios of the MRCA contenders, pitched against the Chinese SU-30MKK and the Pakistani F-16s. I thought someone with the necessary expertise would be able to do this based on publicly available information - I added the quote only to show that this is indeed being done on other forums. A discussion of the bias or accuracy of the quoted numbers, quite frankly, is neither helpful nor relevant since the numbers themselves are not under debate. They were meant merely to illustrate the nature of my request.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 20 Oct 2010 15:57

^^^ I agree... Just read your original post again... Sorry mate..

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 20 Oct 2010 18:52

Boeing confident with Indian Super Hornet bid
Flightglobal reports..

Boeing is optimistic it will make the shortlist for India's medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) requirement in 2011 with its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, says Rick McCrary, capture team manager for its Defense, Space & Security business unit. With India having completed in-country flight evaluations of the six candidate airframes, McCrary believes a shortlist will be issued next year to narrow the field, most likely after the Aero India air show in Bangalore.

"I think it will be the heavy twins," he says, referring to the Super Hornet and rival offers with the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and RSK MiG-35. "They're looking for more serious medium combat aircraft, in weight and performance," he says

The Indian air force is seeking an initial 126 aircraft, with an option for 50% more at the same unit price, but McCrary says the service could eventually need up to 400 of the winning design. "They've got a huge air force, but it's ageing," he notes. Deliveries will start within 36 months of a contract award, which is expected to be made in 2012. The first 18 aircraft will be completed by the successful bidder before final assembly and manufacturing responsibilities are progressively transferred to India. "This is a 20-year programme," McCrary notes.

In the case of Boeing, the company would first transfer final assembly and test of the Super Hornet for India from its St Louis site in Missouri and then "work back from there." McCrary says New Delhi's recent selection of GE Aviation's F414 engine - which also powers the Super Hornet - for the MkII version of its Tejas light combat aircraft could help Boeing's bid for MMRCA. "We think they're disconnected, but would certainly like to think there's some synergy there."

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 Oct 2010 18:54

Boeing Q3 results are ahead of predictions, note happy press release
compare and contrast to LM's F35 lifafa with shukla-ji

Kronop · Post by **Kronop** » 20 Oct 2010 22:52

With the latest inrush of Stealth comments I just want to add one thing.

For the older strealth designs such as F117 and B2 they require extensive prepping to meet their full stealth potential. In the case of F117 it takes days to prep the gaps, steps and doors for full stealth and the B2 given its size I would guess that it takes about a week of prepping.

Granted stealth design and implementation of tech/materials has moved forward a lot and perhaps the F22 and F35 requires a minimum of prepping to perform at their best with respect to stealth. But for everyday practical operation even during a conflict they would be much less stealty than the marketing info says, not to mention any mission using external stores.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 20 Oct 2010 23:51

Nothing beats an Elephant in brute power. When Alexander attacked India, he was in awe of the might of Porus' elephants. However, he soon devised a technique to outclass the advantage that Elephants provided to Porus by making good use of Horses, which were not as powerful as the Elephants but much more swift than them.

One can compare the stealthy F 35 with an Elephant in the Sky. None of the birds in the MMRCA competition may beat it in a one to one engagement in the sky. But hey, do we actually need a fighter Aircraft for air superiority role through the MMRCA competition? The answer is no. That role shall be played by FGFA and SU 30 MKI. MMRCA is meant for a bird which can be used in multiple role by the IAF. Many contestants of the MMRCA competition, owing to their greater range and payload, are a better multi role aircraft than the F 35. Moreover if we go by the track record of F 22, then the serviceability of stealthy bird is quite poor, which means, during wars there are high chances that after every few hours in the sky, F 35 will spend many more hours in the hangers ! In my humble opinion, there is no point in investing in an aircraft which is expensive, not great in multi role and has a good probability of warming the hangers when it would matter the most.

A good Air Force must have a mix of all types of Aircrafts for efficient and effective operations. FGFA & SU 30 MKI In Air Superiority role, winner of the MMRCA competition and SU 30 MKI (once again) in multi role and LCA to protect vital assets within the country (or close to the border), is a mix that would work the best for the IAF.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Oct 2010 00:11

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Kartik wrote:Why doesn't the MRCA make a lot of sense? Can you elaborate? To me it makes a lot of sense.
Mostly because it's a lot of money to invest in fighters that will soon be obsolete.

tell that to the USN. they just signed up for 124 Super Hornet Block IIs. I thought you were singing praises of the Super Hornet earlier and now you're saying that they'll soon be obsolete? Maybe we'll mark your statement here as a gaffe?

Maybe it's just unfortunate timing that forces India to make a move like this, but still it is a tough pill to swallow.

If they were going to make a move like this, they should have done it years ago.

Now, by the time the decision is actually made and work begins, you will almost be upon the induction of the FGFA.

yeah yeah. we know how long this need has been there and for reasons mentioned umpteen number of times, it has been postponed. Nothing new here. Brazil did the same with its first F-X and then F-X2 competitions. Incidentally, the first time around, they too had a Mirage-2000BR variant as the favourite to win but funding problems scuttled their plans.

There are other competitions in the world as well. UAE, Brazil, Switzerland (postponed due to budget, not the technology offered) as well which feature only 4th generation jets. Soon Japan and South Korea will launch competitions as well and only the F-35 will be the 5th gen jet and it is by no means a favourite except due to political reasons. Japan has been heavily criticized for delaying its competition due to a lot of political vacillation.

Air Forces will not wait forever for a F-35 to enter service and then launch competitions just so they can choose it. It is based on their requirement for a minimum number of jets to be maintained and with a part of the fleet aging and about to be retired, 4+ generation fighters will be a welcome relief.

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

Willy wrote: If they had gone in with Dassault instead of LM as a consultant for the LCA right from the begining then the LCA would have been flying in numbers today and maybe would have even been exported.

Boss, read some history of the LCA. Dassault WAS the chosen consultant for the LCA pre-Project Definition Phase days itself.

Its another matter that they disagreed with ADA over the choice of a quadruplex digital FBW over a triplex digital FBW with analog backup. That disagreement and their chagrin at not being able to influence the decision led them to leave the LCA project as consultants and then BAe was chosen.

LM only inherited Martin Marietta who were chosen to help ADA in developing the quad redundant digital FBW.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Oct 2010 00:21

Asit P wrote:Many contestants of the MMRCA competition, owing to their greater range and payload, are a better multi role aircraft than the F 35.

Not even counting the fact that multi-role capability is determined by more than payload, I only see one with a greater payload than the F-35.

Asit P wrote:not great in multi role

It will be far superior in both A2A and A2G, not sure what other roles you had in mind.

Asit P wrote:A good Air Force must have a mix of all types of Aircrafts for efficient and effective operations. FGFA & SU 30 MKI In Air Superiority role, winner of the MMRCA competition and SU 30 MKI (once again) in multi role and LCA to protect vital assets within the country (or close to the border), is a mix that would work the best for the IAF.

I see FGFA and AMCA as the future of the fleet with MKI and LCA as gap fillers to keep numbers up in the meantime.

The amount being spent on the MRCA could not only buy quite a few more MKI but also fund quite a bit of their operation to overcome the nominal 'savings' of running a smaller plane.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Oct 2010 00:28

Kartik wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: Mostly because it's a lot of money to invest in fighters that will soon be obsolete.
tell that to the USN. they just signed up for 124 Super Hornet Block IIs. I thought you were singing praises of the Super Hornet earlier and now you're saying that they'll soon be obsolete? Maybe we'll mark your statement here as a gaffe?

I've already explained the difference between topping up an existing fleet (SH for USN, MKI for India) and buying a completely new fleet with all the challenges and expenses that involves.

If you just need a cheap gap-filler, save money and buy more of what you already have.

Just to be clear, my comments on the SH are assuming the MRCA competition goes ahead as is. I believe it is the best choice of the planes involved.

Kartik wrote:Air Forces will not wait forever for a F-35 to enter service and then launch competitions just so they can choose it.

Of course not, but no other air force is planning to induct a brand new 4th gen type and then induct a 5th gen immediately afterwards.

The best case for the MRCA is induction in 2015 with the FGFA following a mere 3 years later.

That narrow of a gap is unprecedented.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 21 Oct 2010 00:36

Four hundred Firangi Fourth gen. fighters. Say it ain't so. Say it ain't so.

But seriously folks, this MMRCA tamasha is becoming more and more laughable. First of all what other airforce talks of heavy,medium and light fighters. The US and Russians have historically had heavy and light fighters the former for maximum range/payload/detection ability etc. The latter to make numbers at a lower cost.

Clearly this purchase is to make up for dwindling numbers in the IAF until the PAKFA/AMCA come on board. We need a fighter with a quick turn around time and high operational uptime percentage. This should be done at minimum cost because this fighter will not be the leading tip of our spear. While my favorite has always been the Rafale, it is just too damn expensive. The only fighter in this race that fills my criteria and doesn't break the bank is the Gripen, a fighter I never thought I would support

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 21 Oct 2010 00:56

Philip wrote:.....Our responsibilities are now expanding prociding security for many IOR nations like the Maldives ,Mauritius,etc.,and even beyond into operations in the S.China Sea and Pacific.To eventuallly have about 50% of the IAF's fleet consisting of Flankers would give us the required striking power and extended range that this magnificent aircraft possesses.

Is'nt this statement a direct affirmation of support for C17's? How else can India provide the reach across IOR?

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 21 Oct 2010 01:06

tejas wrote: The only fighter in this race that fills my criteria and doesn't break the bank is the Gripen, a fighter I never thought I would support

A plane which I have always admired, the little beast sure packs a big punch and its ability to be compatible with a whole range of missiles is an added bonus.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Oct 2010 01:12

tejas wrote:The only fighter in this race that fills my criteria and doesn't break the bank is the Gripen, a fighter I never thought I would support

If the Gripen-NG were further along it would be a very interesting choice.

But it's not.

In fact a key part of its Brazilian pitch is how much development work remains to be done and can be farmed out to Brazilian firms, making it a true joint-development effort.

That doesn't sound so promising if you're looking for a quick, no-hassle gap filler

Integrating modern electronics is TOUGH. Even the 'minor' (comparatively speaking) F-16 upgrade the UAE funded caused years of headaches. Since they were burned by that, they've been much more cautious about being involved in developmental projects.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Oct 2010 01:58

GeorgeWelch wrote:
I've already explained the difference between topping up an existing fleet (SH for USN, MKI for India) and buying a completely new fleet with all the challenges and expenses that involves.

That’s just semantics. What you're implying is that its OK to spend close to the same amount to buy aircraft that you say will be obsolete soon, if you're topping up an existing fleet but not ok to buy it if it is a new type.

So, is the USN going to retire its ENTIRE Super Hornet fleet the moment the F-35C is available because as you put it, the Super Hornets will be obsolete by then? Oh no wait, aren't those same 400-500 USN Super Hornets going to be possibly facing the same Chinese SAM systems that you said these 4+ gen jets will be cannon fodder for?

GW, you can either pitch for the Super Hornet on this thread (which you've done a lot before) or tell us that the entire 4+ gen fighter collection the world over will become obsolete due to the intro of stealth jets into service (as you're doing now that the Ajai Shukla article came out), you cannot have it both ways.

So, either you accept that the entire Super Hornet "International" upgrade path is bunkum and eyewash meant to fool customers who don't quite understand the benefits of stealth as yet, or you agree with me and the rest who say that the 4+ gen jets are not going anywhere just because a few types of stealth fighters are going to enter service.

If you just need a cheap gap-filler, save money and buy more of what you already have.

The only fighter that we already have and can buy more of is the Su-30MKI and we're already buying 270 of those, which is a huge number by any means. Keep in mind that the MKI is a 30 ton beast, not some 10-15 ton medium weight jet. it costs a heck of a lot to keep buying and operating such a large number of these jets. Possibly just over the life of these jets, the MKI will cost nearly 2 to 3 times as much to operate as compared to the Mirage-2000 (which was the original MRCA choice).

Of course not, but no other air force is planning to induct a brand new 4th gen type and then induct a 5th gen immediately afterwards.

The best case for the MRCA is induction in 2015 with the FGFA following a mere 3 years later.

That narrow of a gap is unprecedented.

Is it ? Again, I must simply point to the USN. They are in desperate need of airframes due to the F-18C/D falling short of expected airframe hours and are buying 124 Super Hornets even while these will start joining service just a few years before the F-35C is inducted as well.

Japan is looking to induct 4th gen (or 5th gen since LM will offer the F-35) to replace F-4s that are about to retire, while also possibly pursuing their own 5th gen fighter to later on replace F-15Js. South Korea is embarking on a new 5th gen fighter program even as its about to send out a F-X requirement to EADS, Boeing and LM.

PLAAF is going to start inducting the J-10B (which can be termed 4th gen) and will soon afterwards be inducting its 5th gen fighter too, when it is ready.

RAF, the Italian AF are going to be inducting Tranche 3 Typhoons even as they commit to the F-35 as the 5th gen fighter that they will induct concurrently (and yes the RAF will still be inducting Typhoons when it starts receiving its F-35Cs to share with the RN).

besides, lets not try to tailor every air force's situation with the same measurements as the rest. Each has its own individual responsibilities and requirements and resources at hand and how they decide that they will meet them is their own choice.

Just because the USAF is rejecting proposals to buy new F-16s or F-15s with AESA doesn't mean that everyone else is a fool to do so. the USAF is not the barometer here to tell us who is being smart or making sense and who isn't. I for one, can sit and criticize the stupid USAF choice to not buy F-16 Block 60 or F-15SE instead of constantly cribbing about the F-22s being curtailed at 187 units. As ludicrously expensive as the F-22 was, I hardly can blame the US govt. ending production at 187 units. And even now, it is the F-16s, F-15s and A-10s doing all the hard work while the F-22 which entered service years ago is yet to carry out one operational mission in Af'tan or Iraq (not that this would be some huge feat considering the absolute lack of aerial threat in those regions). They could've bought 2.5 F-15SE for each F-22 and maintained a sizeable air force that can still do the job and have a silver bullet F-22 that can do the first day of the war "kicking down the door" type missions. They after all have a huge pool of trained F-15 pilots, technicians and are only too familiar with the F-15C/D/E. Have they shown interest in that? NO. At least the USN is more pragmatic and realises that with upgrades and a well defined path of future technology insertion, even an older generation type (Super Hornet in this case) can be kept sharp when 5th gen fighters start becoming threats.

the USAF instead has chosen to put all its faith in stealth and if the F-35 turns out to be a mediocre aerodynamic performer, then they'll be doing all they can for the rest of its future to keep its stealthy advantage up. If it doesn't meet requirements then what does the USAF do ? penalize LM? LM knows its in a cozy position because the USAF has no option but to stick to the F-35 now that the F-22 is not a real option (without being massively costlier for a later batch purchase). Because the moment an adversary with stealth, aerodynamic performance and affordable cost emerges to take on the F-35, it will be in deep trouble. The PAK-FA for instance.

Anyway, the FGFA is not going to enter service in 2018 as much as they would like it to. At least not an IAF specific version. If they choose to buy a batch of 40-50 PAK-FA single seaters as an interim, then maybe 2018 is likely.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Oct 2010 02:04

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Of course not, but no other air force is planning to induct a brand new 4th gen type and then induct a 5th gen immediately afterwards.

The best case for the MRCA is induction in 2015 with the FGFA following a mere 3 years later.

That narrow of a gap is unprecedented.

That is assuming that the FGFA will start getting inducted on schedule. It is still only on the drawing board. I don't think the IAF is very optimistic about getting the FGFA by 2018. By then, the entire Mig-21 fleet of the IAF will be gone along with some of the Mig-27 fleet.. The LCA Mk2 will be only just coming in. So where will the IAF find replacements? Of course buying 126 M2k5s when we had the chance would have been best. But there is no use crying over spilt milk now. The MRCA is the only option.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Oct 2010 02:30

nachiket wrote:So where will the IAF find replacements?

MKI

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Oct 2010 03:00

Kartik wrote:That’s just semantics. What you're implying is that its OK to spend close to the same amount to buy aircraft that you say will be obsolete soon, if you're topping up an existing fleet but not ok to buy it if it is a new type.

But the key point is that it wouldn't be the same amount.

Topping up is cheaper.

Bringing in a new type means lots of expense for logistics, trainings, etc.

Kartik wrote:So, is the USN going to retire its ENTIRE Super Hornet fleet the moment the F-35C is available because as you put it, the Super Hornets will be obsolete by then?

Of course not, once you have paid for it, might as well keep it.

I never suggested that the MKI would be retired as soon as FGFA was available, just that it might be a cheaper way of bridging the gap.

Kartik wrote:Oh no wait, aren't those same 400-500 USN Super Hornets going to be possibly facing the same Chinese SAM systems that you said these 4+ gen jets will be cannon fodder for?

I would hope that if a carrier was being sent into a high-threat zone, they would make sure the squadrons were 100% F-35 (except maybe a Growler contingent).

Kartik wrote:GW, you can either pitch for the Super Hornet on this thread (which you've done a lot before) or tell us that the entire 4+ gen fighter collection the world over will become obsolete due to the intro of stealth jets into service (as you're doing now that the Ajai Shukla article came out), you cannot have it both ways.

Sure I can

On one hand, my position is that IF the MRCA goes ahead as is, the SH is best choice.

And in fact the rapidly-nearing obsolescence of Gen 4 plays a key part in the rationale.

All the argument about who climbs faster or turns better is irrelevant, they're all obsolete.

Thus you want something that is available immediately, is cheap and has growth potential to take on non-standard roles (Growler) after you can no longer use it as a front-line unit.

On the other hand I have doubts about whether the MRCA SHOULD go ahead in its current form.

Nothing contradictory about that at all.

The only fighter that we already have and can buy more of is the Su-30MKI and we're already buying 270 of those, which is a huge number by any means. Keep in mind that the MKI is a 30 ton beast, not some 10-15 ton medium weight jet. it costs a heck of a lot to keep buying and operating such a large number of these jets. Possibly just over the life of these jets, the MKI will cost nearly 2 to 3 times as much to operate as compared to the Mirage-2000 (which was the original MRCA choice).

It's possible you're right but it is not something that's easy to tell. First of all the straight acquisition cost is cheaper than most if not all of the competitors. Secondly the cost of bringing in a new type is extensive in it's own right beyond the acquisition cost. Even if fuel cost is eventually enough to overcome the initial savings, consider that is a very LONG time in the future.

A lot could happen in that time. For instance, once enough FGFA arrive, it may be pulled from frontline duty and it's utilization may drop significantly. In which case the fuel costs may never overwhelm the initial savings.

In any event, I would trade substantial, immediate savings for marginal theoretical savings at some point far in the future.

Kartik wrote:
Of course not, but no other air force is planning to induct a brand new 4th gen type and then induct a 5th gen immediately afterwards.

The best case for the MRCA is induction in 2015 with the FGFA following a mere 3 years later.

That narrow of a gap is unprecedented.

Is it ? Again, I must simply point to the USN. They are in desperate need of airframes due to the F-18C/D falling short of expected airframe hours and are buying 124 Super Hornets even while these will start joining service just a few years before the F-35C is inducted as well.

Note I specifically said a 'brand new' type. The USN buying more SH is equivalent to India buying more MKIs. If you need more numbers, you have to buy something. But it might as well be what you already have.

Kartik wrote:Japan is looking to induct 4th gen (or 5th gen since LM will offer the F-35) to replace F-4s that are about to retire, while also possibly pursuing their own 5th gen fighter to later on replace F-15Js. South Korea is embarking on a new 5th gen fighter program even as its about to send out a F-X requirement to EADS, Boeing and LM.

Both Japan and SK's 5th/6th gen plans are far into the future. They certainly don't expect them to be ready 3 years after their new planes arrive.

Kartik wrote:RAF, the Italian AF are going to be inducting Tranche 3 Typhoons even as they commit to the F-35 as the 5th gen fighter that they will induct concurrently (and yes the RAF will still be inducting Typhoons when it starts receiving its F-35Cs to share with the RN).

Again topping up what they already have, not getting a new type.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Oct 2010 03:57

I'd have to agree with George for once (at least on this MRCA race being senseless, his ridiculous love for the Sh notwithstanding). This MRCA business boggles the mind. Firstly, the variety of a/c involved defies logic - you've got single engined lightweights like the Gripen, and then heavies like the shornet. I can understand that IAF requirements, India's strategic concerns etc have evolved and the M2k can no longer fit the bill. The question then begs to be asked - why then is the Gripen NG being considered? May as well stick the LCA in there.

As far as needing something quickly goes - they sure have taken their time on this so far. And even now are willing to consider raw platforms such as the Gripen NG/MIG-35. No matter what happens now, it is unlikely that India will get the fighters before 2015. So why not just save on the billions? Order an extra sqd of LCAs, Mirages, MKIs and MiG-29Ms - that should give the IAF half the number in half the time. Anyway the extra order of MKIs since 2005 (80 in number) provides some buffer. Essentially, they can easily bide the time till the FGFA starts coming. In all likelihood that is what will happen anyway, the MRCA will come barely a couple of years before the Pakfa

This brings us to the issue that Nachiket brought out - what if the FGFA is delayed? There are always options: Invest heavily in the MKI upgrade (a stealthy version perhaps?), convert the LCA Mk2 into a Gripen substitute and load up on it, get some sqds of the Pakfa (which they intend to anyway). Still further, invest/JV with a vendor for the MCA. Damn, by then even the JSF will be around.

This procurement has been nothing better than a circus so far.

CM

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Oct 2010 04:42

Cain Marko wrote:I'd have to agree with George for once (at least on this MRCA race being senseless, his ridiculous love for the Sh notwithstanding). This MRCA business boggles the mind. Firstly, the variety of a/c involved defies logic - you've got single engined lightweights like the Gripen, and then heavies like the shornet. I can understand that IAF requirements, India's strategic concerns etc have evolved and the M2k can no longer fit the bill. The question then begs to be asked - why then is the Gripen NG being considered? May as well stick the LCA in there.

This procurement has been nothing better than a circus so far.

CM

I disagree.

The same aircraft were competing in the Brazilian tender as well. They even evaluated the Su-35 which the IAF expressly did not send an RFP to since it was illogical to get a Su-30MKI size aircraft as the MRCA. They might as well have bought more Su-30MKIs. That the IAF didn't itself tells you that they don't want 126 more Su-30MKIs over and above the 230 they originally wanted. The 40 additional Su-30MKIs recently signed for are an urgent purchase simply to add 2 more squadrons quickly as there are no other options- these can be bought quickly using the follow-on option clause as compared to having any other purchase where multiple vendors are required and lot of time is spent.

Switzerland (and it supposedly has a very professional evaluation methodology) chose to evaluate the Gripen C, Rafale and Typhoon. Are they the same or in the same class? They didn't specify AESA and yet the Rafale-B301 with RBE-2 AESA was evaluated because Dassault offered it for evaluation. Boeing even pulled out stating that not having AESA as a requirement meant that they didn't want to compete.

Now Malaysia wants to buy new aircraft and Sukhoi will offer more Su-30MKMs, while Saab, EADS, Boeing are all going to offer their aircraft too. The point is- companies offer aircraft, sometimes solicited and sometimes non-solicited. Boeing's offer of the F-18 was unsolicited originally. THEY offered it to the IAF which later on decided to evaluate them. The original MRCA didn't feature them at all, only LM's F-16 Block 50 and Gripen C/D alongwith Mirage-2000-5.

The philosophy is- evaluate them all, and then see which fits your ASRs the best. Just including them in your evaluation doesn’t mean that you're confused and don't know what weight class/single or twin engined fighter you want. The argument about twin-engined fighters being safer may simply not feature as a point factored in during the evaluation since the jury is out on how safety vs additional cost can be traded.

The point being that the IAF has a certain set of ASRs that it wants from the MRCA. The aircraft that meet them OR exceed them but are not heavy weights like the Su-35 or F-15E are the ones that they have chosen to evaluate. The decision will be made eventually based on how well these met their requirements and that is the gate-keeper. If they don't meet the requirements they are out and cost doesn't matter nor does their weight/single or twin engined. Once they are in the final race (after the final paring down) it will be as simple as politics, cost, ToT and offsets. There of course, if the single engined fighters get in, they have a likely advantage but the twin engined fighter makers know that. If they think that is unfair then too bad and they can withdraw on their own. Never heard Dassault utter a peep about it being unfair that they were fighting tooth and nail against the Saab Gripen NG which is a single engined fighter and hence cheaper. But Edelsteinne did complain about that regarding India. So, its quite clear that no guarantees are made, and it is upto the OEM to take the risk and spend the money for the evaluation.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Oct 2010 05:28

Kartik wrote: ... Boeing's offer of the F-18 was unsolicited originally. THEY offered it to the IAF which later on decided to evaluate them. The original MRCA didn't feature them at all, only LM's F-16 Block 50 and Gripen C/D alongwith Mirage-2000-5.

Come to think of it, this is what started the entire circus in the first place. It was only after the F-18 was offered and the IAF considered it seriously that Dassault decided to withdraw the M2k and enter the Rafale in to the race saying that they couldn't hold the production lines open any longer. As long as they were competing against the F-16, gripen and Mig-29, the production lines issue did not crop up. And now as we reach the end of the circus performance it appears likely that we might end up buying the Gripen or Mig-29 (yeah yeah I know the Russkies gave it a different number but it remains a pimped out 29) anyway and the whole process was little more than a waste of time.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Oct 2010 05:50

Kartik wrote:I disagree.

Kartik, the MRCA race is a circus not only because of the variety of a/c involved (your points re. the evaluation of a wide variety of a/c makes it seem more reasonable, but I am not entirely convinced for reasons I will put forth later). The timing is another issue and this is precisely where George makes sense. First, they dilly dally for 12 years, then they make an exhorbitant purchase just when other fighters that are equally good or better are being inducted (LCA and Pakfa).

Now going back to the variety involved:

Pointing to Brazil/Swiss circus does not make India's any better. Both these AFs hardly employ the number of personnel or fighters that the IAF does. Their order is for a couple of sqds more or less not a whopping 126-200 a/c. As far as the Malays go (and the others), who did they send out RFIs and RFPs to? Perhaps they can afford the menagerie/inefficiency. More importantly, none of these countries face the threat scenarios that India does, that can allow them the luxury of taking their time.

I think this situation blew out of hand when it got hijacked by politics. Perhaps Boeing did offer the 18 on its own, however, the RFI/Qs to every damned fighter maker under the sun was ultimately India's decision - they did refuse the Su-35 didn't they? They could've just as easily kept Boeing out. It is one thing for companies to make an offer, quite another for a country to go through the rigamarole of sending out RFI/RFP/RFQ to every co. around.

Btw, I think the IAF initially only chose 190 MKIs, the 2 later orders for 40 a/c each came to stop the bleeding - pricey and not very optimal purchases - forced due to the circus that is the MRCA. Of course one understands the IAF's reluctance to order such heavies, but when in a pinch, they will do so as seen twice so far.

The philosophy is- evaluate them all, and then see which fits your ASRs the best. Just including them in your evaluation doesn’t mean that you're confused and don't know what weight class/single or twin engined fighter you want. The argument about twin-engined fighters being safer may simply not feature as a point factored in during the evaluation since the jury is out on how safety vs additional cost can be traded.

Such a philosophy sounds great on paper, but can the IAF and India afford such a luxury? The delays and costs involved might be a heavy price indeed. Only time will tell. God forbid, they have a major war in the next couple of years, this MRCA shindig could prove to be a bane. I remember Tyagi saying they needed these fighters "yesterday" around 5 years ago. All of a sudden this sentiment does not seem to matter much.
And if things stay hunky dory, what good does it do to get a/c when better ones are about to be inducted?

There of course, if the single engined fighters get in, they have a likely advantage but the twin engined fighter makers know that. If they think that is unfair then too bad and they can withdraw on their own.

So then how can you truly evaluate based on price and performance with such disparate fighters? Not a question of fair/unfair, but more of the wisdom behind choosing from a plethora of disparate a/c, when you know what your needs really are. Especially, at a time when the need is so desperate. Also, what choice did Dassault really have, they knew that competing with the shornet was well beyond the M2k.

Never heard Dassault utter a peep about it being unfair that they were fighting tooth and nail against the Saab Gripen NG which is a single engined fighter and hence cheaper. But Edelsteinne did complain about that regarding India.

Perhaps it is a reflection of the size of the order, perhaps it is a reflection of a bitterness felt because of the loss of the almost done M2k-5 deal. Who knows?

CM

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Oct 2010 05:59

nachiket wrote:[Come to think of it, this is what started the entire circus in the first place. It was only after the F-18 was offered and the IAF considered it seriously that Dassault decided to withdraw the M2k and enter the Rafale in to the race saying that they couldn't hold the production lines open any longer.

Interesting, are you sure that it was the IAF that decided to consider the F-18e/f or was it more like the GOI wishing to consider it?

As long as they were competing against the F-16, gripen and Mig-29, the production lines issue did not crop up.

Certainly they woud not - how is the M2k supposed to compete against a Soopah Hornet? Totally different league. Thing is, I don't think Dassault had the $$ss to let both the Rafale and the M2k compete.

CM

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Oct 2010 06:32

Cain Marko wrote:
nachiket wrote:[Come to think of it, this is what started the entire circus in the first place. It was only after the F-18 was offered and the IAF considered it seriously that Dassault decided to withdraw the M2k and enter the Rafale in to the race saying that they couldn't hold the production lines open any longer.
Interesting, are you sure that it was the IAF that decided to consider the F-18e/f or was it more like the GOI wishing to consider it?

Hopefully, it was the IAF. Otherwise this would be yet another case where the GOI screwed over the Indian Armed Forces.

As long as they were competing against the F-16, gripen and Mig-29, the production lines issue did not crop up.
Certainly they woud not - how is the M2k supposed to compete against a Soopah Hornet? Totally different league. Thing is, I don't think Dassault had the $$ss to let both the Rafale and the M2k compete.

CM

Yes I know. That is what I was trying to say. The IAF would have probably been flying new M2Ks right now if the SH hadn't come in. Can't blame Boeing for trying of course. There was confusion at our end regarding what the MRCA should be I suppose.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 21 Oct 2010 07:01

well here some are aghast at the variety and confusion of the MRCA contest while in the C 17 thread there are some who want the same mayhem with variety of existing and non existing aircraft in the competion

koti · Post by **koti** » 21 Oct 2010 09:23

Cain Marko wrote:I'd have to agree with George for once (at least on this MRCA race being senseless, his ridiculous love for the Sh notwithstanding). This MRCA business boggles the mind. Firstly, the variety of a/c involved defies logic - you've got single engined lightweights like the Gripen, and then heavies like the shornet. I can understand that IAF requirements, India's strategic concerns etc have evolved and the M2k can no longer fit the bill. The question then begs to be asked - why then is the Gripen NG being considered? May as well stick the LCA in there.

As far as needing something quickly goes - they sure have taken their time on this so far. And even now are willing to consider raw platforms such as the Gripen NG/MIG-35. No matter what happens now, it is unlikely that India will get the fighters before 2015. So why not just save on the billions? Order an extra sqd of LCAs, Mirages, MKIs and MiG-29Ms - that should give the IAF half the number in half the time. Anyway the extra order of MKIs since 2005 (80 in number) provides some buffer. Essentially, they can easily bide the time till the FGFA starts coming. In all likelihood that is what will happen anyway, the MRCA will come barely a couple of years before the Pakfa

This brings us to the issue that Nachiket brought out - what if the FGFA is delayed? There are always options: Invest heavily in the MKI upgrade (a stealthy version perhaps?), convert the LCA Mk2 into a Gripen substitute and load up on it, get some sqds of the Pakfa (which they intend to anyway). Still further, invest/JV with a vendor for the MCA. Damn, by then even the JSF will be around.

This procurement has been nothing better than a circus so far.

CM

Marko jii,
I don't find any sense in ordering more Mig29M's, Mirages and LCA's instead of MMRCA.
The role of MMRCA not only includes filling in numbers, but also give the edge over rival Air forces. Competing numerically with our big neighbor is hardly possible. The only way we can stand our ground is by giving our AF the qualitative edge over them.
The capabilities some MMRCA contenders are offering us will take some 5-8 years(AFAIK) to be developed by our neighbors.
That is the time say our MMRCA will be in full swing. So the MMRCA will be neck to neck with the enemy air forces top fighters. Then we have FGFA, which can help us keep the edge.
I'm glad that Mirage was sidelined as the current contenders are offering far superior aircraft that guarantee sensible operational characteristics for the next decade or so after induction.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Oct 2010 10:08

Kartik wrote:...
GeorgeWelch wrote:Of course not, but no other air force is planning to induct a brand new 4th gen type and then induct a 5th gen immediately afterwards.

The best case for the MRCA is induction in 2015 with the FGFA following a mere 3 years later.

That narrow of a gap is unprecedented.

...

Anyway, the FGFA is not going to enter service in 2018 as much as they would like it to. At least not an IAF specific version. If they choose to buy a batch of 40-50 PAK-FA single seaters as an interim, then maybe 2018 is likely.

People keep quoting 2017/18 as when PAK-FA/FGFA will be ready ... but that is not realistic looking at all the fighter programs in the last two decades.

Granted that Russians have a different way to flight test and induct their combat aircrafts, PAK-FA just flew this year. There are still a lot of subsystems such as engines, avionics, weapons, stealth materials, AESA radar, IRST etc that have not yet completed R&D. Case in point is the MKI development. IAF signed up for it sometime in 1994. In the meantime, IAF was given 18 Su-30Ks in 1997/8, which the IAF flew for 8 years or so. The Su-30 were delivered starting in 2004/5 in MK-1, MK-2 and MK-3 versions. MK-3 was the full MKI version as originally specified and only joined IAF in 2007/8. If we take 2007/8 as the FOC for MKI, then that is close to 12/14 years of flight testing and full-spec hardware integration.

So yes the single seat PAF-FA may join the IAF in 2018 but it will be a work in progress ... in Western terms it will be a limited IOC plane at that point. IMO, FOC will be 2025. Large scale production run will not take place until close to that point. IOC and FOC of the 2-seater FGFA will take a little longer.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Oct 2010 10:11

And then there are some who don't seem to understand that adding the MRCA itself contributes to the mayhem of additional inventory types. Afterall,
MKI + MiG-29 + M2k + LCA < MKI + MiG-29 + M2k + LCA + MRCA.

I don't find any sense in ordering more Mig29M's, Mirages and LCA's instead of MMRCA.
The role of MMRCA not only includes filling in numbers, but also give the edge over rival Air forces. Competing numerically with our big neighbor is hardly possible. The only way we can stand our ground is by giving our AF the qualitative edge over them.
The capabilities some MMRCA contenders are offering us will take some 5-8 years(AFAIK) to be developed by our neighbors.That is the time say our MMRCA will be in full swing. So the MMRCA will be neck to neck with the enemy air forces top fighters. Then we have FGFA, which can help us keep the edge

.
Then sirji, why not just order more FGFA? Rest assured, it'll take the neighbors an even longer time to achieve that sort of tech. The time frame for induction seems just about the same. Moreover, if the Gripen NG is to be offered as the MRCA, why can't the LCA Mk2 be chosen instead?
The question remains - what does the MRCA bring to the table that an FGFA/PAKFA/LCA combo does not?

I'm glad that Mirage was sidelined as the current contenders are offering far superior aircraft that guarantee sensible operational characteristics for the next decade or so after induction.

Let us all hope that India does not have to deal with a major episode in the next couple of years, I assure you the lack of Mirages could then be rued by many. All the oh so superior advantages of the MRCA candidates will offer very little under such unfortunate circumstances.

CM