MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Oct 2010 10:23

Cain Marko wrote: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.

CM sahab people do understand but when was the last time we every did any thing concrete to stream line our logistics and reduce the number of types beyond lip service , If some one audits the IAF they must be spending a good amount in maintaining spare of aircraft and weapons , logistics from Russia,Israel,French , Brits plus we have our own system , it is perhaps mind boggling to even think they can sucessfully do that forget the cost.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Oct 2010 10:28

On the subject of MRCA.

Will the Astra be intigrated in a forign plane or will we be forced to buy forigh BVR mijjils. Reason I ask is the Vayu article on the MMRCA mijjils.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 21 Oct 2010 10:42

integrating missiles probably requires access to radar source codes so integration of astra depends on how much each vendor in mrca is willing to share.

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 21 Oct 2010 11:01

Lets say the mission is to strike some targets in China - for example, taking out key bridges along the Tibet railway line. Wouldn't stealth be an absolute necessity in order to be able to penetrate Chinese air defenses? Would any of the MRCA contenders be able to carry out such a mission in a discreet, efficient and self-reliant manner? What about the F-35?

koti · Post by **koti** » 21 Oct 2010 11:05

Cain Marko wrote:Moreover, if the Gripen NG is to be offered as the MRCA, why can't the LCA Mk2 be chosen instead?

Its like we could have ordered more MKI too if EF is to be chosen. But the MediumMRCA will be lost.
I don't see how LCA mk2 whose design is yet to finalized can be compared with AC that are in active service from several years across several nations(Even Mig and NG are in a far better level of maturity compared to LCA MkII).
LCA MkII will be there in decent numbers for some time in future. But waiting for that, we would be preventing our AF from acquiring a well integrated AC with AESA, probable super cruise, heavier load, better EW Suit then anything we currently have, longer range etc. But yes, we can save money if your option is to be chosen.

The next medium aircraft we will be fielding will be the MCA. It will incorporate a lot of things that come along with FGFA and MMRCA. But it is still in the drawing board stages. It will take more then a decade to have a flying prototype with decent amount of integration. So, one could expect it to come into picture(IOC) some 5 years after FGFA will get its IOC.
All this long, that is around 2025, we will be left with MKI as our sole defender i.e., as FGFA will be relatively new and in less numbers.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 21 Oct 2010 11:30

Cain Marko wrote:The question remains - what does the MRCA bring to the table that an FGFA/PAKFA/LCA combo does not?

Now while I am not sure about the MRCA, there are definitely some points in its favor.

What could the MRCA bring?

1. 'Immediate' availability (assuming you're not talking the Gripen-NG or MiG-35)

If a major conflict arose in the very near future, the MRCA could be very useful. Even if you ordered more MKI, the MRCA from a separate production line could increase numbers even more rapidly.

2. Foreign tech/weapons

Getting the best of the west in addition to the best of Russia can only be a positive

If you need to penetrate S-300s, I'm not sure how much help you can expect from Russia

And if you need to take out a column of tanks, SFW are amazing.

3. Supplier diversification

With the so much of your major combat capability tied to Russia, it might make sense to have at least some alternate capability.

4. Long-term cost savings

As some here have suggested, it could indeed result in long-term cost savings vs ordering more MKIs by being cheaper to run.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 21 Oct 2010 13:09

10 - 12 years back, were we financially in a position to buy 126 M2Ks? One must remember that was also a major reason for the MMRCA delay.

manum · Post by **manum** » 21 Oct 2010 13:40

thats why R&D centers are opened in farthest, out of the world lands...where no voices can be reached....the statistics of certain realities and calculation, can get so painful some times...
given the research cells are not sleeping in peace, in those farthest lands...

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 21 Oct 2010 13:48

P Chitkara wrote:10 - 12 years back, were we financially in a position to buy 126 M2Ks? One must remember that was also a major reason for the MMRCA delay.

I agree with you. In the last decade i.e. 1990-99, we were in a very bad economic situation. We had to literally go begging. We had to mortgage our gold with Bank or England and other entities. That is why we are facing so much obsolescence in our armed forces. In this decade, i.e. 1990-99, baring a few deals like Su-30MKI deal, we allowed our armed forces to sink.

Now we are on a more sound economic footing. So we can afford a tender which asks for 125 jets, with having a provision for 50 more. In fact some people have speculated, that if one takes the engine for LCA into account, the number of airframe for this order will be 400. It is no secret, that India is trying to leverage this tender to overcome LCA's engine problem.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 21 Oct 2010 16:31

Death kneel for F-35 V/STOL

The reason for the U.K.'s move to the F-35C version of the aircraft rather than the STOVL version is that plans for building two new carriers are in flux.

So the cuts planned to queen elizabeth class ACs is impacting F-35B variant too. Maybe this is because F-35B was originally planned only for Britain.

Again from the article

Britain was set to make a final decision on buying more of the STOVL fighters next year and had originally planned to buy 150 F-35B fighters – the number was later reduced to 138 and could go even lower.

Sheesh such a pity. This was one fighter variant that I had hoped to see in India. It was the only 5th generation V/STOL capable fighter around. Maybe India should jump in and buy the fighters that UK is refusing. If not for MRCA then definitely for our Navy.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Oct 2010 17:03

Hey don't go suggesting stuff without RFI in triplicate to all vendors for 5th gen jumpjet. As it will create a single vendor situation. The process has to be followed.

Perhaps, we could invite Boeing with its F32, to compete with f 35 to avoid single vendor situation. It must be avoided. Else we will see a debate like we are seeing on C17 dhaga.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Oct 2010 18:09

Christopher Sidor wrote: So the cuts planned to queen elizabeth class ACs is impacting F-35B variant too. Maybe this is because F-35B was originally planned only for Britain.

Sheesh such a pity. This was one fighter variant that I had hoped to see in India. It was the only 5th generation V/STOL capable fighter around. Maybe India should jump in and buy the fighters that UK is refusing. If not for MRCA then definitely for our Navy.

The US Marine Corps plans to induct around 300 F-35Bs completely replacing its F-18C/D and AV-2B inventory. So its not quite a dead project.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 21 Oct 2010 19:03

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Now while I am not sure about the MRCA, there are definitely some points in its favor.

What could the MRCA bring?

1. 'Immediate' availability (assuming you're not talking the Gripen-NG or MiG-35)

If a major conflict arose in the very near future, the MRCA could be very useful. Even if you ordered more MKI, the MRCA from a separate production line could increase numbers even more rapidly.

2. Foreign tech/weapons

Getting the best of the west in addition to the best of Russia can only be a positive

If you need to penetrate S-300s, I'm not sure how much help you can expect from Russia

And if you need to take out a column of tanks, SFW are amazing.

3. Supplier diversification

With the so much of your major combat capability tied to Russia, it might make sense to have at least some alternate capability.

4. Long-term cost savings

As some here have suggested, it could indeed result in long-term cost savings vs ordering more MKIs by being cheaper to run.

[/quote]

George these points do make some sense to me. As for cost savings I am not so sure only time will tell.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Oct 2010 01:25

When looking at the MRCA, we also have to think about the versions IAF will get. IAF will be getting the "fullest" planned configuration of these aircrafts:

* Rafale F3 standards
* Eurofighter Tranche 3 standards

The building nations spent a lot of their resources to induct in F1, F2, Tranche 1, and Tranche 2 configurations in order to get to the full standards.

Others like the Gripen NG (Gripen A/B/C), F-16IN (Block 10/20/30/40/50/60), MiG-35 (29A/B/S/SMT/M) and F/A-18IN (18A/B/C/D/E/F) are a further development of existing platforms that have been operational for at least 2 decades.

One can deduct that it takes at least 3 iterations before a combat aircraft type reaches its full capability. Case in point is the LCA. LCA Mk.1 has limited capability. LCA Mk.2 will build upon it and be more capable. It will be LCA Mk.3 standards which will realize the platform's full/mature potential.

Whereas, going for F-35 right away would mean that IAF will be getting only the Block 10 variant. There would still be a lot of work to get them into their full/mature potential (i.e. Block 30). Similar with the PAK-FA/FGFA, which will take at least 2035 to get to the Mk.3 level.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Oct 2010 08:17

for a tactical role involving dropping of cluster munitions, large nos of CCIP bombs, rockets - cheap in cost - the JSF is useless without external pylons and its ungainly fat body does not inspire confidence in its nimbleness. so far the propaganda on JSF has centered around delivering a couple of 2000lb JDAMs from its internal bay from high level and getting out. maybe the US can print dollar and afford that, but I dare say no foreign buyer of JSF can afford such expenses.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2010 12:06

The post about Boeing's feeling that the "twins" are most likely to be shortlisted for the MMRCA deal,bears out the statement made by a retd. AM to me,which I posted some months ago that the IAF in his opinion would prefer a twin-engined aircraft,for obvious reasons-heavier payload,longer range and endurance and better survivability.This appears to be the case in the light of the sudden Chinese aggro. and threat to AP and Kashmir.Prof. Das in Vayu has commented about the effect that dust storms have on engine blades and supports a twin-engined aircraft.If one engine conks out,then the aircraft and pilot is not lost and the faulty engine can be examined later on to acsertain the fault.AM Philip Rajkumar in another article places "affordability" as the key priority in the final choice ,saying that as a nation,with other areas of developmental concern we cannot afford very expensive aircraft.If these statements are true,then it is unlikely that the Gripen is going to make it,as the LCA lobby would not like to see the Gripen succeed while LCA development is still going on and the inevitable comparisons being made.It would also indicate that the IAF look upon the LCA as a "bonus" when it finally arrives in full,and require a "bird in the hand" rather than a MK-2 in the bush!

PS:Anthony H,our expanding role the in IOR,Asia-Pacific does require a larger transport fleet.DEfinitely a C-17/AN-124 strategic heavylifter would be most useful.However,the immediate priority transports wise is to beef up or logistic capability within the country on the northern borders,where according to most info.,the requirement is firstly for large and heavy lift helos,to get eqpt. to areas where the BRO are having problems with no heavy eqpt.,required to extend the road infrastructure.A string of helipads aap[rt from our small airstrips which cannot operate heavy transports,also allow supplies to the troops.As for international ops,as said before,our IL-76s have supported our Flankers in exercises as far away as Alaska! Acccording to reports,both IAF IL-76s and AN-32 s are being upgraded and the Russians are to resume production.In fact one post in the C-17 thread had details of an IL-476 delivered to a customer.If we really need on occasion a strategic heavylifter of C-17/AN-124 class,then we could instead lease the aircraft C-17/AN-124 whatever,which will be a cheaper option,just as NATO is leasing AN-124s.I don't understand why this point has never been debated by anyone dspite my suggestion.A lease would relieve the IAF from spares,logistics,etc.,which would have to be provided by the provider of the aircraft.It is because Boeing requires immediate comnformation of orders so that it can keep its production line open,that the deal is being rushed through.I personally feel that the $5 billion+ mentioned can be more usefully spread out for the same purpose acquiring a variety of other transports and helicopters.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 22 Oct 2010 14:33

First Live-Firing For Gripen Fire Meteor Program

It was the first live-firing of the Swedish Integration programme. Gripen has also been the launch platform from the start of the development of the Meteor missile.
The purpose of this test was to verify the model on separation of the missile from the aircraft. The impact from the missile exhaust plume on the aircraft engine was also studied. As an important part of the integration work the data-link was verified as well.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Oct 2010 16:58

What is the AOA limit for F-16 ,F-18E/F and Rafale ?

Kronop · Post by **Kronop** » 22 Oct 2010 19:20

srai wrote:When looking at the MRCA, we also have to think about the versions IAF will get. IAF will be getting the "fullest" planned configuration of these aircrafts:

* Rafale F3 standards
* Eurofighter Tranche 3 standards

The building nations spent a lot of their resources to induct in F1, F2, Tranche 1, and Tranche 2 configurations in order to get to the full standards.

Others like the Gripen NG (Gripen A/B/C), F-16IN (Block 10/20/30/40/50/60), MiG-35 (29A/B/S/SMT/M) and F/A-18IN (18A/B/C/D/E/F) are a further development of existing platforms that have been operational for at least 2 decades.

One can deduct that it takes at least 3 iterations before a combat aircraft type reaches its full capability. Case in point is the LCA. LCA Mk.1 has limited capability. LCA Mk.2 will build upon it and be more capable. It will be LCA Mk.3 standards which will realize the platform's full/mature potential.

Whereas, going for F-35 right away would mean that IAF will be getting only the Block 10 variant. There would still be a lot of work to get them into their full/mature potential (i.e. Block 30). Similar with the PAK-FA/FGFA, which will take at least 2035 to get to the Mk.3 level.

With regards to development status such as F-16 blocks etc they often represent additional features and capabilities that has been added to the original spec by the customer as the operational requirements and threats change over time.

Specifically for the Gripen, the A (single seat)/B(dual seat) version has evolved to C/D due to customer requests, there is an upgrade path avaliable from A to C as well as B to D but all variants are currently in service. For instance, one of the main changes between A/B and C/D was the implementation of Air-to-Air refuelling which was not part of the original design spec.

Within each block or variant there are normally numerous incremental updates, new equipments, corrections and even some new minor capabilities added according to an agreed program plan.

Of cource there may even be a planned upgrade path agreed before delivery of the first batch of aircrafts with a pre defined cost of adding new features at specific points as well as including the cost of upgrading the earlier aircrafts to the latest standard.

One have to remember that a combat aircraft is so much more than the aircraft itself, which is just one piece of the puzzle that makes up the capability of a complete system, when the system evolves so does its components.

One additional thing to remember is that the step up between F/A-18 C/D and E/F is an even bigger upgrade than what is planned for Gripen NG compared to the C/D variants. The F/A-18 EF is a completely different beast. Shure there are probably some carry-over from a systems pov but it is more or less a completely new aircraft design, which shares design cues and name with its predecessor to fool the US Congress/People (your choise) that its "just an upgrade".

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 22 Oct 2010 19:24

GW, Philip,
Agree mostly with your posts, but I still do not believe the F-16 or F-18 will win, even if they make the shortlist (and I very much doubt the F-16 will do even that). Both are good planes, yes, and by far the most proven of the lot - actually, the only ones proven in combat - but the fact remains that they're American, and that will remain a veto against them. Apart from the possibility of sanctions, the USA needs to earn India's trust before it can expect to get this sort of Indian money, and dumping another shedload of aid on Pakistan just before Obama comes to India isn't going o help that. If American jobs are lost because of this, it's a price they have to pay for arming and funding one of our worst enemies for so long. Perhaps this will impel the senators from concerned US states to lobby against freebies to Pakistan, so they can get some real money off us. Then, and only then, should the US be rewarded with such orders. In cases like that of the C-17, where there isn't a real alternative, fine, but not when we have the option of selecting something else.

I still believe the best fit for the MMRCA is the Rafale. It isn't the most advanced or best value of the jets out there, but it's available, in production and fit to fight. It can hold its own against most fighters today - we aren't looking for the absolute edge of ability here anyway, are we? Plus, it's twin-engined, and going by the bomb-truck argument, it has the highest payload and the best combat radius (my source is wikipedia - feel free to correct me if you have more reliable figures). France has a good record of after-sales service, ad going by the Mirage's performance, the rate of availability should be good. And there's scope for improvement too - maybe an Elta 2052 instead of whatever the French are fiddling with, maybe the naval variant as well.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 22 Oct 2010 19:57

vardhank wrote:I still believe the best fit for the MMRCA is the Rafale. It isn't the most advanced or best value of the jets out there

Well, that's one way of putting it

It is hands down the most expensive to buy and one of the most expensive to own.

That sort of flies in the face of the entire rationale of the MRCA to get a cheap gap-filler that's 'good enough'.

If the Rafale was to remain your primary fighter for decades, it might be a logical choice. But with the FGFA coming so soon, it doesn't make any sense to pour extra money down this particular rabbit hole.

If you're that concerned about range and payload, you could just buy more MKIs and come ahead financially both in the short- and long-term

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 22 Oct 2010 20:40

Philip wrote:The post about Boeing's feeling that the "twins" are most likely to be shortlisted for the MMRCA deal,bears out the statement made by a retd. AM to me,which I posted some months ago that the IAF in his opinion would prefer a twin-engined aircraft,for obvious reasons-heavier payload,longer range and endurance and better survivability.This appears to be the case in the light of the sudden Chinese aggro. and threat to AP and Kashmir.Prof. Das in Vayu has commented about the effect that dust storms have on engine blades and supports a twin-engined aircraft.If one engine conks out,then the aircraft and pilot is not lost and the faulty engine can be examined later on to acsertain the fault.AM Philip Rajkumar in another article places "affordability" as the key priority in the final choice ,saying that as a nation,with other areas of developmental concern we cannot afford very expensive aircraft.If these statements are true,then it is unlikely that the Gripen is going to make it,as the LCA lobby would not like to see the Gripen succeed while LCA development is still going on and the inevitable comparisons being made.It would also indicate that the IAF look upon the LCA as a "bonus" when it finally arrives in full,and require a "bird in the hand" rather than a MK-2 in the bush!

PS:Anthony H,our expanding role the in IOR,Asia-Pacific does require a larger transport fleet.DEfinitely a C-17/AN-124 strategic heavylifter would be most useful.However,the immediate priority transports wise is to beef up or logistic capability within the country on the northern borders,where according to most info.,the requirement is firstly for large and heavy lift helos,to get eqpt. to areas where the BRO are having problems with no heavy eqpt.,required to extend the road infrastructure.A string of helipads aap[rt from our small airstrips which cannot operate heavy transports,also allow supplies to the troops.As for international ops,as said before,our IL-76s have supported our Flankers in exercises as far away as Alaska! Acccording to reports,both IAF IL-76s and AN-32 s are being upgraded and the Russians are to resume production.In fact one post in the C-17 thread had details of an IL-476 delivered to a customer.If we really need on occasion a strategic heavylifter of C-17/AN-124 class,then we could instead lease the aircraft C-17/AN-124 whatever,which will be a cheaper option,just as NATO is leasing AN-124s.I don't understand why this point has never been debated by anyone dspite my suggestion.A lease would relieve the IAF from spares,logistics,etc.,which would have to be provided by the provider of the aircraft.It is because Boeing requires immediate comnformation of orders so that it can keep its production line open,that the deal is being rushed through.I personally feel that the $5 billion+ mentioned can be more usefully spread out for the same purpose acquiring a variety of other transports and helicopters.

I will respond in C17 thread...

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 22 Oct 2010 22:40

EADS to Focus on India
Indian Defence Review

As per EADS Chief Executive (Defence & Security) Stefan Zoller, European aerospace consortium, Eurofighter, is set to transfer some development work of its fourth generation Eurofighter Typhoon and other military aircraft from Europe to India soon.

EADS has set up a military Research and Development (R&D) centre in Bangalore. Zoller clarified that the R&D activities were independent of its bid for the global tender for 126 MMRCA for the Indian Air Force (IAF). He said the move intended to leverage high-skilled Indian talent as well as the potential of the emerging Indian aerospace industry apart from developing new technologies and creating new jobs.

Typhoon Airacraft Speaking at the 10th Berlin International Air Show Zoller said, “If we win the IAF order, the development of newer versions of Typhoon for India and global market will result in creation of about 20,000 direct jobs, as the bid involves the winner re-investing 50 per cent of the deal in India’s defence manufacturing industry.”

The Company plans to transfer 60 percent of the Eurofighter technology to India if the Typhoon wins the bid. Its long-term strategy is to partner with the Indian aerospace industry for its global market, as it considers Indian talent and resources as the ideal source for know-how in developing newer technologies.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Oct 2010 23:13

Singha wrote:for a tactical role involving dropping of cluster munitions, large nos of CCIP bombs, rockets - cheap in cost - the JSF is useless without external pylons and its ungainly fat body does not inspire confidence in its nimbleness. so far the propaganda on JSF has centered around delivering a couple of 2000lb JDAMs from its internal bay from high level and getting out. maybe the US can print dollar and afford that, but I dare say no foreign buyer of JSF can afford such expenses.

We've already got aircraft (the MKI today and the PAK-FA in the future) that can perform heavy bombing missions. And the F-35 can use external pylons, drop bombs and still be the stealthiest aircraft in the sky(until the PAK-FA and J-xx arrive). Also, with regard to its aerodynamics, it gains a lot from having a clean configuration as opposed to an aircraft carrying very draggy external stores.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Oct 2010 23:24

I recall reading an article on Boeing (regarding something called OneBoeing- Boeing IDS and BCA presenting one face to a customer), that mentioned how they approached the IAF Chief directly and he even made some remark which I cannot remember exactly, but basically to the effect that he was surprised that Boeing, famous for its civilian aircraft was offering a fighter for the MRCA. It was not a GoI request that got them into the MRCA competition. It was Bush who basically gave the go-ahead to offer the IAF the F/A-18 E/F.

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.

This has been discussed a lot earlier too. There was simply no economical way for Dassault to keep a line idle and with workers on standby waiting for orders to come. The last UAE Mirage-2000-5 new build orders were coming to an end and no other deliveries were needed after that.They were willing to let it be idle till they thought that there were very good chances of the Indian or Brazilian tenders leading to sales, but once both got delayed the decision was made to close the line and instead offer the Rafale. Pure economics initially but later on made sense as well, since the delay meant that the Typhoon also entered the fray later on and the deal size ballooned with every passing year to $10 billion+. Blame that on Tehelka and the mortal fear of corruption accusations on the GoI.

Nevertheless, there are some gains in this delay too. Offsets were introduced as a policy, which never happened earlier such as in the Su-30MKI deals. And in a round-about way, these offsets will mean private sector companies will gain and so will the overall Indian aerospace industry as a result. Once they gain an entry into a lucrative market like defence aviation, I'd expect them to pry it open with whatever means possible. This wouldn't have happened if the Mirage-2000-5, F-16 Block 50 or Gripen C/D had been chosen earlier since without legal obligations to do so, no OEM would spend time or money doing that.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Oct 2010 00:07

Austin wrote:What is the AOA limit for F-16 ,F-18E/F and Rafale ?

Rafale is 29 deg alpha. from the FlightGlobal flight test by Peter Collins-

The DFCS is a "g" demand system with +9.0g/29° angle of attack (AoA) limit in air-to-air mode and +5.5g/20° AoA limit in both of the two air-to-ground/heavy stores modes (ST1 and ST2) to cater for forward or aft centre of gravity... Minus g limit in all modes is -3.2.

The F-16 has a quoted value of 30 deg AoA at higher speeds and around 26 deg at lower speeds, similar to a Gripen which has 28 deg max AoA and less at lower speeds, controlled by the DFCS.

the Super Hornet on the other hand, has the highest max AoA of the three, given at around 40 deg.

I'll try and find some solid references for the above 2.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Oct 2010 00:44

A couple of interesting points- although discussed here on BRF, now being mentioned by a Boeing exec as well. And points out that IAF's MRCA requirements have been moving away from a single engined aircraft over time..

article link

There has been some speculation that the Indian navy’s aircraft carrier ambition could be a handicap for Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the MMRCA fighter competition. The argument goes that if the Indian navy buys the Super Hornet, why should India also buy the aircraft for the MMRCA?

But Boeing officials discount such calculations, arguing it is more wishful thinking by rivals than anything substantive. There have not been any discussions with the Indian navy about a Super Hornet purchase, says Rick McCrary, Boeing’s business development lead for the Indian MMRCA competition.

The Indian carrier program remains linked to the MiG-29. While McCrary says the Super Hornet may be an option “in the outyears” for the Indian navy, that’s all it is for now.

And, he points out, that as in many other forces, the Indian air force and navy do not generally coordinate their procurement plans.

McCrary also discounts a linkage between the recent GE F414 engine selection for the LCA, even though that would give Boeing and Saab’s Gripen an advantage since they use the same GE motor.

As for the actual competition, McCrary expects a downselect in India not before February’s Bangalore air show. A single type selection would come during the summer.

Who will survive? McCrary’s guess, right now, is the “big twins” will make the cut, the others will be dropped. Given he’s in the business of selling a big twin, that’s no surprise. But he argues that the MMRCA requirement has evolved away from the single-engine aircraft over time.

Whether there will be a downselect at all remains uncertain.

So how does Boeing see the recent Indian-Russian tie-up on the PAK FA? McCrary does not see it impacting the MMRCA, nor does it mean India is again turning heavily to Russia for its aircraft fighter needs. If anything, he says the deal means India can more easily drop the MiG-35, since it has underpinned its strategic relationship with Russia via the future program.

manum · Post by **manum** » 23 Oct 2010 00:48

anybody wants F18 3d model, i got it with me, mail me for the same...
I'll put up renders later...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Oct 2010 00:57

manum ... please email me the model at ixnxdxrxaxnxixlxrx@xgxmxaxixlx.xcxoxm. You know what to do to get the real email id

.

Thanks.

Devesh Rawal · Post by **Devesh Rawal** » 23 Oct 2010 02:13

Aussie SH dropping smart bombs:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... siles.html

Question to the gurus: is this kind of smart munition on offer for the MRCA? and if so, this must be seen as a serious stand off weapon: less expensive than a dedicated AGM (rocket type) but almost just as effective. Once released, I can imagine it's very hard to kill. Also its much preferred I suppose to a regular LGB?

Is the range practical? (seems very good compared to regular missiles)
low altitude launch: 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi)
high altitude launch: 70 nautical miles (130 km; 81 mi)

On another note, I cannot find any examples on the net about the effectiveness of the SU-30 as a ground attack platform. I am aware that it has excellent capability, but there seems to be almost next to nothing in terms of video (practice runs) or combat, except the Ethiopian AF usage of SU-27s against ground insurgents. Lots of literature on its ability for Air-to-Air, of course.

Here's a thought: Is the IAF not entirely happy about the MKIs ground attack capability, and therefore the MRCA's ground attack credentials are very high up on the evaluation criteria? Any pointer etc most welcome.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 23 Oct 2010 02:49

Oct 21, 2010
By M K Bhadrakumar

There is talk of easing of restrictions by the US on "dual-use" technology flow to India, of new vistas of cooperation in space and energy, a multi-billion dollar arms deal for C-17 military transport aircraft and new business opportunities in the burgeoning Indian market that hold the potential to generate tens of thousands of jobs in the US.

The Delhi grapevine is that India has all but decided to award to the US a massive contract for 126 multi-purpose fighter aircraft - worth anywhere up to $16 billion.

Link

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Oct 2010 06:53

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 010-725652.

live fist: Eurofighter+lifting+off+from+Kalikunda+IAF+base+for+a+mission+during+Ex+Indhranush+on+20+Oct+2010

Beautiful shot!

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 23 Oct 2010 08:35

GeorgeWelch wrote:
vardhank wrote:I still believe the best fit for the MMRCA is the Rafale. It isn't the most advanced or best value of the jets out there
Well, that's one way of putting it

It is hands down the most expensive to buy and one of the most expensive to own.

That sort of flies in the face of the entire rationale of the MRCA to get a cheap gap-filler that's 'good enough'.

If the Rafale was to remain your primary fighter for decades, it might be a logical choice. But with the FGFA coming so soon, it doesn't make any sense to pour extra money down this particular rabbit hole.

If you're that concerned about range and payload, you could just buy more MKIs and come ahead financially both in the short- and long-term

Ah, but neither is the F-18 some sort of bargain, yes?

And let's look at it another way. I'm looking for a car - I already have a big, powerful sedan (Car X - the Sukhoi) in the garage, and now I want a smaller car to go with it. A hatchback perhaps, or a small saloon, mainly for use in the city, but which should definitely be able to handle the highways.

Among my choices are three cars (the three others, for various reasons, just don't work):
1) car A - in production, the company is known to be reliable and have good after-sales service, it's very good in the city and the best of the lot on the highway. It doesn't have some of the mod-cons I'd like, but I can get those in the aftermarket. The onl problem is that it's pretty expensive.
2) car B - also expensive, but very high-tech, unbelievably manoeuvreable in the city. however, it can't go on the highway. at all. the manufacturer promises that in three years' time, it'll work just fine on the highway, too.
3) car C - an interesting case. the company's been giving cars free to my seedy neighbour (who's been chopping parts out of this car to sell on the black market and demanding free replacements for those parts from the company). and the company's been laughing in my face ever time i ask them to stop this. now, when i'm flashing some cash around, this company's gyrating its hips furiously in my face, practically demanding i buy their car and none other (with hints that if i do, i'll get their new, but suspect, sports car, when it's ready). the car itself is pretty sound, handles both the city and the highway pretty well, is known to be reliable, and SHOULD work out cheaper in the long run than the others, if not by much. the big problem here is the warranty agreement: i can only use the car with prior permission from the company, use it only where the company allows me to, and will almost certainly come with a remote kill switch that makes the car useless if the company doesn't like the way i use it, or decides it just doesn't like my face. and no refunds, thank you.

which one would you buy? car A (rafale), car B (typhoon) or car C (SHornet)?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Oct 2010 08:53

I would reexamine if maybe the sales force for one of the cars was making false and/or misleading statements about the competition.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 23 Oct 2010 08:57

Akaer, Saab Release First Gripen NG Production 3D Model in Brazil

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Oct 2010 08:58

Thanks Kartik will take your word.

Can the AOA limit which is soft limited to 26 to 29 degrees can be over ridden in close combat by some mechanism which over rides safety ?

I am certain they must have been tested to a higher AOA perhaps to test stall and there must be a hard limit and safe soft limit of AOA these fighters.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 23 Oct 2010 10:23

GeorgeWelch wrote:I would reexamine if maybe the sales force for one of the cars was making false and/or misleading statements about the competition.

Er? (well, actually true, considering the most entertaining flame wars between the rafale and gripen fanboys, but how does it apply here?)

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 23 Oct 2010 12:22

manum wrote:anybody wants F18 3d model, i got it with me, mail me for the same...
I'll put up renders later...

That would be very nice. Please mail at pxjxtxgxaxuxr xATx gxmxaxixlxdatxcxoxm. Also, it would be very nice if you could send the texture maps (including bump , specular etc) if you have them with you.

Austin,
The override AOA switch is at least present in Su-27 series and its derivatives. I do not know about the others but I will guess that it will have to depend upon the particular a/c's aerodynamics, flow correction in the inlet and the engine's tolerance for turbulence.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Oct 2010 12:49

Gaur , I think its is present in old Su-27 which had analog FBW and one could over ride it to get a higher AOA , the modern one with all digital quad FBW does not have that feature ,but that is not needed for modern Su's because in combination with TVC it has practically no limit on AOA.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 23 Oct 2010 16:21

No F-35 for India

That brings end to all the discussion about cancelling MMRCA and go for F 35...