MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Oct 2010 21:04

Gagan wrote:If the F-35 JSF was never offered to India, then what is this during Aero India?

The F-35 is on offer to India, just not within the MRCA contract's timelines. The Navy for example has sent RFIs to Lockheed Martin for both the F-35B and F-35C.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Oct 2010 21:10

JTull wrote:Nothing new. Companies are increasingly moving to where the markets are. HSBC, one of the biggest British banks, has moved its senior executuves (incl. CEO) to Hong Kong. It is still primarily a Bristish bank, but it knows where it should focus more. ICC has moved it's headquarters to Dubai because of dominant Asian bloc.

Not very different from PM making the trip to Tokyo and making the nuke-deal a cornerstone to the success of the trip. And the very next day he claimed the deal to be not very important. That is desperate, and not unlike Zardari taking the F-16 begging bowl to US.

Rather than mock them, we should feel proud that India is getting the attention that it long deserved. We don't need their flattery but we definitely need their attention.

Let the investment come in and production unit setup.
Was talking to a class mate. Most of the majors in def are going to India.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 26 Oct 2010 00:06

Nachiket,

If Indian MoD does not use common sense then L-1 bidder winner will easily be F-16IN. Even Boeing won't be able to beat that.

Secondly, we must ask EADs to open up their UMS branch in India as well to specially cater to Indian market in JV with local Indian companies. Future joint R&D with EADs & partner firms can give a big boost to our own AMCA and FGFA programs.

From the link:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=13660

Bernhard Gerwert, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Eurofighter GmbH and CEO of EADS subsidiary Cassidian Air Systems, said: "The Eurofighter Supervisory Board is meeting in New Delhi to underline the importance we attach to integrating India into the programme as a true and equal industrial partner. Even ahead of any contract, we are ready to engage India's defence and aerospace industry in joint production and research & development (R&D) for Eurofighter Typhoon."

Enzo Casolini, CEO Eurofighter GmbH, added: “We have the potential to elevate Indo-European political, industrial and technological relations to a completely new level. All Eurofighter partner countries are supporting the Eurofighter campaign in India. Four nations, four air forces and Europe's leading aerospace and defence companies want to increase their industrial cooperation with Indian defence companies for mutual benefit through the most advanced multi role fighter available on the market.”

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 26 Oct 2010 00:54

Lekin bhai..I read somewhere that EF is a pure air fighter..will that not go against the `multirole` part of MMRCA..In fact i think it has very little chance of success.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 26 Oct 2010 01:30

Sumeet wrote:If Indian MoD does not use common sense then L-1 bidder winner will easily be F-16IN. Even Boeing won't be able to beat that.

Don't count on it.

The SH has a more modern fuselage, which means fewer parts which means cheaper manufacture.

Also the F-16IN has more development cost and more development risk to add stuff like the retractable refueling probe.

L-1 would probably be the MiG-35. The only question would be how reliable the quoted price was.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 26 Oct 2010 04:52

George,

Mig-35 come possibly be L-1 bidder, but F-16 is a damn cheap aircraft which is why US can give it as freebies. SH block2/3 with all its bell & whistle is a whole different beast. It will cost more than any F-16 variant any day. That is even true for USAF and USN as buyers.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Oct 2010 05:05

Lalmohan wrote:i disagree nachiket, i think they have quite a strong chance

..of being the L-1 bidder?

Not unless the Mig-35, Gripen and both teens are all knocked out during the down select. What are the chances of that happening? They may score over the others in ToT and offsets (with the partnership offer etc.). It remains to be seen how much importance that gets over having to spend less cash upfront.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 26 Oct 2010 05:20

Cain Marko wrote:
Singha wrote:the UAE eval revealed some gaps in rafale and the french asked UAE around $2b to develop and improve technology to plug these gaps. UAE is seriously considering F-18 now (per media report) because the radar and ECM is upto their expectation as-is.

also there is no word on M88 growth version (neither of the EJ-210), while GE does have 414 improved version in testing for 3-4 yrs and is supplying them both to gripenNG and TejasMk2.
Strangely enough, the RMAF prefered the Su-30MKM over the Apg 79 equipped Shornet after evaluating both (makes you wonder about the true capabilities of the Bars). The Rafale with the RBE 2 AESA seems to have everything and more vis a vis the Shornet (except of course the wide variety of munitions available to the Shornet).

Sheikdom purchases are not the greatest reflection of a/c capabilities imho. Rafale is expensive but seems like the real independent choice in the race. Also seems to have incorporated advanced/diverse technologies the most.

CM.

Marko san n GD there was a video that came up some time back when the Malaysian Def Min (me thinks) was talking about sanctions and how important it was that the Sukhoi was an independent choice for them he even went further of jokingly saying that tomorrow if we want to attack Singapore with the su we can with the horny we cant

It seems that independency was a key criterion for the RMAF OT though (yay my thrid post in the MRCA dhaga)...drum roll!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 26 Oct 2010 06:46

Sumeet wrote:Mig-35 come possibly be L-1 bidder, but F-16 is a damn cheap aircraft which is why US can give it as freebies. SH block2/3 with all its bell & whistle is a whole different beast. It will cost more than any F-16 variant any day. That is even true for USAF and USN as buyers.

The 'freebies' are used F-16s, top-of-the-line modern F-16s like the ones the UAE got are north of $80 million.

The latest multi-year buy for the SH was less than $50 million.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 26 Oct 2010 10:02

What we should keep in mind is that Boeing is the only(may be apart from SAAB) AFAIK to stress on the economy of their aircraft(in an article which I cant find now, an official claims that due to continuous improvements in the manufacturing process etc. the cost of the SH was comparable to the single engined f-16.). I don't think I have read a single article in which a Mig official says that the Mig-35 will be very cheap. Its only conjecture, our association of Russian with cheap.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Oct 2010 10:31

andy B wrote:Marko san n GD there was a video that came up some time back when the Malaysian Def Min (me thinks) was talking about sanctions and how important it was that the Sukhoi was an independent choice for them he even went further of jokingly saying that tomorrow if we want to attack Singapore with the su we can with the horny we cant It seems that independency was a key criterion for the RMAF OT though (yay my thrid post in the MRCA dhaga)...drum roll!

Andy, I do remember such a video, I believe it was Mahathir himself. However, I doubt that it was this factor alone that affected the RMAF decision - after all they did consider the Shornet even after the MKM deal was done (as a second sqd). In terms of the Bars performance vis a vis smaller AESAs (such as the apg 79 or the 80), the biggest question seems to be LPI modes, in most other features I doubt those small radars can outmatch the Bars.

In terms of the RBE2 and the rafale's small nosecone, it all would depend upon the size of the TRMs too. Although i doubt the euros have 'em much smaller than the US.

Re. the L1 tender - there seems little doubt that the MiG-35 is it, at this point they are willing to share the most TOT as well not to mention the prices for the 29k. However, I'd said this a long time ago - the 35 is out - and Aroor's recent articles seems to support that hypothesis. The reason is simple - the IAF wants to diversify and sees the need for something "western".

CM.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 26 Oct 2010 11:23

The EFT consortium is offering to make India the 5th partner for EFT. But they have not said anything about the future plans for EFT. They are proposing to upgrade a few items of the whole package, but not the whole fighter. So what exactly will India gain in this co-development or co-design is questionable. In fact most of the countries, which are part or the EFT effort are leaning towards F-35 for their 5th generation fighter. So just like the British Tornadoes, EFT also will be a one time effort or a dead end.

This is not a criticism of EFT as a fighter or as a package. But just some hard facts.

Kronop · Post by **Kronop** » 26 Oct 2010 16:51

Saab moves production of Boeing 787 components from the US to India:
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/ ... -in-India/

raj-ji · Post by **raj-ji** » 26 Oct 2010 23:12

Kronop wrote:Saab moves production of Boeing 787 components from the US to India:
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/ ... -in-India/

I have read the MRCA discussion for some time now, and nice to see such informed discussion about such an interesting topic.

My preference would be the Rafale, true multirole technically advanced fighter that would be a force multiplier for the IAF. If the IAF liked the Mirage 2000 they will love the Rafale. But very expensive option and with the FGFA on the horizon it may be too costly.

IMO the best choice for the IAF is the Gripen. A relatively cheap aircraft, with SAAB offering TOT. A fighter that has been described by aviation experts as easy to fly, easy to maintain (also affordable to operate). Can land on a road, refuel, rearm in minutes, thanks its 'hot refueling' capability, a potent aircraft for any Air Force. But many have discussed that the Gripen's major disadvantages are that it would kill the LCA and not give us political capital. Valid points, but this can be dealt with.

A way to deal with these disadvantages would be to decouple the aircraft from some of its key components. In this scenario the GOI would choose the Gripen, without engine, AESA and possibly other parts. Rather than buy the whole product, the GOI would negotiate with other companies/governments for these other parts (these parts would have to fit into the Gripen without major redesigning of the airframe). With $10 Billion + up for grabs, the GOI can call the shots any way they want, no one in this economy can afford to ignore this offer.

Each fighter in this competition has strengths and weaknesses, best option would be for the GOI to minimize the weaknesses and maximize the strengths. In this scenario, the Gripen would be fitted with the best technologies from Europe, Russia, Israel, US and India. The IAF must have a mountain of data from the evaluations of the 6 aircraft, they would know what capabilities they liked the best from the different fighters. The Gripen would be more deadly of an aircraft with technologies from Dassault, EADS, Sukhoi, MIG and perhaps but to a lesser extent Boeing and Lockheed Martin (because of kill switches, end user monitoring etc. - but they can still supply all glass cockpits, flight simulator tech. etc.). Full TOT, manufacturing in India and R&D would be a must from these companies, if they decline move on to next best option.

The same technologies chosen for the Gripen would also be incorporated into the LCA. For example, the company/country who's AESA is chosen would work with India's AESA program. Engine chosen would work with the Kaveri project, etc. Once these indigenous programs reach maturity, the indigenous products would be used and the foreign products transitioned out, and since the programs would be connected, the transition should be relatively seamless. In this scenario, the Gripen would become a sister to the Tejas not a competitor. The two would share a lot of common parts. Important to have the Gripen while the LCA matures, and lessons learnt from the Gripen will help the LCA become a truly potent fighter. Also the benchmark for HAL would be to match or exceed the Gripen, and they can do this if the two programs are connected (not merged as some fear). Having common parts on a large number of aircraft have obvious logistical, technical and strategic advantages.

The end result would be a Gripen-IN which would be a beautiful but deadly Frankenstein. An aircraft that should have greater capabilities than the Gripen-NG, a truly tailor made aircraft for the IAF. And a LCA program that would have a tangible target to meet, with HAL not trying to reinvent the wheel but rather gaining knowledge from the best in the industry.

Lastly, as for politics. I agree that the winner should be chosen on technical merits not politics. But with India vying for a permanent spot on the global stage, politics is a necessary evil. The scenario proposed would gain the most political capital for the GOI, because there are no real winners and losers. In this scenario, the Europeans, Russians, Israelis and Americans all get a piece of the pie (not all pieces will be equal, but better than nothing). This means that all parties can claim victory giving the GOI a nice bargaining chip.

I understand there are many challenges with this scenario, but IMO this gives the IAF the most versatile, potent and custom made option. And the GOI the most political capital, not to mention the most bang for its buck.

Food for thought.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 26 Oct 2010 23:45

raj-ji wrote:A way to deal with these disadvantages would be to decouple the aircraft from some of its key components. In this scenario the GOI would choose the Gripen, without engine, AESA and possibly other parts.

The Gripen's biggest problem is that it won't be ready in time.

Ripping out large chunks and redoing them will just exacerbate the situation and increase development costs and risk.

India has enough developmental aircraft projects with the LCA, FGFA, AMCA and MRTA. For the MRCA it needs something fast, cheap and hassle-free.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 27 Oct 2010 00:17

raj-ji wrote:
Kronop wrote:Saab moves production of Boeing 787 components from the US to India:
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/ ... -in-India/
.....

A way to deal with these disadvantages would be to decouple the aircraft from some of its key components. In this scenario the GOI would choose the Gripen, without engine, AESA and possibly other parts. Rather than buy the whole product, the GOI would negotiate with other companies/governments for these other parts (these parts would have to fit into the Gripen without major redesigning of the airframe). With $10 Billion + up for grabs, the GOI can call the shots any way they want, no one in this economy can afford to ignore this offer.....

.... Food for thought.

Interesting thought, but if we go this route it may delay the procurement significantly, say another 10 years more. Because you just can't buy different parts from different manufacturers and just plug them in and fly the aircraft around. The parts would need to fit properly, there maybe major airframe and sub-sytems redesigns needed, it needs to be ground tested, flight tested, certified, and induction process, etc.; just look at the LCA testing and certification time line. MMRCA is intended to stem the fast depleting force levels of the IAF right here and now. We're already much delayed in this respect already. So we need pretty much off-the-shelf aircraft that can fly into battle readily and immediately if needed. If it is cost effective with high reliability and versatility then that would be wonderful. In this respect only Gripen and F-16 fit the bill, but both have their drawbacks, don't they?

raj-ji · Post by **raj-ji** » 27 Oct 2010 01:19

^^^
I see your point. This proposal is for the long term. Buy some numbers of Gripen-IN off the shelf for now, perhaps half and incorporate other parts down the road when ready. The point was to not get tied for many years for a large number of fighters to one company/country. Also, IMO there is a need to connect and leverage the different programs under way (LCA, MCA, Kaveri, AESA etc), seems on the surface that there is a lot of parallel work.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2010 05:57

Why should India buy a mediocre Gripen NG, which by all accounts will neither have the payload or combat persistence in terms of sensor footprint and overall capability, as larger platforms such as the F/A-18 E/F, the Typhoon and the Rafale? The Gripen NG is more akin to the original MMRCA plan for Mirage 2000's, and is by no means sufficient against the kind of platforms that are being developed in China. Flanker derivatives can get to parity with the Gripen, and India cannot afford that kind of attrition. Can Gripen even carry the kind of payload and offer the persistence to take on heavily integrated Air Defense Networks, hardly.

Why should India subsidize the Gripen NG and end up paying for its long term sustainment as its only key customer bar a handful of planes in Sweden, while right now its a paper product, when proven platforms exist that can be customized far quicker to meet India's operational needs.

And existing programs such as LCA, MCA, Kaveri, AESA etc are already being connected and the work leveraged across the board. There is no need to bring this new platform into the mix.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Oct 2010 06:05

For the MRCA it needs something fast, cheap and hassle-free.

Sounds like this is the mantra since 10 years back when we decided to have 126 MRCA! good thoughts.

venku_Raj · Post by **venku_Raj** » 27 Oct 2010 07:38

Letters: The real fighter?

This is in response to "Scrap the MMRCA, buy US F-35s” (October 19) by Ajai Shukla

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 27 Oct 2010 08:05

Irrespective of BVR capabilities, Indo-Pak aerial engagement will surely come down to close quarter engagement. I am not sure if any of the aircrafts can come close to MIG 29k's maneuverability. So if MIG 35's offered with 3D TVC am not sure even if Su30mki's will be able to stand up to Mig35ovt in close engagements let alone the teens and canard-delta euro and rafale.

When we do consider BVR engagements MIG uses open architecture using the MIL-STD-1553 which can be configured to fire missiles from existing russian and Israeli and french origins with the capability to include western missiles. I am not sure which other fighter in the race can fire the huge stockpile of vympel series already in the indian arsenal.Right now Indian BVR capabilities are limited to R77, R27, Astra, and the python with a possibility of Novator K-100 MBDA mica (for mirage 2000) and R27 joining future.
I am not sure about interoperability of BVR missiles or effective utilization of the same on american platforms. last i heard of rafale was that it did not have a targeting pod and does not support any other weapon system other than MBDA systems.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Oct 2010 08:57

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:I am not sure if any of the aircrafts can come close to MIG 29k's maneuverability. So if MIG 35's offered with 3D TVC am not sure even if Su30mki's will be able to stand up to Mig35ovt in close engagements let alone the teens and canard-delta euro and rafale.

We are no longer in the age of the turning dogfight where you have to put your nose on the target.

It's not the planes it has to stand up to, it's the missiles.

No matter how maneuverable it is, it will never out-turn a missile.

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 27 Oct 2010 09:15

Karan M wrote:The Gripen NG is more akin to the original MMRCA plan for Mirage 2000's, and is by no means sufficient against the kind of platforms that are being developed in China. Flanker derivatives can get to parity with the Gripen, and India cannot afford that kind of attrition. Can Gripen even carry the kind of payload and offer the persistence to take on heavily integrated Air Defense Networks, hardly.

So which of the other contenders can do this (ie defeat the Flanker in aerial combat and successfully take on Chinese air defense systems)?

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 27 Oct 2010 09:30

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Sandeep_ghosh wrote:I am not sure if any of the aircrafts can come close to MIG 29k's maneuverability. So if MIG 35's offered with 3D TVC am not sure even if Su30mki's will be able to stand up to Mig35ovt in close engagements let alone the teens and canard-delta euro and rafale.
We are no longer in the age of the turning dogfight where you have to put your nose on the target.

It's not the planes it has to stand up to, it's the missiles.

No matter how maneuverable it is, it will never out-turn a missile.

If thats true why does all the aforementioned aircrafts carry guns .. including 5th gen a/c... when it comes down to a/c to a/c close quarters ... everypilot relies on guns ... and there is where maneuverability comes in.

koti · Post by **koti** » 27 Oct 2010 09:32

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Sandeep_ghosh wrote:I am not sure if any of the aircrafts can come close to MIG 29k's maneuverability. So if MIG 35's offered with 3D TVC am not sure even if Su30mki's will be able to stand up to Mig35ovt in close engagements let alone the teens and canard-delta euro and rafale.
We are no longer in the age of the turning dogfight where you have to put your nose on the target.

It's not the planes it has to stand up to, it's the missiles.

No matter how maneuverable it is, it will never out-turn a missile.

Not completely true George. Why do you think the Raptor has 2D Thrust Vectoring even though it is equipped with the latest missiles? Definitely not to dodge missiles, right.

There are numerous advantages of agility of the aircraft other then out maneuvering missiles.

Also, the Raptor carries a 20mm Vulcan with a massive 480 rounds. BVR?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 27 Oct 2010 11:29

X-post

Joint Air To Ground Missile (JAGM) successfully tested on SH..

Raytheon Touts JAGM Successes

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 27 Oct 2010 13:03

I have read a number of posts favoring F/A 18 E/F and JAS Gripen for the GE 414 engine. As being used on the LCA how the cost might get offset.

We already use Mig 29M (69) which are being upgraded to Mig29SMT standard also Navy will employ Mig 29K (45).
Getting Mig 35 opens the possibility of upgrading the 104 a/c's to MIG 35 standard. that would actually bring MMRCA numbers from 128 to 232... nearly a fleet of migs as big as the sukhoi's

Also Mig 35 open architecture configuration for its avionics lets choose from components and systems made by Russian, United States, French and Israeli sources.

It can employ Wide variety of current and future missiles. I am not sure of any other aircraft in the mmrca deal to be able to fire the R77 missile which outclasses the AIM 120, skyflash and the MBDA Mica.

We all know how 2d thrust vectoring changed the face of su 27, Imagine what all aspect nozzle 3d thrust vectoring nozzle can do for the MIG.

MIG 35 will let us create a MKI type MIG 29 variant

at half the price of the eurofighter.
with Full tech transfer unlike Americans
deployment of of the shelf and existing Missles and smart bombs unlike the rafale
least dependence third party licences as in case of Jas Gripens

And looking at performance of Mig 29s ... it has time and again proved itself as an air supremacy fighter.

koti · Post by **koti** » 27 Oct 2010 14:02

Sandeep, I cannot agree more as far as the commonality advantages go.

But making the air-force completely dependent on a single country can harm our national interests.
Russia unlike the remaining contenders has a record for standing by us in the past. But this of-course cannot guarantee that we wouldn't be milked in tight-neck situations.

Though the cost of operation can be significantly brought down, it also will close an opportunity to partner with and gain significant benefits in military and political circles from these regions.

We are an active participant in the Russian military developments through ventures like FGFA and Brahmos.
Now it will be of immense help if we are able to have the same level of co-operation with a productive western partner too. Now this can be broken down into partnering with military houses in US and Europe.

Co-developing and partnering with US is beyond the capability and possibly interest of India at this point because of high investment and also very dangerous political entanglement that it might cause.

Europe on the other hand has pretty neat deals to offer us from the MBDA+BAE+EADS.

Saab and Dassault also have decent offerings but do not give us as as the MBDA+BAE can give.

Then again, the big question of whether all this gain is worth more then $4 Billion difference is a question.

The Mig other then the said political disadvantages is a perfect MMRCA platform which IMO can hold its ground any day against the remaining contenders.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 27 Oct 2010 15:56

Karan M wrote:Why should India buy a mediocre Gripen NG, which by all accounts will neither have the payload or combat persistence in terms of sensor footprint and overall capability, as larger platforms such as the F/A-18 E/F, the Typhoon and the Rafale? The Gripen NG is more akin to the original MMRCA plan for Mirage 2000's, and is by no means sufficient against the kind of platforms that are being developed in China. Flanker derivatives can get to parity with the Gripen, and India cannot afford that kind of attrition. Can Gripen even carry the kind of payload and offer the persistence to take on heavily integrated Air Defense Networks, hardly.

Technologically, the Gripen NG is on par with the Rafale, SH and Typhoon. And compared to chinese fighters, the technological gap is enormous to the Gripens advantage.

Why should India subsidize the Gripen NG and end up paying for its long term sustainment as its only key customer bar a handful of planes in Sweden, while right now its a paper product, when proven platforms exist that can be customized far quicker to meet India's operational needs.

And existing programs such as LCA, MCA, Kaveri, AESA etc are already being connected and the work leveraged across the board. There is no need to bring this new platform into the mix.

"Paper product"? I thought that ridiculous and false statement made up by the competition had died out. If India would go for the Gripen I think it would be ready before the Tejas MkII meets it's perfomance parameters...
Besides, any new platform in the MMRCA that India would chose would be a "new platform into the mix", so it wouldn't matter. And don't forget that if you have several fighters sharing parts like the engines and weapons, it brings benefits in the form of cost effectiviness and better logistics.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Oct 2010 16:28

Now, for about 10 years, I have been tooting that India and the US will have to come closer - because of circumstances: China.

Robert Kaplan: Indian Ocean becomes battleground for India and China

After the US midterm elections, President Obama will visit India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan. Trace a line between the nations, noting how it loops down through the Indian Ocean and back up through the South China Sea and East China Sea, forming a semicircle around China.

"We don't have to interfere everywhere, we just have to move closer to our democratic allies in the region so they can do more of the heavy lifting."

I honestly do not know if the teens have much merit from an IAF PoV. However, one thing is for sure becoming more and more clear. The US cannot sanction India for the next 30 or so years. And, India will have her own policies. The two will learn to co-exist (along with Aussies/Japan/etc).

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Oct 2010 19:30

koti wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: We are no longer in the age of the turning dogfight where you have to put your nose on the target.

It's not the planes it has to stand up to, it's the missiles.

No matter how maneuverable it is, it will never out-turn a missile.
Not completely true George. Why do you think the Raptor has 2D Thrust Vectoring even though it is equipped with the latest missiles? Definitely not to dodge missiles, right.

1. F-22 design started in 1986. Missiles have improved 'slightly' since then.

2. The F-22 was supposed to be the ultimate no-compromise fighter. Spend $10000 extra to save a pound? No problem.

The thrust-vectoring isn't going to make a difference 99 times out of a hundred.

'Well if it needs it that one time, it's worth it!'

That MIGHT be true if everything else is equal.

But it's not.

The other 99 times your radar, countermeasures and missiles are going to be more important. So it would make sense to focus on those.

koti wrote:Also, the Raptor carries a 20mm Vulcan with a massive 480 rounds. BVR?

And the F-35C which will be the USN's primary fighter has neither thrust-vectoring nor internal cannon. This came well after the F-22, so obviously they didn't think either was that important . . .

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Oct 2010 19:38

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:Getting Mig 35 opens the possibility of upgrading the 104 a/c's to MIG 35 standard.

1. The MiG-29s are OLD and not worth investing much more in.
2. The MiG-29s are already going through an upgrade program. They're not just going to throw that out. The OVT program is it for them.
3. How much would it cost? The current Mirage program costs almost as much per plane as a new SH . . .
3. It's not possible anyways. The MiG-35 is in many ways a different plane. It is not possible to upgrade an existing MiG-29 to a MiG-35.

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:with Full tech transfer unlike Americans

Except with you're not actually getting any tech transfer since you've already got access to everything Russia has through the FGFA program.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Oct 2010 19:40

Henrik wrote:If India would go for the Gripen I think it would be ready before the Tejas MkII meets it's perfomance parameters...

Well that's not setting the bar very high.

Henrik wrote:Besides, any new platform in the MMRCA that India would chose would be a "new platform into the mix", so it wouldn't matter.

Some of the 'new platforms' are available immediately and some aren't. For the purposes of the MRCA, that is quite a difference.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 27 Oct 2010 20:03

Uncle thought that they dont need guns for F4. Later only regreted.

raj-ji · Post by **raj-ji** » 27 Oct 2010 20:38

Karan M wrote:Why should India buy a mediocre Gripen NG, which by all accounts will neither have the payload or combat persistence in terms of sensor footprint and overall capability, as larger platforms such as the F/A-18 E/F, the Typhoon and the Rafale? The Gripen NG is more akin to the original MMRCA plan for Mirage 2000's, and is by no means sufficient against the kind of platforms that are being developed in China. Flanker derivatives can get to parity with the Gripen, and India cannot afford that kind of attrition. Can Gripen even carry the kind of payload and offer the persistence to take on heavily integrated Air Defense Networks, hardly.

Why should India subsidize the Gripen NG and end up paying for its long term sustainment as its only key customer bar a handful of planes in Sweden, while right now its a paper product, when proven platforms exist that can be customized far quicker to meet India's operational needs.

And existing programs such as LCA, MCA, Kaveri, AESA etc are already being connected and the work leveraged across the board. There is no need to bring this new platform into the mix.

If the Gripen is mediocre, why was it one of the 6 chosen for the MMRCA? Obviously someone in the IAF thought this was a good fighter. All prelim. reports say that the Gripen faired well in the trials.

As for the capabilities of the Panda's fighters, does any one know for sure that it could stand up the Gripen NG? No, one of the benefits of creating something unique, the myth of these fighters could be more valuable than their capabilities, this was used considerably during the cold war.

If India is SAAB's biggest client, that will mean a great deal of influence on the Gripen program, not a bad place to be. Do you think you will get this kind of influence with Boeing, Dassault or EADS?

This would not be the top aircraft in the inventory, the IAF has the MKIs for that. Again a lot to be said for having a relatively inexpensive fighter, that's capable, cheap and easy to operate with quick turn around times. And at the minimum, sharing the same engine as the LCA.

Everyone has a different point of view, so lets agree to disagree.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Oct 2010 21:00

Narayana Rao wrote:Uncle thought that they dont need guns for F4. Later only regreted.

Missiles weren't up to the task in the 70's.

They are today.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 27 Oct 2010 21:12

koti wrote:Also, the Raptor carries a 20mm Vulcan with a massive 480 rounds. BVR?

And the F-35C which will be the USN's primary fighter has neither thrust-vectoring nor internal cannon. This came well after the F-22, so obviously they didn't think either was that important . . .[/quote]

True that F-35C which will be the USN's primary fighter has neither thrust-vectoring nor internal cannon but does carry a cannon in the external pod. Also F35A which will replace f16, A10 and harrier in USAF carries GAU-22/A Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 4-barreled gatling cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds. And MMRCA is for IAF not IN so i dont think you example is valid. As for TVC I am sure IAF will welcome it.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Oct 2010 21:17

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:True that F-35C which will be the USN's primary fighter has neither thrust-vectoring nor internal cannon but does carry a cannon in the external pod.

It CAN carry an external cannon.

In practice I bet it is almost never fitted.

And it will NEVER be fitted for A2A missions. The primary use of the cannon nowadays is ground-attack.

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:And MMRCA is for IAF not IN so i dont think you example is valid. As for TVC I am sure IAF will welcome it.

The example is valid because the cannon isn't conceived as primarily an A2A weapon, thus minimizing the importance of maneuver in aerial combat.

TVC is fine, but on the list of important attributes in aerial combat, it ranks right near the bottom. If you base your selection on that while ignoring all the more important attributes, you will greatly regret it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2010 21:25

Henrik wrote:Technologically, the Gripen NG is on par with the Rafale, SH and Typhoon. And compared to chinese fighters, the technological gap is enormous to the Gripens advantage.

Technologically on par? The SH has a mature proven AESA, the Rafale and Typhoon have been flying for several years now with capabilities only now being sought for implementation on the NG, and have been in continuous modernisation, and a in development plane is on par with these platforms? And the technological edge with respect to Flanker derivatives is dubious, at best. The Flanker is a larger platform able to field much more powerful, larger aperture sized sensors and the PRC has a long history of iterative development.

"Paper product"? I thought that ridiculous and false statement made up by the competition had died out. If India would go for the Gripen I think it would be ready before the Tejas MkII meets it's perfomance parameters...

The competition spoke the truth in this case. The Gripen NG and the MiG-35 are the two paper airplanes in the competition. Lots of glib talk but little to show for it so far. And as regards the Tejas MKII, your attitude speaks for itself and supports the fact that India should not subsidize the swedish industry. Let it sink or swim on its own, with its own money.

Besides, any new platform in the MMRCA that India would chose would be a "new platform into the mix", so it wouldn't matter. And don't forget that if you have several fighters sharing parts like the engines and weapons, it brings benefits in the form of cost effectiviness and better logistics.

What sharing parts and where, apart from the engines. The Gripen NG is a hodge podge of systems from across the world, as far as sourcing goes and its likely to complicate logistics not simplify them, with multiple systems all having issues with multiple national laws, in case politics comes into the picture.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Oct 2010 21:36

raj-ji wrote:If the Gripen is mediocre, why was it one of the 6 chosen for the MMRCA? Obviously someone in the IAF thought this was a good fighter. All prelim. reports say that the Gripen faired well in the trials.

As for the capabilities of the Panda's fighters, does any one know for sure that it could stand up the Gripen NG? No, one of the benefits of creating something unique, the myth of these fighters could be more valuable than their capabilities, this was used considerably during the cold war.

The PLAAF operates substantial numbers of the Su-30MKM and the J-11. And one can safely expect the J-10B to be a very decent aircraft. Can the Gripen dominate an airspace that includes superior numbers of PLAAF aircraft? Doubt it. Can the EF/Rafale/SH? More than likely.

If India is SAAB's biggest client, that will mean a great deal of influence on the Gripen program, not a bad place to be. Do you think you will get this kind of influence with Boeing, Dassault or EADS?

Is it better to be a member of the EF consortium, or purchase the Sh that the US Navy is committed to for the next 25 years, or should we settle for a great deal of influence in the possibly the smallest fighter program of the six.

This would not be the top aircraft in the inventory, the IAF has the MKIs for that. Again a lot to be said for having a relatively inexpensive fighter, that's capable, cheap and easy to operate with quick turn around times. And at the minimum, sharing the same engine as the LCA.

That would have been true if the PAF was all that the IAF had to deal with. Unfortunately the Chinese field fairly advanced variants of the Sukhoi family as well. India needs to retain the technological edge. The lower end of the spectrum can be made up with the HAL Tejas.

Everyone has a different point of view, so lets agree to disagree.

Certainly. But this is good place for debate. Doesn't have to get acrimonious.