MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

MadhuG · Post by **MadhuG** » 30 Oct 2010 13:04

We need inter operating services now more than ever before.

koti · Post by **koti** » 30 Oct 2010 13:08

The decision I believe should be between Mig, EF and NG depending on IAF's threat perception.

The EF still seems to be the best fighter among these six. But if costs are of importance we may opt for the Mig. And if single engine's advantages are taken into account, NG will do fine.
Rafale though is a very good aircraft, for its price we would be able to get EF, which is a better A2A plane and has a good future defined and also we are being offered a significant involvement in the project.

MadhuG · Post by **MadhuG** » 30 Oct 2010 13:22

Around the Globe you will find companies consolidating their investments to one platform, one vendor and one technology.

I think at least on the no. of involved countries/entities, the Rafale trumps over the EF.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Oct 2010 14:40

Singha wrote:we need to go for the best A2A bird in the pack, to relieve the MKI for deep strike and Tejas/M2K/Jag for tactical strike.

the EF can with captor-e match the F18 apg79, meteor should perform equal or better at long range than amraam-latest , python5 can be integrated and it has none of the F18's flabby shuffles in the acceleration and wvr regimes.

I think this is the perfect solution, which would free up Sukhois to carry tons of strike bombs + self escort with mirages & jags. While LCA, EF and Mig 29s go for A to A. Plus EF is also getting AESA by 2015, which may give chance for DRDO to be a developing partner in that. Might get to manufacture GaN chips too.... yummy!!!

Luit · Post by **Luit** » 30 Oct 2010 15:05

I like the Gripen. Truly chikni maal. And low life cycle cost. truly sasti and tikau. It would be nice to see the two chiknis in service (LCA and Gripen). they will make a zabardast jodi.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Oct 2010 15:56

Something to ponder over (perhaps someone else has already brought this up)... but what about the CISMOA re the US fighters? If we aren't planning to sign it, there's no point whatsoever in looking at the SH or SV. If we ARE planning to sign it, how does it affect our deals on the C-130, Poseidon and C-17?

IF we look at what Arror said has been "stripped out" (no it has not been - since anyone with a basic knowledge knew this way coming and Sec Gates openly said so when he last visited India. So, why Aroor is making so much noise now, is beyond me), it is mostly (or all of it) communication gear.

Naik stated that the IAF can still operate without those things - my read is that that technology (unlike other technologies these toys bring to the table) is replacable.

For sure the replacement will not be "interoperable" - but then does the IAF care about "interoperable"ity?

The question WRT the F-16/18 and their AESAs is will they be (allowed) to be compatile with what the IAF's new network has.

vic · Post by **vic** » 30 Oct 2010 16:42

The way shiv aroor is jumping up and down, it would seem the planes are coming without wings or engines. they have pulled couple of radios from the aircraft which will most probably be supplied by BEL, end of the matter

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 30 Oct 2010 18:56

This is the sort of crap that has put me off Aroor's blog.

He and motorhama are the same breed - selling it like sex.

i guess the competition is savage.

more ulterior motives come to mind but for now I will assume its not the case.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 30 Oct 2010 19:06

Never mind what Shiv Aroor says...
My worries about the CISMOA are two-fold:
1) The equipment taken off the C-130s might not be critical, but that might not be the case with an SH or SV. What else might the US take off those planes, under the pretext of the CISMOA?
2) Are we getting what we paid for, or not? If not, the US joins Russia as a bit of a blackmailer-supplier; the difference is Russian sharing of other tech and a well-tested friendship.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 30 Oct 2010 19:13

Code: Select all

My worries about the CISMOA are two-fold:
1) The equipment taken off the C-130s might not be critical, but that might not be the case with an SH or SV. What else might the US take off those planes, under the pretext of the CISMOA?
2) Are we getting what we paid for, or not? If not, the US joins Russia as a bit of a blackmailer-supplier; the difference is Russian sharing of other tech and a well-tested friendship.

From my understanding.. CISMOA is related to COMMs only not entirely mission critical considering the fact that same/similar tech can be obtained from Israel/france and/or developed in house. We havnt paid for anything that is not being released to us.

The CISMOA is uniform rule America asks all its weapons buyers to adhere to ..they are not singling us out. The Isrealis and South Koreans both have a habbit of removing such American Equipment and replacing it with their own whenever they see fit. (even though both have signed CISMOA)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 Oct 2010 20:12

indranilroy wrote:If you ask me frankly ... I wouldn't go for a top of the line fighter. I would rather have 2 fighters for the price of one. I don't think the Gripen-IN or the Mig-35 are mud movers. I have am sure many have seen the Mig-35 in the air. If you think thats not an agile plane, then I have nothing more to say.

Its a highly maneuverable aircraft but the EF, Rafale and perhaps even the Gripen NG trump it in terms of agility.

I also don't believe in the end-of-the-line argument. All fighters evolve over time. If the requirement arises the Mig-35 and the Gripen will also evolve.

Probably but not to extent the EF and Rafale will. Bigger budgets do make difference, as is evident from the Superhornet's growth into a cutting edge fighter.

Call me thrifty but are we looking for the best fighter for our AF (unlike the French/Uk/german). If we are looking for the middle of the pyramid, it should rather be as large as it can be for the amount of money we are doling out

Agreed completely. But, if you pit them against PLAAF's Su-27s, MKKs and J-11s, the aircraft's real cost-effectiveness will be determined by survivability in hostile disputed skies.

Kronop · Post by **Kronop** » 31 Oct 2010 01:33

indranilroy wrote: I would rather have 2 fighters for the price of one.

And by choosing the Gripen that could multiply up to 4 fighters for the price of one roughly... taking into account the high avaliablility of the Gripen system.

A minimum of 4 sorties a day per aircraft is the Swedish Airforce normal mode of operation. Actually the experience from international events such as Red Flag has been that the ground crew has a lot of free time given that their US counterparts usually only manages 2 sorties per aircraft a day and the whole exercise is planned around that.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 31 Oct 2010 01:57

Lockheed Touts Engine Advantage In Indian Bid
Aviation week

Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN is powered by the GE F-110-132A engine. GE recently won a contract to provide F-414 engines for India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Michael Griswold, Lockheed’s director of advanced development programs, says the LCA win is a good sign that the U.S. can meet its export control requirements. “GE brought the best engine on the table at the lowest cost,” he says.

“GE F-110-132A is the most powerful engine of all the contenders of the [126-aircraft] MMRCA bid,” Griswold says. “Technology insertions for the engine include blisk fan, radial augmentor and a low-drag nozzle.”

Addressing concerns by some in the Indian Air Force about a single-engine aircraft, Griswold says: “The trend is toward single-engine design. ... These engines are so safe and there are savings in reliability and maintainability.”

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Oct 2010 02:27

Viv, I don't understand when you say Mig-35 is more maneuverable but less agile

What you are saying is right when you are getting the top of the line fighters for your AF. But this is not the case. If we have to spend the same amount for procuring and maintaining my medium fighters as I would for my Su-30s, then I don't see the point. Why should I diversify my logistics. GeorgeWelch and many others are right here, Su-30s can do all that these medium fighters can do. Just go for more Su-30s! For sticking to the timelines add a line somewhere in India/Russia.

You have heard all the publicity from all the fighters and you think oh wow these are best of the world. Mig-35 hasn't done much of publicity and so you don't here countering examples. This doesn't mean that the Mig-35s are any less potent.

The driving thing against Mig-35 may be that we want to diversify from Russian systems. Also, the systems for the Mig-35 are not ready. But frankly, if we are banking on the Russians to deliver the goods on the FGFA, Mig-35 shouldn't be that difficult.

Also could you please provide me a specific reason(s) why you think the eurofighters are more adaptable/modifiable than the Mig-35! Please for god's sake don't say that they spent more money. That is lame! Russian's had a much bigger know-how than the Europeans when they started on the 4++ gen fighters. They needed lesser research and their labour costs are cheaper. So development was cheaper.

My point is simple. What is the role of these fighters? Primarily to act as strike platforms and be able to provide cover for itself. Or primarily A2A which can act as strike fighters. If they are supposed to be medium, below FGFA, below Su-30MKI, then why spend so much money? Or if we are spending so much money then why not get more of almost similar fighters.

Viv, to answer your question. If you think that the Rafale and EF can't be handled by the J-10s while the others can, I have nothing more to say to you. Besides, don't take my word. Ask any pilot, "If you were in ANY fighter of today, what would you like to fight 1 EF/Rafale or 2 Gripen/Mig-35/SH/SV?" He will ask you the loadout of these planes and surprisingly everybody have similar missile capabilities. His answer would probably drive home the point that I am trying to make from a very long time.

Now, if getting "western" tech is as important a goal as the role of the fighters, then the equation changes a lot

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Oct 2010 02:37

shukla wrote:Lockheed Touts Engine Advantage In Indian Bid
Aviation week

Addressing concerns by some in the Indian Air Force about a single-engine aircraft, Griswold says: “The trend is toward single-engine design. ... These engines are so safe and there are savings in reliability and maintainability.”

That is a very valid point. The loss of planes (4th generation and higher) for single or double engine planes seem the same. Most of them have been "pilot errors".

And that is for peace time. In war time I would rather worry about planes lost through missiles and bombs rather than engine failures.

I have a very newbie question. Does a double engine fighter (4th gen) have a bigger IR signature than a single engine fighter, given the fact that the sum total fuel burn in most 2 engine fighters is much more than any single engine fighter? Pardon my ignorance, I understand aerodynamics much better than missile seekers. Sorry for posting the question here.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Oct 2010 03:31

Don't listen to me. Listen to what Vice Admiral Puri has to say. Its amazing how much of similarity there is to what I have been saying. Makes me feel good

http://www.mynews.in/News/are_we_going_ ... 04848.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Oct 2010 03:45

All fighters have bigger IR signature from the rear that can't be avoided. Of course there are expensive technological break through in these areas but are still research labs or study labs in the schools. Best thing to happen to fighters would be go full throttle on the IR signature and just care about thrust to weight and mach speed rather worry about IR signature, is just my thought. Alternatively, rear side laser based IR jammers could be used if it can carry one to lock and burst the IR seeker of the in-coming missile, and of course never forget to go loaded for bear on the chaff and flares.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Oct 2010 04:32

Karan M wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Its interesting what the Vice Admiral is saying. I said the same thing on the MMRCA thread.
Please tell me the role of the MMRCA. And why should we buy the latest and greatest for acquisition and maintenance costs greater than equal to the su-30s. Get the cheapest plane that can complete that role!
Dont misinterpret the VAdmirals's words to suit your ill considered notions, please.

Could you be a little civil in your choice of words, please.

Karan M wrote:At any rate, relying on under performing airframes using such logic (2 for the price of 1, cheap is best) will translate to higher attrition at wartime and lead to significant effects on force deployment and all sorts of other issues.

I am not a spokesperson for the Gripen NG and Mig-35. I just expressed what I thought was correct. Gripen and Mig-35s are X and Ys for me. I would have said the same if they were any other fighters. And please bear in mind that I didn't say the V. Admiral was saying, go for plane X or plane Y. He said get a plane which can do the job. Is it very different from my above posts? Then why such a scathing remark!

Could you please tell me how the Mig-35 and/or the GRipen NG are under-performing airframes. And this time stick to the aerodynamics and structural studies as you specifically said airframes. I am hoping for good points from you and not generic statements again. If not would you please retract such a scathing comment on my post.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Oct 2010 04:36

SaiK wrote:All fighters have bigger IR signature from the rear that can't be avoided. Of course there are expensive technological break through in these areas but are still research labs or study labs in the schools. Best thing to happen to fighters would be go full throttle on the IR signature and just care about thrust to weight and mach speed rather worry about IR signature, is just my thought. Alternatively, rear side laser based IR jammers could be used if it can carry one to lock and burst the IR seeker of the in-coming missile, and of course never forget to go loaded for bear on the chaff and flares.

Thank you. You are right that any signature would be big enough for modern seekers. That's why I said it was a newbie question.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 31 Oct 2010 05:25

Kronop wrote:
And by choosing the Gripen that could multiply up to 4 fighters for the price of one roughly... taking into account the high avaliablility of the Gripen system.

A minimum of 4 sorties a day per aircraft is the Swedish Airforce normal mode of operation. Actually the experience from international events such as Red Flag has been that the ground crew has a lot of free time given that their US counterparts usually only manages 2 sorties per aircraft a day and the whole exercise is planned around that.

Don´t waste your time. Facts are not important to these people....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Oct 2010 05:35

^^^ Most humbly sir, I have two simple questions

1. What is the intent of this post?
2. Why are you wasting your valuable time here, then?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Oct 2010 05:50

I think that for his comment "these people" Wickberg needs to be warned by Admins. The term reeks of contempt and arrogance towards "us people".

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 31 Oct 2010 07:44

http://www.mynews.in/News/are_we_going_ ... 04848.html
....
Why should we go for American- made 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft? Each US-made MMRCA will cost us over $ 70 million while the LCA cost us only $ 26 million. Why should we spend so much money? ....

Why does Vice Admiral Raman Puri single out the US for his rant? It is not as if they are the only only ones in contention, and they are most definitely not the most expensive aircraft on offer.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Oct 2010 07:55

indranilroy wrote:Viv, I don't understand when you say Mig-35 is more maneuverable but less agile

Indranil, unless I've got it completely wrong, maneuverability has to do with being able to change direction (point the nose) while agility refers to the ability to change its position. By design, the EF is optimized for high altitude high speed combat excelling in the transonic region (unlike the SH and to a lower extent the Rafale which were intended for carrier operations).

The MiG-29 as I understand, is most lethal at lower speeds (in engagements against the F-16 below 300 knots). Unless the MiG-35 is radically different in terms of the aerodynamics of its airframe, the EF remains the better air-superiority aircraft.

What you are saying is right when you are getting the top of the line fighters for your AF. But this is not the case. If we have to spend the same amount for procuring and maintaining my medium fighters as I would for my Su-30s, then I don't see the point. Why should I diversify my logistics. GeorgeWelch and many others are right here, Su-30s can do all that these medium fighters can do. Just go for more Su-30s! For sticking to the timelines add a line somewhere in India/Russia.

I do believe we're getting top-of-the-line fighters or at least we've been offered top-of-the-line fighters.

With regard to the Su-30s .... well that's one school of thought (and a fair one), that says we should be sticking to the Sukhois and maybe ordering some second hand Mirages from France and the Gulf to tide us over till we get our hands on the FGFA. But, then again I must point out the IAF's intentions, evident in the recent past, to branch out from their traditional Russian suppliers. Aim being to [not] 'put all our eggs in one basket' according to ACM P.V. Naik.

Also, seven squadrons (I believe that's what's projected) of the Tejas would comfortably replace the IAF's MiG-27 fleet. Not something we need the MMRCA to do exclusively.

You have heard all the publicity from all the fighters and you think oh wow these are best of the world. Mig-35 hasn't done much of publicity and so you don't here countering examples. This doesn't mean that the Mig-35s are any less potent.

Not at all, I'm not relying on their publicity campaigns to form my opinion. While I do believe the EF and SH are more potent than the MiG-35 (by what degree is debatable), that isn't my main grouse against the MiG-35. The main problem as I see is lack of support from the VVS. However the EF may be perceived, it still has 470 confirmed orders backed by a combined defence budget in excess of $200 billion. The same applies to the SH - 400+ orders, USN backing. One cannot monetize the value of that safety net - not only in terms of spares but in terms of future growth of the platform.

The driving thing against Mig-35 may be that we want to diversify from Russian systems. Also, the systems for the Mig-35 are not ready. But frankly, if we are banking on the Russians to deliver the goods on the FGFA, Mig-35 shouldn't be that difficult.

Apples to oranges really. We've got five very decent alternatives to buying Russian. With regard to the PAK-FA, there are no real fifth generations options that allow India the degree of involvement we deem necessary.

Also could you please provide me a specific reason(s) why you think the eurofighters are more adaptable/modifiable than the Mig-35! Please for god's sake don't say that they spent more money. That is lame! Russian's had a much bigger know-how than the Europeans when they started on the 4++ gen fighters. They needed lesser research and their labour costs are cheaper. So development was cheaper.

The EF has a better airframe - lower RCS, can carry semi-recessed munitions, optimized for air superiority and has the option of carrying a variety of western A2G munitions (incl. very cost-effective American options). They are NOT more adaptable/modifiable, but have the backing from all four AFs of the consortium.

My point is simple. What is the role of these fighters? Primarily to act as strike platforms and be able to provide cover for itself. Or primarily A2A which can act as strike fighters. If they are supposed to be medium, below FGFA, below Su-30MKI, then why spend so much money? Or if we are spending so much money then why not get more of almost similar fighters.

I believe they are (or at least ought to be) primarily of A2A with the ability to carry out strike missions effectively. Given the range and payload of the Su-30MKIs, we're pretty well covered in the strike department. We need to spend so much money because our neighbor to the north thoroughly outnumbers us, and in a battle of attrition with comparable aircraft we'd be ... less than comfortable.

Viv, to answer your question. If you think that the Rafale and EF can't be handled by the J-10s while the others can, I have nothing more to say to you. Besides, don't take my word. Ask any pilot, "If you were in ANY fighter of today, what would you like to fight 1 EF/Rafale or 2 Gripen/Mig-35/SH/SV?" He will ask you the loadout of these planes and surprisingly everybody have similar missile capabilities. His answer would probably drive home the point that I am trying to make from a very long time.

'Can't be handled' isn't a very precise term. The EF and Rafale will have much bigger advantage vis-a-vis the J-10 than their competitors.

The price - now we're coming to the pivotal argument perhaps. I don't accept the premise that one can buy 2 Gripen/MiG-35 for the price of 1 EF/Rafale. After the Russian have gone through their customary upward revision of agreed prices (precedents galore), I don't think a Mikoyan (or Gripen for that matter) with its small order book, can field all the bells and whistles as its American and European competitors and still undercut their prices by a significant margin.

Given that fact, I believe Eurofighter/Superhornet would provide better value for money overall.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Oct 2010 09:07

Viv, appreciate your point of view.

I also share certain concerns of price escalations by the Russians. also a very valid point in strike is being able to go unnoticed. And in this field ofcourse the Mig-35 has a huge handicap. And I do understand the logic of not putting all eggs in the same basket.

By agility you meant climb rate and sustained turn rate. Well that has always been EF-GMBH's pitch for the EF. The others have countered it with equal fervour. But aerodynamically it does look optimized of the same.

But as I said, I don't know what is the role envisioned by the IAF for these fighters.

And then coming back to my idea of buy the cheapest fighter that does the work for us. Now I do understand why IAF just had checkboxes to tick and then give the MOD the list of three which filled most tick boxes (prioritized may be). And then MoD just goes for L1.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 31 Oct 2010 09:43

rkhanna wrote:
Code: Select all
My worries about the CISMOA are two-fold:
1) The equipment taken off the C-130s might not be critical, but that might not be the case with an SH or SV. What else might the US take off those planes, under the pretext of the CISMOA?
2) Are we getting what we paid for, or not? If not, the US joins Russia as a bit of a blackmailer-supplier; the difference is Russian sharing of other tech and a well-tested friendship.
From my understanding.. CISMOA is related to COMMs only not entirely mission critical considering the fact that same/similar tech can be obtained from Israel/france and/or developed in house. We havnt paid for anything that is not being released to us.

The CISMOA is uniform rule America asks all its weapons buyers to adhere to ..they are not singling us out. The Isrealis and South Koreans both have a habbit of removing such American Equipment and replacing it with their own whenever they see fit. (even though both have signed CISMOA)

Thanks. What was on my mind was an article I'd read somewhere (possibly DID) that CISMOA would affect the sensing/tracking abilities of the P-8I, which would be a big loss. I understand that in the case of the C-130, it isn't that important, but if it's affecting sensor suites, then it's pointless to look at aircraft for which this is critical. if it's comms only, then great, no worries.
And no, it wasn't about being singled out: we're the ones who don't want to sign the CISMOA, because we don't trust it. Fair enough, but in that case, why consider US equipment?

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 31 Oct 2010 09:45

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Singha wrote:we need to go for the best A2A bird in the pack, to relieve the MKI for deep strike and Tejas/M2K/Jag for tactical strike.

the EF can with captor-e match the F18 apg79, meteor should perform equal or better at long range than amraam-latest , python5 can be integrated and it has none of the F18's flabby shuffles in the acceleration and wvr regimes.
I think this is the perfect solution, which would free up Sukhois to carry tons of strike bombs + self escort with mirages & jags. While LCA, EF and Mig 29s go for A to A. Plus EF is also getting AESA by 2015, which may give chance for DRDO to be a developing partner in that. Might get to manufacture GaN chips too.... yummy!!!

Why so? AFAIK, the MKI's strike ability is still secondary to its awesome A2A capability: why not go for a good strike MMRCA that frees up the MKI instead to provide air superiority in more cases, while still being able to perform deep-strike if called for?

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 31 Oct 2010 09:57

shukla wrote:Lockheed Touts Engine Advantage In Indian Bid
Aviation week

Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN is powered by the GE F-110-132A engine. GE recently won a contract to provide F-414 engines for India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Michael Griswold, Lockheed’s director of advanced development programs, says the LCA win is a good sign that the U.S. can meet its export control requirements. “GE brought the best engine on the table at the lowest cost,” he says.

“GE F-110-132A is the most powerful engine of all the contenders of the [126-aircraft] MMRCA bid,” Griswold says. “Technology insertions for the engine include blisk fan, radial augmentor and a low-drag nozzle.”

Addressing concerns by some in the Indian Air Force about a single-engine aircraft, Griswold says: “The trend is toward single-engine design. ... These engines are so safe and there are savings in reliability and maintainability.”

Pull the other one, Griswold - what trend towards single-engine aircraft? And I believe the IAF has concerns about the dust and smog in India, so the twin-engine thing isn't just about performance, but survivability.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2010 10:08

none of the MRCA contenders can match the 1500km combat radius of MKI on internal fuel alone. drop tanks (the rafale needs three big ones, the EF probably two) can make up for it, but waste the big pylons...and having to drop the drop tanks to engage in A2A means they need to get back to base and mission is over they usually cannot press on to the target and get back without drop tank fuel. plus every MKI has a dedicated WSO who is best used in A2G role , while pilot is the best guy for A2A always...even a single seater Su27 or Su35BM is fine for A2A with the WSO as a penalty.

thats why I expressed a preference for EF as a2a and mki as the strike element in a combined pkg. all our a2g weapons are already on the MKI and the EF's potential a2a weapons like meteor , python5 and amraam are better than their russian analogues....until the long delayed K-series of russian aam's enter service later this decade.

the ef being smaller should be more nimble and its RCS due to hidden engine blades and conformal storage of aam's would be less than MKI. it probably has a better effective ceiling and climb rate than mki.

MKI looks like a Strike Eagle - there's a lot of things we can do to make it better like a aesa radar with improved SAR/ISAR a2g modes, new a2g munitions like sudarsan and nirbhay, new varieties of submunitions, better defence suite like towed decoy and standoff jamming (desi growler).... since it carries 20x250kg bombs, a single suitably kitted MKI can put a lot of hurt on target if precise targetting is available. also a new SEAD missile and sensors to replace the aeging armat/kh31p is needed. thats a full schedule of work to bring it upto F-15S/K std.

operating from andaman islands it would still remain the a2a platform of choice due to larger unrefueled radius.

Kronop · Post by **Kronop** » 31 Oct 2010 15:02

Wickberg wrote:
Kronop wrote:
And by choosing the Gripen that could multiply up to 4 fighters for the price of one roughly... taking into account the high avaliablility of the Gripen system.

A minimum of 4 sorties a day per aircraft is the Swedish Airforce normal mode of operation. Actually the experience from international events such as Red Flag has been that the ground crew has a lot of free time given that their US counterparts usually only manages 2 sorties per aircraft a day and the whole exercise is planned around that.
Don´t waste your time. Facts are not important to these people....

The drop hollows the stone not by force but by often falling.
Latin: Gulta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo

By which I am saying it is not a good thing to try and force ones own truths onto others. It is a futile task especially when it is impossible to state hard data due to security concerns, even if avaliable.

All the contenders for the MRCA deal are formiddable fighters and each has its own area of excellence, which one to choose is a delicate matter.
Unfortunately for the Gripen technincal ability and operational cost is rarely the main descision factor in deals like this. India will choose what suits them best given de criteria they opt to value the most and there is no objective way to say if they made the correct choise or not, especially by outsiders like us.

Gripen is a capable swing role fighter in its own right, it is the only 4:th generation fighter that will be in its 3:rd development stage and it has currently over 100 000 flighthours in airforce operation experience. Wether the Gripen NG India specs are enought combined with the proposed ToT, who knows for sure, it may very well be the best package out there all things considered but still loose out in the evaluation process due to various political issues/preferences.

Kronop · Post by **Kronop** » 31 Oct 2010 15:54

vardhank wrote: Pull the other one, Griswold - what trend towards single-engine aircraft? And I believe the IAF has concerns about the dust and smog in India, so the twin-engine thing isn't just about performance, but survivability.

In many studies for future fighter programmes the question is no longer "Why should we go for a single engine design?" but "Why should we not opt for a single engine design?". There are no real reliability advantages for a dual engine design unless you also go for full redundancy in all other relevant systems.

Many current designs studies shows that pitching weight/cost/performace/avaliability and reliablility factors for single vs twin engine designs the single engine will emerge as a winner, naturally there are exeptions to this as well depending on what actual design criteria you need to meet.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 31 Oct 2010 19:47

What's the up- and downsides of CISMOA?

Jamie Boscardin · Post by **Jamie Boscardin** » 31 Oct 2010 20:31

http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=13692

Gerwert: We already have an EADS engineering centre in Bangalore, which was started three years ago for Airbus. In the beginning of this year, we have also opened our military engineering centre in Bangalore. We have hired 20 engineers there, but our intention is to ramp up our strength to 250-300 people by 2012. This programme is independent from the Eurofighter. So, for the moment, we are not talking of moving thousands of jobs to India. If, however, the Eurofighter is selected, then we would be contractually bound to effect a 60% technology transfer. So, if India decides for the Eurofighter, the technology transfer clause would mean that we would create thousands of jobs in India.

Very interesting, if you look at what is highlighted, it means that MMRCA has 60% tech transfer clause. What does this mean, will the supplier be choosing what to transfer and what not to or IA will have some say in that?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Oct 2010 21:26

Jamie Boscardin wrote:http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=13692
Gerwert: We already have an EADS engineering centre in Bangalore, which was started three years ago for Airbus. In the beginning of this year, we have also opened our military engineering centre in Bangalore. We have hired 20 engineers there, but our intention is to ramp up our strength to 250-300 people by 2012. This programme is independent from the Eurofighter. So, for the moment, we are not talking of moving thousands of jobs to India. If, however, the Eurofighter is selected, then we would be contractually bound to effect a 60% technology transfer. So, if India decides for the Eurofighter, the technology transfer clause would mean that we would create thousands of jobs in India.
Very interesting, if you look at what is highlighted, it means that MMRCA has 60% tech transfer clause. What does this mean, will the supplier be choosing what to transfer and what not to or IA will have some say in that?

IA will definitely not have a say.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Oct 2010 22:31

indranilroy wrote:I also share certain concerns of price escalations by the Russians. also a very valid point in strike is being able to go unnoticed. And in this field ofcourse the Mig-35 has a huge handicap. And I do understand the logic of not putting all eggs in the same basket.

Not so dear sir. RCS wise the difference would be marginal at best - nothing huge. There is little on the eurocanards to make them substantially different, RCS wise, vs. the 35/f-16/F-18. The advantage is critically offset with the use of EFT and external weapons. Amongst all the candidates, only the Rafale was built from ground up with low signature in mind. The measures taken on the Shornet are also noteworthy. As a person in the know re. the EF2k, it is about 1/10th the size of an Eagle. And this can to some extent be said of the others as well. IOWs, none of them are stealthy enough to form strike packages that will go unnoticed. None of them will share a dramatic advantage wrt RCS in A2A either, not with all sides sporting AWACS. Although lightly loaded Rafale might do some magic - the Mica IIR is special and allows completely silent attacks. Only the Pakfa will give that ability to the IAF.

Price escalation wise, worry not, despite all the escalations etc, the 35 will be comfortably cheaper than the rest (excepting the Gripen perhaps).

By agility you meant climb rate and sustained turn rate. Well that has always been EF-GMBH's pitch for the EF. The others have countered it with equal fervour. But aerodynamically it does look optimized of the same.

Yes, the EF seems to be designed to do this. However, I doubt the Rafale is very different. The TWR is almost the same, the design is also v.similar, I doubt the climb rates etc are dramatically different between these two or even the 35. Turn rates at highspeeds, the EF2k and Rafale probably share an advantage over the legacy birds.

CM

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Oct 2010 23:27

Henrik wrote:What's the up- and downsides of CISMOA?

Upsides -

1. Access to cutting comm equipment.
2. Interoperability with the NATO forces.

Downsides -

1. Possible compatibility issues with existing IAF equipment (vis-a-vis domestically sources alternatives).
2. (Perceived) loss of independence in vital equipment.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Oct 2010 23:29

Jamie Boscardin wrote:http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=13692
Gerwert: We already have an EADS engineering centre in Bangalore, which was started three years ago for Airbus. In the beginning of this year, we have also opened our military engineering centre in Bangalore. We have hired 20 engineers there, but our intention is to ramp up our strength to 250-300 people by 2012. This programme is independent from the Eurofighter. So, for the moment, we are not talking of moving thousands of jobs to India. If, however, the Eurofighter is selected, then we would be contractually bound to effect a 60% technology transfer. So, if India decides for the Eurofighter, the technology transfer clause would mean that we would create thousands of jobs in India.
Very interesting, if you look at what is highlighted, it means that MMRCA has 60% tech transfer clause. What does this mean, will the supplier be choosing what to transfer and what not to or IA will have some say in that?

He's probably referring to the 60% offset clause requiring 60% of the contract value to be reinvested in the country, which will presumably create 'thousands of jobs in India'.

Jamie Boscardin · Post by **Jamie Boscardin** » 31 Oct 2010 23:44

^^
But he did mention specifically about the tech transfer and not the offset obligations.
So the most critical tech components like software source code, engine design tech (as they have dissociated the engine into a different company) probably will not be anyways not be part of the deal, rest is all sharable..

So, therefore what are we really going to gain by building the airframe or assembling the tyre into the airframe etc....
Now, if this is even true, why problem buying even the American stuff which would be also stripped or devoid of all these things?

Sometime back, i did read one IAF personnel discussing about what PAF has gained by the JF17, and he said that nothing much as the software source codes are not with them and that's precisely a Top-3 if not the first foremost important need.

As far as memory serves, ONLY the gripen and Mig35 are the one's where we have been promised the full source code..rt?

iparvas · Post by **iparvas** » 01 Nov 2010 00:33

SH , SV are all American so prone to get sanctioned ....gRIPEN NG contains too many American stuff so US may not permit those stuff to go to IAF ...
MiG 35 is still a paper plane .. is not ready yet .. wouldnt be able to meet the requirement of IAF to produce them soon ... IAF needs the some jets in fly away condition ... so MiG35 wil not be making the final cut .
Real jets the the IAF would be logically looking at are the EF Typhoon and Rafale ...

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Nov 2010 00:35

Cain Marko wrote:
indranilroy wrote:I also share certain concerns of price escalations by the Russians. also a very valid point in strike is being able to go unnoticed. And in this field ofcourse the Mig-35 has a huge handicap. And I do understand the logic of not putting all eggs in the same basket.
Not so dear sir. RCS wise the difference would be marginal at best - nothing huge. There is little on the eurocanards to make them substantially different, RCS wise, vs. the 35/f-16/F-18. The advantage is critically offset with the use of EFT and external weapons. Amongst all the candidates, only the Rafale was built from ground up with low signature in mind.

I'm pretty sure the EF and SH were designed to have a low signature right from conception as well. In addition the EF carries half of its MRAAMs in semi-recessed troughs to further reduce its RCS. But, yes between the EF and Rafale, neither has a decisive edge as far as the radar cross section goes.

Although lightly loaded Rafale might do some magic - the Mica IIR is special and allows completely silent attacks. Only the Pakfa will give that ability to the IAF.

??? How is more silent than say the Python-5 or Iris-T or for that matter the R-73.

Price escalation wise, worry not, despite all the escalations etc, the 35 will be comfortably cheaper than the rest (excepting the Gripen perhaps).

I don't quite share your optimism. The Russians doubled the price of the MKI in six years. The T-90's real cost ended up being much more than the Arjun(after refusal of ToT), to say nothing of the Gorshkov disaster.

The worst part isn't the price. Its the attitude towards signed agreements -

"Hey fellovs, remember the kontrakt we signed recently. Turns out we skrewed up...... so if you could just make the check out to Rosoboronexport, we vil be on our way. Oh and we may be a little late on delyveries, but vil send over some komplimentary vodka. Do svidaniya!"

Regardless, it will be the cheapest, but by how much? Enough to undercut the rest significantly (esp. considering the drop in the Euro)?

By agility you meant climb rate and sustained turn rate. Well that has always been EF-GMBH's pitch for the EF. The others have countered it with equal fervour. But aerodynamically it does look optimized of the same.
Yes, the EF seems to be designed to do this. However, I doubt the Rafale is very different. The TWR is almost the same, the design is also v.similar, I doubt the climb rates etc are dramatically different between these two or even the 35. Turn rates at highspeeds, the EF2k and Rafale probably share an advantage over the legacy birds.

IIRC, one of the reasons for France's withdrawal from the FEFA program was the insistence of the UK on a high speed transonic optimized fighter (in the F-15 class) while the French wanted a carrier capable aircraft with good low speed handling at high AoA (in the F-18 class).

That's why, while the ratio of dry thrust to empty weight is roughly the same for both, but only the Eurofighter has demonstrated sustained supercruise with external stores.

In addition -

1. Rafale's A2G munitions tend to be more expensive than American/British options.
2. While it'll field an AESA long before the EF, the smaller size ensures the Captor-E will outperform the RBE-2 AA.
3. The Dassault proposal doesn't seem to offer the same level of participation as the Eurofighter Gmbh's one.
4. If the Mirage-2000H's $40 million each upgrade is any indication, the French bid is unlikely to be much if any bit, lower than the EFs.