MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[nachiket]

Has any Mig-35 prototype actually flown with the 1000T/RM Zhuk-AE? We have seen pics of the older Mig-35 prototypes with the 650 T/RM model.Also, the newer versions of russkie BVR missiles have been in development for ages but are still nowhere in sight. So I don't know where you got the 175km range for the R-77M. One more nitpick. The rafale cannot fire the AMRAAM AFAIK. The thing that worries me about the Mig-35 is that it's MTOW has increased by around 8000kg from the mango Mig-29, but the dry thrust has remained more or less the same. A great T:W ratio used to be the USP of the Mig-29 if I'm not mistaken.

[Indranil]

Anyways its just my thoughts and one way of looking at it. I dentify the role of these aircrafts, get the cheapest aircraft that suits the role and won't give us maintenance problems and maintain twice the number. Peace time attrition, wartime attrition, wartime availability and bigger economy of scale.

Clearly Karan's way is another where we get the best we can lay our hands on, especially now that we don't have a dearth of money. See whatever is the number we want to feel up as many squadrons as we want and spend more money to get them.

Ofcourse, there is same eggs in the basket, geo-political considerations and sanctions as well.

It will be interesting to see which way the IAF/MoD goes.

[Indranil]

Nachiket ji, you will notice that I have given optimistic results for everything there. I am not sure if we will get the AIM 120D (which has not flown). We will definitely get the Meteor which is still in testing.

I can't find the link from where I quoted the R-77M's range. But Jane's reports it at 160km (in 1989) link.

The RD-33 MK gives a 7% increase in thrust though I am sure that the Mig-35 is not as potent an A2A platform as the Mig-29.

[GeorgeWelch]

Rafale: RBE2 AA: 75 nautical miles: 138.9 km (Aviation Today)
F-16IN: APG 80 series 112 km (AWST)
F-18SH: APG 79 series 128 km (AWST)

We know this isn't correct because the Rafale's range is less than the F-16, which is one of the complaints the UAE has.

Which in turn shows just how unreliable these public domain figures are.

[Indranil]

George my intention was not to show that one or the other plane was way better or much worse than the other. I have quoted figures from the trusted open source sites. They might not be the most accurate.

My intention for the post was to show the EF/Rafale where not very far ahead than the rest in deep strike roles where self defence is also a criteria.

I wouldn't question that EF/Rafale being the the best to handle because quite frankly there are enough instances of very experienced pilots (even ones from the US) singing praises for them. But as I said, I don't know whether the IAF is looking for the best of the best for it's medium MRCA.

[GeorgeWelch]

If you want to go deep you should have a good combat radius:
Mig-35: 2000 km

This is the range, not radius.

You should be able to carry enough load
Mig-35: 9 hardpoints, 12,200 kg (weapons/fuel)

http://en15.rian.ru/img/120216871_free.html

"Up to 7 tons of payload on 8 external hardpoints"

7 tons = 6350kg

[Cain Marko]

Indranil, there is quite a bit of wrong information in that post, but it was a good effort nonetheless.

http://en15.rian.ru/img/120216871_free.html
"Up to 7 tons of payload on 8 external hardpoints"
7 tons = 6350kg

That is probably 7000kg (7 metric tons). Anyway, the current payload is around 6500kg but expected to go up. The 8 hp thing is also off; the 35 as it currently stands is no different than the M or K in this regard - 9 hps. The definitive version is supposedly set to have 11 hps.

The 35 offers a great value for the price, and if it was not for the excessive dependence on Russian gear in the IAF, it could have been an excellent choice.

As far as the Rafale's radar range being less than the apg-80; I doubt there is any great accuracy to this claim - the RBE Pesa was found to have a range that is better than the RDY-2 on the Mirage 2000 (~140km - 5msq target). The AESA is bound to be better. The Apg 80 is put at around 75 NM for a 3msq target. Very similar to the 680trm Zhuk A, and possibly what the Gripen's AESA can do. The Rafale might be slightly ahead (although not by much).

The high powered radars in this race are the Apg-79 and the Captor (M and E).

CM

[Cain Marko]

Has any Mig-35 prototype actually flown with the 1000T/RM Zhuk-AE? We have seen pics of the older Mig-35 prototypes with the 650 T/RM model.Also, the newer versions of russkie BVR missiles have been in development for ages but are still nowhere in sight. So I don't know where you got the 175km range for the R-77M. One more nitpick. The rafale cannot fire the AMRAAM AFAIK. The thing that worries me about the Mig-35 is that it's MTOW has increased by around 8000kg from the mango Mig-29, but the dry thrust has remained more or less the same. A great T:W ratio used to be the USP of the Mig-29 if I'm not mistaken.

AFAIK, the 1064 TRM version has not yet been developed. The 680 TRM version did make it to India for evals.

There is reason for cautious optimism re. the new gen missiles - 1) The pakfa necessitates this, 2) the MiG-35 is offered with a variety of new munitions, which have been tested ,3) The russians have traditionally never made things very clear re. their AAMs.

Re. the 35's TWR - not a problem. in fact the increased MTOW (30-40%) is a great sign, it indicates that all the previous issues have been dealt with, the key is that the empty weight has increased by a mere 5-6% (11300-500kg). The new engines provide greater AB thrust by 8% and mil power thrust by 1%. The minor increase in milpower should not be a problem because the original fulcrum was in many ways overpowered - iirc, the M2k had to engage ABs to keep up with the 29 on mil power! As far as max TWR is concerned, it only got better! Consider the fulcrum A with 3400kg internal fuel + 6 AAMS (TWR ~ 1.03), the 35 otoh, with the same loadout has a TWR ~ 1.25!

CM.

[Indranil]

^^^ Sorry for the mistake on the combat radius. It was a quick look up job.

Payload. Here's what Mig company website says: link
– increased weapons load stored at nine external stations;

I also read about 11 hardpoints being talked about, but I didnt see it on the bort "961" or "967". I don't believe that they would go beyond 9.

You are right on the weapons load. I thin kit should be 7 metric tons.

As I said before my intention is not to establish that there is one excellent plane. My intention is to establish that there is not a lot to choose between the contenders in terms of performance.

Ofcourse the EF/Rafale might be better than F-18/Mig-35/F-16/Gripen. But are they worth twice the difference in price?

People speak about RCS. Detection range is fourth power of RCS. with external weapons and fuel tanks, I don't understand whether a lower RCS is better or a larger Radar, in such cases. Fifth gen aircraft with internal bay and specifically shaped body is a different matter.

[Austin]

however, the a/c is quite impressive in other ways as well, and brings some unique abilties to the table. Without doubt its prowess as a striker is unmatched in that it weighs a mere 9500kg (less than the single engined F-16 blk 60), but can carry a payload of 9.5 tonnes, a good 1.5 tons more than the nearest competition - the Shornet.

Well it cost impressive as well , you might end up buying 2 MKI at the cost of single Rafale or Typhoon.

9.5T payload might just make the Rafale fly like a rock , the F-16IN too can carry a load of 8T.

[Cain Marko]

The RD-33 MK gives a 7% increase in thrust though I am sure that the Mig-35 is not as potent an A2A platform as the Mig-29.

to the contrary, the 35 is certainly more potent than the 29 A2A - in every sense, WVR and BVR. Turn rates, endurance, you name it.

CM

[Cain Marko]

Well it cost impressive as well , you might end up buying 2 MKI at the cost of single Rafale or Typhoon.9.5T payload might just make the Rafale fly like a rock , the F-16IN too can carry a load of 8T.

Undoubtedly, the MKI is cheaper, but we are talking about close to 12 billion $ss here, and in context of the MRCA, the Rafale seems quite in line with the other "big two" - Shornet, EF2k, and possibly the F-16.

The 9.5 T payload example was just a way of highlighting the engineering behind that small bird. No other bird does this (and all of them, other than the Gripen, are heavier empty), least of all a bloated F-16. The ability to carry a good 1500kgs extra could always be useful, btw, which of these a/c are actually going to fly fabulously at MTOW? Some of them barely manage this with half the payload!

CM.

[negi]

We need to realize the fundamental fact that even as we speak today many of our scientific research institutions are being denied access to technology by US admin ostensibly for POK-II tests, despite having negligible footprint in our inventory (before Jalashwa , C-130s and P-8 deals ) they have often played spoil sport with our military preparedness (remember the Sea King pares issue ?). More importantly its a fact that US unlike other suppliers is a control freak when it comes to end use and even customization/integration of the platform with other weapon/sub systems. India today cannot afford to invest billions in a platform whose availability and very functioning is at mercy of a country which has not been in our good books. The talk about kill switches and trojans too cannot be rubbished aside as CT the recent stuxnet worm incident should be an eyeopener for all of us . That is why the F-16s/18s should be effin shown the middle finger; also otherwise too if having shiniest of AC made a great airforce then jacka$$es like Saudi Barbria and UAE would have been fighting for the top honors.

[Cain Marko]

We need to realize the fundamental fact that even as we speak today many of our scientific research institutions are being denied access to technology by US admin ostensibly for POK-II tests, despite having negligible footprint in our inventory (before Jalashwa , C-130s and P-8 deals ) they have often played spoil sport with our military preparedness (remember the Sea King pares issue ?). More importantly its a fact that US unlike other suppliers is a control freak when it comes to end use and even customization/integration of the platform with other weapon/sub systems. India today cannot afford to invest billions in a platform whose availability and very functioning is at mercy of a country which has not been in our good books. The talk about kill switches and trojans too cannot be rubbished aside as CT the recent stuxnet worm incident should be an eyeopener for all of us . That is why the F-16s/18s should be effin shown the middle finger and in any case if having shiniest of AC made a great airforce then jacka$$es like Saudi Barbria and UAE would have been fighting for the top honors.

One only hopes that all the other goodies being offered to the US (C17s for example) are a way to ensure that the MRCA goes to someone else - EUropean, if one may indulge for a moment or two.

and nor is this based entirely on the sanctions threat. In terms of pure, lasting performance the F 16 and 18 seem a bit long in the tooth. Even the MiG-35 suffers from this, to a lesser degree.

CM

[Singha]

the next generation of russian AAMs (catching up to best western counterparts) would likely enter service on Su35BM and Pakfa towards end of this decade. I dont think any are on offer with the Mig35 immediately for the simple reason they are not IOC'ed and RuAF is not using them either.

in the meantime, aim120D, meteor, aim9x, python5, asraam, mica continue to rule the roost.

long term we need to field and deploy the Astra and use that as a starting point for future upgrades like the amraam family did. it must become our primary and proprietary aam fully under our control. for WVR, we can use a mix of the future russian K-74 or whatever its called and also have a JV with rafael to develop the Python6 ("wild anaconda") model to develop domestic capabilities in high-G airframes and cooled IIR seekers.

[Cain Marko]

the next generation of russian AAMs (catching up to best western counterparts) would likely enter service on Su35BM and Pakfa towards end of this decade. I dont think any are on offer with the Mig35 immediately for the simple reason they are not IOC'ed and RuAF is not using them either.

But saar, the Su-35 will probably enter VVS service before the MiG-35 makes it to the IAF (if selected for the MRCA). The Su-35 is expected to enter the VVS by the end of the year iirc. Chances are that these weapons will be available around 2015, when the first MRCAs start slowly entering the IAF. The A2G ones are ready as we speak and MiG has made it clear that these are on offer.

CM

[Singha]

let us hope so. the Su35BM can work with all the older kit as well if the new missiles are not ready...they dont have to plan for a serious fight with china - unlike us.

[Cain Marko]

let us hope so. the Su35BM can work with all the older kit as well if the new missiles are not ready...they dont have to plan for a serious fight with china - unlike us.

Then again, is the AIM 120D even on offer for India? Is the Meteor already in service with all the eurocanards? It'll take 5 years anyways for these birds to make it to India, by then we'll likely see the new gen. russki mijjiles on the upgraded Rambha!

CM.

[negi]

Our existing BVR stock is more than enough what we need is decent AWACS coverage and a reliable IFF system to be able to exploit the capability of R77 without that all BVR will continue to remain a theory subject (I presume Astra and a long range AA version of AAD should see service in next 5 years)

[Juggi G]

Buy a Fighter for War, Not Air Shows
Business Standard

Buy a Fighter for War, Not Air Shows
Ajai Shukla
New Delhi November 2, 2010, 0:23 IST
Tomorrow's IAF must be a comprehensively 5th Generation force, using custom-designed aircraft for specific operational tasks

A firestorm of criticism from hundreds of indignant netizens followed my last column (“Scrap the MMRCA, buy US F-35s”, October 19, 2010), which argued that the Indian Air Force is blundering in buying a 4th Generation Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) just a couple of years before Lockheed Martin’s 5th Generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter enters operational service. Given that the IAF will operate its 126 MMRCAs till about 2050, anything short of today’s cutting edge would become irrelevant long before that.

Broadly speaking, the critics’ arguments were: the F-35 is not designed as a high-speed fighter (true); its primary role is striking ground targets and is, therefore, merely a “bomb truck” (Churchill might have said: “ Some truck! Some bombs!!”); the F-35 is many years away from operational readiness (false); it is too expensive (depends on how you calculate); and, of course, the unsurprising, “Goddamit! We can’t trust the Yanks.”

Since my previous 900-word article could hardly cover all corners of this $10-billion question, I shall stay on this subject this week and outline the military realities and doctrinal issues that must shape the IAF’s decision.

What are India’s foreseeable security threats and how must the IAF respond? While Pakistan remains a lingering hangover, especially in its embrace of cross-border terrorism, it is diminishing as a full-blown military threat to India. The IAF’s most likely missions against Pakistan centre on air-to-ground strikes: punitive raids against terrorist camps or ISI locations, perhaps in retaliation for yet another terrorist outrage; or pre-emptive strikes against Pakistani ballistic missiles when a nuclear launch against India seems imminent.

A devastating ground strike capability is also primary for contingencies on the China border. With Beijing relentlessly developing roads and railways to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has already built, and is increasing, the ability to amass an invading force faster than the Indian Army can rush in troops to defend the threatened area. With an attack imminent, or some Indian territory already captured, New Delhi’s immediate response will inevitably centre on air strikes against PLA forward troops and the routes on which their logistics — ammunition, fuel, food, water and medical care — depend. In the 1962 debacle, one of New Delhi’s most unforgivable, and inexplicable, blunders was to abjure the use of air power. This time around, as evident from the rapid creation of IAF infrastructure along the China border, India’s first response will be with air strikes.

Given these requirements, it is evident that the IAF needs powerful ground strike capabilities. But the fighter pilots who dominate the pinnacle of the IAF (and every other air force) have a special fascination for “air supremacy fighters”, those glamorous machines that incestuously dogfight with enemy fighters during war and mesmerise air-show audiences with aerobatics during peace. The IAF has traditionally focused less on enemy ground troops and more on that fighter-jock ambition, shooting down enemy fighters in air-to-air duels. The Indian Army has long remonstrated with the IAF over the latter’s airy neglect (pun unintentional) of the crucial ground war.

The MMRCA procurement reflects this bias: the IAF’s tender emphasises air-to-air combat capabilities — speed, rate of climb, turn rate, etc. — with ground strike capability a mere side benefit. Already deficient in air-to-ground strike power, the IAF’s two major fighters under development — the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) — are primarily air supremacy fighters. The third fighter in the pipeline, the MMRCA, cannot share the same bloodline. Instead, procuring a top-notch strike aircraft — and the F-35 is the undisputed king of this realm — will equip the IAF to contribute to the war effort where it matters the most.

To mask its ideological proclivity for air superiority fighters, the IAF argues that the “multi-role” MMRCA can also strike enemy ground forces. Strike it can, but nowhere as effectively as the F-35, which is designed ground-up for this role. To use an athletics analogy, decathletes hurl the discus, throw the javelin, and also sprint 100 metres. None of them, however, achieve world standards in each of these events.

The army has not forgotten the IAF’s irrelevance during the Kargil conflict. When IAF fighters should have been supporting assaulting infantry by hammering Pakistani positions with air strikes, fire support came almost exclusively from the army’s own guns. Meanwhile, the IAF was searching for a way to equip its Mirage-2000s (an MMRCA!) to deliver bombs accurately onto mountaintops. Without a world-class, customised strike fighter like the F-35, this sorry saga could be replayed some day on the Sino-Indian border.

Another argument fallaciously made, against the F-35, is that its design — optimised for ground strike — renders it vulnerable to predatory enemy fighters. In fact, owing to its stealth capabilities, US Air Force combat simulations have found the F-35 the equal in air-to-air combat of four fighters of the 4th Generation, which the IAF is now procuring.

Finally, New Delhi must be clearer about its threats and opportunities. The US sale of F-35s to Israel, and its willingness to condone the retro-fitment of Israeli avionics and weaponry illustrate Washington’s strategy of building up clearly friendly countries against clear long-term threats. Just as it is supporting the creation of capabilities against Iran’s nuclear programme, the US will equally facilitate capabilities against China’s growing militarism. Furthermore, an F-35 procurement by India would dramatically dissipate the suspicions that currently dog US-India defence relations.

But the basic argument for the F-35 remains Indian self-interest. Tomorrow’s IAF must be a comprehensively 5th Generation force, using custom-designed aircraft for specific operational tasks. In the US Air Force, the F-22 Raptor obtains air superiority; meanwhile, US ground forces are supported by the F-35 joint strike fighter. The IAF cannot fall short on either of these counts. With the 5th Generation FGFA, an air superiority fighter, perhaps a decade away, the IAF must obtain a war-winning advantage from a matching strike fighter: the F-35.

[Cain Marko]

Our existing BVR stock is more than enough what we need is decent AWACS coverage and a reliable IFF system to be able to exploit the capability of R77 without that all BVR will continue to remain a theory subject (I presume Astra and a long range AA version of AAD should see service in next 5 years)

What I'd really like to see is the VLRAAM KS-172 type - now that is a game changer since everybody in the neighborhood seems to be stockpiling on AWACS/AEW. I believe something of this sort is necessary because the BARS itself has not been fully utilized, i am guessing it far outranges the R77.

CM.

[Austin]

I am not sure of this is true but what i have read is that the KS-172 has been cancelled and the Russians are further developing the R-37 variant.

It probably makes sense as it has been a long time we have heard any thing on KS-172

[GeorgeWelch]

As far as the Rafale's radar range being less than the apg-80; I doubt there is any great accuracy to this claim

It comes from a General in the French Air Force

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ost5133158

However, the key Emirian demand is about the range of the RBE2. And, with the same antenna diameter, the only way to achieve the 10% range increase (compared with the Basic AESA F3 "roadmap") that wish to obtain the Emirians, is a big boost to the power of the radar

. . .

They want to avoid any regression with the Rafale, at least on the radar range, compared to the F-16 Block 60

[Willy]

Buy a Fighter for War, Not Air Shows
Business Standard

Buy a Fighter for War, Not Air Shows
Ajai Shukla
New Delhi November 2, 2010, 0:23 IST
Tomorrow's IAF must be a comprehensively 5th Generation force, using custom-designed aircraft for specific operational tasks

A firestorm of criticism from hundreds of indignant netizens followed my last column (“Scrap the MMRCA, buy US F-35s”, October 19, 2010), which argued that the Indian Air Force is blundering in buying a 4th Generation Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) just a couple of years before Lockheed Martin’s 5th Generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter enters operational service. Given that the IAF will operate its 126 MMRCAs till about 2050, anything short of today’s cutting edge would become irrelevant long before that.

Broadly speaking, the critics’ arguments were: the F-35 is not designed as a high-speed fighter (true); its primary role is striking ground targets and is, therefore, merely a “bomb truck” (Churchill might have said: “ Some truck! Some bombs!!”); the F-35 is many years away from operational readiness (false); it is too expensive (depends on how you calculate); and, of course, the unsurprising, “Goddamit! We can’t trust the Yanks.”

Since my previous 900-word article could hardly cover all corners of this $10-billion question, I shall stay on this subject this week and outline the military realities and doctrinal issues that must shape the IAF’s decision.

What are India’s foreseeable security threats and how must the IAF respond? While Pakistan remains a lingering hangover, especially in its embrace of cross-border terrorism, it is diminishing as a full-blown military threat to India. The IAF’s most likely missions against Pakistan centre on air-to-ground strikes: punitive raids against terrorist camps or ISI locations, perhaps in retaliation for yet another terrorist outrage; or pre-emptive strikes against Pakistani ballistic missiles when a nuclear launch against India seems imminent.

A devastating ground strike capability is also primary for contingencies on the China border. With Beijing relentlessly developing roads and railways to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has already built, and is increasing, the ability to amass an invading force faster than the Indian Army can rush in troops to defend the threatened area. With an attack imminent, or some Indian territory already captured, New Delhi’s immediate response will inevitably centre on air strikes against PLA forward troops and the routes on which their logistics — ammunition, fuel, food, water and medical care — depend. In the 1962 debacle, one of New Delhi’s most unforgivable, and inexplicable, blunders was to abjure the use of air power. This time around, as evident from the rapid creation of IAF infrastructure along the China border, India’s first response will be with air strikes.

Given these requirements, it is evident that the IAF needs powerful ground strike capabilities. But the fighter pilots who dominate the pinnacle of the IAF (and every other air force) have a special fascination for “air supremacy fighters”, those glamorous machines that incestuously dogfight with enemy fighters during war and mesmerise air-show audiences with aerobatics during peace. The IAF has traditionally focused less on enemy ground troops and more on that fighter-jock ambition, shooting down enemy fighters in air-to-air duels. The Indian Army has long remonstrated with the IAF over the latter’s airy neglect (pun unintentional) of the crucial ground war.

The MMRCA procurement reflects this bias: the IAF’s tender emphasises air-to-air combat capabilities — speed, rate of climb, turn rate, etc. — with ground strike capability a mere side benefit. Already deficient in air-to-ground strike power, the IAF’s two major fighters under development — the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) — are primarily air supremacy fighters. The third fighter in the pipeline, the MMRCA, cannot share the same bloodline. Instead, procuring a top-notch strike aircraft — and the F-35 is the undisputed king of this realm — will equip the IAF to contribute to the war effort where it matters the most.

To mask its ideological proclivity for air superiority fighters, the IAF argues that the “multi-role” MMRCA can also strike enemy ground forces. Strike it can, but nowhere as effectively as the F-35, which is designed ground-up for this role. To use an athletics analogy, decathletes hurl the discus, throw the javelin, and also sprint 100 metres. None of them, however, achieve world standards in each of these events.

The army has not forgotten the IAF’s irrelevance during the Kargil conflict. When IAF fighters should have been supporting assaulting infantry by hammering Pakistani positions with air strikes, fire support came almost exclusively from the army’s own guns. Meanwhile, the IAF was searching for a way to equip its Mirage-2000s (an MMRCA!) to deliver bombs accurately onto mountaintops. Without a world-class, customised strike fighter like the F-35, this sorry saga could be replayed some day on the Sino-Indian border.

Another argument fallaciously made, against the F-35, is that its design — optimised for ground strike — renders it vulnerable to predatory enemy fighters. In fact, owing to its stealth capabilities, US Air Force combat simulations have found the F-35 the equal in air-to-air combat of four fighters of the 4th Generation, which the IAF is now procuring.

Finally, New Delhi must be clearer about its threats and opportunities. The US sale of F-35s to Israel, and its willingness to condone the retro-fitment of Israeli avionics and weaponry illustrate Washington’s strategy of building up clearly friendly countries against clear long-term threats. Just as it is supporting the creation of capabilities against Iran’s nuclear programme, the US will equally facilitate capabilities against China’s growing militarism. Furthermore, an F-35 procurement by India would dramatically dissipate the suspicions that currently dog US-India defence relations.

But the basic argument for the F-35 remains Indian self-interest. Tomorrow’s IAF must be a comprehensively 5th Generation force, using custom-designed aircraft for specific operational tasks. In the US Air Force, the F-22 Raptor obtains air superiority; meanwhile, US ground forces are supported by the F-35 joint strike fighter. The IAF cannot fall short on either of these counts. With the 5th Generation FGFA, an air superiority fighter, perhaps a decade away, the IAF must obtain a war-winning advantage from a matching strike fighter: the F-35.

Hehehe. Seems the Yanks are really taking good care of him. Viva Las Vegas!!!!

[Pratyush]

The good author does not seem to realise that India has its own AMCA programme. It will be an equal to the F35. If it is approved by the MOD and completed by the DRDO and its associated labs.

Or may be he does and is being paid to scutle the reasearch into the AMCA.

[Sumeet]

so IAF should be the only force to maintain 3 different 5th generation fighters. wow. Shukla ji, what have you been upto lately ?

M2K needed smart bombs, target acquisition & designating pod to bomb and support Army in its ground operations against pukes. Also, it will be nice for Shukla ji to know that F-22 is meant for not only clearing air space off the enemy fighters but also conduct raids against advanced & highly capable ground based SAMs.

PAK-FA and in future Indian MCA [ground strike] will exactly do that.

Also, India will only get F-35 when its few [2-3] years from inducting PAK-FA. Secondly, there is no guarantee that F-35 will be customized for IAF, that we will be given access to source code for radar to fit any weapon [hypersonic Brahmos, Nirbhay, Astra etc...]. Almost 0 ToT. Plus don't forget literal begging by poodles like British and Aussies to get US to give them F-35 that is in stealth equivalent to the one they will have for themselves. How much begging will India have to do and what lines will it have to toe before US gives ascent to all aforementioned points and more that are as important but not considered here.

Also, Shukla ji can you give me proof that US has officially agreed to provide Australia, Britain and Israel:

1) F-35 as stealthy as the ones for USAF, USN.
2) Source code for Radar etc.. for people to add their own C4ISR, EW etc.. equipments and in turn let this procurement benefit local industry as well.

As far as I know US has denied Israel permission to do F-16 Sufa on JSF. Besides Israeli JSF will be built between 2015-2017. Think when India would get them.

[Austin]

Undoubtedly, the MKI is cheaper, but we are talking about close to 12 billion $ss here, and in context of the MRCA, the Rafale seems quite in line with the other "big two" - Shornet, EF2k, and possibly the F-16.

Its not just an outright purchase it is Purchase + cost for Lic manuf + TOT cost , $12 billion is just a very small amount for top of line europe fighter.

The 9.5 T payload example was just a way of highlighting the engineering behind that small bird. No other bird does this (and all of them, other than the Gripen, are heavier empty), least of all a bloated F-16. The ability to carry a good 1500kgs extra could always be useful, btw, which of these a/c are actually going to fly fabulously at MTOW? Some of them barely manage this with half the payload!

It all depends what compromise they have done to achieve those payload , you can probably even let Gripen or 35 or F-16 , carry those loads but it will be a truck.

The 9.5 tons figure is impressive on paper but we need to see on the drop tank it will need and the compromise it will have on its flight performance plus the load will have an impact on its materials and life.

I think the top of line fighter like Eurofighter ,Rafale and F-18 E/F will match on payload/range while Gripen,F-16 and Mig-35 will match on those front.

I personally think Gripen is a good choice price/performance/Life Cycle Cost while Mig-35 is good on logistics rationalisation front with decent performance , plus both will match the $12 billion on tot,lic maf ,weapons cost.

[rkhanna]

so IAF should be the only force to maintain 3 different 5th generation fighters. wow. Shukla ji, what have you been upto lately

Take into account that the FGFA(India) could be a different bird from the PAKFA (though based off it) and we could end up operating both the PAK-FA and the FGFA (One bought straight from Russia .one built in India)

[Luit]

The F-16 and F-18 are serious contenders. IIRC, a year back, there was a report which mentioned that the F-16 was being offered for < $40 million and the F-18 for < $50 million. I think this is where the Americans are going to be hard to beat. Also the Americans are offering the widest range of munitions. There must be a clause in the Tender which specifically requires that weapons accompanying the MMRCA - must be made interoperable with other IAF platforms. That would give a serious boost to IAF capability. MKI with a loadout of AIM120D, ALARM, JDAMs, SFW, ........

[Viv S]

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.

Probably, but the careful sculpting involved in the Rafale (forward fuselage area especially), and the the angular looks of the Tiffy vis a vis the Rafale imvho suggest this. I feel that the French insistence upon building on their "discrete" objective is a reflection of this emphasis upon low observability (not in the full blown sense of an F22 of course, but in specific applications).

Well I don't think we can really make any conclusions from a basic visual examination. For example, the F-22 has much more angular look compared to the Rafale but I don't think anyone would suggest their RCS is comparable even for a clean Rafale.

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

Because iirc it (Mica IIR) can be used at BVR ranges - a unique feature not shared by any others. A very possible scenario is targeting using feeds from others or even the ELS/Spectra or the OSF. I recall reading an old article by a British pilot in a Rafale claiming that the OSF could lock on to a Transall well beyond Mica range through clouds!

What exactly do you mean when you say 'silent kill'? Three MKIs can lock onto a target in passive mode and launch a missile. The target wouldn't know he's being painted till the missile shows up on his radar/MAWS or when it goes active. Also, all of the MRCA contenders come with a LPI radar, which will probably allow the aircraft to fire without alerting the target.

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.

First, we don't exactly know what is included in the latest deal - what is the configuration for these MKI? Secondly, regardless of the price hike, what other a/c with similar capabilities can be delivered at a similar price? Rafale? Strike Eagle?

Well how different can the configuration be? Enough to increase the price by 160%? I'm guessing the difference between these new MKIs and the ones we currently have wouldn't be more than... say that between a MiG-29K and a MiG-35.

I don't know what we can get for $78 million given that net price is usually well in excess of the flyaway price (SV/Gripen/SH??). In any case, the point was related to the escalation of price and Russians treating a contract as a set of guidelines instead of a sacrosanct agreement.

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!"

Yes, it seems bothersome, but if it ultimately works out, a little haggling is fine. What about the French Scorpenes - troubles there too, right? Thing is - India squeezes a LOT out of the Russkis and they part with tech that others simply won't consider.

Well haggling is an option when the contract is being framed. Once its signed and the Russians provide you with a second bill (and then a third) as it happened with Gorshkov, there simply isn't much that one can do, except take note for the future.

With regard to the Scorpenes it is frustrating but after all the works being done by an Indian shipyard. Also I don't we'd have seen similar delays had it been allotted to say L&T instead.

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

I would bet on it, esp. the twin engined ones- IF it makes it past round 1 that is.

Well... I guess we'll find out.

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).

I thought the reasons were more political than anything else apart from the insistence of the French re. their requirements being given top priority.

One of the French requirements was a carrier capable aircraft which would have required a concessions in transonic/supersonic performance.

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.

Not so. The EF2K too might take off from carriers if tinkered with, this ability does not automatically mean a2a performance is sacrificed for all versions of a given bird. The Rafale M and Rafale C are different after all. Nor does good low speed performance necessarily mean poor supersonic performance. And IIRC, the Rafale can supercruise with stores.

More significantly, it can supercruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a belly drop tank

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/filead ... e_nr_8.pdf

The EF is not an ideal carrier aircraft by design even if its navalized. And no the good low speed performance doesn't mean poor supersonic performance, but there is an underlying trade-off and the Rafale will not be able to reproduce the EF's exemplary supersonic performance.

With regard to supercruise, that links the only one I've seen saying the Rafale can supercruise with external stores. It certainly hasn't demonstrated that capability in any competition so far, unlike the Eurofighter.

3. The Dassault proposal doesn't seem to offer the same level of participation as the Eurofighter Gmbh's one.

How do we know? They offered to stick the Kaveri in there a long while back. The EF folks make a lot of noise ala the US and Saab chaps, but ground realities may be different. French make less noise, but seem to offer a lot.

Comparable in terms of ToT perhaps, but unlike EF Gmbh, Dassault hasn't invited any Indian participation in the Rafale's future if its selected. At least to the best of knowledge.

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.

The Tiffy's price so far hasn't exactly been economy class either. None of them are. Btw, iirc a recent F-16 MLU package was equally costly, and its lines are still open.

I'm not saying the Eurofighter is cheap. Just stating that the Rafale is not a lower cost alternative to the EF - since the common perception is that the EF is the most expensive by a mile and therefore not cost-effective.

[chiru]

The F-16 and F-18 are serious contenders. IIRC, a year back, there was a report which mentioned that the F-16 was being offered for < $40 million and the F-18 for < $50 million. I think this is where the Americans are going to be hard to beat. Also the Americans are offering the widest range of munitions. There must be a clause in the Tender which specifically requires that weapons accompanying the MMRCA - must be made interoperable with other IAF platforms. That would give a serious boost to IAF capability. MKI with a loadout of AIM120D, ALARM, JDAMs, SFW, ........

what is this inception of reality ?? sir this is even impossible in my dreams, plz read more about the topics history

[SaiK]

Strip out all the parts of F18/F16 that are covered by CISMOA(perhaps keep the $price the same!)?

US law lays down that sensitive technologies can be transferred to another country only after signing the CISMOA (Communications, Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement) to protect classified security data.

India has to sign the CISMOA if the American platforms it is buying have to come with hi-tech systems used for collecting and disseminating information. Such platforms come equipped with C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) systems, which can be transferred only if such an agreement is in place.

This should include aesa radar, mission computer, ELINT, MWS, ECM, and .. And there are still people in the media shook-lo on their intelligence to chase after F35. Even the dumb bombs can be delivered better by the early Mig21s comparing the F35 then.

[Surya]

Sigh shukla compounds his horrendous lifafa article with another worse one. another blog I do not feel like following

[Viv S]

Strip out all the parts of F18/F16 that are covered by CISMOA(perhaps keep the $price the same!)?

US law lays down that sensitive technologies can be transferred to another country only after signing the CISMOA (Communications, Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement) to protect classified security data.

India has to sign the CISMOA if the American platforms it is buying have to come with hi-tech systems used for collecting and disseminating information. Such platforms come equipped with C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) systems, which can be transferred only if such an agreement is in place.

This should include aesa radar, mission computer, ELINT, MWS, ECM, and .. And there are still people in the media shook-lo on their intelligence to chase after F35. Even the dumb bombs can be delivered better by the early Mig21s comparing the F35 then.

How are the AESA, mission computer, MWS, ECM related to communications? How do we know that the stuff removed wouldn't merely be the aircraft datalinks, satcom and perhaps some encryption equipment? The P-8I for example, hasn't had its radar or sonar arrays removed. Also, the AESAs on the F-16 block 70 and F-18E/F are on offer (even if ToT may not be) regardless of whether the CISMOA is signed or not.

[Tanaji]

Maybe wrong thread, but I thought the P8I was getting a derated radar and no MAD as well.

[Viv S]

Maybe wrong thread, but I thought the P8I was getting a derated radar and no MAD as well.

I haven't heard about a derated radar and IIRC only the P-8I is coming with MAD i.e. the USN's P-8A doesn't include it anymore.

[Philip]

"Marshal of the Air Farce",Shukla,in wanting a fighter for "war" is so way off the mark with his choice,which is badly delayed,horrendously expensive,STOVL version being dumped by US ex-poodle Britain,and when fit for production for India-after all the other delayed orders have been dealt with,might get the bird by 2020!BY then,the PAK-FA/5tgh-gen fighter will have been in service with the IAF and who would want an inferior singler-engined fighter like the JSF then? Moreover,as the latest AWSY says,is worried at the ever improving radars of today which are making the "invisibility" of stealth fighters less capable.But hard costs make the JSF a real turkey for the IAF.The aircraft now approaching $125+m per piece,will be nearer 150m by the time it is available for India.For that price we can get 3 Gripen or MIG-35s which in combat will make short meat of the JSF! Fortunately,the JSF is not on offer and the IAF's Air Marshals appear to be more realistic with their fighter acquisitions(even though I have a grouse about their transport prioorities) than MoAFarce Shuklaji!

[negi]

Maybe wrong thread, but I thought the P8I was getting a derated radar and no MAD as well.

Hmm derated Radar is something which almost everyone out there will do , MAD is not a standard USN fit that is something IN wanted as add on.

[Viv S]

"Marshal of the Air Farce",Shukla,in wanting a fighter for "war" is so way off the mark with his choice,which is badly delayed,horrendously expensive,STOVL version being dumped by US ex-poodle Britain,and when fit for production for India-after all the other delayed orders have been dealt with,might get the bird by 2020!BY then,the PAK-FA/5tgh-gen fighter will have been in service with the IAF and who would want an inferior singler-engined fighter like the JSF then?

I can think of very few modern aircraft that weren't delayed during development. The UK is swapping its F-35Bs for F-35Cs. How does that in any way support your case? And aircraft deliveries don't happen in that linear first come first serve fashion. The Eurofighter still has another 200 aircraft that are on order, but if selected today the IAF would still get its first squadron in 2013. The USN's stated requirement is for 108 P-8As yet the P-8I deliveries to the IN will still take place in 2013.

Also while I find it heartening that you believe that Russia's first shot at a stealth aircraft isn't going to see any delays at all, I'm surprised you think a single engined aircraft are automatically inferior.

Moreover,as the latest AWSY says,is worried at the ever improving radars of today which are making the "invisibility" of stealth fighters less capable.

And yet we're going for the PAK-FA instead of just buying upgraded Flankers.

But hard costs make the JSF a real turkey for the IAF.The aircraft now approaching $125+m per piece,will be nearer 150m by the time it is available for India.

The IsAF purchase puts the aircraft's flyaway cost at $96 million. And once full scale production starts the costs are expected to drop enough to counter normal inflation.

For that price we can get 3 Gripen or MIG-35s which in combat will make short meat of the JSF!

For that price you cannot get 3 Gripens or MiG-35s and in combat, stealth will remain a decisive factor for at least the next twenty years.

Fortunately,the JSF is not on offer and the IAF's Air Marshals appear to be more realistic with their fighter acquisitions(even though I have a grouse about their transport prioorities) than MoAFarce Shuklaji!

Actually, the F-35 is on offer should India choose to order it. It doesn't make the grade within the MRCA's requirements (esp. ToT and local manufacture) and the MRCA will not be cancelled, but in F-35 is available nonetheless. The Indian Navy is examining both the F-35B and F-35C for its future carrier requirements.

[Cain Marko]

Well I don't think we can really make any conclusions from a basic visual examination. For example, the F-22 has much more angular look compared to the Rafale but I don't think anyone would suggest their RCS is comparable even for a clean Rafale.

Fair enough. I was particularly refering to an image pointing this difference between the Rafale/Tiffy. Another point is that the EF seems to have taken rcs reduction means a little later on - the original straight inlets were an indication of this.

What exactly do you mean when you say 'silent kill'? Three MKIs can lock onto a target in passive mode and launch a missile. The target wouldn't know he's being painted till the missile shows up on his radar/MAWS or when it goes active. Also, all of the MRCA contenders come with a LPI radar, which will probably allow the aircraft to fire without alerting the target.

Silent - without radar emissions. AFAIK, the MKI cannot do this, it does not have an ELS. Second, for BVR shots with ARH, normally, initial illumination is reqd. via radar. Third, as you point out, sooner or later MAWS will warn target of missile, allowing it to use countermeasures. The Mica IIR prevents all of the above. IFF/Ranging can be done via Spectra/OSF and shot fired at BVR.

Well how different can the configuration be? Enough to increase the price by 160%? I'm guessing the difference between these new MKIs and the ones we currently have wouldn't be more than... say that between a MiG-29K and a MiG-35.

We simply don't know. Btw, how has the price increased by 160%? IIRC, the 230 MKI were contracted at ~ $ 9 billion without upgrades (add another $ 1.5 billion). The current lot is priced at around 3.4 - 4.2 billion (depending on the sources), and there is little information re. what exactly is being bought - newer weapons? AESA? Engines? IRST? Stealth mods?

The EF is not an ideal carrier aircraft by design even if its navalized. And no the good low speed performance doesn't mean poor supersonic performance, but there is an underlying trade-off and the Rafale will not be able to reproduce the EF's exemplary supersonic performance.

It is very possible that the EF2k might offer better performance, but I doubt it will be by a large margin.

With regard to supercruise, that links the only one I've seen saying the Rafale can supercruise with external stores. It certainly hasn't demonstrated that capability in any competition so far, unlike the Eurofighter.

Well, apart from that link, there are links in French that suggest so; ask some of the French posters - Arthuro? But frankly, why shouldn't the Rafale be able to do so with external ordinance; its design is very similar to the other eurocanards, and it has a topnotch TWR (dry/AB) unlike the Gripen NG. For instance, at milpower and empty weight, its TWR is very similar to the EF2k! 10/15KN:9800kg vs. 12/18KN:11200kg, the Gripen NG is decidedly lower.

3. The Dassault proposal doesn't seem to offer the same level of participation as the Eurofighter Gmbh's one.

True, at least no public declarations from Dassault.

I'm not saying the Eurofighter is cheap. Just stating that the Rafale is not a lower cost alternative to the EF - since the common perception is that the EF is the most expensive by a mile and therefore not cost-effective.

Yes, the EF, Rafale, and Shornet seem to be in the same ballpark; the F-16blk 60 does not seem too far away either.

CM.