MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[Cain Marko]

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.

You may be right, if so, only the Gripen and MiG stand a chance. I doubt even the F-16 is affordable.

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.

Can you? The Rafale is on record suggesting this just like the Strike Eagle/Su-34, no other manufacturer makes such a claim. I am sure they would be gushing info if they could. Btw, the Gripen has the same TWR as the Rafale at MTOW (9500kg vs. 6000kg), only the Rafale can carry >50% load!

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.

Saar, it is not like the other birds won't make compromises at MTOW, but the fact remains that at MTOW, the Rafale carries more than any other MRCA a/c. And like I said, its TWR is not much different from the Gripen/F-18.

I think the top of line fighter like Eurofighter ,Rafale and F-18 E/F will match on payload/range

Possibly although manufacturer specs do not suggest this. 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.

If the MiG-35 ends up costing $ 12 billion for 126 a/c, then they might as well dump it; even the MKI doesn't cost that much. It should cost no more than $ 7.5 billion for everything if it has to be competitive imho.

CM.

[shukla]

From the horses mouth..

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik said at a joint press conference with his British counterpart Stephen Dalton

"The MMRCAs will help us tremendously. I have no reservation on any of them. Although our present capability is sufficient to complete our mission of protecting the country from any threat from air or space," Naik said.

In reply to a question, Naik said he was not aware of the government further shortlisting two out of the six models of MMRCAs it had chosen.

Hmmm... the plot thickens.. No further shortlisting or down-select?

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_in ... ge_1461299

[shukla]

Republican leaders urge Obama to push for US fighters

Get a big pie out of India's defence market: Rep Sen to Obama
Indian Express

In a letter to President Obama, Republican Senator Ed Royce asked him to build on the defence co-operation between India and the US that was initiated by his predecessors Bill Clinton and continued by George W Bush.

"As you know, six foreign companies are competing to sell India 126 new multi-role combat aircraft in a deal that could be worth as much as USD 11 billion. India's selection process for this aircraft is advancing, with two US companies under active consideration," senior Republican lawmaker from California Ed Royce said in a letter to Obama.

Senator Royce, in his letter of October 26, said heads of state from France, Russia and the United Kingdom were moving aggressively to advocate for their countries' aircraft proposal.

"Moving India away from its tradition of purchasing Russian equipment toward a US supplier would provide New Delhi with the best product, enhance Indian military's role in the region and improve interaction amongst our military," he wrote in the letter. Royce, co-chair of powerful Congressional Caucus in the House of Representatives, had accompanied Clinton during his trip to India in 2000 but he would not be travelling with President Obama this time.

"Defence cooperation between the US and India has made impressive strides in the last decade. India-US Defense Policy Group was revived in 2001 and now meets annually. In 2005, the US and India signed a 10-year defence pact which outlines planned collaboration in multilateral operations and expanded two-way defense trade," he said.

[Henrik]

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.

Now I'm no aerospace-engineer, but isn't level of drag also relevant in this case? I mean doesn't a bigger plane produce more drag than a similar but smaller and thinner plane?

[Austin]

If the MiG-35 ends up costing $ 12 billion for 126 a/c, then they might as well dump it; even the MKI doesn't cost that much. It should cost no more than $ 7.5 billion for everything if it has to be competitive imho.

CM.

I dont think they would say i got 12 billion so lets go and buy with all that money can buy, they would have some fixed budget plus/minus and then go for lowest bidder , if lowest bidder with all that meets the requirement comes to 7 or 8 or 10 billion then it wins the day , the 10 to 12 billion dollar must be the upper limit or whats budgeted for.

The MKI has been bough almost a decade back and I have read the total cost of MKI i.e. 230 aircraft comes to around $8 billion, probably taking the old buy/cost and new buy/cost.

[darshhan]

While I respect col Ajai Shukla's opinion , I think this should settle the case.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11 ... more-34485

Add another several billion dollars and years in delays to the military’s most important new jet. Nearly a year after Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program for failing to keep costs and performance under control, a new internal Pentagon review finds the $382 billion stealth plane might get pushed back as much as three years, with an added $5 billion price tag.

The Joint Strike Fighter was supposed to be a family of stealth jets that could do it all: bomb targets, engage in air combat, provide air support for ground troops, knock out missile sites, take off vertically (as the Marines like), whatever. 90% of America’s combat aviation power is eventually supposed to come from the jets’ three variants. But the all-in-one features have made the JSFs hard to produce. The plane’s already four years behind schedule, and tens of billions over budget.

Tomorrow, Bloomberg reports, Gates will receive a report from the Joint Strike Fighter’s new program chief, Vice Admiral David Venlet, that’s filled with bad news. The Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps are all supposed to buy the Lockheed Martin-designed plane — ostensibly a cost-saving measure. Only Venlet’s review finds that the Air Force and Navy might not have the Joint Strike Fighter until late 2016 and Marines might not get their versions until 2018.

The delay is due to a host of problems central to the aircraft, including “software, engineering and flight difficulties,” according to Bloomberg. Fixing them will require jacking program costs up an estimated $5 billion. Worse, Venlet’s review is supposed to find that the Joint Strike Fighter will be “as much as 1 1/2 times more expensive to maintain” as the F-16, the F/A-18, the A-10 and the AV-8B — the planes the Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to replace.


That’s just the latest in a string of cost overruns stretching back to the program’s Clinton-era inception. In June, the Pentagon told Congress each individual plane will cost $112.4 million, an 81 percent jump from a $62 million price tag at the dawn of the plane’s 2002 development phase, with the total cost of the program up a full 65 percent from original estimates. And that was after Gates sacked Marine Major General David Heinz, the chief of the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter development team, for letting the cost of the plane explode.

Last year, Gates used the Joint Strike Fighter program to convince Congress to get rid of the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, another expensive stealth jet. (It was designed for air-to-air combat; the JSF, for ground attack.) He spent a lot of political capital on the Hill arguing that the Joint Strike Fighter made the F-22 a costly relic. And he’s spent even more trying to keep the Senate from funding a second engine for the plane.



Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11 ... z149GPFp4m

[Austin]

Can you? The Rafale is on record suggesting this just like the Strike Eagle/Su-34, no other manufacturer makes such a claim. I am sure they would be gushing info if they could. Btw, the Gripen has the same TWR as the Rafale at MTOW (9500kg vs. 6000kg), only the Rafale can carry >50% load!

You cant and shouldnt compare a single engine small and twin engine big fighter , only an MMRCA would do that

But I really do not think the 9500 kg compared to other 8000 kg really matters or really the clincher , MTOW is just good paper specs to chew and beat a poor man in debate , in reality it would be mission dependent and thumb rule is half payload /full or half fuel.

So by and larger i would rate the Superhornet , Typhoon and Rafale on par plus minus here and there but not a clincher and considering there is more to it like TOT,Lic Manf , Cost involved they would just loose on that front

Possibly although manufacturer specs do not suggest this. while Gripen,F-16 and Mig-35 will match on those front.

I think for all the contenders there would be something called classified briefing with NDA for IAF eyes onlee and the manufacturer/brochure/press specs that we debate and beat the poor man.

It is the IAF that would have a good view and look at the close to real specs and then do some jugglery to come to some professional judgement on technical matters which is as I mentioned one of the winning parameters.

[ramana]

Most likely the US a/c wont be chosen for CBM. Lets see.

[Karan M]

Radar (range, estimates only )
Mig-35: Phazotron Zhuk-AE AESA: 148-160 km . develops believe that it can be easily scaled upto 200 kms. (Wiki and many others)
Gripen NG: Selex Galileo Raven ES-05: I couldn't find out.
Eurofighter: Caesar: 120 km (Flight International)
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)

The estimates have flaws & which is why one should be extra careful in source validation.

MiG-35: Only explicit achieved range mentioned so far, in public events as versus Phazatron claims of it "can be easily scaled up" is 130 km, the same for the earlier generation Zhuk ME radar. And only if things were so easy when it came to "scaling up radars", because you'll end up with melted radars if cooling is not taken into account
Gripen NG - you dont know because nobody knows, because there is no functional radar yet! See the issue?
Eurofighter - severely mistaken! First, theres no "Caeser" but only Captor M. The only "official quote" so far - can track a fighter sized target at > 160 km, but interviews with RAF & Italian AF personnel indicate a range much greater than that. As matter of fact, Italian AF pilot quoted the range of the Captor-M as over twice that of the earlier Foxhunter on the ADV, go ahead and google for the Foxhunter radar, suffice to say the Captor M is easily the best or the second best radar in the competition, after the APG-79, and the AESA variant will be more powerful yet.
Rafale: Weakest radar in the PESA RBE-2 variant, with a range quoted as equal to the earlier RDY (Zhuk ME class) but reportedly scaled up by 1.5 times in the AESA variant, but still 10% lesser than the radar on the F-16 Block 60.
F-16 Block 60, aka the original IN with a different EW suite, APG-80: 70-80 nm for a 1Sq Mtr target, translating to 200 odd km for a 5 Sq Mtr target.
F-18, APG-79: Most powerful radar in the competition, with a range midway between that of the APG-80 and that of the APG-63V(3)- 150 nm class. Again, is the full version available to India? Unknown. But the baseline USN version is nothing to look down at.

If you want to go deep you should have a good combat radius:
Mig-35: 2000 km
Gripen NG: 1300 km
Eurofighter: 1,389 km
Rafale: 1,852+ km
F-16IN: 550+ km
F-18SH: 722+ km

These estimates are not accurate without understanding the payload carried at that radius! Do representative, like for like, and you'll see the advantage accruing towards the types with more payload & hence ability to modify the fuel fraction accordingly!

You should be able to carry enough load
Mig-35: 9 hardpoints, 12,200 kg (weapons/fuel)
Gripen NG: 10 hardpoints, 6,000 kg (weapons/fuel)
Eurofighter: 13 hardpoints, 7,500 kg (weapons/fuel)
Rafale: 13/14 hardpoints, 9,500 kg (weapons/fuel)
F-16IN: 11 hardpoints, 7,200 kg(weapons/fuel)
F-18SH: 11 hardpoints, 8,600 kg (weapons/fuel)

Again, its not just a question of payload, but HP combinations. The problem with light fighters is that they have a limited number of HP's which are stressed for multiple loads and even some of the heavies suffer from design limitations (check out EF's landing gear placement). The second question is of weapons carried for the platform. The US by far leads in this aspect.

Moving onto BVR missiles. I don't want to depict a BVR missiles range as it's lethality, but since you asked.
Mig-35: R-27EM: up to 170km,

There is no R-27 EM. Its a fanboy claim repeated all over the net and unfortunately picked up by otherwise OK sources

R-77M (may be): 175+km

No R-77M program launched either. There are "plans" for a follow on to the RVV-AE, after the latest variant, but no funding cleared yet.

Gripen NG: AIM 120D (may be): upto 180 km, meteor: 100+ km
Eurofighter: AIM 120D (may be): upto 180 km, meteor: 100+ km

Again, unverifiable dodgy stats, not only are the ranges all over the place, but the Meteor is by far the most potent AAM because of a simple thing, its ramjet powered, as such it carries out sustained thrust as versus the other AAMs which rely on the conventional boost and then glide or now pulse, pulse. End result, it has by far the most lethal NEZ (No escape zone), get in it, and the Meteor will have the energy to still knock you down.

Furthermore, being a de novo design,it does not suffer from the motor dia and carriage restrictions the improved variants of legacy designs (Eg AIM-9X, AMRAAM variants suffer from). Lastly, its very unlikely the US will export the AIM-120 D and release it for export to the MMRCA, at best, its the C7 variant which may be available, and that too for the US made platforms.

Rafale: AIM 120D (may be):upto 180 km, meteor: 100+ km
F-16IN: AIM 120D (may be):upto 180 km,
F-18SH: AIM 120D (may be):upto 180 km,

See above

So could you show me where for example the Mig-35 suffers very heavily with the EF/Rafale?

[/quote]

So many areas - check out supersonic performance, check out avionics capability (compare the ad hoc integration of the Italian EW suite with the integrated Spectra & Praetorian), the lack of complete sensor fusion (as versus both the EF & Rafale), the lack of advanced pilot aids (EF even has automated cues for the pilots to avoid missile engagements), the more primitive Air to Air weapons (Rafale has Mica-IR & EF has ASRAAM, IRIS for CCM, and both are on track for Meteor integration for BVR), the absolutely shambolic radar performance (especially compared to Captor & the AESA version), look at the internal avionics (Mission computing using 486 series cards - talk of the 90s!), the RCS limitations (Rafale & EF design both took elements of low RCS design into consideration) and hence more reliance on active EW....

The list is long and substantial. Not to mention the severe maintainenance and other hassles invariable with the type, as its designed to a variety of proprietary Russian standards, and with limited (60%) TOT, Indian abilities to fully support the type will be challenged, despite the MiG-29 infrastructure.

In other words, the advantages are beyond simple listing.

If you want serious comparisons:

Check out the mission radius on typical missions with similar (if not absolutely equal) payloads. Pay attention to industry maturity in technology terms, eg Phazas claims of AESA as versus the billions spent on AESA tech by the US & the presence of a dedicated AESA MMIC foundry available to both Thales and Selex for their radars
Also look at platform maturity - the EF, Rafale, the SH have all been flying extensively, hence extensive records are being generated on their mission rates, spares burn, their bugs, their flaws, none of these currently exist for the new build Gripen NG and MiG-35
Check out the design aims and when these designs were launched and what for..
Only after all this, go to the threat perception and see which meets our needs.

[Karan M]

You seem to have a different perspective to it. And a good one I must admit. You are looking at using the MMRCA fighters as top of the line fighters for our AF.

But going by your logic we should get the best planes for everything! We should have the top of line fighter for handing the J-11/Su-30MkM/J-XX and also the J-10, J-17s and J-7s which will be made numerically more abundant if a wartime scenario arrives.

Boss, cant you reason it out? Its not about what I am looking at, its the situation on the ground. We have 30+ squadrons today, out of 42 sanctioned, whereas the PRC has over 200 Flankers 250+ per sources) is adding more, has over 100 J-10s (and is adding more) and has a vast number of J-7, J-8 etc platforms which can easily complicate our mission planning when we attempt to strike into China. So no, we dont have the numbers to rely only on the "elite Su-30s" while the rest of the common fighter pilots make do with simpler platforms! In the worst case two front war scenario, we have to face ~300-400 odd Pakistani platforms and of which at least 100 will be modern, requiring us to dedicate a portion of our Flanker force to that theater! Remember, the Pakistanis are not stupid. They realized they dont have a Su-30 equivalent, so they quickly set up a dense Air Grid of interlocking radars, backed up by AEW &C, and with their fighters hence getting long range awareness! And they have ordered 500 AMRAAMs to wage an expensive BVR battle!

The same things that you have pointed out, I had imagined that the IAF had earmarked our strike aircraft squadrons with it. Aren't the Su-30s/FGFA/MCA ear marked for them.

How can we "earmark" strike squadrons when we face so many threats! Right now, at best we have deterrence capability against the PRC and offensive capability against Pak, problem is Indranil, you are not thinking in larger terms, and hence are looking at only India's strengths but not its limitations! Do you think the PLAAF wants to win an air war against India? No - merely denying the IAF the ability to influence the ground conflict is good enough for them, they have the edge in ballistic missiles (many of which are targeted for conventional strike), artillery (tube rocket and towed) and hence they can afford to have their AF sit out. Can India? How can our strike formations decisively attrit the PRC shield when there are today, only 120 odd Flankers and tomorrow, even when we have 270, the PRC will have similar (or even more numbers) and we have to look at both PRC & Pakistan? The FGFA is a development project!! It does NOT exist as an operational system today, and will start appearing only around 2020 (if we are lucky), till then we have to rely on Su-30s, MMRCAs, upgraded MiG-27s, Jaguars, Mirages and MiG-29s and the problem is many of these types will start retiring by then! So you see how important the MMRCA is? It HAS to do the heavy lifting as well. We cant just rely on Su-30s.

Wasn't MMRCA in place of the delayed LCA's to fill up numbers. If yes, then my logic is good.

If the MMRCA is in place of missing frontline fighters then your logic is good.

The MMRCA exists as a stand alone requirement for a long time. The LCA is an entirely different class of aircraft. The MMRCA was intended to replace (in the IAF), the MiG-23BN and the earlier MiG-27s.

Between, the price of 3 J-10 is the same as 1 EF/RAfale. No matter what you do, in most cases 3 J-10s will get the EF/Rafale. So you are better off with atleast 2 Mig-35/Gripen.

But the PRC will not acquire 3 J-10 just because they are "cheap". Do understand, that they too are aware of combat capability, and are iteratively improving tranches/mks of the J-10, after 100 odd J-10 Mk1, now they are at the MK2 variant..

Then there are the J-11 and J-xx. We have to tackle them with our Su-30s/FGFA/MCA. That's why there are light medium and heavy aircraft! Or am I missing something?

There is no "we tackle their heavy with our heavy and light with light" as in a wrestling/boxing match. Things will NOT be so scripted. They will be all over the place. A Su-30 strike may run into J-7s or it may run into Su-27s or even J-8s. There is no guarantee, and hence you need the best platforms which are modern all the way to 2050, and not cheap is best.

Btw, your being able to convince somebody doesn't make your idea the right one!

What?!?

[Karan M]

^^^ Speaking of falling squadron numbers, What fills up more squadrons with quality aircraft. 10 squadrons or 6?

All of the contenders in this MMRCA competition are quality contenders. But then you seem to differ on that.

But why do you want to fill up falling numbers with inferior platforms? India has a stated need for six squadrons of the MMRCA (120+) with 3 as options (60+). Use these for the best and most capable types able to handle current and emergent threats all the way to 2050. Bulk up the rest with LCA MK2s (add a few more squadrons) and Upgraded Su-30s (11 squadrons worth), till the FGFA comes. And then the MCA to handle the next en masse series of retirals (Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and Jaguars).

What is the point in going for a MiG-35 or Gripen NG, and then realizing, a decade into induction, that !@##$$% the PRC is now fielding its next generation of J-10s that approach the MiG-35/Gripen NG in performance, and Flankers which may actually match it, or even exceed it.

Its not about arguments, but realizing that cheap/inexpensive, come with a price, in terms of capability, especially when talking of products from developed economies. A developing economy can often develop a cheaper product which is still potent, drawing on lower labour and development costs, but the reverse is not always the case. The Gripen/MiG-35 are cheaper because they offer lesser capabilities

[Karan M]

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.

Lower RCS is a more "effective approach" for volume constrained aircraft, because then you dont have to pump out so much power from the radar. Remember, when you use the radar, you are advertising your presence, unless you have low probability of intercept modes. So, a RWR will detect your presence at longer ranges than you may pick it up on radar. That apart, low RCS means you need less power in your active jamming to protect your aircraft. Larger the aircraft, the heavier jammers you need. So a Su-30 class aircraft can get away with having a huge radar, huge jammers etc but smaller aircraft cannot field the same and end up with a disadvantage, if they have a higher RCS versus similar platforms.

[Karan M]

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.

Boss, the Phazatron AESA of 200, 300 km or whatever is a paper product and does not exist. Furthermore, till last year, the company was struggling for funding, till Russian Govt gave some money, and even the Russian 5G program AESA is being led by the rival firm. Even the developed ES-05 does not exist and is still being developed, but at least it has the backing of a more well funded and organized firm

[Indranil]

^^^ I told you Karan right in the beginning that I won't contest the EF/Rafale might be the best out of the lot. But by how much, is a huge question.

I don't know which open source to quote when widely accepted "reliable" open sources reported different values for the same thing. I had expected this anyways as they are not relayed publicly by the manufacturers so often. you speak of the demonstrated Zhuk Ae performance based on the FGA-29 variant which has 652 elements, which was reported as the pre-production variant. There is a FGS-35 variant which will be fitted with the production variants which is also supposed to be a 700mm antenna with a range of 200 kms.

Here's what is publicly available for the FGA-35 in a nutshell:
The second stage radar, designated Zhuk-AE/FGA35, will be fitted to production MiG-35 fighter aircraft. They will receive a new computing system and new multifunction wideband generator. According to Phazotron, these changes mean AESA technology can be
better exploited and new radar operation modes introduced. Additionally, due to a reduction in the size and weight of the radar modules, the antenna mirror can be moved further away from the nose of the aircraft and its diameter increased. The FGA35 will operate with a 700 mm diameter antenna with between 1,000 and 1,100 TR modules. The present design suggests there will be 1,064 modules, but slight changes are possible. The range of Zhuk-AE/FGA35 will be 200 km (for a 5 m2 target). The radar will be capable of tracking up to 60 air targets and engaging six of them.

The 160 that I quoted is what I found most consistently in reports. Deagel, Vijainder Thakur. There were similar reports in Asian Defence and other places.

And well here's what the company's general director had to say (Ofcourse you could say that he was overspeculating/lying)

The Zhuk-AE can detect aerial targets at ranges up to 148 km (head on) in both look-up or look down modes. Look-up tail-on detection range is 50km (40km look down). The radar can track 30 aerial targets in the track-while-scan mode, and engage six targets simultaneously in the attack mode.

Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director, says the detection range of the radar could be increased from 148 km to 200 km.

Then coming on to the RCS reduction I will quote a simple calculation the Igor had produced in his blog. link

== (Question to Igor from another poster)Possibly 1-2m2 for Mig 35. EF and Rafale with ducted intakes, high amount of composites and RAM materials, as well as designs especially to reduce the RCS are estimated at 0.5m2 for Rafale and even less for EF. If these figures are realistic, they have half, or even less the RCS of the Mig and obviously will be detected by enemy radar way later.==

- (Igor's respone) I dont think the sentence 'detected way latter' reflects the situation right. As it is broadly known, the detection range is proportional to 4th degree root of RCS.

For example, the 16 fold decrease in RCS is reflected in only 2 time decrease in detection range. BTW I have bit different information about standard MiG-29 RCS which is more close to 3 m3. So Let's calculate it in the case of MiG-29K with compromising RCS = 1m2 and Rafale with RCS = 0.5m2. From the proportional rule the difference in detection range (by a similar radar) between MiG-29K and Rafale is only 19%.

The detection range of Zhuk-AE is as twice longer than RBE-2, isnt it. Considering much more advanced radar with bigger diameter for further grow, MiG-29K with ZHuk-AE wins Rafale with RBE-2 lay down in duel situation, doesnt it. It's despite lower RCS of Rafale.

[shanksinha]

^^Boss how did you manage to compare a CASER radar with Zhuk AESA as both are in development radar? Did you use brochure figures for both? Also please provide some info source on the MiG 35 using i486 chips for computing part, would like to read on some.

[Karan M]

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

But he has a point. The basic problem with US items is the political aspect as other posters mentioned, but otherwise, as a sneaky strike platform, the JSF has significant advantages over the earlier 4G birds. A JSF with SDBs is probably likely to have a better chance of success against the average AD system, than a 4G+ system relying on even LGBs, thanks to the stealth. Most importantly, where the US blows the rest of the competition away, is in the realm of avionics. The APG-81 is AESA, has special low detection modes, and the aircraft has a first class IRST plus DAS system. Once it is developed, the JSF will be a very credible platform. Yes, it has cost overruns, and huge challenges, but fundamentally, that does not make it any different from any other program. Its really a very good platform, and I wish the Europeans had something similar, having worked together on one platform instead of splitting funds between three different types

[Karan M]

^^Boss how did you manage to compare a Captor E radar with Zhuk AESA as both are in development radar? Did you use brochure figures for both?

Point is dont compare CaptorE with the Zhuk AESA, compare Captor M with the AESA & the former is still likely to be ahead. The brochure figures for the Zhuk AE from 2009 are decidedly poor, with a stated range of 130 km versus std 5 Sq Mtr target

Also lease provide some info source on the MiG 35 using i486 chips for computing part, would like to read on some.

Check out Yefim Gordons book on the MiG-29. The 486 series Mission computing is also used on the IN MiG-29K, which was retained (along with many other systems) for the MiG-35 MMRCA variant

[shanksinha]

^^But sir, Gordon's book was published in 2007 only how can it be defining on the current fitment in an evolving aircraft. More importantly if the i486 is adequete and robust why go for higher computing.

[Indranil]

^^^ Karan, you can't send 100 quality aircrafts against 300 J-10s or J17s, they will beat the crap out of you. Besides, when they go to the next tranche of J-10s, we wouldn't be sitting on our hands. Our aircrafts will also undergo upgrades.

Case I) We have a fixed budget and we can buy/maintain planes in that budget.

There is no denying that the EF/Rafale will have the greatest pilot ease/ergonomics/assistance. And I am not pointing out for a moment that they are not of value. If I would pitch a EF against a Su-30/Rafale, they would mean the difference. If I pitch them against 3-4 J-10s, they won't be critical. My EF will run out of missiles. It will take 2 of the J-10s down. But 2 more will remain to hit us the next day when our planes are lost and they have air dominance. I would rather send 2 Mig-35s to take on 4 J-10s. We would have a much better chance, though even then out pilots would have to be at the peak of their games to return home safely.

Planes are flown with strategies built over years. 4 J-10s won't engage one after the other like in hindi movies. Two of them would engage two of our MMRCA while the third and fourth are free to fall into formations where they can take easy shots. With a better MMRCA, we can still pray that our pilot can handle this. Imagine 3-4 J-10s on a single EF. What chance does he have? the only route left for us then would be Kamikaze strikes with the most elite planes! What a jeopardy.

CASE II) We keep the budget flexible, We find out how many Su-30s/FGFA/MCA/LCA/etc. we will have in 10 years. We see how many su-30MKM/J-xx/J-11/J-10/J-17/f-16/etc. they have. Calculate the difference. Buy as many MMRCA. Pay as much as it takes.

CASE II is the ideal situation. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

[Rahul M]

Indranil, for one I think you are ignoring the A2G scenario which is IMHO more important than A2A for the MRCA.

secondly, why don't you do a comparative listing of IAF and PLAAF number now and in 10 years time ?
we all would benefit from it.

[Karan M]

^^^ I told you Karan right in the beginning that I won't contest the EF/Rafale might be the best out of the lot. But by how much, is a huge question.

I don't know which open source to quote when widely accepted "reliable" open sources reported different values for the same thing. I had expected this anyways as they are not relayed publicly by the manufacturers so often. you speak of the demonstrated Zhuk Ae performance based on the FGA-29 variant which has 652 elements, which was reported as the pre-production variant. There is a FGS-35 variant which will be fitted with the production variants which is also supposed to be a 700mm antenna with a range of 200 kms.

Here's what is publicly available for the FGA-35 in a nutshell:

Problem Indranil, is that these are claims, and these are claims without any long history of experience to back them up. See for instance:

Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director, says the detection range of the radar could be increased from 148 km to 200 km.

The same guy was saying it would be easy to scale up from 130 to 200 km, but where are they now? At 148 km, and next year where will they be? You get the point..? Whereas, today, there are operational fighter radars flying which exceed this!

APG-80 (AWST) has a range of ~200 km already! And the simpler mech scan Captor M likewise! The APG-79 is similar, or rather, as I mentioned earlier, superior!

Now coming to RCS:

For example, the 16 fold decrease in RCS is reflected in only 2 time decrease in detection range. BTW I have bit different information about standard MiG-29 RCS which is more close to 3 m3. So Let's calculate it in the case of MiG-29K with compromising RCS = 1m2 and Rafale with RCS = 0.5m2. From the proportional rule the difference in detection range (by a similar radar) between MiG-29K and Rafale is only 19%.

The detection range of Zhuk-AE is as twice longer than RBE-2, isnt it. Considering much more advanced radar with bigger diameter for further grow, MiG-29K with ZHuk-AE wins Rafale with RBE-2 lay down in duel situation, doesnt it. It's despite lower RCS of Rafale.

Problem is he is assuming the RCS for both platforms is the same (by taking only frontal values and not average) & that the Rafale design is not superior from the point of view of integrated EW & Reduced average RCS, which several accounts suggest the Rafale is designed around

In other words, the RCS is concentrated in several spikes, which are then selectively "suppressed" by active jamming from the Spectra. Was the original MiG-29 designed for reduced RCS?

And here is the other issue, the French already fielded a prototype AESA radar for the Swiss eval, and per a recent comment by a French AF general, the existing AESA has 90% of the range of the APG-80 (taking a literal translation of his statement), coming to around 180-200 km already achieved! So you see, on the one hand, there is a platform designed from the ground up for a more "discrete RF" signature as opposed to one which received it in a limited manner later, and second, it already is well on track to receive better avionics, whereas the first is still talking of getting better systems!

Last and not least, money matters! Dassault has a fully funded program for Rafale development (at least to the current levels) whereas MiG and Phazatron are struggling for funds!

Overall, read this & see the level of avionics integration already achieved. The MiG-35 is far behind in comparison.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... afale.html

Look at the development roadmap here.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ogies.html

Which company do you think is more likely to field a fully ready product

[Karan M]

^^But sir, Gordon's book was published in 2007 only how can it be defining on the current fitment in an evolving aircraft.

Most of the stuff thats on current aircraft was first printed, talked about a few years earlier, so thats hardly an issue..its usually the case. And besides, the evolving aircraft is the problem. India AF had the LCA guys take out the similar 486 derived systems on the LCA prototypes (forget which) and replace it with current gen systems which are already flying, and here we have a "next generation" system flying with avionics derived from the 90s.

More importantly if the i486 is adequete and robust why go for higher computing.

The military market is barely 2% of the worldwide semiconductor market, so what happens is that you need to be very aware of obsolescence issues and keep apace. That apart, 486 series cards are growth limited for the next generation of systems, and which is why India itself has moved on from them in most of its gear, as better/more flexible options are available. They are ok for systems such as FBW etc where the scope creep is not likely to be substantially different.

PS: please dont "sir" me..if thats alright by you

[Kronop]

Also look at platform maturity - the EF, Rafale, the SH have all been flying extensively, hence extensive records are being generated on their mission rates, spares burn, their bugs, their flaws, none of these currently exist for the new build Gripen NG and MiG-35.

As for the Gripen NG most of the equipment and tech are well known with 100,000+ flighthours in operation with high mission rates (typical 4 sorties per day and airframe), low spares burn etc. The F414 engine is hardly an unknown with regards to reliability and cost. As for the AESA radar, well who knows, its still in development so thats certainly an unknown at present.

The design intent at Saab is, and allways has been, to combine new capabilities while reducing the oprational costs and increasing avaliability (mission rate). This was accomplished when moving from the JA37 Viggen to the current Gripen platform as well as the functional boost from A/B to C/D status, there is nothing that suggests that the same thing could not be achieved for the NG.

True, with every new design there will be bugs and flaws that needs to be adressed, however with the Gripen Demo avaliable to test new equipment, updated systems and system integration chanses are that Gripen NG actually will be quite solid from the start.

Anyone with indepth understanding of fighter development should appreciate the achievement to fly a tech Demonstrator from Sweden to India and back for the MRCA trials without any hicups.

Remember one of Saab areas of excellence is systems/weapon integration, which is why Gripen could be used as the primary test bed for Meteor and also why the export C/D version has Nato hardpoint compatilbility as well as Link-16 capability.

[Indranil]

Karan, where will the F-35 carry all those strike bombs/missiles?

within its internal hold, it will be able to drop two bombs (2 internal hardpoints) within a radius of 1000 km even if we would launch them from ALGs.

Anything on the outside will break it's shield. And even the most optimistic simulations say that it can match the A2A of 4 of the MMRCA candidates.

[Indranil]

Rahul da give me some time I will compile the data ... I have been quite busy these days ... but BRF still takes away hours from my work everyday and I don't mind it . but the kind of data you are asking will take some time to compile. So please give me some time. Or if somebody else would take up the bastion, it might be faster and better.

Besides' Rahulda, I didnt forget A2G at all. From the beginning I have been asking.
1. Is the MMRCA for A2G primarily with ability to defend themselves.
2. Is MMRCA for A2A with capability for A2G.

With Karan I got into this nice discussion of A2A characteristics and that's all

[Rahul M]

these might help start you off.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units ... Fleet.html
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 81#p772481

[Karan M]

^^^ Karan, you can't send 100 quality aircrafts against 300 J-10s or J17s, they will beat the crap out of you. Besides, when they go to the next tranche of J-10s, we wouldn't be sitting on our hands. Our aircrafts will also undergo upgrades.

Do you want to keep spending money on upgrades or buy a fighter that remains relevant for a decade and a half? Which is more cost effective and maintenance optimal?

Case I) We have a fixed budget and we can buy/maintain planes in that budget.

There is no denying that the EF/Rafale will have the greatest pilot ease/ergonomics/assistance. And I am not pointing out for a moment that they are not of value. If I would pitch a EF against a Su-30/Rafale, they would mean the difference. If I pitch them against 3-4 J-10s, they won't be critical. My EF will run out of missiles. It will take 2 of the J-10s down. But 2 more will remain to hit us the next day when our planes are lost and they have air dominance. I would rather send 2 Mig-35s to take on 4 J-10s. We would have a much better chance, though even then out pilots would have to be at the peak of their games to return home safely.

My point is why do you assume that the Chinese will rely on "human wave tactics" and send up 4 J-10s for each EF/Rafale? Do they even have so many J-10s? Lets be accurate. The Chinese will have roughly double the number of aircraft we field, and over there, if we have a decisive advantage in quality, we can attrit them heavily. After a point, they wont squader their resources trying to just knock down 1-2 planes of ours, they arent going to waste their pilots and planes.

And again, you underestimate the advantage of platforms like the EF, at supersonic speeds, the kind of BVR fight the EF is designed for, and to some extent even the Rafale, they have a longer reach with their AAMs & especially if we use the Meteors to take out the AEW&C support & then attack the J-10s, Flankers etc using superior situational awareness. My point is that 126-189 EF/Rafale are nothing to sneeze at. Its very unlikely the PRC can field 3-4X the number JUST to match this force. That alone is a big plus for us. In contrast, they only need to field 1.5X the numbers for simpler platforms, is that good for us?

Planes are flown with strategies built over years. 4 J-10s won't engage one after the other like in hindi movies. Two of them would engage two of our MMRCA while the third and fourth are free to fall into formations where they can take easy shots. With a better MMRCA, we can still pray that our pilot can handle this. Imagine 3-4 J-10s on a single EF. What chance does he have? the only route left for us then would be Kamikaze strikes with the most elite planes! What a jeopardy.

Boss, on the one hand you say no hindi movies, then you come up with a scenario which is exactly like this. The IAF has a squadron of 20 EF in the air, you seriously think the Chinese can send up 80 J-10s to just meet this force? And what if we send 40? Then the PRC sends up 160? Then we send 80, they have to send 320 up? Has the PRC even ever fielded Large Forces of 40 fighters simultaneously intercepting, let alone, 100, 200, 320? Do you realize how unrealistic your proposition is? The average AWACS can at best - and by this, I mean a reasonably good system, can coordinate a squadrons worth of intercepts. Yes, thats 16-20 planes. And here you mention 4 aircraft to one ratios. Forget the Indians firing, airspace management on the PRC end will itself be a huge challenge. And what of IFF, what of their SAMs?

CASE II) We keep the budget flexible, We find out how many Su-30s/FGFA/MCA/LCA/etc. we will have in 10 years. We see how many su-30MKM/J-xx/J-11/J-10/J-17/f-16/etc. they have. Calculate the difference. Buy as many MMRCA. Pay as much as it takes.

Its not that easy, because neither we or they know what the end state in force composition will be. You hope for the best, wish to prepare for the worst, end up with something in between, thats the way it usually is.

CASE II is the ideal situation. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.[/quote]

[Karan M]

As for the Gripen NG most of the equipment and tech are well known with 100,000+ flighthours in operation with high mission rates (typical 4 sorties per day and airframe), low spares burn etc.

Speaking of the NG here, not the C/D. By the same standards, even the MiG-35 is a known quantity thanks to the 29 A/B and what not, which utilize several of the MiG-35s systems

The F414 engine is hardly an unknown with regards to reliability and cost.

The Brazilians would disagree about the latest variant. This was a sticking point for them in terms of access to info., which the Swedes couldnt get them.

As for the AESA radar, well who knows, its still in development so thats certainly an unknown at present.

Yes

The design intent at Saab is, and allways has been, to combine new capabilities while reducing the oprational costs and increasing avaliability (mission rate). This was accomplished when moving from the JA37 Viggen to the current Gripen platform as well as the functional boost from A/B to C/D status, there is nothing that suggests that the same thing could not be achieved for the NG.

C'mon this is the same stuff every OEM says. The crux of the matter is that the NG is an in development aircraft

True, with every new design there will be bugs and flaws that needs to be adressed, however with the Gripen Demo avaliable to test new equipment, updated systems and system integration chanses are that Gripen NG actually will be quite solid from the start.

Thats one demo aircraft and versus how many in service examples of its rivals, which are still facing and solving bugs? Seriously, and one demo aircraft ensures it will be solid from the start...especially when a brand new mission computing environment is being integrated, structural changes and all sorts of third party avionics

Anyone with indepth understanding of fighter development should appreciate the achievement to fly a tech Demonstrator from Sweden to India and back for the MRCA trials without any hicups.

Good achievement, but statistically, thats a sample size of one, and a wartime environment cant compare to such an endeavour which had all the benefit of time and planning

Remember one of Saab areas of excellence is systems/weapon integration, which is why Gripen could be used as the primary test bed for Meteor and also why the export C/D version has Nato hardpoint compatilbility as well as Link-16 capability.

C'mon - this claim can easily be contested by any of the other peers, especially the US ones which have by far the most mature and integrated avionics, the EADS team, which has the core Gripen radar supplier as its original partner, and the French team has Thales...

[Indranil]

Karan, a few more clarifications.

1. You are right that the american birds are clearly ahead in terms of the AESA tested. If you read some very old posts of mine I have always maintained that a fielded inferior system is better than a superior promised system. And in that Europeans come in second best.

2. However, funds for the AESA design was a problem of yesterday. RuAF would need AESA in all their subsequent fighters and adapting them for 200 (not a small number) of Mig-35s isn't the biggest challenge.

3. APG 79 obviously is better than the APG-80 in range. but the ranges stated for APG-79 and APG-80 on my searches mostly returned as 128km and 112kms. However, I had a couple of them saying that it is 100 miles = 160 km.

4. RCS calculations: Igor didn't take the RCS same for the Rafale and the Mig35. He took that Mig RCS as 3, whereas the Rafale as 0.5 (six times less). He added 1 for the RCS added for external weapons and fuel tanks to Mig -35. For the Rafale he just added 0.5 (I don't know why he favoured the Rafale, but anyways). (3+1)^1/4 = 1.189. Whereas (0.5+0.5)^1/4 = 1.000. so he writes that the Mig35 with all it's handicap will be detected 19% before. So in extreme BVR if the Rafale can pick up the Mig at it's radar limit, it would already be in the cross hair of the Mig-35 with bigger radar.

5. Also, I am sure none of them will waste a BVR missile from that far away. So they will end up coming much closer before they fire on each other and hence would have become glowing red dots on each others radars. and this is considering that there are no AWACS .

6. Also to give you an example of how things change, take a look at the Altera cores in the zhuk-AE's TR module hybrid. link

[Karan M]

Karan, where will the F-35 carry all those strike bombs/missiles?

within its internal hold, it will be able to drop two bombs (2 internal hardpoints) within a radius of 1000 km even if we would launch them from ALGs.

Anything on the outside will break it's shield. And even the most optimistic simulations say that it can match the A2A of 4 of the MMRCA candidates.

SDB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Diameter_Bomb
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... B1-350.jpg
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... b3-350.jpg

Upto 4 in each bay, or say 4 with 2 AAMs

Or

For the A/C models
2 AIM-120 or2 AIM-9X and 2, 2000 pound (~800 kg) JDAMs

Stand off range for SDB:
60 km

For F-22
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668262/posts

"Another important requirement is that the SDB must be capable of being released from the F-22 at its M1.7 supercruise speed. Under those conditions, the USAF expects a 90km stand-off range. Since the USAF now expects the F-22 to spearhead the attack on long-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, this is a very useful capability; it allows the F-22 to release weapons at several aimpoints in the SAM site while remaining outside the missile's effective range. "

Point is the JSFs stealth allows it to get to closer ranges to lob these relatively inexpensive munitions
Ok range
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0 ... 2.Full.jpg


SBD-2 in development (Wiki)
"On May 1, 2009, Raytheon announced that it had completed its first test flight of the GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II, which has a data link and a tri-mode seeker built with technology developed for the Precision Attack Missile.[8] And on August 10, 2010 the U.S. Air Force awarded a $450 million for engineering development.[9]"

[Karan M]

Karan, a few more clarifications.

1. You are right that the american birds are clearly ahead in terms of the AESA tested. If you read some very old posts of mine I have always maintained that a fielded inferior system is better than a superior promised system. And in that Europeans come in second best.

You are ok with a Russian promised system of a design unlikely to go into series production, but are not ok with European promises, even when they are better funded

2. However, funds for the AESA design was a problem of yesterday. RuAF would need AESA in all their subsequent fighters and adapting them for 200 (not a small number) of Mig-35s isn't the biggest challenge.

How so.. Phazatron & the Tikhomirov firm are not the same companies! They source different components and are in fact rivals. Phazatron is not even the lead for the 5G program, and is struggling. Its not "funds for the AESA was a problem for yesterday", its still a problem because we are talking of a radar for today!

3. APG 79 obviously is better than the APG-80 in range. but the ranges stated for APG-79 and APG-80 on my searches mostly returned as 128km and 112kms. However, I had a couple of them saying that it is 100 miles = 160 km.

Your estimates are way out of range. The APG-79 sits right in between the APG-80 (70 nm class) and the high end APG-63V3 (150 nm) for a 1 sq Mtr target. Its range will be well in excess of the former and inferior to the latter.

4. RCS calculations: Igor didn't take the RCS same for the Rafale and the Mig35. He took that Mig RCS as 3, whereas the Rafale as 0.5 (six times less). He added 1 for the RCS added for external weapons and fuel tanks to Mig -35. For the Rafale he just added 0.5 (I don't know why he favoured the Rafale, but anyways). (3+1)^1/4 = 1.189. Whereas (0.5+0.5)^1/4 = 1.000. so he writes that the Mig35 with all it's handicap will be detected 19% before. So in extreme BVR if the Rafale can pick up the Mig at it's radar limit, it would already be in the cross hair of the Mig-35 with bigger radar.

Again, you miss the point, that A) the MiG-35 does not have a better radar, as its Thales which already has a better product roadmap ready & per the French AF Gen's interview, a ~190 odd km capability. And second, Igor totally ignores jamming, assuming Spectra (for the integrated Rafale airframe) will not be superior to that stand alone Italian set on the MiG-35

5. Also, I am sure none of them will waste a BVR missile from that far away. So they will end up coming much closer before they fire on each other and hence would have become glowing red dots on each others radars. and this is considering that there are no AWACS .

Cant say this for sure..if you want mission kills versus downed aircraft, yeah, you'll launch at distance

6. Also to give you an example of how things change, take a look at the Altera cores in the zhuk-AE's TR module hybrid. link

Doesn't say anything much, Phazatron has been using western sourced chips/components for a while now, but their issue does not lie in the realm of signal and data processing for which they can and do use these items but the core MMICs for the radar itself, where miniaturization and state of the art design is essential. And it is here that in Russia, their rival is better funded thanks to the 5G program, and abroad, EADS/Thales rely on a common foundry, while US has its own well established capabilities, and is even moving to GaN from Gallium Arsenide

[Indranil]

I am not favouring one region to other.

I am not saying the Russians are in the forefront. But an order for 200 planes would make a difference. And it is not like we are going for an air dominance fight tomorrow.

RuAF also has lots of Mig-29s to upgrade. I am sure our Mig-29Ks will go for them as well. There are other Mig-29s elsewhere. There is a market. Probably the Mig-35 is the impetus that would lead to the development of a world class AESA radar. on a plane which is way cheaper.

[Karan M]

You want to order 200 planes in the hope that an order of 200 planes would make them develop a world class product? Isnt that doing things the other way around

And how do you know it would be ready by the time of delivery, three years from now?

And regarding upgrades, thats their choice to make and fund it, why should we stick our necks out? And btw, we are not getting any AESA for the IAF upgrade or the IN MiG-29Ks. What does that tell you about the maturity of their effort?

[Indranil]

It is our prerogative too, when we have over 100 Mig-29 airframes in 5 years time.

If sticking our neck gives us a potent and yet cheaper alternative, then why not?

[Karan M]

Not 100, but around 40-50 IN MiG-29K as the IAF MiG-29s are already receiving the Zhuk ME and will be retired after one MLU. For the MiG-29Ks, we can use the LCA derived AESA for a MLU, no need to rely on Phazatron alone, and by the time of a MLU, we should have the Astra as well, for BVR integration with the Indian radar.

[Indranil]

Amen! to your last post. May it come true.

Regarding MMRCA, as I said, there are 3 sides: Elite but less (as much as our allotted money can buy) , or elite in adequate numbers with as much money as required, or not so elite but almost 2 times the number.

The ideal situation is the one in the middle. We both are trying to justify the other ends of the spectrum.

Lets see what the IAF/MoD choses. If IAF/Mod choses your side of the spectrum, I would only be too happy and change my opinion and try to learn why IAF/MoD chose that way.

[SaiK]

Sorry, I was totally side tracked in my thoughts, and was posting keeping EUMA in mind against the CISMOA. Lets combine these two collar holding agreements, is enough to hold IAF by the same. EUMA is enough since US has the rights to monitor the weapons that it supplies to India.

Hence, there is nothing else they require. monitoring includes pushing the remote buttons from DC.

[vic]

My estimate is that F-35 flyaway unit cost would be around US$ 100 million compared to US$ 50 million for F-18 or US$ 75 million for EF. Another difficulty is that F-35 will be available only around 2020 in numbers due lot of pending orders. It would make more sense to tie up with Europeans for EF or Rafale to cover 2015-2025 and get an indigenous AMCA in by 2025. Playing of F-18 vs EF vs rafale will allow us to get a good deal. Comparing Saudi Arabian deal with Australian deal for EF Vs F-18, it would seem that F-18 is only 40-60% of the cost of F-18. But good competitive bids will allow us to bring down rafale/EF prices and perhaps get help on UCAV-Aura and AMCA for the future also.


Further F-18 radar as of today is better than EF/Rafakle but by the time these aircraft start joining in 2015 then the "then" rafale/EF AESA radar would be better/comparable with F-18 "offered" radar.

[shukla]

Northrop Grumman expects USAF decision on F-16 radar upgrade soon
Flightglobal..

While Raytheon touts the RACR's links to the APG-79 AESA installed on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Northrop traces the SABR architecture to the APG-80 agile beam radar on the F-16 Block 60 and the APG-81 on Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

"We will update SABR with everything the F-35 gets," says Wallace. "If you update the F-35, and [if] the F-16 needs an update as well, essentially all you do is host it on the F-16 architecture and test it, and we are arranging for that to work."

The USAF decision could also influence the foreign market. Northrop and Raytheon have received US export licences to market the F-16 AESA products to foreign militaries. Wallace adds: "It's tough to determine whether or not they would go before a US Air Force decision has been made. If I had to handicap, at best it's simultaneous."

[shukla]

Rafale crises..

If the dilemma of the French President is any indication, the Western arms merchants are facing certain problems. The French fighter manufacturer, Dassault, is facing a serious crisis that is rooted in domestic turbulence. Further, the company has failed to attract a single order from abroad for its "brand ambassador" fighter, Rafale. To make matters worse, the country’s taxpayers will provide Dassault an estimated Euro 800 million (UK pound 703 million) to neutralise the impact of its failure to sell its jet beyond the French borders. The previously unbudgeted Euro 800 million will be used to build an additional 11 Rafales for the air force at a time when President Sarkozy is imposing defence cuts.

The confidence of the French stands somewhat subdued owing to repeated failures to clinch deals with the Arab countries and the air force units in Asia. Even in Latin America, the Brazilian President Lula da Silva had made a vague promise to buy 36 Rafales. It wasn’t kept for the simple reason that the air force didn’t need them. The French government is in a dilemma. The State has to step in to bail out Dassault’s Rafale. Dassault and its partners had negotiated the guarantee in the event of export problems.

http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat ... itle=10236

Wonder what fate awaits the Rafale first in Brazilians and Araba and finally Indians. Expect Sarkozy to make some serious concessions to promote sales in desperation..