MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[Henrik]

what is the mtow of gripen?

It's 16,5 tons.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen- ... Gripen-IN/

[Karan M]

Excellent article, from an informed and respected source....take it up with Air Cmde (Retd) JASJIT SINGH, Director, CENTRE FOR AIR POWER STUDIES.

Hilarious.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Before the MMRCA Jasjit Singh even argued for the restarting of the MiG-21 line, as he postulated it would be good enough against the bulk of the PLAAF..

Only the PLAAF came out with its J-10 & Su-27 variants, and all those studies disappeared.

Moral of the story, appeals to authority are not good enough.

So the similarities between the LCA and the Gripen are not a weakness, they are a strength. Add to that now a common engine. Some people have realised that expanding budgets alone do not guarantee results..

You found it telling because you didn't even bother to examine the alternatives to what Jasjit Singh wrote and the contradictions in his statement as borne out by events

He writes:

"The LCA's glitches, which inevitably exist in all complex new designs (for example, the F-35), would no doubt keep getting resolved as we go along. Of course it would be useful if the vendor selected for the M-MRCA also gives assistance in incorporating the necessary improvements in the LCA to improve upon it."

..and how this supports the Gripen, only he can tell, because in the world that we are in, ADA has not gone to Saab for assistance, time and again and instead chose Boeing and then EADS for consultancy. This when it had a choice to pick the vendor best suited for its needs.
Technical and commercial bids were invited from multiple sources, but it was Boeing chosen first, then EADS, what does this tell us.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3922101

If anything, it supports the Super Hornet and Eurofighter more. At least the latter, because it could actually step up to provide the consultancy work, versus the former who ran into politics;

Even for the radar integration work, ADA/HAL chose Elta of Israel, over any expertise Sweden may have.

Looks like the actual people involved with the LCA program are pretty clear about who can help them, and who have the actual competence to rely on.

[Gurneesh]

Looks like the actual people involved with the LCA program are pretty clear about who can help them, and who have the actual competence to rely on.

And they still accepted the LCA consultancy offer from Americans for both the AF and the IN versions which resulted in lots of delays.

The first time was fine as they were being optimistic, the second time they were too optimistic and now the third time (engine) they are being outright stupid by giving GE an year to get the necessary clearances (which I think should have been provided along with the bid).

[Karan M]

Fair point, but the decision to send the RFP to the US for the engine, automatically ensures that if the GE team comes out with the winning bid, they'd be chosen. That's what happened in this case.

For better or worse, the Indian establishment seems to be buying American and treating them on par with any other vendor. The US of course, wants more leverage with more agreements, but we seem to be proceeding with the basis that we'll buy their items but not lock ourselves into restrictive agreements.

Coming to the LCA, your point is valid, that any delay in clearances could impact the program, but reports also suggest that a firm timeline has been imposed. If GE is not able to secure the clearances in time, it would go to Eurojet. Plus, with Obama/WH mentioning the deal in specific during this visit, I think, the likelihood of these clearances coming through is positive as its now a political big ticket item.

My larger point however, was that with a techno commercial bid, ADA's choices were Boeing, and EADS first, which blows a rather large hole in the claims that only "X" will support the LCA, while other's wont.

Logic suggests that in fact, the development of the LCA MK2, which is firmly in the neighbourhood of the Gripen NG, makes the latter unnecessary.

India's interests should come first and foremost, in any decision.

[Indranil]

Karan,

I didn't post this to show that I was right in my thinking. I wanted to show that my thinking is not entirely baseless.

Also my post was not an "appeal to authority". Air Cmde (Retd) JASJIT SINGH, Director, CENTRE FOR AIR POWER STUDIES, might be flawed in his thought process as he is only human. And I don't know how to say one thought is right and the other is wrong in this MMRCA. There will always be these two sides of the table. The IAF/MoD/MoF will choose one side to go with.

Anyways, you shouldn't just dismiss what a senior officer (retd.) has to say. He didn't become AC just like that and he didn't become Director, CAPS just like that. And having been in those places he would have been prima facie to much more decision making and reasons for the decisions than what you, me and any Tom Dick and Harry in the open source would be. He would be quite knowledgeable about our operational tactics and needs.

Also, I don't think that he singled out Gripen to be able to give the highest ToT for developing LCA/MCA etc. He was citing all the important criteria. ToT is one criteria. That's all he said. Frankly, you and me know that "production" TOT will only take us so far. We need "design" ToT and nobody will give us that. Even the ones whom we have signed up for exactly that. I am very sceptical of what we shall get out of the Snecma deal. We will know to produce yet another engine in India, part of which is designed in India. I am not taking anything away from that accomplishment, but frankly it is somewhat clear where we are going to end up with that deal. There is no short cut to the GTRE guys figuring it out on their own. I really respect your post on the other thread where you champion for open ended test facilities for GTRE.

As I said earlier, I am not trying to show what is right and what is wrong. Frankly, I have chosen to be a student in these matters and when a senior person comes along and echoes my thoughts, I just feel that I am picking up a right string of thought.

[Karan M]

Karan,

I didn't post this to show that I was right in my thinking. I wanted to show that my thinking is not entirely baseless.

I was referring to Raj Ji's post not yours. Did you see me even reply to your post? I was merely pointing out that the manner in which Raj Ji was playing up the fact that it was Jasjit Singh who wrote this, was a typical case of "Appeal to Authority" as versus the argument standing on its own merits.

Also my post was not an "appeal to authority". Air Cmde (Retd) JASJIT SINGH, Director, CENTRE FOR AIR POWER STUDIES, might be flawed in his thought process as he is only human. And I don't know how to say one thought is right and the other is wrong in this MMRCA. There will always be these two sides of the table. The IAF/MoD/MoF will choose one side to go with.

Agreed.

Anyways, you shouldn't just dismiss what a senior officer (retd.) has to say. He didn't become AC just like that and he didn't become Director, CAPS just like that. And having been in those places he would have been prima facie to much more decision making and reasons for the decisions than what you, me and any Tom Dick and Harry in the open source would be. He would be quite knowledgeable about our operational tactics and needs.

Now, you are falling into the trap of "an appeal to authority" after posting a bit logically so far. Jasjit Singh's achievements are substantial no doubt, but if his argument has flaws in it, that somebody can pick out, then those too deserve discussion.

And like you have said already, he too is human. One prominent idea which he championed, was the proposal to restart the MiG-21 line. IAF people disagreed with that idea, and especially the maintenance folks who have had to deal with the ageing aircraft.

So, respect the person, but evaluate the argument. Its not a sign of disloyalty or disrespect if you don't agree with what Jasjit Singh says.

And so far, his arguments in this case have flaws. I will merely pick few, just for convenience's sake.

1. He keeps harking back to the original MMRCA being the Mirage 2000-V and that the follow on should be in the same category. What for? Times have moved on, so have our opponents. Cheaper airframes will not win wars, though it may be a nice thing to have in peacetime. In fact, since you are unaware of Jasjit Singh's prior writing, this falls well in line with his prior statements of restarting the MiG-21 line. Sadly, time has moved on, and our opponents now field greater economic strength than we do. Swarming will not work.

2. His premises do not necessarily support his conclusions, as is obvious from the excerpt that the previous poster thought was "telling"

3. He totally ignores the growth potential aspect of single seat versus larger airframes. In the ideal world, a LCA would equal to a Su-30, it is not.

4. He does not even evaluate the opponents growth capability and current capability in detail, in terms of technology and capabilities as vis a vis the MMRCA. Just saying the Su-30 is there, is not sufficient.

Also, I don't think that he singled out Gripen to be able to give the highest ToT for developing LCA/MCA etc. He was citing all the important criteria. ToT is one criteria. That's all he said. Frankly, you and me know that "production" TOT will only take us so far. We need "design" ToT and nobody will give us that. Even the ones whom we have signed up for exactly that. I am very sceptical of what we shall get out of the Snecma deal. We will know to produce yet another engine in India, part of which is designed in India. I am not taking anything away from that accomplishment, but frankly it is somewhat clear where we are going to end up with that deal. There is no short cut to the GTRE guys figuring it out on their own. I really respect your post on the other thread where you champion for open ended test facilities for GTRE.

Jasjit Singh mentions the support for future development of the LCA by vendors as a key parameter at the end of a passage building up the Gripen as the choice, and Raj Ji states that it is an endorsement of Gripen. You disagree.

Eitherways, if that endorsement is for Gripen, my point is, the premise does not support the conclusions, given that so far, two of the other competitor manufacturers in the MMRCA have been chosen in techno-commercial bids by ADA, the designer of the LCA.

This is not something that supports the Gripen, but the reverse. And its logical, that any fighter that is near the same category of the LCA would actually look at it as another market, and not necessarily support a competitor.

Last, thanks for your words regarding my post, and even here, in this deal, the agreement for TOT is only ~60%. So I too, don't see this MMRCA race doing something earth changing for Indian development.

As I said earlier, I am not trying to show what is right and what is wrong. Frankly, I have chosen to be a student in these matters and when a senior person comes along and echoes my thoughts, I just feel that I am picking up a right string of thought.

There is nothing wrong in what you are feeling, but I was not responding to you at all.

[raj-ji]

Excellent article, from an informed and respected source....take it up with Air Cmde (Retd) JASJIT SINGH, Director, CENTRE FOR AIR POWER STUDIES.

Hilarious.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Before the MMRCA Jasjit Singh even argued for the restarting of the MiG-21 line, as he postulated it would be good enough against the bulk of the PLAAF..

Only the PLAAF came out with its J-10 & Su-27 variants, and all those studies disappeared.

Moral of the story, appeals to authority are not good enough.

So the similarities between the LCA and the Gripen are not a weakness, they are a strength. Add to that now a common engine. Some people have realised that expanding budgets alone do not guarantee results..

You found it telling because you didn't even bother to examine the alternatives to what Jasjit Singh wrote and the contradictions in his statement as borne out by events

He writes:

"The LCA's glitches, which inevitably exist in all complex new designs (for example, the F-35), would no doubt keep getting resolved as we go along. Of course it would be useful if the vendor selected for the M-MRCA also gives assistance in incorporating the necessary improvements in the LCA to improve upon it."

..and how this supports the Gripen, only he can tell, because in the world that we are in, ADA has not gone to Saab for assistance, time and again and instead chose Boeing and then EADS for consultancy. This when it had a choice to pick the vendor best suited for its needs.
Technical and commercial bids were invited from multiple sources, but it was Boeing chosen first, then EADS, what does this tell us.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3922101

If anything, it supports the Super Hornet and Eurofighter more. At least the latter, because it could actually step up to provide the consultancy work, versus the former who ran into politics;

Even for the radar integration work, ADA/HAL chose Elta of Israel, over any expertise Sweden may have.

Looks like the actual people involved with the LCA program are pretty clear about who can help them, and who have the actual competence to rely on.

Another essay trying to justify that YOU are right and everyone else is wrong.

When you have called the Gripen a joke repeatedly, and a Retd. Air Cmde and Director of CENTRE FOR AIR POWER STUDIES writes an article mentioning that the Gripen does have its strengths, no essay (no matter how long) can help you pull your foot out of your mouth. So stop trying

[Juggi G]

Europe's Typhoon Jet Leading India Deal Race - Paper
Reuters

[Katare]

Karan,

No one's insulting you or trying to put you down, I am sorry you feel that way. It's just a discussion, no need to get too involved or feel bad.

[SaiK]

what is the mtow of gripen?

It's 16,5 tons.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen- ... Gripen-IN/

And that should answer Jasjit Singh ji, that it gets disqualified based on MRCA requirements that it needs to be between 20-24 tons.

[Indranil]

^^^ This is a very valid point.

But we will have to throw Mig-35 in that case. And if we are very strict we will have to throw away the Rafale and the F-16.

I think we should also look at the payload. The Leh trials would have been critical in my opinion. Alas, we will never know more than hearsay.

[Sandeep_ghosh]

The Teens are nothing but Trojans; they won’t simply fire when the need will arise, as the key will be in Unkil’s hand with the “Interoperability Clause”.

This logic knocks off the Teens.

The term “MRCA” has been coined in 2002-2003, so it has been going around for 7-8 years. With these many years gone, may be we can wait for another 3-4 yrs and by that time LCA MK - II will be up and flying.

Why do we need to go in for Grippen – NG, which optimistically cannot arrive before 2014 ?

Why do we give the Sea-weeds $10 Billions to subsidize their research for Grippen – NG ? May be we should give $ 10 Billion to HAL instead get 2 X 126 = 252, LCA – NG by 2016 ?

This logic knocks off the Grippen.

What remains are the Rafale , Typhoon and Mig – 35.

Here is what needs to be considered among the above 3 are “performance” factor, “political” factor and “L1” factor.

Talking in favour of the Mig – 35, firstly its going to be the “L1” for sure. On the other hand, we can always have something better than the Mig – 35, a Mig – 35 MKI with the avionics from the France, Israel and India.

I find it difficult to understand when someone gives the logic of keeping all the eggs in the same basket. Some 40 % of Mig – 35 MKI ( if selected), will not be made by the Russians but by the French, Israelis and Indians. Remaining 60 % like Air frames, Fuselage and Engine will be manufactured in India under licence.

At the end of the day, money spend on Mig – 35, will come back to India in form of Technology (FGFA).

I really like ambuj's idea

[SriSri]

I find it difficult to understand when someone gives the logic of keeping all the eggs in the same basket. Some 40 % of Mig – 35 MKI ( if selected), will not be made by the Russians but by the French, Israelis and Indians. Remaining 60 % like Air frames, Fuselage and Engine will be manufactured in India under licence.

At the end of the day, money spend on Mig – 35, will come back to India in form of Technology (FGFA).

Agree with much of what you've said.

But how does the MiG 35 perform vs. the Rafales and the Typhoons? Reports indicate that the Western European fighters have much better performance.

[Pratyush]

Just how much development money will be required for the MIG 35.

Also if subsquent to the investments it becomes another MKI. Then I see no serious issues with it. Cause, it will be a world beater which is truly an Indian plane. At least in terms of it Combat systems. Just like the MKI.

[koti]

But how does the MiG 35 perform vs. the Rafales and the Typhoons? Reports indicate that the Western European fighters have much better performance.

Pretty well sir.

-The Radar Mig would field will be on par if not better then the Captor or RBE2.

-All the AA missiles of European origin can be integrated with it. The Russian AA missile inventory is pretty sophisticated in the first place too.

-There is no question on the agility of the fighter.

-The range is decent enough to be comparative.

-The payload is comparatively less... Agreed.

From the above important considerations, it seems pretty fair to say the Mig has the capacity to stand against both the euro's.
But again, it is the cheapest platform of the lot. As cheap as one could field two Migs against each EF (or Rafale) for the same budget.

If the Mig would not to be selected, the reasons would definitely not be the performance comparison against the rest of the AC's.

[SriSri]

>> As cheap as one could field two Migs against each EF (or Rafale) for the same budget.

@koti, What do you think of the life-cycle cost argument used against the MiG 35's?

[Austin]

Rafale at Euronaval

[koti]

@srisri
It also should be very much reduced compared to the Mig-29's for instance.

Mig35 is a new plane. The airframe will be using high percentages of composites. This should reduce the maintanence costs of the airframe. The engines are improved.
The MTBF of several systems is stated to be vastly improved too.

I so believe that it will be logical to assume that the maintenance costs would be on par with the rest of the twin engined contenders.

In case you feel that the maintenance costs for this AC would still be high, Kindly state which subsystem is likely to cause this.

[koti]

Also, most of the maintenance issues we faced in the Mig-29's were due to the quality of the components used.

Since HAL would be building most of the MRCA in-house, this will be a common issue for whichever AC type is selected.

[Viv S]

But how does the MiG 35 perform vs. the Rafales and the Typhoons? Reports indicate that the Western European fighters have much better performance.

Pretty well sir.

-The Radar Mig would field will be on par if not better then the Captor or RBE2.

Perhaps at par with the RBE-2 AA (the quality of Russian GaAs modules is still an open question), definitely inferior to the Captor-E.

-There is no question on the agility of the fighter.

Maneuverability yes. But as far as agility is concerned, the Rafale outperforms the MiG-35 and EF thoroughly dominates it.

From the above important considerations, it seems pretty fair to say the Mig has the capacity to stand against both the euro's.
But again, it is the cheapest platform of the lot. As cheap as one could field two Migs against each EF (or Rafale) for the same budget.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. After all the bell and whistles are added - AESA, OLS, composites, uprated engines etcetera, its not going to cheap. And once lifetime costs (note: its production numbers come nowhere close to the EF or SH) are factored in, the MiG's advantage will be... lets say less than decisive.

If the Mig would not to be selected, the reasons would definitely not be the performance comparison against the rest of the AC's.

Its performance safely clears the minimum requirement of the MRCA tender but the EF and Rafale are comfortably superior aircraft. And except for WVR and especially in the strike role, the SH is also remains a better aircraft than the MiG-35.

[Viv S]

Also, most of the maintenance issues we faced in the Mig-29's were due to the quality of the components used.

Since HAL would be building most of the MRCA in-house, this will be a common issue for whichever AC type is selected.

Even in the 80s when there was no problem in the supply of spares from the USSR, the Mirage-2000 remained a far more serviceable aircraft than the MiG-29. The difference wasn't in the spares, it was in the aircraft.

[shukla]

Obama talks the talk in Parliament address.. Wonder if the babus now feel the need to return the compliment and gift 'em the MMRCA deal.

[SaiK]

Can a fully loaded Rafale reach and maintain mach-2 for some time?

[chackojoseph]

Obama talks the talk in Parliament address.. Wonder if the babus now feel the need to return the compliment and gift 'em the MMRCA deal.

Shuklaji, pls read my question a page back.

[kuntal.saha]

My 2 cents here:
MiG-29 - has a substancial servisebility issue, I remember guys in IAF discussing about the MiG - 23/27s which at any poing of time has a substancial grounded aircraft... and so does Mig-29 inherited that. Migs has inherent issue of servisebility because these are COLD climate aircraft and once they started flying in HOT india... all sorts of leaks and cracks appeared. Guys here use to joke how they clear a Mig 29 for sortie after wiping off the leaking hydraulics...

Mirage-2000 on the otherhand been a single engine AC has a very high sevisebility because of the quality and reliabiliy of components. And French are quiet cooperative in allowing the end user to have inhouse upgrade if they are paid well. Rafale is from the same line of Mirage-2000 which is something to look into.

EF - is a predominantly German AC which has showed its potential in indradhanush. RAF has deployed its EF in major theaters. Special AESA radar will be coming up with this version and getting Israele and French avionics will not be a issue unless you are ready to pay.

US Teens - whatever they say (Obama n party) - they can turn the table at any point of time... remember the HF-24 which was suppose to have a US engine (forgot the name) but US cancelled it last moment and we have to go for twin hunter engine, which turned out to be a disaster. Also guys had spend sleepless nights just to have the the clearance for Phalcon from US. Over all they have N number if restrictions. What if due to some reason they stop service and support of their equiptment. What if may be due to some ICBM testing that put sanction. F-Teens are being phased out of US inventory, so whats the use of buying those stripped kits.

I am in favor for the the european AC - ADV - servicebility, quality, future upgrade and inter operablity.We have a sound experience with euro AC and it is quiet good (let it be Gnat, Hunter, Jaguar, Mirage).

If we go for EF then we can have a offset TOT for EJ2000 engine which is quiet lucrative. imagine Kaveri, EJ2000 and if everything goes well then GE 414.

[JTull]

US teens: Different ways US can play spoilsport even when they are the best bussies of the present govt.

ATC automation: officials yet to get visa to attend training programme in US

[shukla]

Obama talks the talk in Parliament address.. Wonder if the babus now feel the need to return the compliment and gift 'em the MMRCA deal.

Shuklaji, pls read my question a page back.

Chakoji, after the parliament address it becomes even more relevant..

[SriSri]

EF - is a predominantly German AC which has showed its potential in indradhanush. RAF has deployed its EF in major theaters. Special AESA radar will be coming up with this version and getting Israele and French avionics will not be a issue unless you are ready to pay.

Personally I would love for HAL / ADA / DRDO to work with German (and Dutch fr that matter) engineers. That would be a huge positive for our folks.

[Gaur]

What is the point of comparing Mig-35 with IAF's Mig-29 Baaz? Comparing Mig-35 to Baaz is like comparing MKI to Su-27UB. In even the worst case scenario, the Mig-35 will be a slightly modified Mig-29k. It is a totally different aircraft with far superior airframe, radar and engines. So, how can one determine Mig-35's serviceability based on the record of Baaz? It does not make any sense.

[Austin]

The closest to determine serviceability record of Mig-35 will be to see how Mig-29K fares in the IN on all parameters , that should be the closest aircraft that we can compare with Mig-35.

[Surya]

Gaur

If the supply chain is the same it is possible to compare

although like Austin says - to some extent the 29Ks record will be more interesting.

But by the time problems come into open we may well past the time to order the aircraft

[kuntal.saha]

There is one more observation: LCA if you look closely is have quiet similarity of Jaguar and Mirage... which means the HAL/ADA guys has lot of experience in harnessing the design aspect of the EU versions. It will be be benificial in other aspects for our home grown aviations development.
At present we can opt for anyone euro or russian... but we have to think one what we can achieve in future... euro aviation has lot to offer without restriction as they have a cash shortage to run the business and this deal will be revival for them. So we have some bargaining power here.

So if we can have the Jaguar dev exp + MKI exp + LCA exp + EF/rafale exp; it will be having a huge database to harness for future...

About German equiptment and its quality... I can bet on it !! Lets take a break from russian stuff - we already have MKI and FGFA rolling... and buying from US is just waste of money; not sure but heard that US charges quiet heavily for mid life servicing and spares.

[Gaur]

Surya,
There have been no supply problems for Baaz for some time now. So, why should there be problems with Mig-35? Considering Mig-29K's safety and serviceability record, that is not a matter of speculation. Unless something goes very wrong, it will be much better than that of Baaz.

Some major safety and serviceability improvements in Mig-29K which are guaranteed to be present in Mig-35:

-15-20% composite airframe.

- Longer life of airframe. Growing up from 2500 fly hours or 20 years raised to 5000 f/h or 30 years. Mig says that Mig-35 will have airframe life of 6000hrs or 40 yrs.

- FADEC full control system for engines.

-Each engine with individual aircraft accessory gearbox. Thus much higher reliability.

- Dorsal air intake inlets are removed. Instead, Inlet defense system is installed (grids). This protects from FOD during ground operations. Thus, reliability is greatly increased.

- Smokeless engines.

- Service improvement , on-condition maintenance, better fuel economy.

-Flight hour cost will be 40% lesser than regular MiG-29s as per RAC MiG.

- Open architecture of avionics.

And these are only the improvements for safety and serviceability. The performance improvements are even more impressive.

[koti]

Maneuverability yes. But as far as agility is concerned, the Rafale outperforms the MiG-35 and EF thoroughly dominates it.

From the above important considerations, it seems pretty fair to say the Mig has the capacity to stand against both the euro's.
But again, it is the cheapest platform of the lot. As cheap as one could field two Migs against each EF (or Rafale) for the same budget.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. After all the bell and whistles are added - AESA, OLS, composites, uprated engines etcetera, its not going to cheap. And once lifetime costs (note: its production numbers come nowhere close to the EF or SH) are factored in, the MiG's advantage will be... lets say less than decisive.

I would like differ with your statements on several counts sir.

If the Mig would not to be selected, the reasons would definitely not be the performance comparison against the rest of the AC's.

Its performance safely clears the minimum requirement of the MRCA tender but the EF and Rafale are comfortably superior aircraft. And except for WVR and especially in the strike role, the SH is also remains a better aircraft than the MiG-35.

Could you provide more data to support your claim on this?
On what factor is Rafale a superior platform? It has a relatively poor TW ratio. Its AESA too isn't as promising either.
I am not telling that the Mig is a superior platform. It has its merits, similarly Rafale has its merits.

I would like to clarify that EF and Rafale might be superior from what I've been reading so far. It could be very well true. But what is the decisive superiority these planes offer that substantiates nearly twice the increase in cost per aircraft.

[Surya]

Gaur

In open source you will only hear problems many years later - (as it should be0.

Also sometimes there are no problems per se but headaches.

Like - asked to pay more for a part

or if the part is supposed to be under warranty say they need money for it

or the time required to deliver it.

If the 35 is all new then it may start all over

[koti]

Also, most of the maintenance issues we faced in the Mig-29's were due to the quality of the components used.

Since HAL would be building most of the MRCA in-house, this will be a common issue for whichever AC type is selected.

Even in the 80s when there was no problem in the supply of spares from the USSR, the Mirage-2000 remained a far more serviceable aircraft than the MiG-29. The difference wasn't in the spares, it was in the aircraft.

I am not clear as to how an aircraft can have maintainability issues if its not for the spares.

Sir, it is true that Mig-29 has had several problems. But what we are essentially dealing with here is a new aircraft wherein almost all of the previous said issues were rectified.(refer gaurs post above)
Now its been a long time since the 80's you mentioned. We have had a very decent experience with the MKI during the 90's and the current decade.

[Gaur]

Surya,
I am afraid that we can only base our discussions on open source source material. Speculating what may or may not be happening beyond that is nothing more than....well speculation. So, as far as open source goes, there is currently no major problem that IAF is having with spare supply for MIG-29. Trying to squeeze as much money from the customer is not an attribute unique to MIG (or Russians for that matter). Till full indigenization does not happen, we will never be able to escape this problem. Scorpene deal and Mirage-2000 upgrade remind us of this.

But even with all the price increases by Russians, their equipment still ends up being "far" cheaper than any other western of similar capability. The worst case of Russian price escalation has been Admiral Gorshkov. Is anyone else willing to sell us a similar a/c for even the same price? In fact, at that time, no one would have soldus an a/c carrier at "any" price.

My point is that Mig-35 is a highly capable aircraft. Truthfully, I would rather prefer if either Eurobird is chosen. They are indeed better a/cs but Mig-35 is not very far behind IMO.
So, to me, it all comes down to 2 factors.

1> TOT:
If any of the 3 Euro birds are ready to provide us with appreciable TOT (especially in radars and Engine), then that would be my a/c of preference.

2>Price and numbers:
If the cost of acquisition is less, will more planes be bought (like rumoured 126 + 74). If so, then I would very much like 200 Gripens/Mig-35 as compared to 126 Eurobirds. However, if total 126 a/cs will be bought regardless of the acquisition cost, then I would find Eurobirds more favorable.

However, we simply do not know enough. We certainly have no idea regarding above 2 factors. Even for aircraft performance, we can only only make rough informed guesses.

In short, my point is the following. Even if the acquisition is carried out from a totally jingoistic POV (with no political pressure), it will be very difficult to rule out the so called underdogs (Gripen and Mig-35). Depending upon various unknown factors, any of the a/cs (Rafale, EF, Gripen & Mig-35) can come out as the best one for our needs. This is because, IMO, no one platform has any large advantage over others as far as performance is concerned.

[Gaur]

Koti,
Supply of spares in only a part of the equation. Service life of parts, tolerance to damage ,number of pieces and various other aircraft design factores can make the man hrs and cost of flying to be very high. Unfortunately, this is indeed an issue with Mig-29.
However, it should be noted that all older produced fighters have more maintenance and reliability problems as compared to modern fighters. This is largely because of advancement in materials. Fortunately, this advancement has carried over to newer variants of older designs too. This is evident from Mig-29K, Su-35, F-15K etc.

However, as you said, maintainability issues of Mig-29 Baaz should have no bearing upon Mig-35 as it is a totally different a/c as compared to Baaz.

[Willy]

MMRCA BUZZ: F-16 Out Of Reckoning?

Livefist


Here we go again

[Drishyaman]

But how does the MiG 35 perform vs. the Rafales and the Typhoons? Reports indicate that the Western European fighters have much

The Results of the comparative test are not out yet (Officially). But, may be you are right, on performance Mig-35 is not on par with Rafale or Typhoon.
But, what I was taking about was Mig-35 MKI (if that happens). Now, imagine if Mig-35 MKI happens how will that compare with Rafale or Typhoon (at half the cost)?

Also, comparing Mig-23/27/29 with Mig-35 doesn't help because those are atleast 20 to 30 years older than Mig - 35.

On any given day my money is on Mig-35 because I know that money will come back to my pocket some day.