MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Nov 2010 01:04

koti wrote: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.

Quality of the components used? Where were they sourced from? the USSR or India?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Nov 2010 01:59

raj ji wrote: Another essay trying to justify that YOU are right and everyone else is wrong.

Actually, I am just pointing out that you need to to back up your opinions based on your own abilities, not go

and claim that XYZ said this, that, so it HAAAAAAAS to be correct.

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

Trying to pass off absurd statements won't work.

In plain english, the Gripen, like any aicraft has pro's and con's but as far as the Indian scenario is concerned, it has severe limitations. That remains a fact, irrespective of how much you claim that xyz said this, or ABC said that.

To use an example at your own level of debate, try holding your own in terms of logic and facts like an adult, not suck your thumb, hide behind the opinions of others and go

that other's don't buy into your bunk.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Nov 2010 02:07

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

It can have problems if it is designed without much attention to maintenance procedures as practised by export customers. There were also problems with Quality Control of the planes and with standardizing production.

The end result was when the MiG-29 was exported to India, we had huge problems in maintaining these planes. Many engines were withdrawn earlier than usual, and even construction bits were found in the engines themselves leading to foreign object related damage. It took a lot of time, to get these aircraft into shape. Also, collapse of USSR made getting some spares difficult.

Modern planes are more designed with all sorts of aids - electronics built in tests, structural fatigue sensors and more reliable avionics, all of which help.

MiG-29 upgrade also claims to have many improvements, but it remains to be seen whether it meets needs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Nov 2010 02:12

Katare wrote: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.

If I were to make the kind of post you did, you'd have understood what I said. And no, I don't feel bad, I just think that you missed an opportunity to make your point, by deviating into rhetoric.
Anyways, lets move on.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Nov 2010 02:15

koti wrote: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.

The quality of components issue lies on the Russians as India never manufactured the MiG-29.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Nov 2010 02:29

Gaur wrote: 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.

+1, a good levelheaded, sensible, post. Well done. For every bird there are certain disadvantages (the usual suspects). Some disadvantages are real and others are just a form bashing. The US contenders for example have some real concerns associated in terms of TOT, strings, and even price (imho these have the worst performance:price ratio around - they cost as much as the ecanards and offer lower performance). The two big eurocnards share a common disadvantage - price. The Gripen has the disadvantage of being v.similar to the Tejas Mk2 and the MiG-35 has one real concern - a total dependence on Russian hardware.

If these are addressed most other problems can be worked around. JMT of course.

CM

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Nov 2010 02:38

^^ There is also politics

EF has 4 Govts supporting it, and US is heavily supporting F-18 and F-16.
Sweden is single govt for Gripen, same as France for Rafale
Russians are quiet because they have 5G project

So politically, it seems a toss up between Europe and US.

raj-ji · Post by **raj-ji** » 09 Nov 2010 03:03

Karan M wrote:
raj ji wrote: Another essay trying to justify that YOU are right and everyone else is wrong.
Actually, I am just pointing out that you need to to back up your opinions based on your own abilities, not go and claim that XYZ said this, that, so it HAAAAAAAS to be correct.

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
Trying to pass off absurd statements won't work.

In plain english, the Gripen, like any aicraft has pro's and con's but as far as the Indian scenario is concerned, it has severe limitations. That remains a fact, irrespective of how much you claim that xyz said this, or ABC said that.

To use an example at your own level of debate, try holding your own in terms of logic and facts like an adult, not suck your thumb, hide behind the opinions of others and go that other's don't buy into your bunk.

Eventhough I disagree with the above, concise response and no essay that's an improvement. Good progress

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Nov 2010 04:15

^^

What happened? Didn't find somebody else's opinion piece to claim as your own and hide behind?

raj-ji · Post by **raj-ji** » 09 Nov 2010 04:27

Karan M wrote:^^

What happened? Didn't find somebody else's opinion piece to claim as your own and hide behind?

Two concise responses, are we going for a hat trick?

raj-ji · Post by **raj-ji** » 09 Nov 2010 04:30

pandyan wrote:Raj-ji - my concise response to your post is "48". Please decipher the underlying meaning at your free time...

Karan M - Please continue posting in your style and definitely appreciate the detailed posts.

Deciphered already.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Nov 2010 04:49

Pandyan, thanks!

Gaur wrote:Gripen's looks are deceiving (just like Tejas). Even though it is a light aircraft, it seems to forget that when it comes to payload. Its payload of 7.2 tonnes is comparable to 7.5 tonne of much larger Typhoon. Agreed, its radar will never be as powerful as that of larger radars but it more than makes it up with its sortie rate. If it can carry out more operations per day as compared to other medium fighters, then it is a huge advantage IMO.

The only disadvantage I see is the GE-Volvo engine. However, considering that we have went for GE 414 for our own Tejas, it does not seem to be that much of an issue anymore.

Sir, please remember that all these MTOW /or heavy loadout figures come with a big problem, which is the aircraft performance is compromised to a large extent. This particularly true for the smaller fighters, whose wing loading will go up, and affect maneuverability.

The US has sought a way out by putting more and more powerful motors into their F-16s, but the end result is that while straight line performance is still upto spec, everything else suffers.

Gripen NG Wing Area for instance is ~30 Sq Mtrs (Aviationweek), whereas that of the EF is ~50 Sq Mtrs (Vectorsite), and Rafale has 45.7 Sq Mtrs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loadi ... erformance

So all things being equal, with a heavy load, the larger fighters (in this case, the EF and Rafale) still have the advantage. Hence, please take the heavily loaded pics of the lighter aircraft with the proper context, that they will have a lower performance at heavy loads, in terms of maneuverability (turn rates), and even acceleration

This becomes especially problematic when going up against an opponent (like China) with a well equipped AF & SAM systems. You dont want heavily loaded fighters as sitting ducks, or alternatively ditch their heavy munitions or fuel to escape missiles fired at them, which is effectively a mission failure.

Next, sortie rate, also needs to take into account how many sorties are required per fighter, keeping the above in mind. This becomes a pretty complex calculation & depends on many variables which cannot be easily modeled. But consider some facts, from day one, both the EF & Rafale have had integrated EW suites. The Rafale is even tasked with the French deterrent. In short, these systems should have a fair amount of maturity, even as they are finetuned further/made ready in entirety. The Gripen NG is now integrating its first internal EW system, which will require time to mature. So, even the calculation of sortie rates cannot be easily quantified, and needs to be modeled somewhere along the lines of sortie effectiveness. Larger sensors also play a role here. The EF for instance, once it receives a gimbaled high power AESA radar, can surveill a wide volume of airspace at range, reducing its dependence on back up systems like AEW & C. This places it an advantage over all the other systems in the competition.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 00/ef3.JPG
The Russians have developed the radar on the Sukhois as well, with a similar idea in mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yELuKJFDM80

Basically, you then need fewer aircraft per mission, offsetting the need for more, less capable aircraft.

As you can see, things get pretty complex, across multiple areas and just higher sortie rates alone cannot give the entire picture.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Nov 2010 05:35

Gripen's looks are deceiving (just like Tejas). Even though it is a light aircraft, it seems to forget that when it comes to payload. Its payload of 7.2 tonnes is comparable to 7.5 tonne of much larger Typhoon.

When did they manage to get the Gripen to carry 7.2 tonnes? IIRC it was struggling at 6000kg not too long ago. 7000kg (empty) + 3400kg (internal fuel) + fluids/pylons (600kg) + 6000kg (weapons) = 16000kg MTOW.

First they suggest an empty weight of 7100kg for the NG with a payload of 6000kg, a little later they scale it down to around 6800kg (empty) and now the payload just shot up by 1200kgs! Bloody overachieving Swedes!

CM

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Nov 2010 05:45

Cain Marko wrote:
Gripen's looks are deceiving (just like Tejas). Even though it is a light aircraft, it seems to forget that when it comes to payload. Its payload of 7.2 tonnes is comparable to 7.5 tonne of much larger Typhoon.
When did they manage to get the Gripen to carry 7.2 tonnes? IIRC it was struggling at 6000kg not too long ago. 7000kg (empty) + 3400kg (internal fuel) + fluids/pylons (600kg) + 6000kg (weapons) = 16000kg MTOW.

First they suggest an empty weight of 7100kg for the NG with a payload of 6000kg, a little later they scale it down to around 6800kg (empty) and now the payload just shot up by 1200kgs! Bloody overachieving Swedes!

CM

True figures will only be known once the series production aircraft is operational.

Right now a lot of figures are floating around based on statements which are periodically revised, and what is expected of the Gripen Demo.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Nov 2010 08:31

it would also be interesting to know its performance with such a maxed out payload in terms of acceleration, g-limits, aoa etc.

I am already suspicious of claims taken at face value about gripen's jiffy lube type turnaround time and sortie rate? do the swedes have a secret recipe or new design std to do that which f18/rafale/ef makers cannot do - afterall nobody likes long downtimes in war and everyone tries to maximise it...it also has a wing, engine and carries same generation of stuff as the f-16 block52+ so what is different to make it do 3 sorties a day and more than trusty F-solah. is it extra groundcrews and IDF war style lots of extra spares and engines kept ready for exercise?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Nov 2010 08:45

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

True. (psst....Secretly I want f-18 to win this tender.) I have been counting on backing up US in the need of the hour, as we did for Russians. Also, I am very impressed with F-18 as a MMRCA. I wish, if we have chance, we opt in for F-14 with F-18 avionics. They should develop F-14 on lines of F-15 stealth version.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Nov 2010 09:16

Singha wrote:it would also be interesting to know its performance with such a maxed out payload in terms of acceleration, g-limits, aoa etc.

I am already suspicious of claims taken at face value about gripen's jiffy lube type turnaround time and sortie rate? do the swedes have a secret recipe or new design std to do that which f18/rafale/ef makers cannot do - afterall nobody likes long downtimes in war and everyone tries to maximise it...it also has a wing, engine and carries same generation of stuff as the f-16 block52+ so what is different to make it do 3 sorties a day and more than trusty F-solah. is it extra groundcrews and IDF war style lots of extra spares and engines kept ready for exercise?

Very interesting question. They advertise that the engine can be changed in 1 hour! How is the housing/wiring so different? Or is it just a claim?

They have showcased hot refueling many times though. Infact even in the MMRCA evaluation it was reported that they wanted to showcase this but our ground crew didn't want to risk it.

I had read the same thing about the Mig-21 (not hot refueling). The Israelis where very impressed with the turn around times of the Mig-21 which had defected to Israel. They wanted to test the Mig-21's strengths and weaknesses in A2A combat. They reportedly just brought in the aircraft, refueled it and took it to the air again almost immediately!

What makes certain planes far more service-able than others? People please answer if you know. Left to speculations none of us will be any wiser.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Nov 2010 09:17

chackojoseph wrote:
shukla wrote: Chakoji, after the parliament address it becomes even more relevant..
True. (psst....Secretly I want f-18 to win this tender.) I have been counting on backing up US in the need of the hour, as we did for Russians. Also, I am very impressed with F-18 as a MMRCA. I wish, if we have chance, we opt in for F-14 with F-18 avionics. They should develop F-14 on lines of F-15 stealth version.

F-14s? For what Chacko-ji?

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 09 Nov 2010 09:20

Pakistan Weapon Sales, Restrictive Agreements Hurt Lockheed Martin F-16 Chances in Air Force MRCA Deal

koti · Post by **koti** » 09 Nov 2010 09:26

Is there any possibility that we can opt for an aircraft and ask for the integration of other aircraft's components?
I mean in the initial stage itself.

Like Gripen NG with CAPTOR or Rafale with Phazatron AESA.

Maybe this would result in a more balanced aircraft.

Maybe this would reduce the cost of Rafale and still give us a better radar or a more competitive Gripen.

The delivery of MMRCA is atleast 3-4 years away. This should provide enough time to have the minor tweaking done.
Maybe it will do good for companies like Dassault, Saab and Mig.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Nov 2010 09:32

^^^ Even if it were technologically possible, I don't think it will be politically/economically viable!

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 09 Nov 2010 10:03

@koti I'm not so sure we are in the mix and match stage. In a perfect world, all future R&D energy goes towards the FGFA while competent MRCAs are picked up off the shelf. Unlikely, perhaps.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Nov 2010 10:11

indranilroy wrote:F-14s? For what Chacko-ji?

You know, taking out Tomcat as a mistake and its my personal opinion. It could go so long range and carry a load of armaments. BTW, its just a fantasy. It will not happen.

It was an awesome aircraft.

The original point is , I want F-18 and want to support some jobs in US. F-18 is a very good platform too. We have FGFA for Russian, M2K deals for France (+ Scorpenes) etc. So,no love lost if we buy some 18's.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Nov 2010 10:18

Some parameters on F-18

Increased operations tempo has been observed to wear out combat aircraft as observed in F/A18Cs/Ds HORNETS….which logged more than 73,000 missions enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq, in addition to the 3,000 sorties during Kosovo operations. Each Hornet is expected to handle 6,000 flight hours and 2,000 catapult takeoffs and arrested landings. The average age of the planes is 8.5 years with the oldest in the fleet being 13 years. The US goal is to add 700 more catapult takeoffs and landings to each aircraft, or about seven more years of use. Thus by ensuring a close monitoring of aircraft health, its serviceability can be extended without relevance to its vintage.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 09 Nov 2010 11:25

chackojoseph wrote:
shukla wrote: Chakoji, after the parliament address it becomes even more relevant..
True. (psst....Secretly I want f-18 to win this tender.)

Chakoji, + 1 for the SH. Its been my desire to see the SH in Indian colours as well.

For me, the SH stands out..

-Despite its admittedly poorer aerodynamic performance compared to say the EF or Rafale, its evolved and mature AESA radar would mean that IAF would have this capability as soon as the very 1st plane is delivered (unlike other platforms where the radar maturity would easily be 5-10 years away).

-American Navy's commitment to it will assure future upgrade prospects.

-It only makes economic sense to have the same engine platforms for both the LCA and MMRCA.

-And as far fetched as the idea may be, the existence of a dedicated electronic warfare (EW) variant in the EA-18G and the idea that this might come our way (albeit belatedly), is also mouth watering.. With the pace at which Indo-US relations are headed, this isn't impossible.

-Definitely cheaper than the EF and the Rafale.

-After the open embrace for India's security council dreams and being brutally honest about Pakistan, I don't see anything wrong with this one falling in the Americas lap. Quid pro quo.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 09 Nov 2010 11:42

what about the effect of CISOMA on communication devices and electronic setup of the F-18. Since sophesticated avionics and Radar are at the core of the Shornet's bid , I guess CISOMA can throw a real spanner in the works.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 09 Nov 2010 12:01

Nihat wrote:what about the effect of CISOMA on communication devices and electronic setup of the F-18. Since sophesticated avionics and Radar are at the core of the Shornet's bid , I guess CISOMA can throw a real spanner in the works.

Well, firstly, I don't think India is keen or willing to sign CISMOA and other similar agreements in their "current form" and 'rightly so'.

I definitely see India and US, over time, ironing out their differences and come up with a 'mutually suitable and acceptable wordings' for any or all these agreements to facilitate defense trade. Very much like they did, with the EUMA. India didn't want to sign the EUMA in its original form and after numerous discussions, the US came up a 'India specific - tweaked' version which India eventually signed. I see the CISMOA going the same way..

And lets not forget Air Chiefs recent comments in response to these agreements, (especially the CISMOA) while signing the C-17 deal-

"Government had asked us about our opinion on these agreements and we told them that this will not make any substantial difference to our operational capabilities"

(Source - India-Defence http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4635)

If the Air Chief thinks that the equipment excluded (by not signing the CISMOA) in not detrimental to India's operational capabilities - good enough for me.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Nov 2010 12:14

Restrictive clauses in any US weapon system,exposed in the secret documents by the Times Now channel,indicate that whatever is unacceptable for the F-16 will similarly be unacceptable for the F-18SH too.Allowing the US to make "inspections" whenever it wants to check on eqpt. supplied is simply unacceptable to India as it should be from whichever nation tries to impose such restrictive clauses.Therefore,the chances of both the F-16 and F-18SH are logically remote.Given that the 5th-gen fighter is being developed with Russia,the IAF might want preferably a western bird plus TOT,so that we get the best of east and west.Here cost will also be a major factor that cannot be overlooked.We might see the MIG-35 and Gripen stay in the hunt if only so that they can be used as bargaining chips in the final evaluation.

kuntal.saha · Post by **kuntal.saha** » 09 Nov 2010 13:16

Next theater of conflict for IAF will be high up in Himalayas... may be eastern side or western side... any input of how contenders performed in High Altitude trials?? If I am correct EF is in #1 spot for it...

We cant just go and buy any AC... first we have to understand and identify our future theater of conflict... I am pretty sure that F-18 beaing a carrier based AC has not faired well at all...

I feel identifying the top contender considering future theater of conflict will be much more benificial.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 09 Nov 2010 13:19

@kuntal.saha, I tend to agree. In fact I've stuck out my neck in favor of the Eurofighter Typhoons as others have in favor of F/A-18's or the MiG-35's.

I wonder what odds the bookies are using?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 09 Nov 2010 13:29

kuntal.saha wrote:I am pretty sure that F-18 beaing a carrier based AC has not faired well at all...

Source?

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 09 Nov 2010 13:43

My two paise worth. The MMRCA is one chance that India has to squeeze the vendors for some real tech transfer. This will not be possible with the US birds due to their various restrictions. Hope we dont goof up and loose this opportunity.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Nov 2010 14:31

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

No sir required. Viv will do just fine.

Could you provide more data to support your claim on this?

There's plenty of open source material available on this. But, the specifications of the aircraft don't really give out the design of the airframe. The MiG-29 comes from a generation where WVR combat was the only game in town. The USAF's F-16s reportedly dominated the Luftwaffe's MiG-29s at airspeeds of over 300 knots, while the MiG-29 performed superbly at low speeds. The MiG-35's airframe though perhaps lighter, remains essentially the same. The Eurofighter on the other hand was designed at the outset to excel at a high speed high altitude BVR game.

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.

The thrust-to-weight ratio is just one statistic and it doesn't tell all that much. The Tejas MkII for example will have a higher t/w ratio than even the EF (using empty weight), yet no one expects the Tejas to supercruise, because the airframe was not designed to excel in that region. But to be fair, the Rafale was designed for carrier operations so I can't make a conclusive comment.

With regard to the AESA, both the Captor and RBE-2 have their roots in the AMSAR program. And the future seems to be in GaN which the Euros have been invested in for while now.

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.

Question is where did this figure of twice the cost coming from? Especially in the lifetime cost model. Everyone just seems to assume that the MiG-35's performance has caught up to the Eurocanards, but their prices are still lagging. For context, the first batch of the MKIs costed about $35 million each, the latest costs over $80 million each.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Nov 2010 16:45

Yes Kuntal,about a year ago I said much the same due to the "aggro" we were experiencing with the PRC.The unexpected (to the GOI) chessmoves being made by the PRC in the Himalayan region caught the govt. of the day totally unprepared and this has had its effect upon the MMRCA deal.Since the PRC also operate Flankers,albeit a less capable version than our MKIs,an equally capable western aircraft that -in the case of the Typhoon,specificaly meant to deal with BVR conflicts of the Cold War era,plus able to carry a substantial load for strike,would be particularly helpful in the case of large-scale PLAF adventurism.Therefore the initial requirement for a cost-effective MMRCA available in large numbers to stem the falling numbers,has morphed into something more substantial,that being an aircraft able to handle and beat the best that China and Pak can throw at us.

ashwinshankar · Post by **ashwinshankar** » 09 Nov 2010 16:48

Hello All,

I'm new to this forum. I have been going through this discussion for a while and I have read some good view points from a lof of members in this forum.

I just have have one thing to ask... many here are conflicting about the number of a/c (in terms of Gripen and Mig 35) against the quality. It is my opinion - Why shouldn't India go for superior aircraft like EF and Rafale even though they are at a higher price. I would have added F-18 to the list, but the strings attached to it makes me a little nervous. The second part which many member expressed is the number, that we can compensate with more Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 in future; as the Mk1 costs just around ~$25 mil for IAF version excluding the development cost.

This is just my opinion.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Nov 2010 17:05

That is IF Tejas is available at that price in its final avatar,most unlikely given the inordinate delay in perfecting the bird.Production numbers per year is also not that high when compared with foreign manufacturers from official statements.

WHat the IAF/MOD/GOI should do right now is to take a holistic look at the IAF's required strength (given according to some reports,40-50 sqds. to face a separate or combined Paki-Sino challenge).This means that the IAF's strength should be around 1000 frontline fighters,not including Hawk AJTs which can be used for light strike too.This means that the shortfall in numbers will be about 300+ aircraft until the 5th-gen fighter and the LCA are in full production.Even assuming that the MMRCA numbers approach 180-200,we will still require about 5 sqds. of light/medium multi-role aircraft.To meet this shortfall in numbers,the best solution would be to acquire several sqds of MIG-35s which could also in time replace older MIG-29s,or even Gripens (if LCA developemnt is further delayed),as these two aircraft should come in at around the same price.The MIGs would be easier to operate and induct as the 29s are already in service.Remember that the MIG-27s ,Jaguars and MIG-21 Bisons and Mirage -2000s (expected during Sarko's visit) are all upgraded/being upgraded and have a limited future lifespan.

kuntal.saha · Post by **kuntal.saha** » 09 Nov 2010 17:57

shukla wrote:
kuntal.saha wrote:I am pretty sure that F-18 beaing a carrier based AC has not faired well at all...
Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_ ... -18_Hornet

"The F/A-18 was derived from the YF-17 in the 1970s" and users are US Navy and Marine Corps and not USAF

So what I intend to say is F-18 designed for optimum performance over plains and not meant for High Altitude Warfare which we are preparing for.

JUST one more point from Fact File - in kargil Major strike sorties (lethal) were carried out by Mirages and Jaguars leaving aside the initial phase of conflict where Migs were used with DUMB bombs. We can take inference from these type of incidences.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Nov 2010 18:03

^^^ no, the F18 is as good/bad at low alt and high alt as any of the other contenders. although it is a carrier based aircraft in the USN and USMC, it is used as a land based a/c in Canada, Spain and a few other places (also Switzerland I think - so the alt arguement is not right)

some a/c are specifically designed for low level penetration and attack, e.g. F111, Tornado, Jaguar, Su24 but they will be equally useless at mountain attack without the right weapon systems - targeting and aerodynamics/ballistics

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 09 Nov 2010 18:30

Karan M,
Yes, I had not considered wing loading. Thanks for pointing out that to me.

As for the EW suite, Ericsson Saab EWS 39 was ordered for Gripen C/D back in 1999. So, it is wrong to say that EW suite is something of a new feature to Gripen. On the other hand, Typhoon's DAAS EW suite is still in development. But yes, as I had said earlier, EF will always have an advantage over Gripen in this area.

Now regarding sortie rate. True, if an aircraft becomes a sitting duck with high load, then high sortie rates would do you no good in a heavy AD environment. However, I hope you would agree that with full load, every fighter will become a brick in the air. So, in a heavy air defence environment, no 4th gen fighter would be able to go alone on strike roles with impunity while carrying max possible payloads. That is where PAK-FA and hopefully MCA would be needed. However, for any other roles (air defence/superiority, CAS etc), I do not see Gripen being much behind other Eurobirds. Gripen's situational awareness due to its data link should also help it a lot for any role. In fact, I feel that link 16 should make Gripen the most AWACs independent fighter among all the Eurobirds.

I also understand your point that sortie rates required from fighters depend upon various factors. But IMO, considering IAF's fighter strength, vastness of our borders and the capability of our potential adversaries, number of sorties required/day would be as high as the pilots and ground crew can possibily handle....regardless of all the permutations of any no of factors. This was evident from all the air wars that we have fought. Su-7 came under exceptionally high praise from IAF because of its high sortie rate and turaround time during 1971 war. IIRC, Su-7 alone had performed around 1500 sorties!
Even during Kargil, IAF fighters had performed a staggering 1200 sorties. Even here, Mirage-2000 alone had alone performed 500 sorties and had come under much praise for it. And note that 1200 sorties were for fighters alone in a highly localized battle.
So, I feel that sortie rates would be factor very highly in IAF's mind. This is because, during war, there are never enough fighters. Not even close. There are always hard choices to be made as to which theater to assist and leave others to their fate.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Nov 2010 18:32

sortie rate and/or time in air
we will see much more use of aerial refueling and PGm strikes leading to longer missions