MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[SaiK]

Please wait for few more ajai shukla reports.. he can sway big votes.

[raj-ji]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Pak ... eal-06637/

^^^ published last week

Not particularly new thinking, but interesting if it seems that the decision-makers see it this way, too.

And then there were four...

I had a (very polite ) argument with Singha on this forum, regarding which of its current jets' capabilities the IAF wanted to complement, and it got me thinking on the permutations/combinations that would influence the IAF's choice.

(In all the scenarios below, I'm leaving the FGFA and AMCA out, and regarding the Jaguars, MiG-27s, MiG-29s and even the Mirages as largely bit players. I'm concentrating on the big numbers here. Also, the F-18, to me, is a wild card: it won't be selected unless politics takes complete precedence, and then all bets are off. I would imagine it would fit something like Scenario 2, but it could go any which way.)

Scenario 1:
- The IAF really has very little faith in the LCA (or sees it as a bonus, not the backbone) and needs more or less a direct alternative to the LCA, ie a cheap, multi-role numbers fighter.
- The idea would be to largely have a hi-lo mix of multi-role fighters, with the MKI at the top, the cheap one at the bottom, and the other types as bit players
In this case, it's the Gripen, in an order much larger than the 126, with the LCA coming on as a supplement whenever it's ready. The IAF would then be analogous to the USAF, with one heavy and one light fighter.

Scenario 2:
- The IAF's happy enough with the LCA as a multi-role fighter, and even the LCA-2 should be ready soon-ish
- The MKI is to be used primarily as an A2A fighter, with some deep-strike capability, but not as the primary strike fighter
In this case, the Rafale. Hi-med-lo (MKI-Rafale-LCA). This was my argument, Singha didn't agree. He might be right - maybe, if the IAF sees more of an A2A role for the Su-30 family, it would've selected/will select in future something like the Su-35S, and nuts to the WSO.

Scenario 3:
- The IAF's happy with the LCA-2, but wants it to be a heavier multi-role plane (mission creep here - it's going to take a while before the LCA-2 meets the IAF's new requirements)
- The MKI is to be used as the primary strike fighter, as a bomb truck as well as for deep, unescorted strike missions.
- The IAF wants to replace the MiG-21 directly as an A2A jet
In this case, the Typhoon takes it. Again Hi-Med-Lo, but with very defined roles. And in this case, the Typhoon's lack of A2G ability doesn't matter. This basically was Singha's argument.


I'm guessing Scenario 3 looks the most likely, though my preference in a way is for Scenario 2. What does everyone else think?

These are very interesting scenarios, great to see the potential strategic choices of the IAF.

IMO, the IAF has A2A capabilities in spades with the MKI. The Russians have this part of fighters well figured out, agile deadly aircraft with great LR and SR missiles, impressive radars and engines. IMO what the US and Europeans have the edge on is A2G, they have lots of practise in this realm. If one can assume that this is true, then the MRCA will go for a swing role aircraft that has impressive A2G capabilities, so scenario 2, with the Rafale making a great addition. Or if numbers are a concern, scenario 1 will be chosen.

Just my 2 rupees worth, scenario 1 or 2 looks most likely.

[Viv S]

This article also highlights the difference between the French and the Americans during the Falklands war, nothing new to most of us, but interesting that the US would do this to an ally like the British.

So when Sarko comes to town offering us a deal, it may be hard to ignore despite recent French hiccups.

That's one way of looking at it. Put yourself in Argentinian shoes and you'll discover a completely new perspective. Not that any of this is relevant 30 years into the future.

[Singha]

it will be couple decades before we can go for all smart and light munitions like current usaf (250lb LGB replacing 1000lb ccip/lgb due to better accuracy and gps delivery) and couple more decades before we can deploy enmasse the 20lb "JSF" std guided hand grenades that can kill osama but leave his #3 and a ISI major sitting 6 feet away untouched!

so in the meantime, a heavy ordnance platform like MKI is essential to go out and deliver a hellacious bombload on target and dart back unescorted. in essence, its a better a2a airframe than F-15E and money determines how much it matches the redoubtable strike eagle in a2g.

[Pratyush]

Singha,

A few days ago is saw Gi Joe the movie. What you had described in the post above fits in with the arrows launched by Scarlet.

JMT

[shukla]

UK’s defence secretary to visit India, to push for Eurofighter during visit
Expressbuzz

Britain’s Defence Secretary Liam Fox will be in New Delhi later this month amidst buzz that Eurofighter Typhoon has emerged as frontrunner in IAF’s multi-billion dollar bid for 126 fighter jets. South block is yet to confirm, but reports have claimed that Eurofighter — Typhoon — produced by a consortium of Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy — had come on top after technical evaluation by the IAF.

The IAF’s technical report on the performance of six combat jets — F-18, F-16, Mig- 35, Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen — was submitted to the Ministry of Defence recently. It has been reported that IAF has found Typhoon best suited for its requirements on technical grounds. The British Defence Secretary would get a true sense on this crucial deal during his meetings with Indian officials and would try to push hard for contract.

The $11.3-billion deal is critical for the six contenders, more so for the European consortium struggling to keep the supply line running. The Indian deal is big as it could sustain a large number of jobs back home as the aircraft are made in Lancashire. Fox’s visit comes at a time when huge cuts in British defence budget has become a debating point. The defence ties between India and the UK have come alive in the recent months.

An air combat exercise with Royal Air Force concluded just recently at Kalaikunda air base in West Bengal. The RAF had brought in Typhoons for the first time for the exercise to showcase its capabilities. The Typhoon campaign in India is being spearheaded by the Germans, but UK is also playing its part in clinching the deal. After the evaluation of the technical bids, the MoD will open the commercial bids. A large section in India believes that political considerations will overrule all other factors in deciding the winner. Intense lobbying is underway to put pressure on India.

[Philip]

"VIFFing".Some info on how the Harrier uses "VIFFing" as an advantage in air combat.The same will apply to aircraft with TVC as those without TVC.

The air combat technique of vectoring in forward flight, or viffing, was evolved in the Harrier to outmaneuver a hostile aircraft or other inbound weapon.

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

In forward flight, the Harrier is at an advantage compared with fixed wing aircraft in that in the event of stalling, recovery is possible by quickly adjusting the thrust vector and throttle. For STOL and VTOL landing, it is necessary to drop below the normal stall speed and apply this method (against all the instincts of the trained fixed wing pilot). The thrust vector control allows for the engine nozzles to be adjusted to a maximum stop of 98 degrees. This facilitates backward motion as needed but is not normally applied during VTOL as the heading into the wind tends to require some forward thrust via attitude control to maintain a fixed hovering position.

The technique of vectoring in forward flight, or "VIFFing", involves rotating the vectored thrust nozzles into a forward-facing position during normal flight. It was a dog-fighting tactic for both (a) higher turns rates than would normally be possible for an aircraft with such a short wing-span and (b) sudden braking. The latter causes a chasing aircraft to overshoot and present itself as a target for e.g. air-to-air missiles. This air combat technique was formally developed by the USMC in the Harrier in the early 1970s.[4][5] Because VIFFing reduces forward thrust, acceleration and manoeuvres in the vertical plane are hampered by thrust vectoring, where thrust-to-weight is more necessary than low wing loading.

In addition to normal flight controls, the Harrier has a lever for controlling the direction of the four vectorable nozzles. The nozzles point rearward with the lever in the forward position for horizontal flight. With the lever back, the nozzles point downward for vertical takeoff or landing.[6][7]

I think that in recent times,we're losing track of the thread,which is which aircraft suits us best for the MMRCA role.Here we have to examine the "slot" in the IAF's inventory that the MMRCA is supposed to fill,aircraft it is going to replace and numbers expected to be acquired and at what cost.If cost is the least factor then the "best' is the easy answer on technical grounds,but at what cost?

I posted earlier the fact that the JF-17 comes in at 1/3rd the cost of an F-16.This means that even if the IAF acquires an MMRCA of F-16 cost,the PAF can acquire 3 times the number for the cost of just one MMRCA! It is here where numbers matter.If we are to acquire an MMRCA costing $75-90m then the PAF can acquire about 7+ JF-17 for the same.How would one MMRCA fare against an opposition factor of a min. of 5-1? With the delay in the LCA's arrival the cost factor bcomes more acute.Most recent analysts have commented about the huge quality improvement in PRC hardware,where even Russian eqpt. reverse engineered by the PRC have been improved upon.

One further point,reg. the last post,about crashes,the fact is that the majority of rashes have been of "single-engined" aircraft.This is a very important fact and why many experts feel that we must go in for a twin-engined fighter for the MMRCA and also naval fighters.

[GeorgeWelch]

1. When two modern fighters face off each other, with similar weapons, it's a level playing field again.

But the thing is, it's NEVER a level playing field.

You would be back to the usage of "little" kinetics to make the difference.

Yes you can imagine scenarios where it makes the difference, just like you can imagine scenarios where any little doodad makes the difference. But again most of the time it won't.

Weapons, electronics, surprise, support, skill and fuel situation are all significantly more important.

If your conclusion were true, then why have fighters at all. Have long range stealth bombers. They have lots of space in their nose. Fit a huge AESA dish and provide the best A2A missiles. Long range, more number of missiles, problems solved .

I am talking about the incremental difference in maneuverability of the fighters on offer. On an absolute scale, they are ALL very maneuverable planes. While relatively, one might have a faster turn rate and one might have a faster climb rater, the difference is minor enough to not make a difference 95% of the time.

Now if you jump all the way down to something as (un)maneuverable as the B-2, then yes, it would make more of a difference.

That said, even the impact of that large of a difference in maneuverability is shrinking as weapons and electronics improve. Perhaps in the future, your vision may come closer to reality than you expect

[GeorgeWelch]

"VIFFing".Some info on how the Harrier uses "VIFFing" as an advantage in air combat.The same will apply to aircraft with TVC as those without TVC.

It's an interesting trick, but wasn't particularly practical. VIFFing was never used by the Harriers in the Falklands.

[koti]

That said, even the impact of that large of a difference in maneuverability is shrinking as weapons and electronics improve. Perhaps in the future, your vision may come closer to reality than you expect

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... fswsWjbLRw

"VIFFing".Some info on how the Harrier uses "VIFFing" as an advantage in air combat.The same will apply to aircraft with TVC as those without TVC.

It's an interesting trick, but wasn't particularly practical. VIFFing was never used by the Harriers in the Falklands.

Source George?

[nrshah]

I posted earlier the fact that the JF-17 comes in at 1/3rd the cost of an F-16.This means that even if the IAF acquires an MMRCA of F-16 cost,the PAF can acquire 3 times the number for the cost of just one MMRCA! It is here where numbers matter.If we are to acquire an MMRCA costing $75-90m then the PAF can acquire about 7+ JF-17 for the same.How would one MMRCA fare against an opposition factor of a min. of 5-1? With the delay in the LCA's arrival the cost factor bcomes more acute.Most recent analysts have commented about the huge quality improvement in PRC hardware,where even Russian eqpt. reverse engineered by the PRC have been improved upon.

One further point,reg. the last post,about crashes,the fact is that the majority of rashes have been of "single-engined" aircraft.This is a very important fact and why many experts feel that we must go in for a twin-engined fighter for the MMRCA and also naval fighters.

Philip,

Reading your post implies cost of f 16 is only 30Mn USD which is far from best estimates we have... F16 IN cost somewhere around 45-50 Mn USD.

Secondly, I dont feel J 17 cost only 10 to 12 Mn USD, if you can help me with the link for the price... To me, most conservative estimate of J17 cost will range from around 20-25 Mn USD...

With respect to going for number game to counter J 17, none of the MMCRA contender will help us... The cheapest aircraft will be around 40-50 Mn USD... That 2 JF 17 for 1 MMRCA (Cheapest)...

Thus the only aircraft that we need to procure to start number game is LCA cost around 25-30 Mn USD in the current form and around (my estimate) 30 Mn - 35 Mn USD while providing much superior specs...

[Juggi G]

AESA Radars for the Land of Elephants



Courtesy @ NorthropGrumman's New Print Ad

[kit]

AESA Radars for the Land of Elephants



Courtesy @ NorthropGrumman's New Print Ad

Why the elephant ?! Why dont they show a picture of LCA or a GSLV... anything to pictorise indian tech or at least a tiger .. they do have morons as their PR ! weird contrast .. an elephant and a F16 !

[Pratyush]

Nice ad.

I love it.

[Austin]

Well they probably mean the F-16IN will have the maneuverability of Elephant.

[Dmurphy]

AESA Radars for the Land of Elephants



Courtesy @ NorthropGrumman's New Print Ad

Why the elephant ?! Why dont they show a picture of LCA or a GSLV... anything to pictorise indian tech or at least a tiger .. they do have morons as their PR ! weird contrast .. an elephant and a F16 !

I'm just happy they didn't show a half naked sadhu and a snake charmer with a spectacled cobra!

[Pratyush]

Naah, consider the Elephant in the jungle. It does what it want when it wants. Not many animals can force it change its ways. It lives long and acquires a lot of wisdom.

By depecting India as an Elephant. NG is acknoledging that India does what it wants, when it wants and not many nations can dictate terms to it. Along with an acknoledgemet of the wisdom of ages gained by the nation. Nicely done.

So I love the ad.

[Lalmohan]

the elephant is half naked...

[Pratyush]

It is still an elephant. It will not become a cow or a goat.

[Lalmohan]

besides, elephants have huge mijjiles...

[Pratyush]

Now you are talking

[shukla]

Has Eurofighter forged ahead in India's MMRCA competition?
Defenseworld

An expected visit of Britain’s Defence Secretary Liam Fox to New Delhi later this month is seen as sales call on the Indian MoD to further hardsell the Eurofighter to India. While one report said Eurofighter was ahead on technical evaluation by the Indian Air Force, another said Eurofighter and the Dassault Rafale had scored more points than the others in the technical evaluation report submitted to the MoD over three months ago.

However, there is no official word from the MOD and none of the six contenders- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Eurofighter, MiG, Dassault and SAAB Gripen-have received any communication about the status of their bid. “There is complete silence. We have not heard anything from the MoD after the completion of the flight tests”, a senior Gripen Executive said.

Informed sources told Defenseworld.net that the technical evaluation report lists out how each contender fared against specific clauses in the RFP and whether they met the performance parameters as outlined. “At the end of the technical evaluation, there are winners and losers. The winners will be in the shortlist who will be invited for commercial negotiations.” “At this time, we don’t know which ones will be in the shortlist. While some aircraft may be ahead of others on purely technical parameters, issues such as life cycle costs and offsets could complicate matters in deciding the shortlist”, the sources said.

[Willy]

Please wait for few more ajai shukla reports.. he can sway big votes.

Who's turn is it to host him this time? The French or the Germans????????????????

[Philip]

NRS,Both AWST and Janes' give these figures.Will look for the relevant issues.One has a JF-17 at $10m and the other"1/3" the cost of an F-16.At these prices,even if a JF-17 comes in at $15m,it is a steal.It is why it is being called the "MIG-21 of the 21s century".It will enable Pak to acquire large numbers to offset the IAF's qualitative and numerical superiority.We cannot acquire "300" MMRCAs as one expert has said,because of the time frame-at least 8-10 years,and the costs of an expensive MMRCA,that is we choose the Typhoon.

It is why I feel that we should also acquire apart from whichever MMRCA bird is chosen next year,simultaneously extra MIG-35s,so that in course of time we have 120+ MIG-35s replacing the existing MIG-29s along with as many LCAs as we can produce,which I'm afraid will not be forthcoming fast enough,hence the MIG-35 buy.Had M-2000s been still in production and available we could've obtained them.Building more upgraded Jaguars is one way to keep the numbers of aircaft required for close support (which role the IAF is allegedly averse to doing says the IA!) healthy.That the critical requirement of the IAF right now is "air defence",with falling numbers,a feature in the latest India Today too also indicates that urgent immediate steps have to be taken.The large numbers of MIG-21s that are being pensioned off,too old also to be upgraded to Bison std., should preferably be replaced by another type in service available fast.The SU-30MKIs are being acquired in extra number,and can deal with multiple threats very well,but they cannot be available everywhere in every theatre.

[nrshah]

Phillip,

In case what you say are true (Cost of JF 17 is only 15 mn), then no MMRCA(Mig 35 and Gripen included) will help us match the number game if at all TSP starts playing....I personally dont believe they have economic capability to go beyond 200 in next decade... PRC is also acting smart and with assembly lines gradually shifting to PAK, I think the free lunch is over....

Although, they even fielding this many numbers coupled with F 16 (around 75) will be a sizable force to reckon with and will hold our considerable numbers of fighters towards western border...this is specially worry some as we are already talking of two front war.. However, GOI still dont seem to have awake from its deep sleep...We still have sanctioned strength of only 40 squadrons against the need of around 60 squadrons as is suggested by many experts...

However, in such a case, I will not go for additional variety in the form of Mig 35 (assuming it is not selected), i would go for increased number of LCA (Cheaper than Mig 35 and superior to JF 17)... In case, 35 is selected, dont mind if numbers are increased to say 200....Also, when LCA MK2 comes online, there will be nothing on western border that cannot be matched by it and hence we can deploy more capable aircrafts on eastern border...

[SaiK]

On the Elephant ad, CISMOA stands against it.. cause Elephants have various means of communications - acoustic, touch, radar ears, telepathic, vision etc. So, kinda odd ad. But, be happy they didn't put a heard of goats against it.

[Lalmohan]

as adverts go its seriously dumb
almost as dumb as Loral corp who used to have one of avionics LRU boxes being displayed by scantily clad babeloge...

[Singha]

boeing chinook ad had a bunch of kids playing cricket in ladakh while the chinook is doing a sortie overhead.

[Karan M]

MKI and TVC - found part of it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAlpgOG6z6I

Sirjee, you have misunderstood the pilot. He has said what I am saying!

The pilot starts to describe a roll. And then he explains why the Su-30 doesn't need to complete a roll to change directions as it can do a post stall maneuver. He never says that the role of the Su-30 is faster.

What is speaking off is again a nose pointing ability. ...snip.

Actually, I didnt misunderstand him and quoted the exact thing he repeated in the video, you misinterpreted what I was saying and have gone off on a tangent, assuming I didn't get what he was saying. My point was & is pretty simple, that despite the cost in terms of velocity, the incredible nose pointing & ability to use TVC effectively makes it a very useful tool for air combat. That is obvious both from the confidence the pilot has in the use of TVC & the results at Mountain Home AFB, where the TVC MKIs racked up an incredible 21:1 ratio with the 1: referring to disputed kills. Furthermore, the AL-31FP is a remarkable engine, which can rapidly spool up to deliver the required power & the aircraft can regain the velocity it has lost

In short, I was pointing to the fact that the presence of TVC is another tool in the toolbox for the well trained pilot, who can use it to either bleed energy of a missile at distance provided sufficient warning is available, by taking rapid turns within the specified speed envelope (during which TVC is used) and even use it to evade BVR missiles fired at range. The MKI can conduct a 180 degree turn using TVC and then spool up its engines to regain velocity and escape.

This, in terms of time taken, may even turn out to be more effective than maneuvering conventionally, beginning from a position when the aircraft nose is pointed towards the threat and with high reflective areas available to both the enemy radar, the radar-missile combination has the best chances of retaining lock.

Rough rule of thumb is that the range reduces to a third when aircraft is receding versus approaching, and clutter may reduce range by another 15-20%. In other words, use TVC, to get in the entirely opposite threat axis from the threat and dive towards the ground if need be, while jamming!

Still don't get what I am saying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e08QYEa_tho
Watch between 1:03 and 1:05.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lhBGOFOtK4
There are many instances in this video as well - and this is an IAF Su-30 MKI flown by an IAF pilot. Note the 70 years finflash -for the 70th anniversary of the IAF.

So, please move on from semantic nitpicking of this, that, and try to understand what I am saying. You can find even better quality videos of the MKI making a 180 degree turn on youtube, if you search.

In an interview given in 2006 (where for once a PAF brass hat was not given to too much jingoism), this is what then PAF Chief Tanvir Ahmad said about the MKI and TVC:

Q. How can you compare F-16 and Su-30?

Ans. These aircraft can be compared in many ways. Su-30 MKI has powerful radar but it can be detected by the AEW&C systems and the F-16s will thus be aware of its presence. Apart from that both aircraft can carry latest weapon systems. Su-30 MKI has the capacity to carry heavy loads and more fuel but this can be countered with the help of AAR. In the same manner Chinese F-10A is also an excellent platform in countering this threat and can carry heavier loads than the F-16.

Q. Is this a reality that Thrust Vectoring technology gives an edge in air to air combat? PAF does not possess this technology whereas IAF possess it.

Ans. Thrust Vectoring is an added capability in turning dogfights and close combat, but since the air war of today mostly is fought beyond visual range and effective medium to short range missile coupled with HMS, it’s importance has declined.Thrust vectoring can be effective in evading a missile, either BVR or SAM.

The end result is a fairly effective platform across the board. The Russians recognise the benefits of TVC and are integrating it in both the Su-35 & the PAK-FA. It speaks volumes that despite the focus on high speed BVR, the PAK-FA is supposed to excel in, the TVC has been retained.

Furthermore:

Karan Sahab you are putting words in my mouth ... I said mud movers who could do the job ... that doesnt mean removing SAM batteries is mud moving.

Btw, one argument for the MMRCA over the Su-30 is that they are single pilot systems. But then IAF seems to like a dedicated WSO for the heavier aircrafts.

Who says removing SAM batteries is not mud moving? Again, lets not get stuck in semantics here, because for all practical purposes hitting any ground based target is mud moving. And it is the mud moving that wins the war, all said and done, because the job of air dominance fighters and other specialist mud movers is to allow the bulk of the strikers do their job, whether it is CAS, deep strike or interdiction of supply lines.

The point I was making was that the more mature systems like Rafale have a very high level of automation and clarity of purpose given to mud moving or whatever, and will hence be very valuable in the strike role, even with single seaters. In contrast, fighters like the Gripen etc and in development types like the MiG-35, simply, do not have the level of sophistication and maturity integrated platforms like the Rafale bring to the fight.

There was a slide presented by a USAF CAS, who noted the number of types it took him to effectively persecute a mission with an advanced IADS & advanced 4 Gen fighters. Add up a bunch of EW escorts from the Navy (EA-6), a bunch of F-16CJs with Harm missiles & then finally F-15s to protect all of this gaggle, a few tankers and finally, the actual dumb/PGM equipped aircraft for strike. What a menagerie.

In contrast, a single type like the Rafale can handle all these roles, even tanking with buddy refuelling. The advantages are obvious of fielding numbers of a single type for multiple missions, and retasking can be done within the mission itself. The French refer to this as omni-role, as versus swing role, where an aircraft can be tailored for different missions before hand, but needs prep before it is sent for each mission in specific. The advanced avionics and management systems available on these fighters are not to be dismissed as swanky gadgets, but are actually essential. Which is another plus for the heavier more developed fighters, versus the "cheap" lower capability fighters, which will end up requiring much more support to do the tasks expected of them, in the Indo-China theater, where China is not a pushover, unlike what we saw in the lopsided conflicts in the Balkans or the Iraq conflict.

[Indranil]

Karan sahab you return after a hiatus and stir up the mud again.

This is what you had written.

He specifically mentioned & explained the ROT bit, noting that in a close combat situation, the MKI would cause a pursuing fighter to overshoot as it would pull a tighter turn.

I took the simplest meaning and explained whatever I explained. Since then I have posted a lot on what TVC can enable you and how it is an extra tool. You have come back after 2 weeks and spilled out the exact same things in a long post. You can read the past few pages where I have answered some other posters. Please let me know if I have written anything else than what you are saying in your latest post.

Regarding the MMRCA choices, I have made my understanding amply clear in the past and so have you. I don't believe there is a single right or wrong here. Something seems more right to you and something seems more right to me. It has also come to the fore that many knowledgeable people belong to my school of thought. So I can't be entirely wrong.

As I have said before I will be happy whichever way MMRCA goes as I think all the planes are very capable. In my idea getting 200 low priced fighters against 126 uber-tech fighters would not be that bad an idea. The field avionics grows much faster than aerodynamics. You can always upgrade avionics in this cat and mouse game of detection/evasion. But you can't add airframes so fast. Unfortunately no matter how advanced your plane is the attrition rates due to maintenance, pilot error, general peace time attrition rate will always take down planes at almost the same rate. For e.g IIRC correctly we have lost 2 Su-30s and 2 Mig-21s in the past 2 years. It was nothing unusual. These are complex machines, which will fail. It is an accepted fact of defense aviation. so starting off with a bigger number can only be a good thing. That is peace time. Aerial wars have often shown that the inferior planes have triumphed over superior planes because of planning, strategy, know-how, pilot training. modernity of the plane is only one aspect of the whole ball game. so if you say EF/Rafale is 100% and Gripen/Mig-35 is 80% ( and this is only avionics wise ). Then the difference in the overall wartime attrition only gets shorter.

Anyways these are some ideas that I have through my reading and are just my thoughts. Anything I write here will be repeating myself which will lead to you repeating yourself. So I rest my case here.

[Karan M]

Karan sahab you return after a hiatus and stir up the mud again.

Boss, I reply when I can, and the internet is not my life. And if you consider any replies to be "stirring the mud", then whats the point of a debate. Not everyone has the time to sit up and keep responding as and when you want them!

This is what you had written.
Quote:
He specifically mentioned & explained the ROT bit, noting that in a close combat situation, the MKI would cause a pursuing fighter to overshoot as it would pull a tighter turn.

I took the simplest meaning and explained whatever I explained.

[/quote]

The point was that you need not have taken "the simplest meaning", if the larger context was kept in mind. Who has the time to get into nitpicking about ITR, STR, and how a MKI pilot has the advantage thanks to an overwhelming advantage in the former and quite a substantial latter.. I have provided most of the details in the post above and at least now, hopefully, it should be clear. So lets move on.

Since then I have posted a lot on what TVC can enable you and how it is an extra tool. You have come back after 2 weeks and spilled out the exact same things in a long post. You can read the past few pages where I have answered some other posters. Please let me know if I have written anything else than what you are saying in your latest post.

Oh come on. You have posted some stuff which is correct, and some is absolutely missing. Nowhere did I see the exact details mentioned of the operational use of TVC for you to claim that you said it all and now I "spilled out the exact same things in a long post". A bit too grandiose, when as matter of fact your own post on 10 Nov 2010, noted

I don't see the use of TVC in BVR. However I would love to learn more here.

While you & others here have focused mostly on post stall, out of envelope maneuvering viz. evasion, my point was (with the vids) to demonstrate how TVC can assist in current BVR tactics themselves & how it would affect current weapons system aspects, viz radar performance, jamming etc. Not radical Pugachev or what not.

In short, my post around the operational use of TVC, as versus academic point scoring. Those serious & interested in the topic should have hopefully got enough information about what TVC can do as seen with their own eyes to relate to their understanding & also learnt what India's own opponent thinks of the capability.

Regarding the MMRCA choices, I have made my understanding amply clear in the past and so have you. I don't believe there is a single right or wrong here. Something seems more right to you and something seems more right to me. It has also come to the fore that many knowledgeable people belong to my school of thought. So I can't be entirely wrong.

As I have said before I will be happy whichever way MMRCA goes as I think all the planes are very capable. In my idea getting 200 low priced fighters against 126 uber-tech fighters would not be that bad an idea. The field avionics grows much faster than aerodynamics. You can always upgrade avionics in this cat and mouse game of detection/evasion. But you can't add airframes so fast. Unfortunately no matter how advanced your plane is the attrition rates due to maintenance, pilot error, general peace time attrition rate will always take down planes at almost the same rate. For e.g IIRC correctly we have lost 2 Su-30s and 2 Mig-21s in the past 2 years. It was nothing unusual. These are complex machines, which will fail. It is an accepted fact of defense aviation. so starting off with a bigger number can only be a good thing. That is peace time. Aerial wars have often shown that the inferior planes have triumphed over superior planes because of planning, strategy, know-how, pilot training. modernity of the plane is only one aspect of the whole ball game. so if you say EF/Rafale is 100% and Gripen/Mig-35 is 80% ( and this is only avionics wise ). Then the difference in the overall wartime attrition only gets shorter.

Now, here you are with a "long post" which is not even contextual! Who was even making the claims above for you to counter them.

And then you use percentages of your own volition (giving the Gripen/MiG-35 a 80% versus a 100% of the EF/Rafale etc - when the former aircraft are not even developed to begin with and hence the percentages can skew far more!) so how can one even claim "Then the difference in the overall wartime attrition only gets shorter. - when the capabilities brought in by the more mature, advanced types are additive, are demonstrated and can translate to overwhelming superiority!

And BTW, for all those claiming the PLAAF was no big deal and could be faced by India's upgraded Su-30's - I see a lot of familiar faces indignant at the possibility that the Su-35 is on offer to the PLAAF! Still believe that everything is hunky dory in China? "Big trouble in little China", or so it seems

Then you note that "starting off with a bigger number can only be a better thing" but its been repeatedly pointed out to you that the MMRCA tender is only for 126 aircraft with 63 as options! And that there are exact quotes given previously from the Brazil tender which show that the cost calculations for Gripen etc., were off the mark. Why this bizarre focus on numbers of a relatively less advanced type, when India has its own LCA MK2 bringing many of the same capabilities to the table, at far lesser cost to boot.

Furthermore, the statement "general peace time attrition rate will always take down planes at almost the same rate. For e.g IIRC correctly we have lost 2 Su-30s and 2 Mig-21s in the past 2 years. It was nothing unusual."- is absolutely incorrect as it ignores the quantum of flying the average Sukhois does versus the average in squadron MiG-21s and how much more safety, the twin engine Sukhois provide in the Indian context, which is full of aircrashes due to bird strikes, and other hazards which affect single seaters more. Not to mention the fact that a fighter ordered in large numbers and not just by India will also have a more comprehensive knowledge based developed operationally, translating to advantages in safety updates, and logistics supply chain, which again supports the EF, Hornet and Rafale.

But lets recap to the actual discussion which prompted my reply.

The point that was being addressed was fairly straightforward, first you stated that the on-the-fly targeting capability demonstrated by Rafale was no big deal, and that "swanky gadgets" (your words) were not such a big deal either, and so on and so forth. Plus you mixed up a professional pilot evaluation with an airshow demo! And then you got caught up in a semantic game of what mud-moving was, indignantly claiming that attacking SAM batteries was not mud moving?! Does that even matter, who cares?

What my "long post" was demonstrating, with actual verifiable evidence each time around is that these "swanky gadgets" matter, are appreciated by serious test flying and evaluators and nor do they come about as easily as you infer when you state "You can always upgrade avionics in this cat and mouse game of detection/evasion.".

Such statements absolutely ignore the fact that many of these avionics capabilities cannot be easily added to any airframe and need to be factored into the beginning design itself! And many of these capabilities are sensitive (for instance targeting mobile emitters using inbuilt ESM) and not available via simpler platforms. It becomes even more interesting when these "extra capabilities" soak up vital pylons on the lighter fighters, which carry less to begin with, and will now carry even lesser thanks to quick-fix additions

The Rafale links in the prior post if you read them, show the effort required to field integrated capabilities as part of the original design itself. It took a decade and a half for the capabilities to mature to the point where it is today. The twin heavies like the SH, Rafale and EF, have invested over a decades worth of development effort into the avionics and their integration with advanced airframes.

Compare and contrast, to developing an existing 4G airframe further (as in the MiG-35) and putting a hodge podge of avionics items from east and west, trying to make up for missing capabilities! Or trying to stretch an existing light fighter and then claiming it will anyday be the equal of fighters designed to do far more, and from day one.

That approach is going to be time intensive, expensive and even a logistical problem, given unlike the Su-30 India is not even involved in the development but procuring these aircraft off the shelf.

I would also request you to read up about Wild Weasels & what their roles were to understand the amount of effort that has gone into acquiring "extra capabilities" which are absolutely necessary, but cannot be replaced by simpler fighters.

I hope this closes the topic on "swanky gadgets" and "mud moving".

You are welcome to continue to push the case for simple fighters and swarming or whatever, but I am only concerned with logical fallacies and bringing out the details viz what we need for the MMRCA. I have no ideology in this fight bar a focus on India's needs.

Though the EF is arguably superior in some aspects of A2A, I actually think the Rafale is better in terms of strike & eitherways, India should go for the best platform based on its threat perception. Not because a decade back we wanted some less capable fighter, so this should do, or because we end up taking a dodgy deal projected as cheap, and turned out to cost an arm and a leg, when actually developed.

And please dont come back with another gung ho statement about how "Aerial wars have often shown that the inferior planes have triumphed over superior planes because of planning, strategy, know-how, pilot training" as India neither has the luxury of assuming that its foes lack "planning, strategy" and as a matter of fact as things stand, China's "know how" is considerably ahead of India's given that it fields many batteries of S-300 PMU SAMs & relying only pilot training to be the decider, after spending $10 Billion plus - sure, that makes sense.

[Juggi G]

boeing chinook ad had a bunch of kids playing cricket in ladakh while the chinook is doing a sortie overhead.

[Karan M]

^^ Nice ad

Much better than the Elephant and F-16 one which just did'nt make sense. How hard would it have been to PS a F-16IN with a few Su-30 MKIs flying together and put that as ad instead

[Philip]

If the LCA was in production I would plump for more LCAs,but from all available info,govt. statements too,the max number that will be produced per year will be 8-10 at the very most and this only after the MK-2 is perfected,a task which now involves the redesign of the fuselage,etc.,making the aircraft different from the prototypes/MK-1 .In that case all we can expect is 120-if we build one per month,by 2020.This a number woefully short of what we require.Similarly,we cannot expect whichever bird is chosen as the MMRCA to build 200-300 in just 5 years,as the IAF itself expects the MMRCA to arrive only by 2015,giving us just 5 years of production,to produce more than the 126+ even if the rate is 2 per month! Add LCA production to MMRCA acquisitions,and the number is about 250 aircraft,keeping in mind that the bulk of MMRCA production will also be done in India and we know how delays have beset every project! These new -build numbers (250) will just manage to replace the MIG-21s being pensioned off.It sill keeps the IAF's sqd. strength below 40,when amin. of 50-55 is rqd. to deal with Pak and China simultaneously.

The "danger period of 7 years" is now,not 2020 when by then the FGFA will also be in service along with the full complement of SU-30s,many upgraded with some 5th-gen eqpt.So where do we obtain the extra 15-200 aircraft that we sorely need apartf rom the LCAs,etc.and what types? Ideally,acquiring more of a type in service is best instead of acquiring a new type,which is why I've suggsted also acquiring 120+ MIG-35s to also in course of time replace the older MIG-29s.The MIG-35 and Gripen are the cheapest solutions.They might be 2-3 times as much as a JF-17,but will be significantly superior.I think that 2 sqds. of both Gripen and Rafale can be acquired immediately fom Swedish and French forcesif either aircraft is chosen.The MMRCA alone will not be able top make up the shortfall in the IAF in the crucial years ahead.

[Indranil]

Karan M,

You write something and keep asking me to look into "context". I ask you what other meaning of does your sentence have other than saying that TVC shortens the ROT and helps pull a tighter turn?

He specifically mentioned & explained the ROT bit, noting that in a close combat situation, the MKI would cause a pursuing fighter to overshoot as it would pull a tighter turn.

If you want to write statements which mean literally and "contextually" (I know not what you mean) different then please provide some clue to the reader.

Getting back to the usage of TVC in BVR. As far as I have read when one detects that a BVR missile or SAM the first thing one does a sharp 90 degree turn (if you want I will cite you many literature on this, but you can easily find the same with an easy Google search). The direction of turn (up-down-left-right) depends on many things (like seeker of the missiles, relative clutter on ground, whether it is a cloudy day or a sunny day, you might laugh on the last proposition but you would be surprised that they are actually considered when evading missiles). This is to have the largest perpendicular speed to get out of the FOV of the missile. The FOV of most missiles is a cone in the longitudinal direction of the missile. As far as I know here the TVC is of no use to turn significantly faster.

You have argued that if the missile was launched head on, it would be very helpful to do a 180 degree turn as in a tail chase the range is much smaller. You have argued that the AL31 can accelerate the Su-30 up to speed pretty fast after a stall maneuver. The stall maneuver to do a 180 degree turn is the hammerhead (also called the stall maneuver). However, this is highly debatable because a clean Su-30 completes a 180 degree turn in around 10 seconds. A hammerhead from 700 kms would take more time than that and your exit speed would be significantly lesser (as the during a turn the plane go on full AF right from the beginning of the turn. Also with a turn you put more distance between yourself and the missile (= roughly the diameter of your turn).

So no, I have never read that when a a pilot sees BVR/SAM on his screen, he pulls a post stall maneuver to reverse his direction. Please point me to any instance of the same and I will be greatly obliged.

[shukla]

boeing chinook ad had a bunch of kids playing cricket in ladakh while the chinook is doing a sortie overhead.

Boeing 1; Lockheed 0

[shukla]

F16IN single engine aircraft apt for MMRCA: Lockheed Martin

F-16IN Press Conference Part - 01



F 16IN Press Conference Part 02

[youtube]5a1yZk8b0AE&feature=related[/youtube]

[johnny_m]

F 16 IN is not the end of F 16 but the start he says. I wonder what more they can put into that airframe

[Pratyush]

Nice add, Like it more then the NG one. He he........

[nrshah]

F 16 IN is not the end of F 16 but the start he says. I wonder what more they can put into that airframe

What else he would have said? The problem is no one questions, why US is not buying the rejuvenated and the very capable F16 with claimed generous sprinkle of 5th Gen technologies at half the price rather than expensive JSF....