Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

[Kartik]

While looking up google for how this supposed "baked in" process works, I ran into this..it appears that the F-35 also has RAM coatings applied afterwards and not all RAM is "baked in"

SAE.org- Robotic Aircraft Finishing System applies RAM coating on the F-35

To meet the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s strict radar cross-section and weight requirements, stealth coatings must be applied to extremely precise thickness tolerances. Lockheed Martin has implemented what it calls a unique robotic aircraft finishing system (RAFS) at the company’s Fort Worth, TX, plant to achieve this end.

The RAFS hardware capabilities were validated by the first successful coating of a production F-35 aircraft at RAFS in December 2008. Coating thickness control on the robotically coated unit was far superior to that of a hand-coated.

The RAFS applies a special radar absorbing material (RAM) coating over all surfaces of the fully assembled F-35 except for the horizontal and vertical tails and various small parts that are coated in a separate Robotic Component Finishing System. RAFS comprises three six-axis robots mounted to auxiliary axis rails. All robots have X- and Y-axis rails, and the aft robot has an additional Z-axis lift to maneuver around the vertical tails on the top surface of the aircraft. Installation of RAFS was completed in June 2008. Coating process development was conducted using the fiberglass Finish Application Mockup of the F-35.

and this is what a top LM official had said

Lockheed’s O’Bryan told reporter Tirpak that the F-35′s advanced technology will reverse this trend of gradually eroded stealth. In contrast to old-style coatings, “the conductive materials needed to absorb and disperse incoming radar energy [on the F-35] are baked directly into the aircraft’s multilayer composite skin and structure,” Tirpak reported, citing O’Bryan.

[NRao]

Just to be clear, the problem occurs only under one circumstance and only on one part of the air craft. This from Aug, 2012:

Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher
than expected temperatures during sustained
high-speed/high-altitude flight, resulting in
delamination and scorching of the surface coatings
and structure.

[Victor]

..how assinine such a suggestion by Philip is? He is so incredibly biased against the Tejas that ANYTHING else will look good to him. ANYTHING.

No matter how good LCA is, it is about time we took some smelling salts and realize that Tejas is nowhere to be seen and won't be for several years yet and it is not because IAF didn't place an order for 500 of them.

One of the most daunting hurdles ahead is to convert the "2 days to change engine" situation to a maximum of 2 hours even though comparable jets take 30 minutes or less. I won't hold my breath, even if we spend an arm and a leg for foreign "consultants". Can we fault the IAF for being forced to fall back on ancient MiG-21s for at least another decade? What else can they do?

It is almost certain that the incoming COAS will do a complete re-look at MMRCA under these circumstances, including license manufacture, ToT and offsets. He can't afford to say "there is no backup plan" because there has to be one and we are discussing it right here.

[NRao]

The 2 days to change an engine is because the engines are sooooo reliable that they do not need that many changes. So, you see, it really does not matter.

[vishvak]

Changing Engine situation seems to be an unanswerable problem in aircraft industry. That issue seem to be demonstrable in USA engines for example MMRCA competition if I remember correctly.

[Karan M]

If the engine change issue was such a big deal, where are the engine orders to prove it? The number of engines ordered for the LCA are just about sufficient for the production run and the engines ordered come from IAF requirements.

Here, NRao's point about engine reliability is also correct. Anyone who has tracked the program consistently would know the engine performance and the actuator performance has been exemplary. Both have pretty good rates of use. The only other reason would be damage due to battle.

In a compact aircraft like the LCA, any battle damage that severely damages the LCA is likely to cause far more damage than just a simple engine change. It will have to be hauled back to the base workshop or even HAL. Only the Sukhoi is perhaps an exception given it uses titanium armoring for its engine bays, and even those cannot prevent a lucky round from say hitting a hydraulic line elsewhere and causing severe damage. Modern aircraft (bar a few exceptions like the A-10 and Su-25) are not built for heavy duty battle damage sustainment.

And tight placement of the engine is a given, considering that the IAF specified a MiG-21 replacement, but with far greater capabilities, which mean more has to be put in a smaller airframe. Relax those constraints and designers get more to play around with.

Second, if the engine change issue was a make or break one - why would the IAF even commit to two squadrons of MK1? Having been an observer of the IA/AF process for a very long time, any *must and should have* issue is never ignored either by them.

Which brings us to the third point, what makes one think that any and every LCA related issue is not being handled by the team?

A lot of the info in that article by the ex NFTC gent is clearly out of date. In another thread, you already have the reports of MK2 testing going on already (as versus claims it will take ages for ADA to start off there)

Also, there is prior history to consider. Take a look at engineering changes till date. Thanks to IAF disinterest in the LCA initially, and then IAF pilots getting hands on during test flying, a lot of engineering changes had piled up and were compressed into the timeframe between the TD & FSED (ideally many could have been addressed in the TD phase itself). But they have been prioritized and handled.

The LCA for instance, accomodating ever changing IAF reqs is on its 3'rd mission avionics iteration already. The Su's in contrast are yet to get to their second. The LCA's DFCC and other systems were flagged for using older microprocessors. The DFCC is arguably the most complex avionics hardware in the entire aircraft, in terms of flight safety. Its being upgraded to a newer design already.

Net, this is not a deal breaker from the IAF POV. Its something they would like to be improved, which will be done by the LCA team, but its not something that will prevent them from fielding an aircraft whose operational reliability is likely to be far greater than their older MiGs which average around 60%, and combat capability will be far greater than a MiG-21 Bison (which has 5 pylons to the LCAs 8, and inferior sensors overall).

[Victor]

The 2 days to change an engine is because the engines are sooooo reliable that they do not need that many changes. So, you see, it really does not matter.

Maybe they baked the engine into the airframe.

[NRao]

The 2 days to change an engine is because the engines are sooooo reliable that they do not need that many changes. So, you see, it really does not matter.

Maybe they baked the engine into the airframe.

That process they did try, but then they found they had to toss the whole damn thing into the bin - the engine would not delaminate. That, of course, was not a good option. So, they let go of baking anything (except cakes I guess).

[Victor]

Changing Engine situation seems to be an unanswerable problem in aircraft industry. That issue seem to be demonstrable in USA engines for example MMRCA competition if I remember correctly.

Not sure what you are saying here but the same engines in the F-18 can be changed in 20 minutes by a 4-man crew.

[GeorgeWelch]

If the goal of an MRCA alternative is to quickly and affordably arrest falling squadron numbers, the best solution is still the SH. It's available in large numbers right now, it's extremely capable and flexible, it's very reliable and it's very affordable both to purchase and to operate. It's fully capable right now and doesn't depend on some future development to meet basic combat requirements. It carries a huge variety of weapons and pods right now. It's future upgrade path is secured for the next 30 years so India doesn't have to worry about funding upgrades all by itself. It will work on current ski-jump carriers and off possible catapult-carriers in the future. It can be converted to a dedicated EW-plane (Growler/Grizzly). It comes with world-class logistics support. To me, these are exactly the sort of attributes that should be considered for a stop-gap plane that will take some pressure off LCA, AMCA and FGFA programs.

[Karan M]

The 2 days to change an engine is because the engines are sooooo reliable that they do not need that many changes. So, you see, it really does not matter.

Maybe they baked the engine into the airframe.

For the amount all that baking shaking and other stuff has cost till date, the IAF could probably buy off the PAF and PLAAF to blow up their own planes.

[NRao]

If the goal of an MRCA alternative is to quickly and affordably arrest falling squadron numbers, the best solution is still the SH. It's available in large numbers right now, it's extremely capable and flexible, it's very reliable and it's very affordable both to purchase and to operate. It's fully capable right now and doesn't depend on some future development to meet basic combat requirements. It carries a huge variety of weapons and pods right now. It's future upgrade path is secured for the next 30 years so India doesn't have to worry about funding upgrades all by itself. It will work on current ski-jump carriers and off possible catapult-carriers in the future. It can be converted to a dedicated EW-plane (Growler/Grizzly). It comes with world-class logistics support. To me, these are exactly the sort of attributes that should be considered for a stop-gap plane that will take some pressure off LCA, AMCA and FGFA programs.

+1.

While at it, buy some affordable RAM from your friendly hardware store, and you should be in business to keep the Pakis and Chicoms out of your hair.

[pragnya]

The 2 days to change an engine is because the engines are sooooo reliable that they do not need that many changes. So, you see, it really does not matter.

which article is being referred to?? i may have missed it. can it be pointed to me??

tia.

[Mihir]

One of the most daunting hurdles ahead is to convert the "2 days to change engine" situation to a maximum of 2 hours even though comparable jets take 30 minutes or less. I won't hold my breath, even if we spend an arm and a leg for foreign "consultants". Can we fault the IAF for being forced to fall back on ancient MiG-21s for at least another decade? What else can they do?

Oh, that is because the tolerances are too tight. What they should have done was increase the diameters of the "ring-like components" a little. That would have solved the problem. It is a testament to the incompetence of ADA, HAL, HVF Avadhi, Mazgaon Docks, etc. that they didn't do something that simple.

[Mihir]

If the goal of an MRCA alternative is to quickly and affordably arrest falling squadron numbers, the best solution is still the SH. It's available in large numbers right now, it's extremely capable and flexible, it's very reliable and it's very affordable both to purchase and to operate. It's fully capable right now and doesn't depend on some future development to meet basic combat requirements. It carries a huge variety of weapons and pods right now. It's future upgrade path is secured for the next 30 years so India doesn't have to worry about funding upgrades all by itself. It will work on current ski-jump carriers and off possible catapult-carriers in the future. It can be converted to a dedicated EW-plane (Growler/Grizzly). It comes with world-class logistics support. To me, these are exactly the sort of attributes that should be considered for a stop-gap plane that will take some pressure off LCA, AMCA and FGFA programs.

Except for the part about the SH being carrier-capable (as far as India goes), it's hard to argue against your post. On a purely technical level, it comes across as a fantastic package. The Eurofighter would have been nicer given its superior flight performance, but costs of that platform are soaring as well.

[vishvak]

Thanks RahulM, Victor for the explanation.

[Victor]

If the goal of an MRCA alternative is to quickly and affordably arrest falling squadron numbers, the best solution is still the SH.

Unfortunately, the IAF would never order frontline weapons from an untrustworthy USA like M4 carbine P8i Apache Chinook C-17 C-130 M777 Super Hornet. The IAF being such a wily, corrupt, anti-national outfit, no wonder that strategically crucial epitome of India's self reliance, the LCA, has General Electric F404s and F414s for its very guts--the plan is to use it for Republic Day fly pasts only, not as a frontline fighter.

[GeorgeWelch]

Except for the part about the SH being carrier-capable (as far as India goes), it's hard to argue against your post.

Boeing has already done the studies to show it would work off the ski-jump on the Vikramaditya (and by extension, the Vikrant).

[Karan M]

If the goal of an MRCA alternative is to quickly and affordably arrest falling squadron numbers, the best solution is still the SH.

Unfortunately, the IAF would never order frontline weapons from an untrustworthy USA like M4 carbine P8i Apache Chinook C-17 C-130 M777 Super Hornet. The IAF being such a wily, corrupt, anti-national outfit, no wonder that strategically crucial epitome of India's self reliance, the LCA, has General Electric F404s and F414s for its very guts--the plan is to use it for Republic Day fly pasts only, not as a frontline fighter.

Still doesn't change the fact that subcomponents apart, when it came to actual full combat aircraft the IAF found both the American offerings, the SH and Viper, subpar.

[negi]

If the goal of an MRCA alternative is to quickly and affordably arrest falling squadron numbers, the best solution is still the SH.

And sir it was given a platform and a chance to sweat it out against the contenders and it failed to make the CUT, now it comes from as big a name as it can get and backed by arguably the most suave arms dealers out there so I don't think anyone can cry foul unless evidence to suggest the contrary exists.

I am not even going into world class logistics support because that is subjective to the whims of a government which has never been sensitive to our concerns and interests , enough said.

[negi]

Except for the part about the SH being carrier-capable (as far as India goes), it's hard to argue against your post.

Boeing has already done the studies to show it would work off the ski-jump on the Vikramaditya (and by extension, the Vikrant).

Nahin chahiye re baba; Mig 29K are already here. We will have the LCA N inducted in next 5-7 years.

[GeorgeWelch]

If the goal of an MRCA alternative is to quickly and affordably arrest falling squadron numbers, the best solution is still the SH.

And sir it was given a platform and a chance to sweat it out against the contenders and it failed to make the CUT.

As has already been explained, that was for the MRCA. Perhaps in light of the changing situations, the MRCA isn't the way to go and a more pragmatic approach is called for.

Trying to tie 100 different goals into one program is just a way to ensure that none of them are met. Judging solely on technical specs while ignoring cost is also not reasonable. Yes, better performance is nice, but how much is it worth? Is 10% better performance worth paying 100% more for an interim aircraft?

I am not even going into world class logistics support because that is subjective to the whims of a government which has never been sensitive to our concerns and interests , enough said.

To be blunt, the MRCA is not needed to take on Pakistan. Where it would be required would be China. Do you trust the French, who have been eagerly pushing to have the arms embargo on China lifted, to provide logistics support if China threatened them?

[negi]

^ Read your post again PLEASE.

First point you make is 10% better performance is not worth the extra money .

Second point says it is for China and not for TSP. I mean man come on please do not be so desperate to peddle a platform when it does not cut it for us in trials.

[GeorgeWelch]

Nahin chahiye re baba; Mig 29K are already here. We will have the LCA N inducted in next 5-7 years.

Of course, I was merely pointing out that the flexibility is there.

Also, those will not work of a catapult equipped carrier while the SH will.

[negi]

^ We will cross that bridge when we reach that stage. Heck we will have a AMCA IN version for that .

[GeorgeWelch]

I mean man come on please do not be so desperate to peddle a platform when it does not cut it for us in trials.

The MRCA standards were aspirational. As in, the IAF was asked, 'If you could have anything in a fighter, what would you like?'

Ok, that's nice, but just because a product doesn't meet every aspirational goal doesn't mean it would not work, and work very well, for the IAF.

[GeorgeWelch]

^ We will cross that bridge when we reach that stage. Heck we will have a AMCA IN version for that .

Perhaps. Again, I was merely pointing out the flexibility of the platform. It can be used for any and every role, helping to make it a good value.

[negi]

^ You do realize the irony here right ?

So it is the IAF which needs to defend our skies, it is the IAF which needs to fly the damn fighter and yet somehow we manage to float this nonsense that it might have not selected the RIGHT (not the BEST) platform for it's needs ?

How does one even defend this kind of a pov ?

[GeorgeWelch]

So it is the IAF which needs to defend our skies, it is the IAF which needs to fly the damn fighter and yet somehow we manage to float this nonsense that it might have not selected the RIGHT (not the BEST) platform for it's needs ?

It is not unusual for the civil government to exercise oversight of the military, in fact that is their job. The USN developed the Seawolf but Congress said it wasn't affordable so sent them back to come up with the Virginia. The IAF selected the KC-30 but the GoI said it was too expensive and told them to reconsider. The IAF can pick the 'best' fighter, but that does not mean there is the budget for it. As always 'best for India' cannot be determined strictly from specs. You have several advanced fighter programs in development. It wouldn't do to steal money from them, the future of the Indian fleet, to fund a stop-gap fighter.

[negi]

^ Sir I think you need to re visit the MMRCA deal it is not for nothing that it took so long. There is a reason why RFP was sent to so many parties, there is a reason why not ONE but TWO platforms were sent for approval by the IAF i..e Rafale and EF. Now as per the media Rafale made it on lower COSTS as compared to the EF.

[Victor]

What we are trying to discuss here are alternatives to the MMRCA. ie. what do we do if the MMRCA goes phut and neither the Rafale or Typhoon are available because of their refusal to adhere to requirements--HAL/ToT/offsets--as seems likely. If not and Rafale appears on the horizon, then hallelujah and this thread is closed.

Everything is open to discussion, including the very idea of the MMRCA itself in today's circumstances. Will the IAF choose the Super Hornet if it can't take off from Leh? Of course not and nobody should expect it to. Would the IAF test it again in Leh with the more powerful engine? You bet your boots it will.

^ We will cross that bridge when we reach that stage. Heck we will have a AMCA IN version for that .

This is the problem. Let us first make the freaking IJT before we confidently make plans based on AMCA and Naboo Starfighter. That is downright irresponsible and foolhardy. I'm a big fan of positive thinking but we need to steer clear of the edge.

[negi]

^ Who are you to call it what is foolhardy and what is not ? AMCA is very much on the cards , the name might change but it is very much in DRDO and ADA's gunsights.
You can't use IJT to beat other good things which we have done , this like saying let us first make more toilets and roads than the Chandrayaan. They can and should be pursued independently.

[GeorgeWelch]

^ Sir I think you need to re visit the MMRCA deal it is not for nothing that it took so long.

And is continuing to take so long.

Namely that it is too complicated and is trying to tie too many separate goals into one package.

In fact, the basic MRCA requirements were written so long ago and so many things have changed in the interim, that perhaps it's time to revisit them.

What is needed is to simplify the process and split the goals so there is a project whose SOLE aim is to procure a stop-gap fighter.

Now as per the media Rafale made it on lower COSTS as compared to the EF.

So what?

Saying it's cheaper than another over-priced fighter doesn't mean much.

How does the cost compare to the SH? That is a far more interesting question.

[negi]

And is continuing to take so long.

Namely that it is too complicated and is trying to tie too many separate goals into one package.

In fact, the basic MRCA requirements were written so long ago and so many things have changed in the interim, that perhaps it's time to revisit them.

What is needed is to simplify the process and split the goals so there is a project whose SOLE aim is to procure a stop-gap fighter.

You are not helping either by trying desperately to peddle another platform for the same; what is worse is that it happens to be the one which was in contention but failed to make the cut .
You have some homework to do ; if you are serious about pushing F-18 here for a start why don't you qualify two of your claims 'a' That Rafale is only 10% better than F-18 SH in performance (I kind of wonder how does one say 10% ).

Saying it's cheaper than another over-priced fighter doesn't mean much.
How does the cost compare to the SH? That is a far more interesting question.

Once you have proven your point about performance kindly tell me how do you propose to evaluate the COST of the two specially with the Offsets and the ToT clause and mind you those are not an option because that is what is taking time when it comes to Rafale.

How do you propose to address the issues around CISMOA and EUMA ? I bring those up because how do you know that if these were not the ones which made IAF drop the F-18 SH in favor of Euro canards because as per your first assertion Rafale is only 10% better than the SH in terms of performance so why is that American birds were kicked out ? There is a reason for it

[GeorgeWelch]

You have some homework to do ; if you are serious about pushing F-18 here for a start why don't you qualify two of your claims 'a' That Rafale is only 10% better than F-18 SH in performance (I kind of wonder how does one say 10% ).

I never said any such thing. I was merely giving an example of why deciding solely on tech specs and ignoring price is not reasonable. They both need to be considered together. Better specs are good, but so is cheaper. There needs to be a holistic evaluation that balances capabilities and costs and India's requirements going forward.

kindly tell me how do you propose to evaluate the COST of the two specially with the Offsets and the ToT clause and mind you those are not an option because that is what is taking time when it comes to Rafale.

Easy enough to get straight bids from the manufacturer.

How do you propose to address the issues around CISMOA and EUMA ?

What issues? The IAF had already addressed them before the SH and SV were allowed in the competition.

I bring those up because how do you know that if these were not the ones which made IAF drop the F-18 SH

Because the IAF repeatedly claimed the downselect was made solely on technical grounds? Unless you're the one calling the IAF liars?

[NRao]

How do you propose to address the issues around CISMOA and EUMA ?

What issues? The IAF had already addressed them before the SH and SV were allowed in the competition.

Ashton Cater is on record that the two nations are working around them. But, I do not know if it applies to such purchases. He may have been talking only about co-development items.

[Mihir]

Except for the part about the SH being carrier-capable (as far as India goes), it's hard to argue against your post.

Boeing has already done the studies to show it would work off the ski-jump on the Vikramaditya (and by extension, the Vikrant).

I would take such claims with a pinch of salt until and unless actual tests are done. The SH is designed to fly off catapult-equipped carriers; it may not carry enough payload or fuel to be an effective fighter when taking off a ski jump. The MiG-29K and N-LCA are designed to operate off ski jumps.

In any case, the Navy is fairly committed to the N-LCA, and is hedging its risks by acquiring more MiG-29Ks anyway. So the question of super bugs operating off the Vikramaditya/Vikrant is moot.

[GeorgeWelch]

it may not carry enough payload or fuel to be an effective fighter when taking off a ski jump.

Boeing specifically said with a 'significant weapons load'.

In any case, the Navy is fairly committed to the N-LCA, and is hedging its risks by acquiring more MiG-29Ks anyway. So the question of super bugs operating off the Vikramaditya/Vikrant is moot.

Perhaps, perhaps not. In its EW or tanker variant they might find it useful to include in the mix even with MiG-29K and N-LCA. It might also have weapons or sensors that might be preferable in certain situations. And perhaps the capability would never be used, but the flexibility it provides is worth considering.

[Cosmo_R]

...
So it is the IAF which needs to defend our skies, it is the IAF which needs to fly the damn fighter and yet somehow we manage to float this nonsense that it might have not selected the RIGHT (not the BEST) platform for it's needs ?....

Negi Saab, let me interject (and get my ears boxed) solely on the basis of logic:

1. This thread is supposed to contemplate a possible 'Plan B'—namely 'Alternatives to MMRCA'. It assumes that for whatever reasons the Rafale/EF don't happen.

2. The 'raisin dieter' of this thread is therefore not to revisit the downselect of the Rafale and the EF as backup.

3. Accordingly, it should be assumed that any and all 'flights of fancy' will be entertained here on their merits as a 'Plan B' that ACM NAK Browne insists does not exist.

4. So we are trying to be creative here as we sip our single malts and contemplate the remains of the day.

So now the 'fundamental truth': "So it is the IAF which needs to defend our skies, it is the IAF which needs to fly the damn fighter"

Could not have said it better. The fact remains however, that the IAF needs to have a fighter to fly. It has to be real, tested, affordable and best of all here soon. This basic need NOW is what trumps everything else including the fabled 'ToT'.

If the M2K decision had been made in 2000, we would not be in such a pickle. We could have waited out the 4G a/c and dallied with FGFA/AMCA etc. because we would have had the 'runway' (bad pun) to do so. ACM Browne implies he needs replacements FAST for the MiG 21s/27s ASAP.

The punchline: The best fighter is the one that is here now, can be inducted quickly in numbers, is cheaper and works.

Again , this assumes the Rafale/EF is not viable. If they are then we should close this thread.

Else, we should thoughtfully consider (in this thread) forgetting about the 'bake-off' and focus on enabling our men and women in uniform to perform at an advantage over the bad guys instead of flying 50 year old designs for the sake of 'indigenization' AKA (no not him), local 'manufacture by HAL'

[raj-ji]

I am not even going into world class logistics support because that is subjective to the whims of a government which has never been sensitive to our concerns and interests , enough said.

To be blunt, the MRCA is not needed to take on Pakistan. Where it would be required would be China. Do you trust the French, who have been eagerly pushing to have the arms embargo on China lifted, to provide logistics support if China threatened them?[/quote]

The Rafale deal will be finalized, it is too far along to stop now. And as for the discussion about what's "best" for the IAF, the MRCA was set up originally with the Mirage 2000 in mind. This aircraft was well liked in the IAF, and has proved its self in India. And if the IAF likes the Mirage, they will probably like the Rafale. So from that perspective no surprises there.

As for trusting the French, there are many in the armed forces and in New Delhi that would trust the French over the US. Even though the US is heading now in a better direction regrading ties with India. The US has some way to go before it can compare itself to France, especially as a defense supplier to India.

As for an alternative, most logical would be MIG 29 or 35 order. Infrastructure already set up in IAF who have the MIG 29s. This would be the best option that would allow fast integration into the IAF. Add to this that the weapons can be shared with the MKI and other synergies of having a large fleet of MKIs, and the advantages are too many to discount. The Rafale is a good option for the IAF, and an opportunity to diversify from having mostly Russian fighters. But for speed of integration the MiG 29,35 would be the best option. The Russians will throw in many extras with this deal making this even more enticing.

The SH is a good fighter. But not for India now. The US would do better to peddle the F35 once its in full production. Or a stealth version of the SH. But the SH in its current offering can't compete with the Rafale or MiG 35.