MRCA News and Discussion

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 18 Sep 2009 03:57

Good news about Zhuk-AE!
Zhuk-AE is ready for fight

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 18 Sep 2009 05:43

How about letting the MRCA die a silent death. Finish the trials to get a maximum of useful information about the contenders, then delay the final decision ad infinitum.
Instead pick up those 60 Mirage 2000-9 from the UAE. They should be good for some 15-20 years. Maybe add some cheap as chips MiG-29 SMT, brought up to identical standard with existing IAF MiG's.
Drop MCA, team up with one European or Russian (or Israeli ?) design house, and co-develop a ~15 tonne UCAV with domestic avionics and hopefully engine.
Done.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 18 Sep 2009 08:26

How about letting the MRCA die a silent death. Finish the trials to get a maximum of useful information about the contenders, then delay the final decision ad infinitum.
Instead pick up those 60 Mirage 2000-9 from the UAE. They should be good for some 15-20 years. Maybe add some cheap as chips MiG-29 SMT, brought up to identical standard with existing IAF MiG's.
Drop MCA, team up with one European or Russian (or Israeli ?) design house, and co-develop a ~15 tonne UCAV with domestic avionics and hopefully engine.

That's a terrible plan for obvious reasons. First of all the only way that the Mirage 2000-9 are going to be up for sale is when all 60 of the Rafale's are delivered to the UAE. If the contract is signed this year they will start deliveries in 2011-2012ish. Mig-29SMT's are not going to be very useful anyway considering how old they are. Besides all of the MRCA contestants are more advanced then the two planes you want the IAF to choose. Why buy an inferior plane?? Designing a UCAV is not as easy as it looks, if it were everyone would have one!

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 18 Sep 2009 10:07

^^^ And there won't be the all important ToT with the second hand planes.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 18 Sep 2009 10:41

It's nearly 2010. When do you think you will get your MRCA's delivered ? By that time they are practically outdated. Forget about those expansive 4th generation fighters. Some way cheaper second hand stuff (which has already established support and training structures in place) will keep squadron numbers stable until MCA (manned or unmanned) enters local production.
With a foreign partner for MCA all the necessary technology can be acquired.
LCA already has foreign assistance, and FGFA is good for something, too. This way the IAF could have LCA, MCA and FGFA in the 2020's.

Mahesh_R · Post by **Mahesh_R** » 18 Sep 2009 10:42

Dmurphy wrote:^^^ And there won't be the all important ToT with the second hand planes.

Did India had TOT on any of the arms deals it had done with Russia/France or any other country ?
If so did it help us in improving or developing our own weapons...

Can anyone provide some examples please....

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 18 Sep 2009 11:00

"transfer of technology" is one of those useless terms where the only thing you learn is how to turn a screw driver.

I'm afraid there's no short cut to developing an R&D base other than doing R&D and producing successful products. No foreign scientist is going to fly down to India to sit side by side with an Indian scientist and teach him step by step how to do R&D. Its something that's aquired only by doing, not paying huge sumes of money for and getting like fast food.

Mahesh_R · Post by **Mahesh_R** » 18 Sep 2009 11:19

Neshant wrote:"transfer of technology" is one of those useless terms where the only thing you learn is how to turn a screw driver.

Then what is point in asking TOT for MRCA ?
If it will NOT help us in our LCA/MCA pgms....

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 18 Sep 2009 11:31

Will the GE's new announcement of manufacturing the engines in India should any of the three
(Gripen,F-16IN,Super Hornet) is selected will make a difference ?

Btwn PAK-FA is altogether a Russian fighter and it will be in the twin engined,tandem seater,17.5 tonne FGFA we will be collaborating.Could that be our own MCA?

I have heard a rumour that they have agreed to do the machining and molding of an advanced version of AL-31F(117S ?) turbofan in India w.r.t the FGFA at the HAL Koraput facility.Can anybody come in here and clarify.

Mahesh_R · Post by **Mahesh_R** » 18 Sep 2009 11:47

Rahul PS wrote: I have heard a rumour that they have agreed to do the machining and molding of an advanced version of AL-31F(117S ?)
turbofan in India w.r.t the FGFA at the HAL Koraput facility.Can anybody come in here and clarify.

I guess the source is Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL-31

That would be really gud news...may be it helps us in future for our own MCA pgm...

btw...why does IAF doesn't have Strategic bombers...like B1, B2 or Tu-160...we are depended on MKI for a bomber role...
it would be nice to have few Strategic bombers (20 -30) doing specific role instead of MKI doing the same...
any thought on this guru's ?

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 18 Sep 2009 12:03

Rahul PS wrote:Will the GE's new announcement of manufacturing the engines in India should any of the three
(Gripen,F-16IN,Super Hornet) is selected will make a difference ?

- Please, be accurate: not 'engine manufacturing' but 'the parts of engine manufacturing'. It's a big difference!

'Parts manufacturing' may be good for employment but nothing for independence.
India IS already starting to manufacture the whole Al-31F and RD-33, not only parts. In 2011 they already finish ToT for Al-31 (have started in 2006 if remember right). f414 and f110 technologies add nothing to Al-31, they both 4th gen engines BTW. And they are just the same thrust class as RD-33 and Al-31. So, I don't think the tops in GoI are stupid enough for paying twice for the same product.

Btwn PAK-FA is altogether a Russian fighter and it will be in the twin engined,tandem seater,17.5 tonne FGFA we will be collaborating.Could that be our own MCA?
I have heard a rumour that they have agreed to do the machining and molding of an advanced version of AL-31F(117S ?) turbofan in India w.r.t the FGFA at the HAL Koraput facility.Can anybody come in here and clarify.

Interesting. I didn't hear about this, but considering previous experience from the Indo-Russian cooperation, it seems to me logically, if India after getting skills for Al-31F production will go for something more advanced in this class (140-180 kN thrust). Indeed, Russia has a broad international cooperation in turbo-engine production, especially with Ukraine and now with France too. Why couldn't India be in same position?

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 18 Sep 2009 12:40

Mahesh_R wrote:
Rahul PS wrote: btw...why does IAF doesn't have Strategic bombers...like B1, B2 or Tu-160...we are depended on MKI for a bomber role...
it would be nice to have few Strategic bombers (20 -30) doing specific role instead of MKI doing the same...
any thought on this guru's ?

I am no guru,but in current scenario we don't need to bomb the other end of the world,our threat perception is in immediate neighborhood.B1,B2,Tu 160 are long range bombers,for us Mig 27 and Jaguars will do the job.

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 18 Sep 2009 12:51

- Please, be accurate: not 'engine manufacturing' but 'the parts of engine manufacturing'. It's a big difference!

'Parts manufacturing' may be good for employment but nothing for independence.
India IS already starting to manufacture the whole Al-31F and RD-33, not only parts. In 2011 they already finish ToT for Al-31 (have started in 2006 if remember right). f414 and f110 technologies add nothing to Al-31, they both 4th gen engines BTW. And they are just the same thrust class as RD-33 and Al-31. So, I don't think the tops in GoI are stupid enough for paying twice for the same product.

Exactly

.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 18 Sep 2009 13:51

narayana wrote:
Mahesh_R wrote: btw...why does IAF doesn't have Strategic bombers...like B1, B2 or Tu-160...we are depended on MKI for a bomber role...
it would be nice to have few Strategic bombers (20 -30) doing specific role instead of MKI doing the same...
any thought on this guru's ?
I am no guru,but in current scenario we don't need to bomb the other end of the world,our threat perception is in immediate neighborhood.B1,B2,Tu 160 are long range bombers,for us Mig 27 and Jaguars will do the job.

The countries that currently posses this aircraft once had the need to bomb their respective threats from polar opposites so they needed the long range heavy bombers... As for us, trully speaking, the major threats to us can be reached by the small jets we posses... so we don't need them in our Air Force... Using them in the Navy is a completely different thing...

Just My humble opinion...

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 18 Sep 2009 14:56

BTW, Rahul PS, 117S - is the name of 14.5 t thrusting export variant, installed on Su-35. For Russian forces PAK-FA and Su-35 a more advanced 15 t '117' engine ('izdelie 117') will be installed. It's according to the Saturn chief engineer. So, for India have sense to ask for 'izdelie 117' cooperative production, I think the chance exists. Anyway '117' is only an intermediate engine, and Saturn with other Russian design houses are developing a totally new engine for PAK-FA mk.2 upgrade in 5-7 years.

I wonder why between India and Russia could not be a broad cooperation in the gas-turbine development and production like Russia has with Ukraine. Sometimes the Ukrainian plants manufacture serial production of Russian designed engines (for helos), sometimes - it's vice versa, the Russian plants makes engines, developed in Ukraine (civilian aircrafts) and sometimes the serial production goes together, the hot part in Russia and the cold part in Ukraine and vice versa. Only together we can stand against the Anglo-saxon oligopoly of gigantic GE, PW and RR. And I agree MMRCA decision will be made in careful coordination with LCA mk.2 engine decision. My two cents...

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 18 Sep 2009 15:22

Zhuk-AE Aesa Offered with Mig-35: Russia

The X-band radar can track 30 aerial targets in the track-while-scan mode, and engage six targets simultaneously in the attack mode.

Tishchenko said the detection range could be increased up to 200 km (125 miles).

http://idrw.org/?p=921#more-921

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 19 Sep 2009 11:54

September 17, 2009, (Sawf News) - As the MMRCA competition heats up, Phazotron NIIR corporation has offered a 52 km increase in the detection range of its Zhuk AE AESA fitted on its contender in the race - MiG-35.

The increased range will likely make the MiG-35's radar the most powerful amidst the MMRCA contenders - Boeing Super Hornet F/A-18E/F, Lockheed Martin Super Viper F-16IN, Saab AB's JS-39 Gripen, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter GmbH's Typhoon, and RSK MiG-35.

The MMRCA tender calls for a minimum detection range of at least 130 kilometers (about 80 miles).

"We have met this requirement of the Indian tender and built the Zhuk-AE active phased array radar with a proven range of 148 kilometers," said Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director.

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

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

A Phazotron official I spoke with at Aero India 2009 in February had pointed out that the Zhuk-AE's range could be extended dramatically by locating it further back in the nose of the MiG-35, taking advantage of the increased cross section to add TR modules and increase the radiated energy.

The publicly acknowledged range of the AN/APG 79 AESA that equips the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is 160 km. It is highly likely the AN/APG 79 AESA has a higher detection range than what is publicly acknowledged, but whether it goes up to 200 km is moot.

Compared to the MiG-35 the F/A-18E has a narrower nose cross section precluding the use of a bigger array. It is unlikely that the detection range of AN/APG 79 AESA could be extended because of antenna aperture and cooling constraints.

...And btwn the russians are also going for an advanced version- Zhuk ASE-aiming for much better better performance than APG-79 AND APG-81 for the Sukhois.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 19 Sep 2009 12:24

The 148 kms they say is the detection range of the partially populated array now flying with the MiG 35 demonstrator. The fully populated array will have over 1064 T/R modules as compared to the 680 T/R modules in the demonstrator array. The APG 79 has much more T/R modules than that. The Russians are claiming that their modules have more power so if there is an increased range as claimed it could be down to that.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 19 Sep 2009 13:22

The chief designer (General Engineer) Kanashchenko told me on MAKS about even 250 km detection range in prospect for a standard air target with 680 modules, if fully powered. I'm inclined to believe him.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Sep 2009 16:36

Igorr wrote:The chief designer (General Engineer) Kanashchenko told me on MAKS about even 250 km detection range in prospect for a standard air target with 680 modules, if fully powered. I'm inclined to believe him.

It is possible that Zhuk-AE can get those extended ranges of ~/> 250Km in special mode , and brochure figure wont give you ball park value for any manufacturer , so ~ 250 km will be possible for Zhuk-AE but officially in brochure they will put it as ~ 150 - 200 Km.

And that goes for any manufacturer who might be competing , they wont put the real figures of their AESA performance but something acceptable for brochure/marketing and competitive reasons.

And additional module of ~ 1022 plus for Zhuk-AE would provide reliability and would take care that through out its life even if some of the module may get physically damaged or degraded , the over all performance will remain intact , so a 680 modules can get the desired performance but a ~ 1000 plus module will also add the reliability factor to performance and takes care of redudancy etc.

For production version of Mig-35 they would certainly offer the 1000 plus module

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 19 Sep 2009 16:54

For competitive reason they can remain with 680 as well due to a price consideration.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Sep 2009 17:02

Well I am sure so can the other guys who are competing , but one also accounts for reliability , it is one of the key factor they have to take into account , mostly AESA TR module can last as long as the aircraft entire life , so one has to take into account that some TR module either getting damaged or degraded during its life , if one starts at minimum baseline module then you will end with lower over all performance during its life when things start breaking.

Hence most manufacturer have provided 1000+ module taking into account reliability and performance through out the radars life.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 19 Sep 2009 17:20

How come smaller a/c like E2fk can have 1500 TRMs, while bigger ones like Mig 35 and SHORNET have lesser modules? Does it help in achieving more stealth by reducing the size of nose?
I thought more TRMs would mean more detection range.
Austinjee so the number of TRMs don't increase the range but reliability? Only more power would mean more detection range. That would mean the more powerful engines would mean more range.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 19 Sep 2009 17:33

Mahesh_R wrote:btw...why does IAF doesn't have Strategic bombers...like B1, B2 or Tu-160...we are depended on MKI for a bomber role...
it would be nice to have few Strategic bombers (20 -30) doing specific role instead of MKI doing the same...
any thought on this guru's ?

Buying a B-2 won't be useful to India as every flight of B-2 will require sanction from Americans. And, making B-2 is something India can't afford at this level of spending on domestic R&D.

One B-2 plane is worth 1 Billion dollar. The infrastructure costs are not included in this.

The yearly budget of DRDO has never been near 1 Billion dollars until recently. This includes expenditure on Tanks, missiles, Radars, ships, sonars, tarpedoes, LCA, Nuke warhead programme etc.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 19 Sep 2009 18:10

Manish_Sharma wrote:How come smaller a/c like E2fk can have 1500 TRMs, while bigger ones like Mig 35 and SHORNET have lesser modules? Does it help in achieving more stealth by reducing the size of nose.

May be it's because CAPTOR's and Zhuk-AE's MICs have different power output or different reliability of each module? Zhuk-AE is made by monolithic MICs technology, so it can be more reliable on higher power.

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 19 Sep 2009 18:36

How about making each module smaller and stacking it closely together.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 19 Sep 2009 19:31

Rahul PS wrote:How about making each module smaller and stacking it closely together.

What is the sense if the whole power supply and the cooling capacity are limited anyway? What basically decides a detection range for an AESA radar is an average (not peak) output radar power. If they could achieve the power output goals with 680 modules, why rise the price of AESA? BTW they used on Zhuk-AE only 3-4 Wt power output per module in average, while each is capable for up to 6 Wt. So, what they need now for 200-250 km detection range is more power supply and more cooling, not more MMICs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Sep 2009 20:03

A large number of T/R module would probably also mean large scanning angle , specially if they have fixed antenna , detection range would be a function of power available

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 19 Sep 2009 20:18

Igorr wrote:What is the sense if the whole power supply and the cooling capacity are limited anyway? What basically decides a detection range for an AESA radar is an average (not peak) output radar power. If they could achieve the power output goals with 680 modules, why rise the price of AESA? BTW they used on Zhuk-AE only 3-4 Wt power output per module in average, while each is capable for up to 6 Wt. So, what they need now for 200-250 km detection range is more power supply and more cooling, not more MMICs.

more cooling space can be easily achieved since the production mig-35 will have larger nose cone than the 'prototype 154' mig-35 which is just an upgrade of mig-29m2 ,it will be interesting to see what the new MTBF hors for the fga-35 version. americans always produce something first but what the russians produce to counter the american ones ,are more potent,for example look at the f-15, americans started producing it from the end 70s,but to counter it the russians produced the su-37/30 series,much mature platform than f-15,so the fact that 250 km range can be achieved by 680 modules may not be surprising,i am waiting for the l-band aesa for pak-fa and su-30mki, hope it kicks the f-22's apg-77 and f-15SE' apg-82 [apg-63(v)4] out of the air.

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 19 Sep 2009 21:37

A parametric analysis and power aperture modelling is performed on the proposed Zhuk ASE, which is a scaled up version of the Zhuk AE following the model of the Zhuk MSFE built for the Flanker. The Flanker sized Zhuk ASE radar with existing Russian transmit receive module technology will deliver around 60 percent higher raw power aperture performance compared to US APG-79 (F/A-18E/F BII) and APG-81 (JSF) class radars, and if fitted with transistor technology permitting 15 Watts/channel or more, as proposed by NIIR Phazotron, it will outperform the N035 Irbis-E (Su-35BM) and all currently deployed US fighter radars other than the APG-77(V)2 (F-22A Raptor). The earliest feasible IOC for the Zhuk ASE on the Flanker is estimated at 2010.

link http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AE-Analysis.html

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Sep 2009 21:39

saptarishi wrote:
Igorr wrote:What is the sense if the whole power supply and the cooling capacity are limited anyway? What basically decides a detection range for an AESA radar is an average (not peak) output radar power. If they could achieve the power output goals with 680 modules, why rise the price of AESA? BTW they used on Zhuk-AE only 3-4 Wt power output per module in average, while each is capable for up to 6 Wt. So, what they need now for 200-250 km detection range is more power supply and more cooling, not more MMICs.
more cooling space can be easily achieved since the production mig-35 will have larger nose cone than the 'prototype 154' mig-35 which is just an upgrade of mig-29m2 ,it will be interesting to see what the new MTBF hors for the fga-35 version. americans always produce something first but what the russians produce to counter the american ones ,are more potent,for example look at the f-15, americans started producing it from the end 70s,but to counter it the russians produced the su-37/30 series,much mature platform than f-15,so the fact that 250 km range can be achieved by 680 modules may not be surprising,i am waiting for the l-band aesa for pak-fa and su-30mki, hope it kicks the f-22's apg-77 and f-15SE' apg-82 [apg-63(v)4] out of the air.

You are comparing first gen AESA with 3rd and 4th gen american AESA and its not just the modules , hardware is only a part of the radar , the algorithms, software and processors have also to match it.It will take time ! but possible .. and quite probable that americans would have moved ahead with 6th gen tech that calls for ranges of about a 1000 km.

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 19 Sep 2009 22:08

More modules result in a better power-aperture product, by increasing the gain of the radar which otherwise would have gone into creating sidelobs.It will increase the cost for sure.
But the thinned array(lesser modules) does produce a narrower beam which would result in better tracking.
For scanning a bigger area we have AWACS,hopefully our own indegenous AEWACS and we always stress upon C3I.

.
Yes but its a different thing when you are far away in an offensive air raid.

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 19 Sep 2009 22:14

kit wrote: You are comparing first gen AESA with 3rd and 4th gen american AESA and its not just the modules , hardware is only a part of the radar , the algorithms, software and processors have also to match it.It will take time ! but possible .. and quite probable that americans would have moved ahead with 6th gen tech that calls for ranges of about a 1000 km.

What is the level of ToT the U.S have offered on AESA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 03:58

Rahul PS wrote:
kit wrote: You are comparing first gen AESA with 3rd and 4th gen american AESA and its not just the modules , hardware is only a part of the radar , the algorithms, software and processors have also to match it.It will take time ! but possible .. and quite probable that americans would have moved ahead with 6th gen tech that calls for ranges of about a 1000 km.
What is the level of ToT the U.S have offered on AESA.

For the MRCA - 60% per the RFP. RFP does rule.

Having said that, ALL non-US vendors have promised everything - hardware and software.

BUT, 100% of non-US vendors would be only a small percent of US vendors, so the non-US vendors saying 100% really does not amount to much. Granted since India is at 0 (I am assuming) even that has great value - not trying to diss any vendor. But, most, if not all, non-US vendors are about 5-10 years behind the US.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 20 Sep 2009 04:35

For the MRCA - 60% per the RFP. RFP does rule.

Having said that, ALL non-US vendors have promised everything - hardware and software.

BUT, 100% of non-US vendors would be only a small percent of US vendors, so the non-US vendors saying 100% really does not amount to much. Granted since India is at 0 (I am assuming) even that has great value - not trying to diss any vendor. But, most, if not all, non-US vendors are about 5-10 years behind the US.

I strongly Disagree with you. Now the non-US vendors are several years behind the U.S in some technologies but they are not on offer. The U.S is not offering the F-35 to us and thats the only fighter it has in market which holds an advantage over the non U.S type in the MRCA competiton. The EW/Suite and Sensors in the Eurofighter for example are said to be even more advanced than that of the Raptor.

I am unsure about the MIG 35. But all three Western European competitors offer technology similar if not superior to what is on offer by the U.S. The Gripen's swash plate array for example deals with many of the draw backs in a Fixed Active Array. The Rafale Spectra suite in its passive detection capability is only rivaled by the F 35s DAS.

I could go on further but it is simply not true that the technology the U.S is offering us interms of their legacy fighters is superior to that offered by the non-us competitors. Actually it is in many ways inferior.

The positives of the U.S purchase is any geo-political bargain we can reach. The platforms are proven and there are a larger number of weapons that are already integrated. Some of which is negated by SAABs offer to integrate the weapon of our choice in the Gripen IN.

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 20 Sep 2009 04:42

One question:

Given what we know about US policy and attitudes towards India, why are we even seriously considering the F-18 or F-16?

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 20 Sep 2009 04:42

A little OT,

Before anyone considers what little differences exist between the MRCA contendors, I think that it is a good idea to consider why the MRCA deal was proposed in the first place.

Any aircraft that gets selected in the MRCA will only be a little improvement in our "strategic goals," as far as the air warfare is concerned.

Let me make it clear that the deal is definitely going towards the US.

The real purpose for the MRCA is to gain some more leverage in the Indo-US diplomacy (eg. nuclear deal). Strategic goals achieved through the trials etc. are a bonus.

This deal is nothing more than a "bribe" to the policeman to spare us some room and not for the love of god oppose us in almost everything that we do at the UN.

This deal is, like Pink Floyd puts it -" Just Another Brick in the Wall" with the rest of the recent deals with the US (including the Indo-US nuclear deal).

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 20 Sep 2009 04:46

sourab_c,

The MRCA contract is not the appropriate venue to start confidence building measures with the US. I suggest that we start with less crucial stuff, like say helicopter gunships or small frigates.. maybe even armored personal carriers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 06:25

johnny_m wrote: I strongly Disagree with you. Now the non-US vendors are several years behind the U.S in some technologies but they are not on offer. The U.S is not offering the F-35 to us and thats the only fighter it has in market which holds an advantage over the non U.S type in the MRCA competiton. The EW/Suite and Sensors in the Eurofighter for example are said to be even more advanced than that of the Raptor.

I am unsure about the MIG 35. But all three Western European competitors offer technology similar if not superior to what is on offer by the U.S. The Gripen's swash plate array for example deals with many of the draw backs in a Fixed Active Array. The Rafale Spectra suite in its passive detection capability is only rivaled by the F 35s DAS.

I could go on further but it is simply not true that the technology the U.S is offering us interms of their legacy fighters is superior to that offered by the non-us competitors. Actually it is in many ways inferior.

The positives of the U.S purchase is any geo-political bargain we can reach. The platforms are proven and there are a larger number of weapons that are already integrated. Some of which is negated by SAABs offer to integrate the weapon of our choice in the Gripen IN.

Hmmmm.......... The question was related to AESA. My post was in response to AESA ToT ONLY.

_________________________

However, since you have brought up the F-35, LM has promised a liberal sprinkling of 5th gen tech. Now, how much remains to be seen.

On the topic of who is ahead of whom, I have said this before, I strongly doubt that any other vendor + nation has the NEED and the funds to compete with the US right now. George has mentioned this many a times, and, so have I: ANY tech from Non-US vendors may be close or even ahead today. The question I have is how much longer will that remain that a way?

I am NOT saying that this means that the MRCA deal should go to the US, but, for sure, there is really NONE out there that has a better "fit" with Indian forces than the US has currently.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 20 Sep 2009 06:47

As far as we know in the public domain the differences between the Block 60 and the F 16 IN are the following.

1. India specefic Radar modes including a weather mode if Shiv Aroors reports are correct.

2. The CFTs having the refuelling probe.

3. A different E/W suite. The UAE block 60s have Falcon Edge, ACES is chosen for the F 16 IN (this is the same suite on the morroco F 16s so nothign fifth gen)

4. Helmet mounted cueing system possibly the JHCMS or may be Topsight because we are used to it. AFAIK the Desert Falcons do not have JHMCS.

I think the fifth generation talk from LM basically refers to the APG 80 and other subsystems developed for the block 60 and nothing thats substantially new in the Indian version.

I could be wrong my assesment is based on whats available in the public realm.

On the topic of who is ahead of whom, I have said this before, I strongly doubt that any other vendor + nation has the NEED and the funds to compete with the US right now. George has mentioned this many a times, and, so have I: ANY tech from Non-US vendors may be close or even ahead today. The question I have is how much longer will that remain that a way?

Actually they are not competing with the U.S. The Europeans have skipped the fifth generation alltogether for example and some of them are members of the F 35 project. But it does not require the funds that the U.S have at its disposal to develop 4++ generation fighters and avionics. Some like the French and Germans have the Rafale and Eurofighter lined up as their main Airforce assets till the 2040s atleast, so rest assured that they will not stand still. But if you look at the F 16 (dute to be retired from the USAF and ANG by mid 20s) and the Super Hornet (due to be replaced by UCAVs in the 30s, and they will take backseat when F 35Cs arrive) the chances are that any further development should be born by the customer(super hornet may get a USN funded Block III upgrade). This sadly applies to the Gripen as well (post NG upgrades). So while the Americans will have an advantage over Europeans in technology they are investing it in fifth generation fighters and we are in the market for a 4++ generation fighter.