MRCA News and Discussion

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Sep 2009 02:03

abhi.enggr wrote: ...
what will be your final verdict on which a/c should we take

I suggest you have a look at the results from 253 votes in the Vote for the MRCA thread, which is unfortunately in the trash-can archive

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 02:16

RM,

Dark Horse: F-16IN Super Viper (King Cobra - Shesha).

I think/feel it is a combination of things, but important components in the selection:
radar, network and sensors.

I feel the US is far ahead in ALL these three fields.

Politics.

I suspect the US is ahead there too.

I have not been a fan of engines, T/W, BVR, dog fights, etc - ONLY because with a better set of "sensors, network and radar" - I feel - we can overcome most, if not all, of the rest. OR, the rest actually depend on these three.And teh US is too far ahead of the rest of them - perhaps even combined.

On the flip side:
MiG is not ready, techs out paced them.
Rafale, do not know, although my fav, there is something missing.
EF was never in my list because of ToT.
Grip - I seriously think this deserves a slot outside of the MRCA deal.
F-18 dual-engined vs F-16.

F-16 should get a liberal sprinkling of 5th Gen techs to make it a viable solution.

Then, I do not think there is really any better combo of funds + need than the US. Russia either has no funds and at times no need. Similarly France, they really have no need and lack funds to a lesser extent. EF - IMHO are a bunch of non-serious partners (no ToT here at all). Gripen lacks the clout to make it happen as a sole vendor.

Russia gets 5th Gen, etc. France if they get their act together could get subs. I would love to see Swedes get some 50-100 Gripens - cannot say enough. EADS - ...............

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 03:46

Russia ready to help India build its own advanced radar

Vladimir Radyuhin

MOSCOW: As the race in the Indian Air Force’s $10-billion tender for 126 combat jets reached the crucial stage of flight trials, Russia, on top of a full technology transfer, is offering India help in building its own advanced radar. This would put India in the elite league of manufacturers of some of the most sophisticated defence equipment.

“We are ready to develop a new advanced radar jointly with India,” said Vyacheslav Tishchenko, head of the Phazotron-NIIR Corporation. The company has built Russia’s first Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Zhuk-ME, for the MiG-35 fighter, the Russian contender in the IAF tender for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA). Two planes will go to India next month for flight evaluation trials.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Sep 2009 06:37

thanks NRao, something tells me winner will be an amriki bird though personally I would prefer the euro birds, specifically rafale or even grip.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 21 Sep 2009 07:42

Rahul M wrote:thanks NRao, something tells me winner will be an amriki bird though personally I would prefer the euro birds, specifically rafale or even grip.

Since MRCA is a massive gap filler for the IAF, we need a bird that has very good all round capability and faster time to induction. In this regard F-16/18 are the only birds that are actually mature enough to provide both. All the other birds are basically under development and will suck Indian funds for further development.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 21 Sep 2009 07:49

RameshC wrote:
well these are estimates and i am sure they are inaccurate. The APG-73 the old f-18 SH's radar has a max detection range of 300km or 160NM, the apg-79 has nearly double that range.
the APG-79's track range for 1m2 is well over 150km. read the following, page 207,the apg-79 is far more relibale as well.the MTBF for the active array is over 15000hrs and 1250 hrs+ for the radar system itself. The MTBF for the Zhuk is 600hrs and for now can detect a 3m2 target at 130km the future upgrade versions will take timethe basic version is now under going weapons trails, i'd rather we go for rafale with RBE-2 AESA which is atleast cleared for production.

considering apg73 and zhuk me both have similar detection range for air target scanning and if apg79 has twice the range of apg73 so its likely that apg79 has detection range for air targets 250km against 5^square

and for the detection range of zhuk ae which you have stated 130km is said to be posted 2 years back in brochures,so please read some what Mr Igorr has written about zhuk ae and what the radar producer company has said to him,don't jump to conclusion

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Sep 2009 07:56

amit, that may be true but I for one won't trust the amrikans with such an important arrow in our arsenal, given their past record. but heck, it's not up to me.

also, there are pro's and cons for every decision, for the amriki ones the problem would be the F-16 won't be in service with USAF for much longer.

btw, isn't the rafale development more or less complete ? except the new radar ?

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 21 Sep 2009 08:10

Rahul M wrote: except the new radar ?

No radar no plane!
Why should we be even discussing about a plane that does not have a functional AESA. IAF wants AESA and that's how it is.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 08:10

Forgot to add.

I for one am not concerned about the US playing political tricks. They may try - but IF India stands her ground there is not much they can do. The problem - here on out will be India. India does need to get her ducks lined up tho' to play in the bigger games. She has the brains, etc, etc, etc. Just a lack of will. IMHO.

There is really no need to be scared of the eagle.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Sep 2009 08:32

AmitR wrote:
Rahul M wrote: except the new radar ?
No radar no plane!
Why should we be even discussing about a plane that does not have a functional AESA. IAF wants AESA and that's how it is.

AESA is part of RFP ? I think it was not. could be wrong though.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 21 Sep 2009 09:39

I doubt it was a part of RFP but when dtis Neelam Matthews asked the former ACM F.H.Major he said AESA is very important.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 21 Sep 2009 11:25

Can India ignore a tried and tested friendship - I guess MMRCA choice will tell.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 21 Sep 2009 11:28

"Since MRCA is a massive gap filler for the IAF, we need a bird that has very good all round capability and faster time to induction. In this regard F-16/18 are the only birds that are actually mature enough to provide both. All the other birds are basically under development and will suck Indian funds for further development."

When there is an aggressor on Indias border will the planes be grounded due to a "sudden lack of spares". I remember the Sea King saga.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 21 Sep 2009 11:54

yakku wrote:
RameshC wrote:
well these are estimates and i am sure they are inaccurate. The APG-73 the old f-18 SH's radar has a max detection range of 300km or 160NM, the apg-79 has nearly double that range.
the APG-79's track range for 1m2 is well over 150km. read the following, page 207,the apg-79 is far more relibale as well.the MTBF for the active array is over 15000hrs and 1250 hrs+ for the radar system itself. The MTBF for the Zhuk is 600hrs and for now can detect a 3m2 target at 130km the future upgrade versions will take timethe basic version is now under going weapons trails, i'd rather we go for rafale with RBE-2 AESA which is atleast cleared for production.
considering apg73 and zhuk me both have similar detection range for air target scanning and if apg79 has twice the range of apg73 so its likely that apg79 has detection range for air targets 250km against 5^square

and for the detection range of zhuk ae which you have stated 130km is said to be posted 2 years back in brochures,so please read some what Mr Igorr has written about zhuk ae and what the radar producer company has said to him,don't jump to conclusion

well the apg-73 has max detection ranges of 300km for 5m2+ aerial target or a large ship, the track range for 1m2 target is around 100-120km. =

the APG-79 has nearly double the max. detection range of the apg-73, it can detect a 5m2 target at well over 450km away, its track range for 1m2 target is around 100NM or 180km+. yes those brochures might be old but the fact remains that Russia is only now begun weapons testing the basic 1st gen AESA and hence is over 3 gens behind the apg-79. the apg-79 v-3 has already been tested, its abilities have been quadrupled even from the basic V-1 version when it came out in 2005. so lets not compare different genrations of radars the Ruskis are way behind the Amrikis in this area, way behind. range scales on the f-18A's apg-73 are 5,10,20,40, 80, 160 NM or 300km+, the apg-79 nearly doubles the range scales. Its 5 times more reliable than the apg-73 as well and has well over double the MTBF of any Russian radar.

And radar is only one area where the mig falls short, the infamous OLS on the mig is not as capable as the ATFLIR on the SH or the Sniper on the F-16IN, the ATFLIR can see as far as 50 NM or nearly 90km. The SH can also deploy more A2A missiles, so can the Rafale and EF as well, mig's aerial payload matches that of the SV. yet again it falls short in matching the SV, SH, Rafale, EF and Gripen's payload flexibility.

offcourse tot from the US vendors will depend on congress and congress is wide open for very strong lobbying, so we just might get what we're looking for. US companies have enormous power especially companies like Boeing which is also US' largest export company if we put lots of pressure on Boeing or LM for full tot in turn they will put lots of pressure on the congress in order to win this deal.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 21 Sep 2009 12:30

some pics from NATO Tiger 2009, lets start with sexy FRAF Rafale;

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2736/pict0190.jpg

Swiss AF Hornet with Rafale in back drop.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8374/pict0186.jpg

Swiss AF hornet, during mass launch

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/73/pict0188y.jpg

French AF mirage 2000-5s during mass launch

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2348/pict0182d.jpg

Formation flight, Gripens, Falcons, Tornadoes

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4148/pict0027j.jpg

Swiss AF Hornet...sexy

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/580/pict0089a.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1201/pict0088pd.jpg

BAF F-16MLUs

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/9407/pict0138x.jpg

Hungarian AF Gripen

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/6061/pict0208.jpg

Luftwaffe Tornadoes

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6196/pict0158jc.jpg

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 21 Sep 2009 13:28

this is for those who say F/A-18E/F SUPER HORNET LACKS maneuverability,thrust,agility and superior aerodynamic performance.it may not have TVC BUT without tvc it also pulls outstanding stunts like typhoon, rafale or mig-35.go for super hornet i say.what a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2TYG5FKunQ

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 21 Sep 2009 13:37

Formation flight, Gripens, Falcons, Tornadoes

In that picture whats the third plane from the bottom.

this is for those who say F/A-18E/F SUPER HORNET LACKS maneuverability,thrust,agility and superior aerodynamic performance.it may not have TVC BUT without tvc it also pulls outstanding stunts like typhoon, rafale or mig-35.go for super hornet i say.what a video

It has good slow speed agility. What it lacks is Transonic and Super Sonic performance, in that it is behind all of the MRCA contenders.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 21 Sep 2009 14:50

the third aircraft is the Spanish AF mirage F-1. IAF pilots have already pushed SH beyond 2000kmph while training on simulators, so i dont buy this poor supersonic performance claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-cOMul7 ... re=related

another cool video of the SH. besides isn't there a new higher thrust engine with 26,000lbs each up from the current 22000lbs per engine, the new engine will boost its T/W ratio beyond 1 which is good enough, i think the current T/W ratio of the SH is around .93.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 16:03

Rahul M wrote: No radar no plane!
Why should we be even discussing about a plane that does not have a functional AESA. IAF wants AESA and that's how it is.

AESA is part of RFP ? I think it was not. could be wrong though.[/quote]

Outside of teh two US entrants (do not recall EF) ALL others, to a very great extent, build an AESA because of the MRCA.

July, 2008 :: Raytheon to transfer AESA radar technology to India up to the level permitted by US government

American space and airborne systems company, Raytheon, has said that the Indian Air Force (IAF) will get access to cutting-edge radar technology in the form of the AESA radar, up to the level permitted by the US government, should it decide to opt for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet under its global tender for 126 medium-range multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender.

"We are willing to support Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar technology transfer up to the level the US government allows us," said Dave Goold from Raytheon's F-18 business development, Tactical Airborne Systems.

"The technology transfer, though likely to be limited, would meet the requirements of the IAF. Our proposal will be compliant with the request for proposal (RFP) issued by the IAF for the 126 combat aircraft," he said.

One of the reasons the US vendors are so confident is the AESA.

For what it is worth, the Boeing spokesperson had mentioned, long back, that the RFP required a "60%" ToT. Nothing was explained beyond that be anyone. In the past few pages the Russians gave the figure of (what?) 120Kms range and that they exceed that. Then there was the Aroor post of some weather radar requirement.

So, today, that seems to be the extent of what we know (other can add).

But, "AESA" has been a rec per the RFP.

(And, if we can take the time and either read up on some articles in the tech thread for MRCA and google it would help the discussion a lot.)

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 21 Sep 2009 17:20

Russia ready to help India build its own radar.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/21/stories ... 390100.htm

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 21 Sep 2009 17:26

prabir wrote:Russia ready to help India build its own radar.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/21/stories ... 390100.htm

how can it be our own radar when Russia helps in building it, we dont need such generous offers, the only our own AESA radar is being built for the LCA mk-2

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Sep 2009 18:25

With the latest revelations that the US knew all along about Pak's N-proliferation,turned a blind eye to it,persuaded Gen.Mush-a-rat,the *&^%$$ bandicoot who decorated a throat-slitter of an Indian soldier to make AQK the scapegoat for Pak's avowed policy of N-proliferation,why on earth should we buy even a bullet from these American $%#@*&^ who only want to castrate India and turn it into another eunuch nation beholden to Uncle Sam? If anyone thinks that the US will ever allow us to gain a military advantage against Pak by it selling us US arms,he is in cloud cuckoo land.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 21 Sep 2009 18:33

RameshC wrote:
well the apg-73 has max detection ranges of 300km for 5m2+ aerial target or a large ship, the track range for 1m2 target is around 100-120km. =

And radar is only one area where the mig falls short, the infamous OLS on the mig is not as capable as the ATFLIR on the SH or the Sniper on the F-16IN, the ATFLIR can see as far as 50 NM or nearly 90km. The SH can also deploy more A2A missiles, so can the Rafale and EF as well, mig's aerial payload matches that of the SV. yet again it falls short in matching the SV, SH, Rafale, EF and Gripen's payload flexibility.

when apg63(v1) which is more powerful radar for F15 has 130km range against 3^sq or 190-200km for 5^sq and this matches ZHUK 27 which is bigger brother of zhuk me has range of 190km against 5^sq target so how can apg73 has the range of 300km against 5^sq target or you want to say 300 km range against large ship which is true but this 300km range isn't true for air target detection

ATFLIR/sniper have larger detection range because these IRST are pod mounted and have their own cooling while OLS on mig is much smaller and inbuilt so its has smaller detection range,but ya rafael RECCE LITE is available for mig

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 21 Sep 2009 18:37

RameshC wrote:
prabir wrote:Russia ready to help India build its own radar.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/21/stories ... 390100.htm
how can it be our own radar when Russia helps in building it, we dont need such generous offers, the only our own AESA radar is being built for the LCA mk-2

The news report is "sensational" since there has been such joint RADAR projects before. One was with Poland, which later DRDO pursued on its own, to create 3D-CAR.

From same article

“We are ready to develop a new advanced radar jointly with India,” said Vyacheslav Tishchenko, head of the Phazotron-NIIR Corporation. The company has built Russia’s first Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Zhuk-ME, for the MiG-35 fighter, the Russian contender in the IAF tender for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA). Two planes will go to India next month for flight evaluation trials.

Also in the fray are the U.S. F-16 and F-18, the French Dassault’s Rafale, the Swedish Saab Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon. Transfer of technology is a prime requirement in the MMRCA tender, but as far as the radar is concerned, Russia alone seems prepared to meet the demand in full. “Out of six-seven countries in the world that have the know-how to build radars for combat jets, only two — Russia and the U.S. — domestically produce the full range of radar components,” Phazotron’s chief designer Yuri Guskov said.

Raytheon, the U.S. company that manufactures radars for the F-18 fighter, has already said it would only transfer “limited” technology “up to the level the U.S. government allows us.”

This means America’s European competitors in the MMRCA tender will also face restrictions on the transfer of technologies sourced from U.S. companies.

Russia is the only bidder which does not depend on the U.S. for any aircraft technologies, including the radar.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Sep 2009 18:46

it is alleged the F-18 has poor acceleration from subsonic to supersonic, the eventual top speed is adequate and not the issue.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 19:06

Singha wrote:it is alleged the F-18 has poor acceleration from subsonic to supersonic, the eventual top speed is adequate and not the issue.

It is also known that there are two new GE engines that will get rid of this particular problem, although they solve many others.

Outside of that do you see the F-18 "platform" as an issue? And, if so, what are they?

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 21 Sep 2009 19:07

Priority for WVR engagements, flying small subsonic/transonic circles around an opponent at close quarters, has moved to flying supersonic and picking off the opponent with BVRAAMs.Se we should have a fighter with sustained supersonic manoeuvre ability so that it can disengage from a BVRAAM.
So without good manoeuvrability and supersonic performance(sustainable with high dry thrust) having a high T/W ratio, low wing loading, the only way to counter the enemy fighter is to have the ability to pick it up early and fire the first shot yourself.The only way to do that is to have a good radar, AESA is a must and an excellent BVRAAM.I think these two are non negotiable.
Ok, AWACS is a game changer, but in a military theatre i think some times the fighter has to take care of itself.

Btwn..Naval variants tuned for range, reconaissance are good when they are stationed in a aircraft carrier but in a highly agile air combat theatre deep inside continents where it has to dodge, basically disengage from BVRAAMS, SAMs, am not sure.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 21 Sep 2009 19:40

Rahul PS wrote: So without good manoeuvrability and supersonic performance(sustainable with high dry thrust) having a high T/W ratio, low wing loading, the only way to counter the enemy fighter is to have the ability to pick it up early and fire the first shot yourself.The only way to do that is to have a good radar, AESA is a must and an excellent BVRAAM.I think these two are non negotiable.
Ok, AWACS is a game changer, but in a military theatre i think some times the fighter has to take care of itself.

Btwn..Naval variants tuned for range, reconaissance are good when they are stationed in a aircraft carrier but in a highly agile air combat theatre deep inside continents where it has to dodge, basically disengage from BVRAAMS, SAMs, am not sure.

all these fighters meets the capability which IAF wants but which fighter meets what middleman and politicians want something which is yet to be seen

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 19:42

Why is AESA a must?

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 21 Sep 2009 19:50

NRao wrote:Why is AESA a must?

what is must are missiles which can hit their target once fired not aesa
for non stealthy aircraft detection one doesn't need aesa,and what if aesa is on non stealthy fighter?
and in south Asian scenario no country going to acquire stealthy aircraft any time soon and what IAF need is more fighters

MICA missiles were available 10 years ago and till today not been acquired for m2000 which is definitely force multiplier,but even if IAF had R77 they never tried to fit it on m2000.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 21 Sep 2009 20:07

NRao wrote:Why is AESA a must?

BCos

AESA starts with A and PESA starts with P!

And AESA includes the famous name....AyEShA!

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 21 Sep 2009 20:11

RameshC wrote:besides being late is only one major shortcoming the mig is not a truly multirole patform while others like SV, SH , Rafale, EF can pull many roles and are far superior in avionics.

What are the chances of Su 30 MKI against Super Bug (Light), Super Bug (Heavy), Rafale and EF in terms of avionics?

Although it may not look like directly related to thread, it is related

I was studying etymology and hence named American planes as such.

-Nitin.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 21 Sep 2009 20:18

It is also known that there are two new GE engines that will get rid of this particular problem, although they solve many others.

Outside of that do you see the F-18 "platform" as an issue? And, if so, what are they?

More thrust will only improve the performance marginally. It has a lot to do with a draggy airframe which was not designed for the Air-Superiority role.

The Transonic performance is an issue because most fights occur at these speeds. Super Hornet does make up for a lot of its shortcomings with excellent avionics and radar and may be a good choice for the IAF because it already has a dedicated Air-superiority fighter in the Su-30 MKI.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 21 Sep 2009 20:45

With a midlife upgrade these planes would stay with IAF for at least 40 years. Futuristic technology like AESA and Stealth are absolutely must from start IMO. Although immediate need is to have a plane that can be operationalized in all its might on very first day, an eye must be kept on the future.

If Rafale or Eurofighter provides the immediate operational capability they are better choice than American stuff from a long term perspective. This is the key information that the trials and negotiations would reveal to IAF. If euro and rafale are as far ahead/mature in development as they are claiming in their sales pitch than they have better chances than F16/18 (if cost is not prohibitive).

I would eliminate Mig simple because it doesn't have financial muscles to handle a ~$10billion contract and we should buy western MRCA for preserving our historic diversity in platforms.

Gripen would be an excellent choice for MLCA competition if and when it's launched depending on the LCA programs success or lack of it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 20:47

The "more thrust" is supposed to make the T/W equal to or better than any of the current MRCA contenders!!

On Air Superiority of F-18, is it the A/B/C/D or E/F that your are talking of? I just googled for my sanity and all refs state "AS" for F-18 E/F Super Hornets. The E/F is a redesigned F-18.

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 21 Sep 2009 21:10

F/A-18 Hornet provided the baseline design for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a larger, evolutionary redesign of the F/A-18. Compared to the Hornet, the Super Hornet is larger, and heavier and has improved range and payload capability. The larger variant was also directed to replace the aging F-14 Tomcat, thus serving a complementary role with Hornets in the U.S. Navy, and serving a wider range of roles including refueling tanker, and electronic jamming platform.

Btwn.. AESA is a prerequisite for firing the first shot at an enemy fighter for a low agile fighter(otherwise WVR combat) and also the lifespan of MRCA is supposed to be beyond 2035(chinese and pakistanis may have that capability in the future).

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 21 Sep 2009 21:41

nrshah wrote:
RameshC wrote:besides being late is only one major shortcoming the mig is not a truly multirole patform while others like SV, SH , Rafale, EF can pull many roles and are far superior in avionics.
What are the chances of Su 30 MKI against Super Bug (Light), Super Bug (Heavy), Rafale and EF in terms of avionics?

Although it may not look like directly related to thread, it is related

I was studying etymology and hence named American planes as such.

-Nitin.

although off topic but BARS radar has simultaneous operation of air and ground modes,and with this capability BARS well matches apg79 and other european radars

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html#8

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Sep 2009 21:49

Migs providing to support a joint venture for making a india-genous AESA is silly.. in the sense, when we are struggling with MMR and sourcing from Israel for the doppler, when in the world we would have a workable solution for MMRCA. This is not workable, unless russia and India gets some smile from the Elta folks.

OTOH, if its a joint Elta-LRDE-Phazatron, then we are talking something interesting. Without an israeli combination, the migs offer don't look interesting at all. Besides, we get all the integration of israeli pythons and other missile systems.

They have to make it more nicers than those nice looking russian girls can show things but nothing in the works/at least for me.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 21 Sep 2009 21:58

SaiK wrote:Migs providing to support a joint venture for making a india-genous AESA is silly.. in the sense, when we are struggling with MMR and sourcing from Israel for the doppler, when in the world we would have a workable solution for MMRCA. This is not workable, unless russia and India gets some smile from the Elta folks.

sir, elta has nothing to do with Phazatron's offer.

and there is no fixed price set for MRCA

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 21 Sep 2009 22:14

This is just my second post in BR. So as expected a junk one..

I was trying to think what the Indian Defence Minister may think about the MMRCA deal..

1. I should be able to use the plane and the weapons against whoever i want and whenever i want to.
2. I should be able to fight my enemy at a time of my choice, NOT when my supplier would allow me to do.
3. My weapons need not be the best in the world but it should integrate well with my war doctrine and satisfy my requirements.
4. Some of the machines may be good in microsoft powerpoint presentations but some countries may not like ppts. So ppt should not be criteria in selecting planes.
5. Some radars may have 500 km range and trying for 1000km range but what i learned in my primary school is earth is round in shape.
6. Should all my planes have 200-250 km range radars.. i think 2-3 in a group of 8 need to have. i will have half of my planes(230-280 SU 30 MKI) with radars of that range. Is that enough? Can the remaining settle down for 100-150 km range radars. afterall no escape ranges of the best bvr missile in the world is still < 100 km.
7. The primary reason why I am buying the planes is to fight war and not to participate in joint training exercises.
8. Capability to operate with NATO or data link compatability with NATO is second thing... First one is it should be compatible with my Indian networks.

Few years back i read a fwded mail about the pen used by astronauts. US spend more than 1 million developing a pen which can be used in zero gravity scenarios. And soviet astronauts used pencils instead. so who are the fools?

IMVHO the hi-fi stuff may not be the best one for us.. there may be alternatives...

My apologies for the junk post..