MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jan 2011 08:12

If sharing the engine is the goal then SH is ideal..directly from the khans. that logic is already ruled out by IAF. they have clearly said engine commonalities doesnt matter. Migs have more common parts than any contending a/c. why gripen ng?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 09:10

Wickberg wrote: I agree that we are agreeing. But I wont agree that Gripen is not something unique. It´s a Gen. 4+ fighter designed and produced by a country of 9 million people. A country placed in the northern out skirts. A country with the similar size as California and with the population of Manhattan. It is pretty unique to produce a fighter jet considering those circumstances don´t you think?
And I also agree we have lot to learn from each other, and to each other....

Wickberg, well that is a brownie point to the Swedes and its engineers/designers/scientists. I doff my hat to them. But not to the plane because of that!

Saik sahab, the refinements applied to the Gripen will be the most similar to the Tejas MkII unlike any other fighter in the MMRCA. Gripen might be over advertised but it is one of the most potent designs on a single engine ever built.

Gripen and Tejas MkII can be very similar in layout. Structurally too there will be the highest amount of similarities amongst any of the MMRCA birds. We can certainly borrow refinements from one to the other. But that is not why I support the Gripen for MMRCA.

My logic is very simple, I would rather have two Gripens than 1 typhoon/rafael.

1. The Gripen truly comes across as one of the most if not the most serviceable. Wickberg was barking up the wrong tree, but it is a fact that for the Gripen demo they mated the engine to the body in their first try. We all know the Swedish doctrine to keep the plane as serviceable as possible. That in my opinion is huge huge thing when war breaks out.
2. We should account for peacetime attrition. Starting out with 200 planes rather than 126 is a huge plus.
3. Having two planes instead of one with a service rate higher with the two planes is almost like having a numerical supremacy of 3:1. I have had the good fortune to talk with a lot of fighter pilots. All of them come across as "My fighter strongest". But none of them would like to see themselves outnumbered 3:1.
I think this attribute doesn't go unnoticed with AFs (IAF included) and I think that is GRipen is one of the IAF favourites, inspite of being the lowest in the chain.

But I would say no more on this, Karan and I have slug this out twice before. He made very valid points for the EF/Rafael too which are even more valid knowing what the J-20 is being designed for. I think either way, the IAF stands to gain here. What it defines as more right will be a learning lesson for this lesser mortal.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 25 Jan 2011 11:12

Sriman wrote:
shukla wrote:MMRCA Competitors Set for Aero-India Showdown
Defense-Update

In contrast to selecting an unknown computer wiz, Lockheed Martin is betting on gaining mass media attention through the traditional ‘Celebrity Ride’ on its F-16. Past F-16 rides at Aero-India hosted Tata Industrial Group Chairman Ratan Tata in 2007, and Delhi-based journalist Abhinav Bindra, becoming the first Indian woman to fly the F-16 in 2009.

Just when you think DDM can't possibly sink any lower, they dig a hole in the ground and go even deeper. Drill, baby, drill.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Jan 2011 11:32

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 25 Jan 2011 12:09

nachiket wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Pratyushji,

The need for MMRCA was realized after Kargil when only the Mirages could operate in strike role but the Mig-29s were used to cover their back.
This is a huge logistical nightmare. That's why they needed a multirole fighter aircraft which could do strike attacks as well as be adept in defending itself. When not used as a strike platform it should be a good A2A platform.
IAF Mirages were quite capable of handling anything the PAF could throw at them in 1999. The Mirages were actually the only true multirole aircraft in the IAF inventory. That's why the IAF wanted more of them.

PAF is not our primary concern, it is PLAAF which is our primary concern. It is questionable, given the state of Pakistani economy, how many of PAF fighters will remain airborne in a conflict with India. I am not deriding the capability of F-16 or other fighters that PAF has. Just pointing out that our capability will have to contend with a bigger adversary.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2011 13:11

hmm iirc didnt a lady journalist also fly the F-16block60 in last aeroindia?

jai · Post by **jai** » 25 Jan 2011 14:19

[quote="indranilroy"][quote="Wickberg"]

"Gripen and Tejas MkII can be very similar in layout. Structurally too there will be the highest amount of similarities amongst any of the MMRCA birds. We can certainly borrow refinements from one to the other. But that is not why I support the Gripen for MMRCA.

My logic is very simple, I would rather have two Gripens than 1 typhoon/rafael.

1. The Gripen truly comes across as one of the most if not the most serviceable. Wickberg was barking up the wrong tree, but it is a fact that for the Gripen demo they mated the engine to the body in their first try. We all know the Swedish doctrine to keep the plane as serviceable as possible. That in my opinion is huge huge thing when war breaks out."

Then a Gripen NG/IN selection/ partnership with SAAB should be able to help ADA/HAL/IAF get LCA MK 2 to FOC much quicker, and if Mk2 specs is what the IAF is looking for, then it should lead to happy campers in both IAF and HAL/DRDO.

Big question is - will it ?

Unfortunately, with the never ending delay in finalizing the winner, we will not know for a long time ahead

jai · Post by **jai** » 25 Jan 2011 14:27

shukla wrote:Game changer for the US birds - especially SH??

US removes ISRO, DRDO from export control list
Times of India

Will they give source codes ? We should ask for removal of restriction on sale of ELTA radars and order all the needed 2032's as a pre condition to any other sales.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 25 Jan 2011 14:44

Singha wrote:hmm iirc didnt a lady journalist also fly the F-16block60 in last aeroindia?

it was suman sharma,she flew mig-35,su-30[in russia].
her blog is chhindits.blogspot.com

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 25 Jan 2011 16:32

pandyan wrote:Well...let's wait and see how IAF has rated and ranked Gripen.

If DRDO/HAL can indeed learn a lot from Gripen (appears that SDREs/Vikings seem to agree on this), then IAF should place a large order of 6 to 8 units (might be 3rd largest export order) for DRDO/HAL to rip it apart and play with it.

Other than that, I do wish Gripen wins Brazilian contest!

When will we know that? Is there an official time and date for the down-select?

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 25 Jan 2011 17:07

Latest rumor is that the Rafale is "all but excluded" from the Brazilian contest leaving the SH and Gripen to fight for the contract. One of the main reasons for this seems to be the fact that Lula was backstabbed by Sarkozy on the Iran issue, an issue in which if you are to believe Wikileaks, Sweden supported the Brazilian side. This, according to Wikileaks, surprised US diplomats and caused a bit of a stirr in the diplomat community as they thought Sweden would side with the US and France on the issue.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Jan 2011 18:07

jai wrote: Then a Gripen NG/IN selection/ partnership with SAAB should be able to help ADA/HAL/IAF get LCA MK 2 to FOC much quicker, and if Mk2 specs is what the IAF is looking for, then it should lead to happy campers in both IAF and HAL/DRDO.

Big question is - will it ?

Unfortunately, with the never ending delay in finalizing the winner, we will not know for a long time ahead

Iif Gripen is selected, there will be a good partnership btw SAAB and DRDO. But i doubt if that happens it will be any use to LCA MK2. By that time anything meaningful happens from MMRCA, LCA Mk2 will be well into the advanced stage. BTW, EADS consultancy is particular to help to get LCA Mk2 pretty quick.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Jan 2011 18:22

Legup for Euro fighter fans

100,000 flying hours for Eurofighter Typhoon

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jan 2011 19:45

There is not only the learning aspect of typhoon for India, but the giving aspect seems to be more fulfilling than Gripen which has more back-end throttle control than typhoon. We have to choose a/c that has the least khan grip and IAF has the most handle, better in terms of specs and aspects including political, economical and generating jobs for local industries.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Jan 2011 20:05

Kanson wrote:
jai wrote: Then a Gripen NG/IN selection/ partnership with SAAB should be able to help ADA/HAL/IAF get LCA MK 2 to FOC much quicker, and if Mk2 specs is what the IAF is looking for, then it should lead to happy campers in both IAF and HAL/DRDO.

Big question is - will it ?

Unfortunately, with the never ending delay in finalizing the winner, we will not know for a long time ahead
Iif Gripen is selected, there will be a good partnership btw SAAB and DRDO. But i doubt if that happens it will be any use to LCA MK2. By that time anything meaningful happens from MMRCA, LCA Mk2 will be well into the advanced stage. BTW, EADS consultancy is particular to help to get LCA Mk2 pretty quick.

Exactly. I don't understand what is this BS obsession amongst some that there will great commonality between LCA MK2 & Gripen NG if the latter is selected & their constant propaganda on how great it is. Theres only the engine that is common & thats about it. And in terms of combat value, less said the better about it, the better. The aircraft has a nose pretty much the same as that of the LCA, which means around 1000 Tx/Rx modules at best. Its performance etc will all be at best 15-20% more than that of the LCA MK2 specs, if whats being reported is in the ballpark. In terms of overall capability, and technology transfer, the Swedes have the least to offer as they are the most dependent on third party technology suppliers. Heck, Russia can offer us more with the MiG-35 than the Gripen NG team. But due to assiduous marketing, they have fanboys eating out of their hand about how great the Gripen NG is without even considering IAF operational requirements, not just today but in the future as well. Open any magazine, and it has Gripen. TV Shows likewise. Couple that with some hard nosed propaganda about air intakes and IKEA wrenches.

Much talk of AESA, datalink and what not. The AESA is from Selex, the datalink is irrelevant, as the IAF will put its own purpose developed Operational DataLink (ODL) on the MMRCA. Rest is all from suppliers all across the world, who are all willing to sell to India on their own and dont really need Sweden either. For the LCA, whom did India choose? Boeing & then EADS (Cassidian). Not the Gripen team. Even before that, whom did India choose? Martin Marietta, GE (not Volvo), BAe. Not the Gripen team. For the LCA MK2, again, there will be a RFI about specific consultancy. But only one organization is bragging about how it is in talks - again, power of marketing. In reality, it will be based on who meets the needs, and as history has shown, its actual expertise that counts. Even for the radar consultancy for LCA MK2, tender is out & Ericsson is not there.

The Chinese on the other hand, just showed the J-20. Check out the size of the radar aperture on the bird, the size of the airframe, implying long ranges and substantial payload. That means we need a top of the line counter as well, for our hard earned taxmoney - $10-14 Billion with many more in spares and systems is NOT cheap. Buy the Eurofighter or Rafale, have Cassidian or Dassault commit fully to supporting the AMCA and be done with it. Instead of making a hue and cry about how cheap and nice the Gripen is or whatever. That won't count for diddly squat in war when the overall combat performance of the aircraft and even the smallest technical edge can give the advantage.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 25 Jan 2011 20:39

Firstly IAF will be surely looking at the progress of J-20.

Secondly J-20 is just completed its maiden flight and it will take minimum of another 5-10 years to mature. Nobody knows will J-20 is really fit for the tag 5th Gen fighter.

Thirdly Chinese will not have 500+ J-20 in 10 years even J-10 fly first time in 1998 & inducted in 2003 and till date approx 200+ are inducted in 8 years i.e., approx 25+ fighters per year. so by that record it will take minimum 10 to 15 years to add 500+ planes that is also if PLAF produce 25+ each of J-10, J-11 & J-20s for next 10 years atleast to replace its ageing JH-7, J-7, J-8 & Q-5 and as per IAFs schedule it will have 70+ PAKFAs & 270 Su-30MKI, 200 MRCAs and 100+ LCAs & others like Mirage & Migs. Thats a best combination of fighter to fight at two front.

jai · Post by **jai** » 25 Jan 2011 21:05

Karan M wrote: Exactly. I don't understand what is this BS obsession amongst some that there will great commonality between LCA MK2 & Gripen NG if the latter is selected & their constant propaganda on how great it is. Theres only the engine that is common & thats about it. And in terms of combat value, less said the better about it, the better. The aircraft has a nose pretty much the same as that of the LCA, which means around 1000 Tx/Rx modules at best. Its performance etc will all be at best 15-20% more than that of the LCA MK2 specs, if whats being reported is in the ballpark. In terms of overall capability, and technology transfer, the Swedes have the least to offer as they are the most dependent on third party technology suppliers. Heck, Russia can offer us more with the MiG-35 than the Gripen NG team. But due to assiduous marketing, they have fanboys eating out of their hand about how great the Gripen NG is without even considering IAF operational requirements, not just today but in the future as well. Open any magazine, and it has Gripen. TV Shows likewise. Couple that with some hard nosed propaganda about air intakes and IKEA wrenches.

Much talk of AESA, datalink and what not. The AESA is from Selex, the datalink is irrelevant, as the IAF will put its own purpose developed Operational DataLink (ODL) on the MMRCA. Rest is all from suppliers all across the world, who are all willing to sell to India on their own and dont really need Sweden either. For the LCA, whom did India choose? Boeing & then EADS (Cassidian). Not the Gripen team. Even before that, whom did India choose? Martin Marietta, GE (not Volvo), BAe. Not the Gripen team. For the LCA MK2, again, there will be a RFI about specific consultancy. But only one organization is bragging about how it is in talks - again, power of marketing. In reality, it will be based on who meets the needs, and as history has shown, its actual expertise that counts. Even for the radar consultancy for LCA MK2, tender is out & Ericsson is not there.

The Chinese on the other hand, just showed the J-20. Check out the size of the radar aperture on the bird, the size of the airframe, implying long ranges and substantial payload. That means we need a top of the line counter as well, for our hard earned taxmoney - $10-14 Billion with many more in spares and systems is NOT cheap. Buy the Eurofighter or Rafale, have Cassidian or Dassault commit fully to supporting the AMCA and be done with it. Instead of making a hue and cry about how cheap and nice the Gripen is or whatever. That won't count for diddly squat in war when the overall combat performance of the aircraft and even the smallest technical edge can give the advantage.

[/quote]

The counter to J 20 will have to be the PMF and not the MMRCA....which in any case the IAF is committed to buying 250/300 of, unless the IAF now scrap this contest because the J 20 is here and order 126 additional PMF's !

The point is not if the Gripen is becoming popular on BR, the point is, how will the contest be decided - which we still do not know. Will they still look at L1 ? In which case, the Gripen may well make it. Or, will they just go with IAF's no 1 Choice in which case it may be EF if rumours are to be believed, or will procurement be completely political - as per some of the media reports...in which case it may well be the 6-teens; trust uncle MMS or should I say Pronobda to justify anything

As regards the consultants chosen so far, we have mostly only seen sanctions and nothing spectacular as outcomes - again going by open source reports, so may be its time we also try out SAAB !! The swedes do make good weapons ! The AESA may be Selex but what's wrong with it if its available to India with the source codes, without sanctions and works to IAF's satisfaction ?

Net net, we are all going with our own perceptions and information available in open media - and even right now there is no knowing how will this procurement circus end !!

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 25 Jan 2011 21:08

India should really go for more PAK-FA in my opinion.

Also, the J-20 shouldn't be overestimated. Sure, the body looks "stealthish", but what about what's inside? Just thinking about how much money and know-how that's being pumped into the F-35 and F-22, and the US has access to and is way infront of China technologywise. That's a huge gap China has to leapfrog, and it's hardly done in 10 years. Unless of course France, Spain and Germany forces an end to the China weapons embargo.

Also, India is not under the same weapons embargo as China is so it should have access to a lot more technology.

jai · Post by **jai** » 25 Jan 2011 21:18

Henrik wrote:India should really go for more PAK-FA in my opinion.

Also, the J-20 shouldn't be overestimated.

Talking of American inspired (managed ??) design, it rains a lot in south east asia - specially north east

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 25 Jan 2011 21:51

J-20 cann't be underestimated also

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 25 Jan 2011 21:55

indranilroy wrote:
Sir, please get the quotes right. I never said that.

sorry my bad changed it

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 25 Jan 2011 22:01

IAF should look out for 60 sq instead of 39.5 sq, i have not understand the way they have fixed the required strength.

while Chinese keep around 1700+ fighters and Pakistan with another 400+, IAF should better look out for atleast ranged between 1200-1500 fighters to fight at two front with some reserve

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jan 2011 02:11

Aim high enough to reach the target is a wonderful idea. But all these numbers majority are imports with zero local production, then we are choked by anyone on the planet. local production capacity must be used to measure for a given scope and time span.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Jan 2011 06:25

nachiket wrote:The final configuration of the LCA Mk2 hasn't been decided yet. Or it may have been decided but nobody in an official capacity has spoken about it. We don't know if they are planning to increase the internal fuel, payload and hardpoints. So comparisons with the Gripen or any other fighter are moot at the moment.

As for the Gripen NG, IMHO the 7200kg payload figure being bandied about looks like a marketing ploy by SAAB to show Gripen == EF and Rafale. Even with a lower payload of course, the NG would be a very strong contender for the MRCA considering the price and operating cost advantages.

The 7200kg payload figure is a theoretical possibility at best. The bird has a MTOW of 16500kg, it weighs 7000kg empty, carries 3400kg internal fuel, the max external payload possible thereafter for all practical purposes = 16500kg - 10500kg = 6000kg.
7200kg may be possible if internal fuel load is compromised by a tonne or more, which would not be too bad I s'pose.

CM

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 26 Jan 2011 06:41

I would prefer a plane with minimal American components. Therefore Eurofighter, Rafale and MIG 35 fit the bill.

I believe the next generation of fighter planes should be manufactured by private companies in India.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 26 Jan 2011 06:47

LCA Mk1 should be 150 number
LCA Mk2 should be 250 number
MMRCA should be 200 numbers
FGFA should be 250 numbers
MCA should be 250 numbers
MKI should be 270 numbers

Then gradually we should replace MMRCA with more indegenous fighters, may be, MCA Mk2 and MKI should be replaced with LCA Mk3.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jan 2011 07:16

in the first gulf war , to target a area smaller than most indian states, around 2200 fighters, naval a/c and bombers were deployed to the gulf. not aware of how many were in 2nd gulf war and kosovo bombardment (in kosovo the usaf/air natl guard deployed 150 AAR tankers alone I read somewhere)

so the number of 700 we always seem stuck at is not some holy line in the sand...we need to double that to 1400 in keeping with growing economy and sphere of influence. not all need be fighters - a lot of transport a/c and helicopters are needed too to beef up weak logistics, attack helicopters, CSAR, recon, utility, helicopter borne assault brigades, ASW, GMTI....

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 26 Jan 2011 07:53

what role actually IAF want to designate to MRCA ?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Jan 2011 09:55

indranilroy wrote:Pratyushji,

The need for MMRCA was realized after Kargil when only the Mirages could operate in strike role but the Mig-29s were used to cover their back. This is a huge logistical nightmare. That's why they needed a multirole fighter aircraft which could do strike attacks as well as be adept in defending itself. When not used as a strike platform it should be a good A2A platform. Mirage 2000-5s were a good fit for this. Now the IAF (somewhat forced by the non availability of new Mirages) has moved on and a decade has passed and so the requirements are only higher. LCA doesn't have enough payload capability to work as a strike platform along with being able to carry enough A2A amunitions.

And I don't agree with you that LCA is here in terms of operational maturity. We can only say that major hurdles have been passed in designing a plane and starting to field it. Needless to say that Tejas MkII will have a much smoother path than the MK-I. It is certainly not here and will take 8-10 years after its FOC to reach operational/manufacturing maturity. I don't see how LCA will be any different from all other aircrafts that have been fielded till date.

Also your argument that we have LCAs and Su-30MKI/PAKFAs beyond 2020 is not quite right IMHO. The gap is way too large. And we have have too much of a top heavy AF. Heavy fighters are prone to more maintenance and operating costs. Light aircrafts can't be truly multirole in a single operation. "Medium" fighters save the day. this is why most AFs which have reasonable choice open to them have lots of medium fighters and lesser number of heavy fighters. IAF on the other hand has truly become lopsided. I can completely understand that the IAF wants more medium fighters.

So according to me
1. LCA MKII is not a medium fighter
2. LCA MKII is not here yet
3. We need medium fighters
4. So MMRCA makes a lot of sense but please hasten it up for God's sake!

IR,

The points that you make leave me by and large unconvinced. Primarily because in the past the IAF has largely operated aircrafts that were single role. Even when the MR variant existed the payload was so small that the MR capability it made no difference for any one operation. Having said so the Tejas in its current avatar represents a quantum leap in capability over any other Mig or a jaguar currently in service with the IAF. The M2k is a multi role platform as is the MKI.

It can deploy 1600 Kgs of munitions over a target while carrying 2 1200 Kg drop tanks and 2 WVR AAMs, With relatively modest effort the outer most hard points can be strengthened for BVR missile carriage. So the “True MR capability” over a single mission can be acquired relatively easily.

The second argument WRT the “maturity” of the production environment is a chicken & egg situation. If the Tejas is not to serve the IAF in large numbers then the production environment will never reach a stage which can be considered “mature”. As the production capability required for the Tejas to be build in numbers will never be build and reach maturity.

Third argument WRT the gap in capability. The PAK FA is expected to be in IAF service by 2025. The AMCA is expected to reach service by 2030. (This is out of musharraf and not based on any solid Information). In the mean time the MK 2 in conjunction with the MK1 & the upgraded 29 and the M2K will offer sufficient capability to the IAF to hold its own or kick a$$ as the case may be. That is if the other elements of Air power are not compromised. I.e. the smart munitions or the AAMs and the ISTAR and AEW and tankers. (However, this is a discussion for a separate thread.).

Also, we don't know that the MKI will not receive any additional orders beyond the latest 40. There is a possibility that the IAF will order 40 more by the end of 2012 for a total of 350 MKIs. This will be sufficient in conjunction with the Tejas and the late model Jags, 27 & the upgraded 29 and the M2K will be good enough to meet the needs of the IAF till 2025.

The rational for a medium combat aircraft is still some what unclear to me when I look at the total payload of the Tejas. It has 7 hard points 2 each rated for 1200 and 800 Kgs. Plus the 1 for the LDB and 2 for WVR.. There is no reason to believe that the 1200 kg rated hard point can not carry an equivalent bomb load but with a reduced combat radius. That in turn gives the Tejas today with the capability of dilivering 4000 Kg of munitions along with the ability to carry 2 WVR AAMs. But at a reduced combat range.

That said if the Mk 2 gets a CFT the like the one developed for the F-16. The range problem will be addressed as well. When mated to a higher thrust engine. It is well within the realm of possibility that the MK 2 can be developed with the following capabilities in mind.

1) CFT for 2400 lts of additional fuel.

2) The outer most hard point strengthened for BVR AAMs.

3) Multi point racks for the 1200 KG hard point which is strengthened to carry 1500 kg load. With one1200 KG load and 2 BVR missiles.

4) ASEA and next gen integrated EW fit.

This is a near NG standard aircraft. The weight gain will require a stronger landing gear. The one developed for the Naval version if adapted with minor modifications for a land based aircraft should do the job.

Other then the possible exception of the ASEA every thing else is well within the capabilities of the Indian industry ATM. You do that and you enter the medium combat aircraft category.

Look at it this way the swedes with the 414 are looking to double the load out of the Gripen in it NG avatar from the early ABCD models.

What I am trying to say is that all the building blocks are available today to do the job in an acceptable time frame. All that is required today is the will to actually do so. That being the case canceling the MMRCA,developing the MK 2 and ordering the MK1 in large numbers makes perfect sense to me. As the MMRCA project today will dilute both the focus and the will to build the Tejas in large numbers.

Nihat wrote: SNIP......

@ Pratyush, you make some decent points in your "scrap the MMRCA" post about Mk II but at the time MMRCA compettition was started , there was little way of knowing how succesful Tejas might be , leave alone development of an MK II and now when we're < 1yr. from decision time and MK II stilll a paper place, it''ll be a bit folly to scrap MRCA for MK II.

Persisting with the MMRCA today will be a greater folly today, as opposed to canceling it due to the factors I have mentioned in my reply to Indranil. WRT, the MK2 being a paper plane. The IAF if takes the time to finalize the ASQR for the MK2 and cancels the MMRCA by the end of the year. The MK2 can be had by 2016/17 at the latest. In the mean time the MK one can be built in large numbers by the HAL if the IAF places the orders for it. But the time to do so is in the next 1 year. So that by 2014 the production line can be enlarged by the HAL. So the problem is more of chicken and egg rather then the capabilities of the product it self.

JMT.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 26 Jan 2011 10:00

I am always left puzzled when people talk of Tejas replacing MMRCA or MKI...For the simple reason that Tejas is a light combat aircraft and MMRCA or MKI comes in much heavier category.

If we need a replacement for them, I hope a fresh aircraft to match their profile can be designed with the expertise we have got from tejas and others TOTs. Why to load Tejas with heavy expectations of ours.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Jan 2011 11:41

Pratyushji,

You are entitled to your view and I am not going to try to change it.

1. However you ask a plane with 3/4th the wing size, 1/2 the power to do everything that you want from a medium plane, then you can imagine what you will get. It is very simple physics.

2. Similarly if you take a truck to do your daily vegetable shopping, then yes your work will be done, but your efficiency can be questionable. Similarly getting more Su-30s is not a substitute for lesser lighter or medium fighter.

3. If you call being able to carry 2 WVR missiles or (not and mind you) 2 BVR missiles (only if outer pylons can be hardened, I understand very little of aero stuff, but I can gurantee you its is not the "little" work that you say) beyond the strike loads as "true multirole" capability, then I will not contest you.

4. A plane on paper and a planes which have been flying for a decade have a huge difference. If you disagree, I will not contest either.

5. Also I don't think whether LCA is better than Mig-21/27/23/Jag etc. They are not adversaries. We should look at what are LCA adversaries from the air and from the ground. And there you will see that the adversaries ranging from ground radar, AWACS, S2A missiles, A2A missiles and planes have gone through gen-leaps as well. so we shouldn't say oh LCA is better than yesterday's planes and hence it is validated to be a MMRCA replacement. Infact that logic makes no sense to me. But again you are completely entitled to your view.

These are my most basic inferences. But as I said before I am not going to try to change your conviction.

P.S. I am a nationalist like you and would love to see Tejas in numbers in the IAF. Even if I keep my nationalistic pride aside and just look at LCA as just a light fighter as a aircraft enthusiast, I would have seen a very capable light plane. But Tejas as medium multi-role fighter doesn't make sense to me. It was never designed to be one. None of the designers/manufacturers/customers claim it to be one. But then India is a democratic country and you are entitled to your view.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jan 2011 11:55

Pl. read AWST "Numbers do matter" article,part of the reports on the PRC's new stealth bird.In the IAF's context,it needs numbers first and foremost,to face-off both Pak and China.Larger multi-role heavyweights cannot be in two places at the same time,even with tanker availability.There is also a limitation on the number of AAMs.missiles that even aheavyweight can carry,a problem for the US when faced with F-22 opponents in larger numbers.It is this cost-effective factor,whereby the IAF can possess large numbers of Gripens,plus whatever LCAs we manage to produce which makes this buy an attractive one.If the FGFA arrives on schedule,we will have enough of stealth + Flankers to deal qualitatively with the PRC threat,while still having that extra 100+ light fighters avilable.We may be able to acquire even upto 180-200 Gripens/MIG-35s for the cost of just 120 Typhoons or Rafales,a very serious factor to be considered.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Jan 2011 12:21

^^^ I have been saying this for over half an year now.

But then this is only one school of thought.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Jan 2011 13:47

Il76 with two underwing rotary drum launchers for R77's each carrying 30 missiles (total 60 missiles)
targets queued by awacs and escort su30's

don't laugh - its one way of doing it...

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 26 Jan 2011 14:51

we should not forget that PAF's inventory has Mirage III, Mirage V, F-7, A-5s making total of 350+ which will be replaced piece by piece by JF-17s and by 2020 PAF will surely have a good force of 250+ JF-17s, 90+ F-16s, 100+ J-10s and China will have additional 1500+ fighters of which 700+ of their leading 4 Gen fighters like J-11s, J-10s.

and we sit here and talk like LCA should be improved further & further it won't work at all. GoI should see the threat coming in future and order for more LCA's with quick production because atleast by 2015 as per the R&D's assurance Mk2 roles out then production can be shifted to Mk2 making atleast a supporting fighter for Su-30MKIs & MRCA's.

IA & IN did the same thing and what they are in now, I think IAF will learn from those mistakes.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jan 2011 15:17

the PAFs older F-16 getting the MLU now will be due for retirement in 2020 (along with our upgraded Jaguars and Mig27s)..so only the new Block52 they are getting now(18?) will remain...(and any other baksheesh they can get this decade) , also I seriously doubt they are going for J-10 when they can hold out and hope for more F-16...100 is a high number...max 50 can be expected. to get 250+ J-17 in 10 yrs they'd need 25/annum which is not going to happen...I dont think they can train and convert two old or new squadrons every year. they have 8 JF17 in operational service so far in a non-FOCed way.

my expection is 120 JF-17 (core of the new PAFmix of chengdu and pac kamra skd), 36 F-16 block52, 50 J-10 and maybe 100 J-7....total around 300 fighter ... all the F-6, older F-7 , MirageIII and MirageV retired.

just having fighters is not enough, one needs the opex to train and equip them properly on a continuous basis...considering the trajectory of the pakinomy, I doubt they can afford a force of more than the 300 I said incl 200 "high end" and 100 "low end" (daytime patrolling point defence J7 with chinese radar and bvr AAMs in a MLU).

when the J-10 will mature into as capable a plane as Block52 F-16 is a open question.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Jan 2011 15:21

the PAF force is a serious threat only in a last ditch do-or-die scenario when they throw everything into the ring for one final frontal cavalry charge with green djinns leading and just before the nukes are let loose

otherwise they will keep a low profile, try sneak attacks, pick off stragglers and rely more on SAM's and conserve their strength (like tantra onlee)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jan 2011 15:26

in the best of times (reagan era) they were given 40 f-16 only....they got another 18 block52 from obama. I am expecting another block52 sqdn in a few yrs but thats about it.
32 of their older f-16 are from mid 1980s (as old as our M2k) and can be expected after MLU to last a decade..but no more (unless they arr wrapped in sheets and mothballed to preserve airframe life)

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 26 Jan 2011 15:59

Pakistan begins domestic final assembly of JF-17

It then plans to produce 12 aircraft in 2010, 15-16 aircraft annually from 2011, and up to 25 a year eventually, says the service. Under the terms of its contract with Chengdu Aircraft, Pakistan will buy 150 domestically produced JF-17s. This could eventually go up to 300 fighters.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... jf-17.html

Pakistan signs deal for Chinese J-10 fighters

If confirmed, this would form the first phase of a purchase that includes options for several dozen more aircraft and result in Islamabad eventually acquiring around 150 of the multirole fighters.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... hters.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jan 2011 17:30

kmc_chacko wrote:what role actually IAF want to designate to MRCA ?

actualities differ from realities. If you can find out what role now, then the MRCA order would have been already done. if someone said it to you, you may please share that., so that we can satisfy many wishes including the leaks and cancellation of mrca.