MRCA News and Discussion

[dorai]

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

The aircraft has been in the workshop since early April being readied for its second test phase. This will introduce missile approach warners and satellite communications equipment and, from later this year, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar: Selex Galileo's Vixen 1000E/ES05 Raven.

Saab rolled out the Demo with an agreement to use an AESA demonstrator provided by Thales, but their relationship quickly crumbled. Thales says it withdrew the technology as it was already under contract for the Rafale, but Kemp gives a different explanation. "The radar wasn't good enough for what we needed to do," he says. "The Selex radar is seriously outstanding. When you brief people on the capabilities they are astonished."

Bob Mason, Selex Galileo's executive vice-president, radar and advanced targeting, says the Vixen 1000E's advantage comes from the use of a swashplate mounting, which enables the active array to be rotated by +/-100°. This beats a fixed AESA during beyond visual-range and off-boresight missile firings, and while acquiring synthetic aperture radar imagery, he says. "We will be delivering a prototype this year for them to fly, and then will upgrade it over the next 18 months."

And he reveals that Saab has already held discussions with the Brazilian defence ministry about possible future collaboration on the development of a new fifth-generation strike aircraft.

Sensing an opportunity to challenge the dominance of larger European and US manufacturers, Saab could pursue a joint project with Brazil, India and South Africa, he adds.

[Philip]

Yes,French products are built well and work well.Some years ago I was speaking to one of our distingusihed admirals ,a well known submariner,and asked him about Pak's Agosta 90Bs,how he rated them and French technology.His reply was,"I would love to have some of them in our navy!" He was full of praise for the French tech.,which he said generally "met or surpassed the specs. required".

Therefore ,one can expect from the French an excellent product,but not at bargain basement prices.As we can see with the Scorpene deal,the French are asking for more.Now this to me is a bit of jiggery-pokery,as the Scorpene sub has been built for other countries and there is nothing extra special about he ones for India.No MESMA AIP or cell for Brahmos.Only std. Exocet sub launched missiles aboard.Wheras,the Gorshkov was in a state of disrepair ,there were no drawings and there was geuine difficulty in working out how much the modernisation and repair work would cost.Here the Scorpene subs and their cost is well known and we should be firm and deemand that the contract be honoured.Did France pay Malaysia more for its Scorpene?

[SaiK]

Tanaji,the nuke deal and even upto the voting machine tampering may be paid by CIA. but why don't we just take merits alone before we arrive at a conclusion..

Let the posts happen for france et al, and see how things turn. the cost angle, should make us feel better to hold them by the "check" and make them provide us the documents, services and parts.

just money speaks.

[Tanaji]

I wasnt speaking of conspiracies, just geo-politics.

The nuke deal has passed with American help. They need a quid pro quo in return. Their own domestic laws and their relatively older designs preclude us from buying their reactors. Ergo, they must be paid in some other way. Arms purchase is the only way such big ticket paybacks can be done: its a win-win that guarantees American jobs and makes the politicians (i.e. the ones that did the deal) look good. Hence my comment.

[SaiK]

not a bad thought.. but care must be given to our toting needs and how much we can maximize and exploit getting those technologies, since we are signing up for GUBOing with american inspection raaj!. well... thats a side effect, of thinking business terms. can't get any karmic better at that.

also, be prepared for the hyphenation deals that would happen across the border, where it is going to be 1:10 discussion again. your suggestion may have some strategic values here as the ratio could be drastically brought down to 1:1 p!ing contest.

if its boeing or LM, then get that:

1. apg79++ and adaptability for netcentricity.
2. third party weapons integration API and source code.
3. totally localized parts, including perhaps the assembly of GE/PW engines
4. agreement to include third party replacements after 5 years [like how the generic drugs gets rights over prescription drugs in the khan land], where say DRDO t/r modules replaces the apg79 ones. A great vision here.
5. predefined inspection agenda rather ad-hoc, and details of inspection aspects predetermined, and signed off.

somethings basic, but good strategies.

[PratikDas]

I wasnt speaking of conspiracies, just geo-politics.

Neither was I speaking of conspiracies actually. The Falkland story didn't come out of some journalist's imagination but from a book written by a close associate of the French president. In other words, the story might be dramatised but it won't be far from the truth.

France and Germany campaigned heavily to have the European Union lift the embargo on weapons sales to China. In fact, the Chinese president vowed to improve strategic ties with France and the French defence minister stated that, "The EU arms embargo on China can no longer be justified and should be lifted."

It is just business after all. If we expect France to suddenly forget its intentions and actions from the last 5 years then we are hallucinating. If there is a "strategic" tie being offered by the French to India then there is surely one being offered to the Chinese as well, which makes the offer to India quite useless. In fact, the only guarantee such an arrangement can provide is that France will stay idle and twiddle its thumbs during an Indo-China conflict. We need an ally, not a spectator. I have said earlier that we can expect Russia to do exactly the same as well, because they too are selling to both sides. However, if the US starts selling weapons to China especially when they campaigned very recently and so strongly to quash the movement to do the same in Europe, OR if the Americans compromise their hardware in the midst of a conflict due to pressure from China then hell would have truly frozen over. Then India would be forced to realise that it is truly alone. It would be better to acknowledge that truth sooner rather than later and negotiate the MRCA on those terms today.

[JaiS]

PARIS AIR SHOW: Rafale's fighting chance

THALES DETAILS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP FOR FIGHTERS EVOLUTION


The most dramatic enhancements now being made are focused on the aircraft's predominantly Thales-developed electronics equipment. Covering technologies such as radar, communications and self-protection, this accounts for around 30% of the value of each Rafale.
Perhaps the single most important change is the coming availability of the RBE2 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, scheduled to enter French air force use in 2012. Claimed to provide a more than 50% increase in detection range and reduced lifecycle costs when compared with earlier systems, this uses around 1,000 gallium-arsenide transmit/receive modules, manufactured by Europe's United Monolithic Semiconductors.


"The E-scan architecture means not just a traditional radar with an active array on the front end: it's an advanced system based on 10 years of development, testing and feedback," says Jean-Marc Goujon, Thales Aerospace's head of marketing and product policy. "We are the only ones with a fully mature AESA in Europe."

An upgrade to the Rafale's passive front sector optronics suite will also further its targeting potential, with the system gaining new identification and laser range finding equipment. The aircraft's Spectra electronic warfare system, which provides 360° coverage, is also to get an improved missile warning system from MBDA. And the current integration of Mode 4 identification friend-or-foe equipment will be followed by Mode 5 in 2013.

"There is a roadmap with technologies to the end of the next decade," says Goujon.

[NRao]

SaiK,

CAS (and others) are expecting an infusion of billionS as part of the offset process.

Offsets at 30 percent for combined projects – or $30 billion within the next five years and another $30 more in the Aerospace sector in about 20 years – Transfer of Technology (ToT),

That is about $60 billion in 20 years, of which a "TARP" of $30 billion in the next 5!!

What you are asking for seems to be peanuts!

That article is a must read for futurists.

[SaiK]

of course, mrca toting value is a golden peanut compared to other planned offsets per your link. sounds reasonable.

[Jean_M]

It is just business after all. If we expect France to suddenly forget its intentions and actions from the last 5 years then we are hallucinating. If there is a "strategic" tie being offered by the French to India then there is surely one being offered to the Chinese as well, which makes the offer to India quite useless. In fact, the only guarantee such an arrangement can provide is that France will stay idle and twiddle its thumbs during an Indo-China conflict. We need an ally, not a spectator. I have said earlier that we can expect Russia to do exactly the same as well, because they too are selling to both sides. However, if the US starts selling weapons to China especially when they campaigned very recently and so strongly to quash the movement to do the same in Europe, OR if the Americans compromise their hardware in the midst of a conflict due to pressure from China then hell would have truly frozen over. Then India would be forced to realise that it is truly alone. It would be better to acknowledge that truth sooner rather than later and negotiate the MRCA on those terms today.

Here we are !
I fully agree. You may also consider that these strategic shifts are linked to changes at political/administration level within your partners. That mean you may face these every 4 or 5 years, making forecasts quite a hassle. France's greatest efforts to lift EU-China embargo were conducted by Jacques Chirac (our former president) while our new president seems far less active on that front. On the US side, we have all noticed Obama's administration foreign politic change of orientation toward China... When you say

It would be better to acknowledge that truth sooner rather than later and negotiate the MRCA on those terms today.

I think your politics are already fully aware of that and will ask for strong insurances.

[SaiK]

dated...
As the paper notes, in a discussion on China’s integration into the global system, “China cannot develop in isolation from the rest of the world, nor can the world enjoy prosperity and stability without China.” While not necessarily intended as a threat, it is a clear message that neither will China ignore global issues, nor should the world — or the United States — ignore China’s role.
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/200901 ... hite_paper


http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009 ... ts-to.html
Obama to Sell B-2 Bomber Blueprints to China to Pay Off Debt
According to the deal, the United States would sell the plans for the B-2, along with radar-absorbing paints and metals in exchange for $50 billion in debt relief. The B-2 cost the US government $23 billion to develop the bomber in the 1980s.
While this proposal is controversial, it is not being presented to Congress, where it could meet with stern opposition.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1238.htm
President Obama to sell its AM General Division to China’s Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company

[SaiK]

So, F-35 offer includes "ToT" and same price as F-15.

Any takers?

What is to be noted is that the MRCA deal will be F-16s "Block 70".

The F-35s will be in addition to the F-16 MRCA.

Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet. The radar-evading plane is the world's biggest weapons program, valued at over $200 billion.

break-even when at the cost of f16s???
----

and the White House offers an opportunity to reform U.S. export control laws that companies say hamper their ability to compete overseas. Lawmakers often weigh in to keep sophisticated systems like the F-22 solely for U.S. use.

The next test for the arms trade could be whether the U.S. Senate acts to approve treaties negotiated with Australia and Britain to ease restrictions on defense trade.

by no means, we have any relationship with the khans so to speak up so much for their cause., and by contrast the french policies are more dynamic in nature, and easily driven by premiership rather a strong hyding and jackaling laws that govern such sales.

in a way, better know how much we can have both of them in discussion to be malleable to our interests.

otoh, if we change our interests like how china does, then perhaps we may see a stronger political sense (stable for longer periods of time) within both of these fighter giants policies.

bottomline, we need to rethink on our doctrine for us to be less distracted by foreign sales in the neighborhood.

[Philip]

Neither the French or the Russians are selling China their very best military ware and Chinese orders from Russia are drying up.India has acquired from both what China will never get.The A-320 deal with China was purely commercial.China benefited too as it wanted to master the tech. of manufacturing passenger and transport aircraft too.It is to produce an equivalent of a regional jet of the type that Bombardier and Embraer are making.The coming trials will determine the veracity of the Rafale boast,that it has the only true and "best" AESA radar from European manufacturers.

[NRao]

Gents,

An old article, but one that provides some insight (into ToT and AESA) (the title is a wee bit misleading):

May, 2008 :: India Won't Get Technology Transfer For New Jet Radar: Raytheon

[PratikDas]

Here we are !
I fully agree. You may also consider that these strategic shifts are linked to changes at political/administration level within your partners. That mean you may face these every 4 or 5 years, making forecasts quite a hassle. France's greatest efforts to lift EU-China embargo were conducted by Jacques Chirac (our former president) while our new president seems far less active on that front. On the US side, we have all noticed Obama's administration foreign politic change of orientation toward China... When you say

It would be better to acknowledge that truth sooner rather than later and negotiate the MRCA on those terms today.

I think your politics are already fully aware of that and will ask for strong insurances.

If everyone understands that the strategic component is worthless then it should also be clear that India won't be paying for any intangible, unrealistic, and quite frankly misleading promise of a strategic tie up either. In other words, the promise of a strategic tie is a white lie. The inflated costs from the MRCA vendors can also be brought down to Earth when marketing fluff and intangibles have been weeded out.

[PratikDas]

Neither the French or the Russians are selling China their very best military ware and Chinese orders from Russia are drying up.India has acquired from both what China will never get.

How can we be so sure of that?

Lets look objectively at the track record of the different countries. France tried to have the EU weapons embargo for China lifted and, as you state, is already selling them something. The US applied pressure to block the EU embargo from being lifted. Russia is also selling weapons to China, including the SU-30MKK. Israel tried to the sell the Phalcon to China but the US blocked the sale. The US approved the sale of the Phalcon to India.

I agree that the French Mirages were critical for the Kargil success. I also agree that the spine of the IAF is basically Russian, thanks to the MIGs, Sukhois, IL-76/8s, etc. But the only country here that's not sleeping with both sides seems to be US, right?

[KrishG]

Neither the French or the Russians are selling China their very best military ware and Chinese orders from Russia are drying up.India has acquired from both what China will never get.

How can we be so sure of that?

Lets look objectively at the track record of the different countries. France tried to have the EU weapons embargo for China lifted and, as you state, is already selling them something. The US applied pressure to block the EU embargo from being lifted. Russia is also selling weapons to China, including the SU-30MKK. Israel tried to the sell the Phalcon to China but the US blocked the sale. The US approved the sale of the Phalcon to India.

I agree that the French Mirages were critical for the Kargil success. I also agree that the spine of the IAF is basically Russian, thanks to the MIGs, Sukhois, IL-76/8s, etc. But the only country here that's not sleeping with both sides seems to be US, right?

At the end of the day, it's every country for itself. We cannot expect any country to accept such commitments let alone the question of being loyal to it. France has always aggressively marketed it's products both in India and Pakistan. They'll continue to sell to anybody whom them don't perceive as a threat to themselves. France sees India, Pakistan, China etc etc only as a market for their Defence Industry and in no way does it care about any Strategic partnerships. The only solution to this problem would be development of indigenous defence industry. With respect to MMRCA, there is contender which will make such commitment.

[SaiK]

[..But the only country here that's not sleeping with both sides seems to be US, right?

on an analogous scale, russkies have slept less with our near enemy but have polygamous relationship with the sole-commies. also, didn't we have a general understanding that we can't expect virgin sellers catering to our strategic needs.

given a list of who slept with whom, and the LBA (least b!tch analysis) should show the fishbone towards the khans being sleeping less to russians if we consider chinese more an enemy than pakis. if pakis are the numero uno, then the khans have slept more with them rather china.

hence, we need to know what the rfp intention is, ie, if its focused towards china, then go for the teenage fighters from the khan land. If its pakis, then get the aunties largely from migs. But, if its intended solely towards pakistan, then we might add in further, the existing relationship factors and issues with the russkies, and that is where, the sleept-with-all seller france comes in. btw, they do have a competitor : EF2K., who can equally sleep with all.

and what do we do with a brokered sleeper like gripen? they are hiding with a wrapped up solution, saying they are clean., but rely on the ever sleeping giants. they are like the cat on the wall that would jump anytime down towards either side of the wall.

from a political perspective, the highend sleeping fighters are clearly the cold war biggies, since they have the power to pay the type of sleep they want. France can easily get this deal, if they can counter russia more than the khans, on feature, price, performance.

[bchatnani]

The End User Verification requirement with American arms should be an important factor to be considered. Would anyone know whether Pakistan had to agree to any such verification with the Americans? Was unable to find any source on the web about this matter. If no such requirement exists for Pakistan then we are just being taken for a ride.

[KrishG]

Well, the best strategically safe option would be to sack the whole MMRCA deal and go for Tejas-Mk 2!

[PratikDas]

given a list of who slept with whom, and the LBA (least b!tch analysis) ...

Haha! Only on BR!
There's nothing wrong with the French - or anyone else for that matter - getting this deal on price, performance, features and ToT. I guess the decision will depend largely on the weightage India chooses for each of those metrics.

[GeorgeWelch]

(note: The following assumes that technology transfer and sovereignty issues are worked out. If they aren't then, none of this matters. But assuming it is . . .)

Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet

The 'NO DRAMA' Choice

In many ways, the SH is perfectly positioned for India's needs.

India already has the Su-30 MKI and it has the FGFA/PAK-FA/T-50 under development, so the high-end of the spectrum is taken care of.

What India needs now is a rugged, reliable, affordable, NO DRAMA workhorse that can provide the needed numbers easily and capably.

When going for a hi-lo mix, it's important to avoid gold-plating the lo part. It sort of defeats the point

Looking at all the fighter projects India has (LCA, MCA, FGFA), they have more than enough development working going on. The last thing they need is YET ANOTHER project draining resources that has development drag on for years. You want something that is available immediately with no fuss.


That said, let me breakdown some important points to consider.


1. NO DRAMA

The MiG-35 and Gripen-NG are just prototypes with a full development schedule ahead of them.

The EF and Rafale are further along, but still don't have all the required capability ready. I'm sure they'll promise to have everything ready by the time India is supposed to receive deliveries, but there are always delays and issues. The Rafale couldn't lase it's own targets in Afghanistan. Neither plane has an AESA radar integrated. The SH has had AESA since 2005.

Big picture, you could argue these aren't a big deal, but it's just one more uncertainty, one more delay and one more cost.

All of the features of the SH just work and have been proven in constant combat.



2. KINETICS

I know a lot people aren't happy with the SH's speed, acceleration, etc.

But the important point is, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Unless the airframe offers some game-changing capability (like stealth), whether it's a little bit faster or climbs a little bit higher or turns a little tighter doesn't matter.

Don't believe me? Let me point out a few examples:


a) Falklands

Dagger (aka IAI Nesher AKA Mirage 5) - Mach 2.2
Mirage III - Mach 2.2
Sea Harrier - 635 knots (< Mach 1)

Which one of these is the best fighter?

Obviously the plane which is over twice as slow as the others.

The subsonic Sea Harrier shot down 9 Daggers and 1.5 Mirage IIIs with no air-to-air losses in the Falklands.

You can argue that there were all sorts of extenuating circumstances.

I would respond 'Exactly!'

The situation + the electronics/armament are FAR FAR more important than the kinetics.


b) MiG-21 Bis

Your own MiG-21 Bis is a prime example of how modern electronics and armament can make even the oldest airframe a deadly opponent.


c) F-14 Tomcat

Look no further than the SH itself. The F-14 surpassed it in virtually every category (speed, range, payload), yet the USN couldn't dump it fast enough to move to the SH. That's because the USN realized that while specs are nice, reliability, maintainability and affordability are more important.


Besides, in BVR kinematics don't matter nearly as much as signature reduction (which the SH has) and WVR, the JHMCS+AIM-9X will be a very deadly combo for years to come.

Seriously, I don't want everyone trying to imagine corner cases where kinetics make the difference. Nine times out of ten, the engagement will be decided by factors other than kinetics: surprise, numbers, skill, intelligence, AWACS support, electronics, missiles, fuel load, etc. Nine times out of ten is good enough for the lo part of a hi-lo mix. If there are situations where you think kinetics will be that important, bring an FGFA.

Obviously if the SH was to be the premier fighter of the IAF, then that would be a different situation.



3. AFFORDABILITY

The SH is one of the cheapest to buy and the cheapest to run. It is fuel efficient and has low maintenance requirements.

I know all the others tout low maintenance costs, but the difference is that the SH has PROVEN low costs. The others are either still prototypes or putter around continental airbases in cool and (mostly) dry conditions. Only the Rafale has any sort of deployment experience, but its time in Afghanistan was rather limited and it hasn't been able to have much carrier time since the CdG is perpetually in drydock.

In contrast, the SH has been OPERATIONAL in the toughest environments in the world. From hot and high Afghanistan to the fine sand of Iraq to the heat and humidity and corrosive salt water of carriers, and it has PROVEN its ability to keep maintenance costs low.

The USN SH fleet is the single largest fleet of any of the competitors except the F-16, therefore they focus an extraordinary amount of effort on improving SH logistics and as such they have gotten SH maintenance down to a science. You see them funding efforts like the F414 EDE to enhance component durability and reduced ownership costs.

In a way it reminds me of the difference between buying enterprise level and consumer grade computer hardware. For the same price, you can get a faster consumer system. But enterprises have learned that speed isn't everything. Enterprise hardware comes with redundant power supplies, error-correcting memory, hot-swappable drives, features to allow easy management and is backed with round-the-clock on-site warranty service. These features don't make the computer faster, but are necessary both to reduce TCO (total cost of ownership) and to keep business-critical applications running.

When running 1000 servers, dealing with 'cheaper' consumer grade hardware is no bargain at all as it becomes impossible to maintain.

The SH is the 'enterprise' choice, with a world-class support organization behind it.



4. RELIABILITY

I sort of touched on this in the previous point, but what is the difference between operating at home and operating at war?

The engines on the V-22 get 1300 hours on-wing at home but only 380 flight hours in Iraq. That's what real-world deployments can do to your impressive low-maintenance statistics.

My point is, all the low maintenance claims for the others are probably true, in their safe, controlled environment. Put them in real combat and we have no idea what will happen.

The airframe of the SH is reinforced and stressed to absorb the tremendous impact of landing on carriers. Only the Rafale also has such a feature available, but it's not clear that that is the version being offered to India.

The SH has 2 engines unlike the Gripen NG and F-16 to help prevent the loss of plane or life if one dies.

The SH is a rugged, reliable plane that works no matter the conditions.

The SH is a mature airframe. As you may recall, in 2007 (12 years after initial production), a fatigue issue which would dramatically reduce airframe life was discovered. It was corrected in new builds, but an expensive retrofit for older models was required.

The other airframes (besides the F-16) haven't been around long enough to be thoroughly worked out. If you select one of them, you may be the one doing the 'expensive retrofit'.

India has had enough bad experiences being the 'pioneer' for reliability issues (MiG-21, even the Jaguar). Let the USN be the frontrunner in this case. They are absolutely FLOGGING the SH, running it at both a far higher tempo and far harsher conditions (carrier) than India will. And the USN will continue flying the SH until the wings fall off, taking it all the way to the end of its operational life. They will pay the price for any reliability issues and not India. Their pilots will die discovering any issues and not India's. They will pay to develop fixes and not India. Just another example of why the SH is NO DRAMA.



5. MULTI-ROLE

Multi-role is a term that gets bandied about quite a bit, but it definitely describes the SH.

It will perform EVERY task of your legacy fleet (Jaguar, MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29, Mirage 2000) better than any of them could with just one airframe.

The USN has committed to replacing EVERYTHING with the SH. It has taken on the roles of the F-14 fighter, the A-6 Intruder attack aircraft, the S-3 Viking sub-hunter, the KA-6D tanker and the EA-6B Prowler jammer.

And it has all those capabilities NOW, not some notional future capability that may or may not happen, NOW.

In addition to all the standard fighter/attack/CAS/recon roles, let me highlight a few others:

buddy refueling: afaik only the Rafale and MiG-35 offer this, and the MiG-35's payload is so much smaller it's laughable. This is quite a handy utility role that has synergistic effects with the rest of the fleet, such as giving the Su-30 truly massive range. Even with 'real' tankers, buddy refueling provides more operational flexibility and is especially important for carrier operations. Speaking of which . . .

carrier capability: Boeing has already confirmed that the SH will work off the ski-jump on Gorshkov/Vikramaditya with a 'significant' weapons load. Having a large fleet of carrier capable aircraft and not being tied to the MiG-29K is quite a nice bonus. The Rafale is the only other carrier capable plane, but it is not clear that it would work off of ski-jumps.

electronic warfare: the Growler is an absolutely unique capability that is definitely a force multiplier, for both stealth and non-stealth planes. And it is not something where you can simply dangle a pod from any old fighter later on, it requires extensive rewiring of the entire plane. I'm not sure what the export policy is, but you can order your SH prewired so there is no need to do a retrofit later on, and then when/if the jammers become available, they can be easily bolted on. (This is what Australia is doing.) And possibly if the US won't provide them, you/Israel/whoever could develop your own that interface with the system.

I know I've been focusing on 'it just works' and 'no drama', but this is such a unique and important capability that it deserves an exception.



6. WEAPONS

Getting the SH also means getting access to an absolutely stupendous variety of US weapons that are ALREADY INTEGRATED AND CERTIFIED. Harpoon, JASSM, JSOW, JDAM, HARM, AIM-9X, AMRAAM, etc.

You say 'But what about all those super-cool Russian weapons?'

Well, you still have them for Su-30MKI and FGFA and whatever else.

This way you have the best of both worlds.

US weapons are always going to be high-quality, and ensuring access to them for decades to come is a smart move.



7. FUTURE SUPPORT

For the MiG-35 and Gripen-NG, India would practically be the only user and thus have to fund all future upgrades itself.

The French are apparently committed to/stuck with the Rafale, but Dassault had to plead with/threaten/cajole the French government to fund AESA development to help its export chances. If the French didn't even want to fund a no-brainer like AESA, what does that say about the future?

The EF is an interesting case. You would think it would be well supported, but they had the worst time even getting the ground attack functionality funded. It was only the Singapore rejection that really kicked them into doing something about it. Again that doesn't bode well for future upgrades once they are done trying to get export sales.

The F-16 is a special case. There are a ton out there so you figure there will be lots of 3rd party (Israeli) upgrade packages available, but the biggest user (the USAF) is phasing it out ASAP. They can't wait to move on to the F-35. The last F-16 was delivered to the USAF in 2005 and they hope to remove all 1200 from service within 16 years. In other words, don't expect any major investments from them.


In contrast, the USN is COMMITTED to the SH. It will still be receiving SHs next year and is the last participant in the F-35 program to receive their planes. Even after the F-35 starts to arrive, the SH will be the backbone of the fleet for decades to come.

The USN has repeatedly shown that it is willing to spend the cash to keeps its SH fleet updated with any new technology that comes along. While EF and Rafale are still ditzing around with AESA, the SH had it 4 years ago plus they're planning to retrofit their entire fleet. Towed decoys? upgraded. JHMCS? added.

That sort of PROVEN COMMITMENT just isn't available anywhere else.



8. GROWTH POTENTIAL

An important part of remaining relevant into the future is growth potential. In my opinion the single-engined fighters and the MiG-35 are just too small/limited in this department.

The SH can lift a tremendous amount of junk, so whatever the latest gizmo or gadget is, there will be room for it.

The other part of growth potential is the SECOND SEAT. Whether it's just for making CAS easier now (which coincidentally is one of the most important jobs of fighters today) or for having a jammer operator or for controlling a flock of UAVs, having a second seat gives you flexibility.

The EF has a 2 seat version available, but it is only used as a trainer, not operationally. I'm sure it could be made operational, but only with a suitable investment of cash.

The Rafale has an operational 2 seat version, but not as a naval version.

Both the smaller planes (Gripen NG and MiG-35) offer a 2nd seat, but they lack the size for future growth.

So if you want BOTH growth potential AND a 2nd seat, the only other choice is Rafale, but then you throw away all naval/carrier capability!



9. POLITICAL

I could go on for a long time here, but I'm going to try to keep it brief and avoid any flame wars

The last thing India needs is another Russian fighter (MiG-35) in its fleet. Between the old MiGs and the new Sukhois and the future FGFA, it is dangerous to be so dependent on one country for your entire fleet.

I know a lot of you are concerned about past US sanctions, but honestly I do not see that as an issue ever again. The situation has changed, the world has changed. The US and India are natural friends (largest democracies) and are united by a common enemy (China).

And don't think the European nations won't ever impose embargoes. The EU has a weapons embargo on China for 'human rights abuses' (Tiananmen Square). On the hand, they won't sell to Taiwan either because they are scared of China. France used to supply Israel, but then the Arab countries made them an offer they couldn't refuse, so they slapped an arms embargo on Israel and even impounded ships that Israel had already bought. (The story of how Israel sneaked them out is epic BTW)

On Pakistan, yes the US supplies stuff to them, but all the more reason to be good friends, so you can influence them to supply 'not-so-good' stuff.

I would again direct you to the Falklands. Argentina was a client and Britain was a friend. When push came to shove, the US stood behind its friend.

While India may be more likely to have skirmishes with Pakistan, in my opinion its greatest strategic threat is China. The US is the only country with the balls and power to stand-up to them. None of the EU countries will sell to Taiwan. France is China's biggest cheerleader in the EU, trying to get them to drop the arms embargo. They would happily sell all the Rafale information to China if the price was right. The US would never do something like that.

(I know, I know, China pwns the US through all its debt, blah blah blah)

The US is a good friend to have, they will stick their neck out to help their friends. Witness Operation Nickel Grass. When Israel needed immediate assistance during the Yom Kippur War, most EU nations (except Portugal and the UK) wouldn't even allow US transports to fly over their territory for fear of angering the Arabs. The US didn't care, they supported their friend even though they knew they would have to pay a steep price with the resulting oil embargo.

Obviously US friendship does not depend on buying US aircraft for the MRCA, but it would be an important building-block in helping to build ties.


In summary, the Super Hornet is:
- affordable to buy
- affordable to fly
- durable, reliable and safe
- is the most 'ready now' choice
- unique capabilities
- good growth potential
- has the most proven future
- a good political choice
- NO DRAMA

[Ashutosh Malik]

Hi George,

I am no expert in this area so I wouldn't comment on the merits of the case you have made - others on this forum are certainly far more capable. But I can surely comment on the way you have presented your case - very well written indeed!

Cheers

[saptarishi]

well written,,but capabilities are not the only criteria for MMRCA,,,tech transfer,,offsets and political factors will come into play,,rafale and typhoon have no chance due to extremely high price,,gripen will lose out due to sweden's lack of political clout,,,only real contenders are mig-35 ,super hornet and f-16in,,,,its between the three,,,russia is willing to transfer the technology of aesa radar but USA IS NOT WILLING,,,,,but russia in terms of after sales service and quality,,,, can be very unreliable ,,,us fighters are a natural choice,,,,,and super hornet will be a potent fighter only if it gets the new powerplants

[Shankar]

I could go on for a long time here, but I'm going to try to keep it brief and avoid any flame wars

The last thing India needs is another Russian fighter (MiG-35) in its fleet. Between the old MiGs and the new Sukhois and the future FGFA, it is dangerous to be so dependent on one country for your entire fleet.

I know a lot of you are concerned about past US sanctions, but honestly I do not see that as an issue ever again. The situation has changed, the world has changed. The US and India are natural friends (largest democracies) and are united by a common enemy (China).

nothing has changed really on ground

still LM 2500 gets blocked
still pakistan gets plenty of us aids and hundreds of amraam to kill indian birds
still us pressurises to "discuss"kashmir
still i have to sign end use agreement to import a piddly safety valve from US
super bug remains an outdated platform no way mat chin Mig 35 in aero dynamic capability
still US insists on intrusive end user inspection

and still
Russia gives us the nerpa -try us
so far not a gram of uranium has come from us -russia has sent several tons
still indians are not welcome in US even after Obama - the diffrence in russian and us consular officials is stark
still we are far more comfortable with russians in any field than americans

the next lunar mission will have russian rover -try us of a
af pak policy has made usa more paki dependant than ever and in any conflict they will shut the tap of spares real fast to protect thier protectorate

that is why we can not even think of buying F-18/16

[SaiK]

if we don't have rfp stating tot requirements to do some of these, then then paying hefty money for tot is a waste:-

continuation and augmentation programs:-
1. program for drdo to integrate russian, israeli or indian weapons on to mrca.
2. program for drdo to have an enhanced mission computer for mrca.
3. program for drdo to have an increased presence in avionics and electronics.

rest may be screw drivers/JMT.

[Jamal K. Malik]

I could go on for a long time here, but I'm going to try to keep it brief and avoid any flame wars

The last thing India needs is another Russian fighter (MiG-35) in its fleet. Between the old MiGs and the new Sukhois and the future FGFA, it is dangerous to be so dependent on one country for your entire fleet.

I know a lot of you are concerned about past US sanctions, but honestly I do not see that as an issue ever again. The situation has changed, the world has changed. The US and India are natural friends (largest democracies) and are united by a common enemy (China).

nothing has changed really on ground

still LM 2500 gets blocked
still pakistan gets plenty of us aids and hundreds of amraam to kill indian birds
still us pressurises to "discuss"kashmir
still i have to sign end use agreement to import a piddly safety valve from US
super bug remains an outdated platform no way mat chin Mig 35 in aero dynamic capability
still US insists on intrusive end user inspection

and still
Russia gives us the nerpa -try us
so far not a gram of uranium has come from us -russia has sent several tons
still indians are not welcome in US even after Obama - the diffrence in russian and us consular officials is stark
still we are far more comfortable with russians in any field than americans

the next lunar mission will have russian rover -try us of a
af pak policy has made usa more paki dependant than ever and in any conflict they will shut the tap of spares real fast to protect thier protectorate

that is why we can not even think of buying F-18/16

These are the facts,which no body can denied and perhaps all of us agree with you.There is some people who think that there is friend in unkill/US.

[arunsrinivasan]

George, Am no expert, but it is extremely well written i.e. you have almost convinced me

[Jamal K. Malik]

Well, the best strategically safe option would be to sack the whole MMRCA deal and go for Tejas-Mk 2!

Both programme should go side by side.Till date, we have difficulty in LCA/Tejas Mk-I and u talking about Mk-II. Upgrading of IAF will hamper. Tejas should be the main bird but it is still behind with schedule.

[sam_kamath]

(note: The following assumes that technology transfer and sovereignty issues are worked out. If they aren't then, none of this matters. But assuming it is . . .)

Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet

The 'NO DRAMA' Choice


In summary, the Super Hornet is:
- affordable to buy
- affordable to fly
- durable, reliable and safe
- is the most 'ready now' choice
- unique capabilities
- good growth potential
- has the most proven future
- a good political choice
- NO DRAMA

Hey George.. Is your day job writing "Infomercials"
I was actually waiting for "But wait ..order now and we will cover all maintainance for the next 3 years absolutely free" at the end of it...
Drama Free..
we buy this plane and next you know every senator worth his salt would be at it trying to write up some bill which would prevent some odd part from reaching India, under all sorts of things from prolification of some sorts, to human rights, or may be even because the part was manufactured by child labor... ya "No Drama" choice..

[Samay]

GeorgeWelch,
you are very comprehensive in your details and a very nice first post, . the details are correct but there is a question that always lurks around
What if USA doesn't let us use it in war?
what is the use of so many features when it is discovered later on (as it has already started) that they cant be used?
and as sam kamath concluded, US congress is very good in presenting hurdles for others ,but there is no drama when bush goes for unnecessary wars and obama uses illogical policies,. .

may be this is a NO Drama aircraft for usa alone

[Philip]

France & co. will sell weaponry to China,but not the very latest and those that are major force multipliers.When it comes to the US,there are several factors that have to be kept in mind.The first is TOT.If the US cannot even trust Britain over the JSF tech.,then fat chance will India have of getting its hands of tech that will usher in a quantum lap in our aviation industry.

The second is sanctions.The US has several ways in armtwisting other nations through entrapment by selling defence eqpt.to it first then squeezing it later.There are enough troublemakers in Congress to be called upon to stop a deal from being honoured.As-according to the US,the Sino-Pak nuclear juggernaut marches on ,India may be forced to test its N-weapons again.From past experience we know whata the US reaction will be.Another successor to "mad-cow" Halfbright will rant and rave against India.

The third is that in my opinion,the F-18 and the F-16 are passe.They are three decades old and in th final avatars.There is little other than the AESA radar worthwhile in the aircraft and there is no way that the US is going to give us full TOT of it.

Fourth,US aircraft acquired will require a whole sea change in the IAF's inventory,training and weaponry,making it operate so many types of aircraft,weaponry and related tech.(Russian,French,British,other European) making it a logistic nightmare.I can understand it if the aircraft in question was the JSF,but not for an aircraft (F-16) that Pak posseses or the F-18 that as said before,US allies are dumping.

So why do we have to buy an aircraft of vintage technology (radar excepted),that everyone (US allies) is ditching in favour of the JSF,that is expensive and which also comes with ropes attached? The French,Europeans and Russians are willing to go the extra mile to do so.Any sensible person will clearly see that the US option should be the last,that is if underhand deals have not been made with the Bush regime.While improved realtions with the US are very welcome,let us not sacrifice objectivity and sensibility at the altar of good relations with a nation that is massively funding and arming our mortal enemy.

[JaiS]

nothing has changed really on ground

still LM 2500 gets blocked

A minor correction, the LM2500 issue was resolved in a matter of days.

[NRao]

GW,

Welcome. Nice write up.

On kinetics: GE is in the process of developing an engine - for the SH - with 20% more power (and actually a second one that is far more fuel efficient). So, that should not be an issue by the time the SH is selected - IF it is.

russia is willing to transfer the technology of aesa radar but USA IS NOT WILLING,

A little misleading. India - per reports - has asked for about 60% AESA ToT (what constitutes 60% we do not know, but the reports state it is in the RFP). ALL vendors have stated that can meet that.

Now clearly Russia is reporting it can do a 100% ToT. The question is what does this 100% constitute? Outside of the US the rest have rather immature (for lack of a better word) capabilities - they ALL are very far behind. So, even a Thales stating they can provide 100% does not mean much. From what I have read so far, no expert, I assume what the others are offering are way behind what the Raytheon offer is worth. This includes things like the various ways the AESA can be used (US has the most experience, with the rest way behind) all the way to mature software for supply chain, ERP systems, etc. (BTW, some of the companies have moved on to conformal AESA - AESA built in into the skin of a flying machine - long back. I have not heard of the Russians or the others doing that so far.)

A minor correction, the LM2500 issue was resolved in a matter of days.

In the bigger scheme of things it was not an issue at all.

Besides IF the SH is selected, since it is a ToT, such issues would be resolved way ahead of time.

[Kartik]

The third is that in my opinion,the F-18 and the F-16 are passe.They are three decades old and in th final avatars.There is little other than the AESA radar worthwhile in the aircraft and there is no way that the US is going to give us full TOT of it.

if you offer this as a reason for why the F-18 or F-16 shouldn't be chosen, then that leaves your argument for MiG-35s with no legs..its also a reworking of a legacy airframe or as you call it "3 decades old" (which IMO is a ignorant statement, because the SH was a reworked airframe, that came into being in the 90s, and the F-16 Advanced Block 52, 60. et all have majorly re-worked airframes as well)

and at least the F-16 and F-18 are supported by other Air Forces, whereas with the MiG-35, its almost certain that we'll be the only customers in the world, since even the parent Air Force is not interested in a token purchase.

[Prem]

i Just want to know what if State Dept or any other influentail Puke lover in Obama Admin come up with some legal mumbo jumbo after the sale that SH cannot be deployed or fly in J&K space till Indian solve Paki H&D issue . They better read EUVA or other paperwork carefully in this regard.

[SaiK]

perhaps kartik's post answers nrao's what is 100% of tot that migs can provide!.. .

and the assumptions that raytheon will be offering something what others can't offer in say x years time, does still fall under assumptions.. besides, there is a big hyding wall on such sales to non-nato nations, specifically India, which only came out of sanctions quite recently.

btw, not to belittle these valid assumptions, since on the same angle, we could have assumptions that russians be providing anything and everything for us.. but hey, they have already done that... and have very little more to do, compared to what others can provide.

if one could note that when we said we could go for either GE or EJ200 for Kaveri, agreeing to whatever they have on their drawing board, means we have an open heart to take newer systems that is not yet established its services with any major forces in the world., taking <timespan> perspective here.

unless the rfp says so, we have an assumption that it has to be a fighter that is existing serviced by other airforces. if so, then what are the evaluation limits, like it should have been at least 10 years in service, blah blah.. so that we can make sure, certain contenders are politically filtered out.

going by the list of a/cs contending, it could be a safe assumption that we have no such thing drafted in rfp, that offers should be from products that is already in service. if it is not, then we can safely remove mig-35 from it, since its a new a/c.

politically, they can come back saying its mig-29-ovt, and nothing about 35. hence, on that argument, we could say, migs are in service, hence they are not paper planes. its just a name change for sales purposes.

[NRao]

i Just want to know what if State Dept or any other influentail Puke lover in Obama Admin come up with some legal mumbo jumbo after the sale that SH cannot be deployed or fly in J&K space till Indian solve Paki H&D issue . They better read EUVA or other paperwork carefully in this regard.

They better do it before the tests start in a few months. Leh is in one of the locations where they will test and then they cannot say anything, can they?

Besides Pak as we know it may not be there.

[NRao]

and the assumptions that raytheon will be offering something what others can't offer in say x years time, does still fall under assumptions.. besides, there is a big hyding wall on such sales to non-nato nations, specifically India, which only came out of sanctions quite recently.

May be I am ALL wrong, but my assumption is that "ToT" - to whatever extent - will mean that India will manufacture them in India. Granted in the case of AESA the 40% that the Indian Govt does not expect to manufacture here will be a black-box supplied from the originating country/vendor, and, to that extent India will be under the gun.

BUT, I do nto expect India to stand still - at least hope not. An Indian AESA should be out in 10 years I would hope.

WRT Raytheon (or any US vendor), IMHO, it is relative. IF the US is X% ahead today, they will maintain that lead due to their vast funds in research - who else has that kind of funds AND the political need?

[b_patel]

The plane that would be most beneficial in terms of TOT would be the Rafale. Dassault is desperate for an order as big as India's, it would give the Rafale legit export success and they would probably integrate any Indian weapons (Astra, etc) you wanted. As much as a like the SH it won't come with source codes for the radar and TOT is 60% for the radar.
But if you want the best plane capable of neutralizing any Pakistani Chinese air threat it would be my fave the EF. Pakistan and China don't have anything capable of matching it in the A2A role. J-17 and J-10 are inferior in that role. The EF did take on 3 block 52's during singapores trials and beat them pretty easily. It also has the smallest RCS of any exportable fighter!!