MRCA News and Discussion

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 02 Apr 2010 21:06

jai wrote: Hi Kartik - Noobie question - can the Mig 29 be upgraded to Mig 35 specs/performance ?

Fellow BFRites - If there is any previous discussion on this, request you to please point me to it. Thanks !!

No. Mig-35 is very different from Mig-29S. This includes major airframe differences. So Mig-29 cannot be upgraded to Mig-35.

sathyaC · Post by **sathyaC** » 02 Apr 2010 21:51

ya the teens /f 404/414 might be the best in the world but if does not perform when and wear we need it , then it is of no use for us, we buy them to use it when we need it , we cannot always ask for the permission from the Big K to use them or can we afford to keep it in museum and the show the stats of the grate teens to our enemies during the war, if the teens by any chance the teens did well then also they are of no use to us (Indians)

note : their is nothing personal towards any one in this forum

sathyaC · Post by **sathyaC** » 02 Apr 2010 21:55

most of the fighter that failed the leh test wear due 2 minor issue , ie fuel system in the most cases that could be easily taken care

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Apr 2010 21:56

sathyaC wrote:most of the fighter that failed the leh test wear due 2 minor issue , ie fuel system in the most cases that could be easily taken care

And you know this how?

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 02 Apr 2010 22:25

too much speculation and no confirmation yet, so one cant say and speculate who did well and didnt. we'll only know when an official report comes out, till then no use wondering which one did well and which one didnt.

Well GE 404 is good and helped the LCA take of from Leh, so lets not criticize it, the SH is being offered with the GE 414 EPE, even if the current GE 414 couldnt lift that heavy butt of the SH, the new EPE will make sure it does with ease.

when it comes to being used whenever needed, the teens can not only be customized to carry lots of EU/Israeli/US weapons but also can be used when needed. Just look at the Israeli F-16s harrasing poor little Palestinians everyday. The Israeli settlements are clearly against US policy but US seems to have a blind eye for it. Knowing Indian policy and being a defensive nation, US knows we wont go to war unless someone provokes it and hence they wont butt it and certainly wont and cant stop India from retaliating against Pakis when they begin a confrontation, US will realise that the Pukis yet again made the same mistake of starting it and US knows India will have the last word and the last punch.

India is aware of US behaviour and yet we are not shying from buying from them. All the contenders except the mig-35 have US components or US weapons or both. We might as well cancel the tender and order the mig-35 which too me is useless as well. With it we have to rely on Russian weapons which by the way our AF is riddled with expensive malfunctioning weapons, these weapons are as reliable as Paki talks of peace.

munna · Post by **munna** » 02 Apr 2010 22:35

Brahmananda wrote:India is aware of US behaviour and yet we are not shying from buying from them. All the contenders except the mig-35 have US components or US weapons or both. We might as well cancel the tender and order the mig-35 which too me is useless as well(errr I thought it was the prerogative of armed forces and the GOI to decide what is useless and what is not?). With it we have to rely on Russian weapons which by the way our AF is riddled with expensive malfunctioning weapons, these weapons are as reliable as Paki talks of peace(All is lost onlee )

If your post is to be believed then we might as well sing and dance cause due to our "useless" Russian weapons the Paki army can takeover India as it pleases and when it pleases!

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 02 Apr 2010 23:02

dont have to believe me just read the reports about how many of our Russian inventory is actually working.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 02 Apr 2010 23:08

Brahmananda wrote:dont have to believe me just read the reports about how many of our Russian inventory is actually working.

And our forces are still going for Russian equipment. man, are they dumb or what!!!

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 02 Apr 2010 23:13

Brahmananda wrote:dont have to believe me just read the reports about how many of our Russian inventory is actually working.

Yea... A few more T-72, T90's and Mig 29's and even Pakistan would invade us, while we sit waiting for our gorshkov.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Apr 2010 23:17

sathyaC wrote:ya the teens /f 404/414 might be the best in the world but if does not perform when and wear we need it , then it is of no use for us, we buy them to use it when we need it , we cannot always ask for the permission from the Big K to use them or can we afford to keep it in museum and the show the stats of the grate teens to our enemies during the war, if the teens by any chance the teens did well then also they are of no use to us (Indians)

note : their is nothing personal towards any one in this forum

I think Sathya you got me wrong (and yes I noted your note

). I didn't mean to say that teens or the GE 4xx engines are best in the world. All I said is that they can't be termed "useless". I am sure that none of us will be too comfortable to see them in numbers in our enemy camps. They were shortlisted much before the whole politicization of the deal kicked in. I am quite certain that the guys in the IAF are not fools. In fact if you ask the people who have been following planes and their technicalities for some decades, they can tell you that the teens are certainly not "useless", "cans" etc etc. If you could point me to any of the parts of the planes which are technologically far inferior (to the point of useless), I would be grateful to learn something new.

As far as your terming them as museum pieces for want of "permissions", I don't really get where you got that from. Any official word/document regarding the same would be highly enlightening. These planes have been sold to other countries before. Are there any such rules in the previous deals? And if they are really there, we should just buy the Migs and be done with it. Any other fighter that we buy would be prone to such sanctions from the US or the European countries which always (have to) sing the same tune!

Let me iterate that I am not pro-teens. If they can't fly out of Leh (or have other probs) which can't be short-fixed, I don't think any of us would be for buying them. But terming them "useless", "elephants", "cans" and what not. Well most aircraft enthusiasts with other favourites would disagree. Besides one has to acknowledge that some critical techs are far more mature and tested (even in combat) on the teens. And combat throws in many many lessons for a mature product. Just my thoughts, but it seems common sense to me.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Apr 2010 23:45

a question often haunts me and I think it is pertinent to this thread. Mods feel free to delete it if otherwise.

In case of a war with any of our likely enemy, we would have to achieve air dominance in the beginning ( wrt to IAF's objective). When such an objective has to be achieved with modern fighters, what is the right choice? Should we go for expensive crafts with superior BVR. Or should we go for cheaper aircrafts (with slightly inferior BVR) in higher numbers but better dog-fighting skills.

My dilemma is if the superior plane achieves lock on the the inferior planes first and fires its salvo, what is the chance that it takes all its adversaries down before they reach WVR and sheer numbers would triumph (given that these planes are not that bad at evading missiles)? Another thing to bear in mind is that the plane which would have evaded the missiles in first place has a disadvantage, like less fuel left, might end up in an unfavorable position for a dog fight while evading the missile.

What should we buy ( with the same amount of money )? expensive planes with great BVR and dog fighting skills, or bigger number of planes with slightly inferior BVR and almost equal if not higher dog fighting characteristics. Wouldn't this balance decide which planes to buy given that the prices differ quite a lot?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 02 Apr 2010 23:49

IMVVHO that completely depends on what and how much your enemy is flying. I think in an age when neither Pak nor China is flying LO aircraft, BVR would bring a big advantage. If they are flying stealth aircraft, then that BVR advantage may be lessened, so quantity may have its own quality then.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 03 Apr 2010 00:26

with missiles like Aim-120C-7 and new gen R-77, it is possible to take out targets far away, EF, Rafale, Gripen NG currently deploy the aim-120C-7, they can climb high and fast, fire their missiles at long range and since these new missiles with active radars seekers are harder to detect the enemy wont even know whats coming at him till its too late so time to evade the missiles will be less than a minute. SH has already been tested with the longer range Aim-120D which will become fully operational by 2011. Aircraft like Rafale, EF can carry upto 8 BVR missiles + 2 WVR missiles while the SH can carry 12 BVR missiles plus 2 WVR. All these aircraft can perform well at high aoa, yes even the f-16IN because it has the option for thrust vectoring if we choose to have it, SH does it without TVC, EF can have it, Gripen and Rafale dont as of now and mig-35 does have it. Now in such case i think its best go for a good all rounders like the Rafale, EF or SH (politics aside) which have the ability to carry more loads than the Gripen, f-16 and mig-35.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2393/R ... ptions.jpg

Rafale can carry upto 5 Aim-120c-7s

http://www.on-target-aviation.com/Asset ... 20copy.jpg

EF can carry upto 8

http://i41.tinypic.com/14wtvlg.jpg
Gripen NG could carry upto 12 using twin store pylons and 12 Meteors could be deadly. but this is a hypthetical figure and there is no saab confirmation.

http://www.ausairpower.net/000-Super-Bug-loadout.jpg

SH can carry upto 12 as well, 12 aim-120D could be a nasty deal

cant find mig-35 load out options but i am sure it can carry upto 6.

Now i think the more missiles you have the better, even if one misses, you still have some more to fire. In dogfights, i think the more rounds you have the better. SH has the highest load of rounds, over 500 i think. In todays fighter dog fights, i think its more about pilot skills than the aircraft.

jai · Post by **jai** » 03 Apr 2010 00:48

In the high technology dominated wars of tomorrow - with high situation awareness (each of our potential opponents fielding AWACS) and a huge "BVR" regime; I wonder how relevant would dog fights remain, and therefore be a consideration in contests like the MRCA.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Apr 2010 02:34

jai wrote:In the high technology dominated wars of tomorrow - with high situation awareness (each of our potential opponents fielding AWACS) and a huge "BVR" regime; I wonder how relevant would dog fights remain, and therefore be a consideration in contests like the MRCA.

That question has been discussed umpteen number of times by many experts. The outcome has always been that they are going to stay for quite some time. You can see that reflected in all new designs. If dogfights are a thing of the past, then nobody would stress on maneuverability any more. Yet we are stepping back from the F-22, saying that stealth at the cost of maneuverability is not the answer. Mind you F-22 is still one of the most maneuverable planes. Yet countries want a F-35 more than a F-22, many argue that Pak-FA might win a one-on-one with the F-22.

You are right that we can see much further now, but we can't aim that further till now. And with most modern fighters, if it is painted-locked-and-fired it doesn't mean that it is a dead bird. The further you try to hit it from, the better are the chances of it getting away. Being able to see further helps us in better preparedness, strategy/decision making and also defense. But beyond the range of your missiles, you can't hit anything

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Apr 2010 02:38

Carl_T wrote:IMVVHO that completely depends on what and how much your enemy is flying. I think in an age when neither Pak nor China is flying LO aircraft, BVR would bring a big advantage. If they are flying stealth aircraft, then that BVR advantage may be lessened, so quantity may have its own quality then.

Definitely Carl Bhai, BVR and stealth are game changers! What I am trying to understand is what should we buy, 2 planes able to detect and fire at adversaries at (say) 120 kms or should we buy 3 or 4 planes at the same price which can detect and fire at its adversaries (say) 100 kms away!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Apr 2010 03:27

Brahmananda wrote:with missiles like Aim-120C-7 and new gen R-77, it is possible to take out targets far away, EF, Rafale, Gripen NG currently deploy the aim-120C-7, they can climb high and fast, fire their missiles at long range and since these new missiles with active radars seekers are harder to detect the enemy wont even know whats coming at him till its too late so time to evade the missiles will be less than a minute. SH has already been tested with the longer range Aim-120D which will become fully operational by 2011. Aircraft like Rafale, EF can carry upto 8 BVR missiles + 2 WVR missiles while the SH can carry 12 BVR missiles plus 2 WVR. All these aircraft can perform well at high aoa, yes even the f-16IN because it has the option for thrust vectoring if we choose to have it, SH does it without TVC, EF can have it, Gripen and Rafale dont as of now and mig-35 does have it. Now in such case i think its best go for a good all rounders like the Rafale, EF or SH (politics aside) which have the ability to carry more loads than the Gripen, f-16 and mig-35.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2393/R ... ptions.jpg

Rafale can carry upto 5 Aim-120c-7s

http://www.on-target-aviation.com/Asset ... 20copy.jpg

EF can carry upto 8

http://i41.tinypic.com/14wtvlg.jpg
Gripen NG could carry upto 12 using twin store pylons and 12 Meteors could be deadly. but this is a hypthetical figure and there is no saab confirmation.

http://www.ausairpower.net/000-Super-Bug-loadout.jpg

SH can carry upto 12 as well, 12 aim-120D could be a nasty deal

cant find mig-35 load out options but i am sure it can carry upto 6.

Now i think the more missiles you have the better, even if one misses, you still have some more to fire. In dogfights, i think the more rounds you have the better. SH has the highest load of rounds, over 500 i think. In todays fighter dog fights, i think its more about pilot skills than the aircraft.

The more the merrier is my point too. So why not buy 2 Gripens instead of 1 super-developed plane. After all the Gripens are awesome planes too! Handling 2 Gripens with one (say Eurofighter) is going to be pretty tough.

you are right about today's dog fights though, IMHO. That and knowing your opposition's planes inside out, as shown by the Israelis in the Six days war and even beyond! The defecting of the Iraqi pilot really let them know about the capabilities and vulnerabilities (very limited visibility at the back) of the Mig-21 which was then at the cutting edge. Though there is no denying that some planes do help the pilot to have an edge.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 03 Apr 2010 03:46

well gripen's load out isnt confirmed, till it isnt, the SH remains the aircraft with the highest number of missiles on board and the highest number of gun rounds for dogfights as well, it also doesnt need a tvc to perform exceptionally well at high aoa, thus lower maintanance. Plus western birds are less maintenance intensive. The problem with Gripen is its similarity with LCA and how LCA mk-2 no matter the EJ or the GE enegine will out perform the Gripen NG any day because of superior EW, AESA and other tech, plus it will have better weapons loadout than the Gripen NG. I assume the MRCA will be a workhorse and if politics dont interfere much, SH with EPE enegines is a good aircraft, the only real all rounder, capable of awacs as well as tanking roles.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Apr 2010 05:24

jai wrote: Hi Kartik - Noobie question - can the Mig 29 be upgraded to Mig 35 specs/performance ?

Fellow BFRites - If there is any previous discussion on this, request you to please point me to it. Thanks !!

If you took it up as a project simply to show that it can to be done, then yes it can be done.

But if you wanted to do it for the IAF's MiG-29s then it wouldn't be cost effective. The reason being that while the avionics can be replaced, the labour effort involved in a complete change to MiG-35 specs would be very high. Essentially you'd need to strip the aircraft down, probably below even bare bones and replace primary structures, something that is rarely done unless cracks are discovered or something major of that sort happens.

The MiG-35 (not the MiG-29M2 model that was sporting the MiG-35 badge earlier) is significantly different, although we don't really know how many primary structures (like spars, ribs, bulkheads, etc.) were changed on the MiG-35 to allow for a higher all-up weight. The reason is that if you want to carry more weight while keeping the same performance (9G/-3G) then your dynamic loads are higher, and consequently your structure should be able to withstand those loads for its entire lifespan. And the MiG-35's fatigue life is also nearly double that of a MiG-29, at around 6000 hours compared to 3000 hours on a basic MiG-29. Which means significantly strengthened structures with an eye on increasing fatigue life. the IAF's current MiG-29 UPG upgrade simply will look at accelerated fatigue test data to see which parts need reinforcements and those reinforcements will be carried out.

Landing gear structure would've been beefed up to take higher loads while landing on the MiG-35 and even higher on the MiG-29K as its sink rate is substantially higher. the MiG-35 can carry more payload and fuel, has a higher empty weight, and has other changes made as such as larger control surfaces, the removal of the auxillary intakes to allow for installation of internal fuel tanks that allow for a larger range. Plus different LERX structure alongwith a completely different forward fuselage section and a very different cockpit. Add additional hard-points for the MiG-35 which means more strengthened of wing structure like ribs and spars.

For the cost of taking a MiG-29 apart and doing all the required work to put it back together, along with all the cost for coming up with tooling (if new tooling is required that is and cannot be used from a MiG-35 production line) and design drawings for such a massive upgrade of a MiG-29 into a real MiG-35 with new engines, radar, avionics, cockpit instruments and digital FCS, you could possibly build a new MiG-35 itself and it may well end up cheaper due to lower labour requirement and will definitely still have more life than the upgraded MiG-29 to MiG-35.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 03 Apr 2010 05:26

Xposting article on Mig 35 and 29K/KUB

http://ifile.it/j0lsvg8/MIGs%20Reborn%2 ... 20No.2.zip - MIGs Reborn Mig 35 & Mig 29 K-Combat Aircraft May 2007 Vol-8 No.2

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 03 Apr 2010 06:03

Oman in talks to buy Eurofighters

The decision came in the wake of “wide-ranging discussions” over the past three years between Gordon Brown, prime minister, and the Sultan of Oman “on the importance of the close relationship between our two countries”.

Number 10 declined to give details of how many jets Oman was interested in buying

Typhoon seems to get better in the Middle East

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Apr 2010 06:40

All developments seem to point towards the Eurofighter as the best option.

1. Arguably the best fighter in running with regard to performance.
2. Changes in the exchange rate favour a European alternative.
3. Politically a safe choice. Also, India can influence the future developments if it joins the EF consortium.
4. The EJ-200 (unlike the GE F414) can be integrated onto the Tejas without extensive redesign.

Rafale - No international orders so far. Smaller build numbers.
MiG-35 - Will lead to the IAF's fleet being overwhelmingly Russian.
F-16IN - Assembly line due to close down. May cheese off the Russians.
F-18E/F - Excels at BVR but ToT issues persist.
Gripen - Good option but design's too close to the Tejas. Munitions sourced from third parties.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 03 Apr 2010 07:22

Air Force gives Gripen fighter a second chance

BY: AJAY SHUKLA

Sweden’s futuristic medium fighter, the Gripen NG, has been given a second chance in the $11 billion contest to select a Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF). The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has asked Gripen International, which last month failed to send the Gripen NG fighter for trials in India on the dates allotted by the IAF, to send the fighter for trials in the middle of May.

Business Standard had reported, on March 9, that Gripen International had sent older Gripen-D fighters for trials because the Gripen NG was held back in Sweden for improvements for the Swedish Air Force. Technically, that was a violation of the terms of the competition.

But senior IAF officers have told Business Standard that they would not allow a legalistic interpretation of rules to narrow their options. Explains a senior air marshal who is involved in the decision-making, “We have a time window until the middle of this year, during which each of the six fighters in the tender are undergoing three stages of trials and inspections. As long as the Gripen NG is ready for trials within that period, we will evaluate the aircraft. All six vendors will have a level-playing field”.

Besides the Gripen NG, the other fighters being evaluated by the IAF are — the F/A-18 Super Hornet; the F-16IN Super Viper; the Dassault Rafale; the Eurofighter Typhoon; and the MiG-35. While all but the MiG-35 are already in service, the Gripen NG is still under development. Just a single ‘demonstrator’ aircraft has been built to prove its capabilities. Next year, Gripen will build the first Gripen NG prototype.

Gripen International has welcomed the MoD’s decision. Gripen’s India campaign head, Eddy de la Motte, told Business Standard, “Our plan was always to bring the (Gripen NG) demonstrator to India. The Swedish government’s sudden tasking is being completed right now. We will soon be ready to go to India and we will provide the IAF with maximum opportunity to evaluate the fighter”.

The first of these opportunities will come next week, when an IAF team travels to Sweden to evaluate the Gripen’s firing of a ‘Beyond Visual Range’ air-to-air missile. It is learnt that Gripen International will make the Gripen NG demonstrator available to IAF pilots, if they wish to fly it in Sweden next week. If the IAF accepts the offer, it will be the first time an Indian pilot flies the Gripen NG, albeit with a Swedish ‘safety pilot’ in the rear cockpit.

While Gripen International expresses confidence in their fighter, it now faces trials in conditions hotter (and, therefore, more unfavourable) than all the other contenders. IAF sources reveal that the Gripen-D performed well in last month’s trials; despite that, the Gripen NG will be put through a full battery of tests, including high altitude testing in Ladakh.

The Gripen NG is significantly more capable than the Gripen-D. It has a more powerful GE-414 engine; it carries more fuel and, therefore, has greater range; and, with 10 hard points for weaponry, the Gripen NG has extra teeth. It will also come with a new AESA radar, electronic warfare equipment, and upgraded avionics.

Senior IAF officers, while happy with these features, also highlight the Gripen NG’s downside: A high level of US electronics, weaponry, and the GE-414 engine. And, the F-16IN and the Gripen NG are the only two single-engine aircraft in the contest, which places them at a disadvantage in terms of reliability.

http://idrw.org/?p=1147#more-1147

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 03 Apr 2010 11:26

karan_mc wrote:Air Force gives Gripen fighter a second chance

BY: AJAY SHUKLA

...Senior IAF officers....also highlight the Gripen NG’s downside: A high level of US electronics, weaponry, and the GE-414 engine.

If correct, the IAF has already shot down the F-16 & F-18.

Main · Post by **Main** » 03 Apr 2010 11:47

Brahmananda wrote:
India is aware of US behaviour and yet we are not shying from buying from them. All the contenders except the mig-35 have US components or US weapons or both. We might as well cancel the tender and order the mig-35 which too me is useless as well(errr I thought it was the prerogative of armed forces and the GOI to decide what is useless and what is not?). With it we have to rely on Russian weapons which by the way our AF is riddled with expensive malfunctioning weapons, these weapons are as reliable as Paki talks of peace(All is lost onlee

)

Brahmananda wrote:dont have to believe me just read the reports about how many of our Russian inventory is actually working.

The malfunctioning / nonfunctioning of most of Indian arms inventory is result of aging, poor maintenance. It has nothing to do with their being of Russian origin. That most of these systems are Russian is only incidental.

Do not forget, when the Mig 29 performed miserably with all export markets, the Indian Mig 29s have served the IAF superbly. They did what was expected of them. To put it into perspective, IAF was the first foreign operator of MIG 29, which necessarily means that the IAF Mig 29s are the very first version of the bird. What was the difference then? Its just that IAF training is good and the machine was understood and operated well.

So let us not put the blame on the Russians.

Although, it is clear from a diplomatic and business point of view (Bargaining Power - Diversity of Supplier base), we probably should not go with anything Russian for the MMRCA. Apart from access to tech, it is very important to ensure that the rate of supply is high. Russia will not be able to produce Mig 29 @ the same rate of a Boeing or EADS.

jai · Post by **jai** » 03 Apr 2010 13:11

For the cost of taking a MiG-29 apart and doing all the required work to put it back together, along with all the cost for coming up with tooling (if new tooling is required that is and cannot be used from a MiG-35 production line) and design drawings for such a massive upgrade of a MiG-29 into a real MiG-35 with new engines, radar, avionics, cockpit instruments and digital FCS, you could possibly build a new MiG-35 itself and it may well end up cheaper due to lower labour requirement and will definitely still have more life than the upgraded MiG-29 to MiG-35.

Kartik - Thanks for the great info, appreciate your reply/analysis.

Cheers,
J

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 03 Apr 2010 14:42

There is no point in purchasing gripen when we already have selected LCAs to fill the gaps,.
more reasonable argument behind this tilt is that ,may be IAF is keeping itself neutral and/or they want american stuff and at lower cost and less strings ,.
gripen's HCI is far superior than any other aircraft, only EF comes close.

[youtube]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QJQKCUjcslM&co ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QJQKCUjcslM&co ... edded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Apr 2010 15:35

Typhoon doesn't come close : it needs huge runways to land as its approach speed is quite important. Rafale and superhornet will be better at this.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 03 Apr 2010 15:36

By the end of next decade IAF were supposed to fly the following:
Sukhoi 30mki
Tejas LCA
M2k-5
Mig 29
Jags
FGFA
MCA

Then equation changed because of American Sanctions the Tejas was delayed and MRCA was born. The original choice of IAF for MRCA was M2k, but suddenly news started erupting everywhere that F-18 with AESA radar is being offered and IAF is drooling with this radars' capacity. Next step was that global tenders were asked from 6 companies.

Now the MRCA if remains on the same pace of procurements will start arriving on 2013 except mig 35 which may come a little late.

while Tejas is getting FOC by 2012.
Tejas has outperformed most of MRCA contenders in Leh trials.
Tejas' MMR has given results in Air to Air configuration more than expected.
Tejas with smallest body and a huge nose to accommodate a big radar. Such a nice combo to have!

So the original reason of delay in Tejas being excuse for MRCA is already nullified.

Wouldn't buying F16/18 be rewarding the criminal americans for delaying Tejas by their sanctions? Not to mention their gifting the weapons to porkis.

Still if IAF/MoD wants to go ahead and waste 30-40 billion dollars on the MRCA for next 30-40 years then nothing we could do about it.

While only one contender EF could give few advantages over others.
1. EJ200 Engine
2. Towed Decoys
3. GaN AESA which can be developed together by us and EADS.
All the above 3 can be used for MCA also thus creating a commonality in these three things in Tejas, Eurofighter and MCA.
Since BAE is developing DIRCM then maybe that too can be incorporated in all the three planes too.

While buying other 5 planes seems like a huge scam to me,
buying EF seems a much smaller scam and some rationalisation can be given.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 03 Apr 2010 18:38

Russian weapons malfunctioning is not due to poor maintanance or ageing, the r-77 and r-27 missiles malfunctioned within the first two years of their shelf life which is not even half their shelf life and IAF's maintenance and weapons storage is pretty good . The seekers and sometimes a lot of the launchers were found to be defective and of poor quality. R-77, r-27s suffered this massive quality problem along with KH-31a/p anti rad missiles. Also missiles like Sea Eagle, Popeye-2 have been defective, Harpy too had problems. Over a 2000 r-77s were ordered after Kargil and by 2000, over a 1000 had been delivred and lots of them had quality problems.

Speaking of downsides i dont buy the Senior IAF officer story, they for one should know except for the mig-35 every other contender either uses US weapons or avionics or both. EF, Gripen, Rafale have a lot of primary US weapons and their EU counter parts are atleast 3 times more expensive. EF and Gripen have entire critical systems coming from the US, even the Rafale. so full-tot even on the EF is subject to US permission.

LCA was delayed due to sanctions, but i really doubt even without sanctions we would have gotten far. We have been sanction free for years now and still we're crawling towards the IOC. The two year delay shouldnt have held us back. the sanctions wre as follows:

End all U.S. assistance to India except humanitarian aid. U.S. economic and humanitarian aid amounts to about $142 million a year.
Bar the export of certain defense and technology material.
End U.S. credit and credit guarantees to India.
Require the United States to oppose lending by international financial institutions to India, which borrowed about $1.5 billion from the World Bank last year.

When the sanctions had to do with dealing with US, why didnt we go to Russia for help, why did we go back to US for testing the FBW, why did the NDA govt. end up kissing US butt all over again? Why did they go for a GE 404 enegine when Russian alternative is possible.

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detai ... ult_Rafale

Rafale has the following US suppliers

Hexcel Composites (US) Carbon Fibre: Carbon fibers, structural adhesives, honeycombs, prepregs, sandwich panels and reinforcement fabrics
Magnolia Plastics, Inc: Synthactic Composites: Adhesives, coatings and syntactics
Orelube: Synthetic Lubricants: Boelube
Rexnord Aerospace : Bearings: Seals & bearings
HiRel Connectors, Inc: Electrical & Electronic Connectors: Connectors, removal crimp and hermetic solder contacts
Avibank Mfg. Inc: Fasteners: Pins, bolts, fasteners & accessories
Ho-Ho-Kus, Inc: Fasteners: Clamps and fasteners, nuts, bolts & screws
Eaton Aerospace Phelps Valve : Pumps, valves, level sensors, pressure switches, refuel/defuel manifolds, and couplings
Rexnord Cartriseal :Mechanical Seals: Contacting & non-contacting face and circumferential seals
Goodrich Sensors & Integrated Systems : Sensors/Transducers: Pitot probe; ice detectors; air data total air temperature sensors
Technofan: Air Conditioning Equipment: Valves & fans; cockpit air conditioning system
Ducommun Technologies, Inc: Warning Systems/Equipment: Master caution and warning assemblies
Microturbo S.A: Auxiliary Power Units: Rubis 305 APU
Omega Technologies, Inc:Insertion/Removal Tools: Fastener installation & removal tools; hole drilling & preparation tools
Thales North America Inc: Electronic Warfare Systems: SPECTRA integrated electronic warfare system operating in electromagnetic, laser and infra-red domains

EF has the following US suppliers
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detai ... er_Typhoon
EF has even more US parts.

If we have to shut out the US entirely from the MRCA we have to pick the mig-35. so unless the IAF decides to go for the mig-35 there isnt really any reason to worry about the US, because they will find their way into our aircraft either through avionics or weapons or both. US paranoia isnt needed, even our Phalcon has US parts in it, for all we know its bugged as well.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 03 Apr 2010 18:57

We are already familiar with migs, if they were superior then we would have bought them straght like Suki ,

but the fact that TOT is asked because we want to tackle maintenance problems, whenever they happen,.

Also TOT will help to customize/modify the erroneous parts of weapons and aircraft which will ultimately increase battle readiness ,.

migs for sure are more maintenance intensive and sensitive,that IAF had learnt over the years, migs for sure will not get the contract, .as I have already said that , if that was to happen it would have happened by now...

[*]Rest depends upon which platform offers most in TOT and is able to operate easily in Indian conditions..

Money is secondary in this,although the Initial cost of buying 126s will lie around 10-15 bn .

Twin engined EF and Griffin are front runners [*].

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 03 Apr 2010 19:04

Brahmananda IIRC Rafale uses MICA IR and MICA EM and not AIM 120 C-7. As for Eurofighters American content some guy in Keypubs forums have actually contacted their PR and got a message that there are no critical components in the EF that are American (bar AIM 120) and the minor ones can easily be replaced by European ones.

sathyaC · Post by **sathyaC** » 03 Apr 2010 21:08

can we start 2 customize the Gripen for India air force ( it might win )

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 03 Apr 2010 21:21

i dont mind any platforms between, F-18E/F, rafale, gripen, or EF-2000 as long as it comes with the full weapons package unlike when we bought Mirage-2000.

Meteor - best of the AAM's. We should acquire it for sure, even if we acquire the teen series.
Brimstone - We should acquire these in some quantity
Taurus and Storm Shadow stand-off weapons- we atleast acquire one of these sure.

Meteor can also be probably integrated with MKI and Mirage-2000. that should give us parity against paki AIm-120

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Apr 2010 21:33

> why should we buy brimstone when we have the HELINA which can be easily modified for aircraft use ?

> taurus and storm shadow, while both are excellent systems we will probably get downgraded versions like UAE did. and they cost quite a lot. nirbhay is within 2-3 years of being ready.

at the end of the day you have to think of commonality and economics too.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Apr 2010 21:39

bhavani wrote: Taurus and Storm Shadow stand-off weapons- we atleast acquire one of these sure.

I am not sure if we can purchase the Taurus. With a range of over 500km, its probably restricted by the MTCR which Germany is a signatory to. Also IIRC the Taurus is priced around $1.3 million, the IAF is likely to stick with the domestically produced (albeit more expensive) Brahmos.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Apr 2010 21:41

viv, brahmos is su-30mki only, it's the nirbhay that is supposed to give fleetwide LR A2G capability. an aircraft capable version is definitely on the cards.

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 03 Apr 2010 22:15

brahmos is really heavy and the range seems short at 295 km. It is also more expensive. I agree that it is Faster but taurus is more stealthier.

I think we are missing a medium to long range missile like SCALP EG, SLAM-ER etc which are light and which can be bought in quantities and can be used in various roles

But i think Meteor is one missile we should not miss and should definitely acquire as a part of it. The whole ASTRA thing i dont know when it is going to materialize. R-77 seems a bit unreliable and short ranged compared to AIm-120 C-7

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 03 Apr 2010 23:19

well Johnny Bhai, the mica ir/em with 60km range are really no the best missiles to defend an expensive aircraft like the Rafale, Meteor wont be ready for induction till 2017 and for now the Rafale too deploys the aim-120 c-7 as its primary long range bvr missile just like the EF and Gripen. Rafale has a lot of non critical US parts.

EF has a lot of critical US parts including nav and attack computers, Command, Control & Intelligence Systems: Armament control system; Weapons Countermeasures: Decoy dispenser I/F unit, Microwave Components: Integrated microwave assembly for CAPTOR radar, Radio Communications Equipment: Communication audio management unit, Acoustic Horns: Warning horn, Airborne Electrical Power Supplies: Power management & distribution systems and auto-transformer rectifier units, Engine Controls: Engine control system, Air Start Systems: Starting systems for EJ200 engine and microturbo designs, Fuel Tanks & Systems: Supersonic fuel tank, Fuel Nozzles, Shafts & Shaft Assemblies: Power take off shaft, Gears & Assemblies: Gearbox assemblies & gears, Sensors/Transducers: Pitot probe; ice detectors; air data total air temperature sensors etc.
The Saudi deal required US permission for tot in order for domestic assembly of the aircraft and many parts cant be sourced from other areas because they are critical and make the aircraft what it is. Finding other suppliers will not only delay but also complicate the already very complicated logistic process of the EF.

Taurus isnt as stealthy as the brahmos, its only longer range and very expensive. the SLAM/ER and JSOW are good weapons with ability to hit moving targets as well, the SLAM-ER is a better alternative to the Storm shadow which is also very expensive and isnt as advanced as the SLAM. Aim-120C-7 is said to have a range of around 80 NM or over 140km.
Meteor is priced at over a million pounds and is bound to be more expensive when it is inducted in 2017.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 03 Apr 2010 23:26

Carl_T wrote:IMVVHO that completely depends on what and how much your enemy is flying. I think in an age when neither Pak nor China is flying LO aircraft, BVR would bring a big advantage. If they are flying stealth aircraft, then that BVR advantage may be lessened, so quantity may have its own quality then.

QUANTITY IS ALWAYS A GOOD QUALITY

K