MRCA News & Dicussions (IV)

[nrj]

Swashplate AESA in BVRAAM combat....

 

[Yatharth Singh]

 

[StealthSniper]

F-16 refuelling probe

 

[p2prada]

I am not a keen fan of the Super Hornet. We may even be the only customer of the SH beyond 2025 and I definitely don't like that. Right now you could say the SH is the most advanced fighter in the MRCA in terms of electronics. But what about 20 years later? There is a limit to what the SH can do compared to Rafale or EF-2000. Mig-35 and Viper are the same as SH. OEM upgrades may not be guaranteed in the future.

 

[SHASH2K2]

This should have been peace of cake IMO, both F16 offered to India and F18 are more advanced then the F16 delivered to Pakistan. I think that world at large and USA is cautious about Pakistan and it makes sure that the technology offered to Pakistan is not cutting edge. I however feel that India is being offered better weapons and the main reason behind this might be related to balancing with China. However the main bottleneck with USA remains the key agreements that USA wants us to sign before any worthwhile deal can be made. I am pissed off with Indians that they went and ordered P8 and C-130 without getting these agreements cleared, but hopeful that they will work that out.

F16 offered to Indians were better than block 52 that pakistan is getting but diffrence is not much and Pakistanis can learn to cope up with it or develop counters for it .
Regarding p8I and c-130 they are defensive weapons and we should not have any problems with signing Cismoa . They are both undoubtedly best in their Field . Only question is regarding Fighter planes. Are they best and worth signing Cismoa ?

 

[ppgj]

Witness: Col. Fornoff's assessment of the Su30 MKI during Red Flag. You can optimize avionics and ordnance, but what do you do about structural limitations? What do you do when your nose pivots, you lose tremendous altitude and fall vertically out of the sky in thrust-vectoring attempts?

i would agree avionics and ordnance upgrade is much easier but even structural architecture too goes thro' periodic stress analysis and the panels needing replacements are replaced via MLU and this is true for all forces. if you are referring to any structural defect or a weakness in SU 30MKIs i would like to hear on that.

Col.Fonaff (Red Flag) -

let's be pragmatic. one could look at those videos where the equivalent of a "group captain" Mr. Fornaff goes on a tirade lampooning, lambasting IAF pilots and the SU 30MKIs with cheers and mocking laughter from the retired AF pilot community. can any professional force or an MP can do that even with an adversary?? his tirade was based on many wrong facts. an analysis of those comments summarised here -

About the speaker

Colonel Terrence Fornof (Colonel is equivalent to a Group Captain in the IAF) is an F-15 pilot and the Director of the Requirements and Testing office at the United States Air Force Warfare Center, Nellis AFB, Nevada. The lecture above is a private briefing in August 2008 to a group called the "Daedalians". The Daedalians are a local group of retired military pilots.

Per the press statement handed out by Nellis AFB: "Col. Fornof did not mean to offend any U.S. allied forces, as he knows firsthand the importance of training with allied forces and the awesome firepower they bring to the fight. His comments during this briefing were his personal opinions and not those of U.S. Air Force Warfare Center or of the Air Force. "

Comments and Analysis

Despite Col. Fornof having observed Red Flag up close, his comments should not be treated as the gospel truth - there is a possibility that he is 'playing to the gallery'. His comments carry weight since he is an operational pilot with the USAF but he certainly cannot cover the entire exercise and has no inside knowledge of the way IAF 'fought'. Nevertheless, even though his comments appear to be negative about the IAF to the uninformed listener; overall he has actually praised the IAF and its performance.

* The Su-30MKI did not use the data link in the exercise unlike the other air forces. The reason being the HAL supplied system is not compatible with NATO data links – neither is the system required to be compatible with NATO. The speaker clearly mentions that the high fratricide ratio in the kills was because of this reason. While NATO air forces are designed to inter operate with each other and carry out joint missions, the IAF is not.

* Su-30MKI is equipped with its own data link which can share target information across multiple fighters. IAF is presently inducting A-50EI Phalcon AEW&C aircraft. Red Flag and other exercises before it have seen IAF working very closely with the AWACS crew of the other air force. Operational Data Link (ODL) will be provided to all fighters in the IAF over the coming years.

*The IFF system used by IAF is not compatible with NATO standard, hence the need for verbal communication with the controller.

*The aircraft were operating their radars on training mode since the actual signals with which the Bars radar operates are kept secret.

*The high mix of highly experienced pilots in Ex Cope India, if true, cannot be consistent across all sqns that were involved in the exercise. During Cope India, the 24 Sqn operating Su-30K/MK was first Flanker unit in the IAF and only one of two Su-30 units in the entire IAF at that time. To find a concentration of senior pilots in these squadrons will not be unexpected given that these units will be forging doctrines and tactics and building up a pool of pilots. Per article on Cope India here; "Nor did U.S. pilots believe they faced only India's top guns. Instead, they said that at least in some units they faced a mix of experienced and relatively new Indian fighter and strike pilots.". Moreover, the mix of experience needs to be examined for the USAF squadrons as well. The aggressor squadron at Nellis and the F-22 attracts the best in the USA.

*MiG-21 Bison does not have an Israeli radar as noted in the lecture. The type is equipped with a Phazotron Kopyo (spear) unit. The Kopyo radar has a 57km detection range against a 5 m^2 (54ft^2) radar cross section, or fighter-sized target. It can track eight targets and shoot at two simultaneously.

*Su-30MKI is equipped with Saturn AL-31FP engines, not Turmansky as mentioned in the lecture

*Soviet era aircraft were designed to operate from poorly prepared airfields. For example; MiG-29 closes its intakes during taxi and take-off to avoid ingestion of FOD thrown up by the front wheels. In this state the engines are supplied air thru louvres located on upper surface of the leading edge. This design feature is at the cost of significant internal fuel capacity and hence has been eliminated in newer MiG-29 versions starting with the K/KUB variants. Flanker come with lighter anti-FOD grills in the intakes as well as wheel fenders that catch FOD. IAF has precautions built into their SOPs – which may be overlooked in case of war or any such exigency. Since the deployment was far away from home base in the USA, with no spares support and related infrastructure it was well worth to observe strict adherence to SOPs instead to being stuck with a grounded aircraft!

*This is not the first time the MiG-21 Bison has been praised for successes during dissimilar air combat training (DACT) – even during previous USAF exercise and internal IAF exercises pilots are known to have scored 'kills' against more advanced adversaries. The small size (lower visual signature) and inherently small radar cross section coupled with modern avionics, radar, effective jammers, precision guided munitions and missiles (R-73, R-77) make Bison one of the best fighters in IAF after Su-30 and Mirage-2000. IAF's has had good experience with small jets such as Gnat which earned the reputation of "Sabre Slayer" in the 1965 war with Pakistan. The under-development LCA Tejas promises to carry on this legacy when it replaces the Bison. Under the glare of the world's attention the IAF pilots, crew and their aircraft have clearly acquitted themselves well in Ex Red Flag 2008. This exercise was the most complex environment IAF worked in, even more than the Cope Thunder exercise in Alaska where Jaguar IS fighters had participated. The challenges faced were because of the operational environment, training rules and airspace restriction where the IAF is not expected to fight a war in any case. Shortcomings must have come up – but then that is exactly why IAF is training for.

Acknowledgements :

The transcribe is a improved version of the one posted on Bharat Rakshak Forum by George J, Jagan and gogna.

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-article02.html

there are the videos and the transcript there.even use of TVC use is determined by the pilot on the basis of the inputs and situational awareness and on both these counts SU 30MKI was handicapped as per the link above.

wrt Col.Fornaff's comments on TVC, every force which takes part in exercises do take home some wisdom. USAF has learnt the tactical remedial course post exercises with IAF in the past and which may have been seen in the Red Flag. tactics keep evolving. even IAF will correct their own tactics based on the knowledge gained. even F-22 sports TVC because it allows superior turn rates and hence affords more maneurability.

here is Vishnu Som of the NDTV at the Red Flag where a USAF captain praises IAF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mssPQb4TMSU&feature=player_embedded

Not so with structural integrity, and in the case of the Super Hornet, the modifications to improve those have only proved to be problems of their own.

i don't know which structural integrity you are speaking of. the Boston Globe article and the strategypage article spoke of similar problem wrt the wings and spoke of life coming down from 6000hrs to 3500hrs. now i gave you a link where Super Hornet program manager Navy Capt. Don Gaddis rubbished it as "eggregious" and said that was sorted out long back. he went on to rubbish lot of other complaints too here -

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/06/marine_superhornet_070617/

as to the structural stability of FA-18E/F here is an account of Carlo Kopp who flew it in 2006. the article is a little dated when even APG 79 was not on but worthy read particularly at 48 AOA how the structural stability holds!!! a very detailed report.

http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html

besides USN is going ahead with more FA 18E/F's

- http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0610144720100506?type=marketsNews

why will they do it if it has serious structural integrity problem??

I think the point is what the best fighter is to fulfill a structurally integral, sound, capable and cost-effective combat aircraft for the IAF,

which FA 18E/F is IMO and the same is true for Rafale at a higher cost.

not what the SH can or cannot do, for that role can be fulfilled by several others.

agree but cost wise Rafale will be more. but i do not mind if that happens.

my choice of SH was based on it's strike capability and the best avionics it carries. but you have every right to disagree with me.

I'm confident it will, particularly since it is supposed to be an enhancement to the radar installed on the Naval Rafale, is already in production engineering, expects to start series production by late 2010, and will be delivered to the French Navy and Air Force by 2012.

agree.

The Chinese angle, IMO, not merely needs to be factored. It needs to be heavily factored. Because we certainly won't have the numbers to match them, and given the procurement delays that are a part of our system, our core competency will need to be maintained qualitatively, which I see increasingly difficult to do in the generations ahead. I don't think the Chinese threat ought to be discounted at all, or its perception otherwise "tempered". Pragmatic opinion would require that we be prepared for any eventuality, particularly against an adversary with whom we have already fought a war, indeed the worst plausible scenario: a two-front war, for only then could be call ourselves prepared.

no issue here.

ppgj, I'm assuming the Baaz as our secondary fighter with all the "radar upgrades", fuselage conformal tanks, increased ordnance, HOTAS controls, RD-33 ser.3 engines and the like. The present Mig-29's are verging upon obsolesence, and cannot hold a fig to our requirements, and most essentially, qualitative competencies. The radar upgrades were needed not merely as an enhancement of range, they were needed because of tropical-adaptability problems in several of our original radars.I hope I've made the point that reluctant reliance upon the Baaz, even as a secondary-fighter, stems from a reliance only upon its upgrades.

when i spoke of radar and range - the range, i was referring to was the "combat range" and not the radar range. with IFR on Mig 29s, it's perrenial short range problem will be addressed. also the previous radar on the Mig 29s were only A2A compliant and hence the role of escort missions and CAP role in IAF. this will change as the Zhuk Me radar is a MMR which will allow the Mig 29s to be multi role, which is what IAF has been emphasising post Kargill where the IAF lacuna was found wrt strike role of it's crafts.

on the point of "obsolesence" i will have to partly agree. while i do admit they may not comparable to say Rafale or a Typhoon or a SH, they are still good to be around. there is still lot of life left as these were inducted in the early 80s. a 15 - 20 year stretch will give IAF an option in at least arresting the falling numbers. this is particularly important when Mig 21s and Mig 27s which are even older are still serving.

I don't know about that.

this is old news. post russian Mig 29 "cracks" IAF grounded it's Mig 29s and they went through a thorough checks but none was found and they started flying soon after.

Let me point you to an article from defenceindustrydaily:

The MiG-29's biggest weaknesses were short range, engines that produce telltale smoke (very bad in air combat) and lack of true multi-role capability; the MiG-35 largely fixes these issues, and may even add an AESA radar of its own if Phazotron-NIIR can have its new Zhuk-AE ready in time. Technology sharing and co-production are also considered to be strengths; as one Indian officer put it: "Russians have their problems of delayed projects and unreliable spare supply but they give access to everything, unlike the Americans." He's referring to the IAF's not-so-great experience with India's existing MiG-29s, which have had maintenance problems in addition to their other deficits.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ndias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/

1. short range is being addressed with IFR.

2. i myself wonder why IAF did not go for the RD 33MK!!! i am not sure if RD 33 series 3 will address the smoke problem (marinised RD 33MK on Mig 29K is smokeless). if not, i am at a loss.

3. again on the radar i have been wondering myself why Zhuk AE was not opted for!! most probably i guess 2 issues.

a) power and the cooling requirement of the AESA radar.

b) may be russian AESA is not complete to be operational yet.

having said that Zhuk ME MMR should be more or less equivalent to EL 2032/RDY 2 and hence should be fine.

4. spares and maintainence was definitely a worry but IAF overcame that innovatively. here is the story of 11 BRD Ojhar AFS. very interesting indeed.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today/Unit-Articles/336-11BRD.html

Let me also point you to an even more detailed article about the Mig-29 experience, this time with input from our own Comptroller&Auditor General,

The Indian Air Force was already having '...extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74%) failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend. (*2)

http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/MiG-29-2b.htm

that is pretty serious. thanks for pointing that link. well let me clear myself here. i am not defending the Mig 29s at all. just making a sense out of the upgrades and IAF's requirement of numbers.

In addition, the RMAF have also experienced problems with their Mig-29's and their maintenance. I don't know if you've ever been to an ADA facility. But its not pretty. I tend to think this is more of an airframe-issue, given that Singapore has fairly decent maintenance facilities. I also want to quote to you a relevant section about maintenance:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/baaz.htm

agree there were various issues related to Mig 29s which were serious and was related to events leading upto Soviet Union breaking up and post breakup upheavals. still no justification for IAF "operational" readiness. i guess IAF must have studied everything before going in for the upgrades.

but i do agree with you on most of your points on Mig 29s being a secondary fighter even post upgrades.

You've missed the point. The point being that the Mirage-2000's have been optimized for their role as A-2-G aircraft, and were designated the Nuclear Strike Squadron. The premise is not which aircraft will fullfil this purpose, but what the Mirage-2000H has been geared to particularly in its role within the IAF in the Kargil wars.

no i did not miss the point. during Kargill, only Mirages had limited A2G role due to its "comparatively" superior radar and it was the only fighter which had Atlis LDP which could fire laser guided munitions. none of the other a/c's in IAF had them. hence it was a natural choice which is no more the case. here is the Mirage story of the Kargill time -

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/PCamp.html

even Nukes need to be precision guided and can't be thrown like dumb bombs, like the jaguars or Mig 27s would have been able to then. the natural choice hence was Mirage 2000s then and later Jaguars got LDPs too hence they too are optimised for the nukes. but now the situation is different. most IAF craft have/will have both A2A/A2G due to the MMRs and LDPs now and hence the point is moot now.

There is a certain level of institutional memory, I believe, that has geared the fighter more toward an A-2-G, and post-Kargil, toward a multi-role fighter, not toward a dedicated dog fighter which is my premise.

agree. but this is across the board and not specific to the Mirages.

the biggest lesson IAF learnt due to Kargill was the "lack of" or "obsoleteness" of the avionics in terms of MMR/LDP/FLIR/DATALINKS etc..in the a/c's. IAF now wants all it's a/c's to be multirole. and the need for AWACS platform. all these are being addressed simultaneously. better late than never.

Stopgap certainly. Figuring into consideration both the length of time for signing of the MRCA contract and production rates for both the Mirage-2000HT. Infact, that's what France called it when they upgraded their Mirages to 2000-5 standard in 1993:

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmir2k.html

Exactly, but a stop-gap does not need to plug all the requirement. It could just as well be partial, which is what I believe the Mirage-2000H upgrade is, and to another degree, the Mig-29 SMT.

for the french, yes - it may have been a stop gap because Rafale was on the way. not so for india. 20 years of extension is by no means a stopgap. besides Mirages are well known for their trouble free maintainence. i have not heard of any crash in IAF due to any problem. infact India was planning to acquire more of these from Qatar AF. i love this aircraft.

I'd hate to go into the saga of the LCA, because this is not the place for it. The fact remains, that from inception to launch to prototype production, the programme has been grossly over schedule. And I extrapolate that development timeline to its full-production status. It may be a conservative estimate, but I think it is the right one.

this i have debated on the LCA thread. i too don't want to go into that again. it is too complex to be explained in simple words. Sanctions/IAF's no interest in the initial years/no infra/limited funds etc..

still an achievement considering it took ADA/DRDO 17 years - comparable to any.

I'm assuming the worst case scenarios <for us> in all these situations: Which includes a fully developed, stable chinese engine, an AESA capability that is atleast as competent as the Zhuk AE, and an aiframe that says it can do all it can do, in the backdrop of the need to maintain technological competency, because of the absence of parity in numbers. In the absence of any ful information, would you assume anything else?

agree.

 

[luckyy]

why Gripen been considered ifor MMRCA tendor,if it is so comparable to LCA..

does IAF still doubtfull about LCA...?

 

[nrj]

Gripen NG matures and waits for India

Sweden is advancing its own Gripen development path alongside that of the Gripen Next Generation aircraft intended for export, which is currently awaiting the outcome of major competitions in Brazil and India. The Swedish air force is now talking openly about a JAS 39E/F version that would draw on many of the technologies being applied to the NG program.

In the shorter term, in March Saab received a contract worth around $256 million from the Swedish defense material administration (FMV) for an upgrade package that will improve countermeasures and communications, integrate new weapons such as the Meteor (the acquisition of which was recently approved by the Swedish government) and provide extra range and functions to the Gripen's PS-05/A radar. It also includes measures to reduce operational costs, based on experience from the 130,000 flying hours achieved with the Gripen fleet.

This contract helps define the Gripen's Material System 20 as part of the rolling capability sustainment program that is in force for the type. Shortly after this deal was done, Saab received another commission to expand the capabilities of the aircraft's SPK 39 reconnaissance system. This enhances night capability and user interface, and will also allow the Gripen to feed imagery into the sensor source intelligence cells being produced to support the country's new Shadow 200 unmanned air vehicles.

MS21 Version

Saab already has the next major iteration in its sights. The MS21 version is to include a major review of the aircraft's avionics system, including computers and displays, with the accent placed on handling vastly increased amounts of information at differing security classification levels. The architecture will also to be able to handle new types of sensors.

It is evident that the MS21 will become the JAS 39E/F, and that it will be based closely on the AESA-equipped Gripen NG. Although the exact nature of an "MS21 Gripen" has yet to be defined, it will almost certainly incorporate the more powerful General Electric F414G engine. An avionics development contract was awarded to Saab in May and is expected to lead to a concept evaluation review later this year. Preliminary design reviews will be undertaken next year, leading to full development starting in 2012.

Sweden expects to have the JAS 39E/F in service by around 2017, although it has committed to bring that date forward if Brazil adopts the Gripen so that the customer does not shoulder the burden of fielding a major new version on its own.

Development of what is now known as the Gripen NG began around 2004, a year before the JAS 39C/D achieved IOC. Predictions of airpower requirements for the 2015-2020 time frame suggested the need for new sensors, greater range and larger warloads. After analysis of other options, it was concluded that a developed Gripen NG could meet the requirements, with technology to be demonstrated in a "Demo" aircraft that would also become a de facto prototype for the NG. Initial estimates put the cost at approximately $230 million but that was considered too high, leading to the formation of an industrial partnership that cut the costs by 60 percent. In fact, the Gripen Demo came in some 15 percent below that budget.

The Gripen Demo technology demonstration program has been conducted in two phases and involves a flying demonstrator and an avionics rig. Phase 1 flight tests got under way with a first flight on May 27, 2008, during which the extensively modified two-seater validated the aerodynamic changes caused by moving the main undercarriage to under the wingroots, the addition of underfuselage pylons, new drop tanks and the installation of the uprated General Electric F414G engine. Phase 1 was completed after 79 flights.

Phase 2 introduced further modifications to the aircraft, including extra fuel capacity and, most importantly, installation of a development version of the Selex/Saab ES-05 Raven AESA radar. This phase was brought to a conclusion this February after a further 73 flights. During the initial Demo campaign, all goals were achieved, including a Mach 1.6-plus speed and a supercruise (non-afterburning) capability of greater than Mach 1.2.

Following the end of official Phase 2 trials, the Gripen Demo aircraft continued development work, but in May was dispatched to India in support of Saab's entry in the country's MMRCA multi-role fighter competition. MMRCA envisions the acquisition of 126 aircraft, with the first 18 to be built by the original manufacturer, followed by a stepped transition to Indian production. Saab is pitching its Gripen NG against the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16IN and the Mikoyan MiG-35.

Although Saab had already demonstrated the JAS 39C/D in India in March (20 evaluation flights), and Indian pilots had flown the Gripen Demo in Sweden during April, the demonstrator deployed to India for an in-country evaluation. Earlier it had been announced that ongoing test work would mean the Gripen Demo was unavailable to make the trip. This was widely seen as being detrimental to the Gripen bid's cause and resulted in a reversal of the decision. Routing via Kecskemet in Hungary, Athens, Hurghada in Egypt, Riyadh and the United Arab Emirates, the Demo aircraft and its Raven AESA radar arrived in India in late May.

High-altitude Ops

During its stay, the Gripen Demo flew eight evaluation sorties, including in-flight refueling from an Ilyushin Il-78 tanker and operations from Leh. Located in disputed Jammu and Kashmir, close to the scene of the 1999 Kargil war, Leh is of strategic value to India but, at 10,826 feet elevation, is one of the world's highest airfields. The Gripen Demo operated with ease from the base, and performed well in other trials. According to Eddy de la Motte, Saab's India campaign director, "We are confident that this aircraft meets, or exceeds, every operational requirement raised by the Indian Air Force."

The return to Sweden of the Demo aircraft brought to an end the MMRCA flying evaluation phase. Meanwhile, the final bid deadline has been extended a year, allowing some of the competitors to refine their proposals. It is expected that the technical evaluation will initially produce a down-select to three competitors, after which the politics are likely to become an increasing factor.

Politics have certainly played their part in the Brazilian FX2 new fighter competition, in which the Gripen is pitched against the Rafale and Super Hornet. In September last year President Lula announced the selection of the Rafale, but at the time of writing there is no sign of a contract.

An interesting aside to the Brazilian and Indian deals is the proposal by Saab of a Sea Gripen, as both countries have aircraft carriers. Developed initially to meet Sweden's stringent dispersed short-field operations doctrine, the Gripen already possesses many of the characteristics required in a carrier-borne aircraft. Modifications for sea-going operations are said to be relatively straightforward, but Saab has signaled that it would pursue this avenue further only if Brazil or India signed up for the Gripen NG.

Source

 

[luckyy]

are IAF serious about Gripen or they just inducted it into mmrca to check what can be done with LCA..?

 

[nrj]

Gripen NG Decoy Decision Nears

Saab is continuing along the road to fully defining — and will soon make an important supplier decision on — its next-generation (NG) fighter's self-protection suite.

The Gripen NG will have a fiber-optic towed decoy as a baseline subsystem to help defeat radar-guided missile threats. A towed decoy is only an option on the current model, but the supplier choice is pending for the subsystem on the NG, says Eddy de la Motte, a Gripen International program official.

Meanwhile, Saab is currently trying out different cockpit concepts for what the avionics setup should look like. That process also is expected to wrap up soon. Having completed two trial periods with the Gripen NG demonstrator, the aircraft will now go into a layup period to be modified into an avionics testbed. The aircraft is expected to return to flight next year, de la Motte says. The demonstrator so far has logged 175 flight hours.

In turn, Gripen officials are keeping a close watch on the international marketplace, where they are tracking 17 countries for potential sales opportunities. A couple more opportunities are expected to emerge this year.

But competition remains heated, with possible new entrants such as the Chinese-Pakistani JF-17. Gripen officials say they have seen no impact from the appearance of the JF-17 on the scene yet. However, one company official acknowledges "we have to watch the JF-17 as well."

Source

 

[p2prada]

@ppgj
Our Mig-29s will be brought to India and upgraded with new engines. We have local assembly rights for Series 3 engines. Smokeless.

Also, Jaguar dropped 1 LGB in Kargil. In comparison Mirage dropped 8. The advantage lies in the delta wing configuration over the Himalayas.

 

[ppgj]

@ppgj
Our Mig-29s will be brought to India and upgraded with new engines. We have local assembly rights for Series 3 engines. Smokeless.

i knew RD 33 series 3 will be licence built by HAL but did not know if they were "smokeless". thanks for clearing my doubt.

Also, Jaguar dropped 1 LGB in Kargil. In comparison Mirage dropped 8. The advantage lies in the delta wing configuration over the Himalayas.

correct. i missed the jaguar part. thanks for pointing it out.

 

[ppgj]

luckyy

4 Hours Ago

take this bla bla bla to somewhere alse...nowhere it concern to MMRCA...

sir, i was debating with Rage. we were talking FA18 E/F (in the MMRCA), Mirage 2000 (original choice of the MMRCA) and Mig 29 (an enhanced variant of which is Mig 35, in the MMRCA).

you can "ignore" the post or "report" it to the mods if you have a problem. make any advice if you have in a polite way.

i am letting this pass. hope better sense prevails on you. good luck.

 

[sunnyv]

I am not a keen fan of the Super Hornet. We may even be the only customer of the SH beyond 2025 and I definitely don't like that. Right now you could say the SH is the most advanced fighter in the MRCA in terms of electronics. But what about 20 years later? There is a limit to what the SH can do compared to Rafale or EF-2000. Mig-35 and Viper are the same as SH. OEM upgrades may not be guaranteed in the future.

Well USN has plans for keeping Super Hornet much more beyond 2025 , their latest multi-year deal for 125 more F18E and EA18G indicates that .
Growlers have just started full operation .

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13531

They have plans to extend the airframe life from 6000 to 9000 hrs . So I guess it will be beyond 2025 .

F35 will only replace A/B version , while the Boeing concept we saw is meant to replace Super-Hornet .

But I would agree with you against Super-Hornet , not the best choice .
But politically hard to beat Americans ( esp Offsets Boeing has been advertising )

 

[Yatharth Singh]

F16 offered to Indians were better than block 52 that pakistan is getting but diffrence is not much and Pakistanis can learn to cope up with it or develop counters for it .

F-18 introduced in 1995, F-16 Inducted by the USAF in 1978 and its latest variants were introduced in 1995. Do you think that we should rely upon the 25 year old technology for the upcoming 25 years. Yes F-16 was a great invention but that doesn`t mean that we can use it for centuries. It may have the best electronics of its time but today those equipments are forming a base of a fighter. I mean that the tech which used to be magical and heart breaking 15 years back is common today or I must say had become basic in all jets. Why are we just thinking of our possibilities of war with Pakistan only. We have China on our right which claims to be a superpower and our relations are not so healthy with them.
We must go for such a jet which could maintain our air superiority throughout the next 20-30 years without any problem. Its not just about 10-20 jets. Its about 126 fighters. So we should choose carefully so that we wouldnt have to regret in future.

 

[SHASH2K2]

F-18 introduced in 1995, F-16 Inducted by the USAF in 1978 and its latest variants were introduced in 1995. Do you think that we should rely upon the 25 year old technology for the upcoming 25 years. Yes F-16 was a great invention but that doesn`t mean that we can use it for centuries. It may have the best electronics of its time but today those equipments are forming a base of a fighter. I mean that the tech which used to be magical and heart breaking 15 years back is common today or I must say had become basic in all jets. Why are we just thinking of our possibilities of war with Pakistan only. We have China on our right which claims to be a superpower and our relations are not so healthy with them.
We must go for such a jet which could maintain our air superiority throughout the next 20-30 years without any problem. Its not just about 10-20 jets. Its about 126 fighters. So we should choose carefully so that we wouldnt have to regret in future.

I was not canvassing for F 16 there . You have completely misinterpreted it . I know that F16 production lines are going to be close and we should not be going for something that become obsolete in future.

 

[p2prada]

Well USN has plans for keeping Super Hornet much more beyond 2025 , their latest multi-year deal for 125 more F18E and EA18G indicates that .
Growlers have just started full operation .

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13531

They have plans to extend the airframe life from 6000 to 9000 hrs . So I guess it will be beyond 2025 .

F35 will only replace A/B version , while the Boeing concept we saw is meant to replace Super-Hornet.

Take the example of the F-14. It was introduced in 1974 and retired in 2006. Only 32 years. Also there were nearly 200 of them which were less than 20 years old. Some were as old as 15 years before retirement. Production went on till 1991.

My point being, if the F-35 lives up to its name, the USN will phase out their Super Hornets as soon as they can.

As to Growler it is a viable platform. USN has asked for a next generation jammer for the EA-18G and perhaps the F-35 too. But we don't know that as of now.

In the end only a handful of Super Hornets will be available to the USN.

Australia. No idea what they are planning to do. There was talk of phasing out their SHs the moment they get their F-35s.

 

[JBH22]

common sense advocate to choose the Rafale which does not require drastic changes in logistics since it is more or less similar to the Mirage-2000 which gave a good account of itself in kargil. Given french are reducing their military budgets and Dassault would be fighting for it survival we are in a better bargaining position for TOT though the unit price tag is a major factor that will work against RAFALE.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

I was not canvassing for F 16 there . You have completely misinterpreted it . I know that F16 production lines are going to be close and we should not be going for something that become obsolete in future.

c`mon Shash, Maybe I have mistaken you for a wrong point.Anyhow take it easy brother. Sorry for that but according to me F16 or 18 would be the worst choice for any aircraft deal.

 

[sunnyv]

Take the example of the F-14. It was introduced in 1974 and retired in 2006. Only 32 years. Also there were nearly 200 of them which were less than 20 years old. Some were as old as 15 years before retirement. Production went on till 1991.

My point being, if the F-35 lives up to its name, the USN will phase out their Super Hornets as soon as they can.

As to Growler it is a viable platform. USN has asked for a next generation jammer for the EA-18G and perhaps the F-35 too. But we don't know that as of now.

In the end only a handful of Super Hornets will be available to the USN.

Australia. No idea what they are planning to do. There was talk of phasing out their SHs the moment they get their F-35s.

Quite true , can't say about future of F35 .
But report from pentagon says F35 will replace A/B version . If F35 comes in time and with control over cost-over runs , probably Super-Hornet would be replaced before even 15 years of service .
It will be difficult to phase out F18 if they have not even clocked 25% of 6000-8000 hrs , Rt now Defence cuts are underway (No more C17, Fuel tankers are cut )
I was hoping Raptor would be given new life beyond 187 after PAK-FA takes to skies , but guess economy speaks .
Economy & Recovery from Financial debt will definitely take its toll . Much different to what US was in 90's .

To MRCA -
In terms of offsets & political leverage probably only EADS with political strength of 4 nations can compete against US & L.M/Boeing.
It will be uphill task for Mig to get offsets in Private industry in India .
TATA/Mahindra/Wipro/HAl have all tied up with EADS/Boeing/SAAB . Boeing & EADS have even promised tech&res center in Bangalore . This all things might not be factor for IAF but for MoD these offerings will swing deal here or there .
I think HAL experience with Boeing & Airbus would be counted . Russian still bet on decade old Bureaucratic trump card

Don't know why this lackluster response from Dassault , they are more focuused on UAE & Brazil . Only tied with up some local firms in AI09 wrt to luxury jet - Falcon . They decided to take Rafale to UAE air-show but refused to bring it in India . Must be mentally they have decided - If US is there we have no chance to win .