Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[Sancho]

I also said they should invest in avionic upgradation in LCA because its that EW suite which is the dominatory factor now.

Of course we should, but that doesn't make it an MMRCA!
We upgraded Mig 21s over the years to Bison level, with modern avionics, EW and weapons, but it still remains a light class fighter, with limitations in operational range, loads or missions.

Either IAF is aiming for low cost single engine fighters in huge numbers both for naval deployments and along Chinese border.

That's what IAF already stated, because the MMRCA was cancelled and Rafale is a costly fighter, the SE MMRCA is aimed at providing a cost-effective alternative in the medium class.
Both SEs should have lower unit flyaway costs and both certainly will be cheaper to operate. So they give us a chance to wide spread MMRCA level of capability around India, in a cost-effective manner, that is necessary if you prepare for a 2 front war.

We still need LCAs in addition to the higher level fighters and IAF made that clear too, but LCA is still trying to reach it's own goals, while MMRCA is a separate requirement. We neither help Tejas by comparing it to far more capable fighters , nor by ignoring that we need MMRCAs and 5th gen fighters ASAP, to counter our enemies.

 

[Sancho]

But unfortunately almost for a past decade the IAF bosses are going public and trying to thwart the ideas of MoD, first we see that when DM Parrikar was trying to negotiate Rafale and said in case Rafale deal does not work out, they can surely go for more Su-30 MKI and then IAF Chief Arup Raha undermined him and went public saying there is only Rafale there is no plan B. I see this very unprofessional of IAF rather get a feeling that, they are being fed by someone else, not indian salt.

The only one that was unprofessional in that case was Parrikar, because he tried to force procurements on IAF, against their operational requirements. I think nobody will argue with the fact, that no politician should decide what the forces need to defend the country or?
The forces set up the base requirements, the government tries to provide them with the best possible arms and techs, within those requirements.

It started with a licence production line for medium class Mirage 2000-5, went into a competition for MRCA up to 20t MTOW, was forced by Dassault into the MMRCA and now ended up in the SE MMRCA, because of the government .
So IAF even after nearly 2 decades remains clear in what they want!

 

[Steven Rogers]

The only one that was unprofessional in that case was Parrikar, because he tried to force procurements on IAF, against their operational requirements. I think nobody will argue with the fact, that no politician should decide what the forces need to defend the country or?
The forces set up the base requirements, the government tries to provide them with the best possible arms and techs, within those requirements.

It started with a licence production line for medium class Mirage 2000-5, went into a competition for MRCA up to 20t MTOW, was forced by Dassault into the MMRCA and now ended up in the SE MMRCA, because of the government .
So IAF even after nearly 2 decades remains clear in what they want!

Exactly he made the SE fiasco. Gripen when comes take off weight, doesn't suits as an MRCA, it is far less than the competitors, even LCA type aircrafts fall in that category, F16 is only option but given the most advance F16 shot down, IAF certainly not looking at the outdated Airframe.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

Exactly he made the SE fiasco. Gripen when comes take off weight, doesn't suits as an MRCA, it is far less than the competitors, even LCA type aircrafts fall in that category, F16 is only option but given the most advance F16 shot down, IAF certainly not looking at the outdated Airframe.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Light class
Gripen C - MTOW 14t / hardpoints 7+1
LCA MK1 - MTOW 13.3t / hardpoints 7+1

Medium class
Gripen E - MTOW 16.5t / hardpoints 9+1
M2K-5 - MTOW 17t / hardpoints 9


Gripen C / LCA CAP

2 x fuel tanks
2 x BVR
1 to 2 x WVR (depending on SPJ)

Gripen E / M2K-5 CAP
2 x fuel tanks
4 to 5 x BVR
2 x WVR

Even for the lightest loads, a medium class fighter with more hardpoints and fully integrated EW, offer clearly more capability than light class fighters and the higher or bigger (in size) the loads get, the more the advantage increase.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Light class
Gripen C - MTOW 14t / hardpoints 7+1
LCA MK1 - MTOW 13.3t / hardpoints 7+1

Medium class
Gripen E - MTOW 16.5t / hardpoints 9+1
M2K-5 - MTOW 17t / hardpoints 9


Gripen C / LCA CAP

2 x fuel tanks
2 x BVR
1 to 2 x WVR (depending on SPJ)

Gripen E / M2K-5 CAP
2 x fuel tanks
4 to 5 x BVR
2 x WVR

Even for the lightest loads, a medium class fighter with more hardpoints and fully integrated EW, offer clearly more capability than light class fighters and the higher or bigger (in size) the loads get, the more the advantage increase.

LCA MK1=>13.5 TONS
Gripen E=>10 Hard points(9+1)with 5200tons of payload external
Gripen E mtow=> 16.5 tons
GripeN E intro=>not before 2027 if deal cracks next year(impossible due to elections)
Tejas mk2=>2027 deadline not timeline by Air force.
Tejas mk2 mtow=>16.5 tons
Hard points=> 8(7+1) with payload of 5200 tons external.(strengthened hard points with multiple rack option with supersonic drop tanks )
Note that tejas mk2 will carry most of its electronics excluding the targeting pod internally.
The mid range fighter, it will be interesting to watch how Gripen E and F16s will fly during evaluation at LEH
In bw the MMRCA was for the aircrafts life rafale with 24 tons MTOW, Gripen shows almost 8 tons of downgraded performance, Mig35 in that instance is better than any single engine.
Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Kay]

It actually can't be further from the facts.

- IAF never wanted light fighters, since M2K, F16 and Mig 29 don't belong in that category in their upgraded versions that were fielded in MRCA
- IAF was forced to change the tender into a new limit, because Dassault withdrew M2K and offered Rafale instead, which was above the 20T MTOW limit of the initial MRCA tender
- When the government cancels the MMRCA and leaves IAF with a lack of at least 90 MEDIUM class fighters, how can a LIGHT Combat Aircraft be an alternative?

But yes, when LCA M2K might finally be available, IAF might prefer AMCA, simply by the fact that a 4th gen LCA, doesn't play any reasonable role in Indias defence anymore beyond 2027.

So you can (fake) blame IAF as much as you want, but the "facts" are quite different.

IAF wanted Mirage M2K specifically and yes M2K and F-16 are light fighters - they had been all through their lives except in the last couple of years when your spin machine has created a whole new fake category to sell to IAF .. hopefully GOI recognizes this BS and scuttle the deal.

 

[Armand2REP]

Exactly he made the SE fiasco. Gripen when comes take off weight, doesn't suits as an MRCA, it is far less than the competitors, even LCA type aircrafts fall in that category, F16 is only option but given the most advance F16 shot down, IAF certainly not looking at the outdated Airframe.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

IAF is not looking for either Gripen or F-16. It wants and needs LCA Mk2.

 

[smestarz]

LCA is superior to M2K upgraded in both performance as well as avionics.
And its not me saying these, but the pilots of IAF who have flown both the birds saying it,
Operational on M2K and testing on Tejas

More capable than the M2K bought in 1986? In terms of techs for sure, but not in terms of flight performance, not in terms of load capabilities, not in terms of range..., when you than take the upgraded M2K to account, the difference gets even bigger, because it is technically at the same or even higher level as LCA IOC and FOC.


No, you get the modern equivalent, just as we want the modern equivalents of M2K and Mig 29s now => MMRCAs

 

[smestarz]

To counter you, I can point to few IAF top brass
One of the ex top brass, Tyagi was involved in VVIP chopper scam. and NAK Browne was involved in the trainer plane issue.
Do you know how the story of M2K and MiG-29 went? Let me tell you. M2K was selected by Rajiv Gandhi who was then just son of Indira Gandhi.. and later the defence minister Venkatraman, went and purchased MiG-29 for IAF... can you elaboarate for me, which IAF officer was involved in procurement of M2K ?

Also the procurement was so shitty that the M2K that IAF had only came with gun and Magic2 missiles that were outdated few decades ago.

We had IAF wanting to have M2K for MRCA when France itself had told us that they have a new plane and that they are closing the line for M2K.. And M2K is not a failed plane, so when the line is being closed means the plane is too old. and France itself was going away from M2K to Rafale and yet IAF was so short sighted to the obvious. Let me also add another thing, IAF now uses MiG-29 and Su-30MKI as MRCA, did IAF not have the vision to see MiG-29 as MRCA? They only kept it as Air superiority plane.. and paniced when during Kargil war they had no capable strike plane to hit the heights, and M2K did not have the guided bombs.. and thats when Israel came in, and the rest as we say is history. Sorry to say, but I do not see IAF top brass as professionals. Two IAF top brass are already known for corruption and one officer recently was caught exchanging info for Obscene pictures, really professional lot.,.

The only one that was unprofessional in that case was Parrikar, because he tried to force procurements on IAF, against their operational requirements. I think nobody will argue with the fact, that no politician should decide what the forces need to defend the country or?
The forces set up the base requirements, the government tries to provide them with the best possible arms and techs, within those requirements.

It started with a licence production line for medium class Mirage 2000-5, went into a competition for MRCA up to 20t MTOW, was forced by Dassault into the MMRCA and now ended up in the SE MMRCA, because of the government .
So IAF even after nearly 2 decades remains clear in what they want!

 

[Screambowl]

Of course we should, but that doesn't make it an MMRCA!

Both gripen and F16C/D were already a part of the contest and they lost it.

So the first contest was 'dual engine MMRCA' now second one seems to be some stupid 'single engine MMRCA'.

That's what IAF already stated, because the MMRCA was cancelled and Rafale is a costly fighter, the SE MMRCA is aimed at providing a cost-effective alternative in the medium class.
Both SEs should have lower unit flyaway costs and both certainly will be cheaper to operate. So they give us a chance to wide spread MMRCA level of capability around India, in a cost-effective manner, that is necessary if you prepare for a 2 front war.

To me it only makes sense that IAF wants dual engine but Fin Ministry is not reluctant in paying such costs. And In any case there is no TOT when you assemble F16 or 39 gripen. Where as France was indeed interested in TOT, which could be retrofitted into LCA.

 

[smestarz]

Also the armed forces of India are under the president of India and also parliament, The planes are purchased at the cost f Indian tax payers and not at IAF top brass whims and fancies.
IAF sets requirements of what they want, and it ends up being the MoDs job to try and procure the planes as per the requirements,

The only one that was unprofessional in that case was Parrikar, because he tried to force procurements on IAF, against their operational requirements. I think nobody will argue with the fact, that no politician should decide what the forces need to defend the country or?
The forces set up the base requirements, the government tries to provide them with the best possible arms and techs, within those requirements.

It started with a licence production line for medium class Mirage 2000-5, went into a competition for MRCA up to 20t MTOW, was forced by Dassault into the MMRCA and now ended up in the SE MMRCA, because of the government .
So IAF even after nearly 2 decades remains clear in what they want!

 

[smestarz]

IAF has no real idea of what it really wants and so it comes with terms like Medium MRCA. So what will be LMRCA? They put the term MMRCA to ensure that Sukhoi did not entire and ruin everything for them

Both gripen and F16C/D were already a part of the contest and they lost it.

So the first contest was 'dual engine MMRCA' now second one seems to be some stupid 'single engine MMRCA'.



To me it only makes sense that IAF wants dual engine but Fin Ministry is not reluctant in paying such costs. And In any case there is no TOT when you assemble F16 or 39 gripen. Where as France was indeed interested in TOT, which could be retrofitted into LCA.

 

[Screambowl]

So what will be LMRCA?

F16 and 39 Gripen is LMRCA if we follow IAF and Fin Min terminology.

What category then LCA comes into?

What is the criteria of deciding which is medium and which is Light?

 

[abingdonboy]

IAF was ready, the vendors and Indian partners too, all it needs to start the tender is a government that actually supports defence modernisation and not just make PR deals. Also we don't need foreigners to tell us, that the more the government delays the decision towards the elections, the more likely it is to be pushed to 2019 or?



Lol and what is this fantasy calculation based on?

- we only evaluate 2 fighters
- according to the SPM process, we don't need an RFP evaluation anymore to start the tender, because it's an SPM tender
- the shortlisting already was done by limiting the contenders to single engine fighters only
- for some reasons (that wasn't part of the SPM), we already have JV's with Indian partners, so don't have to wait like we did with Dassault and Co

All it takes is a decisive government!

1) no decision will be taken until after 2019 elections now. Every moment of delay is a blow to its chances and plus for LCA
2) calculation is based on the fact that RFI responses will take at least a year, trails 1 year, price bid analysis 2 years, deliveries 3 years from contract signature ALL GOING WELL. This is India, there will be delays at EVERY stage AND this would be the FIRST major deal to be progressed under SPM so delays would be expected at a procedural level.


Deal has zero chances now, money isn’t there and will isn’t there from either IAF or GoI.

In 2019 follow on deal for 36 Rafales will be exercised and that will be that, SEF will officially be killed.

 

[abingdonboy]

More capable than the M2K bought in 1986? In terms of techs for sure, but not in terms of flight performance, not in terms of load capabilities, not in terms of range..., when you than take the upgraded M2K to account, the difference gets even bigger, because it is technically at the same or even higher level as LCA IOC and FOC.


No, you get the modern equivalent, just as we want the modern equivalents of M2K and Mig 29s now => MMRCAs

LCA MK.1A with AESA radar and I-Derby ER with >100km range isn’t more capable than M2K?

Range and payload are almost irrelevant for LCA, it is a point defence Air interceptor not a deep strike aircraft.

LCA, Rafale and MKI will be a perfect combination for the foreseeable future for IAF, they perfectly complement each other.

 

[Sancho]

Tejas mk2 mtow=>16.5 tons
Hard points=> 8(7+1) with payload of 5200 tons external.(strengthened hard points with multiple rack option with supersonic drop tanks )

So you understand now that there is simply a huge gap between light and medium class fighters, making up these things about MK2 doesn't help either, because there is simply no valid source for it, nor does the time line of the development fit to the MMRCA requirement now.

 

[Sancho]

yes M2K and F-16 are light fighters

Wrong, they were designed as light fighters with A2A roles in mind in the initial stages, but further developed to fully fledged multi role fighters, with increased load capabilities, upgraded radar, avionics, integrated EW... an F16 B70 has only the same optics of an early F16, while it has the load capabilities of heavy class fighters today.

 

[Steven Rogers]

So you understand now that there is simply a huge gap between light and medium class fighters, making up these things about MK2 doesn't help either, because there is simply no valid source for it, nor does the time line of the development fit to the MMRCA requirement now.

Actually you are correct, Naval mk2 has all those specs, not the air force mk2.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

LCA is superior to M2K upgraded in both performance as well as avionics.

Turn rates, G-Limits, Vmax, range, integrated EW, missile loads, capability to carry SPICE 2000 or Crystal Maze. It's not even remotely close, if you take the pride factor out.

To counter you, I can point to few IAF top brass
One of the ex top brass, Tyagi was involved in VVIP chopper scam. and NAK Browne was involved in the trainer plane issue....

And what has that to do with the MMRCA issue that you stated before? Nothing. Which means the fact remains, that only Parrikar was unprofessional in the tender, when he tried to force MKIs or even LCAs on IAF.

so when the line is being closed means the plane is too old. and France itself was going away from M2K to Rafale and yet IAF was so short sighted to the obvious.

IAF was not short sighted at all, since they wanted additional M2Ks years ahead of the MRCA tender, which in fact only was created to not have a single vendor situation with Dassault. So IAF wanted more of a fighter they already had in operations and that performed well at that time, as a stop gap till LCA can be added in numbers.

Let me also add another thing, IAF now uses MiG-29 and Su-30MKI as MRCA, did IAF not have the vision to see MiG-29 as MRCA?

Has nothing to do with vision, but with capability! The Migs at that time were designed purely for A2A and only the recent upgrade added multi role capabilities, sufficient range and hardpoints to make a decent multi role fighter out of it. That's why similar and even upgraded versions were part of the MRCA and MMRCA tenders.

 

[Sancho]

Both gripen and F16C/D were already a part of the contest and they lost it.

So the first contest was 'dual engine MMRCA' now second one seems to be some stupid 'single engine MMRCA'.

That's not true, since neither MRCA nor MMRCA had any limitation on engine numbers. It's also a common misconception that they lost or were rejected, because IAF/MoD never made any rejections, but shortlisted the 2 fighters that fulfilled most of the criterias IAF had. Air Chief Naik back then even confirmed, that none of the 6 contenders met all requirements, it was only about who was closer.

Out of those 6, now only the 2 single engined fighters were shortlisted, which makes clear that the aim was on cutting costs, but capability wise, the same operational criterias should be applied as in MMRCA and the most suitable one, should be selected (hopefully not just the cheapest).

To me it only makes sense that IAF wants dual engine but Fin Ministry is not reluctant in paying such costs.

I would have prefered 126 Rafales or EFs, too, but Dassault sadly made that impossible and now things are different and a government that keeps defence budgets low, is not going to provide IAF with the most capable fighters, so we have to find a compromise between cost and capability and that are single engined MMRCAs.

And In any case there is no TOT when you assemble F16 or 39 gripen. Where as France was indeed interested in TOT, which could be retrofitted into LCA.

Possible tech transfer =>

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ighter-jet-contest.78028/page-93#post-1382014