India opens bids in $10.4-bn combat plane tender.

[SPIEZ]

see the progression of the question asked...

YUP! I did!

you said THEY NEED FOR INDIA

 

[A.V.]

if i can very generalize the differences here, from what I understood ---

eurofighter is better at A2A and rafale is better at A2G both being under the MMRCA class. and the need for India leans towards having a A2G aircraft? is that right?

A advanced multirole aircraft does not differentiate A2A or A2G in the respect that older generation fighters used to do.

Deep penetration multirole fighters which will be used after the initial sorties by the MKI or accompanied by the MKI

 

[JayATL]

IAF needs an aircraft to do both and both aircraft do both. Now the question is which of them is cheaper.

A advanced multirole aircraft does not differentiate A2A or A2G in the respect that older generation fighters used to do.

Deep penetration multirole fighters which will be used after the initial sorties by the MKI or accompanied by the MKI

okay, thanks

I asked because- I just read conflicted reports/ posts here and elsewhere- where people say India needs a multi role aircraft but there is preference if has to be stronger in one of the two roles- it be A2G over A2A. I guess I misunderstood..

 

[p2prada]

okay,

I asked because- I just read conflicted reports/ posts here and elsewhere- where people say India needs a multi role aircraft but there is preference if has to be stronger in one of the two roles- it be A2G over A2A. I guess I misunderstood..

Ah! If that's the case then the aircraft needs to be superior in A2A engagements. Strike role is secondary, but IAF needs the strike component to be very good as well.

Both Rafale and EF have a stronger A2A role compared to strike.

 

[JayATL]

Ah! If that's the case then the aircraft needs to be superior in A2A engagements. Strike role is secondary, but IAF needs the strike component to be very good as well.

Both Rafale and EF have a stronger A2A role compared to strike.

so it is not correct( of what i read from some) that eurofighter is better than Rafale in A2A. There is poster named sancho ( i hope I'm not mis quoting him) who is quite knowledgeable about these two aircrafts-

I thought was saying his preference for Rafael is because it is much stronger on the A2G over eurofighter...perhaps he meant both being equal in the A2A role-- his preference was Rafeal because it had an advantage in the A2G role ( not saying that Indian inventory needed it to specifically be as such)

at this point I'm not sure which one is better other than apparently Rafael has its AESA in place and eurofighter does not... which , argh, makes me think. AESA is critical... I'm just glad I'm not making the call

 

[JayATL]

A advanced multirole aircraft does not differentiate A2A or A2G in the respect that older generation fighters used to do.

Deep penetration multirole fighters which will be used after the initial sorties by the MKI or accompanied by the MKI

Oh I have another question( sorry if its a stupid one). But with MK1 having such high RCS , again as I read, would it not defeat any stelath capabilities among these two MMRCA aircrafts ( because that was also cited as example of one having advantage over the other i.e. rafeal being lower rcs or was it vice versa). Point being- it should not be much of a " consideration" i.e their RCS exposure if they are always going to go in with MK1 leading the way..

 

[trackwhack]

F-35: Should India Really Ride The Lightning?

By Mihir Shah & Aditya Mandrekar


The recent statement by a United States Department of Defence official, that the US would be willing to discuss a possible sale of the F-35 Lightning II to India, or even consider bringing India into the ambitious programme as a partner, has generated a lot of attention in the Indian mainstream media.




While this is not the first time the F-35 has been offered to India, the timing of the pitch is interesting. Coming six months after the two American contenders vying for the lucrative Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract failed to make the Indian Air Force (IAF) shortlist, and just days before the bids by EADS and Dassault were opened, it is being widely seen as an attempt by the US and Lockheed-Martin to get back into the competition. Sections of the Indian news media – both print and electronic – have called for its consideration for the MMRCA tender (and some have called for an outright purchase) resulting in a new round of teeth-gnashing over a topic that has stretched over a decade. All things considered, here's why we don't think this is a very good idea.


First, basics. There is no doubt that the F-35 will meet accuracy and modernity standards required from any new-generation military equipment. But does it provide true bang-for-buck that the Indian Air Force needs? The way we see it, not really.



The Lightning II can barely be called a "medium weight" aircraft – the only aircraft heavier than it in the MMRCA competition was the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Now couple this with the fact that its payload just about matches that of the Tejas, and you start to wonder whether it's such a good fit for the IAF. Next, even if it is advertised as a "multirole" aircraft, its capability on the aerial warfare front is still seriously suspect. At present the best it can do is carry four air-to-air missiles internally, less than half the capability of either the Typhoon or Rafale. It cannot operate without air cover as it does not possess a swing-role capability. Also, its stealth is not all-aspect like the F-22's, and so it cannot be relied upon to make its way in and out of enemy territory unassisted.


Additionally, the F-35 features a significantly smaller combat radius than either MMRCA finalist when on internal fuel and weapons (which also means a smaller payload due to restrictions on space available). There is no official mention yet about external fuel tanks on the F-35, and the moment you hang weapons on external pylons, you can kiss both range and stealth goodbye. There are doubts, too, about its aerodynamic capabilities. The aircraft features thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading figures poorer than those of any contemporary fighter. One wonders how well it would perform in the key strike role in the thin air over the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau – the likely setting of any future India-China conflict.


There is also an issue that seems minor at first sight, but could throw a spanner in procurement. The IAF has, over the last two decades, gravitated towards two-man crews for any aircraft that will be involved in strike roles beyond close air support. This was highlighted in the Kargil War when IAF Mirages had to perform precision bombing tasks at high altitude while avoiding air defences, staying within the border and keeping an eye on possible interception. It is the reason why a third of the MMRCA batch is touted to comprise tandem-seaters just as all the new Jaguars have been. The lack of a two-seat F-35 means that not only will the IAF not get what it wants for deep penetration strike roles, but it means that any pilot training will have to be done on expensive simulators only.


Another problem is the complexity of the design itself and the fact that many of its technologies are radically new and untried. The USAF is learning the hard way that the F-22's radar absorbing skin (which the F-35 also uses) is highly vulnerable to rain and dust, and very expensive and difficult to maintain. Advertised as having the computing power of two Cray supercomputers, it is so complex that it can only fly for an average of 1.7 hours before suffering a critical failure. Even six years after it entered service, new and potentially fatal problems continue to surface with alarming regularity. It isn't too hard to guess how the F-35, whose design borrows heavily from that of the F-22 and even outclasses it in certain aspects, will fare in this regard.


If that wasn't bad enough, it gets worse once we start talking about timelines and costs. As of today, the F-35 (without development costs included) is priced at the same level as the Eurofighter and the Rafale. But while the latter two are combat proven and available today (in a fashion), the Lightning II won't be for a decade. Going by past experience, further schedule slippages and cost overruns look like a distinct possibility. Now, factor in the additional uncertainty created by the possible need to develop a tandem-seat version for the IAF alone, and one quickly begins to see why any optimism regarding timelines and costs could be highly misplaced. In the midst of all these arguments and calculations, the main reason why new medium fighters are being bought is often forgotten: the IAF needs new aircraft as fast as possible to shore up numbers and make up for the rapid obsolescence of a large portion of its fleet, and each delay only serves to make an already precarious situation worse. It is already taking a significant risk with the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) as it is. What is the point of bringing more uncertainty into the equation now, that too to procure a fighter that offers little in addition to low-observability?


And speaking of low-observability, how much will it cost to maintain the stealth features, especially in the hazy, dusty conditions of India? For that matter, will the IAF even get an aircraft that is as stealthy as the ones the US and UK operate? Will it get all the avionics, even watered down versions? The US is reluctant today to provide the UK, the only level-1 partner in the project, with full access to the aircraft's source code. What are the chances of India getting a better deal?



Finally, there is one additional issue that bears examination in this debate, and that is how procuring the F-35 will affect the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project. Because of the similar roles the two aircraft shall be expected to fulfil, there is a distinct possibility that purchasing the F-35 will kill the AMCA for good, with disastrous long-term consequences. Detractors may argue that the AMCA is nowhere close to completion, and may be delayed by years just like the Tejas has been. That may well be the case, but if the AMCA does suffer inordinate delays, India can always place a future order for an F-35 with many of its niggles hopefully sorted out. There is little reason to make that call now, when the AMCA is still a design on paper.


Having said all that, one can imagine a few scenarios in which the F-35, even with all its problems, would serve a useful purpose in the IAF. For years, the IAF maintained a handful of high-maintenance MiG-25R Foxbats for a niche profile: reconnaissance of enemy territory, out of reach of interceptors or SAMs. Likewise, the IAF could consider one or two squadrons of the Lightning II, for the simple purpose of "kicking the door down" in the first few days of the war, taking out vital air defence nodes, logistics nodes, or AEW&C and tanker aircraft before handing over the heavy lifting to other aircraft that can announce their presence.


And yet, the reason this may turn out to be a bad idea is that in the same way the MiG-25 was replaced not by another aircraft but an indirect replacement – spy satellites – the F-35's role can be performed not by another aircraft, but by missiles. We already operate the ground-launched BrahMos. The air-launched version should be available within the next few years, giving us a 300-km reach anywhere beyond its launch point. Throw the Shaurya into the mix and suddenly we can hit targets deep inside enemy territory without having to risk aircraft or pilots. Granted, missiles cannot do everything an aircraft can but even if cruise missiles provide partial coverage, the costs in maintaining a squadron's worth of special aircraft and pilots cannot be justified.


This is not to suggest that the F-35 Lightning II is a turkey, or that the US military is making a humongous blunder in buying it. But in the Indian context, we see little rationale behind spending large sums of money today on something that will only arrive a decade from now at the very best, be a difficult fit in our existing doctrine as well as punch a hole in our finances. If Lightning II should strike our enemies, we would rather it not have our tricoloured roundels on it.


MIHIR SHAH is a US-based engineer who tracks aerospace issues closely. He has contributed before to Livefist and Pragati magazine. He works at a firm specialising in energy efficiency consulting.


ADITYA MANDREKAR is an electrical and avionic systems engineer who currently writes embedded software for an electronics company in the UK.


This column reflects the personal & independent views of the contributing columnists | Photo / Lockheed-Martin

Oh Thank God, people who know what they are talking about finally start writing about it. The F 35 is an overpriced white elephant of an aircraft. I'm willing to bet that the USAF and USN will not buy even 10% of the 2400 planned.
The Indian AF and Navy are too smart to fool, no way will this plane ever fit our needs and no way will we buy these.

 

[p2prada]

so it is not correct( of what i read from some) that eurofighter is better than Rafale in A2A. There is poster named sancho ( i hope I'm not mis quoting him) who is quite knowledgeable about these two aircrafts-

I don't know who Sancho is but you read right when they say EF is better than the Rafale in A2A. The primary advantage lies in EF-2000's supersonic aerodynamics as well as a bigger and more powerful radar. A more powerful radar means a longer search and track range. A bigger radar means an ability to identify aircraft easily.

For eg: According to open source documents an F-15 is able to pick up and identify upto 4 F-16s from a very long distance, but a F-16 cannot do the same even against 4 F-15s. All the F-16 pilot will know is there are some F-15s but not the actual number. The MKI with Bars does even better and AESA obviously exceeds it. Bars is powerful enough to be nearly equivalent to the Phalcons while you can say APG-77 and Irbis exceeds it.

Superior supersonic performance means the ability to release BVR missiles from higher altitudes at a higher speed, even the missiles range and performance increases by 30 to 50% compared to a release at cruising speeds of around Mach 1. Rafale cannot see as far or fly as high as the EF. But Rafale can release missiles at pretty much the same speed. With datalinks and AWACS, both aircraft may show almost similar performance but advantage is still with EF.

In the end it still comes down to sortie rate, maintenance and costs.

I thought was saying his preference for Rafael is because it is much stronger on the A2G over eurofighter...perhaps he meant both being equal in the A2A role-- his preference was Rafeal because it had an advantage in the A2G role ( not saying that Indian inventory needed it to specifically be as such)

Rafale has a superior A2G capability because of it's ability to fly low and fast quickly, like the F-16, but better. Rafale is also better than EF in the subsonic regime. Overall Rafale may do better than EF over the Himalayas, but that is debatable as we don't know exact capabilities beyond some specs. When it comes to EW warfare, in the attacking role, the Rafale has an active suit while EF is passive but equally effective. The EF's radar is more powerful, so it would mean superior anti-jamming capability when it comes to brute force.

My preference is also it's superior A2G, but once the J-20 decided to show up, A2A may take a greater priority. As compared to regular flankers like the Su-35 the MKI has excellent subsonic performance, so that area is covered. Ultimately the Super MKIs will take on the J-20s while the MRCA may complement the Sukhois.

at this point I'm not sure which one is better other than apparently Rafael has its AESA in place and eurofighter does not... which , argh, makes me think. AESA is critical... I'm just glad I'm not making the call

At this point SH had the best electronics and still lost. What matters is what we are going to have in 2015, not today. AESA is critical.

 

[nimo_cn]

What is the odds of India choosing F35?

 

[p2prada]

Oh I have another question( sorry if its a stupid one). But with MK1 having such high RCS , again as I read, would it not defeat any stelath capabilities among these two MMRCA aircrafts ( because that was also cited as example of one having advantage over the other i.e. rafeal being lower rcs or was it vice versa). Point being- it should not be much of a " consideration" i.e their RCS exposure if they are always going to go in with MK1 leading the way..

You mean MKI. RCS is a very complex domain, especially when you look at open source information. For eg: US considers a RCS of 1m2 when they consider radar ranges while Russia considers 5m2. But nobody tells at what ranges and what frequencies these tests were carried out. So, what is 1m2 for US could be something entirely different from what Russia considers is 1m2. According to Gambit RCS estimates are for distances between 150-200Km in the US. At that distance it is obvious RCS will be smaller. As you go closer to the target RCS will increase.

Coming to the MKI we don't really know the true RCS of the fighter. For eg: when MKI was said to be 20m2, the PAKFA was said to be 0.5m2(by an Indian diplomat) while the F-22 is estimated to be between 0.3 to 0.4 m2 by the Russians(a Russian director from Sukhoi). But the Americans say F-22's RCS is 0.0001m2(add more zeros if you want to). If you consider both are right, then that would mean Russian RCS values are estimated from a much closer distance as compared to F-22.

Even if we reject this premise the MKI does have a very small RCS as compared to an older version of the Flanker. Let's not forget that the Mig-21Bisons RCS was reduced not by 50% or by 80%, but it was reduced by a number of times with RAM coating. Also the Su-35's RCS is significantly low as well. The Super MKIs will be even lower with a new RAM coating. More importantly, the Flankers have big azz radars and that helps even more than RCS reduction. Small aircraft like LCA cannot pick up the MKI before the MKI has already locked on.

At 4KW(first version) the Bars can track a LCA like target at 130Km, at 7KW(upgrade) it can track at 180-200Km, at supposedly a new 10KW(upgrade) the Bars can do even better. Irbis is at 20KW. Comparatively with a 400-800W radar the LCA will be able to pick up the MKI at a max of 130 to 150Km and that is not even the track range, only detection range. All this considering the MKI has not already jammed the radars and that MKI has more than 20m2 RCS at that range(which it does not). The MKI will probably pick up the LCA at 250-300Km.

MRCA aircraft have a better radar than the LCA type aircraft and can give the MKI a good fight, as long as the MKI is not upgraded to the same levels. But most aircraft with external weapons will have an RCS that can be picked up by the MKIs radar at reasonable range. The theoretical figure for Irbis is at 90Km for a RCS of 0.01m2.

To answer your question, the enemy may pick up the MKI, but there is no guarantee they can pick up the MRCA because of the F-15 and 4 F-16s analogy. The MKI may keep it's radar on and provide a target to the MRCA. It all depends on how capable the enemy is and the scenario.

 

[p2prada]

What is the odds of India choosing F35?

F-35 will have a chance only if the MRCA deal fails, but that's highly unlikely. With MRCA deal happening the F-35 may never happen. I have a doubt over it's flying abilities over the Himalayas. Tiny wings, big azz fuselage, underpowered engines cannot compensate for the design either.

I am keeping my fingers crossed for the Naval MRCA though.

 

[Virendra]

What is the odds of India choosing F35?

In MMRCA? .. none.

 

[ace009]

For RCS determination, you need three things - wavelength, power and distance from the source.
A definition of RCS is meaningless without considering these three.

As for RCS detection beyond 200 kms, mostly it is academic unless one side has no clue as to the strength/ abilities of the other side. No BVRAAM has a range beyond 200 kms (for NATO countries, the longest one was the AIM-54 Phoenix, at 190 km, now retired), although the R-37M is supposed to have a longer range at ~250-300 km, however, that's in a cruise mode and is not very effective against a high speed target like a Jet fighter. The same is the case for the Novator K-100.

So, for all practical purposes, any fighter borne radar that can detect, perform IFF and lock on to a target at 180-200 km is a very good radar.
Conversely for any "stealth" aircraft, that can defeat enemy radars for upto a range of 150-180 km, is "good" enough for A2A roles.

For A2G roles, the equations change considerably, since the purposes, flight profiles and the threats are different.

 

[Immanuel]

Oh Thank God, people who know what they are talking about finally start writing about it. The F 35 is an overpriced white elephant of an aircraft. I'm willing to bet that the USAF and USN will not buy even 10% of the 2400 planned.
The Indian AF and Navy are too smart to fool, no way will this plane ever fit our needs and no way will we buy these.

Overpriced? 10% of the 2400 planned? Don't know what your smoking but pass it around bro. F-35 will replace thousands of F-16s and F-18s across the world including the US. It's bound to be another best seller quite like the F-16. F-35 had some orders squashd due to delays, doesn't mean they're suddenly going to order 10% of 2400 aircraft. IAF's MRCA won't happen because well it's too late in the deal. IN will end up buying the F-35, all they have to do is test it. A bulk of it's sensors will remain unmatched for another 25 years.

 

[weg]

A bulk of it's sensors will remain unmatched for another 25 years.

Maybe you could pass around what you are smoking. Improving sensors is the easiest thing to do. The problem with the F-35 is its flight hardware which isn't upgradeable.

Delayed to 2020.

The service life extension is required because of delays in developing and fielding the F-35. Initial operational capability (IOC) of the Air Force's F-35A variant was planned for 2018 but has slipped by about two years, Carlisle said.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...nd F-16s To Cover F-35 Delays&channel=defense

 

[SpArK]

Dassault Rafale- Unit price: about $ 150 million.:shocked:


EADS Eurofighter Typhoon-Unit price: about $ 100 million. :shocked:

Gripen, Rafale ou Eurofighter: quel avion remplacera le Tiger?

 

[trackwhack]

Overpriced? 10% of the 2400 planned? Don't know what your smoking but pass it around bro. F-35 will replace thousands of F-16s and F-18s across the world including the US. It's bound to be another best seller quite like the F-16. F-35 had some orders squashd due to delays, doesn't mean they're suddenly going to order 10% of 2400 aircraft. IAF's MRCA won't happen because well it's too late in the deal. IN will end up buying the F-35, all they have to do is test it. A bulk of it's sensors will remain unmatched for another 25 years.

Yeah, I smoking some serious Afghan kush. Drop In, I will pass it around.

 

[charlyondfi]

Overpriced? 10% of the 2400 planned? Don't know what your smoking but pass it around bro. F-35 will replace thousands of F-16s and F-18s across the world including the US. It's bound to be another best seller quite like the F-16. F-35 had some orders squashd due to delays, doesn't mean they're suddenly going to order 10% of 2400 aircraft. IAF's MRCA won't happen because well it's too late in the deal. IN will end up buying the F-35, all they have to do is test it. A bulk of it's sensors will remain unmatched for another 25 years.

Dear Immanuel: F35 does mean to replace F16/18 bulks as you mentioned. However, that does NOT necessarily mean it will hit that objective. Perhaps not that right comparison, but how much ratio of F22 been able to replace F15? Barely 1 to 10. Reason? still cost, national security (technology monopoly), and most of all, operability -- exactly like P2Prada mentioned fit in high altitude Himalaya... ...

As long as it makes sense to one country's defense strategy, we will see those 30 even 40 years old aircraft carrying their mission loyally. Example: Brazil is operating those A4 on its only carrier (if my information is still correct). Is it really that "improper", considering the threat Brazil faces? IMO it's smart decision. Another is China still retain those obsolete J7 and J8. Why, apart from cost concern toward J10/11/Sukhoi? they can still assemble some last strategic card: quantity advantage... ...

 

[anoop_mig25]

everybody is saying for tot but whats grantee that tot would be transferred once contract is signed .we know how stupids our babu at mod and how smart western are singing /changing/interpreting the language of contract?

 

[ace009]

Dassault Rafale- Unit price: about $ 150 million.:shocked:


EADS Eurofighter Typhoon-Unit price: about $ 100 million. :shocked:

Gripen, Rafale ou Eurofighter: quel avion remplacera le Tiger?

Those price quotes are based on the R&D cost being amortized to the number of units ordered at that time point. That report is also 3 years old.