MMRCA news and discussions.

[John]

well,not impossible.would be good if split between mig/rafale.india has past experience with 29/m2k.helps logistics too.

ok firstly wrong misconception mirage 2000 and Rafale have nothing in common and and their logictics is not the same, they cant be, IAF doesn't buy this claim because the Rafale is far more advanced. No way going for the mig-35 , far too outdated, poor safety record, yes even the upgraded one is not worthy of being acquired now. The weapons are of poor quality and many of them are duds. Its a bad choice, i'd rather we go for the f-16 instead of the mig.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Defunct Humanity: MiG-35, brief review


MiG-35, brief review


Looking on the long discussions on Bharat-Rakshak Indian military forum I felt the need to make some short review about MiG-35. As usually I use only open source information in my post. It is from different on-line or off-line sources, Russian and foreign.

Sometimes the contradicting sentences are seen about this plane:


1) The aircraft has an old-fashion plane, way older, than any other MMRCA tender contenders except F-16. So it's at the end of its life, cannot be kept modernized in next 20-30 years.

2) The aircraft is a 'paper plane'. So, its capability is totally uncertain and a purchasing would be accompanied with high risk.

- Obvious, the first rules out the second and vice versa. However, both conclusions are wrong. I hardly can say the true lies between them too. In fact, MiG-29/MiG-35 family airframe design was started after first serial F-16 and F-18 prototypes look light and then their capabilities were well known to Russian engineers. So, MiG-29 is designed with these rivals in mind. F-18 and F-15 have had airframe evolving too, became F/A-18F/E and F-16 blocks 52/60 variants with different airframe and better overall capabilities. MiG-35 - is a next Russian step and in certain degree an answer to the last American variants of 4th generation tactical attack aircrafts. Indeed, MiG-35 is very mature 4th gen. fighter (MiG-29) with a big improvement.

- Historically MiGs – are the greatest enemy of the American fighters. Absolutely ALL American planes, lost to East Block in conflict over Korea, Vietnam and China in air fighting were hit by MiGs. It's thousands of planes… Therefore, the hate to MiGs is very explicable in Anglo-Saxon states. It would be just naturally if the Americans see MiG as the most probably air rival, and any step in their fighting aircraft development is made with MiGs in mind.

Now MiG-29 family includes the number of serial and prospective jets. MiG-29SMT – is the most simple and chip variant, made with soviet-time spare up-worked airframes with slightly modernized RD-33 ser.3 engine and slotted array Zhuk-ME radar. The other sensors and avionics are up to consumer choice. A number of countries (Yemen, Algeria) have already purchased this model, but the existence of soviet-made parts on the planes was inevitable, - something that leaves client unsatisfied (Algeria).

Although currently produced for Indian Navy MiG-29K ('9-41') and two-sitter MiG-29KUB ('9-47') fighters – have the same name and same aerodynamics as those MiG-29Ks ('9-31') initially offered for Russian fleet, their airframe technology is totally different. There is no (as many mistakably thought) light beryllium-aluminum alloys. Instead, there is use of composites (15% of aircraft surface area).

The reworked MiG-29M ('9-61') MiG-29M2 ('9-67') line has airframe on MiG-29K/KUB ('9-41' – '9-47') basis and almost the same weapon and avionics. It could be worth to define briefly the main differences between classic line of MiG-29 on one hand and both MiG-29K/KUB & MiG-29M/M2 on the other:

- The latest has 15-20% composite airframe,
- Slightly bigger wings and ailerons, new wingspan is 11,99 m against 11,36 m.
- Bigger horizontal stabilizers and rudders,
- Wider spine with bigger internal fuel tanks, 1.5 time more fuel.
- Bigger additional fuel tank is allowed (grow from 1520 l to 2150 l)
- Higher load, (4500 --> 5500 kg )
- Antiradar coating,
- Higher trust engines RD-33MK (2x8300 --> 2x9000 kg on afterburner), with longer MTBO/MTBF (2000 --> 4000 hours)
-Reduced infrared emission of the engines,
- Smokeless burner
- FADEC full control system for engines
- Longer life of airframe. Growing up from 2500 fly hours or 20 years rised to 5000 f/h or 30 years.
- Higher number of loading points (9 instead of 6) and heavier weight is allowed for new more heavy missiles.
- Dorsal air intake inlets are removed, fuel tank is installed instead.
- Inlet defense system is installed (grids).
- Totally redesigned canopy
- Service improvement , on-condition maintenance, fuel economy with 2.5 times reducing of flight-hour cost.
- Fly-by-wire
- Refueling capacity
- Open architecture of avionics
- Anti-corrosive defense of a naval aircraft level.

For MiG-35 however further improvements are made.

- MiG-35 has no dorsal air brake (rudders are used instead),
- 11 points of load instead of 9
- 6500 kg max load instead of 5500
- Difference in chassis
- Airframe life 5000 -->6000 hours or 40 years
- AESA radar
- Missiles warning system
- Broader weapon spectrum (+3M-14, 3M-54, KAB-1500)
- Advanced IRST
- Trust vectoring engine
- Better avionics

The most important specs of MiG-35 (two-sitter MiG-35D) are as follow:

Normal take-off mass --- 17,500 (17,800) kg
Maximal --- 23,500 kg
Max. landing mass ---16,800 kg
Internal fuel --- 4,800 kg
Max. load --- 6,500 kg
Max. speed
- low 1,400 km/h
- high 2,100
Mach 2.0
Gmax --- 9.0
Ferry distance
- internal fuel ---2,000 (1,700) km
- 3 external tanks ---3,000 (2,700) km
- 3 e.t. + 1 refueling ---6,000 (5,700) km
Take-off strip --- 550 m
Landing strip --- 600 m
Engines --- 2x RD-33MK
Power 2x 9,000 kg on afterburner

Airframe




MiG-35 has improved aerodynamic with sharp LERX, wider nose con for more powerful radar option, bigger cage with better ergonomics, absence of upper air-intakes for garbage defense on taking-of, with special unclose grids instead.

New 3-chennal fly-by-wire KSU-961 system with 4-time signal doubling. It's made on the basis of MiG-29K/KUB's FBW KSU-941 system and provides controllability of flying in all modes including super- maneuvering on over-critical AoA too. It provides automatic refueling in the fly as well.

The new big-blocks technology of welding is using on MiG-35. The use of composites is higher than with MiG-29K/KUB.The airframe life resource is 6,000 h or 40 years comparing to 2,500 h or 20 years on serial soviet MiG-29 and MiG-29SMT.

Improved aerodynamic and mechanization of the wings, higher wing area. Generally it's similar to MiG-29K wing but without folding. 11 load points allow 6,500 kg of load. No dorsal air-brake (as a variant).

The chassis is longer, and then the plane is sitting in more straight position than classic MiG-29.

The internal fuel capacity is raised as 1.5 times on MiG-35 and achieves 4,800 kg. New load points allow up to 5 external fuel tanks. The capacity of the central one was raised from 1520 to 2150 liters. However, the two-sitting MiG-35D variant lacks one internal fuel tank with 630 liter of capacity.

Under-pylon refueling PAZ-MK kit turns the plane into reciprocal refueler.

Engines

MiG-35/35D has two RD-33MK Klimov's engines with maximal thrust on afterburner 9,000 kgf, on maximal dry – 5,400 kgf. The life resource of this engine (4,000 h) was raised significantly comparing to standard RD-33 ser. 3 (2,500 h) which is used on Russian and Indian MiG-29's and which technology is already transferring to India. The time before overall is 1000 h. If a customer wants, MiG-35 may be equipped with Klimov's RD-33MKV engine with all-aspect thrust vectoring nozzles. It was over all testing on the board of MiG-29M-OVT №156.

RD-33MK has FADEC 'BARK-42' and both are produced in serial for MiG-29K/KUB Indian Navy fighters. Modifications with higher thrust and resource are under development in 'Klimov Gas-Turbine Design' house.

The new gear system KSA-33M and turbo-starter VK-100 are developed for this plane by 'Klimov'.

Radar and avionics

Open architecture MiL-STD-1553B bus is used. HOTAS control. Zhuk-AE AESA radar (was described before ).

MiG-35 has 5th generation OLS-UEM FLIR – for frontal hemisphere searching and OLS-K (in conformal container under the right inlet) – for searching in bottom hemisphere. The manufacturer: NIIPP (Moscow).

OLS-UEM specs:

IR, TV and laser range finder
Angle of searching
Horizontal -- +-90 grad
Vertical -- +60 - -15 grad.
Head-on target detection – 15 km
Detection on chase - 45 km
Laser range finder - 15 km

OLS-K specs:

IR, TV, laser range-finder and laser spot finder.
Max. range of detection
Tank - 20 km
Fast boat - 40 km
Laser range finder, max distance - 20 km
Spotting targets - yes
Mass 110 kg


As a more cheap option, the 4th generation UOMZ's KOLS-13SM FLIR together with Sapsan-E laser pod are offered.

Missile Aproach Warning (MAW) system includes two modules for bottom and upper hemispheres. Developer: NIIPP.
Specs:
Mass - 9.5 kg
Range of detection, max :
air-to-air missiles - 30 km
ground based AAMs --50 km
shoulder AAMs -10 km

Radar warning system L-150 (TsKB 'Avtomatika', Omsk) has 4 stations on the wing flaps and vertical fins margins.

The enemy laser detection kit can detect an enemy laser on up to 30 km distance. The laser wave is - 1.06 – 1.57 micrometers. Developer: NIIPP. Its mass is 800 g, including two sensors on wing flaps.

Active EW kit: SAP-518 or KS-418. Developer: KNIRTI (Kaluga). It has high frequency emitters inside the wings and tail and medium frequency emitter under the left wing. As an option, the Italian 'Elettronnica S.p.A ELT/568(V)2 EW system is offered for Indian MMRCA tender. Other foreign or Indian EW systems could be adopted on MiG-35 too.

Passive decoys system.

'Black box' registration system 'Karat-B-35' is offered for foreign customers of MiG-35.

SVR-23M1K video registration system is installed.

The weapon outcome control system 'Trenage-29' is offered with MiG-35 too.

Thales' 'Topsight' HMDS is offered in a first line. It's similar to that on serial Indian MiG-29K's. The Russian 5th generation HMDS is under development by NPO 'Geofizika'.

The display configuration does repeat MiG-29K/KUB. MiG-29K cage has 3 6x8 inches displays, wide angle on glass indication panel. The second pilot cage on MiG-35D has 4 displays. The resolution and display refresh rate are higher than MFI-10-7 1024x768 pixels displays on MiG-29K/KUB board.

The navigation system is PrNK-35 of RPKB with inertial and satellite GPS-GLONASS navigation subsystems.

A number of Indian systems could be installed as well, according to what Indian customer wishes (if yes).

Weapon



- RVVE-AE medial range active homing AAMs.
- R-73E close combat AAMs
- 80mm and 122 mm unguided rockets kits
- Kh-29TE and other types of Kh-29 AGMs family
- KAB-500 and KAB-1500 family guided bombs.
- other 100 – 500 kg bombs of different types
- long range air-to-surface missiles of 'Club' family (3M-14AE, 3M-54AE1, 3M-54AE)
- Supersonic anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles of Kh-31 family.
- Subsonic net-centric anti-ship Kh-31 'Uran' missiles.
- 30 mm GSh-301 auto cannon.

Life cycle cost

The service of MiG-35 is executed by condition, with condition assessment each 1000 flight hours up to max. 6000 hours of life (or 40 years of service).

For comparison classic MiG-29 has only 2500 hours of life resource (or 20 years). Periodic routine service each 100 fly hours (1 year) is needed. Order works are each 200 f.h. (24 months). Plant MLU is needed on 800 and 1500 f.h. (9 and 17 years of service).
With all the amortization in consideration the flight hour cost of MiG-35 is as 2.5 times cheaper than for classic MiG-29!

There is an old calculation from the middle of 90th, for classic MiG-29's in Eastern Europe. Then the flight hour cost was $3000 for MiG-29 and $2000 for F-16 - it's without amortization cost.

In 1994 – 1996 a new MiG-29's price was as $25 000 000. F-16's price was $18 600 000. MiG-29's airframe life was – 2,500 hours, or $10 000 for 1 hour. F-16's airframe life was – 8,000 hours, or $2,325 for hour. Mig-29's RD-33 engine of old serials has life of 800 hours, wile F-16's engine of that time has 2000 hours life. So, with all the life cycle expenditure the difference in flight hour cost between two planes was much higher: $15 500 for MiG-29 and about $5 900 for F-16! Even after the dollar/ruble parity has changed the prices very significant, single-engine F-16 remain to be more attractive in terms of lifecycle cost against classic MiG-29. With new MiG-35 coming, this advantage is going to totally diminish.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

India’s MMRCA Fighter Competition


India’s MMRCA Fighter Competition

16-Aug-2009 11:35 EDT




It’s the biggest fighter aircraft deal since the early 1990s,” said Boeing’s Mark Kronenberg, who runs the company’s Asia/Pacific business. DID has offered ongoing coverage of India’s planned multi-billion dollar jet fighter buy, from its early days as a contest between Dassault, Saab, and MiG for a 126 plane order to the entry of American competitors and even EADS’ Eurofighter. What began as a lightweight fighter competition to replace India’s shrinking MiG-21 interceptor fleet appears to have bifurcated into 2 categories now, and 2 expense tiers.

That trend got a sharp boost in March 2006, when Press Trust of India (PTI) reported a surprise pullout of the Mirage 2000, even though India already flies 40 Mirage 2000Ds, and its senior officials have touted standardization as a plus factor. What’s going on? In a word, lots. The participants changed, India’s view of its own needs is changing, and the nature of the order may be changing as well – but with the release of the official $10 billion RFP, the competition can begin at last.

DID offers an in-depth look at the MRCA/MMRCA competition’s changes, the RFP, and the competitors; and also offers an updated timeline regarding competitive moves since this article was published in March 2006. The RFP responses were submitted in April 2008. The IAF plans to hold a competitive fly-off in 2009 – and Dassault’s Rafale has climbed back into the race, even as the MiG-35 hits a setback…

•India’s MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft): Changes (i.e. “Continue reading…”)
•MMRCA: The RFP, Please…
•The Competitors: Analysis
•MMRCA: Updates and Developments [updated]
•Appendix A – MMRCA: The Naval Angle
•Appendix B – Dassault’s Move: Au Revoir, Mirage
•Additional Readings
India’s MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft): Changes


MiG-21 BIS
(click to view full)The original intent of India’s fighter purchase was to replace hundreds of non-upgraded MiG-21s that India will be forced to retire, with a complementary force of 126 aircraft that would fit between India’s high end Su-30MKIs and its low-end Tejas LCA lightweight fighter. While plans to develop a “fifth generation fighter” in conjunction with Russia have received a lot of press, they are uncertain at best, address a different requirement, and offer no solution to the immediate problem of shrinking squadron numbers as existing aircraft are forced into retirement.

India is a large country, with coverage needs over a wide area (see map of airbases in “Order of Battle”) and on several fronts. One of which is Pakistan, whose JF-17 joint fighter program with China has India’s attention. The IAF currently has 30-32 squadrons worth of serviceable aircraft, depending on which report one reads. This is well below their target of 39 1/2. The number of IAF squadrons still flying MiG-21s of one vintage or another has now dropped to 12, and overall squadron strength is projected to plunge to 27 during the 2012-2017 period.

Lightweight multi-role fighters that could make up for declining aircraft numbers with broader and better capabilities would appear to fit that need, and India’s initial shortlist followed that template. The Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 were already in service with India in this role, and the JAS-39 Gripen offered a 4th generation aircraft whose costs and profile place it firmly in the lightweight fighter category. These aircraft served as a hedge against the potential failure of the Tejas lightweight Combat Aircraft project, and also offered a more immediate solution to plussing up numbers as existing MiG-21s and MiG-23s/MiG-27s were forced into retirement.

Since those early days, sharply improved relations with the USA have introduced a pair of American planes into the competition, and India’s view of its own needs is changing. Official sources told Jane’s in February 2006 that RFPs would be issued to France’s Dassault (Mirage 2000-5 and Rafale), BAE/Saab (JAS-39 Gripen), EADS/BAE (Eurofighter Typhoon), The American firms Lockheed (F-16 Block 70) and Boeing (F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet), and Russia’s Rosonboronexport (MiG-29OVT with thrust vectoring, aka. MiG-35). That proved to be the case.

India’s requirements are also changing. For instance, both Jane’s Defence Weekly and Defense Industry Daily have covered India’s wish to ‘significantly’ augment their strike capability and range to deal with out-of-area contingencies. This has delayed the MRCA RFP. Another contributor to these delays has been the need to refine and clarify the new industrial offset rules introduced in 2005, amidst lobbying by American defense firms.

MMRCA: The RFP, Please…


IAF MiG-29, top view
(click to view full)India’s defense procurement process is definitely a game for the patient, and this was no exception. The Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) RFP caps a process that began in 2001, when the IAF sent out its request for information (RFI) for 126 jets. After delays lasting almost 2 years beyond the planned December 2005 issue date, India’s Ministry of Defence finally announced a formal Request for Proposal on Aug 28/07.

The RFP announcement estimated the program at 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), at a cost of Rs. 42,000 crores (about $10.24 billion as of the RFP date, or about $81.3 million per fighter). The 211-page document includes clauses for initial purchase, transfer of technology, licensed production, and life-time maintenance support for the aircraft. Under the terms of purchase, the first 18 aircraft will come in a ‘fly away’ condition, while the remaining 108 will be manufactured under Transfer of Technology. Some reports add an option for an additional 64 aircraft on the same terms, bringing the total to 190 aircraft; DID is attempting to confirm this.

The vendors had 6 months to submit their proposals. Selection involves an exhaustive evaluation process as detailed in the Defence Procurement Procedures (DPP) 2006. First, submitted proposals will be technically evaluated by a professional team to check for compliance with IAF’s operational requirements and other RFP conditions. Then extensive field trials evaluate aircraft performance. Finally, the short listed vendors’ commercial proposals are examined and compared. The defence ministry’s Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC) would then hold discussions with the vendors before identifying their preferred manufacturer. Their report goes to the defence minister, who must forward it to the finance minister. After the file returns to the defence ministry, it goes for final approval to the cabinet committee on security (CCS).

This is not a speedy process. The selection process alone is likely to take at least 2 1/2 years, to be followed by lengthy price negotiations, and probably including delays along the way. Most observers believe that delivery of any aircraft is unlikely before 2013.

The vendor who finally wins will be required to undertake 50% offset obligations in India. That’s a boost from the usual 30%, which is required for Indian defense purchases over $70 million. The additional 20% was added because India is looking for a large boost to its aerospace and defense electronics industries, and understands that the size of their purchase gives them additional leverage. The Indian MoD’s RFP release adds that “Foreign vendors would be provided great flexibility in effecting tie up with Indian partners for this purpose.” It also says that:

“The aircraft are likely to be in service for over 40 years. Great care has been taken to ensure that only determinable factors, which do not lend themselves to any subjectivity, are included in the commercial selection model. The selection would be transparent and fair….

It may be recalled that the Defence Minister Shri A K Antony while chairing the Defence Acquisition Council Meeting on June 29, 2007 had outlined three guiding principles for this procurement scheme. First, the operational requirements of IAF should be fully met. Second, the selection process should be competitive, fair and transparent, so that best value for money is realized. Lastly, Indian defence industries should get an opportunity to grow to global scales.”

Once again, speed is not a key criterion. Part of the reason for that is India’s past history of procedural problems. American competitions are increasingly finding themselves paralyzed by quasi-legal challenges of evaluation methods, and even of their chosen criteria. Witness the hold-ups created for the CSAR-X helicopter competition, Joint Cargo Aircraft, ITES-2 I.T. contract, etc. Indian competitions have featured these sorts of post-contract obstacles even more consistently, with long bureaucratic delays and corruption charges thrown into the mix for good measure.

Time will tell if the objectives of the MoD’s RFP are met, or if a process of waiting almost 6 years for an RFP, and then years more for a winner, is only the beginning of the process.

Even as India’s existing fighter fleet continues to wear out, and China and Pakistan’s fleets continue to grow.

Continued

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Lightweight Fighters

F-16F “Desert Falcon”
(click to view full)F-16 Fighting Falcon (Lockheed, USA). Presumably, Lockheed’s “Block 70” offering would be an upgraded version of the F-16E Block 60 “Desert Falcon” currently serving with the UAE. Strengths include the widest multi-role capability among lightweight fighters; its proven AN/APG-80 AESA radar; the addition of integrated IRST capability; the widest choice of proven avionics and weapon systems; a long record of proven service so all issues are known; and widespread compatibility with potential allies in Asia and the Middle East who also fly F-16s. The combination of an AESA radar on a less expensive platform is also good news for cruise missile defense efforts, if that’s considered a priority.

Even so, the Indian Air Force has never seemed very interested in the F-16. Weaknesses include the fact that Pakistan also flies F-16s; the fact it’s a new aircraft type, so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed; Lockheed Martin’s difficulty in complying with industrial offset provisions, given their lack of penetration in India. The MMRCA RFP’s delays may have helped Lockheed, by allowing them ample time to find arrangements with Indian firms. There are also reports that the US government is pushing this option, because of the regional reassurance factor. While an F-16 E/F Block 60+ would have a number of important advantages over Pakistan F-16 A/Bs and even its new Block 50/52 aircraft, the common underlying aircraft type would probably take some of the edge off of the deal from Pakistan’s point of view.


JAS-39s in South Africa
(click to view full)JAS-39 Gripen (Saab, Sweden; marketed by Britain’s BAE). The Gripen is a true 4th+ generation lightweight fighter and significantly more capable than category competitors like the F-16 and Mirage 2000, though the MiG-35 may give it a run for the money. Gripen NG begins to address the aircraft’s range limitations, and would include an AESA radar among its other enhancements. Other strengths include a wide choice of integrated weapons and pods; reasonable purchase cost; the fact that it has been designed for exceptional cost of ownership; and the ability operate from roads instead of runways if necessary. With respect to industrial offsets, Saab has made a strong offer, backed by excellent record in countries like South Africa, Hungary, The Czech Republic et. al.

As an interesting side note, the JAS-39NG’s use of GE’s F414G engine could create future commonality with the failed Kaveri engine’s successor. The Tejas LCA will use GE’s F404 engines until an Indian substitute is ready, and GE’s F414 is one of 2 engines under consideration as the basis for the Tejas Mk2’s power plant.

The JAS-39’s drawbacks include its short range; the fact it’s a new aircraft type for the IAF; its AESA radar’s developmental status; and a low volume of international orders to date that raises questions about the platform’s ability to modernize over the next 30-40 years. While ordering a Swedish fighter carries spin-off geopolitical benefits, the platform does have a wid card in South Africa’s adoption, and Brazil’s potential adoption. These 3 countries are beginning to collaborate more closely in defense matters, and a common fighter platform could offer intriguing military and industrial benefits.


MiG-29OVT/-35
(click to view full)MiG-29OVT, aka. MiG-35 (Rosonboronexport, Russia). This modified MiG-29 includes improved radar and avionics that give it multi-role capability, extra fuel in a new aircraft “spine,” and thrust-vectoring engines a la India’s SU-30MKIs. Strengths include compatibility with the existing and future MiG-29 fleet, and its ability to carry advanced Russian missiles already in service like the revolutionary AA-11/R-73 Archer and longer range AA-12/R-77 “AMRAAMski.” The presence of MiG-29 infrastructure and a new plant for license-building RD-33 Series III engines in India also makes compliance with industrial offset requirements easier.

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-MAE 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.

Remaining weaknesses in the MiG-35 bid include the serious difficulties India has had with Russian firms over the refit of its new carrier, order for more Mi-17 helicopters, and order for 3 more Krivak-III class frigates. All have featured failure to deliver, and post-contract price renegotiation demands that have raised prices up to 200%. Reports that MiG-35 delivery cannot start before 2014 at the earliest add a further disadvantage, especially compared to competitors with active production lines and rapid delivery capability.

There has also been legitimate speculation about the future viability of the MiG-29 family platform, which has been eclipsed by the SU-30 family. Despite Yemen’s interest in buying more MiGs, Algeria’s canceled $1.8 billion order adds further risk to a platform whose current order book revolves around refurbishment programs. India has ordered a handful of MiG-29K variants as its future carrier aircraft. Nevertheless, doubling down to add the MiG-35 would make India the first customer for both variants – neither of which has other sale opportunities on the near horizon. That could be spun as a positive industrial opportunity, but it’s also a cost and risk issue.


Tejas LCA
(click to view full)Mirage 2000-5 (Dassault). Withdrawn. Industry analyst Richard Aboulafia points out that the history of global fighter purchases shows strong clustering at the lower-price end of the market; shutting down Mirage 2000 production will shut Dassault out of that niche. A Mirage 2000 entry would have had strengths that included compatibility with Mirage 2000s already in service, which performed very well in the 1999 Kargil skirmishes. An infrastructure already exists for industrial offsets, and its low end price could be raised along with its capabilities by adding equipment developed in the Rafale program.

The Mirage 2000’s potential performance similarity to the Tejas LCA project was both its weakness and its strength. One the one hand, that would have made it a good insurance policy if confidence in the Tejas fell. On the other hand, it may not have been seen as adding enough to the force mix if confidence in the Tejas program remained high. On Dassault’s end, the firm decided that it couldn’t keep that entire production line open without foreign orders for several years, while India decided on a potential buy. The aircraft was withdrawn before the official RFP was released, in favor of the larger and more expensive Rafale.

Tejas LCA (HAL et. al., India). A lightweight, indigenously-developed fighter aircraft expected to enter service around 2010. Currently in testing using GE’s F404 engine, while India’s accompanying Kaveri jet engine project stalled and was scrapped in favor of a potential new engine partnership. The Tejas is not an MRCA competitor – but its development plans, the confidence in its success, its ability to stay under $25 million, the potential for a naval variant, et. al. will have a behind-the-curtains influence on every MRCA decision. See “India: LCA Tejas by 2010, but Foreign Help Sought” for more.


continued

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Mid-Range Fighters


Indra Dhanush 2007:
SU-30MKI, Typhoon, F3
Eurofighter Typhoon (EADS/BAE, Europe & Britain). A fourth generation aircraft currently optimized for the air-air role through its performance characteristics and what is by all accounts an excellent pilot interface. One surprise plus for Eurofighter could be its Eurojet EJ200 engines, which are being considered as the base powerplant for India’s LCA Tejas Mk2.

Typhoon fighters reportedly have “supercruise” capability beyond Mach 1 without using afterburners, though some analysts have cast doubt on how sustainable that is once weapons are attached. Some observers believe that aside from the F-22A Raptor, the Eurofighter is the next-best in-service air superiority aircraft world-wide, though the 2007 Indra Dhanush exercise that matched it up against India’s SU-30MKI makes a case for the MKI. Tranche 2 upgrades are giving this plane full multi-role capabilities, and India’s delay has given those developments more time to mature.

With respect to industrial offsets, BAE already has an order from India for 66 BAE Hawk trainers, 42 of which are being built in India. That order has run into trouble, however, which could hurt the Typhoon’s chances. Given EADS’ key role in the Eurofighter consortium, Airbus might also be able to contribute on this front.

Weaknesses include the aircraft’s $100+ million expense, which may stretch India’s budget to the breaking point; the fact it’s a new aircraft type for the IAF so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed; its lack of naval capability; the developmental status of its CAESAR (Captor AESA Radar) technology; and the non-existent geopolitical benefits of selecting it. Given the Eurofighter’s performance and costs, simply buying more SU-30MKIs would appear to make far more sense.


F/A-18E, Parked
(click to view full)F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet (Boeing, USA). Highly upgraded version of the F/A-18 A-D Hornet, enlarged and given new engines and avionics. Commonality between the Hornet and Super Hornet is only about 25%. Strengths include its powerful AN/APG-79 AESA radar, which has drawn significant interest from India. This radar could allow Super Hornets to play a unique role in India’s fighter fleet as versatile “quarterbacks” (or better yet, “cricket captains”) due to their radar’s performance and information sharing abilities. Other advantages include carrier capability, a very wide range of integrated weapons, a design that is proven in service and in combat, F414 engines that may also serve as the base for LCA Tejas Mk2; and complete assurance in its future upgrade spiral, given the US Navy’s commitment to it.

The existence of a dedicated electronic warfare variant as of 2009 in the EA-18G Growler may also be a potent motivator, as the growth of sophisticated air defense systems will place a growing premium on this unique capability. Last but certainly not least, this choice offers an opportunity to create an early “win” which would strengthen India’s new alliance with the USA and prove its new status in the world. After all, when clearance for the aircraft was given, no other nation had even been offered the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.

Since then, of course, close American ally Australia has bought 24 F/A-18F Block IIs in a controversial A$ 6 billion purchase, and even taken steps to modify the aircraft toward EA-18G Growler status. Australia’s deployment of Super Hornets gives the platform an additional selling point in the “allied commonality” department, and Boeing’s planned $1.5 billion investment in India’s aerospace market may help deal with defense industrial offset issues. The Super Hornet’s Boeing connection adds many industria options in the civil aircraft market as well.

Weaknesses of the Super Hornet platform include the aircraft’s expense. Given the costs to other customers so far, it seems unlikely that Boeing can deliver 126 F/A-18 E/F Block II aircraft for just $10.2 billion, let alone aircraft plus lifetime support. The Super Hornet also offers poorer aerodynamic performance than the Eurofighter or Rafale, due to inherent airframe limitations. Finally, it’s a new aircraft type for the IAF, so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed from the ground up.


Rafale w. Scalp
(click to view full)Rafale (Dassault, France). Advantages include demonstrated carrier capability in the Rafale-M, which could be a very big factor if the RFP includes that as a requirement. The aircraft offers exceptional ordnance capacity for its size, and can have its range extended via conformal fuel tanks. It offers superior aerodynamic performance over the F/A-18 family. The Rafale claims “supercruise” capability, but observers are skeptical and it has been challenging to demonstrate this with the Snecma R88-2 engine. The Rafale also offers some equipment, maintenance and spares commonalities with existing Mirage 2000 fleet, which would probably increase if India’s Mirage 2000s are modernized in future. France’s reliability as a weapons supplier, good history of product support, and long-standing relations with India, offers additional plusses.

Weaknesses include the continuing absence of a compatible surveillance and advanced targeting pod, the need for additional funds and work to integrate many non-French weapons if one wishes to use them on the Rafale, and its lack of an AESA radar until Thales finishes developing the RBE2. The Rafale’s failure to win any export competitions is also an issue – one that reaches beyond mere perception of “also-ran” status. As DID noted in an update to “Singapore’s RSAF Decides to Fly Like An Eagle,” export failures are already forcing cuts in future Rafale procurement, in order to pay for modernization. That dynamic is likely to get worse over the next 30 years.

Initial reports indicated that the Rafale did not meet India’s technical evaluation criteria, because critical information was not included. Dassault persisted, and their fighter is now back in the race.


F-35B JSF Cutaway
by John Batchelor
(click to view full)F-35 Joint Stike Fighter (Lockheed-led, multinational). In February 2006, India’s Chief Air Marshal recently specificaly noted that the JSF was not in their plans for this buy, a likelihood that DID’s analysis had noted earlier due to probable lack of availability before 2015. The August 2007 MRCA RFP confirmed this.

If it were flying today, the F-35B STOVL variant would probably be by far the best fit for India’s requirements. The planes would be carrier-capable from all of India’s naval air platforms, including smaller carriers the size of INS Viraat (ex-Hermes) or LHD amphibious assault ships, and could use roads and short field runways on land for maximum operational flexibility. F-35 JSFs would sport ultra-advanced systems that include the AN/APG-81 AESA radar, and incredibly advanced sensor systems and electronics that would make it India’s most capable reconnaissance asset and even a potential electronic warfare aircraft. Other strengths would include greater stealth than any other competitor, which is critical for both air-air dogfights and strikes on defended targets. The Super Hornet may be able to fill the role of an aerial cricket captain, but the JSF is more like Sachin Tendulkar.

India has been invited to F-35 events. With potential US order numbers dropping, India might even be accepted into the program if they pushed for it. The F-35’s killer weakness was timing. Its advanced systems, established industrial partnership structure and program procurement policies could also make it nearly impossible to meet India’s industrial offset rules.

continued

 

[LETHALFORCE]

MMRCA: Updates and Developments


Aug 13/09: Russian spokesmen reportedly say that production of the MiG-35 cannot begin before 2013-14, which means that the IAF would not be able to take delivery before 2014. Unless the competition itself is delayed, that’s likely to put the MiG-35 at a significant disadvantage against the other competitors, all of whom would be able to begin delivering aircraft by 2011 or even 2010. RIA Novosti | Deccan Chronicle.

May 15/09: Rafale’s return. Indian media confirm that assault’s Rafale has been readmitted to the MMRCA competition. The “quality requirements” it had failed to meet reportedly involve information on key systems that was not provided to India, and that issue has reportedly been fixed.

The Rafale will now participate in MMRCA aircraft trials, and recently gained another boost to its prospects. Thales recently completed flight tests for its RBE2 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. The next batch of about 60 Rafales for the French air force and navy is expected to include this radar, and it will also be offered for export. domain-b | The Hindu | Times of India | Zee News.


India: another one
bites the dust?
(click to view full)May 13/09: An Aviation Week report has this quote, despite statements by several Indian officials that the Rafale has been eliminated:

“We are still preparing, actively, technology demonstrations for later this year and early next year,” says Jean-Noel Stock, who leads Rafale efforts at Thales, which is responsible for around a third of the weapons system. He stresses that Rafale is still in competition for the 126 fighter deal…. By year’s end, the company expects the first full-production contract for the [RBE2] AESA [equipped Rafales] in France”

April 16/09: Indian media report that Dassault’s Rafale has been disqualified from India’s MMRCA competition. Exact reasons were not specified, beyond vague reports that “it did not meet the General Staff Quality Requirements.”

Dassault is measured in its public replies, stating only that Rafale International has not been formally made aware of any such decision. If these reports are true, however, Dassault’s move to strangle its Swedish competitor by denying it Thales’ radar may have ended up costing Thales any chance of an order from India.

Disqualification at this technical trials stage means that the Rafale would not proceed to the coming summer and winter trials, which will be followed by the creation of a shortlist, and then more negotiations. Indan sources still see at least 2 more years before an actual purchase contract is inked. Agence France Presse | Calcutta Telegraph | The Hindu | Times of India | Reuters | Thaindian News | StrategyPage, include order history for Rafales to date.

March 10/09: Aviation Week’s “AESA Radars Are A Highlight of Aero-India” offers a look at various contenders’ radar choices.

America has an AESA technology lead, so its offerings are the most stable and mature. The F-16IN had the most choices. Ratheon’s RACR and Northrop Grumman’s SABR are both designed as drop-in AESA radars for the F-16, but Lockheed Martin chose Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG-80, which is already installed in the UAE’s F-16E/F Block 60s and has a 100% in-service record over 4 years. The other American contender, Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Block 2, will use its standard AN/APG-79 AESA radar.

Dassault’s Rafale will use Thales’ new RBE2, but its acquisition of a large shareholding in Thales means Saab’s JAS-39NG will not use an RBE2 front end as planned. Saab has a number of alternative AESA options, from Raytheon’s RACR to an enlarged version of Selex Galileo’s Vixen, but the uncertainty raises its risk profile in a number of ways.

Eurofighter reportedly had the most interesting but least mature proposals, involving AESA arrays built into other areas of the plane. Eurofighter GmbH is working on the CAESAR AESA radar, but hat is in early development. Accordingly, it touts its existing mechanically-scanned Selex Galileo ECR-90 Captor over in-service AESA radars. EADS Military Air Systems SVP of engineering Peter Gutsmiedl was reportedly talking about the option of adding small AESA side arrays, an azimuth gimbal, or even a canted AESA “swashplate” fitted to a rotating mount, inside a canted antenna. These embedded radar options would allow the benefits of AESA, but with a much wider scan radius that could radically change the engagement cone for radar-guided air-air missiles. If they are built, that is, and successfully tested.

February 2009: Defense Update reports that Saab’s Gripen is prominent by its absence at Aero India 2009. The single Gripen NG prototype is reportedly booked with flight testing activities, and cost cutting measures at Saab ran afoul of the expense involved in flying the plane to India.

Feb 10/09: Saab and TATA Consultancy Services (TCS) partnered Aeronaoutical Design and Development Centre (ADDC) has been awarded its first contract by Saab to participate in the aerostructural design and development for Gripen NG. Gripen International.
Jan 17/09: Indian Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major reveals that the IAF will conduct a fly-off of the 6 MMRCA contenders some time in April-May 2009.

Rumors have been started that Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen might be left out of these field trials as a result of the IAF’s Technical Evaluation Committee report, which is said to have been submitted to the Indian ministry of defense in mid-November 2008. That report has to be approved by the ministry before the field trials can begin. Those claims regarding the Gripen’s relative capabilities are difficult to reconcile with the roster of competitors. Meanwhile, Gripen International’s India director Eddy de la Motte says:

“We firmly believe the report does not have any basis and the news is incorrect. Gripen meets or exceeds every operational requirement raised by the IAF in all roles – air-to-air fighter, [beyond visual range/within visual range], air-to-surface land and sea, and reconnaissance.”

See: India Defence re: trials | India Defence re: Gripen.


JAS-39IN
(click to view full)Dec 8/08: Dassault Aviation announces agreements with Tata Technologies’ subsidiary INCAT [DID note: not the Australian naval firm] for Engineering Services Outsourcing. Under the terms of the MoU, INCAT will provide Dassault Aviation with Engineering Services in a number of critical domains, in support of the Indian Air Force MMRCA program under its industrial offset requirements.

The services would use INCAT’s Global Delivery model, delivered largely from the recently-established INCAT HAL Aerostructures Limited (IHAL) dedicated aerospace engineering services centre joint venture in Bangalore, India. It would be backed up by INCAT’s delivery teams in France and the USA.

Nov 6/08: India Defence reays concerns from Dassault Aviation’s senior vice president for military sales J.P.H.P. Chabriol. After observing that the Rafale, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter constitute one tier of price and capabilities, and the F-16, JAS-39 Gripen, and MiG-35 constitute another, he adds that:

“The IAF’s RFP (request for proposal), in the first analysis, in terms of performance, is not extremely demanding. We don’t want a situation where the other three aircraft are compliant with the RFP but we lose out on the price differential…. The IAF has to decide whether it wants a heavy aircraft or a light aircraft…. Quite obviously, there would be a price differential if a single or a twin-engine jet is chosen. If India takes the L-1 (lowest tender) route this would be unfair because we have a good product but this quality comes at a price.”

It shoud be remembered that Dassault withdrew its own Mirage 2000 lightweight fighter from the MMRCA competition before the RFP was finalized. Chabriol reportedly added that Dassault had made an ‘unsolicited offer’ of 40 Rafales as well, presumably as an inducement toward a dual platform “high-low” MMRCA buy. India Defence.

Nov 5/08: domain-b reports that France’s government gas approved full technology transfer for the Rafale fighter, including the AESA radar currently under development for that platform. The decision could also have corollary benefits for Saab’s Gripen, as Saab is currently engaged in a joint development arrangement with Thales around the RB2 for its JAS-39 Gripen NG.

Dassault Aviation’s senior vice president for military sales J.P.H.P. Chabriol added that Source code transfer would be included. This is a major step, as it would enable the IAF to program the radars itself without having to specify mission parameters to foreign manufacturers. Chabroil also pointed to the lack of American components in the Rafale, which generates concern in some Indian quarters despite sbstantially improved relations with Washington:

“The Gripen is powered by a US engine and has other US components too. Similar is the case with the Eurofighter, which has quite a few American parts. So, they would have to first seek the US government’s approval. In the case of the F-18, approval would have to be sought not only of the government but also of parliament [US Congress]. This legislative approval is not an issue in our case.”

Oct 7/08: A domain-b report quotes Alexei Fyodorov, chief of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC). Fyodorov says what he’s expected to say, then adds an interesting allegation:

“The competition is very tough, but we have several trump cards – the MiG-35’s superb performance characteristics and the fact that Russia and India share a long-standing partnership in strategic and political cooperation…. So far, none of the participants has met the demands of the tender put forward by the Indian air force….”

Sept 10/08: Saab announces a letter of intent with Tata Consultancy Services Limited (TCS), regarding establishment of an Aeronautical Design and Development Centre (ADDC) in India. The centre is not aimed at any particular program but will explore market opportunities in areas such as aero structures, aero systems, avionics and after market support for both military and civil aeronautical applications. Saab release.

Aug 4/08: The RFP responses are in, and are being evaluated. India’s Economic Times reports that 3 of the bidders have just submitted their companion industrial offset proposals so far: Boeing (F/A-18E/F), EADS (Eurofighter), and Lockheed Martin (F-16IN).

Boeing said it would meet its obligations through a line up that includes 37 Indian partners in the public and private sectors. Lockheed Martin noted that it had already established 4 F-16 production lines outside the USA. EADS mentioned a “fully-fledged response,” but did not otherwise go into much detail; like Boeing, cooperation with its civilian arm (Airbus) is a near-certain component of their offer.

Industrial offset esponses from Dassault (Rafale), Gripen International (JAS-39NG), and Rosoboronexport (MiG-35) are reportedly still pending. They are also due in August.

May 28/08: EADS is quoted as inviting India to become the 5th country and the first outside Europe to become part of the Eurofighter consortium. The industrial example of Spain’s participation is used. The Hindu’s report adds that EADS is also prepared to involve India in its supersonic jet trainer development program (the stalled Mako project, which needs an external partner to move forward) as well as unmanned aerial and undersea vehicles.

May 5/08: More details concerning the Boeing/Raytheon Super Hornet offer appear in India’s press. According to Boeing’s F-18 programme manager for India Mike Rietz, Boeing’s offset program involves a 4-phase effort.

•Phase 0 supplies 18 fully assembled Block II Super Hornets.
•Phase 1 and 2 will deliver 54 aircraft as partial assemblies , and would begin within 54 months of the contract’s start date.
•Phase 1 supplies 1,800 parts and 300 tools for assembly by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. in India.
•Phase 2 supplies HAL with 17,000 parts and over 1,000 tools for assembly.
•The final 54 aircraft of Phase 3 would have the entire range of the airframe’s 30,000 parts built in India, with the last aircraft delivered by 2020.
With respect to radar technology transfer, Raytheon’s Dave Goold states the obvious when he says that “Our response has been fully compliant with the IAF request for proposal (RFP). However, the extent of technology transfer would be dependent on the permission we receive from the US government…. The issue is under discussion.” If technology transfer is limited by the government, this could result in AN/APG-79 radars being supported in India but manufactured entirely in the USA. The question is whether that would disqualify the Boeing bid outright, or force a shift back to earlier APG-73 radars. The extent of radar technology transfer is reportedly set at 60% in India’s RFP. News Post India report.

April 28/08: Gripen International delivers its MMRCA bid to India’s Ministry of Defence. The JAS-39IN is based on the Gripen NG/ Gripen Demo, and includes an AESA radar and an IRST system, a Transfer of Technology (ToT) program, a life-time logistics support solution sourced from Indian suppliers with support from Saab and its partners, and full industrial offset cooperation. Gripen International release.

continued

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Eddy de la Motte, Gripen International’s India Campaign Director:

“Gripen IN will provide India with a capability that offers complete independence of weapon supply…. We will do this by transferring all necessary technologies to enable Indian industry and the Air Force to build, operate and modify Gripen to meet all indigenous requirements over time.”

April 24/08: Boeing delivers a 7,000-page proposal offering its advanced F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to the Indian Air Force, and The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi will formally hand it over to Indian Ministry of Defense. The F/A-18IN includes Raytheon’s APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, and Boeing is also touting the claim that “the fighter won’t need a scheduled visit to a maintenance depot until it has clocked a minimum of 6,000 hours of flying time, and even well beyond that.” Delivery of the first F/A-18IN Super Hornets can begin approximately 36 months after contract award.

Over the past 36 months, Boeing IDS has signed long-term partnership agreements with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Tata Industries, and Larson and Toubro. Boeing’s release announces that: “If the F/A-18IN Super Hornet is selected, these companies and others are expected to play a significant role as Boeing transfers some production and assembly to India.”

Feb 26/08: The Indian government has extended the date of submission for technical and commercial bids for the MMRCA program from March 3/08 to April 28/08, while the deadline for offset bids has been extended from May until August 2008. Defense News.

Feb 25/08: Securing over $5 billion (50% of $10+ billion) in industrial offsets is a difficult task, if a country has almost no private sector defense firms to speak of. That’s India’s problen, and it extends beyond MMRCA to other major buys. In order to deal with that problem, India is borrowing a page from its silicon entrepreneurs.

The Mumbai based India Rizing Fund is on the look out for Small and Medium Enterprises engaged in defence equipment related production, which it plans to back with up to $300 million: an initial fund of $100-140 million equivalent, with the potential to add another $300 million equivalent. The time horizon is 10-14 years, and susequent Aero India 2009 interviews indicate a desite for 15-30 active companies in the portfolio receiving capital, management assistance, and other Venture Capital type support. Silicon India.

Dec 6/07: India MoD release. Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri Vijay J Darda and Smt. Shobhana Bhartia in Rajya Sabha:

“The Ministry of Defence has received no offer from the United States for transfer of high technology weaponry including its 5th-generation joint Strike Fighter F-35.”

There have been reports of a Lockheed Martin MMRCA offer mixing F-16s early and F-35s later, but this is one of those “seems to say more than it does” statements. It is strictly true, as any offers would have come from US manufacturers. Formal export approvals and offers from the United States would follow the standard DSCA announcement + 30 days process, once the Indian government had picked a winner.
Oct 10/07: Jane’s Defence Weekly quotes analysts predicting a six-month delay in the procurement, and adds that some Western bidders believe they are being negatively affected by the myriad of conditions in the RFP:

“Deba R Mohanty, a senior fellow in security studies at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation – who reviewed a copy of the RfP shortly after it was issued to the six contenders – told Jane’s in early October that the complexity of the RfP document is the main reason why the deadline is likely to be delayed a further six months until September 2008.”

Aug 30/07: Reuters reports that the MMRCA’s 50% industrial offset requirements could be a huge challenge for bidding companies:

“I think there’s a lot of concern in industry”... said retired Lt. Gen. Jeffey Kohler, who stepped down on Wednesday as chief of the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency. Establishing a process for proper crediting of the newly created business with the Indian defense ministry and integrating new production would be a “big challenge,” he said in a telephone interview with Reuters. In addition, Kohler said there were questions about whether companies such as Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which would be a primary beneficiary, could absorb all the new opportunities to be sent its way.”

If industrial offsets prove to be a problem, this would improve the prospects for RSK-MiG (MiG-35), who already has co-production arrangements in India, and for Boeing (F/A-18), EADS (Euofighter) and Saab (JAS-39 Gripen), who can offer civilian industrial offsets in the airliner and automotive sectors.


Israel’s F-16I
(click to view full)Aug 28/07: India’s MoD finally releases the MRCA request for proposal. See coverage above, and also Economic Times of India | The Hindu | Hindustan Times | India Defence | Bloomberg. Some reports also mention an option for an additional 64 aircraft: Business Standard | Press Times of India news service | Flight International | Domain-B Aviation & Aerospace | Saab Group release.

Aug 21/07: Russia showcases its MiG-29K carrier-based fighter specially developed for the Indian Navy at the 8th international aerospace show ‘MAKS-2007’. The MiG-29K is equipped with modified ‘Sea Wasp’ engines providing greater thrust in hot and humid tropical climate of the Indian Ocean. The Economic Times report adds that “Eying the USD 9 billion contract for the delivery of 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) to the Indian Air Force, Russia’s MiG Corporation has also fielded its favourite MiG-35 and MiG-29OVT with thrust vectoring engines.”

July 2/07: Gripen International continues to tout its aircraft for India’s MRCA competition. India Defence reports that the firm has gone one step farther than the July 2006 promise to have all airframe production take place in India. The firm stresses that the aircraft would be next-generation “Gripen Demo” aircraft, and adds that they were “willing to provide all the know-how for India to carry out modifications according to its needs.” This is a very high level of technology transfer, and resembles the benchmark adopted by the partner nations in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter consortium.

India’s government is still finalizing ground rules for the MRCA competition.

May 15/07: India Defence analysis – “Air Force MRCA Deal: Avionics, Weapons Packages Could Tilt Balance.” The F-16I is listed as a contender, and Elbit avionics may end up installed in whichever aircraft wins.

Jan 23/07: India Defence’s headline says it all: MiG-35: Top Candidate for Air Force MRCA Deal. But perhaps not the only winner…

Nov 6/06: AESA for MiG-35s? Jane’s International Defence Review reports that Phazotron-NIIR in Moscow, Russia is completing 2 prototypes of the Zhuk-MAE active electronically scanned radar. They’re hoping to offer it with the MiG-29OVT (MiG-35) fighters being tendered by Russia. RSK MiG required a first flight with the experimental Zhuk-MAE radar during the first half of November 2006, in order to meet its goal of demonstrating it at the February “Aero India 2007” exhibition in Bangalore, India.

Oct 11/06: DID publishes “India Looks to Order 40 More Mirage 2000s, Upgrade Other Aircraft.” The Mirages are not a done deal yet – and remain undone as of August 2007.

Oct 3/06: India may fast track MRCA deal. According to this report, recent crashes and uncertainty over the Tejas light fighter are upping the pressure, and the RFQ may be accelerated. Compared to what, one wonders?

Sept 6/06: India’s HAL will produce R-33 engines for the MiG-29 under license, in a $275 million deal. DID explains the deal, and why it probably improves the MiG’s chances even though the MiG-29OVT/MiG-35 uses the RD-133 thrust vectoring engine.

July 19/06: Saab pledges to conduct all production in India if it wins, and cites its record of successfully meeting industrial offset provisions.

July 17/06: Indian pilots preparing to test-fly the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

June 14/06: Defense News says that Lockheed may offer India Israel’s F-16I “Sufa” (“Storm”) as its MRCA entry. This unusual because the F-16Is have many of their avionics and electronics replaced with Israeli technology.

India already uses a lot of Israeli electronics in its upgraded Russian aircraft, and the move would create commonality while leveraging a combat-proven design with extra strike capability. Still, Defence News notes that if Lockheed does offer the F-16I to India, it would be the first time an extensively modified US fighter containing non-US-made avionics, weaponry and major sub-systems had been offered at the front end of an international competition, without the customer explicitly requesting it (as Chile and Singapore did for Israeli avionics et. al. in their F-16s).

Footnotes

1 STOBAR = Short Take-Off But Assisted Recovery. Means it has no catapult and so uses a “ski jump” in the front, but uses arrestor wires to catch returning aircraft because it flies conventional aircraft rather than STOVL (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing) planes like the F-35B or planes like the Sea Harriers. Sea Harriers are used on India’s existing Viraat (ex-Hermes) carrier, in a V/STOL (Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing) arrangement.

Appendix A – MMRCA: The Naval Angle


F/A-18F, carrier landing
(click to view full)In February 2006, Jane’s Defense expressed the belief that India would increase its initial requirement from 126 multirole combat aircraft (MRCA) to around 180-190 aircraft, with the additional number being considered for acquisition by the Indian Navy. If true, it would have been an even bigger change than allowing medium-high end multi-role fighters into the competition. Reports from other outlets varied, however, and some had India standing firm at 126 aircraft.

The Indian MoD release only mentioned 126 aircraft, but other reports at the time add an option for another 64 aircraft on the same terms; if true, this would bring the potential deal up to 190 aircraft.

The RFP has not been made available to the public, but any naval compatibility requirements would be extremely significant because the current roster of competitors contains only 2 aircraft that qualify for future STOBAR1 carriers like the INS Vikramaditya (ex- Admiral Gorshkov) . Or the Vikrant Class (aka. Air Defence Ship), which will reportedly weigh in at 37,500 tonnes with a design that is heavily influenced by Italy’s Cavour Class. Those aircraft are the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Dassault’s Rafale-M variant. Additionally, the MiG-35 is related to the MiG-29K naval variant slated for operation on INS Vikramaditya. If Russia wishes to invest in the idea, a carrier-capable MiG-35K may also be doable – if the extra weight of the new fuel tanks doesn’t create a problem given the hard impacts of carrier landings.

Recall, however, India’s need to replace large numbers of aircraft. Given that both the Rafale and Super Hornet carry flyaway costs in the $55-70 million per plane range, and total program costs significantly higher than that, a naval requirement within the competition almost certainly means a split of the order between these high-expense platforms and a cheaper lightweight fighter contender.

That possibility may come to pass regardless of the Navy’s involvement, for example as a smaller F/A-18 E/F order and a large MiG-35 order in order. Time will tell.

Appendix B – Dassault’s Move: Au Revoir, Mirage


Rafale-M carrier launch
(click to view full)One pre-RFP surprise was the withdrawal of the Mirage 2000 from the competition, even though the aircraft has a good record in IAF service. According to India Press Trust, Chacks Edelstenne, CEO of Dassault Aviation, visited the Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh and The Deputy Chief of the Air Staff Air Marshal AK Nangalia on February 21, 2006. He informed his audience that “we are on the verge of closing the Mirage fighter assembly line and want to offer India a quantum jump in technology… Though India has not not floated the Request for Proposals (RFP), we have conveyed to India to supply 40 Rafale multi-mission fighters in single source deal.”

In a related move, French engine maker Snecma, which is also bidding for DRDO’s joint collaboration project on the Tejas LCA’s Kaveri engines, has reportedly offered to mount Indian-made Kaveri engines in Rafale fighters. The demise of the Kaveri engine project removed that option, but Snecma has been selected as a joint development partner for a successor engine that could offer the same sort of dual platform benefit. As of November 2008, however, no contract has been signed.

Media reports note that India’s decision-making speed may have had something to do with the Dassault switch, as company sources claimed that it would take at least 3-4 years for a contract to actually be signed with India. Given the pace of the MRCA competition thus far, and India’s procurement history, that estimate may be conservative. The word is that the French government thought that it would be too expensive to keep the Mirage production line running during that period, without additional export prospects.


Mirage 2000v5
(click to view full)Dassault has reportedly assured India that its extensive Mirage repair and servicing facilities set up by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited at Bangalore would require only ‘limited modification’ to accommodate the Rafale, given its commonalities with the Mirage 2000s.

Dassault may be completely up-front about the reasons behind this choice. It may also have decided that the introduction of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, MiG-35, and changing requirements in the RFP make the Mirage a loser anyway, while boosting the Rafale’s chance of securing an export order that would be critical to its long-term future.

Whatever the reasons, the withdrawal of the Mirage 2000 from the competition was official and final. The official RFP announcement specifically mentions Dassault’s Rafale instead.

Ironicaly, in late 2008, Dassault personnel were quoted in the press, worrying that the MMRCA’s medium weight set of contenders would be uncompetitive because of the price differential vs. lighter competitors like the F-16, JAS-39 Gripen, and MiG-29OVT. Had the Mirage 2000 remained in the competition, it would also have been placed in the lightweight category.

 

[anoop_mig25]

why add anything to the F-16 or F-18, both of them have the most advanced and combat proven radars, their EW suites are excellent and also have new options such as the BAE's DEWS. The F-16's engine is pretty good and comes with options for MATV, the SH's GE 414 EPE is the new upgrade with over 118kn of thrust per engine or roughly 236 kn or 53600 lbs of thrust and is available for export, the weapons they deploy are excellent as well and weapon flexibility is also unparalleled. As of yet Gripen and mig-35 would require mix of avionics, EF already has parts coming from all across the western world including the US.

look sir i don't have any good knowledge a/c or of any military hardware . my aversion to amercians is typically because of their nature.u know american president thinks another and their congress thinks other. as 4 f16 and or f18 we dont have infrasturcture 4 them u know very well plus it will come with lotf of string attached so whats use?i wll still say we should go for russian platforms+interaged electronics from Russia /+freance/+Isreal

 

[nitesh]

Mr ajai shukla mentions chances of F 16 and F 18 as less while gripen and MiG 35 as high. He might have better idea what IAF is thinking. So it seems US companies will have to fight an uphill battle

 

[John]

look sir i don't have any good knowledge a/c or of any military hardware . my aversion to amercians is typically because of their nature.u know american president thinks another and their congress thinks other. as 4 f16 and or f18 we dont have infrasturcture 4 them u know very well plus it will come with lotf of string attached so whats use?i wll still say we should go for russian platforms+interaged electronics from Russia /+freance/+Isreal

well sir i understand we must be careful while procuring US made platforms and weapons but obviously times have changed, its madness for US admin to spoil relations with India at this very moment or in the future, we are the gr8test ally the US has against China, secondly we are bound to be the largest market for goods and services in the world within the next 25 years, to alienate India means we too can alienate the US too but this would have dire consequences for their economy as well as ours. The US presidency has little power, if the DOD clears tech transfer we get it. The EUMA agreement has been signed for the same reason because though many think it inhibits our usage but on the contrary it strengthens and protects our position because the agreement allows us to use the platform against any threat foreign or domestic. The only string is yearly inspection, initially the US wanted access to bases but now we have agreed to have inspections on our terms and our designated location. Now if war breaks out with PAk will US come in between offcourse, US will try to discourage us from doing something and put pressure on PAk to mind manners apart from that they cant prevent our will to strike, besides US weapons and platforms if chosen will be linked to Indian data links and gps networks, this will allow us to use the platforms independently without US help.

You forget that we have access to Phalcon AWACS simply because of the US, Israel wanted to sell Phalcon to China, US denied and China couldn't get it. You also forget that even the Green pine radar required US permission. Now Rafale, EF, Gripen are useless without US weapons, sure they have EU weapons as well but those weapons lack the range or are atleast 2 to 5 times more expensive. EF, Gripen NG have many US made critical parts and will need US permission for sale, Rafale's Spectra EW suite comes from the US as well again subjecting it too US laws. Russian junk have much higher life cycle costs, reliability sucks and you know most of our Russian weapons in inventory are duds, poor quality, need i remind you how many fine pilots we lost in all the mig crashes including the mig-27, 21, 29. I believe as long as we dont pose a direct threat to the US or its allies we wont have any trouble with the US, neither will they have a reason to cause any. US is ally now and our relations will continue to grow. If IAF and the MOD were not comfy with
US behavior they wouldn't have sent the RFp to the teen fighters and neither would the competition be so competitive or all offers so advanced. Do you realize due to The F-18 SH in the competition any aircraft we choose for the MRCA will be the most deadly aircraft in the southern hemisphere?

 

[nitesh]

Russian junk have much higher life cycle costs, reliability sucks and you know most of our Russian weapons in inventory are duds, poor quality, need i remind you how many fine pilots we lost in all the mig crashes including the mig-27, 21, 29.

This is not acceptable john, calling Russian platform as junk is just a simple lie.

 

[Sabir]

True......! Russians Didnt force us to operate the planes when they are supposed to be scarped. It is our inability to replace them that costs life of so many young pilots.

 

[nitesh]

worth reading:

Broadsword: Duel in the sky: Testing the MMRCAs and rating their chances

 

[p2prada]

3 American F-22s crashed till date. Out of which 2 were due to technical error and one was human error.

1 Indian MKI crashed till date. Reason: Human error.

Wonder which of this is junk.

 

[John]

This is not acceptable john, calling Russian platform as junk is just a simple lie.

i know they are very capable aircraft but they still remain unreliable. Try explaining their excellent capabilities to the families who lost a loved in one of those cockpits. A third of our Russian weapons are duds and those problems are with long range BVR missiles crucial for our defense.

In April 1992 the first YF-22 crashed while landing at Edwards Air Force Base, California. The test pilot Tom Morgenfeld escaped without injury. The cause of the crash was found to be a flight control software error that failed to prevent a pilot-induced oscillation.

The first crash of a production F-22 occurred during takeoff at Nellis Air Force Base on 20 December 2004, in which the pilot ejected safely prior to impact.The crash investigation revealed that a brief interruption in power during an engine shutdown prior to flight caused a malfunction in the flight-control system; consequently, the aircraft design was corrected to avoid the problem. All USAF F-22s were grounded for two weeks after the crash, but resumed operations after a review was completed. This crash was avoidable if the pilot hadn't shut down the engine briefly before take off.

On 25 March 2009 an F-22 crashed 35 miles northeast of Edwards Air Force Base during a test flight, resulting in the death of Lockheed test pilot David P. Cooley. The aircraft was from the 411th Flight Test Squadron.The Washington Post reported that the crash happened during a bombing test. An Air Force Materiel Command investigation found that Cooley momentarily lost consciousness during a high-G maneuver then ejected after finding himself too low to recover. Cooley was killed by blunt-force trauma during ejection because of the F-22's speed and the windblast. The investigation found no problems with the design or airworthiness of the F-22. This is just a case of G-loc, can happen to anyone in any fighter aircraft.

so far 2 MKI have crashed, one from IAF and one from RUAF. A test prototype su-35 crashed as well.

YouTube - The 43rd Paris Air Show Le Bourget 1999 Su 30MKI Airplane Crash

 

[fulcrum]

I really really REALLY hope we don't go for American jets. The last thing I want is sanctions grounding most of the MRCA. Even if we go for tot, we won't get tot for 100% of the Aircraft. They will also be downgrading the Aesa radar and other subsystems they are offering in their F-16 & F-18. The last thing I need is downgraded stuff in our AF. If they are offering F-15k(which is only offered for their stooges.. or allies as they are called) or something similar then we should take it. F-16 & F-18 are crap except for avionics!!! F-18 especially is an USAF reject! if you want to know about F-18, ask the Australians. They are so pissed off at that junk fighter(since it is considered inferior to Indonesian fulcrums) that the Airforce was thinking about filing a corruption case against the guy who approved F-18. And F-16 is out of the question since Pakistan already operates that and it is a single engine fighter.We should not fall into the same trap which the Australians & Pakistanis are currently in.

My first choice is Rafale, followed by Mig-35 and then Eurofighter.

 

[John]

I really really REALLY hope we don't go for American jets. The last thing I want is sanctions grounding most of the MRCA. Even if we go for tot, we won't get tot for 100% of the Aircraft. They will also be downgrading the Aesa radar and other subsystems they are offering in their F-16 & F-18. The last thing I need is downgraded stuff in our AF. If they are offering F-15k(which is only offered for their stooges.. or allies as they are called) or something similar then we should take it. F-16 & F-18 are crap except for avionics!!! F-18 especially is an USAF reject! if you want to know about F-18, ask the Australians. They are so pissed off at that junk fighter(since it is considered inferior to Indonesian fulcrums) that the Airforce was thinking about filing a corruption case against the guy who approved F-18. And F-16 is out of the question since Pakistan already operates that and it is a single engine fighter.We should not fall into the same trap which the Australians & Pakistanis are currently in.

My first choice is Rafale, followed by Mig-35 and then Eurofighter.

your opinion here doesn't really make any difference to the actual choice, the competition is a fair one and whoever can deliver all capabilities at good cost has a chance of winning, last i checked none of the aircraft can perform the entire roles the SH can on any given day, it can deploy upto 14 a2a missiles in a single sortie and a2g missiles than all others, has better avionics and IAF pilots who have flown it have claimed it to be the most mature in terms of cockpit functionality and ease of flying, can't mess with an aircraft that can deliver a lot and is easy to fly. furthermore India is not shying away from going for US platforms, matter of fact mrca, attack helos, heavy lift choppers, c-17s, V-22s, we'll be buying more and more.

 

[nitesh]

i know they are very capable aircraft but they still remain unreliable. Try explaining their excellent capabilities to the families who lost a loved in one of those cockpits. A third of our Russian weapons are duds and those problems are with long range BVR missiles crucial for our defense.

Now go and try explaining the excellent capabilities of the US aircrafts to the families who lost a loved one in those cockpits. Again no more these "duds" and "junk" words.

 

[youngindian]

EADS offers India full-fledged manufacturing partnership for Eurofighter

BY : JENSIL D’ SOUZA FOR IDRW.ORG

20/08/09

Bernhard Gerwert Boss of EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company), on his visit to India last week has offered India full-fledged manufacturing partnership for Eurofighter, if India chooses the Eurofighter for its MMRCA Requirements of 126 jets , EADS has reworked some of its most fundamental tenets and structures, to appear more appealing to India, The consortium that developed the Eurofighter comprising the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain had decided on a unique manufacturing structure. Each part of the Eurofighter is manufactured in a different country; e.g. the right wing is made in Spain, the left wing in Italy. After that, all four partners assemble their own aircraft, bringing the parts together from the plants where they are manufactured. EADS badly needs new orders for the Eurofighter and contract for 126 jets will do wonders for the parent company which is currently struggling to find orders , British Ministry of Defence (MoD) tried to pull out of buying its contracted share of 88 fighters from the latest batch (called Tranche 3). Eventually the UK honored its commitments only because default would have cost London billions of Euros in penalties. The other Eurofighter partners are equally cash-strapped; all have jointly agreed to cut back on their orders for now. What Parts will be manufactured in India is still not clear. even Lockheed Martin has offered to start F-16 Production line in India, If India chooses F-16 for MMRCA requirements and also make India base for spares supply of F-16 for other operators operating F-16 currently, but EADS offer in manufacturing of critical components for new orders which company hopes to win from Switzerland, Japan, Romania, Greece and Turkey, which are currently evaluating the Eurofighter, could also be on that list. EADS also recently signed a $20 million contract to help resolve persistent issues in India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme. EADS is also in race to supply 99 EJ200 engines which currently powers twin-engine Eurofighter for Tejas MK-II Program which it is competing with General Electric GE-414,which powers Twin-engine Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet which currently in Bangalore for MMRCA Trials .

EADS offers India full-fledged manufacturing partnership for Eurofighter IDRW.ORG

 

[John]

U.K. Pushes On Typhoon Upgrades

The United Kingdom hopes to get Eurofighter partners to define and approve another major round of Typhoon upgrades by the second quarter of 2010 to ensure the capabilities start to reach operator hands in 2014.

A big ambition for Britain is to bolster the aircraft’s ground-attack capability. In particular, the Royal Air Force (RAF) wants to bring fielding of the Brimstone missile as far forward as possible within the upgrade cycle, according to the defense ministry’s assistant head of capability theater airspace, Group Capt. Tony Innes.

Fielding the Meteor missile will likely also be an early element of the so-called Future Capabilities Program 2 (FCP2, or alternatively known as Enhancement Program 2), largely because there is buy-in from all four partners. Introducing the capability to fire the Storm Shadow cruise missile from Typhoon will likely be a later element in what is expected to be a phased FCP2 effort.

Britain also remains interested in fielding an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, although the issue is decoupled from both FCP2 and fielding of Meteor. No decision has been made on the right industrial approach to address the interest in replacing the Captor-M radar with an AESA.

The United Kingdom is provisioning its Tranche 3 aircraft to handle an AESA, while other countries are still debating the issue. Whether an AESA would be retrofitted on Tranche 2 aircraft (the first seven are now in RAF hands) also is not settled.

Industry officials have indicated they want to have firm proposals for the AESA and other upgrade programs ready for customers by year’s end.

The RAF Tranche 3 aircraft also are being prepared to use conformal fuel tanks, which are viewed as attractive once new weapons are fielded that would bar the use of external fuel tanks.

For the United Kingdom, capability upgrades are front and center, with the Tranche 3A buy just put on contract potentially being its last purchase. Air Commodore Chris Bushell, the leader of the Typhoon program in the defense ministry, says Britain has reached a contractually agreed cost cap with the buy of 40 fighters in Tranche 3A, meaning the country does not have to take more aircraft even though larger quantities are called for in the umbrella contract for Typhoon. However, Bushell says a decision on buying more could still be made.

Whether the other Eurofighter partners — Germany, Italy and Spain — will contest London’s argument remains unresolved. Workshare has been linked to how many aircraft a country acquires.

Meanwhile, the RAF also is looking to some near-term Typhoon milestones, including the first deployment to the Falkland Islands to take on the quick reaction alert mission there, and the stand up in October 2010 of 6 Squadron at RAF Leuchars, the second main operating base for Typhoon where three squadrons will eventually be based.

Also next year the first parts of FCP1 are to be delivered, which are heavily communications related. A more meaningful upgrade is pending in 2012, when the full integration of the Litening 3 targeting pod should be achieved and the Paveway 4 bomb is fully cleared. Those upgrades are being made to Tranche 2 aircraft and could clear the way for RAF Typhoons to deploy to Afghanistan — Tranche 1 aircraft have a limited air-to-ground capability, but currently it is seen as unlikely the aircraft will deploy into the combat area.

U.K. Pushes On Typhoon Upgrades | AVIATION WEEK