chinnoook wins the comepetition fair enough ....if halo wins even better ....talking about V-22 ( some of the few NATO weapons i respect ) .....that is also good option for india ....if usa decides to sell us ....with no strings attached ..as of now if u know we have already signed contract for 80 Mi 17 helicopters ...plus maybe more on the cards ...btw if at all we buy mi 26 ...it will not operate close to battlefield as u think it will ....even Chinnok wont be so close ( also can chinnok provide air support as well troop transport i dont think so ...Mi 35 can do both that too pretty wel ..in soveit afghan war ..mi 35 were called " satan chariot" and once US airforce forgein technology department got hold og Mi 35 and they said and i quote " nothing like that exsist in NATo weaponry ").... do u really think SH will have any advantage after it fires its amram 120 ..after the first shot ...they are going to be very well in WVR combat ...there whos aircraft gona get kicked ...i ll tell u ..it will be the SH ...the tactic you are suggesting...is based on the fact that 100% accuracy of ammram 120 which even USA cant bost off ..plus do u really think it can carry extr fule with 14 ( its stil 11 ..) missile ...Aim 120d has max range of "OVER" 180 kn yeh right in your dreams ...post a link if u can .....btw retired AVM lives right besides my place...retired Mig 29 pilot ...he says and i quote "after the first BVR shot ..the battle will be within WVR and will depend on the agility of aircraft and the pilots skill".....so if SH carrer all 11 or even 9:2 BVR and WVR missile ...it will lose in close combat in BVR combat it may have some chance but that chance will be of no use of Mig 35 TVC .plus higher celling of Mig 35 and higher maximum speed give it ideal position to launch BVR missile ....something which SH CANT ACHIEVE .......the know manouver of SU 30 mki such as cobra and vertical side ways manouver will be better done in Mig 35 ...plus what u see Mig 35 is still in very nascent form ...it will be upgraded according to india need such as inclusion of western avionics and better radar ( by the time Mig 35 reach india that is in 6-7 years ..the ASEA radar ...will be developed enough that Mig 35 will be know as Mig 35MKI) ...whereas the issue with SH is still about TOT and sensitive technology with come with it ..also america was issued the MMRCA proposal because they wanted russians to be under pressure to develop the aircraft further ..and with lesser price
MMRCA news and discussions.
- Thread starter nitesh
- Start date
also John u have couple of questions u have to answer
1- Which engine is for super hornet upgrade that will be given to india
2-when did any BVR missile shoot down Mi 25
3-Will chinnok able to provide close air support
4-Is block 3 appache be sold to india without any strings attached
1- Which engine is for super hornet upgrade that will be given to india
2-when did any BVR missile shoot down Mi 25
3-Will chinnok able to provide close air support
4-Is block 3 appache be sold to india without any strings attached
In assessing the Flanker against the Super Hornet it is clear from the outset that the advantage in firepower, speed, raw agility, range and manoeuvre performance goes to the Flanker. Given that operational Flankers span variants from B through H, and type designations from Su-27S, through Su-30s to Su-35s, there are a wide range of configurations possible.
This has been further complicated by the Russian propensity to customise configurations for clients, and perform ongoing technology upgrades to operational variants. Another byproduct of Russian marketing is that the label Su-30 spans an upgraded Su-27SKM (Su-30KI) up to the Indian Su-30MKI, which uses extensive ly features demonstrated in the Su-37.
In terms of aerodynamic performance the Flanker sits broadly in the class of the F-15 family, with similar thrust / weight ratios at similar weights. The empty weight of Flanker variants ranges between 37,240 - 40,800 lb and internal fuel capacities between 20,750 - 22,600 lb.
At this time all production Flankers are flying with variants of the Saturn/Salyut Al-31F, which deliver static sea level thrust ratings in the 27 klb to 32 klb class, depending on the variant. This engine is comparable to the latest P&W F100 and GE F110 series engines, outperforming the smaller F404 series. In terms of supersonic speed, supersonic and subsonic acceleration and climb performance, the Super Hornet cannot compete with any Flanker variant.
High speed turning performance, where thrust limited, also goes to the Flanker, as does supersonic manoeuvre performance. The Super Hornet is severely handicapped by its lower combat thrust/weight ratio, and hybrid wing planform. It is worth observing that high alpha trim drag and pitch rates of the canard equipped Flanker variants, such as the Su-33 and Su-30MKI, will be superior to the versions without canards.
Where the Super Hornet is apt to be more competitive against the Flanker is in the near stall low speed high alpha flight regimes, where the Super Hornet's strakes and wing work well and advanced flight controls perform superbly. This is however not a regime favoured by combat pilots and thus not of significance in an assessment of combat potential.
The big gain in coming years for the Flanker in relative performance come with the new Al-41F engine, Russia's F119, now in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). The Al-41F delivers up to 40 klb class sea level static thrust, and high altitude dry thrust ratings to power the defunct supercruising MFI (Multi-Role Fighter).
The Russians have been flying derated 33 klb Al-41Fs in a Su-27S since 2004. With Al-41F engines installed the Flanker's robust margin in kinematic performance against the Super Hornet grows considerably in all regimes of flight – it provides the Flanker with 'F-22-like' raw agility and performance. With wing sweep, planform, forebody shaping and inlets built for Mach 2+ dash, a clean Flanker with Al-41Fs should supercruise effectively. A supercruising Flanker with TVC nozzles, ie AL-41FU, can use downward TVC to offset supersonic trim drag and thus achieve lower fuel burn in this regime.
However, its supersonic energy bleed performance may not measure up to the refined design of the newer supercruise optimised designs, such as the F-22 or MFI. The bigger issue for the Flanker in supercruise is the drag of external stores, which will compromise it decisively against an optimsied design in supersonic combat.
The fix for this limitation is a centreline tunnel conformal weapons pod for the R-74 and R-77 family AAMs. If and when reports of such a design emerge, we can be certain that Sukhoi are planning to play the supercruise game in earnest.
In terms of combat radius performance the Flanker outperforms the Super Hornet, even with the latter carrying external tanks. There is no substitute for clean internal fuel. The Flanker's radar aperture is twice the size of the Hornet family apertures, due to the larger nose cross section.
In terms of radar capabilities, existing Flankers are equipped mostly with variants of N-001, comparable to early F-15 APG-63s. The Su-35 carries the N-011, closer to a late model APG-63/70, and the Su-30MKI the NIIP N-011M BARS which is a hybrid phased array closest in technology to the much smaller RBE2 in the Rafale. The BARS can be supplied with a range of Travelling Wave Tube (TWT) power ratings, but cannot compete with the Super Hornet's liquid cooled APG-79 AESA.
The new Pero N-001 antenna upgrade package, using a space feed reflective passive phased array, is apt to have much better peak power handling potential to the BARS, in a much cheaper design, but is yet to enter production. The PLA is reported to have been evaluating one fo two prototypes. A major concern is that a low loss waveguide feed suitable for very high peak and average power levels is easily integrated in a space feed arrangement of this type, and thus a peak power rating exceeding that of the APG-79 is not that difficult to effect, TWT performance permitting. Cooling is not an issue in an airframe the size of the Flanker.
NIIP and Phazotron are known to have been working on an AESA design, and given the aperture size of the Flanker, an AESA radar in the power-aperture rating class of the F-22's APG-77 is a distinct possibility for a post 2010 Flanker. The only issue for the Russian radar houses will be the availability of Gallium Arsenide HEMT (High Electron Mobility Transistor) transistors for the radar modules. Compared to the Super Hornet's APG-79, a Flanker sized AESA even with inferior radar module performance can match the power-aperture rating and thus range of the APG-79.
The IDECM EWSP suite on the Super Hornet is more advanced than the EWSP suites on older Flanker variants. Defensive systems include a Radar Warning Receiver, mostly variants of the SPO-32 / L150 Pastel digital receiver carried. Newer Flankers however carry the podded wingtip mounted KNIRTI SPS-171 / L005S Sorbtsiya-S mid/high band defensive jammer, this system being an evolution of a jammer developed for the Backfire C. The Sorbtsiya-S, unlike most Western jamming pods, is designed to operate in pairs and uses forward and aft looking steerable wideband phased arrays to maximise jamming effect. It is worth observing that the Sorbtsiya is clearly built to provide cross-eye jamming modes against monopulse threats, and the wideband mainlobe steering capability provided by the phased array permits best possible utilisation of available jamming power. A graded dielectric lens is employed. Russian contractors have been using Digital RF Memory (DRFM) technology, which is of the same generation as Super Hornet EWSP. The Super Hornet does not have any compelling advantage in EWSP capability.
Computing capability in operational Flankers is mostly provided by legacy Russian hardware, but with some COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) processors now appearing in radar upgrades and missile seekers. While this is an area where the Sukhois are barely competitive against the current Super Hornet, it is the easiest of all of the performance gaps for the Russians to close.
In summary, the Flanker outperforms the Super Hornet decisively in aerodynamic performance. What advantage the Super Hornet now has in the APG-79 radar will vanish in coming years as Russian AESAs emerge. The one area in which the Flanker currently trails the Super Hornet is in radar signature (stealth) performance. The Super Hornet has inlet geometry shaping, inlet tunnel S-bends, and an AESA shroud all of which reduce its forward sector signature well below that of the Flanker.
In the short term, this is an advantage the Super Hornet retains, with the caveat that external stores put hard limits on signature improvement for the Super Hornet. However, Russian researchers have done some excellent work over the last decade in absorbent materials and laminate techniques for radar signature reduction, which offer the potential for the Flanker to achieve similar signature reduction to the F/A-18E/F. If funded, a reduced signature Flanker is feasible in the next half decade.
In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat.
This has been further complicated by the Russian propensity to customise configurations for clients, and perform ongoing technology upgrades to operational variants. Another byproduct of Russian marketing is that the label Su-30 spans an upgraded Su-27SKM (Su-30KI) up to the Indian Su-30MKI, which uses extensive ly features demonstrated in the Su-37.
In terms of aerodynamic performance the Flanker sits broadly in the class of the F-15 family, with similar thrust / weight ratios at similar weights. The empty weight of Flanker variants ranges between 37,240 - 40,800 lb and internal fuel capacities between 20,750 - 22,600 lb.
At this time all production Flankers are flying with variants of the Saturn/Salyut Al-31F, which deliver static sea level thrust ratings in the 27 klb to 32 klb class, depending on the variant. This engine is comparable to the latest P&W F100 and GE F110 series engines, outperforming the smaller F404 series. In terms of supersonic speed, supersonic and subsonic acceleration and climb performance, the Super Hornet cannot compete with any Flanker variant.
High speed turning performance, where thrust limited, also goes to the Flanker, as does supersonic manoeuvre performance. The Super Hornet is severely handicapped by its lower combat thrust/weight ratio, and hybrid wing planform. It is worth observing that high alpha trim drag and pitch rates of the canard equipped Flanker variants, such as the Su-33 and Su-30MKI, will be superior to the versions without canards.
Where the Super Hornet is apt to be more competitive against the Flanker is in the near stall low speed high alpha flight regimes, where the Super Hornet's strakes and wing work well and advanced flight controls perform superbly. This is however not a regime favoured by combat pilots and thus not of significance in an assessment of combat potential.
The big gain in coming years for the Flanker in relative performance come with the new Al-41F engine, Russia's F119, now in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). The Al-41F delivers up to 40 klb class sea level static thrust, and high altitude dry thrust ratings to power the defunct supercruising MFI (Multi-Role Fighter).
The Russians have been flying derated 33 klb Al-41Fs in a Su-27S since 2004. With Al-41F engines installed the Flanker's robust margin in kinematic performance against the Super Hornet grows considerably in all regimes of flight – it provides the Flanker with 'F-22-like' raw agility and performance. With wing sweep, planform, forebody shaping and inlets built for Mach 2+ dash, a clean Flanker with Al-41Fs should supercruise effectively. A supercruising Flanker with TVC nozzles, ie AL-41FU, can use downward TVC to offset supersonic trim drag and thus achieve lower fuel burn in this regime.
However, its supersonic energy bleed performance may not measure up to the refined design of the newer supercruise optimised designs, such as the F-22 or MFI. The bigger issue for the Flanker in supercruise is the drag of external stores, which will compromise it decisively against an optimsied design in supersonic combat.
The fix for this limitation is a centreline tunnel conformal weapons pod for the R-74 and R-77 family AAMs. If and when reports of such a design emerge, we can be certain that Sukhoi are planning to play the supercruise game in earnest.
In terms of combat radius performance the Flanker outperforms the Super Hornet, even with the latter carrying external tanks. There is no substitute for clean internal fuel. The Flanker's radar aperture is twice the size of the Hornet family apertures, due to the larger nose cross section.
In terms of radar capabilities, existing Flankers are equipped mostly with variants of N-001, comparable to early F-15 APG-63s. The Su-35 carries the N-011, closer to a late model APG-63/70, and the Su-30MKI the NIIP N-011M BARS which is a hybrid phased array closest in technology to the much smaller RBE2 in the Rafale. The BARS can be supplied with a range of Travelling Wave Tube (TWT) power ratings, but cannot compete with the Super Hornet's liquid cooled APG-79 AESA.
The new Pero N-001 antenna upgrade package, using a space feed reflective passive phased array, is apt to have much better peak power handling potential to the BARS, in a much cheaper design, but is yet to enter production. The PLA is reported to have been evaluating one fo two prototypes. A major concern is that a low loss waveguide feed suitable for very high peak and average power levels is easily integrated in a space feed arrangement of this type, and thus a peak power rating exceeding that of the APG-79 is not that difficult to effect, TWT performance permitting. Cooling is not an issue in an airframe the size of the Flanker.
NIIP and Phazotron are known to have been working on an AESA design, and given the aperture size of the Flanker, an AESA radar in the power-aperture rating class of the F-22's APG-77 is a distinct possibility for a post 2010 Flanker. The only issue for the Russian radar houses will be the availability of Gallium Arsenide HEMT (High Electron Mobility Transistor) transistors for the radar modules. Compared to the Super Hornet's APG-79, a Flanker sized AESA even with inferior radar module performance can match the power-aperture rating and thus range of the APG-79.
The IDECM EWSP suite on the Super Hornet is more advanced than the EWSP suites on older Flanker variants. Defensive systems include a Radar Warning Receiver, mostly variants of the SPO-32 / L150 Pastel digital receiver carried. Newer Flankers however carry the podded wingtip mounted KNIRTI SPS-171 / L005S Sorbtsiya-S mid/high band defensive jammer, this system being an evolution of a jammer developed for the Backfire C. The Sorbtsiya-S, unlike most Western jamming pods, is designed to operate in pairs and uses forward and aft looking steerable wideband phased arrays to maximise jamming effect. It is worth observing that the Sorbtsiya is clearly built to provide cross-eye jamming modes against monopulse threats, and the wideband mainlobe steering capability provided by the phased array permits best possible utilisation of available jamming power. A graded dielectric lens is employed. Russian contractors have been using Digital RF Memory (DRFM) technology, which is of the same generation as Super Hornet EWSP. The Super Hornet does not have any compelling advantage in EWSP capability.
Computing capability in operational Flankers is mostly provided by legacy Russian hardware, but with some COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) processors now appearing in radar upgrades and missile seekers. While this is an area where the Sukhois are barely competitive against the current Super Hornet, it is the easiest of all of the performance gaps for the Russians to close.
In summary, the Flanker outperforms the Super Hornet decisively in aerodynamic performance. What advantage the Super Hornet now has in the APG-79 radar will vanish in coming years as Russian AESAs emerge. The one area in which the Flanker currently trails the Super Hornet is in radar signature (stealth) performance. The Super Hornet has inlet geometry shaping, inlet tunnel S-bends, and an AESA shroud all of which reduce its forward sector signature well below that of the Flanker.
In the short term, this is an advantage the Super Hornet retains, with the caveat that external stores put hard limits on signature improvement for the Super Hornet. However, Russian researchers have done some excellent work over the last decade in absorbent materials and laminate techniques for radar signature reduction, which offer the potential for the Flanker to achieve similar signature reduction to the F/A-18E/F. If funded, a reduced signature Flanker is feasible in the next half decade.
In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,972
- Likes
- 91
Good to see you back.
Vladimir79
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,404
- Likes
- 95
It is indeed AAP material, why did they not provide a citation?
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet vs. Sukhoi Flanker
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 2,038
- Likes
- 302
by Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 15th August 09
Over the preceding weeks, two Indian Air Force aces have busied themselves with what might well be the world’s most expensive video game: sitting at a simulator in the US and learning to fly one of the world’s most advanced fighters: Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet. After the simulator came an even greater adrenaline rush: strapping into a real Super Hornet, gunning its twin F-414 turbofan engines into a deafening roar and hurtling into the sky at speeds touching 2000 kmph.
But this was no game. Through the coming fortnight, those pilots will test-fly the Super Hornet in India, scrutinising every aspect of its performance to decide whether it meets the IAF requirements for a Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) to defend Indian skies, and support Indian ground troops, over the next four decades.
There are six contenders for this massive Indian tender for 126 medium fighters, an order worth some $11 billion dollars. Besides Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin has offered the F-16IN Super Viper; there’s the MiG-35 from Russia’s RAC MiG; the Rafale, offered by French company, Dassault; the Gripen NG, from Sweden’s Saab; and the Eurofighter Typhoon offered by a four-nation European consortium.
Over the next 8 months four IAF pilots will fly and fire all six fighters to evaluate which of them meet --- in every way --- the stringent requirements spelt out in the tender. This duel has been in the making for a full 8 years. That’s how long it has taken India’s notoriously sluggish Defence Ministry to frame its requirements, issue a global tender, and do a paper evaluation of the six responses that were received.
Now the ball is in the IAF’s court; it is time to see how the aircraft perform in the air. Being tested first, over the next two months, will be the two American fighters and the Russian Mig-35. Then, after a five-month winter break, the three European aircraft will be put through their paces.
The world’s toughest testing ground
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has assembled a team of its hottest top guns for evaluating the six fighters in the fray. Overseeing the entire testing process will be Air Commodore Rakesh Dhir, the Principal Director, Air Staff Requirements at IAF Headquarters. He will have two separate teams to do the actual flight-testing. One will test the two US fighters --- the F/A-18 and the F-16IN --- and the Russian MiG-35. The other team will be responsible for evaluating the three European aircraft: the Gripen, the Rafale, and the Eurofighter.
These teams will vie to uphold India’s reputation as the world’s toughest testing ground for military equipment. Each of the six fighters will fly in three types of terrain: hot and humid Bangalore, the desert heat of Jaisalmer, and the freezing high altitude desert of Ladakh. Any failure anywhere could signal the end of a campaign that will set back each of the contenders around $25-30 million.
Two Boeing F/A-18 will land this weekend at Bangalore, the home of India’s secretive flight testing agency, the Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment. Like Boeing, each contending company plans to bring in at least two fighters, in case of technical problems. Accompanying the fighters will be fully equipped maintenance teams to iron out niggles daily, after the Indian test pilots finish throwing their fighters around the sky.
Jaisalmer: heat and dust
After the testing in Bangalore, each team will travel for two days to Jaisalmer to test aircraft performance in the desert heat. During the Jaisalmer leg, each contender will also drop unguided bombs at a ground target placed in the Pokhran Range. But the really high-tech weaponry --- guided by radar, infrared or laser --- will be tested in each aircraft’s home base. Switching on airborne radar is a strict no-no when there is the remotest possibility of it being recorded by a foreign country. An aircraft’s radar signal is as unique to it as a fingerprint is to an individual. Every major air force, India’s included, maintains a worldwide “library” of radar signals; aircraft in those libraries can be quickly identified whenever they switch on their radar.
But the sting has been taken out of the desert trials; the summer is practically over. Months of MoD inactivity, caused by the general elections, has resulted in “hot weather” trials being scheduled in a balmy 35-40 degrees Centigrade, rather than the searing 50 degree heat of a real Jaisalmer summer. Officials from Eurofighter, which sailed through summer trials in the Saudi Arabian desert, grumble that the MoD lost an opportunity to discover the contenders vulnerabilities.
Ladakh: hot and high
From Jaisalmer, the fighters head for what could be the trickiest part of the trials: the “Hot and High” trials at the spectacular Leh airfield, in Ladakh. On the face of it, there isn’t much to do in Leh: each fighter must land with a specified load of weapons and fuel; switch off its engines and systems; the pilot must alight and do a quick visual check of his aircraft, during which the cold starts to seep into the aircraft components; then after getting back inside, he must start up the fighter’s engines and systems, without external help, and then take off.
Sounds simple! But this is the phase that is giving the contenders nightmares. At 10,682 feet, which is the altitude of Leh airfield, oxygen levels are so low that there is a real danger of the aircraft engines not starting up after they are switched off. And, once started, the oxygen-starved engines will strain to lift the fighters off that short airfield, even with a reduced payload that would be child’s play at sea level.
The testing teams: IAF top guns
A specially selected IAF test pilot of the rank of Group Captain will head each of the two test teams. He will actually fly each of the three fighters that he is responsible for evaluating. Flying in tandem with him will be another junior pilot; it will quickly become clear whether the fighter can be handled comfortably by a less experienced pilot. Each team will also include a clutch of technicians: an avionics system engineer to check high-tech gadgetry like the on-board electronic warfare equipment; a flight test engineer for performance related issues; and a maintenance engineer to observe how much maintenance each fighter needs before and after each sortie.
Making up the rest of each 8-10 person team will be: a logistician to evaluate how easily the spare parts and consumables can be kept flowing; technicians from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, where the fighter will eventually be built; and officials from certification and quality assurance agencies.
Who wins, who loses?
The MoD rulebook that governs defence purchases --- the Defence Procurement Policy of 2008 --- reduces the medium fighter competition to three simple steps. Firstly, the IAF specifies exactly the performance it wants from its proposed medium fighter. Next, it flies and evaluates all the aircraft on offer to see which ones meet all those requirements; and finally, the MoD buy the cheapest of those that qualify.
The most challenging of these steps is the first. Each detail of a fighter’s performance --- the runway length it must take off in; its rate of climb; turning radius; maximum and minimum speeds; range of operation; the weapons payload, its radar pickup; and dozens of similar parameters --- must be painstakingly quantified. Once all those are down in black and white, Step 2 becomes easy: the IAF test pilots fly each aircraft, checking each parameter one by one to see whether it matches up to what the IAF has laid down. The fighters that fail to meet the bill are eliminated from contention.
But there’s a hitch in the medium fighter competition, a problem of plenty! If the aircraft companies are to be believed, there’s a good possibility that all six aircraft might qualify. That would make the price the final determinant. The cheapest aircraft --- with costs calculated over its entire life of 30-40 years --- will walk away with the order.
This situation has arisen because the IAF has --- to use an automobile analogy --- set out to buy a Maruti-type car, but invited Rolls Royce, Jaguar, BMW and Audi to the bidding, along with Maruti and Hyundai. Four of the fighters in the fray (F/A-18, MiG-35, Eurofighter and Rafale) are expensive, two-engine powerhouses in the 25-30 tonne range. The other two (F-16IN and Gripen) are single-engine aircraft and, therefore, lighter (15-20 tonnes) and cheaper. And since avionics, sensors, radars and missiles are compact and light, the single-engine fighters are almost as combat-capable as their bigger rivals.
Experts agree that if the MoD plays by the rules, the Swedish Gripen --- the lightest and apparently cheapest contender --- will walk away with the contract. The single-engine F-16IN may be very close behind.
The superior range and weapons payload of the heavier fighters will earn them no brownie points for being far better than the tender requirements. To return to the automobile analogy, if the buyer specifies a top speed of at least 100 kmph, the Jaguar and the Audi get no credit for clocking twice that speed. If the Maruti can clock 100 kmph, it will be selected being the cheapest.
But the vendors fielding the twin-engine behemoths are confident about their chances. Admitting that their purchase price may be higher, they declare that when the “Cost of Ownership” is calculated over 30-40 years, their lower maintenance and spare parts costs, and higher aircraft availability will tilt the economics in their favour.
And Eurofighter chief, Bernhard Gerwert, told Business Standard in Delhi last week that superlative flying and combat performance would definitely count. He said, “The feedback that we have gotten after meetings in Delhi with the MoD and the IAF is that they will test more than just compliance with the tender. The IAF will take into account the performance excellence of each aircraft.”
The IAF, however, flatly refutes this. Senior officers say there are no extra points for exceeding the requirements by, say, 50%. Testing will be confined to a “Compliance Matrix”, with a box being ticked alongside each performance parameter in which an aircraft measures up to the required specifications.
Says a senior officer, “We don’t compare the aircraft with each other. We compare the aircraft with the tender requirements, filling in a Compliance Matrix”.
Amidst this uncertainty, and with billions at stake, the aerospace corporations have launched a media blitz to harness public and political opinion. Journalists, astronauts, corporate honchos, medal-winning athletes and politicians have in turn been taken up for high-profile joyrides. NDTV anchor, Vishnu Som, has flown co-pilot on four of the six aircraft, more than any of the IAF test pilots will be able to claim.
The game is on.
Face-to-face: rating their chances
F/A-18 Super Hornet: Overall chances: COOL
Pros
1. Battle-tested, frontline fighter with the US Navy
2. Powerful, agile, rugged, designed for aircraft carriers
3. Advanced avionics and missile systems
4. Can function as refuelling tanker with external fuel tanks
5. Fields fully-operational and deployed Raytheon APG-79 AESA radar
Cons
1. US restrictions on modifications and end usage
2. Earlier generation design, dating back to 1980s
3. Heavy, 30-ton aircraft, expensive
F-16IN Super Viper: Overall chances: WARM
Pros
1. Tested modern fighter, has logged over 100,000 combat missions globally
2. Single-engine, 19-tonne fighter, price competitive
3. Advanced avionics and missile systems
4. Advanced Northrop Grumman APG-80 AESA radar
5. Four F-16 production lines functioning world-wide
Cons
1. US restrictions on modifications and end usage
2. Earlier generation design, dating back to 1980s
3. Earlier vintage F-16s in service with Pakistan Air Force
Eurofighter Typhoon: Overall chances: COOL
Pros
1. Contemporary fighter, still evolving
2. High performance, high-end technology, including supercruise
3. Offering India development partnership
4. No end user restrictions, easy transfer of technology
5. EADS already helping to develop India’s LCA
Cons
1. No combat experience
2. Heavy, 25-ton aircraft, expensive
3. AESA radar still under development
Saab Gripen NG: Overall chances: RED HOT
Pros
1. Only Eurofighter and Gripen are capable of Supercruise: supersonic flight without afterburners
2. Can land, refuel, rearm and take off in 10 minutes
3. Light, single-engine, highly cost-effective
4. Selex Raven AESA radar with advanced swashplate technology
5. Willing to hand over source codes for high-tech equipment
Cons
1. Has US components, including engines and avionics
2. AESA radar still under development
3. India has never operated a Swedish fighter
RAC MiG, MiG-35: Overall chances: HOT
Pros
1. Dovetails easily with IAF’s MiG-29 fleet
2. Typical Russian fast, agile fighter
3. Vastly improved avionics and targeting system
4. Thrust-vectoring engines option exists
5. Cheapest ticket price of twin-engine fighters
Cons
1. Airframe barely improved from MiG-29
2. Zhuk-Phazotron AESA radar still under development
3. Life cycle cost of Russian fighters is traditionally high
Dassault Rafale: Overall chances: DARK HORSE
Pros
1. Amongst the most contemporary options
2. France deploys on land and aircraft carriers
3. IAF’s Mirage-2000 fleet creates comfort level with Dassault
4. Transfer of technology smooth; no end user restrictions
5. Only non-US fighter with deployed AESA radar
Cons
1. Limited combat experience
2. 25-tonne, twin-engine aircraft, expensive
3. Only contender never to have flown in India
Broadsword: August 2009
A rather good analysis and how the MMRCA trials will take place.
Business Standard, 15th August 09
Over the preceding weeks, two Indian Air Force aces have busied themselves with what might well be the world’s most expensive video game: sitting at a simulator in the US and learning to fly one of the world’s most advanced fighters: Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet. After the simulator came an even greater adrenaline rush: strapping into a real Super Hornet, gunning its twin F-414 turbofan engines into a deafening roar and hurtling into the sky at speeds touching 2000 kmph.
But this was no game. Through the coming fortnight, those pilots will test-fly the Super Hornet in India, scrutinising every aspect of its performance to decide whether it meets the IAF requirements for a Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) to defend Indian skies, and support Indian ground troops, over the next four decades.
There are six contenders for this massive Indian tender for 126 medium fighters, an order worth some $11 billion dollars. Besides Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin has offered the F-16IN Super Viper; there’s the MiG-35 from Russia’s RAC MiG; the Rafale, offered by French company, Dassault; the Gripen NG, from Sweden’s Saab; and the Eurofighter Typhoon offered by a four-nation European consortium.
Over the next 8 months four IAF pilots will fly and fire all six fighters to evaluate which of them meet --- in every way --- the stringent requirements spelt out in the tender. This duel has been in the making for a full 8 years. That’s how long it has taken India’s notoriously sluggish Defence Ministry to frame its requirements, issue a global tender, and do a paper evaluation of the six responses that were received.
Now the ball is in the IAF’s court; it is time to see how the aircraft perform in the air. Being tested first, over the next two months, will be the two American fighters and the Russian Mig-35. Then, after a five-month winter break, the three European aircraft will be put through their paces.
The world’s toughest testing ground
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has assembled a team of its hottest top guns for evaluating the six fighters in the fray. Overseeing the entire testing process will be Air Commodore Rakesh Dhir, the Principal Director, Air Staff Requirements at IAF Headquarters. He will have two separate teams to do the actual flight-testing. One will test the two US fighters --- the F/A-18 and the F-16IN --- and the Russian MiG-35. The other team will be responsible for evaluating the three European aircraft: the Gripen, the Rafale, and the Eurofighter.
These teams will vie to uphold India’s reputation as the world’s toughest testing ground for military equipment. Each of the six fighters will fly in three types of terrain: hot and humid Bangalore, the desert heat of Jaisalmer, and the freezing high altitude desert of Ladakh. Any failure anywhere could signal the end of a campaign that will set back each of the contenders around $25-30 million.
Two Boeing F/A-18 will land this weekend at Bangalore, the home of India’s secretive flight testing agency, the Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment. Like Boeing, each contending company plans to bring in at least two fighters, in case of technical problems. Accompanying the fighters will be fully equipped maintenance teams to iron out niggles daily, after the Indian test pilots finish throwing their fighters around the sky.
Jaisalmer: heat and dust
After the testing in Bangalore, each team will travel for two days to Jaisalmer to test aircraft performance in the desert heat. During the Jaisalmer leg, each contender will also drop unguided bombs at a ground target placed in the Pokhran Range. But the really high-tech weaponry --- guided by radar, infrared or laser --- will be tested in each aircraft’s home base. Switching on airborne radar is a strict no-no when there is the remotest possibility of it being recorded by a foreign country. An aircraft’s radar signal is as unique to it as a fingerprint is to an individual. Every major air force, India’s included, maintains a worldwide “library” of radar signals; aircraft in those libraries can be quickly identified whenever they switch on their radar.
But the sting has been taken out of the desert trials; the summer is practically over. Months of MoD inactivity, caused by the general elections, has resulted in “hot weather” trials being scheduled in a balmy 35-40 degrees Centigrade, rather than the searing 50 degree heat of a real Jaisalmer summer. Officials from Eurofighter, which sailed through summer trials in the Saudi Arabian desert, grumble that the MoD lost an opportunity to discover the contenders vulnerabilities.
Ladakh: hot and high
From Jaisalmer, the fighters head for what could be the trickiest part of the trials: the “Hot and High” trials at the spectacular Leh airfield, in Ladakh. On the face of it, there isn’t much to do in Leh: each fighter must land with a specified load of weapons and fuel; switch off its engines and systems; the pilot must alight and do a quick visual check of his aircraft, during which the cold starts to seep into the aircraft components; then after getting back inside, he must start up the fighter’s engines and systems, without external help, and then take off.
Sounds simple! But this is the phase that is giving the contenders nightmares. At 10,682 feet, which is the altitude of Leh airfield, oxygen levels are so low that there is a real danger of the aircraft engines not starting up after they are switched off. And, once started, the oxygen-starved engines will strain to lift the fighters off that short airfield, even with a reduced payload that would be child’s play at sea level.
The testing teams: IAF top guns
A specially selected IAF test pilot of the rank of Group Captain will head each of the two test teams. He will actually fly each of the three fighters that he is responsible for evaluating. Flying in tandem with him will be another junior pilot; it will quickly become clear whether the fighter can be handled comfortably by a less experienced pilot. Each team will also include a clutch of technicians: an avionics system engineer to check high-tech gadgetry like the on-board electronic warfare equipment; a flight test engineer for performance related issues; and a maintenance engineer to observe how much maintenance each fighter needs before and after each sortie.
Making up the rest of each 8-10 person team will be: a logistician to evaluate how easily the spare parts and consumables can be kept flowing; technicians from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, where the fighter will eventually be built; and officials from certification and quality assurance agencies.
Who wins, who loses?
The MoD rulebook that governs defence purchases --- the Defence Procurement Policy of 2008 --- reduces the medium fighter competition to three simple steps. Firstly, the IAF specifies exactly the performance it wants from its proposed medium fighter. Next, it flies and evaluates all the aircraft on offer to see which ones meet all those requirements; and finally, the MoD buy the cheapest of those that qualify.
The most challenging of these steps is the first. Each detail of a fighter’s performance --- the runway length it must take off in; its rate of climb; turning radius; maximum and minimum speeds; range of operation; the weapons payload, its radar pickup; and dozens of similar parameters --- must be painstakingly quantified. Once all those are down in black and white, Step 2 becomes easy: the IAF test pilots fly each aircraft, checking each parameter one by one to see whether it matches up to what the IAF has laid down. The fighters that fail to meet the bill are eliminated from contention.
But there’s a hitch in the medium fighter competition, a problem of plenty! If the aircraft companies are to be believed, there’s a good possibility that all six aircraft might qualify. That would make the price the final determinant. The cheapest aircraft --- with costs calculated over its entire life of 30-40 years --- will walk away with the order.
This situation has arisen because the IAF has --- to use an automobile analogy --- set out to buy a Maruti-type car, but invited Rolls Royce, Jaguar, BMW and Audi to the bidding, along with Maruti and Hyundai. Four of the fighters in the fray (F/A-18, MiG-35, Eurofighter and Rafale) are expensive, two-engine powerhouses in the 25-30 tonne range. The other two (F-16IN and Gripen) are single-engine aircraft and, therefore, lighter (15-20 tonnes) and cheaper. And since avionics, sensors, radars and missiles are compact and light, the single-engine fighters are almost as combat-capable as their bigger rivals.
Experts agree that if the MoD plays by the rules, the Swedish Gripen --- the lightest and apparently cheapest contender --- will walk away with the contract. The single-engine F-16IN may be very close behind.
The superior range and weapons payload of the heavier fighters will earn them no brownie points for being far better than the tender requirements. To return to the automobile analogy, if the buyer specifies a top speed of at least 100 kmph, the Jaguar and the Audi get no credit for clocking twice that speed. If the Maruti can clock 100 kmph, it will be selected being the cheapest.
But the vendors fielding the twin-engine behemoths are confident about their chances. Admitting that their purchase price may be higher, they declare that when the “Cost of Ownership” is calculated over 30-40 years, their lower maintenance and spare parts costs, and higher aircraft availability will tilt the economics in their favour.
And Eurofighter chief, Bernhard Gerwert, told Business Standard in Delhi last week that superlative flying and combat performance would definitely count. He said, “The feedback that we have gotten after meetings in Delhi with the MoD and the IAF is that they will test more than just compliance with the tender. The IAF will take into account the performance excellence of each aircraft.”
The IAF, however, flatly refutes this. Senior officers say there are no extra points for exceeding the requirements by, say, 50%. Testing will be confined to a “Compliance Matrix”, with a box being ticked alongside each performance parameter in which an aircraft measures up to the required specifications.
Says a senior officer, “We don’t compare the aircraft with each other. We compare the aircraft with the tender requirements, filling in a Compliance Matrix”.
Amidst this uncertainty, and with billions at stake, the aerospace corporations have launched a media blitz to harness public and political opinion. Journalists, astronauts, corporate honchos, medal-winning athletes and politicians have in turn been taken up for high-profile joyrides. NDTV anchor, Vishnu Som, has flown co-pilot on four of the six aircraft, more than any of the IAF test pilots will be able to claim.
The game is on.
Face-to-face: rating their chances
F/A-18 Super Hornet: Overall chances: COOL
Pros
1. Battle-tested, frontline fighter with the US Navy
2. Powerful, agile, rugged, designed for aircraft carriers
3. Advanced avionics and missile systems
4. Can function as refuelling tanker with external fuel tanks
5. Fields fully-operational and deployed Raytheon APG-79 AESA radar
Cons
1. US restrictions on modifications and end usage
2. Earlier generation design, dating back to 1980s
3. Heavy, 30-ton aircraft, expensive
F-16IN Super Viper: Overall chances: WARM
Pros
1. Tested modern fighter, has logged over 100,000 combat missions globally
2. Single-engine, 19-tonne fighter, price competitive
3. Advanced avionics and missile systems
4. Advanced Northrop Grumman APG-80 AESA radar
5. Four F-16 production lines functioning world-wide
Cons
1. US restrictions on modifications and end usage
2. Earlier generation design, dating back to 1980s
3. Earlier vintage F-16s in service with Pakistan Air Force
Eurofighter Typhoon: Overall chances: COOL
Pros
1. Contemporary fighter, still evolving
2. High performance, high-end technology, including supercruise
3. Offering India development partnership
4. No end user restrictions, easy transfer of technology
5. EADS already helping to develop India’s LCA
Cons
1. No combat experience
2. Heavy, 25-ton aircraft, expensive
3. AESA radar still under development
Saab Gripen NG: Overall chances: RED HOT
Pros
1. Only Eurofighter and Gripen are capable of Supercruise: supersonic flight without afterburners
2. Can land, refuel, rearm and take off in 10 minutes
3. Light, single-engine, highly cost-effective
4. Selex Raven AESA radar with advanced swashplate technology
5. Willing to hand over source codes for high-tech equipment
Cons
1. Has US components, including engines and avionics
2. AESA radar still under development
3. India has never operated a Swedish fighter
RAC MiG, MiG-35: Overall chances: HOT
Pros
1. Dovetails easily with IAF’s MiG-29 fleet
2. Typical Russian fast, agile fighter
3. Vastly improved avionics and targeting system
4. Thrust-vectoring engines option exists
5. Cheapest ticket price of twin-engine fighters
Cons
1. Airframe barely improved from MiG-29
2. Zhuk-Phazotron AESA radar still under development
3. Life cycle cost of Russian fighters is traditionally high
Dassault Rafale: Overall chances: DARK HORSE
Pros
1. Amongst the most contemporary options
2. France deploys on land and aircraft carriers
3. IAF’s Mirage-2000 fleet creates comfort level with Dassault
4. Transfer of technology smooth; no end user restrictions
5. Only non-US fighter with deployed AESA radar
Cons
1. Limited combat experience
2. 25-tonne, twin-engine aircraft, expensive
3. Only contender never to have flown in India
Broadsword: August 2009
A rather good analysis and how the MMRCA trials will take place.
Mig 35 is the best deal ...we can have right now
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,489
- Likes
- 1,559
F-16IN Super Vipers in Bangalore for trials
BANGALORE: Three F-16IN Super Vipers, tailored to suit the requirements of the Indian Air Force, will fly into Bangalore on Tuesday for flight evaluation trials. From the stables of aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, the three fighters, which have been leased by the American company from the United Arab Emirates, are one of the six contenders vying for the IAF’s medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal, worth over $10 billion.
The single-engine, fourth generation multi-role F-16 operates in the air forces of 25 nations. It is the largest Western fighter programme, with over 4,400 aircraft being built. It is the second of the MMRCA contenders to fly in here trials. In mid-August two F-18 Super Hornets, the other American contender, were here for the same purpose. In an obvious reference to Pakistan already possessing F-16s and whether it will be prudent for India to acquire the same aircraft, a Lockheed Martin spokesman told The Hindu that this version was “unique, with no other like it in the world.”
According to Jack Giese, Senior Communications Manager, Lockheed Martin, the company has incorporated into the aircraft a number of advanced features, including the electronically scanned array radar and a unique electronic warfare suite that was requested by the IAF.
Link
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,615
- Likes
- 5,775
Let's buy something that has everything already functional but not based on what will be functional in future. In that sense, buying Mig-35 in the hopes that it will have a functional AESA in future will be totally unacceptable to IAF. Moreover, it is better to diversify procurement of our military hardware, putting all your eggs in one basket (read russia) is not a wise decision.
p2prada
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,017
Sir, our man, Mr. Kopp, comes up with absolute nonsense theories. I even read a paper of his and apparently Indonesia will invade Australia is a few years(I don't know where that article is).
He is a F-22 supporter and finds every opportunity to ridicule SH and the F-35, even considering Australia has no say in the F-22 matter.
His article on F-35 against a Flanker.
APA Analysis - Joint Strike Fighter vs RAAF Needs
The second figure is fine. Nevertheless, it gives the difference between an old AMRAAM against newer Russian BVR.
But, in the first figure, all I see is......nothing. It's Not to scale, so no idea what it means. It doesn't even give a comparative range for the F-35s radar like it did in the second figure. And I have no idea where he got that idea from. No references, no citations. For all I know, the distance between the Flanker and the F-35 could be 10 m.
He uses existing knowledge about aircraft and builds his own theories around them.
can you tell us which advance russian bvr is he talking about inthe diagram and american ammram..because the latest operational ammram is AIm120c which he has show accurately plus the range of R-77m is also accurateSir, our man, Mr. Kopp, comes up with absolute nonsense theories. I even read a paper of his and apparently Indonesia will invade Australia is a few years(I don't know where that article is).
He is a F-22 supporter and finds every opportunity to ridicule SH and the F-35, even considering Australia has no say in the F-22 matter.
His article on F-35 against a Flanker.
APA Analysis - Joint Strike Fighter vs RAAF Needs
The second figure is fine. Nevertheless, it gives the difference between an old AMRAAM against newer Russian BVR.
But, in the first figure, all I see is......nothing. It's Not to scale, so no idea what it means. It doesn't even give a comparative range for the F-35s radar like it did in the second figure. And I have no idea where he got that idea from. No references, no citations. For all I know, the distance between the Flanker and the F-35 could be 10 m.
He uses existing knowledge about aircraft and builds his own theories around them.
we are talking about aircraft here ..his tehories maybe worng like indonesia invading austrlia ....
also if u must know that austrlia is not being offered F-22 ...only F-35 in the futureSir, our man, Mr. Kopp, comes up with absolute nonsense theories. I even read a paper of his and apparently Indonesia will invade Australia is a few years(I don't know where that article is).
He is a F-22 supporter and finds every opportunity to ridicule SH and the F-35, even considering Australia has no say in the F-22 matter.
His article on F-35 against a Flanker.
APA Analysis - Joint Strike Fighter vs RAAF Needs
The second figure is fine. Nevertheless, it gives the difference between an old AMRAAM against newer Russian BVR.
But, in the first figure, all I see is......nothing. It's Not to scale, so no idea what it means. It doesn't even give a comparative range for the F-35s radar like it did in the second figure. And I have no idea where he got that idea from. No references, no citations. For all I know, the distance between the Flanker and the F-35 could be 10 m.
He uses existing knowledge about aircraft and builds his own theories around them.
i think u know this majority of our military hardware is of soveit russian origin ...and they have never failed ...future projects with russia confirm that we can trust them whole heartedly ...yeh some glitched happen but it has also happened with france also ...asking twice the money for the 6 subs ...so your theory "putting all eggs in one basket "does not stand true
also u see Mig 29 was in developent in 1982 and india bought them in 1986 ( deal was signed in 1985 ) ..so we bought Mg 29 that was still in development ..and that turned out to be fine for india ..as u can see
but what he said about sh v/s MKi is true ...well atleast technicallySir, our man, Mr. Kopp, comes up with absolute nonsense theories. I even read a paper of his and apparently Indonesia will invade Australia is a few years(I don't know where that article is).
He is a F-22 supporter and finds every opportunity to ridicule SH and the F-35, even considering Australia has no say in the F-22 matter.
His article on F-35 against a Flanker.
APA Analysis - Joint Strike Fighter vs RAAF Needs
The second figure is fine. Nevertheless, it gives the difference between an old AMRAAM against newer Russian BVR.
But, in the first figure, all I see is......nothing. It's Not to scale, so no idea what it means. It doesn't even give a comparative range for the F-35s radar like it did in the second figure. And I have no idea where he got that idea from. No references, no citations. For all I know, the distance between the Flanker and the F-35 could be 10 m.
He uses existing knowledge about aircraft and builds his own theories around them.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,615
- Likes
- 5,775
WTH do you mean by glitches. Do you know how many mig-21s have crashed because of unreliable spare parts, close to 200. what about Gorshkov?. There were also some use T-72s which were tried to be pushed down our throats. I'm not saying they are not reliable but getting military hardware from just one country without competition from other countries will make them cocky and they will not take us seriously.
Its only 10% increase not double as you are trying to imply. go and check the thread on increase in price again.
Still holds true. Check above points.
We need an A/C which is ready for manufacturing not the ones which are in development. The aim of MRCA is to fill the gaps before LCA is inducted in large numbers in place of aging Mig-21s, 25s, 27s, Jaguars etc. We cannot wait for A/C develop and then show its worth.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MMRCA 2.0: News & Discussions | Indian Air Force | 1598 | |
|
MMRCA News and Discussions - Part II | Indian Air Force | 996 | |
| J | Breaking news MMRCA Cancelled due to suspected scam | Members Corner | 4 | |
|
Opinion Su-57 MMRCA choice over Rafale ???? | Indian Air Force | 84 |
