MRCA News & Dicussions (IV)

[Phenom]

I doubt the source.............

Me too, It's unlikely that they will kick both US and Russian planes after the first round itself.

But if it is true, then this is good news,a fleet of Mki and Typhoons would be a force to reckon with.

 

[nrj]

Me too, It's unlikely that they will kick both US and Russian planes after the first round itself.

But if it is true, then this is good news,a fleet of Mki and Typhoons would be a force to reckon with.

I am not exactly unhappy with news.

But couldn't confirm the official shortlisting. Also the TIMES NOW source speaks blunt.
Am still looking if the news is valid..... :angry_6:

 

[bose]

It Seems that, Eurofighter Typhoon has advantage at this stage, with its offer for partnerships to future development of the bird.

I would rather prefer for a combination of Typhoon & F-18SH splitting the 126 numbers. We need a dedicated ground attack along with a air superiority aircraft.

 

[luckyy]

i still think we might go for one another contender may be a russia or an american...dont know but simply choosing aircraft with no strategic depth for India cant be chosen by the government

if IAF chose three final contenders then eurofighter would have lost on cost front,,,IAF is cleaver !

 

[luckyy]

,a fleet of Mki and Typhoons would be a force to reckon with.

it will raise the bar too high for pakistan and china.....

 

[Neil]

if IAF chose a third contender then eurofighter would have lost on cost front,,,IAF is cleaver !

yeah but the process is still going on....the file will pass to MoD then to CCS....so till then many things would have happened...including visit of american,russian,french president so you can think about it.....

 

[Neil]

if IAF chose a third contender then eurofighter would have lost on cost front,,,IAF is cleaver !

yeah but the process is still going on....the file will pass to MoD then to CCS....so till then many things would have happened...including visit of american,russian,french president so you can think about it.....

 

[vishal_lionheart]

why India don't develop A2G capability for its SU 30 MKI? As it is 1 of the best aircraft Instead of costly MRCA.... Please enlighten me

 

[StealthSniper]

why India don't develop A2G capability for its SU 30 MKI? As it is 1 of the best aircraft Instead of costly MRCA.... Please enlighten me

Su-30MKI does have decent A2G capability right now. Also the Su-30 is a heavy class fighter, while the MMRCA is a medium class multirole competition.

 

[Rahul Singh]

If this report is to be believed then I'm the happiest person on the earth because Americans are out. Rafale and EF, both are great jets and matches each other in every respect. One who sells cheap should get the deal.................

 

[Agantrope]

If this report is to be believed then I'm the happiest person on the earth because Americans are out. Rafale and EF, both are great jets and matches each other in every respect. One who sells cheap should get the deal.................

I think we need to go for the EF2000. French screwed us big time in the Scorpion Subs also cost escalation worrying me when seeing the rafale. EF, we will be become a partner there and it will generate the most wanted jobs in the EU Nations and also brings down the EF price drastically if we are in the manufacturer chain

 

[Rage]

you bet. do you expect a "maratha warrior" to let go so easily?? that is what makes you a fine poster. :happy_8:

agree and i am not rubbishing his "impressions" either. even the link i gave credits him for being an operational fighter pilot and his observations though it also pointed out the wrong facts he was speaking of.

is he talking about all SU 30MKIs that were there in the "Red Flag"? there were a mix of experienced and younger pilots. mistakes can happen with any one in such a situation. that can be a human or a pilot error not a technical limitation of the aircraft itself. that does not generalise the observation to all. even the americans found the "usefullness" of Mig 21s at "cope India" exercises. as i said earlier people go back with lessons learnt of both their strengths and weaknesses. tactics evolve from there.

while i have no issue with you on the "bolded" part, how can col. Fornaff be termed as having "perfect knowledge"?? considering he was very unprofessional and bitchy - so to say - what determines his knowledge??

his "pretty objective" opinion does not stand for the simple fact he was mocking and highly unprofessional. it was a very "subjective objective" as was clear from the videos.

as for whose opinion one beleives, i am not rubbishing him either. all i am saying is, even though he was part of Red Flag, he was not in the complete know of the things around - as alluded to in the link i gave. and i have no problems in you beleiving him.

besides tactics evolve and change with experience.

i don't know of which indian media report you are speaking about. besides indian defence journos (barring a handful) have no knowledge of what they write about. i don't think one needs to give them any credence.

even though indian contingent did not do well which is known, the fact remains they were playing the game with hands tied back.

no ODL, Radar in training mode, IFF not compatible with NATO standard all lead to "ZERO situational awareness". how in the absence of this, IAF piolts could have fought?? even the pilot performance is subject to the individual/s on the craft which will not be even across all pilots.

correct. but the "situational awareness" was pretty close to absent for the indian contingent. i alluded to this in my last post. how even American pilots could have performed in a similar situation??

as to the SU 30MKI aero dynamics here is a summary -

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html#4

SU 30MKI has no AOA limitations.

SU 30 MKI TVC again is not vertical plane specific. it can work sideways too for "yaw" maneurability like the "pitch" in the vertical plane. a write up and some pictures for you -

the first 3 pictures are from AL 37FU video clips. AL 31FP is an improvement on the AL 31FU as noted below.

TVC on SU 30MKIs are workable on both planes. as to the Red Flag incident col.Fornaff is referring to - IMO, must have been pilot erros - which is very possible with zero SI due to the handicap they were flying with.

however this is only an opinion and you can very well disagree with.

right.

explained above. you are attaching more than required importance to Col. Fornaff IMO.

and here is an account of how SU 30MK simulations ran wrt f-15s -

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

as to the "structural limitations" - well, i am not aware of any on SU 30MKI wrt to it's mission profile in the IAF. fact that it has no restrictions wrt high AOA due to the assistance it gets from TVC says a lot about it. however weaknesses are culled by the adversaries who adopt their tactics to match SU 30MKI in the same way IAF will do wrt the adversaries. it is a long process and a cat and mouse game.

agree but also possible there were no serious flaws that were found that would put a question mark on the IAF or it's pilots - Col. Fornaff's observations aside.

yes but tell me do you beleive IAF's own beleif in SU 30MKI or one off comment of Col. Fornaff??

ok. now you don't beleive in SH programme manager (which is fine) but how can you deduce that he was not "credible??". USN is the biggest flier of these SHs and not the USMC. when they are ordering more FA 18E/Fs, the link of which i gave earlier, how does it explain USN will accept these with question marks over it's structural integrity?? Mr. Gaddis is on record saying either the accusations were either wrong or was over hyped and whatever issues which were there were set right long back.

however how does your own belief analogy wrt Col. Fornaff does not apply wrt Mr. Gaddis when he has cleared all accusations point by point??

as you said it rests with the person who he wants to beleive in and ironically we are beleiving the opposite sides!!! :happy_2:

yes, i have myself admitted the "agility" factor wrt SH. this is because they were not built for dogfighting A2A fighter. besides the heavy ordnance it carries induces drag which also limits the supersonic regime and this is true for most fighters.

as to the rest of the points, i have not seen any official substantiation of these from the USN - who are the main operators of these a/c's - and the fact that USN is heavily ordering more only underlines Mr. Gaddis's assessment. USMC accusations stem from the fact that they want F-35B version which is ok but this has nothing to do with SH which is what Mr. Gaddis was explaining. i would be most amazed if the USN which such a huge expeditionary force will accept an a/c with deficiencies let alone issues related to it's structure/stability/integrity.

confusions can occur because end users are not engineers. it happens most of the time in pretty much all fields. i gave a Carlo kopp link which explains in depth SH's handling capability in all regimes particularly wrt the stability, flutter etc..he flew in 2006 and i am sure it would be even better now.

from the same http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/06/marine_superhornet_070617/ link -

this is explained by Carlo Kopp article too.

which ordnance erosion?? i did not get it.



from the same link -

also these USMC allegations are only isolated opinions as said by themselves -

in effect these are mere allegations/speculations totally unsubstantiated.

this i agree. FA 18 E/F was not designed for agility and to be supersonic with full load which is why it suits a "striker" role which i have been saying all along. SH is not a dog fighter. in US scheme of things, F22s/F15s/F16s will do the A2A role while in IAF SU 30MKI/Mig 29s will do that.

this was set right as per Mr. Gaddis.

yes. i referred it above. this is not even felt by the pilots and also seconded by Carlo Kopp in his article.

agree.

as to the last part, i look at it differently. it does not matter whether SH operates for the navy or the AF. the point is moot once SH gets airborne and does the same job of any other a/c.

sure.

there have been huge expenditure due to USA's penchant for picking wrong fronts like Iraq. cost cutting is a must for them with economy in dumps and yet to recover fully.

i thought it was an indepth article. it is true SH evolved from FA 18 A-D and somewhat matches FA18C in some respects. however it is a totally new a/c with increase in area of upto 30%. has 5th gen avionics now.

http://www.stratpost.com/fa-18-as-good-as-5th-gen-us-navy

another point of Carlo Kopp article was wrt AOA and the stability there on at 48 Degress AOA. it needs to be noted AOA regime is a risky business leading to uncontrolled spin and loss of an a/c there of. AOA is never sustained. it is only momentary and present day a/c's FBW limits the AOA beyond a certain point for safety reasons.

it spoke of AOA stability, FBW handling ability, residual lateral activity and if IIRC the flutter aspect too.

no. you took it the wrong way. i did hgh light the "cost" wrt EF and the Rafale but that is not to say that it suffers from the other factors you are speaking of. however i did and do admit it is not a dog fighter suited for A2A role vis a vis Rafale or EF which is why "striker" role which IAF needs as revealed via Kargill.

though it wont be comparable to EF and Rafale on the A2A role, it does make up for that with the avionics it has. one will tread carefully while engaging it. there was a simulated exercise where an EA 18G growler had an F-22 kill, the ultimtate A2A fighter in the USAF repertory!!!

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html

Rafale was inducted one year later than SH. in 2000 vs 1999. they belong to the same 4.5 gen. i agree the avionics on Rafale can be upgraded but this is true for all a/c's.

however like you even Rafale is my first choice too which i have said more than once. :happy_2:

again i draw your attention to what USMC "officially" said and i quoted above. they said the allegations are all "isolated" opinions and not the official stand of the USMC. it has the same "credibility" as col.Fornaff's observations post Red Flag.

i have agreed with you on the Mig 29s on the secondary role they will have to play. no dispute.

an interesting read both on the older Mig29s and Mig 35s here -

http://ifile.it/w7xfebs/MIG_35.zip

i know of the agreement where HAL will build the RD 33 ser 3. my doubt was with regard to the "smoke" factor associated. P2Prada later clarified it as "smokeless" though i have not seen any article alluding to it. you can check P2Prada's post close to your posts.

i am with you. :happy_2:

all pleasure.

Mirages being delta wing are good at higher altitudes. there is no dispute with that. but that does not mean no non-delta platform could do that. fact remains only Mirages had Atlis LDP and only they could fire the paveways and 1 by Jaguar as corrected by P2Prada.

IAF had limited paveway LGBs at that point and the fact that Mig 21s or Mig 27s not having LDPs on them only resulted in throwing dumb bombs which was later corrected by the Mirages.

post Kargill, it was a hard lesson for the IAF and which is why they insist on MMR capability and now LDPs and ELTA 8222 EW suites are now - a standard on the IAF frontline combat a/c's.

ofcourse it does.

point is moot because the airframes won't allow operations beyond 20 years anyway.

thanks for the link. may be i had blinkers on.

thanks.

well you had a sweet talk with that person yesterday night. never mind.

ppgj, I think this discussion has run its course.

However, some quick points before I wrap things up:

First, I want to mention that in some parts within your post you either separated or connected two disjointed ripostes, attributing to them a context that was never there.

As regards TVC, there are limitations to what the aircraft can do. if you really want to compare thrust vectoring on the MKI, compare it to the F-16 MATV. The MATV can hold 180 degrees longe, and 120 degrees longer than the less than 4 seconds the MKI can. Besides, there is a definite limit to how much you can use something like Pugachev's maneuver in a dogfight. Do you understand the severe stress it puts the aircraft's frame under, besides only being capable without armament or a less than 50% fuel tank capacity. Besides of course, the fact that it slows the Su 30 MKI down so much, that if an interceptor picks it up early enough and adjusts, there is absolutely no way that the Sukhoi can survive. These again pertain to the 'airframe's limitations' I was pointing to earlier.

Now, I don't want to berate the point. But the IAF, is rumoured, to be practicing something called the Super Cobra- a maneuver that translates to around 140* A-O-A for anywhere between 4 to 10 seconds at 500 to 800 feet AGL, but this puts so much stress on the airframe that it is bound to reduce the life of the aircraft considerably, which is why it is only being practiced rarely. Besides, ofcourse, the nose drift cause by slightly asymmetric run of the thrust.

With regard to the Mirage-2000 upgrade, the airframe being obsolete beyond 20 years and therefore the point being moot, that is exactly why the upgrade is "stop gap".

With regard to the Paveway II laser guided munitions and the Kargil war, the fact is that they were extremely limited in their operational usefulness. Of the total nine that were dropped, only 2 hit their target. Of the total two, both managed to not destroy their targets- which were bunkers. Those were subsequently destroyed by "dumb bombs". Of the greatest successes in A-2-G missions, the highest success ratios, by far, were experienced by "dumb" bombs. Please read the following link:

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


Besides, the IAF deployed LGB's on Jaguars too- even if it only used one. LDP's were not the only reason for the Mirage's designation. Normal procedure required for an aircraft to commence a dive at about 30,000 feet and designate the target at 15 kms distance. At 8 kms distance anything from 6 to 12 bombs would be dispatched towards the target. Procedure for an LGB attack would differ in that the target would be acquired at 20 kms distance, designation would occur at 15 kms with release of the weapon at 8.5 kms. The key to the Mirages success was that is was able to reach its operational altitude, hitting the target with LGB's and conventional weapons, twenty-four hours a day. Which is why my focus on its A-2-G role.

As for the images you hotlinked, none of them worked.

As pertains to the article on the USMC-USN internal politics, I agreed to that being a factor in affecting the USMC's opinion on the F/18-SH. However, that has not conclusively proven anything- other than, that it may be a factor in the USMC favoring the F-35. The rebuttals by the F/A 18 program manager do not serve to convince either, which, given his vested interest in the project, are bound to raise skepticism also. A visit to aviation boards like Flightjournal and Airliners will tell you that F-18 SH veterans are not happy.

The article has not yet discussed, other than dismissing, problems of 'wing-flutter', high altitude agility or resistance to stall at high altitudes. It also admits to the problem of pursuing "residual lateral activity", which is nothing other than a minimized version of the 'wing-flutter', which a series of fixes since 2000 have not been able to solve, ironically charging F/A-18 SH veterans of "confusing" it with aeroelastic phenomena like wing-drops in the first place.

As for the problem of armament deterioration, I believe your own article should offer an insight:

Claim: The wing drop led to the weapons pylons being canted outboard six degrees, causing increased wear on weapons and severely cutting their ability to acquire a target before launch.
Rebuttal: Canting the pylons is "totally different," Gaddis said. "It's not related [to wing drop] in any form."
"That's been a myth for about 12 to 14 years," he said.
"We never flew the aircraft with straight pylons," Hovanesian said.
Rather, they pointed out, the cant was developed to ensure proper weapons separation as bombs and missiles are launched from the aircraft. Super Hornets have three weapons stations under each wing, compared with two on the older Hornets, and a four-degree outboard cant was developed to increase the distance between weapons.
One by one, the team debunked the other allegations. Missiles are not showing excessive wear due to the cant, they said.

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

As for the comment on the US HASC directing the USN to buy more F-18's, instead of a life-extension the Navy has preferred, there is no "cost-cutting" at all.
This is what the article starts off with:

Navy officials have not asked for more Super Hornets, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill may tell them to buy some anyway.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/06/navy_fighter_gap_062409w/

As to the question of credibility, I believe Col. Fornoff's comments because of their lack of vested interest, and as knowing North American humour, and the nature of their rabblespeak, to put it bluntly, do believe that the comments were "objective" and forthright- even if not characterized by the level of technical integrity desired- which is rare to come by, anyway.

Finally, I'd like to say that the 'Combat' in the MMRCA is just as equally important to the aircraft's viability as its "multi-role" capability.

I'll end with saying that, now that the decision has been made to narrow the tender to the Rafale and the Eurofighter, I think all this is irrelevant anyways.

 

[neo29]

Finally its happy to see that IAF has recommended the best fighters. Its also good to see Europe being a next arms destination for India. Finally most Indians will be happy to see US fighters go. IAF has categorically "insulted" the f-16 that it has no future in IAF.

IAF has also done a good thing by declaring it publicly. Otherwise our Babu's will manipulate the deal to the ones that benefit them.

 

[s_bman]

it is not easy to rule out american influence on this deal even with technology denial(agreements not signed) ,they will be back with a bang..............esp with MMS in picture, remember tanker contract which went to europeans was torpedoed by finance ministry as being "too expensive"

 

[Agantrope]

Finally its happy to see that IAF has recommended the best fighters. Its also good to see Europe being a next arms destination for India. Finally most Indians will be happy to see US fighters go. IAF has categorically "insulted" the f-16 that it has no future in IAF.

IAF has also done a good thing by declaring it publicly. Otherwise our Babu's will manipulate the deal to the ones that benefit them.

It is not a official declaration, rather a selective leakage

 

[neo29]

@Agantrope

True the French screwed us in scorpion subs with delays and costs. Even the mirage upgrades was costly but India accepted the terms so as to block pak receiving jf-17 avionics from france

French already have 2 costly deals with them. Its obvious that establishment will choose EF with its development in LCA, AESA, partnership, ej200 etc all the goodies.

With EF we get our multirole fighter and engines and development in LCA. The establishment must not wait any longer and ink the deal as soon as possible so that we may get our LCA and EF flying.

 

[Agantrope]

People, nothing came as a official news, Wait till the November for any arm twisting by the unkil or even by the GoI.

I am too skeptical till the December gets over.

 

[SHASH2K2]

I cannot believe that SH will be kicked out so easily. This contest is far from closed and coming high profile visits of foreign dignitaries will also influence this deal . Obama coming in about 3-4 months I do not see GOI announcing that deal is not going to American. May be we will wait till his visit is over .

 

[neo29]

I cannot believe that SH will be kicked out so easily. This contest is far from closed and coming high profile visits of foreign dignitaries will also influence this deal . Obama coming in about 3-4 months I do not see GOI announcing that deal is not going to American. May be we will wait till his visit is over .

US govt will try to push for clearance of engine sale to India which may power LCA and Sh-18 to keeps their hopes alive. IAF has said it may reconsider SH-18 if engine issues solved.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

http://www.timesnow.tv/New-fighters-for-Indian-Air-Force/videoshow/4351234.cms

After exhaustive trials of six fighter jets, Indian Air Force (IAF) has made its choice clear to the Government on the kind of fighter jets needed. Frontrunners for the force are French fighter Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon built by the European consortium. Bernhard Gerwert, Chief, EADS, says "If you are taking into account the portfolio of EADS we can bring the bridge between civil aviation and military aviation." But the Americans and Russians have lost out. Boeing's F18 no longer a frontrunner and Sweden's Gripen too falling off the Indian radar.

Despite MiG 35s big thunder, its engine failing to impress while the F-16, according to the IAF has no future. Another reason favouring Rafale and Eurofighter is political. Thomas Matussek, German Ambassador, "We regard India as a strategic security partner and this is why we do not insist on an end user monitoring agreement period." So when the mother of all defence deals is signed for the 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft either Rafale or the Eurofighter will fly away with the Rs 42,000 crore deal.

I find both air-crafts good for IAF..
But Rafale is better than EF-2000 in A2A as well as A2G also in future we can install more efficient Kaveri engines, but french do not show any interest beyond their aircraft, politically EF-2000 have upper hand..