MRCA News & Dicussions (IV)

[ppgj]

ppgj, I think this discussion has run its course.

may be but it is nice to debate with you as you bring in your own research which helps me in being aware of those - a reason i am here for. :happy_2:

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.

i agree with you on the point that TVC use do stress the aircraft and there are limitations particularly at high ALPHA which is why they are never sustained besides factors relating to unwanted spins going out of control leading to loss of the aircraft and possibly the pilot.

as to the "pugachev cobra" - i like to beleive it as "for promotional performance at aero shows". in the battle field it is a different ball game where things change in an unpredictable ways and the pilot will have no time to respond to. i agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev's_Cobra

as to the "Bolded" part, it is important to remember in a real combat an SU 30MKI pilot will be operating with meaningful SI. he will adopt the methods based on what the situation demands. i would like to beleive these maneurs are factored in the "aircraft build" and operations are governed by the user manuals supplied by the OEMs. i will differ with you on the SU 30MKIs getting to sitting ducks.

i have given a link of the RAF view on the SU 30MKIs down below.

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.

since you are saying it as "rumour" i won't stress on the link.

OTOH pilot loosing consciousness due to the g-force in such maneurs will far out weigh the other factors.

In a properly performed Pugachev's Cobra, the plane maintains almost straight flight throughout the maneuver; the plane does not roll or yaw in either direction. Proper entry speed is significant because if entering too slow, the pilot might not be able to accomplish the maneuver; entering too fast might exceed the g-force limit of the plane and the pilot may suffer loss of consciousness.[2]

from the wiki link above.

and as i said these maneurs - though, feasible and possibly carried out - are not realistic in a real combat, as - a routine.

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".

let's agree to disagree on this.

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

LGBs are limited to a great extent by the weather conditions like haze, clouds, dust, smoke etc...it is possible any of these may have limited the hit rate. normally when the forces determine that the target has not been eliminated repeat bombing is carried out. in Kargill india was limited by the number of paveways and the the number of Mirage 2000s who were urgently modified to carry out the task as explained in the BR link which explains bigger use of dumb bombs.

however can you give me a link which says out of 9 only 2 hit the target?

dropping dumb bombs at lower altitudes which has a danger of being self coming into the range of the MANPADS was a necessity for the IAF besides the cost of the LGBs and the limited numbers of both the LGBs and the Mirages to carry out the task.

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.

my take on the Jaguars hitting with LGB is this. they did not have LDPs IIRC during Kargill. the target must have been painted by the Mirages flying in tandem.

i do agree at the higher altitudes Mirage 2000 type delta wings have a natural advantage by design but i still do not agree that other a/c's cannot do that.

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

the pictures did appear when i posted. it seems the site does not allow pictures being posted elsewhere. however you can follow the link i gave and see those on the site.

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.

the SH Programme manager did not just rubbish the allegations. he and the design engineers did explain the wrong determinations, hyping up minor issues etc by the USMC and also described how the problems if there were any were set right.

i again repeat how the USN can induct the SH with so many structurally integral issues if they are existing?? IMO highly unlikely. besides USMC does not stand by it's own assertions and the chief says it is not the official stand rather isolated opinions.

i leave it at that.

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

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

well first of all, the 'WING DROP' as the USMC puts it and which 'supposedly' led to 'deterioration of ordnance' was answered by Mr. Gaddis. infact he goes on to say it is a "myth" beleived by the users - a confusion, which happens as i alluded to in my last post between the users and designers/engineers.

if you read the quote first of all it is not wing drop at all rather it was "canting the pylons" for proper weapon separation which would answer the "ordnance deterioration" bit allegation. now how canting deteriorates ordnance is also not explained by the USMC when the idea of canting was precisely for rectifying it.

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:

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

US HASC's word is "cost effective". i stand corrected.

"The committee supports procurement of additional F/A-18E/F aircraft to mitigate the naval strike-fighter inventory shortfall and believes that procurement of additional F/A-18E/F aircraft through a multi-year procurement contract is more cost effective and prudent than procuring new aircraft through an annual contract," the final version of the bill said.

OTOH considering US administration is cutting production wrt F 22 and with longer delays in F 35s while the country is still fighting 2 fronts with economy yet to recover - "cost cut" does have some value though it may not pertain to the above specifically.

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.

i don't wish to question your beleif.

and with due respect to col. Fornaff, i have tried to answer his observations in my last posts. IMO in the absence of SI - IAF pilots may have made mistakes, which is very possible even for an experienced pilot - a possibility, col. Fornaff has stuck to.

SI dictates what course the pilot will take whether it is an "attack maneur" or an "escape maneur" - in both the cases TVC of SU 30 MKI helps.

here is what RAF speaks about SU 30MKIs.

This was the first large-scale bilateral aerial exercise with any foreign air force during which the IAF used its Su-30MKIs extensively. This exercise was also the first in 43 years with the RAF. During the exercise, RAF's Air Chief Marshall, Glenn Torpy, was given permission by the IAF to fly the MKI. RAF's Air-Vice Marshall, Christopher Harper, praised the MKI's dogfight ability, calling it "absolutely masterful and unbeatable".

In July 2007, the Indian Air Force fielded the MKI during the Indra-Dhanush exercise with Royal Air Force's Eurofighter Typhoon. This was the first time that the two jets had taken part in such a exercise. The IAF did not allow their pilots to use the radar of the MKIs during the exercise so as to protect the highly-classified N011M Bars. During the exercise, the RAF pilots candidly admitted that the Su-30MKI displayed maneuvering superior to that of the Typhoon.

http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Su-30MKI::sub::Operational_History

also from the same link -

An earlier variant of the Su-30MKI, the MK, took part in war games with the United States Air Force USAF during Cope-India 04. The results have been widely publicized, with the Indians winning "90% of the mock combat missions" against the American force's F-15C. When questioned on the capabilities of IAF pilots, Col Greg Newbech, USAF Team Leader made the following remarks: - "What we've seen in the last two weeks is, the IAF can stand toe-to-toe with best AF in the world. I pity the pilot who has to face the IAF and chances the day to underestimate him; because he won't be going home. Indian hospitality from everyone has been truly overwhelming. The greatest compliment we heard from an IAF pilot, 'You American pilots are just like us, simply down to earth people.' We depart India with great respect for the Indian Air Force. Your pilots, maint and support crew are exceptional professionals.".

In July 2008, the IAF sent 6 Su-30MKIs and 2 aerial-refueling tankers, the Il-78MKI, to participate in the Red Flag exercise.. The IAF again did not allow their pilots to use the radar of the MKIs during the exercise so as to protect the highly-classified N011M Bars. In October 2008, a video surfaced on the internet which featured a USAF colonel, Corkey Fornoff, criticizing Su-30MKI's high friendly kill rate and serviceability issues during the Red Flag exercise. Several of his claims were later rebutted by the Indian side, and the USAF disassociated itself from his comments and it was stated that he did not even participate in the exercise.

IOW Col. Fornaff's comments was isolated opinion and check the last line in the above quote - he did not even participate in the Red Flag.

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.

agree.

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.

only times now has reported that. i keep my fingers crossed as it is not reported by any one else. besides it does not quote anyone of importance neither from the GOI nor the IAF. also worth noting Obama's trip in november. things can change any which way.

however if the news is true - i am pleased.

EF Typhoon selection will mean commonality with EJ 200 for LCA - a big factor. also means IAF is ready to wait for the AESA till 2015 which will give EF a good A2G ability.

OTOH i feel Rafale is more suited as it is more mature as of now with AESA RBE2 possibility in 2012. and down the line a M88 core for Kaveri engine will also ramp up the indigenous engine, a factor, which can not be wished away.

 

[Rahul Singh]

MRCA News & Dicussions (IV): Contenders narrowed to Eurofighter and Rafael: IAF

If we choose EF we will buy american influence and sub-systems. EADS had BAE in it and during crises on the order of Uncle Sam Britishers will order BAE to create problems. Same is not true in case of Rafale. France is far more independent than British when it comes to work under American influence.

On Tactical side EF has advantage only in A2A and with Rafale getting M88-3 even that advantage will go neutral. Needless to say Rafale is more versatile and till this date holds advantage in A2G. Plus if we choose Rafale then it will be easy for Navy to select their M-MRCA. On other side we can expect Snecma-GTRE kaveri having smooth sail too and may be falling into IAF Rafale. Choosing Rafale will bear more fruits than EF.

 

[luckyy]

. On other side we can expect Snecma-GTRE kaveri having smooth sail too and may be falling into IAF Rafale. Choosing Rafale will bear more fruits than EF.

but IAF seem to have oppose the drdo's idea of JV with Snecma in LCA engine...

 

[gogbot]

but IAF seem to have oppose the drdo's idea of JV with Snecma in LCA engine...

IAF did not want more delays , Especially with the LCA-MKII.

But most likely GTRE will continue Kaveri as a parallel project in one form or another. Kaveri is very close to completion.
Some process to improve the engine will take place once it has been completed, The Goal of incorporating it into the Tejas and Meeting all IAF requirements is still on the table

 

[nrj]

Now the time of rumors has started. It will continue till MOD/IAF gives out official statement. Companies will be even throwing money to media houses to spread rumors & false news mostly misguiding. This will continue till late Nov or early Dec..... :funny_2:

 

[Rahul Singh]

but IAF seem to have oppose the drdo's idea of JV with Snecma in LCA engine...

Thats because its IAF not Navy. Everybody knows that LCA has been de-linked from Kaveri and there is no reason to worry about Kaveri delivering less than 90KN thrust and derating LCA. IAF should not have objected to JV plans on that grounds. We need JV Kaveri for our AMCA. One thing should also be noted that Dassault in past had offered to put JV engine in IAF Rafale. Optimistically thinking, if Snecma choose to offer M88-3's core than things will all different and this JV engine can also find its place into LCA MK-3 as well as into LCAs which will require re-engining during MLU. There are ample reasons to go for JV kaveri but for that IAF will have to think like Navy which gives more importance to long term gains than to short term. A vision is dire needed to become self-dependent and road to it doesn't have any short-cut.

 

[luckyy]

Now the time of rumors has started. It will continue till MOD/IAF gives out official statement. Companies will be even throwing money to media houses to spread rumors & false news mostly misguiding. This will continue till late Nov or early Dec..... :funny_2:

Times Now belong to TOI group...TOI is well known for it's closeness with congress....no doubt it's advantage Times Now to access the latest developments..

 

[nrj]

Times Now belong to TOI group...TOI is well known for it's closeness with congress....no doubt it's advantage Times Now to access the latest developments..

TIMES NOW is also known for its false news about Chinese cross-border firing hype & 26/11 disaster, many other. TOI news is most of time unreliable as seen even on this forum. There are quite better defense new sources around the world. Even the mentioned TOI news speaks blunt. This ain't any official shortlisting.

 

[icecoolben]

I've upset over and over again by general news that are blunt with no technical backing or proof from toi. But since they publish whatever news they get, we can assume that it is some sort information to be taken with a pinch of salt. But the thing is these two along with the gripen are the only 4 gen fighters in the competition. If India is to have three classes of 4th generation fighters in its inventory su-30 heavy, tejas- light and mmrca-medium, typhoon and rafale suit the requirements also providing diverse capabilities to Iaf. Su-30 flankers of vvs had a service ceiling of 17000 m and su-30 mki has a service ceiling of 20000. Yet when mki went into exercise combat with typhoon they were found wanting at higher altitudes. Hence in the face of chinese aggression typhoons would provide a deadly deterant. Typhoon also can accomodate a wide range of weapons form american to europeon, a quality the rafale does not share. Rafale has its share of strengths, though at a service ceiling of 17,000 can complement excellently for tejas limited range for extensive air to ground missions and weapons carriage and with the first operational aesa radar outside Us, makes the plane a good option to get over apg-79 hang over. The electronic awareness provided by spectra could be atleast on par with that of export version growler lite, if not better. Though the narrow french only armaments it can carry is a downer. Unlike the typhoon which is a conventional plane getting checked on almost all parameter boxes, the rafale is a high performance plane with exceptional qualitines like being able to pull 12g, very advanced fly by wire that gives extreme agility and manoverability. An all french plane, that can be tweaked to our requirement easily since we need to work with a single partner. The typhoon on the other hand was built to satisfy demands of a multi-nation consortium thus having diverse capabilities already tweaked into it. With a larger air frame and lesser load than rafale, the aircraft is not cramped and hence available for more upgrades on the present air frame itself. Both can make quite amount of good contribution to Indian Industry via tejas programme,Whichever aircraft of the two the Iaf selects, it would be good in the longhaul.

 

[EagleOne]

DIRECTOR, ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES, LOCKHEED MARTIN

'Technological innovation knows no boundaries'

With 29 years of experience in integrating advanced technologies on tactical fighter aircraft, Michael R Griswold is on a special assignment for Lockheed Martin. As director, advanced development programmes for the American defence major, he is focused on winning the $10 billion medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) project and developing other broad-based opportunities with India. Griswold, who recently visited India, met Huma Siddiqui and shared his views on various programmes and technologies related to fighter aircraft. Excerpts:

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/technological-innovation-knows-no-boundaries/657672/1

 

[SHASH2K2]

TIMES NOW: IAF Recommends Rafale & Eurofighter For MMRCA!


Just caught this on TimesNOW and boy has it already kicked up a storm! The IAF isn't officially commenting on this, since they don't do that. If this is correct, it matches with Scenario-4 of the possibilities I posted a few days ago. The war of the Eurocanards! Many believe (and have expressed as much here on the blog) that a face-off between the Rafale and Typhoon would be the most appropriate competition if the IAF was looking for truly modern fourth-generation fighter jets, designed and built fresh with forward-looking possibilities, true license-build possibilities. If this report is true, the IAF has basically, with one fell swoop, dismissed the Gripen NG, MiG-35, and both the American teens -- the F-16 Block 60 and F/A-18/E/F -- from the world's most lucrative fighter competition in recent memory. Or it has indicated that it would prefer these two aircraft over the others (which one over the other, though, is tantalizingly not mentioned). Assuming any of this is true, this is hardly the end. Will the government dutifully open commercial bids and pick between the two? Have the others actually been eliminated or simply been pushed down the preference order of merit? Can the government make a political decision between the Rafale and Typhoon? What was all that American pressure all about? Will the government disregard the IAF trials? Will it ask for more trials? Will it go by the book? Will the MMRCA be the Rafale's blistering account opener? Stay tuned. I'm as curious as you are, and will be tracking developments very closely. Read my MMRCA series post a year ago on the Typhoon and Rafale.

Assuming these two aircraft are the only ones moving to the next level, which do you think the government should choose and why? Let's see what everyone thinks. Vote below and post your comments.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/blog-post.html

 

[ironman]

Chindit's Report.

MMRCA Update : F-18 Has Underpowered Engine, No One 100% Compliant, Says Report, Vendors Revise Their Prices !!​

There was a reason for the delay of this report. Chindits is in possession of a RFP copy of the MMRCA. All information about individual aircraft, is based on answers provided by vendors through email about specific questions.

As the technical evaluation report of the world's largest defence deal – the medium multi-role combat role aircraft (MMRCA) gets completed by the Indian Air Force (IAF), before handing it to the Ministry of Defence (MoD), DNA has learnt from reliable sources, that there is a vast difference in the Air Staff Qualitative Requirement (ASQR) being fulfilled by the competitors, in engine requirements.

Of the 126, India will directly purchase 18 aircraft, of which 12 will be single-seater and six twin-seater aircraft. These aircraft will be located at three main operating bases and would be distributed among six independant flying squadrons, two per main operating base, with each squadron comprising 12 single-seat aircraft, while the remaining to be stored as reserves.

The six competitors are American Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet IN, F-16IN Super Viper from the US Lockheed Martin, Gripen Next Generation (NG) from Sweden's Saab, European consortium EADS' Eurofighter Typhoon, French Rafale from Dassault Aviation and the Russian MiG-35.

According to the RFP, a copy of which is with DNA, the IAF states the following engine combat ASQRs:

"The MMRCA should have sea-level static thrust-to-weight ration of 1:1 or better with maximum afterburner, should be able to carry an external load of atleast 5000 kilograms (comprising air-to-air and air-to ground weapons) and fly for a minimum eight hours with air-to-air refueling, should be a 9G aircraft and talks of the maximum limit of a vertical or negative G the aircraft can pull and hold for more than 10 seconds with afterburners engaged."

The thrust-to-weight ratio, is of critical importance, as a senior IAF official told DNA, "As the weight would only increase with the increase in armament and weapons onboard, therefore a powerful engine was required. Some have come close to the required parameters but some aircraft have shown disappointing results The aircraft should also have endurance for longer periods and the twin-seat trainer should be exactly like the single-seat fighter."

Price:

The MoD had extended the date for price quotation and asked the six competing global fighter aircraft manufacturers for the revised price for the aircraft as the original deadline for the commercial bids to be opened was April 2010, according to the tender, which would have had the original price if the bids were opened on time. But owing to delay caused by the field evaluation of all six aircraft, an extension of three months was given, and the vendors were asked to submit their fresh prices, whether they would go with the original quoted price or would quote a revised price, was to be conveyed to the MoD.

By the end of July all six aircraft giants in the fray have to inform the MoD, whether there is a revision in the price of their aircraft or the old price be considered.

A senior IAF (Indian Air Force) told DNA, "The commercial bids of only the short-listed vendors will be opened, but the fresh price as on date needs to be known. Since the trials have caused delay, so the April 2010 deadline could not be met," adding that finally the deal would go upto around 18 billion dollars with infrastructure, training and other expenditure included.

Governments of the aircraft manaufacturers rooting for their product:

It may also be noted that Government representatives of the aircraft manufacturing countries participating in this deal have started pitching for their respective aircraft.

DNA has learnt that Vice Admiral Jeffrey A Wieringa, Director Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) of the US, wrote to the MoD, that the global tender for the aircraft deal, be converted into a single vendor Hybrid FMS (foreign military sale) deal, suiting the US and one of its competing manufacturers be given the contract under it. FMS is a government-to-government agreement for a contract without an open tender, which makes it convenient for critical technologies to be transferred and also cuts out a lot of other hassles, thereby hastening up the process, but is expensive. The Hybrid FMS route is a special provision in the US government, given to a buyer country, interested in purchasing defence equipment from the US.

US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates is believed to have written a similar letter in 2008, when the bids were submitted for the aircraft, to the MoD, to have an FMS agreement for the contract.

Letters from other Government representatives also have reached MoD, but South Block is understood to have turned down these requests, and is strictly following the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP), with its transparency clause. All European governments are understood to be backing the Eurofighter Typhoon.

US Boeing's F/A-18 IN Super Hornet

Reliable sources have confirmed to DNA that the F/A-18 IN Super Hornet, has an underpowered engine, with both engines adding upto 180 KN (wet power) , and the thrust to weight ratio being less than 1, which doesn't meet the IAF ASQR, which should be more than one.

Said a senior IAF officer, "The .93 thrust to weight ratio of the Super Hornet speaks of the underpowered engines, plus the aircraft can only pull a maximum of 7.5 G, which is below the requirement which is 9G."

According to company statement given to DNA by Boeing, "As required per India's Defence Procurement Procedure, compliance demonstrations for all MMRCA Air Staff Qualitative Requirements were conducted with Super Hornets during the Field Evaluation Trials. The ultimate decision lies with the Indian Air Force, however, the US Navy / Boeing Team are confident that the demonstrations conducted during FET confirmed compliance with all MMRCA ASQRs."

US Lockheed Martin's F-16IN Super Viper.

The single-engine F-16IN Super Viper's GE F110-GE-132A engine, produces up to 144 KN thrust and can pull 9 G and -3 vertical G, while engaging in combat manouvers. The aircraft has a thrust to weight ratio of 6.36:1 and, "Can fly for more than eight hours continuously with air-to-air refueling," according to the response sent by the manufacturer to DNA. Calling it a completely new product, tailored to suit the IAF's ASQRs, Lockheed stated that the twin-seat version would have all the operational attributes of a single-seat variant inclusive of a radar, and can carry an external load of more than 5000 kgs (which includes weapons).

Swedish Saab's JAS 39 Gripen NG

Sweden's Gripen Next Generation (NG), has an engine with wet power of 97.8 KN, and is a 9G aircraft with 13G in emergency and -3 vertical or negative G.

In a response to DNA, Swedish Saab said that, "The aircraft has sea level static thrust to weight ratio in Indian Standard Atmosphere conditions as 1:1 with full missile load."

Gripen NG can carry an external load of 7200 kg of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons and other external stores and fly more than eight hours with air-to-air refueling, and the twin seater variant will have the same operational attributes as the single seater.

European EADS' Eurofighter Typhoon

The twin-engine multi-role fighter, in service in the airforces of Germany, UK Royal Airforce, Spain and Italy, the four countries engaged in manufacturing the aircraft, is yet to see combat, but has a wet power of both engines put together adding upto 180 KN thrust (20,000 lbs).

The Eurofighter Typhoon can pull +9 and -3 negative or vertical G, is able to carry an external load which of more than 7500 kg and can fly for more than eight hours with air-to-air refueling and the twin-seat will be similar to the single-seat version in operational attributes.

French Dassault Aviation's Rafale fighter aircraft.

The twin-engine Rafale, operational in the French airforce and the Navy, has at the moment, the Snecma M88-2 with a wet thrust of 176 KN (both engines). A next generation engine, with a thrust of 9000kg, is being tested, but its date of availability is unknown, even as Dassault claims it will take three years.

The aircraft can pull -3 to 9G (11G in emergency), sustainable with a pilot.

Sources told DNA about the Rafale's thrust to weight ratio, "This depends heavily on the fuel and weapon load, and it will be different for 25%, 50% or 100% fuel load." According to different sources, the ratio of the Rafale (thrust to weight) may vary from 1.13 to 1.27.

The Rafale can carry a maximum of an external load of 9500 kg and can fly for around 15 hours with refueling.

The major differences between the single-seat and the twin-seat Rafale B are of weight and lower inner fuel capacity. The Rafale B is heavier by 350kg and its lower inner fuel capacity, which is around 400 liters of less fuel. The remaining equipment are similar, including the radar RBE-2.

Russian MiG-35 (As of now just one aircraft has been produced, the twin-seat MiG-35D)

Called a derivative of the existing MiG-29 fighter, the MiG-35 still doesn't exist, and has just one aircraft flying, the twin-seat MiG-35D, which was unveiled in 2007 in Bangalore during Aero India.

With a thrust to weight ration being 1.03, the two engines provide a wet thrust of 176.6 KN. A 11G aircraft capable of a -3 vertical G, the MiG-35 twin-seat variant, the MiG-35D, has all the operational attributes of a single-seat fighter including the radar. The aircraft can fly more than eight hours ith refueling and can carry an external load of more than 5000 kgs.

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2010/08/xclusive-mmrca-update-f-18-has.html

 

[Armand2REP]

The shortlist is pretty much as I predicted although I thought Super Hornet would have been given a higher place than just a maybe for a renegotiated engine. I would not count out the SH as Boeing is sure to offer upgraded engines to try to win this deal, but then France will come back with a similar offer. Eurofighter would be marginalised after that with no new engines and a bunch of Euro countries divesting from the project. RAF is cutting their firm orders by 53 including all Tranch 3B, Germany by 37, Italy by 25, 20 by Spain. The Captor AESA will not be delivered until 2015 at the earliest and 2017 at the latest, Rafale has already received its first production radar being installed as we speak. If IAF is looking for a dog-fighter, Rafale has proven it is far superior to RAF Typhoons with a record of 9:1 in simulated engagements. The A2G capabilities, range, payload of Rafale are far superior as well as its self-protection. The price tag is also far lower than the over-priced Typhoon. The only way Rafale will lose is if the political significance with EADS is more important than getting the best bang for the buck.

 

[Daredevil]

Chindit's Report.

MMRCA Update : F-18 Has Underpowered Engine, No One 100% Compliant, Says Report, Vendors Revise Their Prices !!​

The single-engine F-16IN Super Viper's GE F110-GE-132A engine, produces up to 144 KN thrust and can pull 9 G and -3 vertical G, while engaging in combat manouvers. The aircraft has a thrust to weight ratio of 6.36:1

No real conclusions on the status of selection of the air crafts. She has just glossed over the details of A/Cs which is already known through public sources. Her 6.36:1 thrust-to-weight ratio :happy_2: figure tells that she is a shoddy journalist out there for fame rather than bring in real raw sources and do a proper analysis. I don't believe any of the stuff she says which is not already known.

 

[civfanatic]

The shortlist is pretty much as I predicted although I thought Super Hornet would have been given a higher place than just a maybe for a renegotiated engine. I would not count out the SH as Boeing is sure to offer upgraded engines to try to win this deal, but then France will come back with a similar offer. Eurofighter would be marginalised after that with no new engines and a bunch of Euro countries divesting from the project. RAF is cutting their firm orders by 53 including all Tranch 3B, Germany by 37, Italy by 25, 20 by Spain. The Captor AESA will not be delivered until 2015 at the earliest and 2017 at the latest, Rafale has already received its first production radar being installed as we speak. If IAF is looking for a dog-fighter, Rafale has proven it is far superior to RAF Typhoons with a record of 9:1 in simulated engagements. The A2G capabilities, range, payload of Rafale are far superior as well as its self-protection. The price tag is also far lower than the over-priced Typhoon. The only way Rafale will lose is if the political significance with EADS is more important than getting the best bang for the buck.

Yeah I think Dassault has this competition pretty much won. Nearly all the factors are in its favor: superior A2G capability (IAF has made it clear it wants a medium multirole combat aircraft, not an AS one), lower cost compared to Typhoon, political advantages (Dassault will think twice before providing avionics for JF-17s), etc.

Since the beginning of the competition I've wanted either the MiG-35 or the Rafale to bag the deal. I'm glad one of my favorites made it through

 

[Daredevil]

I'm not sure if we can take TimesNow report as is. Let's wait for multiple sources supporting this assertion of Typhoon and Rafale making it to the final list. Please don't jump the gun yet.

 

[Armand2REP]

Times Now is reading the IAF trials evaluation report submitted to DefMin. I don't see anything to argue with. The report wasn't made as a maybe or perhaps the IAF is saying... it says the IAF said it which is pretty clear they have the source. Unless you are claiming TN is outright making it up. In July IAF said the report would be out soon, well it looks like they got it.

 

[neo29]

Certain news channels do not reports others news. For eg the latest investigations on CWG corruptions was not reported by many prominent news channels.

The news is out and if contradictory the establishment or IAF would have issued some statement just like when news reports came initial stages of mmrca that rafale was out of competition. IAF came out and spoke that its not been rejected.

IF establishment and IAF dont react to this news its bound to be true.

 

[Daredevil]

IAF has not made any statements throughout the MMRCA tender and trials despite many speculative articles, analysis, theories put out there. If some unsubstantiated news is not refuted by IAF doesn't mean it is true. TimesNow like its news paper outlet Times of India try to sensationalize without substance and facts. So, lets wait till this news gets substantiated by at least one other source before jumping the gun and declaring the Typhoon and Rafale are finalists. Otherwise, this thread will be a speculative web.

 

[pankaj nema]

Please dont buy American planes for GOD sake .Buy any thing but not American .For America this 126 plane deal is nothing .USAF and US navy alone will buy hundreds of F 18 and F16. Saudis and Israelis can trust the Americans .We cannot.

They will harass us when we need these planes the most. Either with spares or technical data and knowhow. or the weapon systems.
Already there is the nuisance of EUMA ,CISMOA.
When we need to USE these planes,There will be an American Geoplitical objective like War on terror or something else which will clash with our interests.