MRCA News & Dicussions (IV)

[arya]

so , which fighter IAF should be flying to counter the incoming pakistani F-16 or chines SU-30MKK ....

is it the F-18 with high value ground targets attention..?

the same question we are asking from last 6 years and we have to wait at least 4 year more

my question is any single plane in MMRCA is capable to work with brahmos missile

 

[p2prada]

Little boys lay great emphasis on dog fight and dog fighting capabilities, we prefer to focus our attention on high value ground targets. Opponents that that take flight to challenge us are mere nuisance that must be dealt with as quickly as possible so our assets can quickly dismantle our enemies war making capability.

That was unfortunately not replicated in Cope India 2004. We used aircraft which are merely a nuisance to American aircraft. If you cannot take control of the skies, then you cannot attack those "high value ground targets."

The Hornets and Super Hornets are vital for establishing air superiority as they are your primary carrier borne aircraft. High value ground targets come last.

Anyway, the Hornet has a higher AoA compared to the Rafale or any other non TVC aircraft while Super Hornet is merely satisfactory. But, AoA is not the only factor for a WVR combat. Your thrust and instantaneous turn rates are easily the most important factors. A 40deg AoA at 200kmph will not help you if the Rafale can make 24deg turns at over 400kmph. Without the ability to stop mid air(TVC) the high AoA will not assist the Hornet in any way against a faster turning aircraft. The Rafale will simply run away from disadvantegous positions and fly back in to merge whenever it is required. The Hornet cannot make the same decisions. It's either kill or be killed.

Super Hornet's advantageous are far lesser compared to the Hornet in that respect. Nothing beats it as a bomb truck but its only advantage over the Rafale is a superior radar.

The EF-2000 is better than both aircraft in that respect when it comes to an air battle. It can loiter at really high altitudes and can come down on either aircraft at astounding speeds. Rafale may be able to decrease the gap by a margin with an engine upgrade though.

There is no chance for the Super Hornet to match either aircraft once Rafale gets its new engines.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

the same question we are asking from last 6 years and we have to wait at least 4 year more

my question is any single plane in MMRCA is capable to work with bhramos missile

No one can lift Bhramos, but Rafale can carry Scalp which have almost the range of Bhramos, It use Stealth deign where Bhramos use speed..
Scalp = 250km
Bhramos = 300km

Storm Shadow is an air-launched cruise missile, manufactured by MBDA and used by France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Greece. Storm Shadow is the British name for the weapon; in French service it is called SCALP EG (Emploi Général, meaning General Purpose)

 

[Armand2REP]

You obviously don't know much about military aviation or air combat so I'll cut you some slack.

Oh yes, please educate me oh great master who doesn't know a Hornet when he sees one. lol

I did not claim the Hornet is invincible, you on the other said "The Hornet has been whooped by MiG-29" I merely presented HUD video as evidence to counter that claim of whooped. You do know what whooped means don't you?

A victory ratio of 2:1 is generally called whooped, especially when fighting an outdated aircraft like MiG-29As.

In close air combat the pilot that starts with a positional advantage typically wins. Our pilots have been trained to avoid turning death traps simply because in a turning fight the outcome is uncertain.

Thats funny considering two of the losses came from F-18s spiraling below the simulated deck.

Little boys lay great emphasis on dog fight and dog fighting capabilities, we prefer to focus our attention on high value ground targets. Opponents that that take flight to challenge us are mere nuisance that must be dealt with as quickly as possible so our assets can quickly dismantle our enemies war making capability.

Thats funny considering yesterday you were telling us how great a dog-fighter the Hornet is. Engage at under 10,000ft and chances are it will crash when it goes into its flailing leaf death stall. You want to make the case for the Super Hornet's payload go ahead, I can counter that just as easily. Rafale has better payload, range, hardpoints, built in jammer, and a lower RCS. Rafale is a better bomber any day of the week.

That said, the outcome of the MIG-29 vs Hornet close combat DACT was even with either aircraft failing to achieve superiority in close combat. Beyond visual range the MIG-29A was uncompetitive. So again your claim of 'whooped by MIG-29' is ridiculous.

The WINGs doc did not show engagement of MiG-29 at BVR. The BVR was against F-4s of which I already stated the Hornets beat them.

Yes, I did see the remainder of the video and all related videos but I missed the part where..

where in the video did this 'wiping' occur? I hope you know what wiping means?

The part where the flight of two Hornets was hit and the German voice came on and said "you are dead."

Again, where in the video did the Rafale pitch 40 degrees? The max AoA I saw was a wobbly 27 degrees :emot112:

First F-16 cut, he pitched up to about 38 and the warning came on top of the HUD. :emot112:

Yes fabricated gems by Rafale fanbooi's that are incapable of interpreting what they see.

You don't even know a Hornet when you see one... get some glasses.

I took the liberty of examining your video and capturing a few frames to expose your deception

It is so painfully obvious it is a Hornet. Your assertions are laughable.

Not only is it painfully obvious. I know for a fact it is since the only fighters that were at that JFTEX 2008-4 were Rafale's of 12th squadron and Hornets of CVW 8. It is pulled from the video operating aboard the Teddy Roosevelt. The only clip that isn't a Hornet is the night vision where two Rafales are tagging each other.

The Hornet appears once in your video, but since you don't know much about simulated close combat you probably don't know for safety close combat training requires separation of a 1000 ft to employ weapons the Hornet in your video is passing directly in front of the Rafale's nose well within the mandated 1000 ft separation. This isn't a video of a F-18 kill the planes in question are not engaged in combat simulated or otherwise. Next time you post garbage from youtube ask for adult supervision. :angry_10:

The Hornet appears 5 times in that video... 4 times are painfully obvious. The 5th is at a greater range than the picture can make out. If you bothered to watch it you would see them locked before they shoot across the screen as you are complaining they are too close. It is clear when they are too close because a big X pops up in the centre of the HUD, it was already locked before that. Clearly you do not have the first inkling of knowledge of what goes on in BFM or on a HUD.

The French claim a Raptor kill by a Mirage it may have happened like I said close combat is free for all anything can happen. But then you missed what was said by Lt Col Lansing Pilch about the exercise in UAE

"In every test we did, the Raptors just blew the competition out of the water."

ALA bothered to make a patch for it, so he obviously did it.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

That was unfortunately not replicated in Cope India 2004. We used aircraft which are merely a nuisance to American aircraft. If you cannot take control of the skies, then you cannot attack those "high value ground targets."

The Hornets and Super Hornets are vital for establishing air superiority as they are your primary carrier borne aircraft. High value ground targets come last.

Anyway, the Hornet has a higher AoA compared to the Rafale or any other non TVC aircraft while Super Hornet is merely satisfactory. But, AoA is not the only factor for a WVR combat. Your thrust and instantaneous turn rates are easily the most important factors. A 40deg AoA at 200kmph will not help you if the Rafale can make 24deg turns at over 400kmph. Without the ability to stop mid air(TVC) the high AoA will not assist the Hornet in any way against a faster turning aircraft. The Rafale will simply run away from disadvantegous positions and fly back in to merge whenever it is required. The Hornet cannot make the same decisions. It's either kill or be killed.

Super Hornet's advantageous are far lesser compared to the Hornet in that respect. Nothing beats it as a bomb truck but its only advantage over the Rafale is a superior radar.

The EF-2000 is better than both aircraft in that respect when it comes to an air battle. It can loiter at really high altitudes and can come down on either aircraft at astounding speeds. Rafale may be able to decrease the gap by a margin with an engine upgrade though.

There is no chance for the Super Hornet to match either aircraft once Rafale gets its new engines.

That was unfortunately not replicated in Cope India 2004.

How is Cope India 2004 relevant to this discussion – the Eagles were BVR limited to 12nm relegated to CAP against a numerically superior adversary? Our objective for Cope India 2004 was discovery, our pilots got kicked around by the IAF but we systematically beat the ego out of our pilots anyway.

Besides, the objective of a training mission is not winning its 'LEARNING' we learnt a lot from Cope India 2004 - what did the IAF learn? Except that USAF was happy to massage its ego.
That said, in my opinion Cope India '04 was a wasted opportunity for the IAF. Can the IAF reproduce the same results in war against an opponent as capable as us? My honest assessment from everything I know about the IAF is – NO!

Anyway, the Hornet has a higher AoA compared to the Rafale or any other non TVC aircraft while Super Hornet is merely satisfactory. But, AoA is not the only factor for a WVR combat. Your thrust and instantaneous turn rates are easily the most important factors. A 40deg AoA at 200kmph will not help you if the Rafale can make 24deg turns at over 400kmph. Without the ability to stop mid air(TVC) the high AoA will not assist the Hornet in any way against a faster turning aircraft. The Rafale will simply run away from disadvantegous positions and fly back in to merge whenever it is required. The Hornet cannot make the same decisions. It's either kill or be killed.

You think the Rafale, Raptor or the Sukhoi-MKI will fare any better against an all aspect tail deflection missile capable of sustaining over 50 G's. Depending on the pilot's physical condition and airframe characteristics a limit of 9-12 G's is imposed on aircraft maneuverability. In close combat the AIM-9X or Archer with JHMCS cannot be out maneuvered regardless of AoA or thrust vector – these missiles are faster and infinitely more maneuverable - there is no escape! In a turning fight or close combat all bets are off – aircraft superiority, pilot experience, TWR, TVC become secondary to situational awareness, counter measures and the ability to attack adversaries all around you including the ones at your 6.

The factors you describe come into play in a guns only engagement. In a guns fight the Hornet is hard to beat – but then again in today's world guns are in danger of being discarded as unnecessary weight. . Placard limits such as higher thrust, higher thrust to weight ratio look good on paper but up in the air the Hornet is able to out accelerate a MIG-29 from a starting speed of 150 knots to 400 knots. Despite the MIG-29 superior thrust engine, I've said this before air intake efficiency, engine snaps, acceleration is more important than top speed the Hornets engine is extremely responsive has NO after burner limit and the fuel controller allows unlimited throttle movement in all phases permitting engine cycle from idle to full AB.

Considering the sophistication and lethality of missiles, you need systems that provide situational awareness and 360 deg coverage, high sortie rates, you need efficient jammers, towed decoys, intelligent automated counter measures and most important you need a highly survivable airplane – one that can take a direct SAM hit and return to the battle field thirty minutes later with a new engine. Or, one that is able to RTB with its entire right wing destroyed.

American warplanes are meticulously tested to destruction, it is shot at, stress tested and blown up. The end result is a survivability index for each aircraft; this index varies according to the mission and aircraft configuration. The survivability index is used for mission planning and decision making. The idea is to scientifically predict an aircraft's mission worthiness and identify vulnerabilities before a pilot's life is risked in battle.

While the F/A-18's are battle proven, the Rafale, Gripen (Afghanistan doesn't count) and Typhoon are not. These systems may or may not be designed and tested for battlefield survivability – hence an element of uncertainty and risk in choosing a Euro Canard. For instance, the wing of the F/A-18 is made from titanium, the fuselage from a single piece composite super structure. Internal fuel storage is protected by Kevlar and composites, fuel additives and valves are designed to prevent explosion, the engine casing is made from Titanium. Little wonder, the F/A-18 was able to RTB after taking a direct SAM hit and the maintenance crew was able to replace the engine and repair the damage in under an hour.

On paper, both Rafale and Typhoon are exceptional and will enhance IAF capability. The issue is proven battlefield worthiness, sticker shock and cost of operations. In addition, both vendors are trying to incorporate new technology such as AESA in an attempt to remain competitive but are impaired by funding and integration challenges. ToT is certainly an advantage but since all three aircrafts have US content there is question mark on how much ToT will eventually be made available to India. All things considered, if the IAF is willing to fund some of the development and are prepared to wait while the vendor irons out all the issues then the Rafale or Typhoon are both good choices and will serve IAF well once technology maturity is achieved.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Oh yes, please educate me oh great master who doesn't know a Hornet when he sees one. lol

You can't get anything right can you :angry_10:, I am female so you say 'she' not 'he'.

Thats funny considering two of the losses came from F-18s spiraling below the simulated deck.

Thats funny considering yesterday you were telling us how great a dog-fighter the Hornet is. Engage at under 10,000ft and chances are it will crash when it goes into its flailing leaf death stall.

Sweetie, I really don't have time to indulge little children. But please do get an education, especially since it is so affordable in France.

The F/A-18 configuration was found to be extremely resistant to spins. (The pilot was required to maintain prospin controls for over 20 sec to promote a spin.) When spins were entered, recovery could be effected very quickly. In the spin tunnel tests, the F/A-18 model demonstrated the best spin recovery characteristics of any modern US fighter (as had the YF-17 configuration). During the limited model tests for spins, the phenomenon known as "falling leaf" was not encountered, but it became a problem in operational usage.

The falling-leaf maneuver originated during World War I as a flight training exercise. In this exercise, pilots intentionally stalled the aircraft and forced a series of incipient spins to the right and left. The aircraft descends as it rocks back and forth, much as a leaf does falling to the ground. In the early 1980's, an unintentional falling-leaf mode surfaced as a severe out-of-control problem during developmental flight tests of the F/A-18A. The out-of-control falling-leaf mode is a highly dynamic mode where the aircraft oscillates so that it is very difficult to reduce angle of attack and recover. The term "alpha hang-up" was used to describe this problem with the F/A-18 and it was a key driver in estab-lishing the aft center of gravity and the maneuvering limits for the aircraft. During early operational use of the F/A-18, the falling-leaf mode was rarely encountered; however, by the early 1990's increasingly aggressive maneuvering had exposed a susceptibility to the falling-leaf mode with numerous incidents and losses of aircraft.

In light of the growing falling-leaf problem on early models of the F/A-18, there was concern that the emerging F/A-18E/F, which was then preparing for developmental flight tests, would have the same problem. Falling-leaf susceptibility was extensively evaluated on the F/A-18E/F during the high-angle-of-attack flight-test program. While the unaugmented aircraft was shown to exhibit the falling-leaf mode, a new control system design was shown to be very effective in suppressing the mode and the falling-leaf problem was considered solved for that aircraft. Largely due to the success of the F/A-18E/F program, the Navy considered retrofitting earlier models of the F/A-18 with the updated control law for the purpose of eliminating the falling-leaf problem.

F/A-18A/B Hornet

 

[singlasapan]

which 1 according to you is better mig 35 or eurofighter typhoon??
i'll say typhoon as it is best and INDIA will become the 5th partner in the development of this project so it will also open doors to get upgraded typhoon in future!!!

 

[nrj]

which 1 according to you is better mig 35 or eurofighter typhoon??
i'll say typhoon as it is best and INDIA will become the 5th partner in the development of this project so it will also open doors to get upgraded typhoon in future!!!

EFT is very good platform buddy. But developing it further or even incorporating components to make it match with SH or Rafale in the respective parameters when India is part of development team will involve GOI funding the program. And this funding will in turn benefit other nations. In other words, Indian tax-payers will be putting their money so that European pilots can fly better EFT. Also EFT will take more time in completing IAF's requisites like AESA, A2G capabilities causing delays in induction.

BTW Welcome to the forums. Enjoy your time here....

 

[neo29]

^^^

There has been lot of been that has been wasted in this MMRCA process. And we have been hearing about EF Aesa and A2G capabilities short coming. It highly likely that a major progress will be achieved by the time the winner is selected. That is an affordable risk we can take since we took the same with Su-30 and made it into mki.

Remember we are facing 2 countries and one with a formidable AF. We need such a deadly plane to meet this match. To secure the skies any AF will need a deadly dog fighting machine especially when it comes to 2 AF on either side of the border. The other fighters may be just be meeting the so called IAF standards and requirement but in practical scenario only EF and Rafale can help us maintain supremacy in our skies.

 

[luckyy]

While the F/A-18's are battle proven, .....
.

F/A-18's are battle proven , against whom...the undertrained -underequiped iraqi airforce..

what about F/A-18's performance when put to counter the incoming pakistani F-16 or chines SU-30MKK..

 

[luckyy]

^^^
Remember we are facing 2 countries and one with a formidable AF. We need such a deadly plane to meet this match. To secure the skies any AF will need a deadly dog fighting machine especially when it comes to 2 AF on either side of the border. The other fighters may be just be meeting the so called IAF standards and requirement but in practical scenario only EF and Rafale can help us maintain supremacy in our skies.

which 1 according to you is better mig 35 or eurofighter typhoon??
i'll say typhoon as it is best and INDIA will become the 5th partner in the development of this project so it will also open doors to get upgraded typhoon in future!!!

to face a 2 front war IAF also need numbers , a total of 42 squadrens consisting of about 840 aircrafts , out of 840 , 300 would be MMRCA, ......EF and Rafale looks good at first glance , and we may manage our budget to buy the 126 initially ...but the main question is ...will we have money to to take this number to 300..

 

[Armand2REP]

You think the Rafale, Raptor or the Sukhoi-MKI will fare any better against an all aspect tail deflection missile capable of sustaining over 50 G's. Depending on the pilot's physical condition and airframe characteristics a limit of 9-12 G's is imposed on aircraft maneuverability. In close combat the AIM-9X or Archer with JHMCS cannot be out maneuvered regardless of AoA or thrust vector – these missiles are faster and infinitely more maneuverable - there is no escape! In a turning fight or close combat all bets are off – aircraft superiority, pilot experience, TWR, TVC become secondary to situational awareness, counter measures and the ability to attack adversaries all around you including the ones at your 6.

The Sidewinder is an IR homing missile, both the F-22 and Rafale have reduced IR signatures.


It will have a harder time seeing Rafale and F-22 until it is right on it. Flares will be much more effective from these fighters. At Mach 2.5 it lacks the closing speed and range of a better HMCS missile, MICA-IR. At nearly twice the speed, more than twice the range, same G limit and having a datalink there is nowhere to run from this missile. Raytheon is already trying to make the next Sidewinder more like the MICA-IR by adding a datalink and extending range.

The factors you describe come into play in a guns only engagement. In a guns fight the Hornet is hard to beat – but then again in today's world guns are in danger of being discarded as unnecessary weight. . Placard limits such as higher thrust, higher thrust to weight ratio look good on paper but up in the air the Hornet is able to out accelerate a MIG-29 from a starting speed of 150 knots to 400 knots. Despite the MIG-29 superior thrust engine, I've said this before air intake efficiency, engine snaps, acceleration is more important than top speed the Hornets engine is extremely responsive has NO after burner limit and the fuel controller allows unlimited throttle movement in all phases permitting engine cycle from idle to full AB.

No one is considering removing guns. Everyone learned that lesson over Vietnam when F-4s were shot down in droves when they could have survived with a gun. There is certainly no guarantee your missiles will kill the target before you merge. Especially if you are not in an AAW configuration. Facing a solid state jammer and LO RCS, it is likely radar homing will fail. That is why DGA developed MICA-IR and why Raytheon is developing a new Sidewinder.

You go on and on about the Hornet's throttle, it doesn't compare to Rafale that can go from idle to full afterburner in 4 seconds at any altitude.

American warplanes are meticulously tested to destruction, it is shot at, stress tested and blown up. The end result is a survivability index for each aircraft; this index varies according to the mission and aircraft configuration. The survivability index is used for mission planning and decision making. The idea is to scientifically predict an aircraft's mission worthiness and identify vulnerabilities before a pilot's life is risked in battle.

No fighter ever goes out expecting to be shot. There is no survivability index used for mission planning nor do they use scientific equations to assign missions. They pick which AVAILABLE asset can best accomplish the mission, not which one can survive getting shot. You pulled that one out of your derriere.

While the F/A-18's are battle proven, the Rafale, Gripen (Afghanistan doesn't count) and Typhoon are not. These systems may or may not be designed and tested for battlefield survivability – hence an element of uncertainty and risk in choosing a Euro Canard. For instance, the wing of the F/A-18 is made from titanium, the fuselage from a single piece composite super structure. Internal fuel storage is protected by Kevlar and composites, fuel additives and valves are designed to prevent explosion, the engine casing is made from Titanium. Little wonder, the F/A-18 was able to RTB after taking a direct SAM hit and the maintenance crew was able to replace the engine and repair the damage in under an hour.

The Super Hornet has the same battle record as the Rafale... bombing insurgents. The legacy Hornet has two kills against Iraqi MiG-21s. One Hornet was lost to a MiG-25. Not exactly a great A2A record when the F-15 and F-16s dwarf it. It certainly played its bombing part in the Gulf War and Kosovo, but Rafale and Super Hornet weren't even in service back then so it is irrelevant to compare. Everyone uses titanium for high stress points so nothing special there. Rafale uses more composites which make it lighter and lowers RCS.

On paper, both Rafale and Typhoon are exceptional and will enhance IAF capability. The issue is proven battlefield worthiness, sticker shock and cost of operations. In addition, both vendors are trying to incorporate new technology such as AESA in an attempt to remain competitive but are impaired by funding and integration challenges. ToT is certainly an advantage but since all three aircrafts have US content there is question mark on how much ToT will eventually be made available to India. All things considered, if the IAF is willing to fund some of the development and are prepared to wait while the vendor irons out all the issues then the Rafale or Typhoon are both good choices and will serve IAF well once technology maturity is achieved.

The Super Hornet hasn't proven anything more than Rafale, they both have only been in low threat bombing environments. We have already seen first hand Rafale defeating Super Hornets on numerous occasions and read testimony from a USN and Rafale pilot at JFTEX that confirmed Rafale was the more nimble fighter. Rafale made it through the entire bombing campaign of Red Flag with zero losses to enemy SAMs. Hornets have never done that.

AESA development for the Rafale was completed in 2009 and been in full production since. Dassault received its first production RBE2-AA in Q3 2010. It is comparable to the APG-79 on all levels.

 

[p2prada]

How is Cope India 2004 relevant to this discussion – the Eagles were BVR limited to 12nm relegated to CAP against a numerically superior adversary? Our objective for Cope India 2004 was discovery, our pilots got kicked around by the IAF but we systematically beat the ego out of our pilots anyway.

Besides, the objective of a training mission is not winning its 'LEARNING' we learnt a lot from Cope India 2004 - what did the IAF learn? Except that USAF was happy to massage its ego.
That said, in my opinion Cope India '04 was a wasted opportunity for the IAF. Can the IAF reproduce the same results in war against an opponent as capable as us? My honest assessment from everything I know about the IAF is – NO!

Those are the numbers the US will soon be facing against any major enemy. Also out of 12 aircraft that flew from India's side, 4 were simulating bombers. The rest were Mirage-2000s, Mig-21s and Su-30K(not MKI). The AWACS support was some random transport plane. Also, the Su-30s were not equipped with radars or their older radars were turned off. The Bars came only on the MKI along with TVC. So, it was effectively 2:1. The most advanced aircraft flying in CI-2004 was the F-15C.

Fox 3 was not simulated entirely from the Indian side in a number of missions, but that did not prevent the F-15s from fighting back in WVR. 90% loss against an enemy with more numbers(2x) but
less capable planes isn't a joke. In another 10 years, the Chinese will match you plane for plane, what then?

You can bet our learning experience was much more than the USAF. The military works beyond self gratifying pilot egos. My main reason to bring it was was your comment on the "merely nuisance and high value targets comment."

Will your Hornet beat superior performing aircraft like the Flanker? Technology is limited. That talk about not getting into dog fights is merely media gimmick to keep god knows who happy. Without getting into knife fights, there is no way your airforce can win. Forget hitting high value targets, you will not be able to touch enemy aircraft which carry more fuel than any of your aircraft. Missiles are overrated. Nothing beats the gun.

You think the Rafale, Raptor or the Sukhoi-MKI will fare any better against an all aspect tail deflection missile capable of sustaining over 50 G's. Depending on the pilot's physical condition and airframe characteristics a limit of 9-12 G's is imposed on aircraft maneuverability. In close combat the AIM-9X or Archer with JHMCS cannot be out maneuvered regardless of AoA or thrust vector – these missiles are faster and infinitely more maneuverable - there is no escape! In a turning fight or close combat all bets are off – aircraft superiority, pilot experience, TWR, TVC become secondary to situational awareness, counter measures and the ability to attack adversaries all around you including the ones at your 6.

50Gs does not mean superior maneuverability. The aircraft doing 9 to 11 Gs is far superior to any missile you can throw at it because it is slower than a missile. Also, missiles are quite dumb. Easy to fool. The probability of a hit is always low with missiles. Nothing beats the gun unless you come out with some kind of directed energy weapon with multiple shots.

The factors you describe come into play in a guns only engagement. In a guns fight the Hornet is hard to beat – but then again in today's world guns are in danger of being discarded as unnecessary weight. . Placard limits such as higher thrust, higher thrust to weight ratio look good on paper but up in the air the Hornet is able to out accelerate a MIG-29 from a starting speed of 150 knots to 400 knots. Despite the MIG-29 superior thrust engine, I've said this before air intake efficiency, engine snaps, acceleration is more important than top speed the Hornets engine is extremely responsive has NO after burner limit and the fuel controller allows unlimited throttle movement in all phases permitting engine cycle from idle to full AB.

It depends on the altitude.Also, the current generation Mig-29ks and smts are much better performing than before. There is no point if you can out accelerate the Mig-29 in a straight line if the Mig can only climb up faster and come behind you even faster. Dog fights isn't like quarter mile drags. Please don't compare the aerodynamics of the Mig-29 with a Hornet. The Hornet falls short big time. The "export" model Mig-29 has a 2:1 kill ratio. maybe more, against the Hornet. Forget even talking about the Flanker.

Considering the sophistication and lethality of missiles, you need systems that provide situational awareness and 360 deg coverage, high sortie rates, you need efficient jammers, towed decoys, intelligent automated counter measures and most important you need a highly survivable airplane – one that can take a direct SAM hit and return to the battle field thirty minutes later with a new engine. Or, one that is able to RTB with its entire right wing destroyed.

Star wars fan?
There is no such relentless missile in the world that cannot be beaten by jammers on superior platforms. This includes the AIM-9x. Missiles are meant to keep an aircraft engaged in fuel inefficient maneuvers, nothing more.

American warplanes are meticulously tested to destruction, it is shot at, stress tested and blown up. The end result is a survivability index for each aircraft; this index varies according to the mission and aircraft configuration. The survivability index is used for mission planning and decision making. The idea is to scientifically predict an aircraft's mission worthiness and identify vulnerabilities before a pilot's life is risked in battle.

3 shots from a MKI into any fighter you have from any angle is enough to decommission the aircraft. 30mm cannons are not for show. Lockheed came running back with a gun for the F-35 once they realized their mistake. It carries a bigger and more powerful gun than even the Raptor.

While the F/A-18's are battle proven, the Rafale, Gripen (Afghanistan doesn't count) and Typhoon are not. These systems may or may not be designed and tested for battlefield survivability – hence an element of uncertainty and risk in choosing a Euro Canard. For instance, the wing of the F/A-18 is made from titanium, the fuselage from a single piece composite super structure. Internal fuel storage is protected by Kevlar and composites, fuel additives and valves are designed to prevent explosion, the engine casing is made from Titanium. Little wonder, the F/A-18 was able to RTB after taking a direct SAM hit and the maintenance crew was able to replace the engine and repair the damage in under an hour.

The plane was merely lucky. Take a direct hit from a 30mm shell and the plane needs much more than luck to get flying again after only a pain job. All that's cute on a brochure but real life is different. Electronics and Kevlar will not protect you against 30mm slugs flying 6 times faster than you can fly. A gun gives a 100% guaranteed kill. A short range missile is less than 50% while a BVR is less than 30%.

On paper, both Rafale and Typhoon are exceptional and will enhance IAF capability. The issue is proven battlefield worthiness, sticker shock and cost of operations. In addition, both vendors are trying to incorporate new technology such as AESA in an attempt to remain competitive but are impaired by funding and integration challenges. ToT is certainly an advantage but since all three aircrafts have US content there is question mark on how much ToT will eventually be made available to India. All things considered, if the IAF is willing to fund some of the development and are prepared to wait while the vendor irons out all the issues then the Rafale or Typhoon are both good choices and will serve IAF well once technology maturity is achieved.

Raptor, F-35 as well as the much vaunted AESA is not battle proven. Neither is the PAKFA nor the MKI. We will be using the MRCA fighters for 30-40 years at least. All vendors have given a time frame of 3-5 years for operationalizing the AESA on their aircraft and that fits our timetable by a large extent. Most other systems have already been tested. The Super Hornet gives awesome capabilities, but in the long run I would find the capabilities of the Rafale or EF-2000 as a much better alternative especially considering we have to fight over the Himalayas and the delta wing has its own unique advantages..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Some Pics!

 

[death.by.chocolate]

No fighter ever goes out expecting to be shot. There is no survivability index used for mission planning nor do they use scientific equations to assign missions. They pick which AVAILABLE asset can best accomplish the mission, not which one can survive getting shot. You pulled that one out of your derriere.

Vouz avez plein de merde..

Survivability testing is mandated by Congress, the guidelines for the general program are contained in DoD MILHDBK-2069A.Here is an image of a Hornet being shot at with a missile, we have dedicated facilities like the one at NAWCWD China Lake where our planes are shot at for damage assessment and vulnerability against all known and emerging threats. The JSF is currently undergoing testing but I fully understand the French can't afford to blow up an expensive Rafale.

Like I said before, I really don't have the time to educate you why don't go back to school and take advantage of the fine affordable French education that my tax Euro is funding.

5.2.4 Mission-threat encounter analvsis (Task 4). An analysis should be performed to
determine the nonnuclear and nuclear threats encountered during each mission and mission phase
and the frequencies and geometries of such encounters. The missions, flight profiles and threat
environments will be specified by the contracting activity. An analysis of threats resulting from
enemy action should be conducted for each applicable mission and/or mission phase. The analysis
should be conducted as early as possible, preferably during the concept exploration and definition
phase, and updated as fiture threat environments are identified and as more comprehensive
mission and threat definitions are developed. If applicable, coordination with the appropriate
agency responsible for establishing nuclear hardness criteria is essential. Results of the analysis
should identi~ the susceptibility features of the system that determine its probability of exposure
or hit by threat weapon effects. These results form the basis for required survivability
assessments, tradeoff studies and design efforts. The contracting activity will identi$ the DID for
contractual specification of the details to be included in the analysis.

http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-HDBK/MIL-HDBK+(2000+-+2999)/download.php?spec=MIL-HDBK-2069.004169.PDF

 

[nrj]

^^^

There has been lot of been that has been wasted in this MMRCA process. And we have been hearing about EF Aesa and A2G capabilities short coming It highly likely that a major progress will be achieved by the time the winner is selected. That is an affordable risk we can take since we took the same with Su-30 and made it into mki.

EFT's new AESA radar not operational till 2015. I don't think winner is selected by 2015 for IAF's MRCA.

Risk can be taken on EFT as its a very potent platform provided GOI is not funding the development giving advantages to other EFT operators.

 

[Armand2REP]

5.2.4 Mission-threat encounter analvsis (Task 4). An analysis should be performed to
determine the nonnuclear and nuclear threats encountered during each mission and mission phase
and the frequencies and geometries of such encounters. The missions, flight profiles and threat
environments will be specified by the contracting activity. An analysis of threats resulting from
enemy action should be conducted for each applicable mission and/or mission phase. The analysis
should be conducted as early as possible, preferably during the concept exploration and definition
phase, and updated as fiture threat environments are identified and as more comprehensive
mission and threat definitions are developed. If applicable, coordination with the appropriate
agency responsible for establishing nuclear hardness criteria is essential. Results of the analysis
should identi~ the susceptibility features of the system that determine its probability of exposure
or hit by threat weapon effects. These results form the basis for required survivability
assessments, tradeoff studies and design efforts. The contracting activity will identi$ the DID for
contractual specification of the details to be included in the analysis.

http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-HDBK/MIL-HDBK+(2000+-+2999)/download.php?spec=MIL-HDBK-2069.004169.PDF

That is for NBC hardening... do you not bother to read the crap you post?

Vouz avez plein de merde..

Like I said before, I really don't have the time to educate you why don't go back to school and take advantage of the fine affordable French education that my tax Euro is funding.

Do you teach at the University of Phoenix? That isn't worth the paper you print your degree on.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

That is for NBC hardening... do you not bother to read the crap you post?

Of course I did read and understand the material, unlike you I do not have a problem comprehending the material I read.
:emot15:
I am still waiting for answers to my earlier questions about Rafale. Take your time sweetie, I understand it takes time for your feeble intellect to make $hit up.

applies to combat and combat support aircraft expected to
be exposed to nonnuclear (i.e., conventional, chemical, biological, and directed energy) and
nuclear threat environments. It is applicable to new and existing major and supporting non-major
system acquisition programs, including relevant strategic and non-strategic systems. This
handbook also applies to aircraft systems designated as requiring nuclear survivability, nuclear
survivability high altitude electromagnetic pulse (EMP) only, and nuclear biological chemical
(NBC) contamination survivability in accordance with DoDD 4245.4, DoDD 3150.3 and
DoD14245.13.

5.2.7 Damage modes and effects analvsis (DMEA) (Task 7). The. DMEA. Including crew
essential fi.mctions, is threat-dependent. It associates the failures identified in the FMECA with
the ability of primary and secondary threat weapon effects to cause such failures. The DMEA
quantifies the response of each critical component to the threat weapon effects and determines
what impact, if any, this response has on other subsystems or components. It also determines if a
hazardous environment can be created when a noncritical component is subjected to the type and
level of damage specified. The DMEA is a prerequisite for a in.dnerability analysis and a separate
DMEA will be performed for each specified threat category. Weapon effects to which a
component may be exposed can typically be categorized under one or more of the following:
a. Conventional weapons — penetration, kinetic energy (impact), ignition, blast.
b. Nuclear weapons — blast (overpressure and gust), thermal radiation, initial and residual
ionizing radiation, electromagnetic pulse; dust and debris.
c. Directed energy weapons — burnthrough, rapid heating, ignition, thermal shock, stress,
electronics overload and E-O sensor disabling.
d. Chemical

 

[Armand2REP]

Of course I did read and understand the material, unlike you I do not have a problem comprehending the material I read.
:emot15:
I am still waiting for answers to my earlier questions about Rafale. Take your time sweetie, I understand it takes time for your feeble intellect to make $hit up.

Seriously, why don't you read what it is you are quoting? You only look like an idiot when you don't.

2. This handbook is for guidance only. This handbook cannot be cited as a requirement. If it is,
the contractor does not have to comply.

This handbook provides guidance to system program offices, contracting activities and
contractors for the establishment and conduct of aircraft survivability programs. It also includes
guidance for the formulation and contractual specification of quantitative survivability
requirements which may be tailored into statements of work, system or item specifications and
contract data requirements.

This is a handbook for contractors... duh

 

[wildboar]

There is a three way out
Leave F18 , F18 & Mig35

Increase the order to 300 and Split it between Eurofighter, Rafale and Griffen
Since the Order is significant for survival of SAAB we can force it for complete TOT and ask it for participating for India's fresh 5th Generation MCA or AMCA here SAAB help us to overcome problems we have faced in LCA
also griffen would be good bet against the Chinese in NEF sector due to its ability to land and take off form short runways and instant hot fueling system.
Since this order would mark survival or demise of SAAB we should try to maximize the maximum possible from it .
Also SAAB should be asked for re-engine the Griffen with either Eurojet-2000 or RD93 as to reduce uncle sam's any hold if any
Also EF2000 and Rafale are good aircrafts for IAF