MRCA News & Discussions

[vnomad]

---

---

Eurofighter?

What do you like about it? lets get personal for sometime.

Agility, maneuverability, supercruise, low observability etc.

It doesn't even have AESA and not sure when they are going to make it operational.

It has a flight tested AESA. The EF GmbH is offering an aircraft with the production variant of the CAESAR.

Sold so many though not yet qualified for Ground attack.

Has had a ground attack capability for quite a while now. Had a long debate with Sancho over this... you'll find all links about 3-4 pages back.

There are they going with it? Rafale had operational AESA during trials when it was sent to India.

That was an operating AESA but not an operational AESA. The RBE2-AA is scheduled to enter service only after 2012.

[jha]

thanks vnomad for answering....
anyways i would certainly not like to see india paying double or more than that of the price for upgrades....also i said euro with aesa....read the posts carefully then go personal

[Peace Sells no one buying]

Super Hornet does not have much going for it, regarding top speed -- and it's a far cry from their technology demonstrator (the F-18 HARV) when it comes to handling. Right now their purpoted radar is the best -- getting a 'dumbed down' version of it is an insult to the money India is willing to pay for the product.

I know that the USA would have issues with ToT; this and the potential lack of future support (if India does something the USA doesn't like -- or more likely, India does something that some other nation that the USA owes a lot of money to doesn't like -- then we can forget it, and ask Iran how those F-14's are working out) makes a US Fighter a tricky issue to navigate.

If the Boeing attempts to sell a 'dumbed down' version then India should counter with a 'dumbed down' price.

[sancho]

Yesterday I had a chat with my friend again whose father is involved in the Evaluations.
He states that SH18 is almost confirm, but The order my be split to accommodate a few Rafales.

Hard to believe, because of no commonality and rising costs.

EF was the best or Even Rafales, had the cost been lower.

How can somebody say EF was the best, if it wasn't even in India for the trials?

I think we should do this.
Select F18 and get the latest ASEA radar for it.
If they cannot give us TOT for ASEA completly then take TOT on dumbed down ASEA if that is worth it and try develop over it.
Delink both.

First of all,the article says that we won't get the latest AESA and if we get radar ToT it will only of the less capable. Why should we pay so much and still try to develop the techs, if we have so many other options?

[sancho]

Agility, maneuverability, supercruise, low observability etc.

Already available through MKI, so no real points for IAF. And the last simulations in UAE seems to show that the Rafale aren't much behind EF, if at all.

It has a flight tested AESA. The EF GmbH is offering an aircraft with the production variant of the CAESAR.

Still a long way to go to that goal, latest news from a German forum, UK wants their Selsex swashplate AESA (that is available for Gripen NG too), Germany wants fixed AESA (for obvious reasons, because swashplate is against initial intention of AESA) , ITA still says no AESA needed. Decision about a possible AESA is now further delayed from end of dec, to somewhere in first quarter of 2010. Operational AESA in 2013? Hard to believe!

Has had a ground attack capability for quite a while now. Had a long debate with Sancho over this... you'll find all links about 3-4 pages back.

Yes and as I said before, it's actually nowhere near to be comparable with Rafale, or F18s capabilities in this role.
Latest news about Tranche 3, it should get AESA (see above), HMS, TVC and Meteor. Other weapons on customer request! Anything else is still unsure, especially because the tranche is splited into 3A and 3B, so the useful weapons could come way later, or not at all.

That was an operating AESA but not an operational AESA. The RBE2-AA is scheduled to enter service only after 2012.

Which is still 2 years before the first MMRCA fighter will be delivered and one year before the EF AESA is intended to be integrated in consortium fighters. Sounds good to me!

[gogbot]

Dude fyi, Boeing has offered a lot to India, not everything is in open. do not underestimate Indians when it comes to bargain.

In fact Boeing is increasing its presence in India and will add to some knowledge transfer to Indians.

We are not getting a bad deal trust me.

Dude i am well aware what Boeing has to offer.

The U.S. Navy operates over 340 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets (with 411 on order), and is presently the only user of the aircraft. Australia is buying 24 F/A-18Fs, and Boeing is trying to gain other contracts as well. The MMRCA contract represents a prime opportunity for U.S. defence companies to gain a foothold in the Indian defence market, which is estimated to be about US$100 billion in the next 10 years.

Initially, the Request for Information (RFI) was not issued to Boeing, which decided to field the Super Hornet. The U.S. Government allowed Boeing to participate in the RFI, and later gave permission for RFP (Request For Proposal) as well. However, any sale of aircraft will need to be approved by the U.S. Congress.

Initial reactions within the IAF were enthusiastic, although there were apprehensions of support issues in case of future sanctions. There were concern over the availability of the Super Hornet's APG-79 AESA radar, but export of the radar has been approved by the U.S. government. The US has stated that there would be some restrictions and pre-conditions for the purchase of the aircraft.

On 24 April 2008, Boeing (through the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi) submitted their 7000-page proposal to the Ministry of Defence, before the April 28 deadline for the submission for proposals. The Super Hornet variant being offered to India, the F/A-18IN, is based on the F/A-18E/F model flown by the U.S. Navy and currently being built for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Raytheon's APG-79 AESA radar is being offered on the aircraft. There will be a limited ToT on the radar, up to the level approved by the US Government. However, Raytheon has stated that the level of ToT offered will be compliant with the RFP requirements. Delivery of the first F/A-18IN Super Hornets can begin approximately 36 months after contract award.

Boeing has proposed joint manufacture of the jets with Indian partners. It also plans to offset the cost by setting up a US$100 million maintenance and training hub in Nagpur. This is the first time the Super Hornet has been offered for production in a foreign country.On 14 February 2008, Boeing and Tata Industries agreed to form a joint-venture company. The new entity, which will be formed in June 2008, will supply components for Boeing military aircraft, including the Super Hornet, the P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, the CH-47 Chinook and Apache longbow.

In order to satisfy its offset requirements, Boeing has signed long-term partnership agreements with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Tata Industries, and Larsen and Toubro, who will play a significant role in production and assembly of the aircraft.

Boeing: Boeing Delivers Proposal to Equip Indian Air Force with Super Hornet Fighters

Boeing seeks leverage on Indian fighter order: AINonline

Boeing is participating in almost every tender associated with the IAF.
Boeing as a company has plans for India.

But the problem is the US state department, they dont want technology which they consider crucial to national interest in our hands. Boeing can do anything about this, if it were up to them of course they want to be just as competitive as the Europeans and Russians have been.

What i really think is going to decide this competition is the negotiations between the US state department and India. And how much the US is going to to give up as it were.

On another note the F-18 is the most cost effective bid on the table.
Im just saying if MoF has tier way again.

[vnomad]

Already available through MKI, so no real points for IAF.

Maneuverability yes, but no aircraft with the exception of the F-22 can match the Eurofighter's agility. And it is generally considered to have a lower radar footprint than the Rafale.

And the last simulations in UAE seems to show that the Rafale aren't much behind EF, if at all.

I can't comment on that without more information.

Still a long way to go to that goal, latest news from a German forum, UK wants their Selsex swashplate AESA (that is available for Gripen NG too), Germany wants fixed AESA (for obvious reasons, because swashplate is against initial intention of AESA) , ITA still says no AESA needed. Decision about a possible AESA is now further delayed from end of dec, to somewhere in first quarter of 2010. Operational AESA in 2013? Hard to believe!

Because the current AESA development in industry funded rather than funded by the Eurofighter consortium. If flight testing of an AESA was possible in 2007, why can't an operational unit be available within seven years from that time?

In any case, the bottom line is that the EF's offer to the IAF includes an operational AESA. If they figure that it can be done, its good enough for me.

Yes and as I said before, it's actually nowhere near to be comparable with Rafale, or F18s capabilities in this role.

I'm still waiting for your justification on that issue. We already established that the Eurofighter if and when delivered to India(2013-) will be a mature variant with a full ground attack capability and all cleared weapons in full service. So, how exactly will the Eurofighter be limited vis-a-vis the Rafale?

Latest news about Tranche 3, it should get AESA (see above), HMS, TVC and Meteor. Other weapons on customer request!

Sounds good. Though the HMS has been operational since the very beginning AFAIK.

Also, addition of conformal fuel tanks is one of the things the RAF is working on. Estimated to be operational around 2012.

Anything else is still unsure, especially because the tranche is splited into 3A and 3B, so the useful weapons could come way later, or not at all.

India's order is independent of the scale or composition of Tranche 3. That said I don't believe any useful weapon has been excluded from the Tranche 3A batch.

Which is still 2 years before the first MMRCA fighter will be delivered and one year before the EF AESA is intended to be integrated in consortium fighters. Sounds good to me!

Sure.. no one's denying the Rafale will get the AESA before MRCA deliveries are expected.

Though, the Eurofighter's AESA is expected to have over 1400 T/R modules as opposed to somewhere over a 1000 on the RBE2 AA on the Rafale.

[sancho]

Dude i am well aware what Boeing has to offer.



Boeing: Boeing Delivers Proposal to Equip Indian Air Force with Super Hornet Fighters

Boeing seeks leverage on Indian fighter order: AINonline

Boeing is participating in almost every tender associated with the IAF.
Boeing as a company has plans for India.

But the problem is the US state department, they dont want technology which they consider crucial to national interest in our hands. Boeing can do anything about this, if it were up to them of course they want to be just as competitive as the Europeans and Russians have been.

What i really think is going to decide this competition is the negotiations between the US state department and India. And how much the US is going to to give up as it were.

On another note the F-18 is the most cost effective bid on the table.
Im just saying if MoF has tier way again.

Can you explain that, because would say the Mig and even more the Gripen will be the most cost-effective bids. Mig has already a good base in IAF and comes with low unit cost, Gripen NG is said to be even cheaper and by the fact that it is a single engine fighter, the operational costs must be the lowest.
F18, Rafale and EF should be the costliest bids and as I said before F18 might be a bit cheaper in unit cost, but means additional cost for weapons that most of the other IAF fighters can't use.
If IAF wants to reduce costs, by increasing commonality, reducing different types of weapons should be an aim too.

[gogbot]

Can you explain that, because would say the Mig and even more the Gripen will be the most cost-effective bids. Mig has already a good base in IAF and comes with low unit cost, Gripen NG is said to be even cheaper and by the fact that it is a single engine fighter, the operational costs must be the lowest.
F18, Rafale and EF should be the costliest bids and as I said before F18 might be a bit cheaper in unit cost, but means additional cost for weapons that most of the other IAF fighters can't use.
If IAF wants to reduce costs, by increasing commonality, reducing different types of weapons should be an aim too.

Well lets understand the aspects here.

The only real contenders are the Europeans and the Americans.

Mig-35 is not ready yet. And the likely hood that the MOD will select another Russian aircraft is Highly unlikely. SO even if the MOF says get Mig the MOD would say NO.

The Griphen NG does not even meet the IAF doctrine.

And out of that Its widely know the IAF wants a twin engine plane.

So the only aircraft we really can get are the F-18, Euro-fighter and Rafael.

If any of the other aircraft's are chosen it would be unexpected.

But IF the deal is going anywhere like its is speculated on.

Also i like to remind you that The F-18 has a large production line.
So economies of scale brings the price down in comparison to other aircraft also,

"One of the concerns here in India is the cost of owning and maintaining combat fighters over their lifetime," said Vivek Lall, Boeing IDS vice president and India country head. "The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet offers a very attractive life-cycle-cost dynamic, since the fighter won't need a scheduled visit to a maintenance depot until it has clocked a minimum of 6,000 hours of flying time, and even well beyond that."

F-18 is the most cost effective twin engine fighter out there.

and like i said it probably most cost effective that any European option.

With the only other competing in terms of price being the MIg and the F-16.

Both of which are out due to strategic concerns.

[sancho]

The Griphen NG does not even meet the IAF doctrine.

And out of that Its widely know the IAF wants a twin engine plane.

Must disagree here, the original MRCA competition was between Gripen C/D, F16 B52, Mirage 2k-9 and Mig 29SMT, so IAF indeed wanted a single engine fighters! Only with Dassault rejecting Mirage 2k and introducing Rafale, things changes, because after that fighters like F18SH and EF came into the game too.
Also keep in mind we are not searching for a main fighter for the next several decades, we already have it with MKI and are co-developing the next one with Russia. So MMRCA was only meant as an addition to those, what also makes single engine fighters preferable for IAF, in terms of cost.

Also i like to remind you that The F-18 has a large production line.
So economies of scale brings the price down in comparison to other aircraft also,

EF has orders for around 700 fighters and is still the costliest, F18 instead has only a single export customer, that also only buys 24 of them, so that can't be the reason for lower costs right? Imo the high Euro and the higher production costs in Europe are the reasons for such high costs.

F-18 is the most cost effective twin engine fighter out there.

Any source for that?

[gogbot]

Must disagree here, the original MRCA competition was between Gripen C/D, F16 B52, Mirage 2k-9 and Mig 29SMT, so IAF indeed wanted a single engine fighters! Only with Dassault rejecting Mirage 2k and introducing Rafale, things changes, because after that fighters like F18SH and EF came into the game too.

Also keep in mind we are not searching for a main fighter for the next several decades, we already have it with MKI and are co-developing the next one with Russia. So MMRCA was only meant as an addition to those, what also makes single engine fighters preferable for IAF, in terms of cost.

EF has orders for around 700 fighters and is still the costliest, F18 instead has only a single export customer, that also only buys 24 of them, so that can't be the reason for lower costs right? Imo the high Euro and the higher production costs in Europe are the reasons for such high costs.

Any source for that?

Must disagree here, the original MRCA competition was between Gripen C/D, F16 B52, Mirage 2k-9 and Mig 29SMT, so IAF indeed wanted a single engine fighters! Only with Dassault rejecting Mirage 2k and introducing Rafale, things changes, because after that fighters like F18SH and EF came into the game too.

If the F-35 was ready there would be no need for this competition.
If Pak did not field the F-16. At the very least we would have gotten the F-16.

That leaves us with only one single engine fighter the Griphen NG .
Which is not even ready yet. Let alone out of all the companies participating this is the smallest One.

fro some reason i find my self seeing the Griphen as irrelevant when compared with the big guns on offer.

Also as i understand it The Griphen was not designed as a Air superiority fighter. Which makes me question its Multi-role capabilities.
Given it already has the Performance handicap of Being single engine.
As well as carry the least amount of Payload.

And the most significant problem with the Griphen is that it uses a significant chunk of American technology in its systems making the ToT more difficult.

meaning it has all the problems of the f-18 with none of the benefits

Also keep in mind we are not searching for a main fighter for the next several decades, we already have it with MKI and are co-developing the next one with Russia. So MMRCA was only meant as an addition to those, what also makes single engine fighters preferable for IAF, in terms of cost

MMRCA- Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft

The aircraft has to be Multi-role. That's the key aspect they are looking for the best aircraft that can engage in both Air superiority and Strike missions seamlessly.

Well how many aircraft can do that.

the only real true Multi role aircraft are the F-18 and Rafael.

Why its because of the way they were designed.

with intentions of operating on Carriers and Land. Any aircraft operating of a carrier has proven Multi-role capability as well as versatility.

EF has orders for around 700 fighters and is still the costliest, F18 instead has only a single export customer, that also only buys 24 of them, so that can't be the reason for lower costs right? Imo the high Euro and the higher production costs in Europe are the reasons for such high costs.

I cant offer much info on that other than the fact that its Widely considered that the European option is more expensive.

All i have to show Boeing cost effectiveness is from here

Boeing: Boeing Delivers Proposal to Equip Indian Air Force with Super Hornet Fighters

[sancho]

If the F-35 was ready there would be no need for this competition.

No doubt about that!

fro some reason i find my self seeing the Griphen as irrelevant when compared with the big guns on offer.

I also don't like to see Gripen NG in IAF, because of LCA and the dependance on foreign parts, but these are our personal opinions and don't have to be the way IAF thinks right?

Also as i understand it The Griphen was not designed as a Air superiority fighter. Which makes me question its Multi-role capabilities.
Given it already has the Performance handicap of Being single engine.
As well as carry the least amount of Payload.

I think there is a misunderstanding here! Gripen NG indeed is a Multi role fighter (able to be used in air superiority and strike roles), otherwise it would have been out before the trials had started. It's designed for interception just like LCA, but in the NG version with better payload and a2g capabilities. And the payload is by far not much inferior, 6 t for NG, 6,5-7t for the Mig, 7t for EF.
All contenders are multi role fighters, the difference is mainly that some are better in a2a with secondary a2g capabilities (EF, or Mig) and some the other way around (F18SH).

[gogbot]

No doubt about that!

I also don't like to see Gripen NG in IAF, because of LCA and the dependance on foreign parts, but these are our personal opinions and don't have to be the way IAF thinks right?

I think there is a misunderstanding here! Gripen NG indeed is a Multi role fighter (able to be used in air superiority and strike roles), otherwise it would have been out before the trials had started. It's designed for interception just like LCA, but in the NG version with better payload and a2g capabilities. And the payload is by far not much inferior, 6 t for NG, 6,5-7t for the Mig, 7t for EF.
All contenders are multi role fighters, the difference is mainly that some are better in a2a with secondary a2g capabilities (EF, or Mig) and some the other way around (F18SH).

you know i have actually been looking into it and Its surprising how similar the Griphen is to the LCA.

And the Gripehn NG to the LCA-Mk-2

In fact its just freaky how similar they are.
Even the Upgrades for the NG are the same as the Upgrades for the LCA-mk2.

No way we should pay 40-60 Mill for plane we can get for 25 mill

[sancho]

you know i have actually been looking into it and Its surprising how similar the Griphen is to the LCA.

And the Gripehn NG to the LCA-Mk-2

In fact its just freaky how similar they are.
Even the Upgrades for the NG are the same as the Upgrades for the LCA-mk2.

No way we should pay 40-60 Mill for plane we can get for 25 mill

Yes if IAF and HAL go for the right techs!
Consider a LCA MK2 with EJ 200 engine + TVC (~5,5t emptyweight and ~95kN thrust, compared to ~7t and 98kN of Gripen NG), both with AESA radars and latest EW systems. The only advantage in a2a I see for the NG is the Meteor missile. In a2g instead I see the Gripen in front, it will get IRST (LCA?), will have a payload of 6t (should be less on LCA), but that is not surprising though the NG is meant for the medium class, whereas the MK2 could remain in the light class.

[gogbot]

---

---

Yes if IAF and HAL go for the right techs!
Consider a LCA MK2 with EJ 200 engine + TVC (~5,5t emptyweight and ~95kN thrust, compared to ~7t and 98kN of Gripen NG), both with AESA radars and latest EW systems. The only advantage in a2a I see for the NG is the Meteor missile. In a2g instead I see the Gripen in front, it will get IRST (LCA?), will have a payload of 6t (should be less on LCA), but that is not surprising though the NG is meant for the medium class, whereas the MK2 could remain in the light class.

IRST pods are available, If it is not incorporated directly into the LCA it self.

the Metor missiles is pointlessly expensive.

Compared to the American Aim-120. its not the best either to justify its cost.

Selecting for a missile will just leave us relying on a foreign supplier, even more.

I doubt India will buy any of the weapons from Europe to use on the Planes. Instead they are likely to simply modify them to use Indian Missiles. such as the AStra

In fact the only advantage the Griphen can have over the LCA is maneuverability. Due to its canards i think. AS design wise they are almost the same.

The LCA design was finalised in 1990 as a small delta-winged machine with "relaxed static stability" (RSS) to enhance maneuverability performance.

In designing the aircraft, several layouts were studied. Saab ultimately selected a canard design with relaxed stability. The canard configuration gives a high onset of pitch rate and low drag, enabling the aircraft to be faster, have longer range and carry a larger payload.

But if the LCA uses a TV engine then the LCA becomes more agile.

Aerodynamic advantages Delta wing

The primary advantage of the delta wing design is that the wing's leading edge remains behind the shock wave generated by the nose of the aircraft when flying at supersonic speeds, which is an improvement on traditional wing designs. While this is also true of highly swept wings, the delta's planform carries across the entire aircraft, allowing it to be built much more strongly than a swept wing, where the spar meets the fuselage far in front of the center of gravity. Generally a delta will be stronger than a similar swept wing, as well as having much more internal volume for fuel and other storage.

Another advantage is that as the angle of attack increases the leading edge of the wing generates a vortex which remains attached to the upper surface of the wing, giving the delta a very high stall angle. A normal wing built for high speed use is typically dangerous at low speeds, but in this regime the delta changes over to a mode of lift based on the vortex it generates. The disadvantages, especially marked in the older tailless delta designs, are a loss of total available lift caused by turning up the wing trailing edge or the control surfaces (as required to achieve a sufficient stability) and the high induced drag of this low-aspect ratio type of wing. This causes delta-winged aircraft to 'bleed off' energy very rapidly in turns, a disadvantage in aerial maneuver combat and dogfighting. This can be solved with relaxed stability, strakes and canards.

Additional advantages of the delta wing are simplicity of manufacture, strength, and substantial interior volume for fuel or other equipment. Because the delta wing is simple, it can be made very robust (even if it is quite thin), and it is easy and relatively inexpensive to build - a substantial factor in the success of the MiG-21 and Mirage aircraft.

well both are highly agile.

But i don't know of any Delta wing aircraft with TVC
And the Griphen has both Canards and RSS
but the LCA has only RSS

So on that note, The Griphen might have some what of minor advantage

Byt not enough to justify it 20 million plus price increase