With JHMCS and AIM-9X (or IRIS-T for that matter), IAF will have a superior high off-boresite capability to that which they currently maintain. There is no doubt about that. …

There are other aircraft in the MMRCA competition with IRST on the aircraft and they helmet cue system and IRST are just as good and they would say the same that their system is the best and offers the best.

1. Super Hornet’s have had an IRST system under development since 2007. It has been flight tested and is about to undergo it’s final trials. IRST WILL be in-service with the USN on it’s Supers before India even makes it’s decision on this project. …

The F/A-18II++ would scaresly be affordable for the IAF and if it does by the super hornet it would not be able to buy it in the numbers required to limit retardation of squadron strength loss.

Just because Boeing is finally filling the hole doesnt suddently make it cost effective or efficient for the IAF.

If you are going to discount capabilities that are not in-service, but are under development, you can kiss goodbye to 3/4’s of the proposals India has received, including your beloved MiG-35, because it ain’t in-service, anywhere… At least with the Super Hornet’s IRST it’s main user has actually ORDERED the capability, which is not the case with the MiG-35… …

I did not discount any capability that is not yet in service I know those issues can be over come.

2. Did you watch the video I posted? Please explain why the Super Hornet doesn’t have “good aerodynamics” in reference to the demonstrable high performance it demonstrates (why these manoeuvres are important are even explained in this video) in this video. …

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5050
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=41130&highlight=sewer+hornet

“The Council for a Livable World, the Council for a Livable World Education Fund and PeacePAC are committed to ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction and eliminating wasteful military spending. The Council and PeacePAC are also political lobbies which endorse candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives.”

Capabilities:

The multi-mission F/A-18E/F “Super Hornet” strike fighter is an upgraded version of the combat-proven night strike F/A-18C/D. The Super Hornet is supposed to have superior range, endurance, and ordnance carriage capabilities than the C/D.

The F/A-18E/F aircraft are 4.2 feet longer than earlier Hornets, have a 25% larger wing area, and carry 33% more fuel which will purportedly increase mission range by 41% and endurance by 50%. (However, the E/F does not have the range or payload of the F-14 and A-6, the aircraft it is replacing.)

The Super Hornet also incorporates two additional weapon stations (which holds the bombs or missiles under the wing). This allows for increased payload flexibility by mixing and matching air-to-air and/or air-to-ground ordnance. The aircraft can also carry the complete complement of “smart” weapons, including the newest versions of weapons.

Although newer U.S. military aircraft have and will incorporate a modicum of stealth or low observability technology, the F/A-18E/F will not.

Problems:

Operational testing in January 1999 indicated that the E/F version may actually be less capable than the C/D in some key measurements of warfighting. For example, the F/A-18E/F is slower to accelerate to supersonic speeds in level flight compared to the F/A-18C/D. Pentagon reports also cite 28 other major deficiencies in the aircraft.

The Pentagon hoped to upgrade the Super Hornet in five major categories: range, payload, weapons “bringback,” growth and survivability. However, the Pentagon report suggests that although the F/A-18E/F can carry more weapons than the plane it replaces, the modest improvements are undermined by the other deficiencies in the Super Hornet.

As a bomber, the F/A-18E/F has only modest payload and range, especially when compared to the Navy A-6 or Air Force F-15E.

Although intended as a carrier based fighter, the single-seat F/A-18E could not meet the C version’s performance ability in some key dogfighting areas, including the fighter escort mission.

Additionally, the E/F has had problems with a “wing-drop” while simulating combat maneuvers. While the Navy claims to have fixed this problem, recent tests show that the wing still dips. Although this supposedly does not effect the combat effectiveness of the aircraft, it could become “tiring and distracting” to the pilot, according to the Pentagon.

Costs:

Even if the Navy has indeed managed to correct the wing-drop and the E/F does realize its intended marginal improvements over the C/D, it costs 69% more per copy than its $50 million predecessor. Comparatively, the estimated $30 million a copy Joint Strike Fighter is slated to replace the F/A-18C/D possibly as early as 2005. However, since the Quadrennial Defense Review hinges the purchase of 237 extra E/Fs on when the JSF comes online, it implies that the E/F can be replaced by the JSF. Thus, the $84 million a copy F/A-18E/F is seen as a stop-gap aircraft.

sorry for the text content, but hope it wraps it up.

coanda:7

3. TVC? Do you know what that even does? If you do you would know why only one fighter in the MMRCA competition is even bothering with the capability. (It is useful for only one small area of the flight regime, yet carries a significant weight and drag penalty as well as adding significant maintenance complexity). IAF’s main A2A fighter has TVC. A “2nd tier” A2A fighter hardly requires it and your beloved Chinese J-10/J-11’s don’t use it either…

TVC? hmm i think its similar to SAMSUNGS flat screen TV!

If you read through the post before you will see that I did not bring up the issue of TVC I was just using this to make a point.

And matt don’t be a ‘panic-mechanic’ with respect to china. If they want to attack us they can do now, we have no MRCA only hundred odd MKIs and so and so. I for one will not wait till my enemy is capable with more fighters, Longer range missiles, Nuclear Subs and fusion weapons. China is not the China of Mao, differences aside she is a responsible global player, and whatever MRCA will get will add to the deterrence we have got.

Sorry your totally correct we should just disband the Indian Armed forces and offer pitch forks to everyone in India just in case the Chinese do start something antagonistic like erm .. offering different types of Visa’s to Indians from Kashmir.

You are totally correct todays China is not MAO’s China, todays China doesnt have a million man army, nor is todays China trying to strangle and contain the Indian Navy by building deep ports around its southern coast. I suppose modern day China also isnt supporting and funding anything anti India within Indians neighbour hood.

That must just be the imagination of the media and any same or contious human.

I am loving the parrallel universe you inhibit.

the IAF has set some requirements for the MRCA based on its doctrines- if the Super Hornet meets those requirements, is considered affordable, it stands a chance. its upto the IAF and the GoI to decide what it wants. cribbing about “aerodynamics” isn’t going to change that fact- that if it qualified to be chosen, it obviously met the requirements that the IAF stipulated, and they’re the users, not internet posters.

OK firstly, if anyone officers in the IAF or people in the Indian Ministry of Defence or research organisations are surfing forums during work hours unless they are being paid to do so they should be fired! However this is a forum and nothing much more its existence is to stir debate and conversation and entertainment not to lead to state policy.

Secondly considering your cribs with regards to the PLAAF not having TVC etc below I find the statement in your above quote a bit perplexing if not a bit hypocritical.
Also considering the fact that most of the main stream aircraft that are available on the market to buy are in this competition it begs the question “do the IAF know what they are really looking for” do they know themselves what they are after? Are they trying to find a problem for a solution or a solution to the problem.

With that it in mind I do not see it as anything special that the F/A-18 has made it into this competition.

what’s so special about the J-10s that the SH cannot cope with it ? kindly explain. as for the earlier generation Su-27s, I really think you’re overestimating them and underestimating the SH. as for the Su-30MKK, its not the same as a Su-30MKI. it has an inferior radar to even the MKI, no TVC, not to even compare it to the F-18’s AESA. at least in BVR combat, it’ll pretty much finish any of these PLAAF fighters thanks to its RCS reduction features that none of the PLAAF fighters currently sport. and in WVR, with AIM-9X and JHMCS its no pushover with high-off bore sight compensating for its lack of acceleration. as for its nose-pointing ability, its actually praised for that.

What is not so special about the J-10’s ? do you know enough about its avionics and performance to bet the sovereignty or dignity of a nation let alone the life of its pilots?

Are you 100% confident that China has not upgraded its Su-30’s or even that it is not planning to do so in the near future? Are you confident that China will not buy the Su-35 when it is offered to them? Bearing in mind that these will also come into service by the time the MMRCA contract will probably be signed let along the IAF getting first delivery of the aircraft!

You mention that the the PLAAF do not have TVC etc but how is that more important than having good aerodynamics? But then again the hornet does not have IRST, good aerodynamics, TVC. Also just because the F/A-18 is on offer to the IAF does not mean the IAF would be able to afford the complete F/A-18 E/F II++ package.

Also considering that BVR has been touted as the reason for WVR obsolescent once before in history how confident are you that your missiles will hit the target every time and that the enemy would not have put counter measures in place? If it is anything less than 99.9 percent confident remember that you are gambling a nation and its airmen.

The IAF and the Indian air force has had off bore sight capability for some time, the Aim-9x does not offer anything new with this regards.

you think that the MiG-35 is capable of taking on anything that the PLAAF will throw at the IAF just because its an aerodynamically superior platform or that its more suited just because its cheap ? regarding SAMs, isn’t going to happen, so no use talking about S-400s or S-300s. the IAF will get its LRSAM and MRSAM and the Maitri.

I do not think that the Mig-35 can handle everything coming from across the border, however I do think that buying the cheapest gap filler, and lets face it that is all that the MMRCA is now (specially since the IAF has been spending wisely in getting more Su-30MKI’s) would allow India to spend more money on SAM.

I am not particular about which one it is, whether it is the LRSAM or the S-400 or the S-300 or the MRSAM. I just believe that India would be better served by stronger air defence.

India would also be better served by going for a multi role or omni role aircraft rather than a bomb truck.

Ideally you would want the SAMs to act as the pikes in a phalanx and the Su-30’s as the sword, India is not after Tibet, its aim is to secure its borders. Ensure that its dignity and sovereignty are not marked.

For a strike fighter package to be effective against China the IAF would have to fly a very long distance through the enemy territory not only with the F/A-18 but also with Air to Air refuellers etc. before it gets to any juicy targets, and it would be silly to think that their would be no enemy interceptors, SAMs or radars in between. It would also be silly to underestimate the number of aircraft required.

Where as on the contrary there are some very large and highly populated Indian cities just a stone throws from its border (relatively speaking).

So although I do not see the Mig-35 with rose tinted glasses I also do not see the Chinese defence as a walk over. India can not afford to play the offensive game, it has to play the defensive game.

Which is best done by buying cheaper MMRCA aircraft and ordering more SAMs/Aerostats/Phalcons to ensure that every inch of India’s northern and north eastern flank is covered by some form of radar and SAM (and the highest quality SAM not something from the 70’s which can be jammed).

there a whole lot of other air-ground munitions that the F-18 carries and has been extensively tested with which make it known as a great strike fighter. the Typhoon unfortunately, even after so many years of service is only at the Austere level of A2G maturity and the partners can’t decide on a date for getting the AESA in service. how is it a good fit for the IAF’s needs, which include a fighter that can be as good at strike as at air-to-air roles ?

IMO, for the IAF’s needs, the Rafale is the best- a very capable fighter in both A2A and A2G roles.

If the IAF must really spend all of the 12 billion (and I appreciate that this does not represent its total budget) It would still be preferable to have the “limited” typhoon with its Taurus and Storm Shadow missiles than to have a bomb truck, if India and the IAF wants an AESA radar it can buy ELTA’s. It does not need to pay 10 billion to get scrap composite along with it. Simply because India cannot afford to play the offensive game and will inevitably end up playing a defensive game.

To be honest i also like the RAFALE a lot! 🙂 but again its going to cost us.

.

Why do so many ignore that the MMRCA is the ‘middle tier’ to India’s future three tier fighter force? Air superiority will be the primary responsibility of the Su-30s & PAK-FA/FGFA. MMRCA is primarily a ‘medium’ strike fighter.

Well unfortunately people forget that because who ever or whome ever organised the issuance of the RFP seems to have forgotten why they were buy aircraft and for what particular purpose.

Hence we forget and debate all that are on the table.

Anyway MMRCA acronym does not have “strike” within it, i can see combat but not strike aircraft.

it’s not the same thing because whatever you think of those aircraft, they ARE in the (real, actual) MMRCA competition.
Tejas is not, phantom Korean Stealth Fighters are not, and the flying yogis bid is also not being considered in the MMRCA process.

if I ignore the Tejas debate that pretty much means… I am ignoring this entire thread.

None of the aircraft in the competition have actually seen combat apart from the F-16 and that too the older varients that are flying in the greek and turkish airforce. Interesting how lockeheed is scarpering ADA’s chances of navalising the LCA.

Fair points, and if any aircraft must win the MMRCA then it has to be the Eurofighter and the Gripen.

Those two in combo flying for the IAF would make it one of the most lethal in Asia.

You can not detract from the achievements of the Gripen team and you cant detract from the superlative aircraft that is the Typhoon.

But with congress in power and showing the old taints I would not be suprised if the incapable, ill equiped short legged, aerodynamically poor F/A-18 or F-16 win. I am sure TATA are putting a lot of pressure on the babus.

You might as well give up, even if the Tejas Mk2 is technically equel to some of the MMRCA contendors if not beter it would still not win.

A lot of money is being spent to grease the palms of middle men, media persons etc etc etc..