That’s why I said, if we take the Gripen E/F as too risky (and I agree with you on that), we have to take these issues of EF at least as serious too, because it would limit the operational capabilities of IAF!

Certainly it will require a lot of work on its A2G. But things may be going faster on that regard as the UK limits its orders of the F 35.

Again, thats mistaken. Sukhoi had shown off a lot of stuff from French suppliers in the past as possible for integration in platforms like the Su-35, which is why the IAF thought it could be done. The point is its one thing to have them in prototypes, quite another to have them in actual operational aircraft, you’ll end up with many hassles! The Gripen NG is claiming to pull together all sorts of new gizmos including radar and IRST, a new airframe (ergo FBW changes), new avionics & displays, more fuel and payload (ergo structural work), and a new engine..low risk? Hardly.

Yes shown of but have they actually done the integration for a production fighter before the MKI. SAAB has done it before with various versions of the Gripen, Viggen etc. They do not make most things in house and hence have much more experience integrating various foriegn systems. Now things can go bad but as they do have an excellent record in delivering products on time, they are definitley low risk.

Sorry, but you are mistaken about the last statement – the IAF has a clear need for a light fighter, to the order of six (and even more) squadrons. But even if it has a need, it is to any bidders advantage that they push for these orders to be transferred to the MMRCA. The heavy aircraft cannot try this, but the other aircraft in discussion can.

Fair enough, in this case do you think the IAF will settle for the Tejas MK2 even if (God forbid) it fails to live up to the expectations. Or will we see another purchase of a light fighter (another drawn out tender) just because the IAF has selected a heavy aircraft for the MRCA.

How do you know the Tejas’s problems can’t be solved or that they are even critical to begin with? On the one hand, you are willing to believe any PR about an in development aircraft, but on the other hand, you apply a different yardstick to a simpler project..hardly makes sense. The Tejas MK2 is going to be simpler, design change wise, vis a vis the Gripen NG & with the developers in India itself, its rate of product maturity/fixes will be simpler. If you ditch the LCA transition from MKs and then pin your hopes on an AMCA, you are just repeating the Marut mistake all over again.

I have never stated that its problems cannot be solved. The lack of thrust was mentioned as the sole reason for the Tejas failing to achieve required flight profiles AoA, STR etc. All I am saying is that IF (a big if) an engine with higher thrust (GE F414IN) don’t solve these issues, then basically we are looking at basic flaws in the aerodynamic design which cannot be corrected without a radical redesign.

Dubious claims because the heavy Flanker will continue to have critical advantages over the smaller MiG. The MiG-35 has a ~700 mm dia radar dish & can at best fit a 650 odd mm radar in it. It also suffers from volume limitations whereas an upgraded Flanker has a radar dish more than 30% larger! This same yardstick translates to payload, to internal volume for avionics. It speaks volumes that the Su-27SK was regarded as a credible threat, when it is a barely upgraded variant of the earlier Su-27 series, and can still hold its own in most areas against an upgraded MiG-29 today!

A Larger fighter with a larger radar is also a larger target. And even a smaller sized AESA will have its own advantages against a larger Mechanical array (More Resistant to Jamming, EW etc.). I agree that the MIG is perhaps the weakest of all the MRCA contenders but thats partly due to the lack of focus on rcs reduction than anything else.

Costs are not the yardstick for victory an actual war when you end up requiring mission effectiveness per sortie, not cost effectiveness. The opponent won’t go easy on you because you have “cost effective fighters”, as versus battle effective ones. If you need more aircraft per complex sortie, you end up with more and more problems, across mission planning, across logistics and manpower to handle those fighters. Don’t fall into the trap of large numbers of “light fighters” are “cost effective” without looking at the big picture in mind.

Second, the T-50’s are “in the future”, as far as now is concerned. They may come 2020 onwards, and will take 3-5 years to operationalize. Thats around a decade to a decade and a half from now. Till then, what will you do? Furthermore, India’s key opponent against which it requires deterrence has more heavy fighters than it does and will continue to add them as well.

1. It can be a yardstick in many cases. Lower operational costs can mean more flying hours and training for the pilots and despite all the advancements pilot skill will by and large be decisive.

2. In A2A the Gripen armed with Raven and Meteor will be a match to any Flanker out there in most scenarios. The Flanker has a bigger radar but also a larger RCS the Gripen has smaller RCS and therefore may detect the Flanker faster, the Meteor trumps the ChiCom missiles in terms of Range. You also have to look at the evolved datalink in the Gripen in a networked enviornment the Chinese flankers will find it very hard to beat the little one.

3. Look at the Indian Defense Budget and that of China, Unless the Babus and Mantris wake up and increase it we cannot match China interms of heavy fighters. And the more you spend on on a heavy intensive Airforce the less you will have to spend elsewhere.

4. It will be well beyond the 2020s when you see the MRCA in any significant numbes. It will take 3 years from the signing of the contract to the first fighter delivered. Then after the intial 18 there may be hitches in the local production and assembly especially if we go for the more ‘exotic’ birds.

India can afford 180 hours plus simulator time for its pilots,which is quite sufficient to keep them upto spec. Aircombat does require pilot skill, but putting pilots up in aircraft that don’t provide an edge, after this much expense would be missing a valuable chance.

I think you are underestimating the value of actual flying hours and training. You or I could be an ACE in a simulator. You are just assuming that something cheaper will not give the edge that we are looking for. This is a very interesting competiton by the choice of the winner may be we can see what the emphasis of the IAF is, whether its on a plane that offers higher capability or a competent platform which offers more flying hours.

The point is that the IAF did not structure its requirements in that case well & hence could not justify the A330. In this case, the MMRCA tender has been well played out, with all stakeholders aware from the beginning. Its not a last moment thing where the MOF can raise an issue on the spur.

Now I have read reports on the existance of a minimum compatibility matrix and also reports that if a single engined fighter meets the laid out requirements it will be chosen.

I think its a competiton thats not very easy to predict the victor in.

F 35 may take 10 years may be not if Japan is willing to pay more some partner nations may give Japan from their batches. The Typhoon AESA won’t be ready till 2015-16 either. Why are the Japanese not interested in the Rafale, its twin engined and much more mature at the moment than the Typhoon, also has more range and can carry more.

When it comes to Japan you have to realize that she will need an aircraft that is notably superior than that of PLAAF, because she cannot match PLAAF for numbers.

The Typhoon may be 10-15% better than the latest PLAAF flankers but that may not be enough. Ideally she should have something like the F-22 and may lean towards F-35 as the next best option.

She has territorial disputes with Russia as well and both China and Russia will be fielding fifth generation fighters in the near future.

In business the greatest indication that you have a successful product is when the rival/competiton starts copying you. This is true from the ipod to the Raptor.

All I am saying is the Russians and the Chinese had they believed their threats would be countered by existing fourth gen technology with sensor fusion, they would have gone that route. It would have been much easier for them to develop a “fifth” generation fighter with external stores and sensor fusion than to go the T-50, J-xx route. I think they went ahead because they figured that the future belonged to shaped stealth. I think its for the same reason that some members of the Eurofighter consortium are also partners in the JSF programme.

Now the T 50 looks a platform that would match the F-22 in stealth, sans the engine nozzles which it will get with uprated engines.

And note that in all drawings of J-xx whether real or fanboy art it is a stealthy design. The same with the AMCA of India. The Japanese fifth gen…all have internal stores and shaped stealth..

Air Force Attack Helicopters Deal – Field Trials Conducted for Boeing AH-64 Apache Longbow Helicopters

Source

2010-11-24 Boeing has responded to an Air Force / Ministry of Defence Request for Proposal (RFP) for 22 attack helicopters and has offered the Boeing AH-64 Apache Longbow attack helicopter platform for this requirement. The Indian Air Force has conducted field trials for the Apache Longbow helicopters, which offer a range of capabilities including lethal attack, peacekeeping, reconnaissance over land and sea.

“We responded to the RFP for 22 attack helicopters for the Indian Air Force with our Apache Longbow helicopters and completed field trials this year. The Apache Longbow is the only available combat helicopter with a spectrum of capabilities for virtually any mission requirement. We believe it is uniquely suited to meet the commander’s needs – including reconnaissance, security, peacekeeping operations, and lethal attack — in both land and littoral environments — all without reconfiguration. The Apache is a versatile aircraft capable of meeting the needs of operators in both military and paramilitary markets.”
— Dr. Vivek Lall, Vice President, Boeing Defense, Space and Security, India

The Boeing AH-64 Apache is a four-blade, twin-engine attack helicopter with tailwheel-type landing gear arrangement, and tandem cockpit for a crew of two. The Apache was developed as Model 77 by Hughes Helicopters for the United States Army’s Advanced Attack Helicopter program to replace the AH-1 Cobra. First flown on 30 September 1975, the AH-64 features a nose-mounted sensor suite for target acquisition and night vision systems.

The U.S. Army is the primary operator of the AH-64, however it has also become the primary attack helicopter of several nations it has been exported to, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, Greece and the Netherlands. U.S. AH-64s have served in conflicts in Panama, Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Israel has made active use of the Apache in its military conflicts in Lebanon and Gaza Strip; while two coalition allies have deployed their AH-64s in Afghanistan and Iraq.