21Ankush…nice clip. very quick and effortless take-offs, too…
yup, thats what I noticed as well..but they were clean. with payload, it may be more laboured.
21AnkushTrue.
F-16 factually scored more kills than F-15. Relative numbers in Heyl Ha’Avir force are different matter.
I wasn’t referring to the Israeli AF to say that what you said wasn’t true. what I said was that it was not true to compare the F-15 in the IsAF and the Su-30MKI in the IAF because there is a huge difference in the numbers of these fighters for both air forces. in the IsAF, the F-16 was the most numerically prevalent fighter, so it notched up more kills.
You misunderstood me.
As I said originally, I think IAF should go for better air combat performer, not striker. This is because once, IAF achieves air superiority (with more help of better air combat MRCA), ground strikes will become academic matter. If IAF decides to go with less capable air combat MRCA and more capable striker, winning air control may prove more difficult or even impossible and strikers won’t do IAF any good then, anyway.
that assumes that any of the MRCA contenders are not good enough in the air-to-air role. all the ones in the competition are better than anything in the PAF or PLAAF inventory and are likely to stay that way till the next generation of Chinese fighters arrive. even being aerodynamically challenged a bit, the Super Hornet is a fighter with a superb AESA and the AIM-120D which is probably the best BVR missile in existence today. add the AIM-9X and HMDS and you have good enough WVR capability as well.
I mean that none of the MRCA contenders are handicapped in the air-to-air role to the degree that they cannot perform air-superiority missions or have to be devoted solely to strike missions.
Mig-29A, F-16A and F-16C have AG capabilities. They aren’t high-tech exactly, but can still do the damage.
well, the IAF basically doesn’t even train its pilots on bombing with MiG-29s. they’re air-superiority fighters in the IAF, pure and simple. the rudimentary dumb bomb ability of the MiG-29A and S doesn’t translate to any meaningful multirole capabilities. as such, any aircraft that can carry dumb bombs can do the damage, but thats not what multi-role capability implies.
21Ankushrelated to the IN’s carrier aviation, but still posting here as we have been discussing the MiG-29K on this thread too. so with a follow-on order of 29 MiG-29Ks, the IN’s fleet will be 45 MiG-29Ks, enough for 3 squadrons, including 1 training squadron. more punch as compared to the SHars that the IN now operates.
cross posting from BRF.
Navy’s Fighters pass Carrier Test in Russia
Manu Pubby
Posted online : Thursday , Oct 01, 2009 at 0347 hrsNew Delhi : The Navy is awaiting its new fleet of fighter jets — the first batch of MiG-29 K combat aircraft — set to arrive in Goa in November this year.
The fighters, which will be the most modern combat aircraft in India’s inventory ( India’s or the Navy’s), completed several rounds of landings and take- offs from Russia’s sole aircraft- carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, this week. The crucial tests, Indian Navy officers say, have now cleared the path for their delivery to India.
The Navy will get four of the maritime MiG 29s — two single seater fighters and two double seater trainers — but the transfer will take several weeks as the aircraft will be knocked down and delivered by ship.
“The aircraft successfully completed the trials that lasted for over two days and made several landings on the aircraft carrier. The tests were witnessed by our team that was onboard the Russian carrier,” a senior Navy officer said.
The aircraft are now undergoing weapons trials and would shortly be dispatched to India. Once they arrive in “container format”, the aircraft will be reassembled by Russian technicians and would be inducted at the naval airbase in Goa. The aim is to induct the first four aircraft before the Navy Day, celebrated on December 4.
While the aircraft are now set to arrive shortly, they will be operated only from shore based facilities for the next three years as the Gorshkov aircraft carrier is still undergoing repair at the Sevmash shipyard. The revised scheduled for delivery of the aircraft is 2012 and the final price renegotiations are expected to be concluded shortly.
Navy officers say that the successful trials of the fighters onboard the Russian carrier will also pave the way for a follow on order for 29 more aircraft. “One of the key factors (holding up the follow on order) was the flight deck trials of the fighter,” the officer said.While 16 MiG-29 K/KUB were ordered as part of a $ 1.5 billion deal signed in 2004, the Navy wants to procure 29 additional fighters over the next few years to raise additional fighter squadrons.
The contract is expected to be worth close to $ 2 billion. The Navy is planning to raise a total of three squadrons of MiG-29 K ship-borne fighters. A follow on order to take the total number of fighters to close to 50 is expected in the future.
21AnkushThose Russian engines can be more than a handful to maintain. Aren’t India sending its Su-30MKI engines back to Russia for maintenance? Can’t be cheep.
no they’re not. that was another point that the USAF Col who started this rumour, made a mistake on. India has a manufacturing facility at Koraput, Orissa, where the entire AL-31F engine of the Su-30MKI is being assembled based on extensive ToT and (I don’t remember by when) they were supposed to be able to make them from raw materials by a certain date for HAL Nasik built Su-30MKIs.
In fact, Indians were training the Malaysians on how to fly and maintain Su-30MKMs.
21Ankush…and they still do and are even cheaper today. This goes for older A and A/C models, though. (The price is given in constant $)
which are not multi-role and are of no use to the IAF, since even its most basic MiG-29s were ugpraded at HAL. and the IAF’s current 63 MiG-29s are all going in for an extensive upgrade, to bring them to the MiG-29SMT level.
21AnkushF-15 has the same role in Heyl Ha’Avir and yet on the opening day over Bekaa Valley in ’82, after F4’s WildWeasel strike, F-16s scored more kills in aerial combat that ensued.
Su-30 is a “quarterback” of IAF, but MMRCA will bear the burden, if nothing else because of its numbers, so IAF will need the best possible performer, at best price/numbers.
not true. the Israeli AF had few numbers of F-15Is as compared to F-16s. in the Indian AF, the Su-30MKIs currently on order number 230, and there is a rumour that the IAF is going to order another 50 soon. that is a very large fleet, (12 squadrons currently to be , 14-15 squadrons if the 50 more are ordered). the IAF intends to use the MKI for all possible missions, and not just as a “quarterback” handing out targets. its the only fighter in the IAF that will carry the Brahmos ALCM, has a likely Electronic Jammer role (see the IAF thread), can escort any strike package, can defend any base, can carry out CAP, etc. There isn’t a single role that the Su-30MKI can’t do, except point defence, for which MiG-21 Bisons can suffice, but considering that the IAF is planning to base 2 Su-30MKI squadrons in Punjab, even that role will have to be performed (since the bases in Punjab are quite close to the border with Pakistan).
Either way, once IAF manages to achieve aerial superiority, AG capability will become a matter of academic debate.
IF the IAF achieves aerial superiority. PAF and PLAAF are not quite the same as the IraqiAF or the non-existent aerial resistance in Afghanistan. the IAF needs all its multi-role fighters to be capable of air-superiority/dominance missions and be good strikers as well, though with an emphasis on being able to deliver heavy strikes from stand-off ranges.
One question, though. Why India doesn’t go for F-35?
not available in the time-frame that the IAF would require its MRCAs to be in-service. If I recall correctly, the first F-35 for non-partner nations could only be made available by 2018 or after that.
21Ankushthanks Flyboy, I’m posting a higher resolution version of the same. Looks really good to me !
21AnkushWho says Eurofighter doesn’t offer an AESA solution for India? The Gripen NG or MiG-35 are by no means in a better position when it comes to an AESA radar.
yet its the only fighter in the competition that won’t have a working AESA to show to the IAF for systems evaluations, flight trials and weapons trials. the lack of concensus by the Eurofighter partner nations on an AESA set is really a hiccup when compared to the other contenders. I’m not doubting that they could develop a variant of the CAESAR or E-Captor in time for entry into IAF service if chosen, but its a leap of faith for the IAF and MoD. not sure the other contenders would be happy to see that they struggled to put an AESA on their fighters in time for their trials, only to see Eurofighter promise something but not show its capabilities during trials.
21AnkushYour reasoning is based on some idea that all planes are designed with the same missions and combat/strikeradius in mind. That’s utter nonsense.
Of course you can strap a nuclear bomb under any plane but the Rafale is the only plane in your example that has been designed from the onset to carry nuclear strikes. So your statement that F-18 & Typhoon are heavier because of nuclear needs is BS pure and simple.
ignore him. he makes statements that basically are ignorant and when pointed out, simply won’t own up to his mistakes.
the guy showcases his ignorance when he’s talking about the Typhoon and F-18 being heavier because of being designed as nuclear weapon carriers (!), completely unaware of the fact that India’s nuclear weapon carriers are the much much lighter Mirage-2000s. in fact, the IAF wanted Mirages for its Strategic Strike Command, a requirement that may still be standing, so its nukes can be carried by aircraft with a payload similar to the Mirage-2000 and as good a ground clearance when rotating during take-off as well (something that apparently didn’t allow the Jaguar to be chosen).
21AnkushActually having two engines burning vs one suggest the latter has longer range, especially with lighter A2A load.
not necessarily. the latter have more internal fuel and can carry drop tanks with a smaller hit on their useful payload in terms of pylons used up and in the case of the Rafale, the engine’s SFC is lower than a F-414 since it produces less power as well.
although its true that its where the Gripen NG really scores over the Gripen C/D with higher internal fuel and those multiple ejector rack pylons and the F-16 Block 60 with CFTs increases fuel load as well, for no loss of useful pylons.
21AnkushSure, that’s one take on it.
But Eurofighter’s claims on what they were told by MoD (specifically re: exceeding performance/capability req’s)
present a signifigantly different scenario. …Of course, that could mean:
- Eurofighter is lying to delude themselves
- Eurofighter was lied to/ misrepresented by their MoD contacts
- or that performance/benefits in excess of requirements WILL be considered as factors,
i.e price (upfront/life-cycle?) is not only factor to judge bids which meet minimum requirements.(I may have missed a potential explanation… Feel free to add one)
And EF’s claims have been repeated by other bidders as well.
it has to be done that way- if not, Dassault or EADS wouldn’t even have tendered. I remember an interview with some top Dassault exec who was cribbing that the MRCA had different aircraft of widely varying capabilities because of their being single or twin engined (something that is seen in other competitions as well, such as Swiss and Brazilian competitions).
and its quite obvious that the twin -engined fighters are more expensive, being larger and have range and payload advantages whereas the single engined ones have the cost of acquisition and operating costs as their primary advantages.
the final evaluation by the IAF and MoD will surely have an equation that weighs each factor based on the IAF’s requirements and projections (say for instance ToT may have x weightage, payload x1, range x2, cost x3, etc.). EADS and Dassault would’ve been informed of the same and thats the only reason they’d spend millions of dollars on flight trials.
21AnkushLockheed Martin’s issues with the US Govt. regarding queries on what assistance it will provide to ADA for the N-LCA really makes it quite clear that a US MRCA should not be selected at any cost. Boeing had the same issue earlier and ADA lost at least 6 months over the consultancy issue because of that. its clear that companies say one thing, the US bureucracy and rules make somethng else happen. any such delays during the implementation period of the MRCA would really hit the IAF’s squadron numbers badly.
but why they don’t seem to understand from their mistakes and keep going back to the US when Dassault is there for consultancy is beyond me..
21AnkushNice find , that Russian platform is used by Sukhoi to test all the add ons for Indian MKI.
SAP-14 will give IAF a good standoff jamming capability .
whats more, the Su-30MKI is really the perfect platform for an escort jammer role..it can self escort even with such a big pod, has a 2 man crew, where the rear seater can be dedicated to jamming roles, and its range and endurance mean it can be loitering around the theater, jamming and protecting waves of attackers come streaming through.
21AnkushAnyway in all this hoopla discussing about the Tejas being an MRCA candidate, what’s been missed out is that the Rafale is in Bangalore for its flight trials..
BANGALORE: Rafale, the French built fighter aircraft and one of the six fighters competing for the Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) multi-billion dollar multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal is in Bangalore. Two twin-engine delta-wing multi-role fighters designed and built by France’s Dassault Aviation and piloted by IAF and French pilots have been undertaking flights – which are part of the MMRCA flight trials — from Bangalore’s HAL Airport since Tuesday.
Officials said the two French aircraft had flown non-stop to Bangalore from Dassault’s Flight Test Centre at Istres in France, thanks to the fighter’s in-flight refuelling capabilities.
One of the most modern fourth generation fighters, the Rafale is in use with the French Air Force, and the French Navy for their carrier-based operations. Officials said the Rafale met all the air staff qualitative requirements sought by the IAF and that Dassault was prepared to transfer all the technology that was required by the Indian side. They pointed out that the Rafale had a functioning Active Electronically Scanned Array radar.
Dassault’s bid had the strong backing of the Nicolas Sarkozy Government.
Piloted by IAF and French pilots, the two trainer aircraft will be based in Bangalore for the next fortnight, flying over, and in and out of Bangalore as they take part in the first phase of the flight trials. During the two weeks the aircraft will fly to Leh for the high altitude/cold weather trials and Jaisalmer for the hot weather trials.
Dassault’s technicians, pilots and maintenance crew will train and show IAF test pilots and flight test engineers the capabilities and uniqueness of the Rafale.
Besides the IAF test crews, the specially formed Indian Evaluation Team has representatives from the Ministry of Defence, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, the Defence and Research Development Organisation, Directorate-General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance and Air Headquarters. Two evaluations teams have been formed for the MMRCA flight trials.
The next phase of flight trials will involve weapon firing trials in the country of the aircraft’s manufacturer. Besides the Rafale the other aircraft in contention for the $ 10 billion to $12 billion deal are Boeing’s F/A-18, Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN Super Viper, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company’s Eurofighter Typhoon, Russia’s Mikoyan MiG-35 and Sweden’s Gripen JAS-39.
21AnkushIndeed.
The Gripen prototype first flew in 1988, & Gripen has been in squadron service since 1996.The Tejas prototype first flew in 2001. It is not yet in service.
Gripen NG was announced in 2007. The Gripen Demo, with the Gripen NG airframe changes & engine, was rolled out 17 months ago & has been flying for 16 months. It demonstrated supercruise in January this year.
Tejas Mk. 2 was announced earlier this year. First flight will be – when?
Whatever the relative merits of the aircraft, they are not at similar stages of development.
while that is true, also do into consideration that Sweden has been indigenously developing fighters for several decades before the Gripen, with 2 very capable fighters coming to my mind- the Draken and Viggen and it was not held hostage to sanctions of the kind that the US imposed on India.
so that would mean 8 years from first flight to squadron service for the Gripen and (if the Tejas Mk1 does reach IOC by 2011) 10 years for the Tejas. not that bad if one were to look at it that way from a flight test perspective.
then again, if a Tejas prototype had seen a publicly filmed accident of the kind that the Gripen prototype suffered, it would have, surely, marked the end of the program. there is no doubt about that- that program has more than its fair share of enemies in the political establishment, IAF, MoD, foreign lobbies and arms dealers etc. who’d stand to gain if it’s killed and an imported alternative sought with all its associated bribery.
so, there has been greater caution on the part of the Tejas’ developers, no one wants to take undue risks that may end up canning the entire project.
Sign In
