21AnkushWhich is why the suggestion to split the MMRCA between the LCA and the MKI. Nobody is supporting a single tier structure, just a two tier one.;)
I maintain that a better approach would be to kill the MMRCA and split it between the LCA and the MKI, then develop the MCA as a replacement for the Mig-27’s and the Jaguars and the Pakfa to replace the Fulcrums and Mirages, allowing both projects to feed of each other in terms of technology and development. The end result would be an IAF that was very capable, highly indigenised, and with only 4 combat aircraft types.
the IAF needs to have that much confidence in HAL/ADA to scrap the MRCA and say that it’d want more Tejas’ and to give the go-ahead to the MCA..I for one am not sure that the IAF needs any more MKIs..230 is a very large number. a smaller twin-engined fighter (lower attrition rates for sure than a single-engined one) with AESA allows the IAF to put its eggs in more than one basket. it will increase the logistical headache, but that does’nt seem to be a very big issue in the IAF.
21AnkushThe MMRCA emerged out of an IAF desire for 126 Mirage 2000-5 Mk2, negotiations were under way, then the govt ordered an open contest, dassault then decided that they could not afford to keep the Mirage production line open until the Indians made up their mind so they shut it down.
The initial Mirage idea would have perfect sense and if the existing fleet had been upgraded it would have given the IAF 170+ very capable aircraft of a single type. Now we have the soap opera that is the MMRCA.
I’m well aware of how it started and what exactly happened..the IAF wanted to setup a Strategic Strike Command that would be responsible for the nuclear strike role..the Mirage-2000 having proved itself during Kargil and during IAF ops was the obvious choice and the IAF’s very high regard for this type is very well known. the IAF was lukewarm about the Tejas at that time, and thought that the Mirage would fulfill its role instead, that of replacing the MiG-21s.
but the Congress govt., which had the Bofors scandal still fresh in its mind, decided to avoid a single-vendor situation and make it an open contest..as the Govt. kept dragging its feet, the economic size of the deal just balooned from what was initially thought of as a $ 5-6 billion deal to nearly $10 billion..its a case of total mismanagement, but thats just how Govt. procurements are in India..there are lots of other cases too (IA’s Cheetah/Chetak replacement fiasco, IA’s self-propelled artillery fiasco, etc.) are also cases where one govt. goes, the other comes and wants a new competition, irrespective of how crucial the need is to have the system in service.
Since then, the IAF has realised that it has an opportunity to make the IAF a 3-4 fighter force eventually, which would mean getting Tejas’ (cheap to procure, cheap to operate, and indigenous with all of the capabilities that the IAF needs from a light fighter like the Bison, of which the IAF has 125), MRCAs (costly to procure, easy maintenance and in numbers large enough to replace most of the MiG-27s and Jags, of which the IAF has a cumulative of nearly 200) and keep the MKI as its top-end fighter (230 MKIs fully delivered by 2015).
since all of this wont happen in one shot, the Mirages, Fulcrums, MiG-27s that are upgraded and new-build Jags will be around till all the Tejas’ and MRCAs get in full numbers by 2022-23.
towards 2017-18, the IAF will be looking to get the gold-plated PAK-FAs in small numbers, to give it complete different qualitative edge. THAT is when the squadron numbers will start going up. their numbers will be absorbed faster once the MRCA and Tejas are fully delivered (by when the IAF should have a couple of PAK-FA squadrons, similar to the pioneer MKI squadrons No. 24 and No.20, for building operational tactics and doctrines, manuals, etc.)
for those who harp on the fact that the MKI can do what the MRCA needs to do, keep one thing in mind- the IAF needs some diversity in its fleet, both from a vendor point of view and from an operational cost pov..it cannot be a 400-500 Flanker force..they’re big beasts that are expensive to fly and the IAF needs a somewhat smaller airframe. hence, the F-18 is in the competition, not the F-15, and no Flanker variant is involved (Su-35).
Also, a substantial number of the MRCAs will be single seaters (80 single seaters out of 126- the IAF did not even have a dedicated WSO/navigator role till some years ago, after the MKI was introduced), and that reduces the burden on training and intake of pilots/WSOs.
Its the same logic that the USAF applies when it goes for a mixed fleet of F-15s, F-16s and now a mix of F-22s and F-35s. the F-15s are superior to the F-16 and can do whatever it does, and better as well, but its not economical to operate a fleet of 2000 F-15s or 1000-1500 F-22s alone.
21AnkushI am not referring to upgrades of current aircraft but newer 126 M2K with TOT and customized for India. even that is in doubt.
U have to look at Greek/UAE example how much time it took for them to finally deliver the aircraft. Thats why i have doubts on those 126 aircraft in reasonable amount of time.
IF the IAF had been offered the Mirage-2000-5Mk.2+ for the MRCA, then this would’ve been something to chew on..but as it stands the Mirage-2000 production line is closed and there will be no ToT and customization of the kind that you’re talking of.
so, your doubts don’t make any sense at all, since the Mirage IS NOT A PART OF THE MRCA COMPETITION !
21Ankushso do u think M2K will not require Newer Engines, AESA radar, IRST, TVC, enhance fuel capacity and mult vendor Avionics and weopons integration with all TOT?.
I have doubt about France ability to deliver M2K-5II in reasonable amount of time even if it is standard fully developed version let alone customized for India
dude, the Mirage-2k upgrade has nothing to do with newer engines..the M53 is not the most powerful, but its very reliable and the IAF has no pressing need to upgrade these. the numbers quoted were between 10-15 per year once the first 2 Mirages are upgraded in France, 2 years after the contract is signed. so that would mean if the contract was signed in 2008 (likely), then the first 2 would be upgraded by 2010 and the entire fleet (50 or thereabouts) would be upgraded by 2014.
and its a RDY2 radar, not AESA, no TVC, no increased fuel and the RDY2 is already integrated with the MICA-ER/IR. If the IAF does surprise us, it may end up being the Derby/Python 5 in place of the MICA-ER/IR and the 2052, but as of now, its pure speculation, so the French should be easily able to manage the schedule.
21AnkushAn F-15 vs F-18E/F air combat will come down to TACTICS , availablity of SUPPORT assets and TRAINING granted equal level of Weaponry and sensors . The F-15 has an option of going in with the 63V3 which with the newer modified back end is very close to the -79 however overall the SH has some other added avionics capability giving it a much more modern sensor outload and better situational awareness..The F-15E would have to go for another sensor/avionics/system upgrade to match that which means $$$ . The F-15 is a better ENERGY PLATFORM which equates to BOTH kinematic advantage aswell as COMBAT PERSISTANCE , which in a multi ship sortie mission cannot be downplayed specially for a country which requires air space ( vast air space) to be patrolled/guarded for a long time . SImply put the strike eagle can put sensors in air and keep them in the air for longer with a more flexible aswell as greater load/range ratio . refueling will benefit both aircrafts and so will availability of AEW assets .
Even with the F-18E/F’s tanks and weaponry it is still a hard target to detect (and i have talked to F-16 drivers of the ANG who have gone up against it) and that is a good thing to have .
Interms of cost although aquisition costs are not too far apart from each other the F-18E/F is a much modern system and its MAINTAINCE plus (very important) Support infrastructure (everything from training sims , to maintaince training to repair units , to inventory liquidity , spare buildup , MTB for critical system and energizing cost etc etc) is lower so overall it is a cheaper sollution EVERYTHING FACTORED IN..and also has a lower logistical footprint .
So which is better? As a long range bombing assett nothing comes close (in the west) to the F-15E’s ability to haul heavy and diverse weaponry both smart and dumb @ long ranges and back that up with a smart sensor suite to boot . It gives you more flexibility interms of diversity of weaponry , launch-attack time etc etc and also it is favourable in low altitude tactics .
The F-18E/F is a more NETWORK CENTRIC sollution , a very mean fighter which has a lot of high end electronics , sensors , nice fusion , top notch weaponry and good Situational awareness and front office . It is a very capable sollution for a lot of problems..However it lacks the brute long range attack capability however makes up for that in other aspects of its mission paramaters..It is easy to maintain , costs less over the lifetime and looks like that going into the future would have more $$ poured into it to add newer more modern things to it to make it better .
Its all about making compromises and comming up with something that best suites your needs … the F-18E/F can and will on many occasions suite a particular potential client more as compared to the F-15E and vice versa .
nice post Bring_it_on..illustrates why the RAAF’s choice of the SHornet was not a bad one..maintenance costs and logistics with the F-15E would’ve been much higher for a very small capability gain..
as for going up against each other, your post makes it obvious that the F/A-18 E/F Block 2 would be a match for a F-15SG and more than a match for the F-15K (which don’t have the V3).
21AnkushBTW, as I am sure you are aware, the Typhoon and Rafale are not American.:D
what diffference does it make that they’re not American? they’ve not won in any single open competition either.
21AnkushThe APG-63(V3) has a larger aperature so it’ll detect the SH first. (Those external tanks it invariably carries will effectively negate any RCS reduction.)
The APG-63(V)3 is essentially an APG-79 front end and power supply with the APG-63(V)1 back end. its got a larger aperture antenna (0.9m) than the SH, but that alone does not mean the SH will be detected first. the SH is smaller than the F-15 and has a smaller RCS. and even if the SH does get detected first, the ranges are too high for the F-15 to be able to do anything but try to jockey into an advantageous position for a BVR shot..by when the F-15 would’ve been detected by the SH (assuming that the APG79’s detection range is that much lesser than the APG63V3) and the SH would be able to get off a shot as well..and once that happens, both will bug off. one really can’t say that the F-15 has that big an advantage when it is a bigger fighter, that will radiate more, and hence is a bigger target too.
link
“Actual radar ranges are classified and depend on the target and altitude. But roughly, the F-15, which so far has the largest radar array, has a range of more than 150 mi.; the F-22 and F/A-18E/F, with slightly smaller antennas, are in the 125-150-mi. category; and the F-16 upgrade will likely come in at 125 mi. or slightly less.”
Except the Eagle will be able to launch them from a higher altitude and speed.
big difference..this is hardly going to matter, since the SH will be well aware of the BVR shot and will shoot off its own AMRAAM and then scoot. the F-15 can’t hang around to watch once its got an AMRAAM coming in towards it.
If launched at the same speed and altitude. Which wouldn’t likely be the case.
too many factors involved here..what if the SH was at a higher altitude already at the time of it being detected? by the time the Eagle would get to that altitude, it would be detected easily..its not exactly very stealthy, and the APG79 would be able to detect it at ranges far beyond that of the AMRAAMs on either fighter.
And higher altitude with equal payloads. And since we’re talking about Australia range matters in a BIG way.
IFR takes care of most of the range issues..the RAAF has been doing fine with their vanilla Hornets, and its just a little longer ranged than the SHornet..
21AnkushLooking at the major asiatic countries who are developing 5th generation fighter types : India with their MCA . China with their JXX , and South Korea with their KFX , is it possible for these 3 nations to pool their rescources together and develop jointly developed multirole fighter that can fulfill all their needs thus spreading development costs far more effieciently than any western organisation has had in the past ?
India jointly develop with China ? no way is that going to happen..if China is running a 5th gen program, maybe Pakistan could pool in some money and join the program. Koreans are looking to get some of the Europeans to join in their 5th gen fighter.
India’s money is already tied up with the PAK-FA for now, and the MCA is’nt yet funded and the development go-ahead has’nt been given.
besides, none of the 3 countries have been ever involved in joint development..I can’t think of one program where Koreans and Indians are involved together.
21AnkushSo you have none too?:rolleyes:
I will just live with the fact that the Snornet has lost every open competition it has entered, the Strike Eagle has won plenty.;)
put them against each other and none has one over the other..they’d detect each other at similar ranges using powerful AESA radars, use similar weapons against each other both at BVR and WVR. if you take them separately, the range of weapons they carry is similar, and the attrition record for both is good. As I said before, the only region where a F-15 is better is range and top speed, but that alone does’nt count as being a big advantage.
going by open competition victories, the Rafale and Typhoon must be whooped by F-15s too since they both lost the Singapore and Korean competitions as well.:rolleyes: fact is that any winner of a competition, wins not just on the basis of technical criteria, which are just a PART of the overall requirements.
21Ankushyeah now, just because you have no figures or facts to back up your statements, its going to be wisecracks..quite typical of you. :rolleyes:
21AnkushDude, Strike Eagle gives Snornet a beat down every time.:cool:
prove it.
21AnkushLikely the AIM-120D ( the latest varient) won’t be for sale anytime soon.
Is the “APG-79(V)2 even a real radar at this point or a sentence at the end of a brochure?
my mistake. no (V)2 here, but these APG-79 radars are operational and are demonstrating excellent results.
21Ankushif i may have it my way, get out of both the Superbug and JSF purchase
why, simple:-F-18F is far inferiour to the current F-111 (less range, lass payload) sure the Superbug has more manuevrability the the F-111 but since when is maneuvrability needed to attack ships. besides, even if the aircraft is compatible with the current legacy hornets, that doesnt make them any better.
BS..the SHornet would take out a F-111 before the F-111 would even know what happened to it..the F-111 was a bomb-truck, nothing else..it had inferior handling, maneuverability, poor situational awareness, negligible A2A capabilities and was only good in range and hauling capacity. with IFR, the range issue becomes moot, and the hauling and bring-back capacity for a land-based SHornet is impressive. there’s no comparison between these two..:rolleyes:
F-111:
-replace them with new build F-22 (as noted above)
-if delivery takes to long, why not lease ex-RAF/German/Italian Tornado IDS as a stop gap till the first raptor arrives.
the Tornado IDS itself was rejected by the RAAF during its original NTF program when the F/A-18 Hornet was chosen thanks to its multi-role capability and twin-engine. As for the F-22, its NOT ON OFFER. how come this just does’nt penetrate people’s heads ??
21AnkushHoly c**p Boeing screwed Australia.
The Raptor is not available and is unlikely to be so for quite some time. The Japanese are currently playing the waiting game for it but in my opinion they will be very unlikely to ever see it.
The F-15SG is an exceptionally capable aicraft. It is outstanding in the A2G arena and with that large powerful AESA radar, 9X and the latest AMRAAM highly effective in the A2A theater too. Add to that the fact that Strike Eagles are now in service with five countries (US included) means that upgrades will keep coming for it. It is highly unlikely that anything will appear in the region in the next decade to match it.
I really think that the Aussies need to get over this F-35/F-22/stop-gap obsession. The F-22 is not available and the F-35 wont be on the scene for some time yet. Why not operate two different types and get some plenty capable enough Strike Eagles now.
with the AMRAAM’s latest variant, and the AIM-9X, JHMCS and APG-79(V)2, the SHornet is just as capable..the APG-79(V)2 is as capable, if not more capable than the APG-63(V)3 on the F-15SG. Also, the RAAF purchased its SHornets directly from the USN, not from Boeing, so the prices are the same as those that the USN would’ve paid for them..also F-15s are also sold by Boeing..what makes you think that they would’ve sold F-15s cheaper than SHornets ? :diablo:
The deal was covered by a government-to-government foreign military sale agreement, the first involving the Super Hornet, and Australia paid the same price for the advanced aircraft as its main operator, the US Navy, Mr Gower said yesterday.
“Australia is not actually buying from Boeing. It is buying this warplane from the US Navy, so Australia is getting the US Navy’s pricing.
Also, thanks to the USN, there will continue to be Blocks for the development of the SHornet.
21AnkushAustralia: 2.36 bn USD for 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft
Singapore: 741 mln USD for 12 F-15SG
South Korea: 3.6 bn USD for 40 F-15K, 2.3 bn USD for additional 20 F-15K
Flex, the Singaporeans paid around 1.8 billion for their 12 F-15SGs, not $741 mln- that is only the cost of the weapons, training, support, logistics.
Logistics-and-Training-Package_n000000540.aspx]link
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to Singapore of weapons, logistics, and training support for F-15 aircraft as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $741 million.
The Government of Singapore has requested a possible sale of Major Defense Equipment (MDE) 200 AIM-120C Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); 6 AMRAAM Captive Air Training (CAT) Missiles; 50 MK-82 GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) w/BLU-111 warhead; 44 AN/AVS-9(V) Night Vision Goggles; 24 Link 16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System/Low Volume Terminals (Fighter Data Link Terminals); 30 AGM-154A-1 Joint Standoff Weapons w/BLU-111; 30 AGM-154C Joint Standoff Weapons; 200 AIM-9X SIDEWINDER Missiles; 24 AIM-9X SIDEWINDER CAT and Dummy Missiles; Non- MDE 300,000 20mm Practice Round Cartridges; 100 KMU-556 GBU-31 JDAM Tail Kit Assemblies; 4 MK-82 and MK-84 Bomb Practice trainers; and testing; integration; devices; containers; common munitions built-in test reprogramming equipment; mission data production system; drones; technical coordination program; engine component management program; aircrew safety equipment; foreign liaison officer administration support; training equipment; repair and return services; technical assistance; missile planning system; technical orders; electronic warfare systems and support; weapons trainers; weapon system reports; missile container; spare and repair parts; supply support; integration and technical services; spares; support and test equipment; personnel training and training equipment; software support; publications and technical documentation; training; life support and survival equipment; studies and surveys; ground support equipment; training missiles; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics personnel services and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $741 million.
there is no way on earth that the F-15SG with AESA would’ve been that cheap. Add the $741 million for all the weapons, logistics and training to the $ 1 billion they paid for the 12 airframes, spare engines and radars, and you have $ 1.741 billion for 12 F-15SGs plus all the associated equipment. how on earth is that cheap?
link for F-15SG price
Also, I don’t quite understand how the SHornet is any worse than a F-15 of any new variant..with its current sensor suite and armament, it is every bit a match for the F-15..the only areas where the F-15 is better are range and top speed..other than that, the SHornet, avionics wise, is top notch. if anything, the ease with which it would fit into a RAAF that already operates a Hornet A/Bs would be greater than a brand new F-15 purchase or lease.
Sign In
