Nick_76BTW does anyone know why is EADS Germany leading the EF campaign in India and not BAe which managed to sell India Hawks and Jaguars?
Nick_761. Possibly – but the Germans & Spanish will fight tooth & nail for that cost to be borne by the UK & Italy, & the contract is on their side.
2. EF is always under attack by some German politicians. Currently, they’re in opposition. The current German government is impatient to sign up for T3 ASAP, & even within the opposition, the majority (even those who think Germany should have bought something else – all but a few diehards accept it’s too late to turn back the clock) think it should go ahead. I’m not aware of credible opposition (there’s always some opposition) to it in Spain.
3. Austria is a special case, with special politics. If SAAB hadn’t screwed up badly, it would have bought Gripen, & personally, I think it was a much better fit for their requirements. Now, the pro-Gripen, anti-NATO, & pacifist groups are all in the same anti-Typhoon camp.
Thanks!
Ok, so if I understand y’all properly:
1. T3 is a given (lets just assume this for now & it will simplify the discussion)
2. T3 numbers may be cut by some countries (which UK et al might try to offset by paying a penalty? Or by exporting the Typhoon quota to an export customer)
3. Can you specify what exactly is in T3 and how it will differ from T2, and timeframe?
And how many aircraft it will apply to? Will all EF delivered till date, be T3’ed?
Could use Google, but its got way too much confusing & contradictory information.
Nick_76But how much of that immediately relates to weapons integration? Flight testing, FCR, software, etc? How much of that work is at least based on what the Russian manufacturer already did, considering the Su-27 line in general?
Pretty much only about 30-40% I’d say, and thats being generous and looking at the airframe and structures, heck even there their is significant design. The Bars & TVC were languishing without the MKI & the funding allowed for development.
Both tech were substantially overhauled in terms of features as well. Then you have a brand new digital Quad FBW developed specially for the MKI, the SDU-10-MK, tested and operationalized.
The one advantage was the Bison program where RA (Russkaya Avionica) got some experience with some of the items that would go into the MKI which was being developed in parallel.
But overall, the same applies in the case of the EF, there was the EAP, for the Captor, there was the Blue Vixen etc etc. The MKI program even shrugged off the crash at the Paris Air Show.
While no doubt, testing & qual’ing an all new a/c is very time intensive, the MKI’s experience was not much different in some ways.
The program was revised heavily, because instead of being a quicker derivative like the MKK, it turned out to be a much more intensive program.
It was developing an all new aircraft combining elements of earlier research aircraft such as the Super Flanker, within the airframe of the Sukhoi-30 long range interceptor, and giving it brand new avionics capability to a standard hitherto undeveloped in Russia (and India).
There is also the issue of expertise, Russia (struggling with the issues of the FSU breakup), and India vs the combined technology expertise of some of the leading countries of the EU, I’d say the MKI program has indeed done well.
All said and done, if we look at the development complications & current status, its progress has been remarkable. Both in terms of capabilities being integrated and deployed & manufacturing – as I noted, its well underway to ramp up to a 230 aircraft total in India by 2015, and with Irkut also exporting variants to Malaysia & Algeria, both of which have some significant changes from the Indian variant!
To put it simply – apologies if I come across as uncharitable, whilst we are talking of several years to qual/ deploy COTS units on the EF, there are export Flanker-H’s with the same/ similar capablilities & more, integrated in timeframes which are a fraction of what the above Tranches depict.
India is now chugging out its own homebuilt upgrades to customize its builds, Malaysia opted for a brand new comms fit, new SP suite, all French avionics (replacing the Israeli) + new capabilities such as a Navflir, Algeria has its own stuff.. and all this has been turned out ASAP moreorless and is being inducted.
The thing is: T3 doesn’t only happen if all four members commit. It happens as soon as one of them commits. Britain’s and Spain’s diverging plans don’t mean much to T3 induction as long as Germany at least is committed, and they absolutely are. No way around it.
Ok, is the Captor E a firm part of T3 or an “option”? Also is Meteor intended for all partners or just the UK?
What exactly will T3 bring to the Table vs T2?
If you are purely looking at the capabilities and then at the prices of the MRCA contenders, you have to wonder though why they don’t just go with more MKIs. Most of them are roughly at MKI performance levels, yet cost the same or more. Only the Gripen would somewhat slot in between LCA and MKI. (And the LCA program is a whole separate issue, regarding where it stands, how well it’s progressing and what kind of capabilities can be expected at which point in time.)
The MKIs are expensive to fly being heavy fighters, and take two pilots/WSOs – with a sparing factor per squadron, thats a heavy expenditure in terms of trained manpower as well.
Not to mention flying costs – 200 hrs a yr/pilot etc and it all adds up.
So the IAF had the Mirage plan. It would cover any possible delays with the MKI & give them some massive boost with a mature platform.
The MRCA thing started as an acronym fest (IAF dusted off an old requirement) under the cover of which the IAF would promptly induct some 5 squadrons of Mirage 2000 V’s.
The Mirages had done well at Kargil, and the IAF wanted more of them. The latest version sounded very good.
Their next trick was to float the concept of a strategic strike force (for N delivery) based around these Mirages. That didnt fly as well. (Basically we wants our Mirages and we wants them now!!)
To be fair, they were being accurate – huge numbers of MiGs were on the way to retirement, 3 squadrons of 23 BN’s, a couple of the older 27’s, a bunch of the MiG-21 types…
But one way or the other, the IAF wanted the Mirages. Plans were worked out for assembly at HAL, much discussion between HAL, Dassault & IAF.
Then…
So while it was trundling along & about to get funded (under the previous Govt), the States Auditor General threw a hissy fit. The CAG (Central AG) said single vendor procurements were not supposed to be the norm per guidelines, especially for such huge multi billion $ deals.
So began the MRCA contest.
Opened to all and sundry and all sorts of fighters and classes. The US joined the race and from then on, nobody knows whats going on.
What we do know:
– Both geopolitics and equipment capability will be factored
-AESA is required (others say no!), IAF says tech needs of 20 years factored in
-TOT is required (90%) and 50% offset
-By law, any aircraft which meets the RFP and is cheapest has to be selected.
But IAF CAS has said “the most capable aircraft” will be chosen and “cost is not an issue for capability”.
Given how the MKI and Hawk were chosen by the IAF, it does seem some leeway is there to suitably tilt the selection to what the IAF wants.
Nick_76Toan, thanks!
So CAPTOR-E is by no means confirmed.
1. There will be no major difference between late Tranche II and Tranche III since saving money has become the No1 priority.
Which is what I have been saying, per all reports. Time will tell, but Euro countries dont seem to be much interested in expensive upgrades, the RSAF deal doesnt cover it (afaik) & it could be the Indian or Braz MRCA deal that makes it happen.
Any confirmation of whether PIRATE and DASS are getting fully ops this year?
Second:
Regarding CAPTOR:
5. Being able to handle A2A and A2G modes at the same time.
This by 2012; somehow I have a feeling it may end up being dropped altogether, despite earlier hype.
All said and done, this is no easy task to accomplish with a MESA (yes, I know about the fast motors etc) and with AWACS and escort for any strike mission, its not like a deal killer.
Nick_76range vs payload is not an issue, look at the figures.
Hi Loke, looked at them & the figures are decent. But still – is it in the same class as a Rafale? Or can it hang as much payload as a Typhoon? Thats what I am talking about.
US contents: I don’t think this is an issue for India anymore.
Oh it is. I am Indian & while the political party currently in power has bent over backwards to make nice with the US (esp. considering the N-deal), there are still misgivings about the State Dept’s proPak leanings & tendency to sermonize/ask for sanctions viz India.
Secondly, can the Gripen team offer TOT for items they dont control, such as Moog actuators or the engine?
Similarity to LCA: This is a question of perception. Look at what the a/c can do, not just at the outer dimensions 🙂 If it meets all requirements then what’s the problem?L
The problem is it starts fitting into a role which another aircraft is being prepared to take up. So why buy two things which end up slotting at the same spot.
But the Gripen does have a fighting chance in the Indian tender, no doubt, and its too early to call who wins.
All I hope is that the MiG-35 is not chosen. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: (MKI, PAK-FA and MiG-35? Heck no!!)
Nick_76You keep saying this, & failing to respond to the hole in the argument: there are two partner countries which are not in the JSF consortium, & have no plans to buy it for their air forces. Germany & Spain are going to keep EF going, regardless of what the UK & Italy do. I’ve already pointed out to you that because of their absolute (& funded) commitment, Tranche 3 is guaranteed. The worst case is a reduction in numbers. Typhoon has twice as many guaranteed sales as Rafale, in the worst case for Typhoon.
If there is a reduction in numbers, wont Tranche 3 price go up? Wont it affect prices for all associated kit & so on and so forth?
Second, your posts contain information but the flow is hard to decipher since so much text is stacked together. Break it up into bullets or separate statements, please.
Third, JSF is tangential to my statements above – given the constant press about cutting down on defence expenditure, and the number of times EF pops up, EF has been often mentioned as under attack by German politicians as well apart from the UKs (I have no idea about how things are in Spain & who is in power).
Check Austrias whimsical treatment of the EF for eg. Purchased it, and have been cutting down specs, and now its no BVR only IRIS-T.
Nick_76Su-30MKI info:
Its a very good page but it has some errors & is out of date in some aspects, it was last updated in 2006. Thereafter, we do know the following:
– Kh31 P capability with HADF pods from DARE India
-Upgraded MCs (One report speaks of something of the sort)
-New DARE R118 RWR (faster, better than Tarang, 1 LRU vs 4)
-Kh-31A for antiship roles, again confirmed
–Elta 2060 (unsure of the exact designation) for Recce
-New MFDs from Samtel India
-Astra integration
-Popeye (at least one report)
-Brahmos to follow
All these are but declared upgrades, I am sure there are many that are not declared or trumpeted, mainly in the most sensitive areas such as RCS reduction, EW & radar. This is because the MKI is currently the IAFs “edge” and the org has a vested interest in keeping its capabilities under wraps, lest its primary opponents the PAF/PLAAF have time to take countermeasures.
I’ll stop here, this is an EF thread & dont wish to drag it OT.
Nick_76Then again the basic airframe has been around for a while and in constant updates with fluid upgrades of avionics.
Heres where I must disagree- the MKI has little similarity in many key avionics with most of its predecessors.
The IAF requirements for a completely open architecture, incorporation of a lot of third party gear into core avionics modules & the facility to continue doing so, plus transfer of technology (documenting/ converting the reams of Russian technical literature into english, western stds) including manufacturing knowledge. Per recent news, the MKI has entered Phase 3 production at HAL for some key items ..by 2010, the MKIs will have substantial local content.
Plus the had to operationalize the TVC, develop the Bars..Practically all of this was done once the IAF committed to the program and began funding it & involved itself.
To give an idea, recently the RAAF was in hot water when their locally developed RWR was not found compatible with their Hornets. Here, the Indian side brought RWRs, the Israelis got jammers and so on and so forth, it was successfully integrated…and the upgrades are still rolling in.
A new pod to cue ARMs (local) got qualified, new Israeli pods to snoop 300-500 km into the PRC were procured, and there are apparently several other upgrade / modifications in the works, underway as well. The Indian side is now using the MKI as a testbed for the local Astra BVRAAM in development, they have a locally developed software rig to add further kit as well.
Again, not slagging the EF, but its fairly creditable for the MKI program to have achieved thus.
In fact, it was a RAF executive iirc who in 2001 commented that the MKI program was a remarkable success in terms of program management, despite the delays from original schedule. I have the quote somewhere in print..its but now, I think one can appreciate the scale of the effort, all the techno babble of “x” vs “y” and which plane has this better than that, apart.
In the meantime, Irkut have also delivered MKMs to the RMAF, with newer kit including navFLIR & now there are MKAs for Algeria as well.
All in all, I do think Irkut & its partners have done a very good job & they deserve the financial success. All this at a very competitive price which is substantially lesser than many of its peers!
Spain is committed, Germany is firmly committed. Germany’s even firmly committed to Captor-E/CAESAR.
I guess time will tell, dont get me wrong – I have no wish to insist that it “wont happen” or a vested interest in the same. Its just that with the constant budget battles for defence in many European countries, including the UK, I see the EF Tranche 3 program as being under threat.
In such a clime the arrival of the JSF could be a bit ominous. It may offer capabilities (to AF that plan to operate both) that would allow some degree of leeway in not keeping the EF going with expensive upgrades (unless for export).
I guess this also answers the other thread where somebody asked the effect of the Indian MRCA contest on the “winner”. Well it means enough money to keep their product competitive via a large export contract & the follow on lifecycle costs some of which will definitely flow back!
Assuming that they’ll stick to original requirements of the deal and not be tempted and lured by additional capability, I’d still favor the Gripen. Its problem ist though that it can’t offer the same geopolitical benefits as other entries.
My problem with the Gripens is three fold,
one, its too small for the job the MRCA will have to shoulder, even with the NG, I am a bit wary of the range vs payload specs
Also, the issue of US content – the US has this habit of armtwisting others who use their IP and the end user may pay the price if it doesnt play nice with the US at times
Finally, its similar to what the LCA is now becoming, why buy 2 a/c of the same type.
Nick_76Buffalos did pretty well in Dutch and Finnish service. Not deserving the title of the “absolute worst” imho.
Nick_76Thanks Mike.
This is very useful info & your effort in collating it in one go is appreciated, for those of us who had given up trying to make sense of EF blocks and what not.
No comparison per se & no slags on the EF program, but I now realise how substantial the MKI prgm is, in terms of the capabilities it offers in A2A as well as A2G and how competitive it is in both!
2012 for full A2G for the EF, while the MKI can currently offer 115 Km Kh-59’s and Popeyes as well, plus LGBs, EO and what not from Russian & 3rd party OEMs as well.
EOC 1 for full ops DASS (2013 I guess) – thats enough for the MKIs to get new EW (As apparently planned) + local Towed decoys.
EOC-2 (2015- I guess) for recce, while the MKIs already have new SAR/El-Op pods to sneak 300-500 kms in, this year! And by then, I think the RS-172 will officially exist, plus local Astra BVRAAM. I also anticipate further upgrades to the Bars radar or even absolute replacement while the Bars is already ok/competitive vs the Captor.
Tranche 3 is per reports, quite dicey, since it wants pounds & euros from the users, who are rather tight fisted.
Again, I hope the EF team manage to swing the Indian MRCA deal as well, but the timelines mentioned above make it somewhat swing towards Arthur’s favourite Hornet!! I hope not, but I it might well happen, and thats that!
Nick_76^^^^^
Thanks for the humour.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
(I learnt this succint way of replying from some other post on this forum. Saves so much bandwidth)
Nick_76+1 for the Fairey Battle. The Defiant at least proved to be of some use as a nightfighter?
Nick_76A good example, when it comes to the opponent. In IAF service against the PAF that were enough in local conflicts within a limited area and no serious ground defenses. 😉
But thats exactly what I said.
At the end, it matters as to what tool you select for the job.
Was the MiG-21 used for deep attacks like the Canberra’s were? No.
Did they pull the bulk of the Ground attack sorties soaking up ground fire? No. The Su-7s were justifiably used for that.
I wouldnt say no “serious ground defences” either – no radar guided SAM’s? Sure – but enough radar guided artillery in the air to make Counter air highly risky, as the Su-7s discovered.
In short the types were used exactly to the limits to which the design was applicable, so that got a decent performance out of them.
In Arab hands, the lack of doctrine and improper deployment (sending waves of MiGs against a prepared opponent with AWACS cover in Bekaa valley f.e.) is disastrous, and not really the fault of the aircraft design, whose limitations and strengths should be known to the user and factored in before deployment!!
Even the IAF sent Vampires (though it had no choice but to respond with what it had to support the IA) vs Sabres – and they were shot down in 1965. The MiG-21 has outlived its life in the IAF – again, because it has had to (no replacements), so no user is perfect either, but the Arabs made far too many mistakes, recurring.
Nick_76Nick,
How long have you been on these boards and you have to ask that question?!. :).
😀
Taking the weewee is enshrined in British culture. More so in service life, there are very often running contests within divisions/messdecks/sections etc to see how close to the wire its possible to get before insubordination, charges and a brief stop in jail result!.
Ha!! I believe you Jonesy, the good people over at the A**se.co.uk forums seem to be masters at the art vis their “orificers” as they affectionately call them. And they are at it 24/7. Scary blokes to command!! 😀
Nope just that. Fluffy as in bunny rabbits, pillows etc. Apparently there is no word in the German language thats equivalent?!.
Oh my! Now that is truly extracting..the..
The German guy would have been left puzzled as to why in anyones name did fluffy have anything to do with ACM. But he got the last laugh, as you said..so it evens out!
Regards for the other details as well. Interesting stuff and no wonder the move towards PGMs is speeding up. CAS is a scary job, with the massive proliferation of MANPADs and what not.
Makes me wonder, it does, as to how survivable the TFR mode attackers will be, whether it be the Rafale or the Su-34.
Stealth and medium alt plinking is far better, me thinks.
Nick_76RSM55 good posts.
Though I must say you are rather hard on Vlad K, he is actually pretty ok compared to some of the junk turned out by the likes of Pavel Felgenhauer.
I swear, the constant jibes at Putin and Russia by some posters are asinine and uneccessary. The same would apply to anyone who keeps attacking GWB.
Putin’s nations interest were threatened, and he took decisive action and won.
Shakashvilli gambled and lost.
The US tried to get its geopolitical goals via Georgia and Ukraine, that wont be easy, not with Russia giving due warning via this incident.
Life goes on.
Sign In
