Abhimanyu,

I dont know what you are talking about nor do I care. Frankly, you are also one of the gents on “ignore” given your non stop lunacy about pushing the Tejas for the MRCA. Somehow the ignore list option doesnt really work when you chaps are quoted by others, so I just scroll past. Please do me a favour and dont reply to me or any of my posts, and spare me the tedium of replying to your “thoughts”.

Ante, Didn’t you get the message earlier? Dont have time to talk to you – hopefully till you put on a few more years in terms of maturity. And BIO is an adult with a job so I’d rather reply to him myself – and sorry, I do really doubt you are one of my “fellow Indians” and really dont care which forum made you cry or why!

Austin,

IMO, the MiG-35 is not the best choice for the MRCA because of the single vendor issue.

As of now, the IAF already has the MKI and PAK-FA program going on with the Russians. Putting the MRCA also into the Russian basket is too risky as we would be really hog tied to the UAC. Any issue with Russia or UAC and the MiG-35 would be affected.

That apart, the MiG-35 more and more appears to be a combination of an early gen airframe with avionics upgrades. This puts it at a disadvantage versus the Eurocanards.

In terms of weaponry, the US fighters offer a much more comprehensive package.

So the only thing going for it is cost + the logistics factor.

I really doubt we can do much with the MiG-35 either. Having spent some time recently with the HAL chaps, one thing that was pointed out was that it took a lot of effort and time for us to get the kind of access we needed to put our own gear in the MKI, and we still want more. It would take us another 5-10 years to work out everything with the MiG-35 if the MKI was an indication and we simply dont have the time.

Best to go with a “mostly” developed fighter which can be inducted and operationalized ASAP. That would also give more leeway to any lag in the development of the FGFA/PAK-FA.

There are some other issues as well, but probably best left off public forums.

Personally speaking, were cost and politics not such a bugbear, I would go for:

– The Rafale (#1)
– The Eurofighter (#2)
– The Super Hornet (#3)

In that order.

All three are twin engined, and should be equally survivable more or less. All 3 field low RCS (clean), so even that is common.

IMO, the first one, the Rafale – is from a proven supplier, combines a good modern airframe and a good mix of A2A and A2G. On the negative side- launch customer, cost, expensive french parts, expense of integrating third party (mostly Israeli I guess) weapons.

Second – the EF- very modern airframe and sensors, part of a WW consortium (and hence mature supply chain). On the negative side, cost, expensive parts, and lack of A2G integration (as of now).

Third – the Super Hornet – Good payload, range and sensors. Amazing array of integrated weaponry, cheap US made PGMs and A2A munitions. Cons: US unreliability in terms of political crisis (eg versus Pak), TOT concerns, slightly draggy airframe which makes it worse in kinematic performance versus the other two.

Given the cost & politics factor, the Super Hornet could be a winner. But given that the F-16 IN is even cheaper, even that stands a good chance.

New information about the Su-35 crash:
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/600/42/377115.htm
Extremely sad to hear about the injury of a person on the ground – I wonder why this was not reported before? Confirmation of a FADEC failure is also not good news for the 117S at all.

I’d say they got off lightly.

Many aircraft programs have seen far worse, including post induction. Imagine ending up a smear on a Reinforced hanger ceiling, because of an ejection seat misfire!

A FADEC failure is possible, as is a control failure from the main computing system – as long as it is rectified, its good.

And as regards the heart attack – he lives, which is good. Cant blame him on having a huge rocket going straight at his post.

It is quite amusing to see how this discussion has turned out. I would suggest lets just forget about the whole “Ego” thing and lets “agree to disagree” . Many times on this forum many members wiser then myself have been bombarded with questions and doubts regarding the factual premise behind many arguments or capabilities MANAGERS , OPERATORS , and folks close to a defence program may hold or wish to share in an editorial or a news snippet. When an F-15 pilot claims that it is extremely hard for him to get a lock on the F-22 even at close distance and sometime even at WVR then many in this forum Dispute that to a point of basically using it as joke and this isnt specific to US Kit only , Many 2 line Russian articles from some russian pubs which quote high ranking officials are often disputed and rediculed here as well. One ex member by the name of STAR something (keyboard is messed up) claimed that the Su-35 was invincible because no matter what missle was fired at it (BVR OR WVR) it had the capability to shoot that missle down , and he even provided a 2 line article from a russian news source stating his case! My point is that we should as grown ups be able to handle disagreement without having to resort to personal insults , questioning the other members Intelligence or intellect and Name calling. We have had many men of strong opinion here over the years that have done absolutely fine even if some other members didnt agree with them , and they took it without really making it ugly.

And just for some Fun (since this thread is at an inherent risk Closing down and/or cleansed) –

Now we bring in BA and the 787 which is a commercial , corporate program far away from the military topic at discussion. It is totally vague to say the 787 had fake panels and what not , the 787 had some Temporary fastners installed because of design freeze delays which lead to a production shortfall @ Alco (if i recall correctly as i no longer oversee my corp. dealing with boeing or the 787 team). It was rolled out as an empty shell , so was the A-380 , and it isnt something that should be that surprising as the process of a roll out is not to demonstrate to the PUBLIC , MEDIA that the aircraft is done and flying but to CELEBRATE a STAGE of production. Boeing did temp. damage control because there was nothing they could do (hands of Alcoa which itself wasnt totally to blame as the design freeze was late) but sit around until the inventories of fastners got replenished , and if someone has expereince with modern airliners there are huge ammounts of fastners , types (not number but also different types of fastners) so that was a logistical issue. Boeing will soon show to the public the complete 787 with engines on and taking off (i’d say June – 5 (my birdie tells me 🙂 ) and what not. Before that we will see the 787 turn its engines on , we’ll see news articles , blogs , videos , maybe even the Round the clock news media. Boeing still wont have SEATS INSTALLED or INTERIORS FITTED at first flight , becuse FIRST FLIGHT is not the stage to DO that , just as ROLL OUT isnt either !!

Also , just because 21 brought the topic of weight , my sources tell me that weight still is an issue but there is quite a high level of confidence that the wing will perform better then expected as high sources claim that they did under-estimate the wing and overall aerodynamic performance vis a vis fuel burn (and thus range etc ) .

I believe that with the new schedule ANA will be getting 787’s at an Earlier date now , then they would have had they stuck to the original first production jets (time to complete testing and bring the aircraft to airline spec ). On a personal note , i dont think boeing will be wrong with the FUEL BURN or range guarantees they have made , i Cant recall the last time they over-promised and under-delivered (as the boeing corp.) as throughout people close to the program have had confidence in the safety margins with each component!!.

With regards to the quite amusing topic of Viper tyre burst , that is hilarious ! Surely the Viper cannot perform mission in that extreme Heat , there has to be a flaw in its design requiring expensive and high risk re designing 😉

BIO,

Just a few points

– I have a low order of patience with trolls and those who just gas around on topics they know next to nothing about. And no, I am not talking about you.

My time is important to me, and I prefer spending it with adults. Listening to risible nonsense about sources being “biased” as they are aviation engineers when aforesaid sources are those who actually did the hands on work is beyond silly. By the same standards, everything Kelly Johnson did was crap or whatever Tupolev achieved, etc.

So as far as all the agree to disagree stuff goes – that goes ahead with adults, not kids. Where I come from one doesnt shoot their mouth off on topics he/she doesnt know squat about. Opinions are not passed off as fact, accountability is accepted, facts are sourced.

Your mileage may vary, your tolerance levels may be higher. Good for you.

You may also notice that I chose not to reply to the prior two posts by both gentlemen. However, you have raised this entire sidetrack yet again, and I am replying to you.

However, if you still dont get what I have said above, I am not going to try and convince you – I have said my piece. I would also appreciate you not raking this up yet again as I have no more desire to waste my time or yours on this topic.

– You missed the context entirely with the 787 issue. 21Ankush pointed out that even the 787, from an established manufacturer like Boeing is having a weight issue, despite the extensive use of composites – and I pointed out that it was not just his opinion but backed by Hazy et al – anyone in the industry knows his opinions count and that he has his money on the initial 787’s being overweight.

Now the rest of the stuff you posted was not really required – guess why? Because as an adult, I know Boeing will solve the issue – its just one more of the myriad niggling issues any aircraft program of that stature suffers from. And we can all look at the Airbus A400M program to see the issues that can occur even when an experienced worldclass manufacturer ventures into an area not of its specialization, in this case mil vs civil aerotransports.

Lastly – Boeing has far more on the line with 787 than ADA with its LCA as far as corporate versus military goes – in that you made the statement, as the ADA LCA is funded entirely by taxpayer money and has development commitment. OTOH, Boeing’s 787 is a commercial program and faces far more risk and is essentially a higher challenge in some ways. Ergo, Boeing will solve it ASAP lest it risk its rep in this challenging time.

-Finally, coming to the Viper, I was merely pointing out the fact that it had issues with a flying display in the intense heat. And no, I was not the only one who noted that the display thereafter was canceled by the Viper crew despite ostensibly having spares and consumables on hand – the risk of having a follow on incident on the blazing tarmac was apparently deemed too risky. It would definitely have been bad for PR at the very least.

And yes, I do have my doubts about the Viper’s latest heavily loaded variants performing to spec @ heat in Indian conditions, when equipped with a heavy warload. Thats been a doubt expressed by several IAF crew in the past, and no doubt these doubts will be cleared, one way or the other, via the flight trials in summer.

If India does have to go American – I’d prefer the F/A-18 E/F. More upgrade potential for one & two engines versus one, for survivability. Its like choosing a SUV versus a hotrod in some ways, but risk mitigation is critical & I’d think the F/A-18 E/F will face lesser attrition in Indian conditions, especially with our bird strike hazards.

Victor,

Unless you have actual operating data about sortie rates & the like done by the UAE Block 60’s, your statement is irrelevant. Its not just the temperature, but the payload and frequency of flying which , in toto, are the determiner.

1. Weapon integration
2. Weapon integration
3. Weapon integration
4. AESA
5. Further improve ECM/EWS
6. CFTs
7. TVC
8. Improve networking
9. Give the MMI a new design iteration

🙂

Very well said and it is here both teen series fighters have such an edge over their competitors in the MRCA. I wonder whether either Eurocanard will get an ARM in time for the evals!

The Indians bought their expensive M2000 as strikers and the nuclear capability in mind.

Sens, thats unfortunately not really true.

When the Mirages were bought, it was a reaction to the PAF having bought the F-16.

We also ended up buying the MiG-29.

And ultimately unable to decide which was better, we never built a fleet around either, added to which was the 90’s economic crisis which saw the Indian Govt park its gold abroad for a brief period.

The decision to weaponise the nuclear program came much later, and if public sources are to believed thanks to a bit of whimsy from our then PM, Rajiv Gandhi who witnessed a fire power demo, and finally gave the go ahead.

He basically didnt have a choice since he had been told that Pak had incontrovertibly weaponised.

Hi Trident,

The pics show the most visible difference, namely the absence of the TATRA based TELs with their 3 round launchers. The Russian TEL apparently encloses the dual launchers and is a more rugged cross country platform at first guess.

The Brahmos utilizes Tatra TELs, plus the TATRA based MCP, mobile command posts. Both of these were developed by India, including their fire control consoles & s/w, C3I and the hydraulics. Tatra’s are of course manufactured (under license) by BEML India, whereas the DRDO designed systems (in participation with the private/public firms) are integrated by ECIL, Larsen & Toubro, Datapatterns and others.

The Brahmos is also transported in Indian Composite tubes, manufactured by Tata Aerospace Materials Ltd.

The Missile itself has structural components manufactured in India by Godrej Ltd., plus other systems sourced from other firms.
The INS-GPS Nav guidance unit for instance is Indian, and is of DRDO design.

The entire missile, plus the Russian supplied components is integrated at the Brahmos complex in India.

———

As such I would presume the Bastion is all Russian in comparison.

Wherever you see the Indian systems above, they would be replaced with Russian analogs.

Regards.

I had the good fortune of talking to one of the ADA persons who was involved with the LCA program from around 1991 at a meeting on Hybrid materials. He’s a PhD from IIT Delhi, and was one of the top guys in the development of the AutoLay composite application by ADA. He was telling me that they started to test the composite materials beginning from 1986, to start getting material data and the allowables that have been used on the Tejas have been conservative. the reason he offered (which I’d already guessed) was that they wanted to ensure that under no circumstance should a catastrophic failure occur due to their over-estimating the material allowables data.

other things he mentioned was that co-curing and co-bonding of the LCA wing has reduced a lot of fasteners, and most crucially, takes care of fatigue issues due to holes drilled after panels are built and then fastened to the underlying structures. and, when I asked how many hours service life is estimated, he said it was done keeping aircraft of 3rd generation, like the Mirage-2000 in mind, and was kept at around 6000 hours.

and most importantly, he said that the initial flight loads were close to the predicted loads, and that weight reduction is an ongoing process as they change parts that are currently metallic and try to replace them with composites or lighter parts.

also, NAL is now indigenously manufacturing its own carbon-fiber composites, whereas they were being imported at very high cost from the US earlier.

Thanks – good to know this.

its the typical chai-biskoot types. apne ko sab topics pe sab kuch aata hain..”doosre saale kuch nahi jaante, apun sabko sab sikhaayega”- type attitude. they know everything about everything, however unrelated it may be with their own field of education or experience.

everything the US makes is glorious and great. nevermind that they don’t know any of the actual happenings in these places- for instance how the 787 that was rolled out on 07-08-07 ACTUALLY had fake panels, no interiors, all to bluff the media and generate more sales, while engineers struggled to keep its huge weight issues under control. or how the first 4 787s will be so overweight that its launch customer will not take delivery of it and Boeing is paying huge bucks to get the weight down.

LM puts one “F-16IN” sticker on a F-16 Block 60 and we have fanboys jumping up and down. who says marketing gimmicks don’t work ?

Spot on.

Right about the 787 too, this is what Hazy said:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/18/323972/ilfcs-hazyboeings-initial-787s-will-be-overweight.html

Coming to the F-16 IN, check your PM.

It did put up a frightful burn and turn (though the CFTs didnt help) show at AeroIndia ’09 – very noisy and fairly low.

The children were very happy.

Wasnt much fun when on the last day, our pregnant sow (and it does look ugly versus the original Viper) – the F-16Block 60 promptly burst a tire in the Bangalore heat.

I dont envy the IAF maintainers in Rajasthan, Gujarat, MP etc with a warload Viper in summer.