The Rafale. http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2010/08/thales-deliver-first-aesa-radar-for.html

Look beyond the press release to the details. As I said: “As far as I am aware, all European fighters have in progress radars, with the Thales AESA for the Rafale still in work up. ” – this is evident from the UAE deal discussion where a senior French General mentions additional modes to be added, increased range etc. What we have here is a first tranche of AESAs, pushed out to assist export prospects, and of course, significantly ahead of programs like the ES-05, but its still a work in progress. In the case of the MKI, the BARS radar was launched in production in 2001 or thereabouts, but it took several more years to mature it to the current MK3 level which is being used. Russia itself now has several AESA arrays in advanced development (pre-production arrays in testing) coupled with a substantial history of ESA (Zaslon, Bars, Irbis-E) and hence I wouldn’t call the gap (if any) substantial, given the fact Russia can now use the best of commercial computer hardware/software/processes as it requires, and can also upgrade its hardware manufacturing (for Tx/Rx modules) as there are equipment suppliers willing to work with it. Phazatron, which has had severe financial trouble, has even so managed to field a prototype AESA with local Tx/Rx chips and is working on improving the system with a production partner. The NIIP effort is clearly more well funded, and advanced and relatively low key (there were no pics and even news released till MAKS-09) since it was for the PAK-FA, but given the funding, company reports and R&D capability, AESA on Russian fighters is just a matter of time.

arr you be right matey,
but the best aircraft to meet those requirements you layed is the F-35.
With the lower gen aircraft, you already have the Su-30MKI for those capabilities. out of the MMRCA aircraft, the F-18E would be the next choice simply because it is the best striker of them all.

The proposed EF is as much vapor as the NG and MiG-35.

ideally, India should work with Boeing and make a derivative of the F-32 to meet both your MCA and MMRCA needs 😉

Problem is we don’t have enough Su-30’s. 270 Su-30’s will need to be split between both theaters, when one possible opponent has already got more Su-class platforms available. So the solution is to get aircraft that can do as much as the Sukhoi can, or at least be similar in effectiveness, even if they are smaller, have lower logistics requirements as well.

The proposed EF – I think it’s too early to tell, what India’s EF will be, but it wont be a radical upgrade of the existing EF at any rate. It may be at best, equal to an all up UK level EF with some additional kit such as an AESA radar & which may be similar to what other customers have as well over time via upgrades.

The Boeing idea just won’t work for the MMRCA as it defeats the purpose of getting a fighter into induction ASAP, plus its very unlikely India could afford to fund it.

For this none of the offered MRCA will fare that well except may be the Rafale. Better scrap it like Ajai Shukla says and buy the F 35.

Sorry, but you’d be mistaken here. In strike, the F-16 Bk60 & SH both are pretty mature platforms by now. The latter is larger, has a newer airframe, and more growth potential. The Rafale would do ok as well. The EF would require some tweaking & addition (new munitions etc) but it too can be a very effective A2G aircraft here.

Hi Teer, you really made some good points in your last posts and I agree totally with these requirements too, but how in your opinion does the EF fit in here? Tranche 3 is split into A and B, but so far the partners didn’t decide what new capabilities will be included and when and we talk about risks, aren’t these delays in integration / upgrading also a big risk for India and it’s forces? The EF officials not even hide their shortfalls anymore and openly admit, that the AESA radar for example will not be ready in time (first squad in 2014, licence production in 2015), so what’s your point on that?

Thanks Sancho.

My thing is that even without the AESA, we can take the Tranche 3A aircraft as we did with the Jaguar initial deliveries and still have a very potent aircraft, as good as or even superior to some of the other “developed” MRCA contenders.

The AESA can be retrofitted over time, right now, even the basic EF can support a long range Meteor engagement when integrated, unlike some of the other aircraft, so its good enough for Indian needs for a while till an AESA gets ready.

I also would like to add the point, that MMRCA away from the initial Mig 21 replacement, could now have the aim of adding 1 fighter not only into IAF, but for commonality reasons also to IN (that has a similar competition for carrier fighters runing) and if possible even the nuclear role of SFC!
By the fact that only the Rafale has dedicated versions suited for all 3 forces, this should be a big advantage. The closest in this regard is the Super Hornet, although I don’t think it will be a good choice in the nuclear role with all the restrictions, not to mention that the US won’t allow the integration of such weapons.

Frankly, I try to stay away from pushing for any one type in particular, as some might take it as partisan, but yes, you make good points overall about factors that may be considered. I dont know though, whether the IAF has actually considered the interoperability angle, for instance.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, I hope the IAF chooses a highly capable weapons platform that can stay relevant across the next 3 decades and also provides a substantial boost to Indian industry, via offsets and other programs, that can benefit indian industry and technology providers.

Sukhoi was making everything in house ie. sourcing stuff from the Soviet/Russian industry, and a project like the MKI with Israeli, French and Indian systems being involved was new for them. On the other hand SAAB have been doing this sort of integration for many years and clearly has more experience in that aspect over Sukhoi.

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.

I never ever advocated scrapping the Tejas or reducing its numbers for the Gripen NG, both are and should be seperate programs. If the Tejas MK2 fails to offer what it says it will I do not think it will matter if its the Gripen or the Typhoon that is selected, IAF may limit the Tejas orders and go for a follow on purchase of the MRCA.

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.

And if Tejas’ problems are not solved by the additional thrust (meaning they are design related) then they will not be solved in an MK3 or MK4 either, our next bet will then be the AMCA.

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.

The MIG 35 or the upgraded MIG may have teething issues but it will be a good match for any flanker varient the PLAAF currently operate or may operate in the near future.

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!

We also have to look at operational costs, here a single engined fighter has its own advantages. The F 16 fleet is the backbone of the USAF, don’t you think with 270 SU 30s and 250-300 T 50s we have our heavy fleet covered. And something like an F 16 or a Gripen complements this much better than another twin engined heavy fighter.

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.

And so much of aircombat is still decided by pilot skill, now will all our pilots/navigators flying all these heavy fighters get as much time in the air as our Su 30 pilots get now ? I think IAF will consider all this when making its decision and not go by performance alone.

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.

Not really it will depend on the commercial bids and budget allocated. Well the A330 was in that particular competiton as well and is now in the new tanker comptiton as well.

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.

Since you refer to PLAAF’s Flankers, i take it interception from Leh is your primary concern ?
So: Why is heavier aircraft better suited for this task and basing any day ?

Not just Leh Obligatory, but Tezpur and any other AFB from where the IAF’s fighters may be thrown into the NE theater.

Now, I don’t intend to run down the Gripen NG, its a good light fighter & now trending towards the medium category, it may even bring new capabilities that Sweden finds useful. But India is not Sweden. We have an offensive AF that does not intend to protect the home turf and repel larger numbers of aircraft, but actually do deep strike, heavy counter air missions against a numerically larger, and equally well equipped force with very effective triple digit SAMs and modernised Flankers.

For this India needs EF’s and Rafales, a light/mid upg fighter will not suffice over the long term.

@Teer,
I see that my reasoning appears to be realistic. A Rafale or Typhoon would certainly be a good addition to the IAF as far as the medium fighter is concerned. Is there any trend wrt the mission priorities? Is the IAF placing more emphasis on AA or AG or weight them equally?

I don’t know about the weights assigned to these functions. I’d presume they have weighed them equally, though my personal preference would hinge towards strike getting an edge.

With SAAB’s Track Record at making fighters. I would anyday pass the Gripen NG as low risk.

Having a track record alone is not sufficient. If track record is all one goes by, MiG is even better placed than SAAB given its fighter is a much simpler iterative development & India has long operated MiG fighters, is still buying MiG-29 variants and has a huge logistics infrastructure.

Saab’s track record cannot compensate for risk at their vendors, integration issues, problems with flight envelope/FBW tweaks, supplier/vendor problems, avionics hassles….the possibility of things going wrong with a Gripen NG is substantially more than that with mature types like the EF/Rafale/F-18 & even the F-16.

Sukhoi’s track record could not compensate for the MKI program being reworked to include Phases 1, 2 and 3 over several years.

I know Tejas is vital for India but ADA/HAL has still a mountain to climb to reach SAAB’s level of expertise in Aerodynamic Design. I want the LCA MK2 to be as good or better than the Gripen NG, but if I was a betting man I will not put my money on it being so.

Let the Tejas be 10% even 20% behind SAAB’s aerodynamic design! The point is India can then build a Tejas MK3 or a MK-2.1, 2.2 to iteratively improve upon its design the same way SAAB did, once it is done with the MK2 which is improving on its MK1 in the same manner.

Where is the advantage in getting an aircraft, that is not a class apart from your own aerospace product, and on top of it, for obvious business reasons, will seek to supplant it.

The logical approach should be to spend the money on getting more advanced capabilities that bring something substantially new to Indian industry or plug Indian industry into a viable, existing worldwide aerospace network. That is optimal use of Indian tax money, and will provide a substantial boost to Indian aerospace industry.

For instance, where does India learn more, as a partner in the EF consortium, or as a 50% license assembler of an aircraft SAAB itself integrates, and cannot guarantee all the technology for.

My realistic expectation is to get a cheap decent fighter thats as good as the C/D Gripen.

In that case, the MMRCA should be scrapped, and India should go around buying upgraded Mirage 2000’s and MiG-29s. That’s all that’s required, if you set the sights so low.

And these aircraft will be heavily outmatched by upgraded PLAAF Flankers circa 2020 & whatever design they come up with by then. They are but 1-1.5 performance generation behind what Europe has today & by setting the bar so low, you ensure that a full third of the IAF’s fighter fleet is not upto par when facing tomorrow’s threats.

Not to mention that even today, the upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage 2000’s the IAF is getting would be challenged by existing Chinese Flankers and SAMs & need substantial support from force multipliers.

I thought that none of the aircraft being offered to India is in service in exactly the offered model. Gripen NG is more different from any in-service model than the Rafale, Typhoon, F-16 & F-18 variants, but given the progress of development so far, appears rather low risk.

Swerve, the Typhoon, Rafale at best will receive a new radar, tweaks to the mission suite to address the radar, some tweaks to the avionics to include IAF specific symbology, weapons etc. They would also receive some tweaks to the propulsion to operate better in hot & high conditions, if required.

But AFAIK, no radical overhaul is planned of reworking the airframe, adding a new radar plus new mission computing suite, new engine, new/upg. EW suite, new IRST etc. All of these are pencilled in for the Gripen NG as a given. What this tells me, based on historical experience with even simpler types, is that the first few years after induction will be spent in fixing all sorts of integration and other bugs that will only become apparent over time. We saw what happened with the much simpler Hawk for instance. And this when BAe has a long record of working overseas and transferring tech., and even experience with India.

Hence, I do think the the EF, Rafale & even Super Hornet are lower risk, as they have gone through that maturity curve and are still fixing stuff. By 2014-15, hopefully, they would have matured even further.

The original plan for the MMRCA was to get an in-service (matured) variant of the tried and tested Mirage 2000, the Mirage 2000-V, which would give India sufficient punch, inducted double quick, and address any shortfall in force levels.

Right now, with the MiG-35 & the Gripen NG, India will be saddled with 2 Work-in-progress jets while the IAF is holding out for the advanced variant of the LCA & retiring its earlier aircraft, the only mature types will be the MKIs and even they are to begin upgrades. It just defeats whatever is left of the original intent of the MRCA to boost combat power asap.

Plus, the Gripen simply does not offer India the punch that it needs, given the est. 40 year lifecycle this jet will have to serve. The way PLAAF is recapitalizing its equipment with iterative improvements, a marginal difference in combat capabilities just will not suffice.