Up to 2000 T/R modules have been mentioned for the Typhoon.

That would require quite a lot of cooling, which may increase the price.

OTOH, the Typhoon would never reach L1 so perhaps a better strategy (although most likely to still fail IMHO) could be to go for the “superiority” claim.

A Typhoon with 2000 T/R modules and swashplate may earn the title “mini-AWACS”….

One potential stumbling block for U.S. competitors is the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), which India has yet to sign. The U.S. will not allow the export of certain sensitive items until India signs.

“Both the Indian air force and the U.S. Air Force have communicated on this and both clearly understand the implications of CISMOA and how it affects the MMRCA,” a senior official tells AVIATION WEEK.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/10/29/15.xml&headline=Lockheed Touts Engine Advantage In Indian Bid

My guess: if India signs the CISMOA (those acronyms…!) then either SH or F-16 will win this — however if they don’t sign then I actually doubt the US will win — then I think it’s between the Typhoon (if they prefer a more expensive twin-engine solution) or Gripen NG (if they go for the more cost-effective alternative).

Rafale and Mig-35 are outsiders, for different reasons I doubt they have much chances even if the CISMOA does not get signed.

Korea to Boost Naval Defenses

The number of 214-class 1,800-ton subs will be increased from the current three to nine by 2018, and about nine 3,000-ton next-generation subs are to be procured after 2020. Some 20 2,300-ton future frigates will replace superannuated frigates and corvettes of the same type as the Cheonan, which was sunk by North Korea in March, after 2012.

He added a 14,500-ton landing ship the same size as the Dokdo amphibious assault ship, which can be remodeled as a light aircraft carrier within six months, will be built by 2018.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/10/19/2010101900683.html

In addition to the 214 class subs, Korea already got 9 209-class subs.

Currently Indian economy is the 11th biggest if you look at nominal GDP (between Canada and Russia); the UK is 6th between Italy and France, however:

1. if you look at GDP by PPP and not nominally, India jumps to 4th position, between Germany and Japan

2. The Indian economy is growing, unlike the economy in the UK…

3. India is in a much rougher neighborhood than the UK, therefore they will probably keep spending a high percentage of GDP on defence

Consider aviation (this is an aviation forum after all…) India has ordered 270 SU-30 MKI; is in the process of ordering 126 MMRCA; upgrading their Mirage 2000 and in addition will purchase some 250-300 PAKFA… and then it’s their own MCA development project.

Compare that to where the UK is going. If India goes for the Eurofighter as MMRCA it may operate more Typhoons than the UK in the future… and that will be just one of many capable fighters they will get!

Also consider the Tejas and how long it takes. I don’t expect India to have such big issues with their carriers but then again you never know! Perhaps by 2018 India realize that their second home-made carrier will take much longer to develop than anticipated and therefore decides to just buy one from the UK, similarly to the current purchase of 126 MMRCA.

Neither Brazil nor India can afford CVF. Both have have carriers, but their carriers were used and bought very much on the cheap, like much of their equipment.

India has a carrier program:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant_class_aircraft_carrier

Perhaps India would consider to buy another one if their current development program is being dramatically delayed, and/or if India decides that it needs to strengthen it’s carrier fleet?

Don’t know if this has been posted already?

To begin with, like in most countries, the Ministry of Defence (ours is at South Block) would decide the mix of aircraft types that the IAF would need in future, based on the operational tasks and capabilities, that is, the quality and the quantity, while the Finance Ministry at North Block would look closely at the budgetary costs of acquisition as well as the ‘life-cycle’ costs which would have a major influence on defence budgets for the coming decades. An excessively high-performance (beyond the medium level fighter) will lead to higher costs and budgetary commitments which will force the size of the IAF to be curtailed when it actually needs to get back to 39+ combat squadrons and then expand to the Cabinet-sanctioned 50 squadrons. For obvious reasons the bulk of these factors should, and would, remain classified. Yet the informed public in the world’s largest democracy needs to have some idea of at least the parameters that might finally go into decision making.

The most crucial parameter has already been indicated by the very nomenclature which provides the description of the type of aircraft required: that is, a medium sized multirole combat aircraft. The necessity of this class of aircraft has arisen due to a number of factors. Firstly, we need to fill the gap that has already arisen due to life-expiry of a large force of MiG-21s. The only ‘medium’ sized multi-role combat aircraft left in the IAF today is the Mirage 2000 with an inventory of around 50 aircraft. At the level above that, we are already committed to the heavy Su-30MKI being manufactured in HAL for the past few years. And at the lower size level, that is the light combat (multi-role) combat aircraft: we have already embarked on the indigenously designed LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) that was to have replaced the MiG-21s before they went out of service, which Russian-type itself was a ‘light combat aircraft’. The LCA’s glitches, which inevitably exist in all complex new designs (for example, the F-35), would no doubt keep getting resolved as we go along. Of course it would be useful if the vendor selected for the M-MRCA also gives assistance in incorporating the necessary improvements in the LCA to improve upon it.

In the class of heavy multi role combat aircraft, the choice was made (wisely under the circumstances) a long time ago and the Su-30MKI, which is the envy of our neighbours and the satisfaction of the IAF, is already under series production and this type will likely equip over 60% of IAF’s authorised combat force by the time the last Su-30 rolls out of HAL’s Nasik factory. No doubt the FGFA fifthgeneration fighter (which is largely based on Su-30/35 technologies) to be jointly developed by Russia and India would at a later date add to the heavy category. About 16-20% of the authorised combat force (around126-200 aircraft) would then need to be equipped by the medium multi-role combat aircraft, the balance 20%, hopefully by the indigenous LCA. This raises the question of what type and size of aircraft we should looking at, subject to its operational parameters for satisfying the IAF needs.

The cost and performance of a combat aircraft broadly depends upon its size and weight and what avionics and weapons it carries. This parameter would virtually rule out the Boeing Super Hornet (an excellent aircraft in its class) and the MiG-35 (for another reason) but both not too far from the Su-30 in size or origin. It would neither be prudent nor affordable to maintain nearly 80% of the combat force consisting of just heavy multi-role aircraft from a single source for the coming decades since the world situation would no doubt have undergone major changes during this period.

At around 24,000 kg maximum weight, the French Rafale and the European Eurofighter Typhoon also come closer to the upper end of a medium combat aircraft. They offer great advantage in the quantum of fuel and weapon load carried, but it is only actual operation and detailed cost calculations that can tell us of their desirability in our inventory. This leaves us with two types with obvious advantages of being clearly in the category of ‘Medium’ multi-role combat aircraft that have been offered in the RFP: the US Lockheed’s F-16IN Super Viper and the Swedish Saab Gripen NG/IN, both configured specially to meet Indian requirements (hence the ‘IN’ in their nomenclature).

Popular perceptions may opt against the F-16 since this has been mainstay with the Pakistan Air Force since 1982 and recent inductions are raising that force level to as many as 118 F-16s in PAF inventory. These are being upgraded, but are expected to remain somewhat ‘inferior’ to the F-16s being offered to India which should be taken serious note of. While the F-16 would remain the backbone of the Pakistan Air Force, its Indian version would imply a maximum of 16-20% of the IAF combat force level with the Su-30MKI far outstripping it in numbers. There is also an advantage if the United States is willing to transfer (on lease or sale) 100-odd partially used F-16s from its Air National Guard to the IAF.

However, the choice that comes closest to the ‘medium’ multi-role aircraft that the IAF has been seeking since a decade ago (the Mirage 2000 type) is the Swedish Gripen which has maximum and empty weights at around 17,000 kg and 7,000 kg respectively, almost equal to that of the Mirage 2000. Since the Mirage 2000 is not in the running anymore, this makes it necessary to focus on the aircraft type closest to the medium combat aircraft, that is, the Swedish Gripen and Lockheed-Martin F-16, with the EADS Eurofighter Typhoon included at the higher end. Gripen’s manufacturers could also offer some aircraft from Swedish Air Force reserves as an interim. However much would depend upon what is carried by the aircraft in terms of avionics and weapons apart from its flying performance that meets our needs.

Air Commodore Jasjit Singh
Director,
Centre for Air Power Studies

From Bharat Rakshak (Source: Magazine Scan)

It is going to be a major upgrade with changes to the wings to increase payload

If this is correct, it means that it will take quite some time for mk2 to become ready. Perhaps that’s why the MMRCA is still at 126 a/c — the mk2 will not be ready in time.

1. What will be the actual range of the IAF post 2020 with weapon F-X + spice bombs or jassm-ER

2. Will the IAF be able to threaten Tehran in Iran or Pakistan?

3. Will there be any air force in the region that will come close to the IAfs capability? Maybe Saudi or Turkey?

4. what will replace IAF F-15s, and 16s?

5.Will Israel ever invent in a light carrier?

6. what is the range of the Jericho missile?

7. What is the actual range of my spicy toes?

8. Will I ever invent a lighter?

(sorry, I could not resist… :diablo:)