insomnia.delhiAnyway, IAF will have a pretty decent air-superiority fighter in 8-10 years.
I do not think they are in a hurry…..
The aircraft to be jointly developed is termed Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF). PMF draws upon the basic structural and system design of the Russian FGFA Technology Demonstrator with modifications to meet IAF specifications which are much more stringent. The broad scope of bilateral cooperation during the joint project covers the design & development of the PMF, its productionization and joint marketing to third countries. Programme options include the design & development of a twin seater variant and the integration of an advanced engine with higher thrust at a later stage.
How would the air force define what they need from the plane thrust, weapons load, range, sensors, software, RCS etc., you know like the air staff requirements for the LCA Tejas Project? (may be government to government deals are different, however i think InAF must have been consulted about the JV and spent a lot of time thinking about these things).
Will India have the choice of choosing third party (outside of Russia and India) hardware or hardware developed as JV with some other nation, on the FGFA?
insomnia.delhiI’d like to know more,
Is India to import parts and assemble ?
Or will they produce everything ?
or produce parts of the fighter ? and if so how much ?
Will tools for production be part of the deal ?
First few planes(18, the first squadron) will be purchased from the vendor, then they will send in the semi-knocked down kits, which will be assembled in India, after that the vendor will send completely knocked down kits (to be assembled in India), meanwhile there will be a huge effort to make the plane from raw materials in India with all the tooling in the production line, training of the personnel, complete information exchange between the vendor and HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) for the plane.
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=30522
This has happened before with major purchases, like the Jaguar.
http://www.hal-india.com/AircraftBangalore/products.asp
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Current/607-Jaguar-25.html
I think the level of ToT may go deeper (due to all the talk), this time around probably with all the sophisticated electronics in new planes, may be the ministry of defence is going to build everything in India including the electronics (will still have to buy a lot of stuff from outside India).
Overall it will be a complete production line by HAL, so they will have to know how to make the plane from scratch, hence the protection against sanctions, same measures were there with the Jaguar program, they were constructing them till around last decade, long after other nations had stopped manufacturing them.
Then again so is the case with Su-30, however in that case HAL found out it was cheaper to buy most of the plane from Russia instead of manufacturing them in India (i remember a couple of news articles quoting HAL officials on that).
Boeing had released some information about their plans for the MMRCA tender,
More details concerning the Boeing/Raytheon Super Hornet offer appear in India’s press. According to Boeing’s F-18 programme manager for India Mike Rietz, Boeing’s offset program involves a 4-phase effort.
* Phase 0 supplies 18 fully assembled Block II Super Hornets.
* Phase 1 and 2 will deliver 54 aircraft as partial assemblies , and would begin within 54 months of the contract’s start date.
* Phase 1 supplies 1,800 parts and 300 tools for assembly by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. in India.
* Phase 2 supplies HAL with 17,000 parts and over 1,000 tools for assembly.
* The final 54 aircraft of Phase 3 would have the entire range of the airframe’s 30,000 parts built in India, with the last aircraft delivered by 2020.
They have already shown some initiative through their deals with the ministry of defence
Boeing Delivers 1st Super Hornet Featuring HAL Gun Bay Door
Not all MMRCAs of course, but most of them, at least that’s what the reports hints:
http://indiandefenceinformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/mmrca-aircrafts-to-be-deployed-to-face.html
Well yes, India has two primary military threats in the region, and PRC is the bigger threat.
insomnia.delhiAny nice video footage from the current operations?
insomnia.delhiwhy would Turkey want something inferior (or equal level) to what they currently have and ordered? late block F-16s and F-35s?
but I agree, it could be a good chance for Pakistan and Turkey to make something new together.Plus Turkey is shifting away from the US and the West and becoming Islamized, so they may have to face towards China and Pakistan by default as Israel and the US no longer trusts them.
I think Turkey has both money and big regional aspirations, and their economy is rising.
If the Turkish Air Force is looking to replace their F-4’s, they should go for a independent program, F-35 and F-16s provide them with a available backup for any delays.
A JV with PRC lead and Pakistani Involvement will be faster however they will miss out on some very high technology European and American equipment and consulting, and be forced to share the overall program with the two other nations, with PRC in a very dominant position.
I think they already have the aviation industry set up to start the program on their own, with European/American consulting and equipment. The jump in capability that their Aviation industry will get from the program will be worth the effort.
insomnia.delhiBut that’s why India will have LCA and probably why they didn’t took more M2K-5s and had gone for M – MRCA instead, which is meant to add more punch in A2A and A2G alongside the Chinese borders mainly.
Only when they get AWACS, or MKI radar guidance, otherwise the Bisons have no chance against F16s, or JF17 anymore, one reason why the Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 upgrade was so important.
I don’t think the MRCA tender is China or Pakistan centric.
Or in GCI, the very small radar with the bison’s is only going to be used to fire the active missiles, its not going to search a large area with it. Thats one of the trouble i see with a InAF F-16 purchase, the bison pilots will have to be sure of what they are shooting at.
insomnia.delhiVpa for SU-33 and MiG-29K is very high. This means they cannot launch with a heavy weapons load and full fuel which minimizes operational usefulness.
- A full fuel load but few A2G weapons = good range, but minimal power projection.
- A load of heavy A2G weapons but little fuel = poor range and minimal power projection.
- A full fuel load but only A2A weapons = 100% defensive and no power projection.
Could be very useful if they were supporting the bombers, ships and submarines.
Russian bombers to test-fire missiles in Bay of Biscay
Russian Navy uses supersonic cruise missile to hit test target
Something along this blog post:
A brief word on the constitution and roles of Russian Naval forces. Russian Naval aviation has served a different fleet function than western naval aviation. In the west, particularly the United States, aircraft carriers are the center of offensive power for the US Navy. Under the Soviet Union, aircraft carriers were the center of defensive power for the Soviet Navy. The Admiral Kuznetsov, for example, fields the Su-33 as its primary aircraft. The primary role of the Su-33 is as an air interceptor, not a strike aircraft. The old Kiev class is another example, the aircraft were primarily ASW helicopters with a limited number of VSTOL aircraft for scouting, illustrating again that naval aviation was used in a defensive role. Under the Soviet Union, offensive power came from a combination of long range missiles on surface combatants, including those on aircraft carriers (Russia calls them aviation cruisers), long range land based bombers, and from their massive submarine fleet. As we observed the Russian fleet exercises last month, we observed that doctrine and tactics didn’t appear to change much, with the Admiral Kuznetsov providing a defensive role for long range bombers in the exercise.
The exercises involved the fighter aviation forces onboard the Admiral Kuznetsov in escort of the long range, land based Tu-160 bomber forces at the point of attack. This demonstration highlights that the Russian military has retained the military capability of forward strike, and given the distances involved, is a military capability beyond that of every nation in the world with one exception, the United States.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/02/observing-russian-desires-for-naval.html
The aviation cruiser (Adm. K.), the missile cruisers (P the G etc.), the escorts, the Planes (Su-33s, Ka heli’s, Tu bombers and maritime patrol planes, and the A-50 AEW), and the Submarines, from what is written are not the most available assets (tough to maintain, old in age etc.) or the most advanced ones. In need of some replacements for sure, and there are limited resources to spend.
insomnia.delhiok while we are one topic of SRAAMs
Can some one clear the claims of near BVR Range of ASRAAM?
and Where does the MAA-1B stands in WVRAAMs?
Near BVR, ranges at which you can almost not see the target for a short while.
From the link you provided, it seems that the missile can be fired at a range greater than that of the missiles own seeker, using its inertial guidance system the missile can be guided to an estimated position of the target, i suppose on account of the high missile speed and short distance, the target is not able to move outside the missiles seekers range in the time it takes to get the missile close enough to use the missiles seeker.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/asraam.cfm
The aerodynamic range could be very high, I think the pilots will know the actual effective range of the missile, they wont ever tell.
The Meteor missile from Europe with the powered to target capacity out to near 100 miles (:eek: difficult to escape that) is taking BVR into very high figures, all the near BVR missile term users (Russians, Europeans, Israelis etc. etc.) should reconsider the near BVR terminology.
ASRAAM maximum range is uncontested, and no other short-range air-to-air missile comes near to this capability, providing the ability to passively home beyond the limits of visual range and well into the realm traditionally thought of as Beyond Visual Range.
ASRAAM has three operating modes:For normal engagements of targets in the forward hemisphere, the “lock before launch” mode is selected.
Engagement of targets beyond the seeker acquisition range is made possible using the “lock after launch” mode with target data provided by the aircraft sensors or third party.
For close-in combat the aircraft sensors can give target positional data to the missile beyond the seeker off-bore sight limits of +/- 90 degrees. This now gives the pilot the capability to fire an “over-the-shoulder” shot in the “lock after launch” mode. In this scenario, the pilot can locate targets behind the aircraft using, for example, the Helmet Mounted Display (HMD). In this case the missile will launch and fly into the vector provided by the HMD, the seeker then acquires the target, engages and destroys it.
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=121&page_id=23
insomnia.delhiChina hasn’t created independently any warplane. Or I am mistaken?
So, how can they create their own fifth-generation combat aircraft?
I suppose with experience (even if shared) of designing a fighter, and modifying it to perform better to their own requirements, along with a huge history of license manufacturing, reverse engineering and modifications to the designs.
I think they have the capabilities to design and test a plane with the priority of being low observability to a radar, while making sure it can fly with the required performance through the use of modern technology.
If they could design a 4/4.5 fighter and have the understanding and equipment to test a designs RCS and to make sure it can fly, why would they not be able to design a 5th generation plane with very low RCS and modern electronics?
insomnia.delhito bad anyone got the balls..
If Taiwan goes to Russia, they wont mind selling them all sorts of military equipment, then again, Taiwan is US territory now, tomorrow if Taiwan comes under attack it will be Americans fighting with them.
Taiwan will not likely be able to buy f-16 C/D:s.
Couldnt India offer the first LCA mk2 to them? would this add political tension india/china?
If its ready and if Taiwan asks, India would not mind, there is nothing PRC can do even if it goes angry, they already supply arms to most Indian Neighbours including one enemy, they cant stop trade, we buy much more from them than they buy from us and their tech. is not exclusive or new.
Is there any detailed account of the sort of upgrade Indian Air Force is looking for the Mirage-2k’s?
These planes should have been upgraded quite some time ago, the process has become so delayed that even a instant agreement without price negotiations would have been more cost effective, or ordered some more of them in the early 2000s.
insomnia.delhiHow can one be sure that the Gripen NG isn’t as big a risk as a Super Hornet or F-16 Super Viper ? I mean the US could end up withholding key items on the Gripen NG that are sourced in the US and instead put pressure on India to select one of the US birds themselves, simply out of spite or to simply make it that much harder for the Swedes to implement the deal fully. And these Wikileaks really blow holes through the arguments many Swedes have made about their being water-tight agreements to allow sale and technology transfers of products that are being sourced from the US. It certainly appears that behind the scenes, things are a lot more competitive.
I also wonder how Saab feels about its decision to go with the F-414 on the Gripen NG instead of the EJ-200 (despite the involvement of Volvo Aero on the F414), now that they know that the US has actually sabotaged a potentially huge contract in Norway.
I cannot though but wonder if the IAF and the MoD are actually even taking any note of these happenings..About whether they will consider this aspect during the down-select and choose the contenders least likely to impinge on India’s sovereignty.
The biggest advantage of staying away from US products.
USA has a very straight forward agenda in our neighbourhood, the Af-Pak region, which is starting to dictate their policies. With some of their diplomats even suggesting reducing defence ties with India to handle the Af-Pak region better.
Now through the MMRCA sale to USA or Sweden we will be offering them direct control over a very large asset of our military power, till USA shows through actions instead of words that it has truly independent relations with India and Pakistan, we should at least hold off offensive weapon programs from falling under US control.
This is not however the view of the Indian Government, they are planning increased ties (in the defence sector) with USA, and i think they would not mind if the MMRCA choice was from the USA. Which shows that their views of the geo-political situation are very different.
We don’t want their crypted communication stuff, we will find alternatives from Israel or develop in house.
I think there was never a reason to sign an agreement to get USAF communication equipment when the planes have to operate in the Indian Air Force infrastructure, unless we plan to use these planes in joint operations with the USA, in which case we will need to install these on our planes. Since that is never going to happen i don’t think the communications gear equipment will be implemented.
insomnia.delhiWell Scooter..India seems to have run into bit of trouble with IAC-1.But still no news on getting outside help for IAC-2.
First time designing and constructing the type, i think there will be many challenges, and many have been faced in the process with their solutions implemented.
As they move into making the carrier operational a new type with new planes will take more time, and if we make the transition to CATOBAR planes the IN will face new challenges.
No one should expect the program to be completed without its share of challenges and possibly delays.
insomnia.delhiOnce the Gripen has won, USA gets nothing but pure evil pleasure from denying or delaying parts, infact they loose on whatever money they can make out of the deal, the only profit they get is if they do it before Gripen is selected and that too if they are sure its their plane that is selected instead, other wise it gives absolutly no value.
insomnia.delhiIn case a european or American option is selected for the MMRCA, we might see six:eek::eek: BVRAAM in service with the Indian military, RVV-AE and R-27 from Russia, AMRAAM/Meteor from USA/Europe, and the derby(with the navy) from Israel, Marta Super 530D on Mirage (MICA EM after upgrade), and if the Astra makes it on LCA tejas……….. man o man, that is a S load of missiles to manage.
Has any other nation ever faced such an inventory?
I suppose India already had four serving simultaneously before, and still… The French super 530D on Mirage-2K and the R-27 on Mig-29, with the R-77 on Su-30s, with Derby on the Navy planes.
insomnia.delhiThe European planes in the MMRCA (An impressive 3, showing the hi technology industrial strength of Europe) seem quite connected together through various companies designing electronics, weapons, systems etc. for all 3 contenders, are there any similar issues between the European options?
insomnia.delhigreat lol of china…
Just planes man, and the pure love of them, no need to get religious, but yes to be religious about the planes- beautiful flying machines, so graceful.
What we talk about means nothing in military circles, where the decisions are made or in any decisions that are taken, so lets just talk about the those beauties.
J-10B looks far more graceful than the J-10, i think the modified chin intake has a huge role to play in that. Dont understand why they did not integrate the rvv-ae with it, is the radar that different from Russian ones?
Sign In
