He did not even mention the word “thrust” once. Atleast not in the interview that i watched (the recent dawn TV interview).

Let me try to quote what he said

“It’s performing well but we are still not certain on it’s supportability and its performance in the long run.The other thing we know is that its life is lower than that of western engines. For example the engines on F-16s last 4000 cycles in technical terms…….”

So currently there is nothing wrong with the engine performance but they have concerns for future (most probably owing to future growth plans).

I disagree with the above, as neither China nor Russia, have in the past expressed any ‘dissatisfaction’ over the RD-93. Thus, as the “performance issues” are specific to the PAF, they imply inadequate thrust only.

It has been discussed earlier that the JF-17 will continue the “trend” of having to have it’s engine (of 80kn class) changed, if it’s empty-weight is 6,500 kgs. This is in agreement with the outcomes of Gripen, T-50 and Tejas earlier (T-50 did not change the engine, as it was to remain a low-performance trainer only).

F-16 is as expensive as F-18E. Just from looking of recent export contracts. $120m system price is not out of question and that without weopons. what i read about MIG-35. It is at most $60m plane.

See, the price mechanism is irrelevant because even if we assume $60 mn price as the lowest of all the 6 contenders, it is still $15 mn higher than the Su-30 MKI.

Thus, all 6 contenders also don’t provide ANY ‘value for money’ as regards their service in the IAF.

Note that the focus of discussion is not which of the 6 competitors is ‘best’, but whether this MRCA proposal is needed at all.
The former question can be debated without conclusion ‘endlessly’, whereas the answer of the latter question is clear, that Su-30 MKI is perfectly complimented by the Tejas and that there is NO utility of a so-termed MRCA in the IAF.

In my view, even if life-cycle costs of sub-systems of F-18 are much lesser than those on Su-30 MKI, it must be noted that this is ‘offset’ by the overall higher cost of the F-18 itself, because the F-18 costs $15-20 mn more than Su-30.

Again, no ToT will be provided as regards AESA radars and many other systems. This was confirmed by CEO of Boeing. India will be provided with the AESA equipment only, which is often misconstrued or misunderstood as “technology transfer”. Mere purchase of equipment does not imply “technology transfer”.

As an example, purchase of car or PC does not imply purchase of automobile technology or computer processor technology. Similarly, purchase of Harpoon missiles by Pakistan does not imply purchase of missile “technology”.

In the same way, mere purchase, installation and use of AESA radars by IAF will not imply purchase of AESA “technology”. By “Technology Transfer”, it is meant in “lay” terms that the underlying “secrets” of the working and manufacturing the same equipment is acquired i.e. the engineering physics, the digital signaling formulae/laws, and the production mechanism.
It is very important to note that this also fully includes and subsets, the knowledge of the “machines-that make-the-machines” too, like CNC, precision fabricators, etc.

Now Often, licence production is also mistaken to be ToT. It is hoped that upon repeated observation of the local production run, some trial/error ‘guesstimates’ can be made to reverse-engineer the “know-how” of the working and the production of the equipment. This happened in case of the Brahmos missile, where DRDO gained an insight into the “intricacies” of the working of the Ramjet engine, besides all aspects of it’s production mechanism — despite that contractually, the disclosure of the working of the ramjet engine to India was not stipulated (India is also not required to disclose the s/w of the guidance mechanism to Russia).

However, if at all AESA radars will be sold to India under the MRCA contract, atmost only the peripheral assemblies of the same only may be locally manufactured. The entire technology of AESA radars will not be provided to India, because it is extremely sensitive technology that provides the militay “edge” to the select few nations who possess it. Besides, the fruition of AESA technology has consumed hundreds of thousands of man-hours and unestimated billions of dollars over the past few decades. Thus, were India to actually purchase AESA ‘technology’ the cost of the same would be multiples of times higher than the value of entire MRCA contract itself.

Thus, the media and even IAF and Defence ministry must be clear about what actually constitutes ToT, and that acquiring AESA technology — or any other sensitive technology — through the MRCA contract is an impossibility.

Actually iaf will be needing a bomb truck since after 2015-20 Mig-27 and jaguars will be phased out ,but i want Grippen or EF to make the cut

coldfire2005, it may be reiterated that the Tejas has equivalent max. external weapons capacity and range as that of MiG-27, MiG-23 and MiG-29 of the IAF. Thus, it can replace these fighter planes in the IAF fleet.

In my view, the F-18 Hornet E/F would be a totally redundant addition to the IAF, because it’s range-payload specifications are practically very similar to the Su-30 MKI of the IAF. Thus, the IAF would NOT supplement anything new to it’s fleet with the induction of the F-18 E/F. It is already equated with the earliest model of F-15A.

The F-18 E/F has an external fuel capacity of ~6.5 tons and an internal fuel capacity of 6 tons. Thus, a combination of both can be used to carry 8 tons of fuel, which is the same as that of the Su-30 MKI (note the latter carries internal fuel only).
The F-18 E/F has a max. external load capacity of 8 tons, of which 6 tons can be weapons. Although it is 2 tons lesser than Su-30 MKI, it must be noted that the Su-30 MKI — or any fighter plane like Rafale or Typhoon — NEVER carries 8 tons of advertised max. weapon load. In fighter config. Su-30 MKI carries 5 tons of weapons only, that can also be carried by the F-18 E/F. This, coupled with the same total fuel load provides the F-18 E/F with equal specifications as that of the Su-30 MKI.

As regards avionics, the Su-30 MKI is also equipped with latest avionics like Litening pod, DRDO’s Tarang RWR, IRST, HMS etc. Su-30 MKI’s Bars radar is also very effective like most small to medium AESA radars as it is an advanced design, is large in size and has high operating power.

Hence, F-18 E/F would be a “wastefully” expensive induction only, which would lead to no force addition in the IAF’s fleet.

Logan, my premise is that in terms of range-payload specifications, the F-15 is a superior design to the Su-27 and derivatives thereof. Electronic “add-ons” like AESA radars etc. are not considered, as these can be installed on any plane of choice.

Regarding canon dogfights, usually western planes have superior sustained turn rates whereas Russian planes have superior instantaneous rates. Thus, depending on “closeness”, either of the two kinds may be advantaged in a canon dogfight.

As regards the F-15 S/MTD, it was not known to me.

Logan Hartke, thanks for sharing your experiences with us. In my view, the F-15 E Strike Eagle, or the F-15 in general is the most under-appreciated fighter plane in military aviation history. It is superior to the variants of Su-27 in all respects, including possibly manoeuverability also.

This is because, despite being much lighter than Su-27 and able to carry much higher external weapon-load, it can execute 9G manouevers. Thus, under only canons, it is likely to outmanouever the Su-27.

Not really. The controls of a FBW fighter are artificial via a data-bus-system. What is displayed on your screens or HUD is via software too. We speak about fifth generation avionics.

Sens, in that case it will be even “easier” to produce the twin-seater variant and any effort claimed in this regard by HAL and IAF will not be considerable.

I look forward to India’s kick-ass 2 seater multi-role PAK-FA-MKI stealth fighter, with its kick-ass indigenous AESA (using COTS Toshiba GaN HEMT technology ) it’ll make the Russkies jealous

Otaku, the above description of PAK-FA MKI is accurate, because similar to the Su-30 MKI, India will make avionics customizations only.

It has been argued before that part of the reason for the increasing “spate” of purchase agreements of fighter planes and helicopters is that HAL primarily seeks to be a licence manufacturer only, as per it’s corporate strategy. Developing indigenous designs will not earn it as much revenue as the “quicker” and less effort intensive route of licence production. Besides, it has tie-ups with various private manufacturers of components, spares etc.

The argument given for this is that HAL will “gradually absorb” the technology and will indegenize it later, meaning that it will attempt to reverse-engineer the “unseen” interfaces or ‘black-boxes’ within the licenced products, similar to how the Indian side of Brahmos aerospace managed to get an understanding of the specifics of the Ramjet engine, by repeated observations and close inspections.

It may be inhibiting for the indigenous industry, that the Brahmos model and Su-30 MKI model are being furthered with the MRCA and PAK-FA contracts. In my view, the models of Tejas and Arjun must be pursued for MCA i.e. only those parts and components that will take too long to develop may be temporarily acquired from abroad (like GE engine, or thermal imagers), whilst parallel programmes for the same can be executed (like Kaveri). Unlike the cold-war era, now all countries will be willing to provide such interim equipment, besides also that now India is not lacking in required finances too.

Hi Abhimanyu, the recent (credible) press reports/official soundings out of India state PAK-FA-MKI will be a 2 seater- hence we can assume considerable Indian design & engineering input (as opposed to what we previously alluded to & explains the considerable time-gap to the single-seater’s first flight 2009 & 12 respectively).

A 2 seater may also find its way into RuAF service, particularly in the strike role, perhaps explaining why so few Su-34s are being procured.

Your thoughts?

Otaku, in my view, the above is a inaccuracy that is “propagated” by the media in order to prove that India shall also be doing significant work on PAK-FA.

However, contrary to the claims of IAF and Defence ministry to the public, modification of an existing single-seater into a twin-seater is NOT 50% joint-development. We may note the examples of Su-30 and F-16 Sufa of Israel, which are only the twin-seater versions of the baseline Su-27 and F-16 respectively. The Su-30 and F-16 Sufa took minimal effort and time to ‘transform’ from their corresponding single-seater variants.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that conversion of the PAK-FA into a twin-seater will require any considerable engineering input and time from India. The news reports have quoted Mr. Fakruddin of HAL, as per whom conversion of the original PAK-FA into a twin-seater shall require “significant” effort by India.

In any case, it does not amount to 50% joint-development, and at most it may be termed as an ‘enhancement’ only.

I disagree with the view that India has been involved in some capacity in the PAK-FA.
As of 2006, the Indian defence ministry had expressed objections to Russia over no Indian participation in the PAK-FA since design-board ‘ideation’. Since Jan 2007 till date, the Indian side has engaged in detailed contractual negotiations only. Upto this time there has been NO Indian involvement in production.

In the meantime, Russia has frozen the design of PAK-FA, finalized the avionics package and weaponry that are to be integrated into the PAK-FA, and has already begun production to meet it’s own target of making first flight by 2009 — India has never been consulted in any of these, because as negotiations are still ongoing, it is yet to formally enter the project. Even when it does finally enter the PAK-FA project, it will already be “too late” to contribute any considerable engineering input.