AbhimanyuIn my view, it may be noted here that in most Russian news reports about PAK-FA, India is often not even mentioned. This may be a “careless admission” of it being a solely Russian plane only; Indian role is repeated when specifically asked.
It is not unclear why Indian foreign ministry/defence ministry does not raise this issue with Russia, but it may be unclear as to how did the Russian and Indian sides assume that this would be unnoticed by the public and the official Indian stand on PAK-FA would still be assumed.
AbhimanyuI wouldn’t put the J-10 in the class of the F-15, simply because the F-15 and the PLAAF’s Su-27/J-11 are the heavy, long range/endurance fighters. The J-10 is the Chinese F-16 equivalent, the shorter-ranged, multipurpose type. This is not to state that some of the performance characteristics or some of the equipment might exceed or outperform that which you find on an F-15C, but merely a statement of context. Think of it as an analogy: J-11 is to F-15 as J-10 is to F-16 (or F-18 for that matter).
SOC, I agree with this view. The J-10 has similar single-engine power of 129 kn as the F-16. It also has similar empty-weight, length and 11 hardpoints, as the F-16.
I agree but if you consider that in terms of technology the closest and most probable non western fighter that can wrestle air superiority to the Western fighters built by Europe and the US is the J-10, non other potential rivals sumarize the state of political change as the J-10 brings to the arms race.
MiG-23MLD, in technology (as you said) the Tejas can also potentially compete with most western fighters.
AbhimanyuActually Aegis is only customized for Japan under the designation ‘SM-3’.
Its original purpose was to target tactical ballistic missiles i.e. Scuds and variants used by states like N.Korea, Iran and Syria. Now it is being evolved to target medium range strategic ballistic missiles also, like N. Korean missile types.
It is unclear why the Aegis development was done in parallel to the Patriot series of BMD, regardless of Aegis being a ship based system. The modification of the Patriot series for naval use appears plausible.
The significant difference between Aegis and Patriot-3 is that Aegis has a mecahnism in which the top-most kill vehicle separates from the main fuselage and is guided via infrared seekers while being maneuvered by thrust vectors.
AbhimanyuIt must be noted that the T-50 is 900 kgs heavier than Tejas, and has longer wingspan and height than the Tejas. It is only shorter by 22 cms in length.
Thus, the Tejas’ engineering design may appreciated given the fact that despite the same engines on both (GE F-404), the Tejas is a full-fledged fighter jet that has 0.4 M more max. speed, and a max. weapon load of 1,400 kgs more than the T-50 trainer.
AbhimanyuIn my view, it may be noted that as per the news report, while the Air-Force “has apprehensions” over the HAL’s capability to deliver indigenous IJT trainers before schedule, it does not have the similar reported reservations while expecting 44 of Hawk trainers to be manufactured locally by HAL.
Also, only because a small batch of the indigenous IJT was not delivered on time (thus making IAF “doubtful”), the IAF ordered a further import of 44 Hawk trainers of which a major part will be be manufactured by HAL itself. This may be a ‘paradox’.
Instead, the IAF could have given incentives and closely co-operated with HAL to manufacture the remaining units of IJT on schedule.
Abhimanyuthe LCA will also take quite a bit of time before it reaches numbers.
As per chief of HAL, Mr. Baweja, Tejas will receive IoC by 2009, and FoC by 2010-11. It will have been inducted in squadron strength till then.
In comparison, the estimated timeframe for the induction of the first of the MRCAs is 2017, although CAS Mr. Major claims it to be as early as 2012. Even assuming Air Marshal Major’s estimate of 2012 to be accurate, the MRCA has no temporal advantage over the Tejas.
For similar reasons I think any future planned version of the Gripen being offered will be considered.
See untested or relatively new (just released) fighters may also not be selected. The IAF is not seeking itself to be a test-bed for any newly released MRCA contender.
Politics aside, the F-16 is probably the choice more fitting for India. They get that AESA radar they want, supercruise ability (if it actually works as claimed), and a decent A2G aircraft that can probably replace the Jaguars and MiG-27 as well.
The F-16 cannot be selected, as Pakistan’s Air Force also operates it in substantial numbers. PAF is also expecting 88 new and upgraded F-16 units, further. Thus, it is already familiar with the F-16 and can be more “well versed” in using it, than the IAF can be in a short time.
Besides, the Tejas has equivalent or greater weapon load capacity, as the MiG-23 and MiG-27 bombers of the IAF. It will also feature a more advanced targeting pod (Israel’s Litening for initial units, and DRDO’s Siva in later units).
AbhimanyuMalaysia has shown keen interest in Akash: Antony
Thursday January 10 2008 00:00 IST
NEW DELHI: Within a few days of India testing its indigenous air defence system Akash, the successful trials have generated curiosity in the region.
The first queries about the effectiveness of the system came from Malaysia. Defence Minister A K Antony on Wednesday said that the Malaysians were closely following the trials of Akash and have shown keen interest in the surface-to-air missile.
Antony, who was in Malaysia earlier this week, said that the Ministry of Defence will look positively into any proposal of sharing the technology with friendly countries. The officials will now follow up on the proposal from Malaysia, he said.
The Defence Minister, who inaugurated the Defence Research and Development Organization’s golden jubilee celebrations, stressed on indigenous development of strategic programmes. “Nobody will give us strategic technology,” he said, adding that the DRDO’s role becomes crucial in developing strategic technologies.
Reference :-
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEH20080109124316
AbhimanyuI think politics must not be the factor in whatever choice of MRCA that the IAF shall make.
The issue of RD-93 engines as a factor is also futile to argue, as it is a subjective matter. One section may argue that the MiG-35 may win the contract if Russia prohibits RD-93’s re-export to Pakistan, whereas another section of members may argue that infact the “bargaining power” of Russia is more, in that they may “threaten” to re-export the RD-93 to Pak if denied the MiG-35 contract.
Thus, as such subjective political issues cannot be discussed to their conclusion, they are best avoided.
As per some other media reports a few months back, the sending of RFP is no guarantee of an assured purchase of the MRCA, ie none of the contenders may win the contract if the IAF concludes that the MRCA is unnecessary. Only the Tejas’ accelerated completion by end of 2008, may be a ‘turning-point’ to influence such a decision.
Reference :-
AbhimanyuThe empty equipped of the MKI is >19 tons.
TVC, Bars, Canards, air-refuelling and strengthening of 38,8 tons MTW has its price in weight.
See your source about that!Dimensions
Length 21.9 m
Span 14.7 m
Height 6.4 m
Take-off Weight
Normal 24900 kg
Maximum 38800 kg
Fuel weight, (spec. weight 0.785 g p cu. sm) kg
Normal 5270 kg
Maximum 9640 kg
Other
Max takeoff run with a normal takeoff weight (afterburner) 550 m
Max landing run with a normal landing weight, with a drag parachute 750 m
Max operating overload 9 g
Sens, I assumed optimum figures from either of vayu sena or airforce-technology as per convenience to arrive at optimum payload figure in normal config.
As an example, to “shave” 200 kgs of weight, I assumed airforce’s figure of 5,020 kgs internal fuel instead of vayu sena’s figure of 5,200 kgs. Similarly, airforce-technology’s empty weight figure was assumed, i.e. 26,600 kgs.
However Vayu Sena’s data of combat radius at normal config was utilized, i.e. 1,500 kms, as airforce-technology does not provide it under the title ‘normal config’.
star49, actually in empty weight, the weight of canards and engines is usually assumed integrated with the airframe as it is critical equipment without which an aircraft is not complete. As per the definition given here, manufacturers define Basic Empty Weight as “The standard empty weight of the airplane plus the optional equipment.”
I have already mentioned that F-16/MIG-35/F-18/Rafale/EF are waste of time and money. Putting resources into any of these fighters will decrease IAF capbabilities both in resources/men. IAF should only concentrate on LCA (future derviates like MCA possible take some foreign consultancy) and Su-30 (future derivates like PAK-FA).
There is no such thing as medium weight fighter. It is not 1960/70s that u just collect fighters for every role. u make ur current fighters multifunctional aviation complexes.
I agree with this view completely. F-16, F-18 and Rafale etc. have 7000-9000 max. payload capacity of which only 2000-3000 kgs is utilized in normal fighter configurations. The facility of such high loads is probably to deliver nuclear warheads, or very heavy cruise missiles only.
As a fighter in a normal profile, an F-16 or Rafale may NOT provide any advantage, tactical or otherwise over the Tejas.
Abhimanyustar49, in your discussion with tphuang, the figure of 4,000/5,200 kgs external load can be corrected to 3,300 kgs external load. This is because Nick had pointed that Su-30 MKI does not carry external pods (so we can’t add the pod’s weight to 3,300 kgs to increase it overall to 4,000 kgs).
All in all, the F-18, Rafale and Typhoon would only provide 200-300 kms lesser combat radius and about 1000 kgs lesser warload than Su-30. Tactically, it may make a difference in wartime, but it is not that significant so as to introduce an expensive, unknown fighter type in the IAF.
The Tejas has worst case combat radius of 800 kms in a fighter config. The figure of weapon-load is the only “missing link”. If it is of the order of 2,000-2,500 kgs, then an MRCA would definitely be unnecessary, because as per fas.org referenced previously, that is exactly the interdiction mission profile of the F-18 E/F.
AbhimanyuAbhimanyu,
I was confused by what you were saying… until I realized that you’re the one who’s confused. You’re being creative with your sources:
FACT: SU-30MKI has a range of 3,000km on internal fuel (Vayu sena)
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE “FACTS”: This is with 5,270 kg internal fuel. Not only is that statement not supported by Vayu sena, but it’s also patently impossible.
H K, Vayu Sena gives the above figure. The following is a quote from vayu sena : A normal fuel load of 5270 kg ensures a 4.5 hour combat mission, and the air refuelling system increases the flight duration up to 10 hours with a range of 8000 km at a cruise height of 11 to 13 km.
Instead of vayu sena’s figure of 5,270 kgs of internal fuel, I took airforce-technology’s figure of 5,020 kgs.
More likely, the 3,000km range quoted for the MKI is with full or near full internal fuel – that would be realistic when you compare to the performance of the F-35C, which is much closer to the SU-30 in terms of drag.
The above is not accurate. As per airforce-technology and vayu sena, the 5020 or 5270 kgs internal fuel has been described within the normal fighter configuration.
Abhimanyu[QUOTE=Sens;1201196]Impossible.
You have to give the flight profile, the fuel-load internal and external, the weapons-load carried by that, which is limited by ETs and the speed performance related to that.
To reach the max AR in a hi-lo-hi profile does limit your fighter to true subsonic (
Abhimanyudont look at absolute weight- look at payload, vayu sena has the combinations marked out. the 14/16*250 kg bomb scenario is ok but the combinations of pgms or kh-31s on target is what is going to where the mki is required.
second, you dont have the cruise figures in the above scenario, nor the fuel marked for reserve, nor the fuel marked for combat (self defence) or loiter. what this means is that fuel is reduced and for that reduced consumption, you reduce the payload.its not so simple as you are calculating. ie x weight at y range with z fuel.
Nick_76, most missiles like Kh-31 krypton do not weigh more than 600 kgs. A2A missiles weigh 100-175 kgs only, and hence within 4000 kgs of weapon-load, substantial number of 6 A2A missiles and 2-4 A2G munitions can be carried. This is comparable to the mission load-outs of F-18 and F-16 as detailed in fas.org.
As per Vayu sena, the total time for the 1,500 km range is 4 hours of which combat time is 10 minutes if I’m unmistaken. The range figure is for the normal fighter config fuel load of 5270 kgs, which in turn corresponds to 3500 kgs of weapon load as per airforce technology’s webpage.
As regards the Tejas, I had requested one member at bharat rakshak forum to clarify whether the figure of 860 kms range of Tejas is the combat radius or full range, and at what weapon-load does it apply, to which he had given detailed calculations. I do not recollect the conversation, but it may be there in their archives. I had asked another member who had attended the Aero-India 2007 air show and he had stated that the worst-case combat-radius of Tejas on internal fuel is 800 kms and with external pods the range is 1,200 kms for fighter configuration. I was unable to find the thread in archives.
Abhimanyuthe whole problem with your reasoning is that you are assuming that the lca will be equal to the mrca in terms of combat capabilities. across the board.
it wont be.
it is combat capabilities AND the combination of cost- known as cost capability matrix which drive the numbers of which type is to be acquired in what proportion.
As pointed out earlier, the range-payload figure of Su-30 MKI is 5270 kgs at 1,500 km and that for the Tejas is 3000 kgs at ~1000 kms. As was mentioned, there is no distinguishable “middle-ground” between these two, that may warrant the purchase of MRCA.
Unfortunately, whenever we mention figures like 300 Tejas or 250 Su-30s for the IAF, there are concerns saying that this is “too high” a number. Whether it is an aesthetic measure, or a traditional ‘taboo’ is unclear. It may be remembered that small nations like Israel and South Korea operate 200 ~ 250 of just F-16s.
Thus, by the proportionate threat assessment of 2 nuclear neighbours and the huge air-space to defend— not to mention replacement of half the IAF’s present fighter fleet — there should be not less than 450-500 Tejas and ~300 Su-30 MKI in the IAF. **
This is also true if the IAF seeks to have a ‘global reach’ like USAF, as CAS Mr. Fali Major famously mentioned in a TV interview. Taking a “cue” from USAF which operates a few thousand units of just one fighter it is high time the IAF embraces the idea of 400-500 units of a single fighter type..
** The issue of hourly operational costs has been discussed earlier in this regard with examples. These induction figures will not impact the per hour operational costs vis-a-vis an unknown foreign MRCA. As calculated, in fact it can be a much cheaper option.
Abhimanyudo you even know how much it’ll cost per hour of flying for a fighter the size of the MKI ? the Tornado was costing the RAF nearly 18,000 pounds per flying hour on fuel costs alone, let alone its heavy maintenance costs. compare that to a smaller Jaguar that was costing about 13,000 pounds per flying hour and its maintenance man-hours were less by a substantial number. within a year, the flying costs alone would allow you to recover a substantial portion of the difference that you had to invest in added infrastructure to support the Jags in place of the Tornado.
fact is, the IAF needs a lighter fighter, in large numbers to be able to maintain squadron strength. and while it looks like the MKI and Tejas’ alone could take on all possible roles that the IAF requires, it is a fact that there is substantial difference in the costs of operation for a MKI and MiG-29/Mirage-2000/Jaguar class aircraft.
21Ankush, we may assume momentarily that the MRCA contract is divided into 90 Tejas and 36 Su-30 MKI. We may also assume that the per hour operational cost of the Su-30 MKI is $5000 more than the least expensive MRCA contender, and that the per hour operational cost of the Tejas is $2000 lesser than the least expensive MRCA contender.
In that case, assuming 200 hours of flight per year for each of these planes, the total annual cost of operation of the 36 Su-30 MKI units shall be $36 million more than 36 units of the least expensive MRCA. Likewise, the total figure for annual cost of operation of 90 Tejas units shall be $36 million lesser than 90 units of MRCA.
Thus, as these figures nullify each other, there shall be no difference in cost of operation if a spilt order of 90 Tejas and 36 Su-30 is chosen instead of the least expensive MRCA.
Besides, the avoidance of introducing a new type of fighter by streamlining of existing Su-30 and Tejas units shall reduce logistics costs that can be of the order of a few hundred thousand dollars annually. Over a 40 year lifetime, it shall translate into savings of tens of millions of dollars.
However, the most significant saving shall be in the few billions of dollars saved in the purchase of a foreign MRCA. This amount can sustain 2-3 air-wars fought in one decade each for the next 4 decades.
The total number of Tejas fighters in the IAF shall thus be 310 and those of the Su-30 MKI shall be 266.**
the MRCA is essential for the IAF to be able to pull away from the Russian single-source type of situation as well, something that was always a part of the IAF’s doctrine. with the IAF having committed to the PAK-FA, if the MRCA is not there, we’ll end up being a completely Russian IAF, except for the Tejas, by 2025. hardly the kind of influence I’d like Russia to have over the IAF.
In my view, it would be strategically better to be dependent on 1 indigenous plane and 1 foreign nation, rather than “little bit” indigenous planes and 2 foreign nations.
**These are in fact “mediocre” figures, considering that the Tejas is anyway meant to replace all MiG series in the IAF that number over 400. It may also be noted that much smaller nations like Israel and South Korea operate 200-270 of only F-16s.
Sign In
