AbhimanyuUSAF operates A-10s also. So there were 3 main types.
But IAF was getting equipment from RuAF which operated a large type of aircraft (Su 27&22 and derivatives,Mig 23,27,29,25&31).
akj, please note that earlier I had footnoted that I mean fighter types only, and not bombers like A-10, B-2 and B-52. However, I admit that earlier I was mistaken that the A-10 was long retired, but now it will be retired in 2028.
Currently, the Russian air force also operates medium and heavy fighters only i.e. MiG-29 and Su-27 and variants thereof. MiG-31 is a reconnaissance interceptor and again a medium weight type.
The same is the case of China’s PLAAF which seeks to operate only Su-30, J-10 and the JH-7.
As we have discussed before, there is no ‘room’ for intermediate external payload between Su-30’s 5200 kg, and the Tejas’ 2500-3000 kgs. Combat radii for the two are also 1,500 and nearly 1000 kms respectively at these loads. Hence, a ‘medium’ fighter requirement or MRCA may not arise at all in the first place.
Actually, all this may be because of the “label” that Tejas has been given namely :- “light weight replacement of MiG-21”. Whereas, it can carry external loads equivalent to IAF’s serving MiG-29’s and at ranges of the MiG-27 bomber.
Thus, there is absolutely no tactical requirement of any ‘medium’ MRCA.
AbhimanyuAs we have discussed earlier, the assembly lines of the Mirage-2000 (and variants) has been shut by France. It was for this reason that 6 other non-traditional companies were invited to bid for the MRCA tender (I may hope that I am not on the ignore list of some members).
It may also be noted that a magazine had noted once that the Tejas could also have been on the list of contenders but for its production delays. Sending of the RFP is not a guarantee of an order and that the proposal may be dropped altogether also. Given that the estimated timeframe for the induction of the MRCA to begin is 2020, it can become irrelevant by that time.
AbhimanyuI agree with the views by RyukyuRhymer and sealordlawrence. Like the Gripen-NG, the MiG-35 also is an untested, on-paper fighter plane only. The IAF is unlikely to consider such unproven fighters.
For, if it were to be so, then the Tejas’ manufacturers, HAL, would also have been sent an RFP.
Unfortunately, as the Mirage-2000 assembly line was discontinued by France, the MRCA proposal was mooted. Even then, the Tejas is closest to the Mirage-2000 in flight-performance and handling.
AbhimanyuEXACTLY…
I see this MMRCA RFP from an angle as to how it would ADD UP to the nascent Indian Aviation Industry from the design to production phases.. the impact of which would not be seen in next 5-10 years but after that..
and this is being in a way simultaneously followed by the desire to improve upon the Indian Naval design and production capabilities too through similar concept.. (if someone is following the trend)
Himanshu, except AESA radars, India may not need any technologies from the west. The technology of AESA radar is anyway not going to be shared with India.
In its experiences with the avionics of Su-30 MKI and the development of the Tejas, India has acquianted itself with almost all spheres such as composite fabrication, mission computers, digital FBW, ECM suite Tarang, radar processors, Ejection seat, COM-IFF, wind-tunnel testing, simulated testing, etc. and many others. The Kaveri engine, Astra missile and radar are being developed.
In fact, it may be safely said that the entire spectrum of fighter production has been covered by the ADA and HAL team.
AbhimanyuIt may be remembered that even Su-30 MKI flies with a normal weapon-load of 5200 kgs only, despite its max. external load capacity being over 8000 kgs. To complement it sufficiently, a fighter that can fly at 3000 kgs weapon-load is sufficient. The Tejas can easily meet such a requirement.
F-16 or F-18s have never flown in combat with their claimed max. loads of 6500 kg and 8000 kgs respectively, and similarly no fighter does so. Doing so would curtail the range, speed and mobility of the fighter to impractical levels.
Super Hornet Block II+/Rafale F3, license built in India, with 50% offsets, full technology transfer, radar codes and the right to integrate competitors’ weapons and systems, all probably for an impossibly low price…
esp 49129, Boeing shall not provide technologies for those equipment that are not cleared by the US government. It may be mentioned that all the software codes of F-35 were completely refused to be given to UK and Australia by the US. Later a settlement was claimed to have been made.
Thus, India cannot expect preferential status over this.
The phrase, “Full tech transfer” is often incorrectly used interchangeably with licence production. As djcross very rightly said, “Handing someone a set of blueprints and telling them to “Build this.” does not provide them with the engineering knowledge of the content of the blueprints.”
Thus, India shall get ‘blueprints’ for licence production only, which is not “technology transfer”. The manufacturing equipment will simply be installed anywhere on Indian soil using local labour and raw materials. The 50% offset agreement plans to only place manufacturing equipment at the sites of small local private companies in a JV, with the latter also providing labour, testing and assembly services.
AbhimanyuGripen NG is due to fly in 2008. As matt said at the time of submision very few of the aircraft will have actually flown in their intended configurations for India. If anything the only exceptions would be the Rafale and the Shornet. We have yet to see the final Mig-35 design in anything other than model form.
Regardless of Gripen-NG’s flight schedule, as we have discussed earlier, no fighter plane undertakes any mission with its max. external load of 7000-8000 kgs. For example F-18, F-16 and hence also the Gripen-NG do not have such mission profiles described at all in the reliable webpages dedicated to their information.
Most weapon loads for all types of missions is upto 2000-3000 kgs only. Thus, the Tejas which can also carry loads of 2000-3000 kgs (and a max. of 4,5000 kga) without significant reduction in performance like range and maneuverability, can also compete as an MRCA.
As per the Standing committee of Report on Defence, I quote, “…Air Forces like to have light, medium and heavy planes….LCA is a light plane….” There presumption is ill-founded as most airforces do not have such a combination, as we have already discussed earlier.
The Su-30 MKI can be complemented fully by the Tejas, and an intermediate so-called MRCA would be needless.
As per news reports, each example of the fighters shall be subject to exhaustive user-trials in Himalayas, the western deserts and coastal regions. This process shall take a few months.
Reference :-
AbhimanyuGripen-NG is not a drawing board only concept, SAAB has said they are going to build and fly it.
See the IAF has set a deadline of March 2008 for the 6 companies to submit their responses to the RFP. The IAF shall then expect demonstrations of each fighter plane in India in various locations from Himalayn region, to western desert and southern coastal region. This is expected in 2-3 years time.
Thus, the IAF cannot entertain fighters which are yet not even produced by a company. It is not entering a risk-sharing JV for a yet-to-be-produced concept.
Trouble here is that the LCA is already supposed to be equel to the F-16 in most if not all requests.. and i do not mean the earlier blocks or F 16 i mean the new beafed up ones!
matt, actually Tejas’ max. payload is around 4,500 kgs as compared to 7,000 kgs of the F-16. But in A2A and ECM capability the Tejas should be equivalent to the F-16.
However, F-16 class fighters rarely have ANY mission profile that allows them to carry loads beyond 2000-3000 kgs. The Tejas can also carry these loads with ease at combat radii equal to F-16 or F-18, given that its airframe is very light and strong owing to composites.
Abhimanyumatt, Gripen-NG is being offered to India because the earlier version of Gripen that was being offered was very similar to Tejas in performance parameters. The Gripen-NG is closer to F-16 and being only a concept it cannot be chosen over the Tejas.
Now regarding other contenders, the Eurofighter, Rafale and F-18 have very similar range-payload specifications as the Su-30 MKI i.e. max non-ferry range of nearly 1400-1600 kms and max. weapon-load of 8000-9000 kgs (max. weapon-load not at max. range). The same may be said of the MiG-35, which is nearly the same size and weight as the Su-30, however with a lesser payload at 6000 kgs (as per some sources : 5500, others 6,500 kgs).
The F-16 is already operated by the PAF and thus cannot be chosen by the IAF. The Gripen-NG is a “drawing board” concept only, and it would be unjustified if the IAF entertains such on-paper ideas from foreign firms without giving a chance to the Tejas or the MCA. Instead of regressing toward making Tejas a trainer, HAL might consider making an NG version of Tejas to bring it on par with F-16.
Though true that Tejas is yet to obtain an IoC, by the time that it does in 2008-09, it can be hoped that the IAF considers it for the MRCA role also.
AbhimanyuWithin the initial development phase 20% of the avionics might be Indian but unless we know what they are we cannot comment.
the claim of having 50% share can still come true if post development production is setup in such a way that India has 50 % work share in the program. And would mean that russia would have to facilitate this by providing india with the correct IP rights.
matt, I disagree with your view. Firstly, a fighter plane is composed of not only avionics, but also the airframe, the engine, flight-control, and the stealth features. In these, India has nil role to play. Only in the section of avionics has India been provided some role, which is 20%.
Thus, India’s overall work-share in the PAK-FA is 5-10% only.
lets not get ahead of our selves a lot is at stake and until india can built and test aircraft to a competent level it is better for it to sit back and let the people who are experienced take control, as long as India can claim the technology developed
There has been no mention of India having any so-called ‘rights’ or exclusivity to the Russian technologies in the PAK-FA. As we discussed earlier, Russia is providing the necessary means for India to modify and attach its own avionics (limited to 20%). It is this “right to modify” that is referred to in news reports and for which India is actually paying for, besides licence production rights.
AbhimanyuThe following news report by a popular Aviation blog, confirms the outline of PAK-FA’s structural composition by either participating country :-
Sukhoi gets Indian support for T-50 fighter
According to industry sources, the joint fighter will in fact be the Sukhoi PAK-FA (T-50) but with about 20% of equipment, mainly avionics, replaced by Indian-made systems. Sukhoi CEO Mikhail Pogosyan has committed to support the development of additional modifications for India, including a ship-based derivative.
“This will be 50/50 cooperation in terms of intellectual property, resources and money,” said Pogosyan.
Thus, from the above it is very clear that the PAK-FA is NOT even modeled on the lines of the Su-30 MKI :- Only a small percentage avionics shall be Indian, whereas in the MKI the percentage was higher. The PAK-FA is a purchase agreement which for some reason is being described as a joint venture.
We may examine other 5th G fighters of note such as the JSF, which indeed contain foreign content that is much more significant than only avionics. The STOL of the F-35 JSF has been developed by Britain’s Rolls Royce. There was a diplomatic dispute between the UK, Australia and the US for transfer of source codes so that the former could modify the JSF as per domestic needs.
Yet, inspite this the JSF is described as a totally US program with foreign funding and support. Clearly the above description of the PAK-FA is NOT at all even in resemblance, let alone in consonance with the F-35 model. Still, the Indian side prefers to describe it as a 50% Joint Venture.
It may be also unclear from the above that if only 20% avionics are to be replaced with local Indian ones with the rest of the airframe, TVC, stealth, radars etc. remaining Russian (for the RuAF), then how does Mr. Pogosyan’s claim of sharing 50% intellectual property reconcile to it. It also remains to be seen how much source codes to provide the necessary interfaces for installation of Indian avionics the Russian side is willing to disclose (similar to US vis-a-vis UK and Australia in case of JSF).
The MCA’s case can now only be put forward by convincing the defence ministry that the PAK-FA is no more than a purchase “disguised” or “marketed” as a ‘joint-venture’. In fact, the DRDO probably best realizes the actuality of the PAK-FA agreement and may now vigorously campaign the MCA to the IAF and defence ministry.
Reference :-
Abhimanyunow with the mki, to be honest, we took what was available in the flanker and added on top of it, we want long range radar, tvc, new avionics, open architecture..but in this case, even the basic design is not fixed beyond a point. thats what my sources tell me is why a team was in dilli recently to wrap up the final details with iaf.
See, as we have discussed earlier, production of PAK-FA has already commenced, even while India is only negotiating and has not yet entered the programme. The airframe and avionics have thus been finalized as per Russian ASRs, and again confirmed by officials from Sukhoi and Russian govt. The Indian version will only be allowed to be modified (as per previous news reports) by Russia.
of course its a bit worrying that we are paying 5 billion for this..but that cost i think includes the aircraft themselves
From the above, it is thus clearly a purchase agreement as in a JV the need to purchase units does not arise.
and no, they wont add necessary interfaces to add indian avionics, they’ll build them in from scratch and that will require indian involvement.
As per previous news reports quoting Rusian officials, PAK-FA will have Russian avionics for Russian Air Force, whereas India can be given privilege to
localize the avionics. For this purpose, the Russian interfaces will be required such as those for the radar, ECM etc. India is paying for these interfaces and the rights to use them.
why will iaf mention it when lca is yet to be inducted? you have to understand how political this entire thing is and how system works in india. talk to people spend some time and you’ll understand
first, iaf wants lca to be inducted, till then they will shoot down any drdo attempt to work on the next stage in public. because they will be afraid that drdo will not focus on getting lca finished and start off on mca.
Such is not the case when foreign hardware is being procured. IAF has expressed interest in 40 additional Su-30 MKIs, joint-venture in MTA, sent RFP for MiG-35 and yet it is negotiating for the purchase of the PAK-FA.
Besides, completion of Tejas is now tasked with HAL and not entirely with ADA.
Abhimanyucrobato, as mentioned by ISRO official, normally the technique of avoiding collision with others is employed while launching satellites, i.e. the path of the launch rocket is not to intersect any other sat’s path– or if it does, the sat should be calculated to being absent there at that point of time.
However, in the ASAT test conducted by China, the rocket was set upon a ‘deliberate’ collision course. Like all rocket launches globally, it would have been tracked also, but Not command guided by powerful ground radars (like Arrow’s Greenpine or Aegis’s Raytheon radars). The rocket may have used terminal homing, in case the satellite was radioed to maneuver (by 20 kms as you said); however, in a disturbance free atmosphere, targeting a 20 km deviation is achievable given that BMDs achieve an interception against targets that cover a few kms per second.
Abhimanyunobody knew about what was indian in the mki and at that point of time, india had far less money and time to contribute.
according to both iaf and hal, yes there will be indian stuff in pak fa. this is first hand info. it will mostly be avionics related and the design specs are actually being accomodated to meet iaf demands which stress on certain avionics and performance criteria. ada has also said it will help out.
In such a case, it will not be different than the Su-30 MKI, which again does not qualify as a joint venture, but as joint modification only. This has been discussed previously. The demand for $5 billion is only for purchase of licence production rights and rights to the necessary interfaces to add Indian avionics.
pak fa will fly in indian colors, dont get blood pressure over it because u and i cant do anything about the decision, just hope that the mod funds the mca once lca is done.
Because of highly prohibitive costs (and no global security requirements), it may be unlikely that India will fund and maintain 2 fifth G fighter planes. Russia, UK, China and France too have single 5th G plans only.
The MRCA deal could not undermine Tejas’ production, as 220 separate Tejas planes are guaranteed in any case. However, the PAK-FA may lead to total cancellation of the MCA.
The IAF has never once mentioned the MCA in public, like it has the PAK-FA, even though there is no imminent requirement of a 5th G plane.
AbhimanyuWhich still means that it was guided, what do you think they just point it upwards and let it go.
sealordlawrence and sferrin, as the boldened quote by ISRO official shows, the ASAT test was nothing different than launching a rocket into a predetermined orbit to avoid collisions with sats of other nations. Only in the Chinese case, the orbit was occupied, which led to collision.
AbhimanyuSukhoy Company Begins Assembly of Fifth Generation Fighter Prototypes
The Komsomol’sk-on-Amur Yu.A. Gagarin Aviation Production Association (KnAAPO) which is included in the Sukhoy Holding Company, has begun assembly of the first prototypes of the future multirole fighter. The enterprise already has obtained the necessary engineering data from the Sukhoy OKB. When the prototypes are ready, the aircraft will have to go through all the necessary stages which are connected with preparing for the start of flight tests and which may begin in 2009.
From the above news report, it must be very clear that India shall not have—neither shall be expected to have— even suggestions, lest any technical inputs in the PAK-FA. It must be mentioned again that India has not yet entered the program formally, as negotiations have not completed.
It may also be noted that even the news report above also does not have any mention of India at all. It is thus quite apparent that the claims of “Joint development” and “collaboration” have several concealed, ”twisted’, conditioned and contextual meanings, of which NONE mean that what is understood conventionally by all the members of this forum.
If the avionics are also finalized, then the PAK-FA may have lesser Indian input than even the Su-30 MKI.
Sign In
