Klub > competition.

Hello? Is the 11 hp fulcrum back at AI 2011 or is it an older pic? Super! If they get that damned 1064 TRM AESA and TVC combo working on this beauty, it’ll be a devil of a fighter.

USS.

Not me – good eye or not – that just plain hurts! 🙂

USS

With a max payload of 7200 kg the NG seems closer to the F-16 than to the Tejas, IMHO. Gripens empty weight puts it in the “light” category, but max payload puts it in the “medium” category.

Rafales empty weight puts in the “medium” category but Rafales max payload (and price!) puts it closer to the “heavy” than the “medium” category. The Rafale can carry a bigger payload than the SH!

The question remains though, does the IAF need another a/c with such capability when it already got the SU-30MKI?

As for the passive sensors of Rafale — Gripen will also have some advanced passive sensors, newly developed and therefore state-of-the-art.

The su-30 can carry about 8000kg, if the Gripen can carry 7200kg, perhaps they are both so close that the IAF might as well drop the Gripen as well, wot?

Point is the medium, low and heavy categories are not based as much on MTOW as combination of empty weight, endurance, radar/sensor power etc imho. It just does not make sense otherwise. IOWs, what the IAF is looking to get is an a/c that can somewhat reach the MKI capability but not as comfortably – lower endurance, radar power and so on. At the same time they also need it to overlap a bit on LCA type capability – provide point defense, interception, cheap CAP etc

Anyways, there is no denying that the GripenNG is coming along nicely – but like I said another problem is its similarity with the Tejas Mk2. It will surely cause a hiccup there – too much overlap. Btw, the ability to carry 7200 kg on an almost empty tank is not necessarily a regular need. The Rafale/TIffy could do this much more easily, and that is what higher capability is all about.

USS.

Re. Shukla’s report:

The last time he did this, the Euros lost – EJ200 vs. GE414! Lets hope he doesn’t jinx the europeans this time. Amongst all the contenders, it was evident from the v.beginning that:

a) IAF was not really interested in the MiG-35 – so realistically it never had much of a chance, and what little chance it had was scuttled by the Pakfa and 29K deals imho. The overdependence on Russian inventory meant that the IAF was always looking further west for its MRCA.

b) The F-16IN similarly had a poor chance from the beginning – I beileve this one would not have done too well during the trials. It has a penchant to bust tires, and would be in serious doodoo when used the way the IAF uses its a/c – out in the open under blistering sun (I believe the UAE/USAF folks have a/c hangars etc), and terribly chilly, rarified atmospheres. Also, unlike the Fulcrum and even to some extent, the Shornet, all the later blocks become correspondingly worse, with the blk 60 taking the cake – mediocre TWR, poor wingloading, and terrible fuel fraction. That the PAF uses them did not help either. THen there is the concern about US sanctions, end user restrictions etc – something the IAF might be wary about esp. for a cutting edge element of its fleet. And the LM offer to make it a segue to the JSF was just ridiculous – probly deemed as an insult to their intelligence by the Indians.

Now the other 4 contenders all have a decent shot:

a) Super Hornet as it stands is going to have trouble in the indian conditions – probly came forth during the trials. Not agile, definitely strike oriented, poor aero ability. But compensates with first class electronics, very complete, immediate readiness/availability (they could probly supply a sqd for familiarization within months of the contract) and tempting upgrade possibilities. Commonality with the Tejas engine might help also. HOwever, the question mark regarding its American origin (as for the F-16) also possibly weighs in the mind of the end user. Another problem is that it is not cheap – probly just as expensive as the Tiffy and Rafale (ballpark).

b) The Gripen NG is a very tempting low end possibility – a little incomplete perhaps, but nothing that can’t be readied in a couple of years. Big issue is that it is a) too close to the Tejas and the scientific community within will be dead against it, b) Sweden does not really carry as much clout as the others. Great a/c, albeit a bit low in terms of strike capability, excellent uptimes, and turn around times, super upfront + lifecycle costs, and decent TOT package will make 3 major partners of the customer quite happy – IAF, MOD and MOF.

c) The EF-2000 is no doubt, excellent in terms of performance – arguably the best A2A, and definitely in the top 3 in tems of strike capability. No question marks re. its abilities at all. If EADS delivers on TOT/offsets as it claims to it will certainly satisfy 2 out of 3 elements in the customer’s requirements – IAF for sure, and MOD/industry. However, the MOF is liable to throw a tantrum looking at its price. They will have to make that a/c somewhat affordable.

d) The Rafale again, is excellent in performance – top 2 in strike and a2a for sure. And offers some very exotic combos that may really tempt the IAF. Very complete package indeed. Also has an advantage in terms of mixing it up with the IAF MIrages and enjoying synergies from this as well as the Snecma JV with GTRE. The offer to hook up a Kaveri derivative on the Rafale and increasing commonality with the AMCA could also have a positive effect. TOT/offsets should not be an issue either. The very fact that the M2k upgrade has suffered such a long delay could be indicative of something brewing – Dassault knows something for sure. They have the pulse pretty good imho – as evident from their foreknowledge and offer of 40 fighters just before the MKI follow on orders were made. They were also very clever in terms of when they came to Aero India. Aroor also indicated this – the Indian forces have been kept upbreast of what the Rafale is capable of. In many ways, it would depend on how well the French play their cards here, they have clout in India (no doubt about it), they have a great product. The problem is price, they have to sweeten this somehow.

All in all it depends on what the IAF/GOI want. If they want a stopgap, inexpensive measure until the fruition of Gen 5 a/c, and a possible hedge against the LCA mk2, the Gripen would be a very tempting offer. Saab may also do a JV on the AMCA. Otoh, if they want a very solid capability that assures a degree of superiority over existing and potential threats, and may even offer a level of deterrence vs. J20 via upgrade paths, and mix it up with the AMCA at the same time, the 3 biggies would be a good way to go – Rafale especially.

USS.

TR1, I thought that the IRST on the 35/29K was provided by NIIPP and not UOMZ? Anyways, they have managed to make the 1064 TRM equipped fulcrum fly? Any pics?

USS.

The range still is the problem deemed to be worriable for MiG-29 even for its great retrofitted version MiG-35. So, why there is no CFT planed for MiG-29 like recently upgraded proposal of SHE/F?

Range should not be an issue for the new built fulcrum 35/29k. It carries around 5000kg of fuel internally, which gives it a rather excellent fuel fraction – a huge improvement over the original handicap (internal fuel was around 3500kg). Consequently, the bird is slated to have a ferry range of over 2000km on internal fuel – comparable to the Hornet/Shornt.

Havarla, off the top of my head – here you go:

Criteria/Shornet/MiG-35
Empty Wt: 14000kg/10600kg
Internal Fuel: 6500kg/5000kg+
External Payload: 8000kg (14 hps)/6500-7000kg (11hps)
Power: 2X10000kgf GE 414/ 2X 9000 kgf Klimov RD-33MK
Radar; Apg-79 AESA (200km detection for 3msq)/ Zhuk AESA (200km range projected, currently achieves only 140km)
IRST: n/a or via EFT/nose mounted and downward facing (360deg)
EW: AL??+Jammer+ELS/Active Jammer+customRWR, no ELS

In effect the Shornet is much bigger and better suited to A2G than the Fulcrum. The fulcrum as of today is very very similar to the original hornet in terms of weights/dimensions, only with lots more power and better performance. I’d give the fulcrum the edge when it comes to pure airframe performance over both versions of the 18. Acceleration, turn rates, roll rates etc. However, the Shornet has a clear edge in terms of munitions hauled and electronic wizardry.

USS.

Actually I think the F-16 payload figure in that image is not v.different from latest Gripen NG payload figure of 7200kg put forth by Obligatory. If I am not mistaken both these figures include internal fuel weights. IOWs, there is no way the Gripen NG carries 7200kg externally without sacrificing the internal fuel capacity of 3400kg. Keeping in mind the MTOW of 16500kg and Empty of 7000kg, we get 7000kg (empty) + 3400kg (int fuel) + 7200kg (payload) = 17600kg > advertised MTOW of 16500kg by a good 1000kg+.

Also the viper blk 50 is far closer to the NG in terms of empty weight, but exceeds it in terms of TWR quite comfortably. It certainly can do more payload. The fuel fraction goes in favor of the Gripen NG, but the CFTs will certainly alleviate this issue.

All i all, LM missed the boat in its offering to India – at the very least it should’ve been a Blk 50+ with AESA + internal EW (maws, lws etc) + IRST + the 14.5 ton engine. Now that would be hard to beat. Probly the most powerful viper with the blk 60 class electronics! Unless of course, they offered an F-16 XL :diablo::diablo:

USS.