uss noviceHave a feeling that the single seater Naval proto and the Mk2 will have some commonality in looks/features. Levcons might be present on both and that Rafalasque shape as well.
USS.
uss noviceUPG has no more composites than SMT, which was made entirely in Russia and a long time ago.
Actually, I was refering to the IAF MiG-29 (non upgraded), I believe they had done some tinkering with it to get more composites in the original airframe – this was about ~10 years ago (long before any SMTs really came out). Ditto with the Jags as well. There is an article somewhere on this.
USS.
uss noviceWhat India can certainly bring to the table is increasing the use of composite materials in the T-50 and its derivative with a view to improve stealth and lower aircraft weight.
Agreed, there is little doubt that India has gained a lot of experience in composite usage AND that some of this experience has led to changes in Russian designs as well. Take a look at the MiG-29A and the Baaz (more composites in the latter). The MiG-29K original vs. current version also shows a huge reduction in weight and increase in composites. Btw, there is also evidence that much has been done on the latter version to reduce radar sig – dunno if that is entirely attributable to the composite though.
Similarly, the Su-30MKI program is supposed to have seen an increase in composite usage with time as well. I’d not be surprised if the weight loss there is even more dramatic vis a vis the 29K example. Possibly another reason that the IAF never complains about what seems on paper, a rather ordinary TWR on the MKI.
USS
uss noviceRe. engines – the IAF does not seem to be interested (at least on paper) and my guess is for two reasons :
1) The current AL 31FPs on the beast pump out much more than that which is normally suggested (12500kgf on AB). There have been allusions to this in some publications. Another reason to believe the above is that the MKI with its published weights (18400kg empty) and said power, would have a TWR that is somewhat equivalent to a M2k, which is rather puny. However, the MKI has been to Ladakh and can probly fly from almost any AFB unlike the
M2k, which has not really been testing any rarified climes.
2) WIth increased composite usage on subsequent MKI batches, weight reductions of some worth can be expected. A look at the current MiG-29K vs. the original is a case in point – empty weight diff is about 1000kg. It is said that the IAF already tinkered with the original Mig 29, and even Jags – using composites to make the birds lighter.
3) The IAF thinks the current TWR is more than enough. Who is to deny them?
USS
uss noviceStick to the topic!
M’Pacha
uss noviceHow About Some one a bit more reliable. Ajai Shukla
MoD flouts offset rules; favours foreign vendors
Well imho, this offset requirement is a bit much, and dare I say could be counterproductive despite being well intentioned. This is because India does not seem to have an MIC that can quickly provide the required products – tech absorption has been rather slow – as is to be expected. This can result in insane delays and thereby affect armed forces readiness.
No wonder then that they are just skimming through this stringent reqt. No wonder also that MRCA contenders have been saying that offset requirements are v.v. hard to fulfill.
It is a difficult balance indeed but they cannot and should not tradeoff Armed Forces readiness to make PSUs (or even pvt. industry) viable and technologically up to date.
What they need instead of confounding procurement is quite simply sticking to a few staple products and pushing them through even at insane costs. For e.g. the Tejas should have been supported far more robustly, they should’ve even twisted the IAF to place an initial order of 120 a/c and a final tally of 400. At the same time, the techies should have been somewhat reined in by not aiming for the stars. Get a basic product fully developed and delivered, even if it was only a miniature M2k – triplex FBW, radar sourced directly from Israel, and engines from Russia. This would’ve been enough for the first 120. Indian components would slowly increase with time – perhaps at a very steep price, but it’d be worth it. E.g. paying Snecma billions for getting the Kaveri up and running for Mk2. Perhaps a JV with ELta/LRDE for the EL-2052 etc.
Imvvho, as far as possible procurement (imports) and development (homegrown products) should be dilineated. One cannot ransom the other. But for this they need to invest some top dollars in bread butter stuff.
USS>
uss noviceDamned good opportunity for the Indians to pick up a couple of sqds worth and stem the falling numbers with a quick induction. $ 18 million for the entire freaking package – that is cheap. THese frames are somewhat newer than the ones operated by the IAF, and could provide solid service for another 15 years if put through the Baaz upgrade. They can have 24 MiG-29SMTs for about $ 250 million. V.useful investment imho.
USS>
uss novice^ heh, may be they let the MKI emit @ full power only while facing south? 😀
But yeah, the fact that RWRs seem to detect emissions at insanely long ranges seems to corroborate your idea. Who knows what the IAF does to counter this – special places to train would be my guess.
USS>
uss noviceJust buy a few Brahmos if the Russians/Indians are willing – they might not if there are concerns of the US inspecting these missiles.
USS.
uss novice^ What strategy? ******s are all over the place the only consistency in their “strategy” is that all procurement has to be extremely long winded. The armed forces seem (for the most part) to have figured out their needs well enough – but between the MOD, MOF and DRDO there is a distinct lack of coordination.
Tenders are retendered (MRTT deal, MRCA?, Artillery Guns etc).
Opportunities are lost time and again (M2k as MRCA, Qatari M2ks).
Huge $$$s are wasted (M2k upgrade, Scorpene deal, MRCA, you name it!).
As of now, there could be an opportunity for the IN to buy the Ark Royal and perhaps even a few Shars from the UK at a decent price. If it can be done at a relatively inexpensive price, they might even allow the Viraat to be retired early and the much newer Ark Royal could provide service for another 20 years.
USS.
uss noviceIn case of India most pilots are converting from obsolete aircrafts like MiG-21 (and most of them is not upgraded!) or MiG-27. When you introduce new aircraft to the squadron you must totally retrain and reequip soldiers. Pilots, ground crews even air controllers must be retrained. Usually air base infrastructure must be upgraded. This is HUGE cost, much bigger than the price tag on the airplane.
Now imagine that you have to choice brand new aircraft that will serve for next 30 years, or second hand for half the price but only for 15 years. So the cost of the aircraft per year of service should be roughly the same, right? But the cost of retraining people and reequipping the base is fixed and it alone will make the cost of operating the aircraft per year bigger.
Not really a major issue – MiG-21 pilots will anyways be converted to Tejas Mk2 en masse. What Quad, and I agree with him, is saying is that buying a few Mirage 2000s and/or SMTs/LCA mk1s in the short term and investing heavily in the Tejas II (increasing rates of production), Pakfa in the long run might be a better idea than the hyper expensive MRCA. Also conversion training for pilots from already disbanded sqds should not be such a cost issue either – perhaps a small spike in cost, but nothing dramatic if the number of sqds is limited.
Some have suggested that the availibility of airframes could be an issue, but not an impossible one imho – negotiations with Qatar can be restarted, IIRC Hungarian MiG-29s recently went for sale, even if a sqd or two can be created with such purchases and another couple with perhaps LCA mk1 and Su-30MKI, it’ll seriously alleviate the pressure in the near term. IOWs, they could have 3-4 brand new sqds (60 a/c) in 3-4 years – not happening with the MRCA.
For the long term (post 2020), I simply don’t see why a Pakfa, Tejas II or AMCA cannot provide what a Rafale/Tiffy could.
Re. the inherent danger in delays wrt developmental programs such as the Pakfa or TejasII or AMCA I think this can be alleviated considerably with proper prioritizing, management, diversification and funding, and the rate at which both these programs are currently progressing, I don’t expect unsurmountable delays. Also, investing in 3 different programs is a smart way to go about things – don’t expect all of them to fail or get delayed – at least not inordinately. In any case, I doubt if using expensive purchases such as the MRCA as backups to delays is the smartest investment.
USS.
uss noviceA bit? Hell, I’m a fulcrum fan but I doubt you can equate the two. I’m guessing that something might be lost in translation there.
USS
uss noviceDon’t see why the LCA II cannot take over some “Medium” role functions – it surely has similar range as the M2k. Less payload in strike missions but similar A2A. If the Gripen NG can qualify so can the LCA II imho. Marginal differences that can surely be overcome.
At the moment – the IAF is getting top heavy with a bulk of the future force being twin engined – MKI, Pakfa, MRCA. Only one single engined design, LCA, which will probly be only about 1/4th of the entire force – not a good idea. That is another reason why the JSF is somewhat tempting although its one engine puts out more power than two M88s.
Anyways, under the circumstances, the Rafale seems to be the ideal choice. CLoser to the preferred weight class and tremendous versatility.
USS
uss noviceIt will be interesting if IAF conducts an internal DACT between lets say a flight of 4 UPG vs a flight of 4 MKI or “1 on 1”. I don’t think it will be one sided only.
MKI might have superior electronic radar but also has bigger Radar cross-section. Both have similar AAMs. Its anybody’s game especially in BVR, with very slight edge for MKI. UPG’s best chance will be to shoot at MKI within BVR envelop and not to go WVR of Flanker.
BTW who has the best chance when it comes to e-Warfare?
How about “vs” Mirage2000 upgarde as well since the deal has been signed now.
Hmm, I think you are underestimating the MKI in many regards – imvho the MKI will get first look, first shoot almost every single time. The Bars is far more powerful than the zhuk, and even though MKI airframe RCS might be more, the difference in radar sigs won’t be critical because RCS needs to be 16X to increase/reduce detection ranges by half. Secondly, the MiG-29, despite the increased internal fuel, still does not have the kind of fuel capacity to match MKI endurance, it will have to carry an EFT or more, which will further reduce the RCS difference. Third, remember that the MKI can simply disengage and reengage (almost at will) depending on the situation thanks to its super endurance – a critical aspect in BVR cat/mouse situations. Fourth, irrespective of the EW package carried, the MKI has loads more power and bigger jammers probly allowing it better jamming vs. Zhuk AND the BARs has far more Burn through range.
The best idea for the MiG is to come close and use the better HMS, OLS and possible TWR advantage. WVR, advantage might go to the MiG thanks to smaller visual sig and aforementioned advantages. The TVC and extra pilot plus fuel might help the MKI, however, the fulcrum is almost equally manouverable at slow speeds even without the TVC.
Vs. M2k-5 upgrade (assuming it is RDY -2 and not RC 400/Rdy 3),
the Zhuk will have similar range performance if not better than the RDY. RCS will probly be similar too with M2k having a marginal advantage. However, the MiG has certain v.distinct advantages, WVR and BVR – much better TWR, better endurance, ability to make silent attacks using OLS, and longer ranged missiles. First look might go either way, but the fulcrum will probly get into position faster thanks to the additional power.
The M2K, as usual will try to finish off the fulcrum as quick as possible – high and fast, and not get into a turning fight where it has poor TWR and endurance. Again the MiG has a better chance at dictating the fight and can probly disengage/reengage as needed. Still, the HMS on the M2k will somewhat help in countering this.
EW is anybody’s guess – the ICMS mk3 is supposed to be rather spiffy but the new set developed by India with Electronica might be just as good and possibly better.
Tough call, but I’d wager that the upgraded fulcrum will come out on top against the M2k-5 and also the other rival, the F-16 blk50.
USS
uss novice^^^^ Here is something better than all that…… bring Mig35 back into competition, and I am quite certain it will be L1.
Probly one reason it never made it to the final stage! The IAF wants/needs a western a/c, and despite the many strengths of the MiG-35, it would not satisfy this requirement. Too bad really, would’ve made a great fit.
Get its downgraded version instead, without TVC and AESA etc. at around the level of Mig29K or UPG. Try to bargain for a low price under $ 50 million per aircraft including ToT etc.
What you refer to is the MiG-29M – superb bird but again, doubt the IAF will be interested.
Now back to real world…:)
You have to look at this decision from IAF to choose two arguably best fighters (Super Hornet could have been here as well) with very good development potential for future. Doesn’t that tell you something about their thinking. They are not looking at MMRCA as a stopgap.
I understand that they are no longer looking at it as a stopgap measure but then what is the point in investing in a redundant platform when both the Pakfa and Tejas are expected to come in at the same time – investing in these two shows more foresight and long term strategic thought than spending $$s in the MRCA.
Don’t blame the IAF though – India’s procurement policy has been so ****ty that they will take anything that they get – why look a gift horse in the mouth.
USS
Sign In
