MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[LX1111]

No I am reading RCS measurements from online resources and AI chatbots. I maybe wrong and j-20 might turn out to have way higher RCS than assumed.

F-35 vs J-20 vs Su-57 Summary

Introduction Previously, we have done HFSS simulation to evaluate the mean and median radar cross section as well as the radar scattering pattern of the four common stealth fighters namely F-35A, S…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

I think the data on this website is more accurate. Australia uses spectral method for measurement, and the error is relatively large

 

[randomradio]

Tibet does not have that much frozen soil, and it is not difficult to build on frozen soil, as evidenced by the large number of high grade roads and railways China has built in Tibet
View attachment 41502

View attachment 41501
Those sticks on the side of the road,
It can absorb and discharge the heat that causes the permafrost to melt in the summer, so as to prevent the heat from directly contacting the permafrost and avoid the permafrost melting.

An airbase has infrastructure underground, so you have to build your foundations into the permafrost and even around it. You can build roads and railroads, even small permanent structures, but not large structures.

Permafrost can be a few inches, a few feet, or dozens of feet below the top layer. When the permafrost melts, the top layer becomes slushy and won't hold structure. Your airbase will float away with the melt.

 

[randomradio]

Well, the exact range of the J20 is not clear, but the range of the SU30 series is 3000KM, enough to cover from Hotan and Yunnan airports to Kashmir and the northeast states, there is no demand for refueling aircraft,
The J10C also has a range of 2509km when carrying three tanks, which can also cover the main battlefield, so the distance you mentioned is never a problem,

Yes, there are some normal routes from some directions, but that's not Tibet. Most of the main Indian forces have to be attacked from the Tibetan side. For example, Western LAC, that's Ladakh, will have only 3 or 4 divisions, but Central LAC and Eastern LAC is where we will see a lot of offensive action, with 10-12 divisions and 2 strike corps. You can expect India to attack from places where PLAGF will have poor air support.

Ferry range does not translate very well into combat range. Anyway, it does not change transit time. And you can't just take off and fly straight into enemy territory, there are a lot of actions you have to take prior to ingress and that requires on-station time.

 

[Parthu]

IAF aiming to induct new multirole fighter jets in 4-5 years, US F-15 Strike Eagle may be new entrant in global tender​

With a high-level committee having accepted the need for getting new multirole fighters, the Indian Air Force is looking to start induction of these planes in the next four to five years through a fast tracked global tender.

@Lolwa how did you do it?

If they are serious about this timeline, it also means that Rafale F5 is not in contention, only the F4 baseline (+ whatever new ISEs we want). That much was always clear from the start before conversations devolved into hypotheticals. That means GaN radar, 360-degree radar, new M88 variant etc. were never on the table.

And if at all an American jet ends up getting selected (probably F-15EX), we're to understand that this was a political condition for getting access to the F-35 down the line. There's no other practical reason why we'd choose an American 4.5G over additional Rafales otherwise.

 

[randomradio]

The distance problem we claim is not havinga merit i fear, @Hellfire had dismissed it in his tweet long back.
@randomradio

The Chinese haven't solved this dilemma because even the US has the same problem, which they continue to have even with over 500 large refuelers.

The only real answer is for your jet itself to carry all the fuel it needs 'cause there's a limit to how close or how efficiently you can use refuelers near enemy territory. And if you refuel from far away, you will lose both time and fuel in transit anyway, which defeats the purpose.

Anti-tanker/AWACS missiles can now manage kills from 500-700 km away. You can expect a jet like the Mig-41 to engage from 1500 km away.

So now you need stealth tankers, and they currently do not exist.

 

[Ashwin]

If they are serious about this timeline, it also means that Rafale F5 is not in contention, only the F4 baseline (+ whatever new ISEs we want). That much was always clear from the start before conversations devolved into hypotheticals. That means GaN radar, 360-degree radar, new M88 variant etc. were never on the table.

And if at all an American jet ends up getting selected (probably F-15EX), we're to understand that this was a political condition for getting access to the F-35 down the line. There's no other practical reason why we'd choose an American 4.5G over additional Rafales otherwise.

The only reason the F-15EX could be under consideration is to have a viable contender against Rafale. French has become too expensive and harder to negotiate.

Another 5 years of unnecessary drama.

 

[randomradio]

If they are serious about this timeline, it also means that Rafale F5 is not in contention, only the F4 baseline (+ whatever new ISEs we want). That much was always clear from the start before conversations devolved into hypotheticals. That means GaN radar, 360-degree radar, new M88 variant etc. were never on the table.

The first Rafale F5 will be operational in 2030, so any contract signed in 2027 or later will be for F5. So any stopgap deal will be for F5.

As will India's assembly line.

Dassault considers boosting Indian presence to support future Rafale production | Shephard

Discussion of any new production line in India would reportedly be for the F5 jet, although India is also closing in on cementing a deal for 26 Rafale-M aircraft for its Navy.

www.shephardmedia.com

And based on what Picdel has pointed out regarding the modifications required for F5, there's nothing saying the IN's jet will be F4 only.

And if at all an American jet ends up getting selected (probably F-15EX), we're to understand that this was a political condition for getting access to the F-35 down the line. There's no other practical reason why we'd choose an American 4.5G over additional Rafales otherwise.

Will never happen.

No clue why they are trying to make this old news appear new. Just lobby work.

F-15EX was always on the cards. Boeing received permission in 2021.

Boeing Can Now Offer The F-15EX To India, But Does Buying It Really Make Sense?

The Indian Air Force needs new fighters, and it needs them fast, but the F-15 is just one of a bewildering number of options.

www.twz.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1354686375971282949

 

[Parthu]

The first Rafale F5 will be operational in 2030, so any contract signed in 2027 or later will be for F5. So any stopgap deal will be for F5.

As will India's assembly line.

Dassault considers boosting Indian presence to support future Rafale production | Shephard

Discussion of any new production line in India would reportedly be for the F5 jet, although India is also closing in on cementing a deal for 26 Rafale-M aircraft for its Navy.

www.shephardmedia.com

And based on what Picdel has pointed out regarding the modifications required for F5, there's nothing saying the IN's jet will be F4 only.

We can't order something we can't evaluate. We can consider F5 as an upgrade path, or the possibility of switching the line to F5 after the first few batches. But that isn't gonna be the basis on which we'll place orders, if we do place orders that is, as this wouldn't be the first tender that went nowhere.

The 2016 deal was for F3+ISE. Any Rafale bought between now and 2030 (whether stop-gap or through MRFA) will be F4+ISE. Any deal post-2030 can be for F5+ISE.

Will never happen.

No clue why they are trying to make this old news appear new. Just lobby work.

F-15EX was always on the cards. Boeing received permission in 2021.

Boeing Can Now Offer The F-15EX To India, But Does Buying It Really Make Sense?

The Indian Air Force needs new fighters, and it needs them fast, but the F-15 is just one of a bewildering number of options.

www.twz.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1354686375971282949

Any American jet in MRFA is a hypothetical - IF it ends up getting selected, as I said.

 

[randomradio]

The only reason the F-15EX could be under consideration is to have a viable contender against Rafale. French has become too expensive and harder to negotiate.

Another 5 years of unnecessary drama.

The F-15EX is in fact the worst jet out of all the contenders. It exists because the USAF wants 72 jets a year, and the F-35 is unlikely to rise beyond 48 for quite a few years, pretty much all of this decade, so about 24 F-15s a year compensates for the difference. Most of the jets are for the ANG.

 

[Lolwa]

The F-15EX is in fact the worst jet out of all the contenders. It exists because the USAF wants 72 jets a year, and the F-35 is unlikely to rise beyond 48 for quite a few years, pretty much all of this decade, so about 24 F-15s a year compensates for the difference. Most of the jets are for the ANG.

Technically the typhoon and gripen will end up being better alternatives if the rafale is not possible for some reason. Low RCS,irst and meteor access with GaN radars.
And typhoon with RR becoming amca development partner should end up being smoother considering how desperate the brits are.
The f-15EX has the best radar and ew but the RCS problem remains also lack of integrated irst. But it is positioned to be more of a ground striker and missile truck rather than a true multirole.

 

[randomradio]

We can't order something we can't evaluate. We can consider F5 as an upgrade path, or the possibility of switching the line to F5 after the first few batches. But that isn't gonna be the basis on which we'll place orders, if we do place orders that is, as this wouldn't be the first tender that went nowhere.

Only airframe, flight characteristics, and weapons delivery are evaluated on the aircraft. We evaluate electronics on testbeds, if it's not available on the aircraft. For example, Typhoon's radar was evaluated on a helicopter. In MMRCA, only the Americans had operational AESA radars.

F5 tech should be on testbeds right now. And by the time MRFA evaluations begin, we could even see it on a prototype.

The 2016 deal was for F3+ISE. Any Rafale bought between now and 2030 (whether stop-gap or through MRFA) will be F4+ISE. Any deal post-2030 can be for F5+ISE.

There's no rule saying that. In 2016, F3R didn't exist. We started negotiating for an aircraft in 2015 that became available only in 2018, and we took deliveries in 2019.

In 2009, F3+ didn't exist either. We evaluated a prototype with F3+ capabilities which became operational at the end of 2012. Typhoon's radar was not expected until 2015.

 

[randomradio]

Technically the typhoon and gripen will end up being better alternatives if the rafale is not possible for some reason. Low RCS,irst and meteor access with GaN radars.
And typhoon with RR becoming amca development partner should end up being smoother considering how desperate the brits are.

It's pretty much impossible for Gripen E to make the shortlist. Good avionics, but no single-engine survivability. It will score zero on that metric and get disqualified. It cannot beat the Rafale at engine ToT either. While the US is willing to handover 80% for LCA, the French are willing to provide full 100%. The same with airframe, Saab doesn't control 100% of the airframe, while Dassault does.

Typhoon is the Rafale's only competitor. The biggest threat to Rafale is getting L1. If MRFA doesn't compensate for its higher grade of avionics, Rafale could lose out on cost. Typhoon is unlikely to match the Rafale's ToT potential though, but it can come close. Economies of scale favor Rafale though, so it's possible the Typhoon is even more expensive.

The f-15EX has the best radar and ew but the RCS problem remains also lack of integrated irst. But it is positioned to be more of a ground striker and missile truck rather than a true multirole.

F-15EX is an ASF, but yeah, a missile truck-based ASF. It's like a very poor man's version of the J-36.

It's quite ironic, the Americans had operational radars in MMRCA, but in MRFA their AESA radars will be the oldest. It's just an upgrade over the older APG-63v3 radar, that's combined with a new processor made for the SH. It's GaAs.

The best radars are the new ones on Rafale and Typhoon with GaN and additional functions that are missing in other contenders.

 

[LX1111]

An airbase has infrastructure underground, so you have to build your foundations into the permafrost and even around it. You can build roads and railroads, even small permanent structures, but not large structures.

Permafrost can be a few inches, a few feet, or dozens of feet below the top layer. When the permafrost melts, the top layer becomes slushy and won't hold structure. Your airbase will float away with the melt.

Contrary to what you might think, large buildings can be built in frozen areas. Although I do not know about the construction of military facilities, at least China often builds large civil buildings in frozen areas and has promulgated relevant national regulationsp
Moreover, the requirements for the foundation of roads and railways are not worse than the air base, especially the Qinghai-Tibet railway such a heavy-haul railway, and the most important thing of the air base is to build an airport, and his requirements are much easier than the construction of railways

 

[LX1111]

Yes, there are some normal routes from some directions, but that's not Tibet. Most of the main Indian forces have to be attacked from the Tibetan side. For example, Western LAC, that's Ladakh, will have only 3 or 4 divisions, but Central LAC and Eastern LAC is where we will see a lot of offensive action, with 10-12 divisions and 2 strike corps. You can expect India to attack from places where PLAGF will have poor air support.

Ferry range does not translate very well into combat range. Anyway, it does not change transit time. And you can't just take off and fly straight into enemy territory, there are a lot of actions you have to take prior to ingress and that requires on-station time.

Launching an offensive on the eastern front is not a wise choice, China has a large number of airfields there, 18 in Yunnan, 21 in Sichuan and 9 in Chongqing, most of which are within 1000 km of the Indian border and can be easily reached by the su27
Then, the only remaining possibility is the central Sikkim direction
This is also not a good choice
Shigatse Airport, only 209 km away from Sikkim, can have a runway of 5000m here, the condition is very good

Dingri Airport, 212KM from Sikkim, with a 4,500-meter runway, was just completed in 2022,

Shannan Longzi Airport, also scheduled for completion in 2022, has a runway 4,500 meters long and is 381 KM from Sikkim
Lhasa Gongga International Airport, which is a Class 4E international airport, is 296KM away from Sikkim

 

[Parthu]

Only airframe, flight characteristics, and weapons delivery are evaluated on the aircraft. We evaluate electronics on testbeds, if it's not available on the aircraft. For example, Typhoon's radar was evaluated on a helicopter. In MMRCA, only the Americans had operational AESA radars.

F5 tech should be on testbeds right now. And by the time MRFA evaluations begin, we could even see it on a prototype.

The article says we're aiming for induction in next 4-5 years, so <2030. That wouldn't be possible with F5.

There's no rule saying that. In 2016, F3R didn't exist. We started negotiating for an aircraft in 2015 that became available only in 2018, and we took deliveries in 2019.

In 2009, F3+ didn't exist either. We evaluated a prototype with F3+ capabilities which became operational at the end of 2012. Typhoon's radar was not expected until 2015.

F4 to F5 is a much bigger leap than F3 to F3R, which was mostly just a software/weapon integration update. There's so much more that's changing now, including core components like airframe, radar & engine. It's not the same.

The F3 baseline existed prior to our deal signing, it was delivered to AdlA at least a year before. The RBE-2AA was also ready, as was M88-2.

If we follow the same pattern of ordering, the earliest we can consider F5 order is 2031. Induction by 2034. This doesn't fit our timeline as described in the article.

Btw, we must push for integrating a downsized Virupaksha on Indian-made Rafales, along with an Indian mission computer. There would be no point in wasting money on RBE-2XG in the 2030s when we can make a domestic GaN FCR for the MKI upgrade. It would also help in reducing cost of weapon integration down the line.

 

[Rajput Lion]

When it's all said and done, it's ONLY Rafale or bust. No plan B @randomradio

 

[randomradio]

View attachment 41505
Contrary to what you might think, large buildings can be built in frozen areas. Although I do not know about the construction of military facilities, at least China often builds large civil buildings in frozen areas and has promulgated relevant national regulationsp
Moreover, the requirements for the foundation of roads and railways are not worse than the air base, especially the Qinghai-Tibet railway such a heavy-haul railway, and the most important thing of the air base is to build an airport, and his requirements are much easier than the construction of railways

You can build over frozen areas, but only when they are not melting.

Forget buildings, permafrost cannot even hold plants once they start melting.

The fragile future of roads and buildings built on permafrost

As permafrost thaws around the world, the steel, concrete and tarmac structures sitting on top are warping and crumbling. Is there anything engineers can do to adapt?

www.bbc.com

Just normal weather conditions are melting permafrost. What do you think will happen when it comes in contact with heat from explosives during war?

 

[Lolwa]

It's pretty much impossible for Gripen E to make the shortlist. Good avionics, but no single-engine survivability. It will score zero on that metric and get disqualified. It cannot beat the Rafale at engine ToT either. While the US is willing to handover 80% for LCA, the French are willing to provide full 100%. The same with airframe, Saab doesn't control 100% of the airframe, while Dassault does.

Typhoon is the Rafale's only competitor. The biggest threat to Rafale is getting L1. If MRFA doesn't compensate for its higher grade of avionics, Rafale could lose out on cost. Typhoon is unlikely to match the Rafale's ToT potential though, but it can come close. Economies of scale favor Rafale though, so it's possible the Typhoon is even more expensive.



F-15EX is an ASF, but yeah, a missile truck-based ASF. It's like a very poor man's version of the J-36.

It's quite ironic, the Americans had operational radars in MMRCA, but in MRFA their AESA radars will be the oldest. It's just an upgrade over the older APG-63v3 radar, that's combined with a new processor made for the SH. It's GaAs.

The best radars are the new ones on Rafale and Typhoon with GaN and additional functions that are missing in other contenders.

The typhoon in terms of tot will be interesting. I think we really need assistance on the engine side and ej 200 is basically the best the west has to offer in terms of 4th gen engines. We don't really need assistance in terms of radars now but electronic warfare and standoff munitions is an area where we need growth. The typhoon has access to whatever the French can fire on top of that amraam, iris-t, hope/hosbo series, kepd 350 which if allowed to produced in india will give us a significant boost.

 

[randomradio]

Launching an offensive on the eastern front is not a wise choice, China has a large number of airfields there, 18 in Yunnan, 21 in Sichuan and 9 in Chongqing, most of which are within 1000 km of the Indian border and can be easily reached by the su27
Then, the only remaining possibility is the central Sikkim direction
This is also not a good choice
Shigatse Airport, only 209 km away from Sikkim, can have a runway of 5000m here, the condition is very good
View attachment 41506
Dingri Airport, 212KM from Sikkim, with a 4,500-meter runway, was just completed in 2022,
View attachment 41507
Shannan Longzi Airport, also scheduled for completion in 2022, has a runway 4,500 meters long and is 381 KM from SikkimView attachment 41508
Lhasa Gongga International Airport, which is a Class 4E international airport, is 296KM away from Sikkim
View attachment 41509

If the IAF ends up with 50+ squadrons facing China, PLAAF will need about 50-100 air bases, not 4 or 5.

 

[randomradio]

The article says we're aiming for induction in next 4-5 years, so <2030. That wouldn't be possible with F5.

You are taking that literally at face value?

F4 to F5 is a much bigger leap than F3 to F3R, which was mostly just a software/weapon integration update. There's so much more that's changing now, including core components like airframe, radar & engine. It's not the same.

The F3 baseline existed prior to our deal signing, it was delivered to AdlA at least a year before. The RBE-2AA was also ready, as was M88-2.

If we follow the same pattern of ordering, the earliest we can consider F5 order is 2031. Induction by 2034. This doesn't fit our timeline as described in the article.

Btw, we must push for integrating a downsized Virupaksha on Indian-made Rafales, along with an Indian mission computer. There would be no point in wasting money on RBE-2XG in the 2030s when we can make a domestic GaN FCR for the MKI upgrade. It would also help in reducing cost of weapon integration down the line.

So you believe we will begin the RFP stage this year, evaluate the contenders, choose a winner, negotiate a contract and sign it next year so the first jet is inducted in 2029, so it cannot be the F5?

Or it is more realistic to believe they will sign the contract in 4-5 years?

RFP will take 6 months, without extensions. Paper evaluations may take just a month compared to last time's 3. Flight tests could take 6 months minimum, 'cause we need to test the jets across two seasons, summer in Rajasthan and winter at Leh. Then they need to shortlist. They took a year last time, but they can get it done in 3 months this time. Then they took a year for L1, which can now be completed in 3 months too. So the fastest they can finish this is 2 years. I provided a buffer of a year to make up for issues from the vendor side or bureaucratic delays from within MoD.

So 2028 at the minimum before we negotiate with the winner. If it's Rafale, things can get done in just a few months. If it's Typhoon, it could take well over a year. So contract any time in 2029 or 2030. They could aim to get it done before the elections though. So we can get the first jet in either 2032 or 2033.

But I like how you're trying to hard to believe the IAF will choose an inferior jet just 'cause they do not want to delay by a year while Dassault plans to offer F5 anyway. You may have forgotten this but MRFA RFI gave the FOEM 5 years to deliver the first squadron after a contract is signed. So even a signature today would mean an F5 delivery in 2030.

When it's all said and done, it's ONLY Rafale or bust. No plan B @randomradio

Yep.

Ironically, the USAF is looking at joining GCAP. My, how the mighty have fallen.