MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
Doesn't change anything, because Rafale has 2 stations that can carry up to 6 x 500lb bombs with MER. While Gripen E has 2 stations that can carry up to 4 x 500lb bombs with MER.
Still just 50% difference and given the fact that the standard load of French forces is 4 too, they could do the same job with a Gripen E as well, without the need of more fighters.
As I said, payload specs doesn't matter, only the number of weapon stations and their restrictions decide what load can be carried and the more stations you can free of fuel tanks, the more weapons you can carry.
No I have not forgotten range, since the 2 fuel tank configuration is standard. 4000l for Rafale, 3400l for the lighter, single engine Gripen E.
Rafale can further increase the range with a 3rd fuel tank, but that's only necessary for deep strike missions. And that's what I said was and might remain the main advantage of Rafale.
No comparison.
And not just range, the Gripen will also have a ridiculously low TWR.
The less number of hardpoints available is also a problem. It has to sacrifice range for payload because the aircraft can only choose between a fuel tank or weapons for the fuselage points. It's just a low end MMRCA when it comes to performance, range and payload. Even the upcoming MCA will match or surpass the Gripen E with the same engine in these parameters, while also bringing a more advanced avionics package with it.
Not to mention, Gripen will be a crappy buddy refueler compared to the Rafale.
The design deficiencies on the Gripen and the arrival of a more advanced MCA makes the Gripen a pretty useless aircraft to the IAF.
@Sancho: Two small details :
The rafale can cary 2 1000lbs per station, so a total of 6 and not 3
If the standard loadout of rafale is 4*500lbs bombs instead of the max 9, it is because before firing a bomb, you need a target, so 4 bombs per aircraft is generaly more than enought, and it increase range and time on station wich are the limiting factors.
As for the max number of missiles, the same holds true : what is the use to cary 8 AAM if you are sure to reach bingo fuel before you can fire all of them ? Or are you going to intercept/dogfight with all your drop tanks giving you the flight performance of the bomber you are suposed to take down ?
Max payload is usualy not a config you want to fight in. Then, given the mission you have to perform, what is interesting is the delta to the max payload. It alows a margin of comfort, like adding the third fuel tank under the belly of the rafale for exeptionaly long range mission, or carying 6 aasm for an unusual concentration of targets. But you usualy don't fly these config because they are more expensive for no real purpose.
The rafale can cary 2 1000lbs per station, so a total of 6 and not 3
If the standard loadout of rafale is 4*500lbs bombs instead of the max 9, it is because before firing a bomb, you need a target, so 4 bombs per aircraft is generaly more than enought, and it increase range and time on station wich are the limiting factors.
As for the max number of missiles, the same holds true : what is the use to cary 8 AAM if you are sure to reach bingo fuel before you can fire all of them ? Or are you going to intercept/dogfight with all your drop tanks giving you the flight performance of the bomber you are suposed to take down ?
Max payload is usualy not a config you want to fight in. Then, given the mission you have to perform, what is interesting is the delta to the max payload. It alows a margin of comfort, like adding the third fuel tank under the belly of the rafale for exeptionaly long range mission, or carying 6 aasm for an unusual concentration of targets. But you usualy don't fly these config because they are more expensive for no real purpose.
The design of the Mk-2 isn't frozen nor are we aware of what the AFQR are? In all probability, it'd be equal to the Gripen E, a decade from today. What makes you so sure of the MCA surpassing the capabilities of the Gripen E?
That would only be possible if the centerline could carry the triple MER and if the MER could carry 2 such weapons, which is dependent on size of the weapon itself (fins of bomb kits). But since no 1000lb bomb is integrated to Rafale, that can't be proven.
The use is, more self defence capability during A2G missions, more missiles in air defence against numerical superior enemies and to not return to Base to re-arm that often.
EF can carry 4 Meteors in every mission and up to 6 (theoretically even 8) in CAP missions.
Gripen E can carry 2 to 3 in A2G missions, up to 5 in CAP.
Rafale can carry 2 in A2G, 4 in CAP.
And I agree that most of the heavy maximum loads are pointless, which is the reason why I said, that French air force could do any mission, with the same standard loads of Rafale with a Gripen E too, except for deep strikes.
The main problem for LCA to evolve is space!
It doesn't have enough space for additional weapon stations, it doesn't have enough space to integrate the SPJ and add additional EW sensors, it doesn't have enough space in front of the cockpit for an IRST and even it's radar size is lower than any MMRCA contender.
MK2 will increase the length behind the cockpit, to add some more systems and fuel, but without a considerable design change, the load and sensor limitations will remain.
Don't let yourself confuse by ADA/DRDOs claims, MCA only means, that it gains so much weight, that the MTOW falls into the medium class. It doesn't mean that it will be as capable as the MMRCAs.
NO ! not the same :
Rafale
3 x fuel tanks (6000 liters)
6 x 500lb bombs
4 (or 6) x AAMs. All medium to long range.
Gripen E
2 x fuel tanks (3400 liters)
4 x 500lb bombs
5 x AAMs (only 3 medium to long range)
Tell that to @randomradio
He's the one rooting for an enhanced LCA / MCA when all past records of the ADA indicates and logic dictates that if ever an MCA materializes it'd be so in name only .
MCA will be a low end MMRCA like the Gripen E is.
Avionics--
Radar:
The current version of the Gripen E comes with a GaAs radar. The MCA will come with an indigenous GaN radar. The Swedes have offered a GaN radar, but they will develop it after the Gripen wins in India, so it's all talk right now. They don't have plans of introducing GaN radars for their own forces or other export orders. This makes a pretty big difference.
IRST:
The Gripen E has a single band IRST that is not sensor fused with the radar. Dual band upgrade and sensor fusion is part of the next round of upgrades, whenever that comes. We are developing a dual band IRST that will be sensor fused with the radar. The development of this system was cleared only a few months ago.
Another big difference is we will be able to fuse our avionics systems better than they can for the most part. Our stuff will be mostly indigenous, and we will have access to all the source codes, while the Swedes may necessarily not. For example, the radar is Britalian, the EW suite is Swedish, the MAWS is Israeli, IRST is Italian and so on. We will be able to integrate all our systems at the same level as the Americans and French have on F-35 and Rafale.
A mostly India-specific advantage is we will be able to integrate the MCA with all of our other systems like AWACS-India, indigenous ground radars, satellites etc at a much higher level than if we procured the Gripen. Even if the Swedes give us all the source codes necessary to do this, we will still take 5-10 years to do the same on our own while the MCA can come in completely integrated from the first day. Integration of offboard capabilities is not plug and play. This system of systems integration is being developed for the IUSAV.
MCA will be heavier than the Gripen E. It's said to have an MTOW of 17.5T versus Gripen E's 16.5T. Which basically means more payload, more fuel, more avionics etc.
76% favoring Rafale....this thread must be giving @Picdelmirand-oil a happy feeling every time he visits this space 
To day 76.9....76% favoring Rafale....this thread must be giving @Picdelmirand-oil a happy feeling every time he visits this space
I'd direct you to @Sancho 's after mine, which he quoted & posted an answer to.
All other points being accepted, as far as the MCA coming with GaN radars, where did you get that from? Any sources?
He is being stupid. If MCA is only a slight upgrade over the Mk1 and the weight gain is a tremendous 4T, then the aircraft is growing some hideous tumour.
If you recall, I used to say that IAF will have two separate tenders. One is SE MII and the other is TE MII, for 200 jets each. The SE MII was supposed to be a competition between Gripen E and F-16. But the IAF has now decided to remove their Gripen/F-16 tender because the MCA has now become a Gripen E/F-16 equivalent. They are now interested in procuring 200+ MCA instead of Gripen. And the SE MII tender has now switched to TE MII, which we are now calling MMRCA 2.0.
This will be the MCA.
Trends in combat jet sensors of relevance to the Indian Air Force's transformation - Saurav Jha’ Blog
An indigenous AESA is also being pursued by DRDO's electronics research and development establishment (LRDE) and centre for airborne systems (CABS) under Project Uttam which is looking at new generation X-band AESAs which incorporate improvements in monolithic device technology by moving from the use of Gallium Arsenide based monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMiC) to those built from Gallium Nitride and Silicon Germanium. Given that this project looks to provide a fighter AESA for the LCA Mk-2, the project has to deal with unique packaging and power requirement challenges. One of the strategies to deal with the same is apparently the use of MEMS based phase shifters in this program.
He is being stupid. If MCA is only a slight upgrade over the Mk1 and the weight gain is a tremendous 4T, then the aircraft is growing some hideous tumour.
If you recall, I used to say that IAF will have two separate tenders. One is SE MII and the other is TE MII, for 200 jets each. The SE MII was supposed to be a competition between Gripen E and F-16. But the IAF has now decided to remove their Gripen/F-16 tender because the MCA has now become a Gripen E/F-16 equivalent. They are now interested in procuring 200+ MCA instead of Gripen. And the SE MII tender has now switched to TE MII, which we are now calling MMRCA 2.0.
This will be the MCA.
LCA will follow the same logic of the ALH. Everyone will abuse it and it will be extremely delayed, but when it enters it'll be ordered by the hundreds and immedeately give birth to siblings (like LCH)- it's already started happening- Trainer- at least 20+ for LCA, the hawk replacement will most definitely be an LCA derivative, MK2 a bigger jet....LCA will be extremely succesful scoring at least 400 jets of all variants.
The Mk1 is a failure, to the point where it's decent but very, very late. The Mk1A will be what the Mk1 should have been. And we will see 123 of these two variants in IAF colours. There is an option to increase the Mk1A by 60 more. As for the Mk2, the IAF is interested in 201, and the navy in 45.
That's 429 jets in all.
But that saves dollars going out of the country and help with jobs and eco-system creation.