Tell the good Col to wait for it to get shortlisted first.
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
Tell the good Col to wait for it to get shortlisted first.
I have given out some aspects of likely competitors. We can examine each case and help you write a far better article than that trishul blog. Use RFI as the basis for analysis. have already posted about Gripen NG, F-16 & F-18 vs Rafale.
@randomradio added nicely. also check @vstol Jockey he also provided a similar analysis. @Picdelamirand-oil as well.
One point i will like to add is IAF is looking for certain technologies (plural), one of which makes the whole aircraft as "radar neutral". The only one who agreed to share the knowledge repository and also provide India access is the prime aircraft of IAFs choice. At present as per IAF only two jets by 2024-25 will have this technology. The next few 5th Gen birds under test world over will need a decade beyond this timeline for a proper developed product of a similar capability. Its interesting that IAF feels that by the time such aircrafts and capability will be around South East Asia threat zone, the aircraft manufacturer of IAF choice will have upgraded it further to maintain a distinct gap in capability to maintain advantageous position..
The background of this MII is the access to such technologies.
i am sure @vstol Jockey @halloweene @Picdelamirand-oil knows what i am hinting at and which aircrafts have that capability.
I feel like India would get a lot more leverage on France if the JSF was included. They'd be more willing to agree to TOT than if Russia was selling the planes.
I believe that IAF already knows the strength and weakness of most of the contenders from MMRCA1.0 so if I were you I would first dig out all the statements of the so called anonymous IAF sources who share minimal info on MMRCA
For example this '' . A series of newspaper reports this week quote unnamed ministry sources as saying that the original stipulation to build only a single engine fighter in country was seen as restrictive.''
Reason for the above statement can be logically found and then you can compare the technicalities. They are not going to change what previously were concluded. This will give further authentication to your article in terms of technicalities.
Even though GoI officially nixed the idea of a SEF and favoured LCA, some are still trying to get the latter killed off. SO WHAT if the F-16 is more "proven"? F-35 isn't proven at all and there's plenty of hype around it.
This is a new measure that they will throw to try and discolour the LCA as all other attempts have failed.
Many thanks sir, yes I will be using the
What elements do you think I should highlight? I am already planning on using the RFI for as much as possible and have already started writing points touching up RFI's stipulation for GaN radar, Buyer Furnished Equipment / Buyer Nominated Equipment (Part 2, section 5(f),EMP hardening (technical parameters, Section 1(2)). and TOT (part 2 5(a)).
To this, is it possible to outline which fighters have GaN AESA radars planned? Also, is the Rafale catergorically the only MMRCA contender with EMP hardening @Bon Plan ?
What part of the RFI mentioned radar neutral bro?
Cannot include a fighter that isn't even on offer to India!
I wud suggest that you first write down the three configurations and after that check the max amount of fuel that can be carried by each aircraft in that configuration. F-16 & F-18SH have a problem here and Gripen NG is worst of them all. This will settle the combat radius issue and you will find Rafale out ranging everyone of them by few 100 NMs. After that analyse the other attributes like AESA, IRST, EW capability, LBJ for VHF/UHF radars. Next analyse the cockpit interface like HMDS and sensor fusion etc. Finally you can analyse and comment on the TOT aspect and which manufacturer is willing to provide the tech without any conditions. Such an analysis will help you nail the right aircraft most likely to win this deal and you will find that only one aircraft has all the ticks in its favour-Rafale.
I had once posted a criteria on which I had analysed MSA against other aircraft. I will post it later tonight again. You can add to it material from the RFI and make a comparison accordingly.
According to Saab Gripen E
Gripen NG will have just about 3.4 tons of internal fuel. Now compare its range with that of LCA which has similar engine with same SFC and 2.4 tons of fuel. LCA is a tailless delta design without tailplane or canards and so it will have lowest fuel burn during cruise.
@Abingdonboy, here is my template for comparison of aircraft. maybe you too can use this. I used the grading system based on most suitable to least suitable using a scale of five.
Nice sir, unsure about the price for the F-18 though, the ASH tailored to IAF specs would be a LOT more than $90m IMHO.
+ would you happen to have a unit cost (excluding mods and weapons) for each of the other perspective fighters sir?
I expect the cost break up to be same as that of GTG deal for Rafale. Only thing is that Rafale will not have that cost component as that has already been paid for by India in GTG deal. So everyother competitor is highly disadvantaged for this RFI.
@Picdelamirand-oil, MSA is capable of undertaking each of these missions specified in RFI in complete stealth mode in clean configuration. In fact it can carry two ASM internally instead of one and also carry three PGMs of 2000Lbs category internally. Finally compared to five heavy pylons of Rafale, MSA has six of them besides the CFT stations and one centerline station behind main bay for sensor pod/buddy AAR. I am in fact designing and working out the attachment dynamics of a 2000l tank inside the main bay for tanker role. The overall fuel transfer capability of MSA will be more than that of Rafale. In buddy tanker role MSA will have internal fuel of 4 tons+1.25 tons of CFT fuel+2x1500l D/Ts on inner pylons. MSA will be able to transfer all fuel except the fuel from fuselage tanks and CFTs. The total transferable fuel comes to 2000l+3000l+1500l ( wing tanks) which is more than 6000l which Rafale can carry in three 2000l D/Ts.
A single MSA will be able to refuel two aircraft 500Nms away and return back without needing a relay tanker. This means that two MSA armed with 4xBVRAAMs+2xWVRAAMs+2xASM with CFTs and 2x1500L D/Ts will be able to undertake a flight of over 6hrs duration and with a relay of six MSA tankers, two MSA will be able to fly for over ten hrs. Do you know what range does that mean? I too can laugh at you. But I know my onions which you do not.
Just read about Vulcan raid of 1982 Falkland war and you will emerge better educated. I joined IN much later in 1986 while I became a cadet in NDA in 1983. In France the service time includes the training time but in India, service time starts after you complete the initial probation after completing the training.
Wrong !
Rafale M do it every day.
Wrong !
Rafale flew 11 hours during a deterrence training.
Twin seater flew that long. I will not want a single seater to fly more than six hours at one stretch. That will be too much for a pilot even after taking upper and downer drugs.
You can add for all US planes, as good qualities, the diversity of the weaponry.
You can add, for Rafale : as good quality the Spectra electronic system. as bad quality, the lack of a dedicated anti radar missile, and the low diversity of weaponry so far.
I can't envision the LCA ever reaching such a high range with current AF designs.
To be fair, the aircraft is already flying. And series production aircraft is to be delivered in the third quarter of 2019. Which means the Gripen Demo has done the work required to validate the airframe.
Gripen E delivery schedule on target, says Saab boss
That's interesting. But don't you think you need all that space for the fuel transfer pod itself?
Is there an actual new development or is this just a rehash? D-day implies something big is going on. Is there a related article?