[Pro-grammer]

Awesome read Narayan sir!
Military aviation enthusiast here...

On similar lines, can we have your analysis on the plethora of Air to Air missiles these jets carry?

Also, we are pretty clear on the kind of aircraft our Air Force operates, but we really don't have much data on the missiles that they carry. How do they stack up against our immediate competition (read China & Pakistan) and the weapons they posses for A-A and A-G.
It would be wonderful if you could throw some light on comparos like:
1. R27/R77 v/s AIM 120 B/C/D v/s PL12
2. R73 v/s AIM 9 M/L/X v/s Python

How does our new acquisition of Meteor AAM pit against AIM 120 that Pakistan used to down our Bison ?

Lots of questions...eagerly waiting for an analysis from your side.
Thanks in advance!!

Regards.

[fache89]

The MMRCA evaluation was considered so comprehensive and fastidiously drafted that at one point in time an idea was floated to license it and sell it to other countries who intend to buy fighter aircraft. However, bureaucrats failed to capitalise on this and the idea ended up in the bin just as the MMRCA was substituted for standalone 36 Rafale Aircraft deal.

Every company in this competition left no stone unturned to influence the deal in its favour. The Lockheed Martin proposed moving the entire assembly line of F-16 to India. Saab promised of complete technology transfer, thought it's a different story that only 38% of the aircraft had Swedish technology and thus for the rest one had to get permission from other countries where a customer would face a lot of headwinds. Dassault promised of reviving the Kaveri engine for Tejas as part of the offset contract.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

In our dumbed down age where a thirty sec sound bite/ video clip is about the max we can digest at one go, this is too much, information overload. I couldn't make it shorter! Writing a tome is simple - copy paste in today's day and age. Making it concise forces the grey matter to work.
Amateurs rule!

Israel?

They hate sharing. But in a very large contract it can be different - such as Barak 8 SAM. But they'll give us their best and customize it and integrate it with anything. Like us they are shrewd jugaddoos. Always open to a work around.

What would be the disadvantages of larger wings?

After you cross the optimum largest size of wing, for a given performance parameter, drag and weight are the main disadvantages. Weight is not just weight of the wing but the structural strength need to absorb the enormous aerodynamic forces that a wing is subject to.

I would want to know a bit more about this. (Typhoon)

If we look at wing size + flying canards + 2nd lowest wing loading + highest power to weight ratio it all indicates to very very impressive dog fight manoeuverability. What is reality, ordinary folks like us will never know. The Typhoon is really competing, in this department, only with Rafale - both have flying canards and the excellent wing & power loadings. F-16, F-18 & MiG-35 can't compete unless you do something magical with engines, vectoring, lifting body design etc. Gripen has weak loadings. It's like competing in the F1 with the weakest engine. The Lockheed F-22 Raptor does not have canards and is yet claimed to be as much of a dog fighter. I don't really know enough of the design to talk on it.

Any coorelation with loiter time? Esp. with naval versions.

Yes a direct co-relation. Loiter for combat air patrol (common in peace time) or naval purposes is a direct alternative to extra lo-lo-lo radius on an attack mission. As a thumb rule 1 minute of lo-lo-lo fast loaded flying in an attack sortie is equal to 3 to 4 minutes of loiter - my calculations only directionally correct.

Learn something new everyday!
What about advantages/ disadvantages of drop tanks?

The structural design and weight needed for internal payload's weight and the same payload on the wing are different. A wing by definition is in a manner of speaking floating on air/ being lifted by air. That is why hanging weight on the wings costs less in dead structural weight than internally in the fuselage. A drop tank requires less structural weight in the aircraft than the same fuel accommodated internally especially after the fuel fraction starts getting beyond 0.33. Earlier the fuel fraction magic number used to be 0.30. But advanced materials has taken that to 0.33. A drop tank also has the advantage of being dropped after use thus reducing drag and the weight of the empty tank.

Why? and how? (Typhoon's AESA radar)

The Eurofighters radar is an AESA development of an older mechanical scanner. Rafales AESA was designed ground up IIRC.

Letting aside the importance or otherwise of dogfighters, how would these aircraft (and the Tejas) fare in the dogfighter role?

I don't have any hard data or journal article to go by. Social media, for me, doesn't count. Tejas's wing design, wing loading, power loading but lack of canards would indicate it's dogfight abilities are somewhere in the F-18 & Gripen bucket and probably a tad below F-16 and MiG-35 and noticeably below Rafale, Typhoon. The Tejas is a modern day Gnat crossed with the Mirage 2000.

[shantonob]

I am a military enthusiast and keep myself updated on whats happening all around. Somehow this whole MMRCA competition and fighter development seems kind of pointless to me now. We seem to have missed the window of adopting these platforms. 5-7 years ago these platforms would be cutting edge, but now they are quickly being offset with F35's and the chinese ones(good or not they are trying hard to be cutting edge). If we decide to go in for these aircraft now, they would be outdated soon and we would be looking at another set of costly mid life upgrades and what not. I guess the only case for these aircrafts is boosting the dwindling number of fighters and replacing our archaic platforms with something a bit more modern.
Building any modern aircraft needs a long period of time and a massive amount of moolah which frankly only a few countries have the will and means to spend. Most will go for collaborations or buying spruced up older platforms.
For me the MMRCA competition should be brought to a quick conclusion, and the cheapest and the most customizable one should be chosen. We do not need to manufacture it here, rather we should be able to buy a lot many and arm it and use it to our needs.
What we need is capabilities in comms , jamming and weapons. So that once we have the platform, we can keep them going with our expertise. We need integrated information sharing(better SDR and radars), better jammers than our enemies, better radars and avionics and most important, better weapons.
I also feel these can be exported easier than developing a top class aircraft and trying to convince out air force and foreign markets with it.
As for weapons- I feel we should dial down on the ASTRA and have a whole family of long and super long ranged ones.
Kind of a long rant on a topic which I got fed up with over the years.

[NiInJa]

Every time I see V.Narayan sir's detailed post, I copy the link and keep it in my notes. Then wait for everyone to sleep and read it thoroughly at late night, slowly, absorbing everything.

Looks like a long night ahead

[dragracer567]

Thank you Narayan sir for another detailed post. Glad that you mentioned the navy for the FA-18 since Boeing recently claimed that the FA-18 super hornet block III can take-off from a STOBAR carrier (link) according to their simulations. Perhaps the FA-18 really might find a second chance with the Indian armed forces through the navy given how serious and aggressive Boeing is being about it (they even mention explicitly in the Boeing India website that the FA-18 will be great fit for the Indian navy!).

But what would be the compromise for using the super hornets in our STOBAR carriers? Will it have to carry limited payloads, fuel etc? And how would the Super Hornet compare with the Naval Rafale M and the existing Mig-29Ks? I believe Dassault claims that the Rafale can take off from STOBAR carriers as well though they haven’t started running tests like Boeing!

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Thank you Narayan sir for another detailed post. Glad that you mentioned the navy for the FA-18 since Boeing recently claimed that the FA-18 super hornet block III can take-off from a STOBAR carrier (link) according to their simulations. Perhaps the FA-18 really might find a second chance with the Indian armed forces through the navy given how serious and aggressive Boeing is being about it (they even mention explicitly in the Boeing India website that the FA-18 will be great fit for the Indian navy!).

But what would be the compromise for using the super hornets in our STOBAR carriers? Will it have to carry limited payloads, fuel etc? And how would the Super Hornet compare with the Naval Rafale M and the existing Mig-29Ks? I believe Dassault claims that the Rafale can take off from STOBAR carriers as well though they haven’t started running tests like Boeing!

Sorry to butt in but I wrote about what in my eyes could be the benefits to the Super Hornet for the IN:
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/comme...ml#post4869162 (Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers)

Boeing is absolutely being aggressive with their Super Hornet push, they're trying to force the issue. If India were smart about this, they could conceivably drop heavy hints that Dassault run similar static ground tests or perhaps even use the stick of a potential Super Hornet order to draw concessions on the Rafale and Rafale M in the crucial price for example.

To answer your question absolutely the weapons load out and fuel load out of a Super Hornet off a ski jump would suffer, I would imagine it would be noticeably different (as in a considerably deficiency) to their CATOBAR launched USN equivalent. I imagine the Rafale M would face similar deficiencies in this regard as well. With that in mind I think performance wise the gains are marginal for both contenders, instead the onus is on the perceived value of the package to the IN in terms of procurement and lifetime sustainment costs too. As I stated in the other thread, a tantalising possibility of IN Super Hornets is getting involved with the RAAF on their loyal wingman drone system - that could be a very cost effective force multiplier that would immediately open the door for the IAF too, without being beholden to US export restrictions being a solely Boeing Australia project. And instead of a Rafale centric Indian mid weight twin engine fighter picture you end up with a Super Hornet one instead - this would obviously be quite the sea change and would be a massive call. As others have said in the carrier air arm thread, ultimately the safe choice is to double down on the Rafale for both the IN and IAF and make the fiscal scenario work somehow to allow this.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

To answer your question absolutely the weapons load out and fuel load out of a Super Hornet off a ski jump would suffer, I would imagine it would be noticeably different (as in a considerably deficiency) to their CATOBAR launched USN equivalent. I imagine the Rafale M would face similar deficiencies in this regard as well. With that in mind I think performance wise the gains are marginal for both contenders, instead the onus is on the perceived value of the package to the IN in terms of procurement and lifetime sustainment costs too. As I stated in the other thread, a tantalising possibility of IN Super Hornets is getting involved with the RAAF on their loyal wingman drone system - that could be a very cost effective force multiplier that would immediately open the door for the IAF too, without being beholden to US export restrictions being a solely Boeing Australia project. And instead of a Rafale centric Indian mid weight twin engine fighter picture you end up with a Super Hornet one instead - this would obviously be quite the sea change and would be a massive call. As others have said in the carrier air arm thread, ultimately the safe choice is to double down on the Rafale for both the IN and IAF and make the fiscal scenario work somehow to allow this.

Thanks for the link to your post in the other thread, very informative

Given that Indian armed forces have a history of purchases in silos (Apaches for Air Force and Army for example), I really hope the air force and navy make a coordinated purchase for the MRCA and save valuable tax dollars unlike the army's purchase of just 6 Apaches at an inflated price tag (compared to the larger air force order).

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

But what would be the compromise for using the super hornets in our STOBAR carriers? Will it have to carry limited payloads, fuel etc? And how would the Super Hornet compare with the Naval Rafale M and the existing Mig-29Ks? I believe Dassault claims that the Rafale can take off from STOBAR carriers as well though they haven’t started running tests like Boeing!

To add to what @ads11 has written -- In a clean weight configuration {not of much combat use} or a air superiority configuration where power loadings are north of 0.85 a ski jump will work. Plus there is the wind over deck of say 20 knots generated by the carriers own steaming into the wind that will add to the useful load that can be carried by the launching aircraft. The power loadings of both the Rafale & F-18E indicate they can take off from a ramp. Can they {or even the MiG-29K} do it at MTOW is something we don't know. In c.1979 the Americans had tested several of their then machines for ski jump take-offs from a 9 degree ramp built at an airfield. The F-18, F-15 and F-14 did it easily at clean weight. The F-4E struggled and tended to lose stability as it exited the ramp. They conducted this as an experiment while toying with lighter sea control carriers which came to nought.

Originally Posted by Pro-grammer

How do they stack up against our immediate competition (read China & Pakistan) and the weapons they posses for A-A and A-G.
It would be wonderful if you could throw some light on comparos like:
1. R27/R77 v/s AIM 120 B/C/D v/s PL12
2. R73 v/s AIM 9 M/L/X v/s Python

How does our new acquisition of Meteor AAM pit against AIM 120 that Pakistan used to down our Bison ?

Dear @Pro-grammer thank you for reading the essay and for your kind words. I am flattered to receive your 6th post in almost a decade :-)

The comparison you have sought is a rather long one and I doubt if I can find the time to compare 6 missiles. You may want to read up a bit on Wikipedia.

However not to disappoint you....In a nutshell the Meteor outclasses the R77/R27, AIM-120 and PL12. This is not to say these competing missiles are incompetent but just that the Meteor is the latest and designed to cover for lessons learnt on these earlier weapons over the last 20 years. Between the three the R77 is the one I'd bet my money on. There are certain things the Russians do well and missiles are one of them. The AIM-120, especially the D version is a very competent weapon too. PL12 we'll wait and watch. Battles and engagements are not won or lost on better weapons or longer ranges. There are way too many variables and only seconds for everything to work in. R73, Python and later marks of the Sidewinder are all very lethal and development of continuous improvement over 5+ decades. When introduced in the 1980s the R-73 was a game changer in nimbleness, ability to be fired off boresight, cued to a helmet etc. Now all three are at par. Hope this helps.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Given that Indian armed forces have a history of purchases in silos (Apaches for Air Force and Army for example), I really hope the air force and navy make a coordinated purchase for the MRCA and save valuable tax dollars unlike the army's purchase of just 6 Apaches at an inflated price tag (compared to the larger air force order).

Another point most here are in agreement is the fact that purchasing items piecemeal just isn't the most optimal way to go about furnishing our defence apparatus, but alas, for reasons untold and well documented, has become de jure.

About the Apache deal I take it the cost inflation from the siloed sales comes from the maths here:
https://theprint.in/opinion/brahmast...-silos/372553/

22 AH-64E Apache helicopters in 2015 cost $2.1 billion, or Rs 14,910 crore, and six of these in 2020 cost Rs 6,600 crore.

In just five years, the cost of one helicopter jumped by 62 per cent

I would've thought that both the IAF deal and IA deal were structured similarly to be inclusive of life cycle sustainment costs. Seems that way for the IA order (as per Wiki)

In February 2020, another six helicopters for Indian Army were ordered, including weapons, equipment, and training.

I guess the differences are in the fine print but regardless that's a frustrating cost disparity. I'd like to hope having the position of the CDS might at least provide some armed forces leadership oriented onus towards being less territorial regarding their procurement budget shares in cases such as these.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

They conducted this as an experiment while toying with lighter sea control carriers which came to nought.

Ah Elmo's little carriers - there's an idea whose time I think would've come a long while ago, if it weren't for the pig headed devotion of top brass everywhere to almost always chase the bigger is better solution for capital ships.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Plus there is the wind over deck of say 20 knots generated by the carriers own steaming into the wind that will add to the useful load that can be carried by the launching aircraft. .

You want faster carriers obviously!!

American carriers easily travel at 30 knots +. The brand new HRMS Queen Elizabeth can do 32 knots +.

not sure if there is a fundamental difference in this between a catapult or ski-jump approach. If it is about lift it is about air speed I guess

It is an interesting dilemma that the range/payload of your fighters are determined / limited by the speed of your carriers! Had not thought of that before.

Jeroen

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You want faster carriers obviously!!

American carriers easily travel at 30 knots +. The brand new HRMS Queen Elizabeth can do 32 knots +.

not sure if there is a fundamental difference in this between a catapult or ski-jump approach.

I took 20 knots as an illustrative low figure. It isn't the speed of INS Vikramaditya (28 knots+) or the proposed speed of INS Vikrant II (30 knots+).

It is an interesting dilemma that the range/payload of your fighters are determined / limited by the speed of your carriers! Had not thought of that before.

That could be your next research topic :-)

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You want faster carriers obviously!!

American carriers easily travel at 30 knots +. The brand new HRMS Queen Elizabeth can do 32 knots +.

not sure if there is a fundamental difference in this between a catapult or ski-jump approach. If it is about lift it is about air speed I guess

It is an interesting dilemma that the range/payload of your fighters are determined / limited by the speed of your carriers! Had not thought of that before.

Jeroen

Funnily enough a strong argument that the big nuclear carrier proponents always bring to the table to immediately quash any talk of a conventional medium sized one for the USN is that the nuclear powered supercarriers really are capable of putting on an immense turn of speed thanks to their propulsion system. This in turn adds yet more of a bonus shall we say to the extra lift the benefit of having a catapult flinging you off brings too.

That being said it's clear that a modern conventionally powered flat top like the QE can clearly lift her skirts and put on a turn of speed too. So there's an argument to be made that it's a moot point now and frankly I'd wager the gain from additional momentum from the ship would be marginal in a ski jump carrier, compared to the loss of benefit vs a catapult (in terms of practicable take off weight for your carrier launched platform).

Similarly along that line of thinking, the reason the Liaoning isn't taken seriously is the fact that it's propulsion system doesn't enable it to achieve the rate of knots where you're really giving your naval aviators a helping hand. In fact it's why the consistent niggles with the boilers on the Vikramaditya are so worrying. Without the oomph to propel the ship into the wind, you're really stacking the cards against your carrier jets.

I think the trend now is obviously to move away from that Soviet boiler architecture (there's ample evidence of how the most effective part of the Kuznetsov is the heavy duty tug that always accompanies it for the inevitably smoky breakdown it'll suffer). I believe the QE uses an integrated electric propulsion system where a combination of gas turbines and diesel generators provide the electrical oomph with which motors push it forward. It sounds like a system that's got far more redundancy built in and the electrical nature of the primary propulsion should also more control over the ships movement. I'm obviously no naval engineer so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'd like to imagine then that the Chinese and indeed Indian future carriers are pursuing such a propulsion approach. I think at least for India, the cost of integrating nuclear propulsion isn't really worth it for the usage case the IN would need it for and clearly the architecture of the QE class has the power generation headroom built in to support high consumption future systems (so India could use EMALS under a conventional power system). Anyway I've gone off on a tangent again..sorry

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

That could be your next research topic :-)

Without much research I would think that catapults are a way better option. Make the catapult strong enough and it will launch any plane, at max TOW, into the air. In theory it can also make up for any lack of speed of the carrier too. (E.g. if the carrier propulsion system is partly damaged).

As far as I know, but I could be wrong. Catapults get designed for the heaviest plane in the arsenal and are subsequently dialed into the actual TOW of whatever plane they launch. Not sure to what extend they are over dimensioned to deal with reduced carrier speed on the heaviest plane.

So on a cat equipped carrier the TOW determines the cat settings, but TOW is not a limiting factor.

Not so with the ski jump. The max TOW is always going to be lower.

Of course cats are hugely expensive and complicated machinery needing staff and lots of maintenance. And the planes need to designed/equipped for cat launches too.

On the ski jump, that will put additional strain on the landing gear and airframe. Any special modifications required or is that typically well within the normal design limitations?

The Harrier used the ski-jump, but did use (partly) vectored thrust as it enters the ramp if I recall. Nozzles all the way reversed for the take off run and then once it enters the ramp they rototate to 20-30 degrees or thereabouts?

Jeroen
Jeroen

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Without much research I would think that catapults are a way better option. Make the catapult strong enough and it will launch any plane, at max TOW, into the air. In theory it can also make up for any lack of speed of the carrier too. (E.g. if the carrier propulsion system is partly damaged).

As far as I know, but I could be wrong. Catapults get designed for the heaviest plane in the arsenal and are subsequently dialed into the actual TOW of whatever plane they launch. Not sure to what extend they are over dimensioned to deal with reduced carrier speed on the heaviest plane.

So on a cat equipped carrier the TOW determines the cat settings, but TOW is not a limiting factor.

Not so with the ski jump. The max TOW is always going to be lower.

Of course cats are hugely expensive and complicated machinery needing staff and lots of maintenance. And the planes need to designed/equipped for cat launches too.

On the ski jump, that will put additional strain on the landing gear and airframe. Any special modifications required or is that typically well within the normal design limitations?

The Harrier used the ski-jump, but did use (partly) vectored thrust as it enters the ramp if I recall. Nozzles all the way reversed for the take off run and then once it enters the ramp they rototate to 20-30 degrees or thereabouts?

Jeroen
Jeroen

Agreed, ultimately cats and traps is the optimum configuration to go for because it really opens the door in terms of the full spectrum of naval airpower capability you can bring to bear. Even on the steam catapults of the Nimitz class, they're able to regulate the kick essentially in line with the plane it's flinging off, so I'd reckon an AEW aircraft would require a bigger jolt from the catapult than say a lightly loaded Super Hornet where the pilot is on a training and airtime flight. Another big part of the EMALS is that being electromagnetic in nature, the catapult operator would have far more granular control on the amount of force the catapult exerts each launch. In so doing, the principle goes that you should not only be able to calibrate your launch force more precisely for the full range of carrier borne aircraft (from UAVs to fully combat loaded fighters to the aforementioned AEW planes), but also reduce the wear and tear on the landing gear of all the aircraft themselves due to the possibility of consistently calibrated launch forces each time. Obviously this is the holy grail and the USN is determined to plough ahead in trying to achieve this with EMALS but they're having a tough time of it still. The Ford class is basically a working prototype that won't be rated for service in the field based on the last USN reviews.

The RN used the STOVL approach with their Harriers, using the ski jump to take off but then using the vertical landing. Indeed on take off they would rotate the nozzles at the ramp to kick it up essentially and not just forward to get off. The USMC uses the STOVL approach for their Harriers and F35B's on their America class flat tops (akin to our own carriers in size and displacement).

In fact the RN has had a carrier operations innovation once more with their QE class in that they've successfully demonstrated what I think they call a rolling landing. So traditionally you'd approach abreast the ship while hovering vertically and then sorta slide sideways and then down onto a landing spot on the deck. This obviously can't be done at full weight so on VTOL jets it meant during landing, unspent stores including expensive missiles needed to be jettisoned to bring the weight to a limit it could keep aloft vertically. Now this is shockingly wasteful to anyone, including the cash strapped RN so what they came up with is a shallow approach in a flight path one would consider a paper plane might take, a gentle parabola, onto the deck, with the lift fan on full whack but the rear outlet nozzle alternating from fully back to pointing downwards to bring it to a rolling halt upon the deck.

Behold - Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing SRVL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0rUkDz_Fg

While I have my suspicions that this innovation was spurred by the cost savings it also has the corollary benefit of constant vertical landing and the scorching exhaust of the F-35B's jet not burning a hole in the deck over time (an issue that required costly refits to the USMC flat tops).