[premjit]

Hey All,

A great article on India multi billion dollar jet fighter order.

India’s MMRCA Fighter Competition

Source: The Defence Industry Daily.

Looks as if the race to provide India with its newest requirement will have far fetched implications on how the world looks at us. With more than $10 Billion at stake, no manufacturer can avoid this competition.

[issigonis]

Premjit,

A proper assessment - by studying the RFP and comparing the functions with the respective offerings- will provide the answer. This has to transcend subjectivity.

Regards

[aditya79india]

Much more detailed information available here

Bharat Rakshak • View topic - MRCA News and Discussion

[aaggoswami]

I am posting all the data I could get from Wikipedia.

1) JAS 39 Gripen

General characteristics

* Crew: 1 (2 for JAS 39B/D)
* Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)
* Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
* Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
* Wing area: 30.0 m² (323 ft²)
* Empty weight: 5,700 kg (14,600 lb)
* Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf)
o Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf)
* Wheel track: 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in)
* Length (two-seater): 14.8 m (48 ft 5 in)

Performance

* Maximum speed:
o At altitude: Mach 2 (2,130 km/h, 1,320 mph)
* Combat radius: 800 km (500 mi, 432 nmi)
* Ferry range: 3,200 km (2,000 mi) with drop tanks
* Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
* Wing loading: 336 kg/m² (68.8 lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.97



2) F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

Specifications (F/A-18E/F)

General characteristics

* Crew: F/A-18E: 1, F/A-18F: 2
* Length: 60 ft 1¼ in (18.31 m)
* Wingspan: 44 ft 8½ in (13.62 m)
* Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
* Wing area: 500 ft² (46.45 m²)
* Empty weight: 30,600 lb (13,900 kg)
* Loaded weight: 47,000 lb (21,320 kg) (in fighter configuration)
* Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,900 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans
o Dry thrust: 14,000 lbf (62.3 kN) each
o Thrust with afterburner: 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) each
* Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 14,400 lb (6,530 kg), F/A-18F: 13,550 lb (6,145 kg)
* External fuel capacity: 5 × 480 gal tanks, totaling 16,380 lb (7,430 kg)

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.8[12] (1,190 mph, 1,900 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
* Range: 1,275 nmi (2,346 km) clean plus two AIM-9s[12]
* Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission[82]
* Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,070 mi, 3,330 km)
* Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft (15,000+ m)
* Wing loading: 92.8 lb/ft² (453 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.93


3) Eurofighter Typhoon


General characteristics

* Crew: 1 (operational aircraft) or 2 (training aircraft)
* Length: 15.96 m (52 ft 5 in)
* Wingspan: 10.95 m (35 ft 11 in)
* Height: 5.28 m (17 ft 4 in)
* Wing area: 50 m² (538 ft²)
* Empty weight: 11,000 kg (24,250 lb)
* Loaded weight: 15,550 kg (34,280 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 23,500 kg (51,800 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,500 lbf) each
o Thrust with afterburner: 90 kN (20,000 lbf) each

Performance

* Maximum speed:
o At altitude: Mach 2+ (2,495 km/h, 1550 mph)[168][169]
o At sea level: Mach 1.2
o Supercruise: Mach 1.1[167]-1.5[170]
* Range: 2,900 km (1,840 mi)
* Combat radius:
o Ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km (373nm)
o Ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km (863 nm)
o Air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km (115nm)
o Air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km (863 mi) [171] ()
* Ferry range: 3,790 km (2,300 mi)
* Service ceiling: 19,812 m (65,000 ft)
* Rate of climb: >315 m/s[172][173] (62,000 ft/min[174])
* Wing loading: 311 kg/m² (63.7 lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 1.16


4) Lockheed Martin F 16 IN

General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 49 ft 5 in (14.8 m)
* Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.8 m)
* Height: 16 ft (4.8 m)
* Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
* Airfoil: NACA 64A204 root and tip
* Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,670 kg)
* Loaded weight: 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,200 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 17,155 lbf (76.3 kN)
o Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lbf (128.9 kN)

Performance

* Maximum speed:
o At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)
o At altitude: Mach 2+ (1,500 mph, 2,414 km/h)
* Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nm, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
* Ferry range: 2,280 NM (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks
* Service ceiling: 60,000+ ft (18,000+ m)
* Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
* Wing loading: approx 40 lb/ft²[142] (430 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 1.095


5) Mikoyan MIG 35

General characteristics

* Crew: one or two
* Length: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)
* Wingspan: 15 m (49 ft 3 in)
* Height: 6 m (19 ft 8 in)
* Empty weight: 11,000 kg (24,250 lb)
* Loaded weight: 17,500 kg (38,600 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 29,700 kg (65,500 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Klimov RD-33MK afterburning turbofans
o Dry thrust: 5,400 kgf, 53.0 kN (11,900 lbf) each
o Thrust with afterburner: 9,000 kgf, 88.3 kN (19,800 lbf) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 2.25 (2,400 km/h, 1,491 mph) at altitude
* Range: 2,000 km (1,240 mi)
* Ferry range: 3,100 km (1,930 mi) with 3 external fuel tanks
* Service ceiling: 17,500 m (57,400 ft)
* Rate of climb: 330 m/s (65,000 ft/min)
* Thrust/weight: 1.14


6) Dassault Rafale

General characteristics

* Crew: 1–2
* Length: 15.27 m (50.1 ft)
* Wingspan: 10.80 m (35.4 ft)
* Height: 5.34 m (17.5 ft)
* Wing area: 45.7 m² (492 ft²)
* Empty weight: 9,500 kg (C), 9,770 kg (B),[57] 10,196 kg (M) ()
* Max takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (C/D), 22,200 kg (M)[58] (54,000 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Snecma M88-2 turbofans
o Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each
o Thrust with afterburner: 75.62 kN with M88-Eco >90 kN after 2010 (17,000 lbf) each

Performance

* Maximum speed:
o High altitude: Mach 2 (1,290 knots)[57]
o Low altitude: 1,390 km/h, 750 knots
* Range: 3,700+ km (2,000+ nmi)
* Combat radius: 1,852+ km (1,000+ nmi) on penetration mission
* Service ceiling: 16,800 m (55,000 ft)
* Rate of climb: 304.8+ m/s (1,000+ ft/s)
* Wing loading: 326 kg/m² (83 1/3 lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 1.13

[sandeepmdas]

Should we ask our GTO et al. to test drive(!) each of them?
Anyone can vote here, as no one is qualified to write a proper review....

On a serious note, I voted for the Gripen.

My choice goes to
1. Gripen (neutral-Swedish-origin, very latest, derived from Viggen and Draken)
2. Rafale (neutral-French-origin, very latest, derived from M2000 that we use)
3. Typhoon (mulitnational)
4. F-18e/f (slightly old platform, American)

Rafale is very expensive, so I voted for...

[aaggoswami]

Rafale has the best combination of speed and range. Range because of threat from China.

Mig-35 has max speed but less range.

I think this order must be split into tow halves, one for Rafale and other half for mig-35.

I am not in defense ( tried, but eyesight came into way ) and my knowledge is highly limited here. I am just posting this from my point of view.

[sandeepmdas]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

I think this order must be split into tow halves, one for Rafale and other half for mig-35.

IMO, forget the MiG. It is not a stable or proven platform yet. Apart from just 2 or 3 aircraft all the remaining are just prototypes. The Russians have no ethics and spares/service are going to be tough.

Do we need such deep penetration range when we can deploy airbourne BrahMos missiles?

[dreamdiesel]

Face-to-face: rating their chances

F/A-18 Super Hornet: Overall chances: COOL

Pros
1. Battle-tested, frontline fighter with the US Navy
2. Powerful, agile, rugged, designed for aircraft carriers
3. Advanced avionics and missile systems
4. Can function as refuelling tanker with external fuel tanks
5. Fields fully-operational and deployed Raytheon APG-79 AESA radar

Cons
1. US restrictions on modifications and end usage
2. Earlier generation design, dating back to 1980s
3. Heavy, 30-ton aircraft, expensive


F-16IN Super Viper: Overall chances: WARM

Pros
1. Tested modern fighter, has logged over 100,000 combat missions globally
2. Single-engine, 19-tonne fighter, price competitive
3. Advanced avionics and missile systems
4. Advanced Northrop Grumman APG-80 AESA radar
5. Four F-16 production lines functioning world-wide

Cons
1. US restrictions on modifications and end usage
2. Earlier generation design, dating back to 1980s
3. Earlier vintage F-16s in service with Pakistan Air Force


Eurofighter Typhoon: Overall chances: COOL

Pros
1. Contemporary fighter, still evolving
2. High performance, high-end technology, including supercruise
3. Offering India development partnership
4. No end user restrictions, easy transfer of technology
5. EADS already helping to develop India’s LCA

Cons
1. No combat experience
2. Heavy, 25-ton aircraft, expensive
3. AESA radar still under development



Saab Gripen NG: Overall chances: RED HOT

Pros
1. Only Eurofighter and Gripen are capable of Supercruise: supersonic flight without afterburners
2. Can land, refuel, rearm and take off in 10 minutes
3. Light, single-engine, highly cost-effective
4. Selex Raven AESA radar with advanced swashplate technology
5. Willing to hand over source codes for high-tech equipment

Cons
1. Has US components, including engines and avionics
2. AESA radar still under development
3. India has never operated a Swedish fighter

RAC MiG, MiG-35: Overall chances: HOT

Pros

1. Dovetails easily with IAF’s MiG-29 fleet
2. Typical Russian fast, agile fighter
3. Vastly improved avionics and targeting system
4. Thrust-vectoring engines option exists
5. Cheapest ticket price of twin-engine fighters

Cons
1. Airframe barely improved from MiG-29
2. Zhuk-Phazotron AESA radar still under development
3. Life cycle cost of Russian fighters is traditionally high


Dassault Rafale: Overall chances: DARK HORSE


Pros
1. Amongst the most contemporary options
2. France deploys on land and aircraft carriers
3. IAF’s Mirage-2000 fleet creates comfort level with Dassault
4. Transfer of technology smooth; no end user restrictions
5. Only non-US fighter with deployed AESA radar

Cons
1. Limited combat experience
2. 25-tonne, twin-engine aircraft, expensive
3. Only contender never to have flown in India

Source:Broadsword: Duel in the sky: Testing the MMRCAs and rating their chances

[wildon]

Why they are not considering the Su- series. why not Su-47

[CaliAtenza]

Now is the time to go American i believe . Plus i believe Lockheed will offer HAL liscensing rights for home production.

[Comrade]

I have zero knowledge in these things but I would choose 60 JAS-39 Gripens and 60 Dassault Rafales with greater inclination towards Rafales. Things that work for the two are neutral suppliers, compatibility with existing Indian inventory, superior/latest technology and decent costs (considering eurofighter typhoon costs $100 mn plus)

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by CaliAtenza

Now is the time to go American i believe . Plus i believe Lockheed will offer HAL liscensing rights for home production.

Americans place restrictions on end use of technologies. And tech transfer is severely limited.

E.g. Source Code of Aircraft systems is not transferred. So integrating it with India's operational platform is difficult.

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by sandeepmdas

IMO, forget the MiG. It is not a stable or proven platform yet. Apart from just 2 or 3 aircraft all the remaining are just prototypes. The Russians have no ethics and spares/service are going to be tough.

Do we need such deep penetration range when we can deploy airbourne BrahMos missiles?

1) India and Russia are doing arms business since long. And are you sure that Russians dont provide parts and service. I think the Mig 21 problem came up when we attempted to be self sufficient for spares.

And why not have that deep penetration ? Can always be helpful, isn't it ?

2) India has obtained license to locally produce around 120 Su-30. But Su-47 is I think just a demonstrator prototype and is not fully operational fighter. I think Sukohi's latest offering is Su-35 and not beyond that.

Originally Posted by dreamdiesel

Saab Gripen NG: Overall chances: RED HOT

Pros
2. Can land, refuel, rearm and take off in 10 minutes

RAC MiG, MiG-35: Overall chances: HOT

Pros

1. Dovetails easily with IAF’s MiG-29 fleet
2. Typical Russian fast, agile fighter
3. Vastly improved avionics and targeting system

Dassault Rafale: Overall chances: DARK HORSE


Pros
1. Amongst the most contemporary options
2. France deploys on land and aircraft carriers
3. IAF’s Mirage-2000 fleet creates comfort level with Dassault
4. Transfer of technology smooth; no end user restrictions
5. Only non-US fighter with deployed AESA radar

Saab Gripen can take off from public roads too. It was designed that way. Its biggest advantage although India does not have good roads, but it pretty quick to get this machine rolling.

The main advantage of Mig35 is speed. Its damn fast as compared to others that are on the list. This can be a great advantage.

France's offering have been traditionally good for us. Mirage2000 are relatively less trouble prone than Migs.

Originally Posted by CaliAtenza

Now is the time to go American i believe . Plus i believe Lockheed will offer HAL liscensing rights for home production.

The reason why F-18 and F16 considerations are hot is this : Obtaining rights for local production.
But both of them are somewhat old as compared to competition.

[sandeepmdas]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

1) India and Russia are doing arms business since long. And are you sure that Russians dont provide parts and service. I think the Mig 21 problem came up when we attempted to be self sufficient for spares.

2) India has obtained license to locally produce around 120 Su-30. I think we must consider Su-47 as somebody pointed out. May be we will get some license relatively cheaply.

1. India and the USSR were great partners; I don't think we can say that about the Russians. Ditto with the Yanks either. One can read more about these in the "source:" link posted by DreamDiesel @ post #8

2. I think I've read somewhere that the Su is in some other class and not in the category of these aircrafts.

[dreamdiesel]

Originally Posted by wildon

Why they are not considering the Su- series. why not Su-47

India and Russia are already working together for a fifth generation fighter (FGFA or PAK FA) to compete with F-22 and F-35. Part of the SU-47 technology is being transferred to the PAK FA project. So having SU-47 would not be a good idea.

What Indian needs now is to fill the gap of 47 (currently on 39 active) squadrons with these Medium Range Combat Aircratfs quickly.

I loved the Swedish Gripens at the Bangalore Airshow. Swedes make good machinery (Bofors performed flawlessly during Kargil). India should opt for Gripen.