Oops. Here they are.
New Indian Air Force Fighter competition
- Thread starter jaffo4011
- Start date
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Another significant RCS reduction feature on the Eurofighter - the double S shape intake duct. See attachment.
And an excerpt from Major Eurofighter Achievements as 2006 Ends.
"- In flight test, several major Milestones for the performance enhancement of the Eurofighter Typhoon can be reported. Instrumented Production Aircraft Three (IPA3), operating out of EADS Military Air Systems' Manching facility, conducted aerodynamic testing of the Laser Designator Pod with all planned objectives achieved. For the purpose of these tests, which included high speed supersonic flights, the aircraft was loaded with different configurations featuring up to four Paveway II, six air-to-air missiles plus two external fuel tanks. During the same period, all Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) testing for the air-to-ground configurations was concluded across the Eurofighter partners.
- At BAE Systems, Development Aircraft Two (DA2) and BT005 continued the successful testing of the Towed Decoy in long-lasting flights.
Additionally, the new helmet design, fully integrated into the avionics system, was flown with active displays on the visor with initial results proving to be very positive.
- In multiple engagements (2 vs. 2 and 2 vs. 4) conducted from BAE Systems' Warton site, Eurofighter Typhoon was flown in simulated wartime scenarios including jamming sequences and the testing of the sensor fusion, to monitor the system's capabilities in extreme battle conditions.
- The complete carefree handling for air-to-air maneuvering over the whole flight envelope is now fully cleared with no limitations on the aircraft. As a result, the full air-to-air capability is available with weapons and external fuel tanks."
And an excerpt from Major Eurofighter Achievements as 2006 Ends.
"- In flight test, several major Milestones for the performance enhancement of the Eurofighter Typhoon can be reported. Instrumented Production Aircraft Three (IPA3), operating out of EADS Military Air Systems' Manching facility, conducted aerodynamic testing of the Laser Designator Pod with all planned objectives achieved. For the purpose of these tests, which included high speed supersonic flights, the aircraft was loaded with different configurations featuring up to four Paveway II, six air-to-air missiles plus two external fuel tanks. During the same period, all Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) testing for the air-to-ground configurations was concluded across the Eurofighter partners.
- At BAE Systems, Development Aircraft Two (DA2) and BT005 continued the successful testing of the Towed Decoy in long-lasting flights.
Additionally, the new helmet design, fully integrated into the avionics system, was flown with active displays on the visor with initial results proving to be very positive.
- In multiple engagements (2 vs. 2 and 2 vs. 4) conducted from BAE Systems' Warton site, Eurofighter Typhoon was flown in simulated wartime scenarios including jamming sequences and the testing of the sensor fusion, to monitor the system's capabilities in extreme battle conditions.
- The complete carefree handling for air-to-air maneuvering over the whole flight envelope is now fully cleared with no limitations on the aircraft. As a result, the full air-to-air capability is available with weapons and external fuel tanks."
Last edited:
Just a couple of Q's from a non techy.
As this has gone to a SH vs Typhoon debate (or argument),did the Saudis run a contest prior to deciding on the Typhoon deal? Which competitors were knocked out? If so was the SH offered? Was there an evaluation or was it just a political decision? I have searched t'internet but cant find much on it.
On to low RCS. The aussieairpower link says the intakes on the SH are all thats worth doing on a non stealth aircraft to try and lower RCS. They look nice and angular but the big LERX (?) extension, wing leading edges, pylons etc all must bounce back a lot of energy. Would that count for much if an AWACS was angled off in the distance or a ground or ship based radar off at the side?
On to the "mines better than yours" argument. Much is made of the network liking and combining sensors with ground, air and satellite sensors. But if India doesnt already have compatible systems wouldnt they need to splash much more cash to actually make the most of the platform? Are some sytems just too high tech?
As for arguments about seeing first and shooting first, "this will kill that because..." Does that really reflect the realities of how conflicts evolve these days? An international pariah state will always get beaten because the UN agreed coalitions always build up massive advantages in numbers over months, eg iraq and serbia. In the lead up to these wars there is much shadow boxing and phoney war, so Typhoon, SH's or Raptors may well be WVR of " enemy' Migs, Su's and Mirages on border patrols. The high tech superplane might just find itself in a knife fight where lucky shots and technological failure can happen.
The enemy isnt stupid either and low tech comes into play, a civilian sees a group of planes take off and phones or emails his friends across the border and says, " by the way there are four F35's on bearing xxx" (An early warning contigency in the Falklands was to put special forces near to Argentine airbases to radio the task force when the Super Etendards took off...not exactly cutting edge technology).
As I see it, Indias need is quite specific, they have a hot situation with Pakistan where a trivial incident might trigger war. This might mean an aircraft that can get airborne before the enemy missiles start falling on the airfields, mix it with enemy fighters and win. The also have a growing economy and workshare and access to technology matters. A simpler, cheaper Mig or Sukhoi could make more sense.
On the stealth issue, again as a non techy I think the end line for it must be approaching. Is it just a matter of incresing computer power to enable radars to detect stealth aircraft? How many years will it be before the playing field is levelled and long range hyper velocity missiles are the next big thing. It may be a simplistic view but why is the US divulging numerous stealth (and other technologies) to the world via the F35, if it doesnt conclude that sooner or later radars will pull level? Is it getting as much economic advantage and $bucks as it can until the cat falls out of the bag? European industry types must be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of taking one of those apart and bouncing numerous radar combinations at it as it flies across our skies. Can the experts assist please?
As this has gone to a SH vs Typhoon debate (or argument),did the Saudis run a contest prior to deciding on the Typhoon deal? Which competitors were knocked out? If so was the SH offered? Was there an evaluation or was it just a political decision? I have searched t'internet but cant find much on it.
On to low RCS. The aussieairpower link says the intakes on the SH are all thats worth doing on a non stealth aircraft to try and lower RCS. They look nice and angular but the big LERX (?) extension, wing leading edges, pylons etc all must bounce back a lot of energy. Would that count for much if an AWACS was angled off in the distance or a ground or ship based radar off at the side?
On to the "mines better than yours" argument. Much is made of the network liking and combining sensors with ground, air and satellite sensors. But if India doesnt already have compatible systems wouldnt they need to splash much more cash to actually make the most of the platform? Are some sytems just too high tech?
As for arguments about seeing first and shooting first, "this will kill that because..." Does that really reflect the realities of how conflicts evolve these days? An international pariah state will always get beaten because the UN agreed coalitions always build up massive advantages in numbers over months, eg iraq and serbia. In the lead up to these wars there is much shadow boxing and phoney war, so Typhoon, SH's or Raptors may well be WVR of " enemy' Migs, Su's and Mirages on border patrols. The high tech superplane might just find itself in a knife fight where lucky shots and technological failure can happen.
The enemy isnt stupid either and low tech comes into play, a civilian sees a group of planes take off and phones or emails his friends across the border and says, " by the way there are four F35's on bearing xxx" (An early warning contigency in the Falklands was to put special forces near to Argentine airbases to radio the task force when the Super Etendards took off...not exactly cutting edge technology).
As I see it, Indias need is quite specific, they have a hot situation with Pakistan where a trivial incident might trigger war. This might mean an aircraft that can get airborne before the enemy missiles start falling on the airfields, mix it with enemy fighters and win. The also have a growing economy and workshare and access to technology matters. A simpler, cheaper Mig or Sukhoi could make more sense.
On the stealth issue, again as a non techy I think the end line for it must be approaching. Is it just a matter of incresing computer power to enable radars to detect stealth aircraft? How many years will it be before the playing field is levelled and long range hyper velocity missiles are the next big thing. It may be a simplistic view but why is the US divulging numerous stealth (and other technologies) to the world via the F35, if it doesnt conclude that sooner or later radars will pull level? Is it getting as much economic advantage and $bucks as it can until the cat falls out of the bag? European industry types must be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of taking one of those apart and bouncing numerous radar combinations at it as it flies across our skies. Can the experts assist please?
Perhaps someone who's intimate with the indian airforce could write down whats the requirements they really need in order of importance, then the aircraft that fits best is a lot easier to see, Didn't mean to thread creep,.
my apologies.
cheers
my apologies.
cheers
Another question to the techies. Is this likely to happen? As a non techy I can't see how it could be prevented.
This seems a really good idea to me.
Cheers
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Actually it points out the edge serration on the aircraft panels, the edge alignment and, the filled in gaps, opaque panels, rather than grills on the airframe edge, as well as the composite skins on the leading edges that Typoon proponents in this discussion have tried to claim as their "other" RCS reduction effort besides the "S" bend in the air intakes.
This quote is I think what you've misquoted, "It would be fair to say that the F/A-18E/F employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the very low observable F-22 and planned JSF". While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a forward sector RCS arguably an order of magnitude smaller than seventies designed fighters. Since every deciBel of RCS reduction counts until you get into the range of weapon payload RCS, the F/A-18E/F represents the reasonable limit of what is worth doing on a fighter carrying external stores. None of the RCS reduction features employed in the F/A-18E/F are visible on any of the three Eurocanards, which raises interesting questions about the relative forward sector RCS reduction performance of these types".
The APG-79 AESA radar and newly designed front fuselage apparently improves on this. This feature was not present on the F/A-18F that Dr Kopp got a free ride in.
The RCS reduction measures are designed primarily around "front on" engagements, out of all tactical fighters, only the F-22 and F-35 have any chance of serious "side on" or angular RCS reductions. Asking any such questions of any tactical fighters besides F-22 or F-35 is pointless.
None, including SH and Typhoon are likely to be stellar performers against the types of threats you mention. This doesn't mean the SH doesn't have an advantage in "head on" against other fighters though, however we're now starting to "go around in circles" so I'll leave it there...
massively reduced? There are a lot of things you can't see just by looking at a super hornet vs typhoon. For example, the radar dispersion of the canopy coating, active cancellation system, jamming of the opposing radar, effects of having vastly higher composite ratio. And if you get both fighters to put on 4 AMRAAM and 2 SRAAM and a fuel tank, how much RCS advantage do you have left? Also, Typhoon can probably achieve the same range as a super hornet without the external fuel tank.
It's been stated that Captor has a 185 km tracking range vs 5 m^2 target. I'm not sure what the STT range vs Hornet is, but I think it's fair to say they can both detect each other from quite comfortably out. I don't think I need to repeat myself again. But other important factors are the quality of EW suites between the two. That's more information we will not get exact information on.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I am very doubtful about the respective ranges of the aircraft. The SH is heavier than the Typhoon, thanks to it's larger size and heavier "designed for carrier operations" airframe, but it carries a significantly larger internal fuel load than the Typhoon too.
With the lower thrust engines that people here have made such a deal of, and considering both aircraft's engines are at least of a comparable technological generation, it would seem that the SH and Typhoon range differences would be similar, if not slightly canted towards the SH.
As to the RCS issue, the same applies almost equally to both aircraft. Do you assume that a SH, with external stores will be LESS stealthy than a Eurofighter fitted with equivalent external stores? That is a VERY brave assumption.
Why do people assume that an aircraft with a lower RCS will lose ALL it's advantages compared to a non LO aircraft just because of the external stores? Will the RCS be affected? Of course. However the non-LO aircraft will be affected similarly with IT"S RCS increased as well. LO is NOT about making an aircraft invisible, it's about increasing the range at which an aircraft can be detected.
An aircraft with reduced RCS is always going to have an advantage over an aircraft with a bigger RCS. Does this mean an overall advantage? Of course not, but it's an advantage nonetheless...
Aussie Digger I'm surprised your quote our friend Dr Carlo Kopp...
nfloorl:!!!, Your relying on Carlo Kopps visual appraisal of radar returns, BAESystems have a RCS range at Warton that the Typhoon has used extensively, pity they didn't just ask Carlo... they could have saved a bundle.
Carlo has been a bit one eyed re any European equipment, he has a habit of rubbishing virtually anything non American, I can only recall one article on a European piece of kit that Carlo didn't play down and that was ASRAAM.
But heres a link that might help, if you want to use Dr Kopp as a reference. http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2002_2003/subs/sub3.pdf
Page 8 give Dr Carlo Kopps range estimates for the F-18e radar plus a few others that are applicable to India.
During the test, the CAPTOR radar showed the capability of tracking up to 20 air targets (F-4 and Mig-29) simultaneously 160-185 km (86nm) away and then automatically identifying and prioritising them. (Source:- EADS)
For a direct comparison of RCS admittedly from Eurofighter GmbH
see here http://www.eurofighter.com/Documents/General/2002.1.FactBook.pdf
page 9 look at the stealth chart for the evolved legacy fighter (F18E is my guess).. So if you can quote Carlo - Can I quote the Manufacturer?.
Actually it makes interesting reading... as it could be comparing India's main fighter choices.
Cheers
Thats because there stealthy
nfloorl:!!!, Your relying on Carlo Kopps visual appraisal of radar returns, BAESystems have a RCS range at Warton that the Typhoon has used extensively, pity they didn't just ask Carlo... they could have saved a bundle.Carlo has been a bit one eyed re any European equipment, he has a habit of rubbishing virtually anything non American, I can only recall one article on a European piece of kit that Carlo didn't play down and that was ASRAAM.
But heres a link that might help, if you want to use Dr Kopp as a reference. http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2002_2003/subs/sub3.pdf
Page 8 give Dr Carlo Kopps range estimates for the F-18e radar plus a few others that are applicable to India.
During the test, the CAPTOR radar showed the capability of tracking up to 20 air targets (F-4 and Mig-29) simultaneously 160-185 km (86nm) away and then automatically identifying and prioritising them. (Source:- EADS)
For a direct comparison of RCS admittedly from Eurofighter GmbH
see here http://www.eurofighter.com/Documents/General/2002.1.FactBook.pdf
page 9 look at the stealth chart for the evolved legacy fighter (F18E is my guess).. So if you can quote Carlo - Can I quote the Manufacturer?.
Actually it makes interesting reading... as it could be comparing India's main fighter choices.
Cheers
Take a look here http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/B.20051110.LRSSNavy/B.20051110.LRSSNavy.pdf
page 5
Typhoon
Ground attack : lo-lo-lo 325 nm (601 km)
Ground attack : hi-lo-hi 750 nm (1389 km)
Air combat : 10 minute loiter at dest. 750 nm (1389 km)
Air combat : 3 hour CAP 100 nm (185 km)
Ferry range (2 External Tanks) 2000 nm (3706 km)
The SH seems a bit low in comparison!
Cheers
This is the exact figure given by Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2004/2005. The weapon configuration it is based on is three LGB's, target designator pod and 7 AAM's. Can be found on page 278.
It gives JWCooks other range figures, too, but no ferry range.
JAWA also says that "RAF has confirmed aircraft meets low observables specification".
The little picture looks rather like an F-18E. But perhaps it's a pre-APG-79 F-18E. Look at the radar range. APG-73 rather than APG-79?
The "Other 4th generation fighter resembles a Rafale, ne c'est pas?"
"High end legacy fighter" - F-15?
What about "High-end threat"? Su-27?
BTW, I'm saving that document. Very interesting. Ta.
I'd have to guess it a pre AESA evaluation, but it does give some idea of where Eurofighter thinks the Typhoon fits in, Remember its a pre Caesar Typhoon too ;-).
Its still useful for airframe performance etc though.
The final graphic.. well it looks like an Flanker
Its still useful for airframe performance etc though.
The final graphic.. well it looks like an Flanker
From that document (radar type graphs) by eurofighter own admission the Typhoon is Equal stealthy as the Rafale, more stealthy than the rest.
The Typhoon has inferior persistence to the Flanker, inferior Sustained turn rate to the Rafale.
I should mention that from 1997 the 40% may have gone down a bit to 20% ish...
Hope that helps our Indian friends make their minds up...
The Typhoon has inferior persistence to the Flanker, inferior Sustained turn rate to the Rafale.
source :- http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/flags/johnson_j/speeches/usni0423.txt
I should mention that from 1997 the 40% may have gone down a bit to 20% ish...
Hope that helps our Indian friends make their minds up...
Here is a detailed article by Air Marshal B.K.Pandey (Retd) , Former C-in C Training command, IAF about what is expected of MRCA and his evaluation of various contenders.
Please note that 20 T limit has been dropped from the requirement.
Hope this answers some of your questions.
Selection of MRCA for the IAF
Thanks Kams.
It seems to me that this article is out of date (Jan-Mar 2005) and that requirements have since changed. For example the F/A-18 was specifically ruled out by Air Marshal B.K.Pandey and as you say the 20 tonne limit has now been dropped. As a result aircraft like the F/A-18E/F are now under consideration.
A March 2006 report in Defense Industry Daily listed the contenders as Dassault (Mirage 2000-5 and Rafale), BAE/Saab (JAS-39 Gripen), EADS/BAE (Eurofighter Typhoon), Lockheed (F-16 Block 70) and Boeing (F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet), together with the Russian MiG-29OVT with thrust vectoring (aka. MiG-35).
The article also indicated that the Mirage 2000 was subsequently withdrawn by Dassault.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...as-mrca-fighter-competition-changes/index.php
Cheers
The original 2005 requirement may give an insight to their thinking. remember that man hours are cheaper in India, and if the percentage carried out in India is high then low cost/higher maintenance aircraft from Russia are in with a real chance.
The Gripen is also fairly cheap and quite capable, and is also low maintenance, so thats quite attractive.
The recent addition of Typhoon Rafale and F18 are interesting, these are in with a chance, but they were not being actively considered 2 years ago, whatever change the Indians minds?? has there been an increase in threat in the last two years that India feels it should be able to counter?.
Has the Pakistani air power increased lately? or has Pakistan been talking about upgrading?, these may have a bearing on India decision.
Does India think it needs some technological transfer from outside for its own industry?, if so the transfer of technology takes on great importance, which manufacturer will give India the areas of needed technology?.
What does India want? engine technology?, Avionics, production or design? I would suggest software isn't a problem for India, which areas do indians think they are behind and which are they leaders?.
Cheers
The Gripen is also fairly cheap and quite capable, and is also low maintenance, so thats quite attractive.
The recent addition of Typhoon Rafale and F18 are interesting, these are in with a chance, but they were not being actively considered 2 years ago, whatever change the Indians minds?? has there been an increase in threat in the last two years that India feels it should be able to counter?.
Has the Pakistani air power increased lately? or has Pakistan been talking about upgrading?, these may have a bearing on India decision.
Does India think it needs some technological transfer from outside for its own industry?, if so the transfer of technology takes on great importance, which manufacturer will give India the areas of needed technology?.
What does India want? engine technology?, Avionics, production or design? I would suggest software isn't a problem for India, which areas do indians think they are behind and which are they leaders?.
Cheers
Ok bit of a history.
Originally there was NO MRCA competition. IAF wanted Mirage 2000 period. Negotiations were almost completed to set up local manufacturing. (No tender/multi vendor evaluations required as per Indian law if they want something already in inventory). Then our politicians hit upon a brilliant idea of holding a competition, enter Russians, Swedes and Americans. Then 20 T limit was removed so that F-18, Typhoon can also compete. By this time French were getting desperate, Rafale not winning any export order and keeping the Mirage 2000 line open in anticipation of Indian order was costly, M2K was withdrawn and Rafale was offered. Then comes the nuclear deal, F-18 is suddenly front runner. AESA is the magic word. RFP was rumored to specify it. Russian hastily put together Zhuk AE AESA in time for the Aeroindia 07.
Sigh...the sorry saga continues.
What IAF wanted? Mirage 2000, period. What they will get? F-18 or Mig-35.