A layman's analysis on our last two MMRCA contenders

[IND151]

Sorry Bro, Let me correct your Information MMRCA is not to replace MiG21, But to replace/support MiG23 and Jaguar. LCA will replace MiG21

List of Indian Aircraft with their role..
1. Point defense role: MiG21 Will be replace by LCA
2. Ground attack ACs: Jaguar, M2000H and MiG23 It will be replace by MMRCA and Su30MKI. Mirage2000H will be converted into Multirole fighter.
3. Air superiority: Few Su30MKI and all MiG29, which will be replace and complemented by few PAK-FA.
4. Multi Role: Rest of Su30 MKI, MMRCA and upgraded M2000H, later AMCA and FGFA will join the party.


AirSuperiority Fighter: These planes are costliest and best. Not all Su30 MKI is Airsuperiority fighter. USAF use F22 and few F15 fr this role.
Point Defense: Its is cheapest fighter, The aim of this class is to intercept incoming hostile fighters.
Ground attack fighter: When Air superiority fighter have done its role by cleaning the enemy fighters and Multi role have cleaned the SAMs the Ground attack fighters are used to destroy the Enemy Infrastructure...
Multi Role Fighter: This is second costliest fighter, They have good A2A and A2G capability.


EFT is good for Air superiority role which we don't want. We are looking to replace our Ground attack fighter by Multi role fighter. Rafel fit best in it, as It has good ground capability...

its possible that MRCA winner will replace mig 27 too.

in short MRCA winner will replace three platforms 1. mig 23 2. jaguar 3. mig 27

 

[IND151]

@ post 56

i agree with you

 

[DrSomnath999]

Again, that's just your opinion only, based on your pure believe but nothing else! As long there is not even a tech demo version available, you don't even know how many T/R modules it will have and that's why your conlcusion is not credible!

well buddy i had posted what is stated by the e captor manufacturer on the web about the specifications of radar i am not saying how much modules E captor going to have on my own or my personal beleive .Well if the manufacturer is lying or saying one thing & delivering another thing then thats not my fault

So again, since there is not at least a flying prototype of the Captor E and some official specs all we can't compare it with the RBE 2 AESA, since we don't have any reliable specs for it.

Do you know that the Captor E with swashplate design is probably too heavy and that it shifts the weight balance of the fighter to the front? The only solutions to counter that weight is A, add more weight to the rear part and increase the emtpyweight, which then reduces the flight performance again, or B to reduce the size of the radar/smaller diameter, which then again means less performance of the radar.

i simply cant understand 1 thing on one ground u are saying there is no tech demo version available of E captor radar & on one ground u have assumed Captor E with swashplate design is probably too heavy just because it looks bulky.well thats very precious let them 1st develop then we would discuss that thing .

So again, since there is not at least a flying prototype of the Captor E and some official specs all we can't compare it with the RBE 2 AESA, since we don't have any reliable specs for it.

well thats what i am saying is that on pen & paper assuming what E captor manufacturers are saying are correct & they would deliver that ,then E captor is much better than RBE 2 radar.If they are lying or not delivering that radar that they are saying then thats not my fault .But on operational grounds RBE 2 radar is better as it is alradey going to inducted by next year.

No it don't! The AESA radar development and integration is now at least pre-funded by the EF consortium, which means it will be ready and available someday, but that is not the case for the CFT development and integration, nor for the integration of Storm Shadow! Same goes for TVC, for anti ship, anti radiation missiles, Pilum Stand off missile, Brimstone........

i am not saying about funding i am saying about fielding it in future .Well plz dont care about other members whether they would fund on any thing or not as if india selects it then india would fund according to it's requirement ,if for instance if india say we dont need e captor aesa we are satified with m captor then whats their problem. Every user chooses & funds the capabilty of an aircraft according it's requiement .IF india is ready to pay for their development of plane then they would make it or else not

As I said, the only new weapons that are cleared for integration into EF are Paveway IV (which is already in the final test stages) and in future METEOR. Brimstone, JDAM and Storm Shadow or Taurus were planned in the past for the T3, but since the agreement on T3A, the partners could not find a common weapon package that will be integrated. That's even very logical, since Germany and Spain don't need Storm Shadow but Taurus, but Italy and UK most likely will integrate Storm Shadow to F35 now, just like Brimstone, which is likely to be integrated in the Telemos drone as well.

see every partners have their right on choosing their weapons platform it has nothing to do with india .India has right to choose its own weapons platform according to it's reqiurement .Well which platforms india would choose ,well leave it to IAF

The rafale offsets offer would include :

A Rafale final assembly line and maintenance center
The production of structural items
The Mica missile production
The development of the Rafale HMD, the OSF-NG and Spectra self defense system
Several othe military or civilian industrial cooperations (CFM-56 engine, Falcon business jets, military and civilian avionics)

Rafale News: Switzerland, National council approved the new fighter jet acquisition

well buddy it is written that it is to be developed for Swiss aircrafts ,no where it is written that it has not been integrated with french Rafale .Kindly post a source where it is written that it has not been integrated with rafale & is in developmental stage
Rafale with top sight

TopSight

Of course, but you it wasn't me that included such things like voice command, nor did you said why there is an advantage for EF without proving it or giving credible reasons, but:

"i think Typhoon may be having an upperhand as compare to france" says it all.

well i had explained clearly to u that Voice command has no direct role in sensor fusion but it has an indirect role in sensor fusion. as sensor fusion main job is to decrease the pilot workload as its the pilot which intrprets the data from all sensors into the display system or cockpit.So sensor fusion main work is to integrate all data in an unclutterd fashion & display it to the pilot the real time enviromnet outside.So would a Helmet with voice command help the pilot to make decisison faster .Think from a pilot point of view.

&
i had said that the sensor fusion not only depends upon sensor but also microprocessors & softwares systems to integrate it well
EF2000 has much advanced computing power compare to rafale & inferior to F22 raptor Cray class CIP s only .as the physical design of the AIS comprises of essentially two separate units; the Avionic Computer (AC) and Navigation Computer (NC). These are linked via the STANAG-3910 databus to the other major systems such as the ACS, ECR-90/CAPTOR, PIRATE, etc. Both the NC and AC are identical in design and comprise a modular system based on Motorola 68020 CPU's with 68882 Maths co-processors. In addition several custom RISC based processors are utilised to accelerate floating point and matrix operations.
well rafale This integration which is not a mere “sensor fusion” (fusion of the sensors’ data) is managed by two very powerful calculators: the MPDU (Modular Data Processing Unit). this processor whther they are are advanced as Motorola 68020 CPU's with 68882 Maths co-processors. i dont know so thats why i asked u to prove it .IF u prove it then no doubt rafale is clear winner in Sensor fusion.

That's why the EF consortium is developing some solutions, but there is no real development going on for the CFTs, since no partner country has funded it yet!

&
A

nd once again, nobody has funded the addition of a recon pod, nobody has funded the addition of any weapon for SEAD... for the anti ship role.. ... ... and as long as nobody funded it? Exactly, the EF won't have this capability anywhere else than on paper!

and one again i would say the same thing about funding issue that it depends upon IAF which requiremnets & features they want they would fund according to it it has nothing to do with partners

There is nothing like cueing in WVR or BVR, either you can cue weapons at target emitters or not, DASS can't so far, SPECTRA can and even showed it during SEAD missions in Libya, when it destroyed air defences from up to 60Km distance, by infos gathered from SPECTRA, which then were feeded into AASM. MICA has INS navigation capability and SPECTRA can provide target data to it as well, that's why the unique combination of SPECTRA + AASM + MICA gives Rafale passive attack capability against air and ground targets, without the need of the radar and at distances of 60 Km+

well buddy i am talking about A2 A mode not A2g mode as i know & i had posted the pics in the thread about rafale's abilty in A2g mode through passive detection ,but Not regarding A2A mode in BVR range but only within BVR range as there is no where written that spectra can do it in passive mode for IR mica but yes for EM mica , ,yes IR mica can engage with the help of FSO not spectra

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_1.pdf

If it will be selected it will be used only in CAS until 2018, when (hopefully) all A2G capabilities and the additional techs will be available, because it can't do anything else and that for more than $100 mios flyaway cost per unit!

what!!!by 2018
highly pessimistic when a country would invest 20 BILLION DOLLARs on a plane that would deliver all air to ground capabilties around 2018 then how could EF 2000 remain under last 2 bidders i am doubting.if god forbids it is true then scrap MMRCA deal man,& buy extra SUPER Su 30 mki (aesa enabled)

As I said earlier, IF the Typhoon will be selected not because of it's current capabilities or the performance it offered in the trials, but mainly because of the good industrial and political advantages we will get. To make the EF useful for IAF, we have to pay additional money and fund a lot upgrades, then it might be comparable to EF.

well thats why i had repeatedly said to u that EF 2000 is a POST DATED CHEQUE for India ,if cheque bounces (i.e)india find it difficult to fund then we are screwed .leave that advantage part i would dicuss or a post a new thread about the advantages of which evr jet india choses to INDIA in a more presentable way like this thread ok .

LOL, so you don't care about arguments and simply stick with what you belive

well u post 1000 arguments on it who is stopping u ,

& i stick to that beleive which is based on facts .I am not bluffing anything ,well if the source is wrong then thats not my fault

and you called me a fanboy?

this is the most funniest post from ur side
all i can say to u is "SORRY DADDY"

 

[DrSomnath999]

Correct!

For those who didn't understand it although I purposly posted pics to make it even more obvious, MICA EM and MICA IR have the same frame, the same TVC capability and the same propulsion. TVC makes both versions highly agile and the same propulsion gives both version the same range! Most sources says MICA (both versions) have a range between 60 and 80Km.

are u sure IR mica has a range of 60 -80 km .as no where it is written that IR mica has a range of 60 -80 km .well then it would be the world's longest range IR missile .Then if it's true what u stated in post no 107 looks interesting

No, that's they are the same missile, just with different seekers, that's what makes MICA so special and different from other missiles, because the EM (active seeker) version has the same TVC features like the IR (passive seeker), what makes it as maneuverable in close combats like any other IR missile.
On the other side,the MICA IR has the same frame as the MICA EM, which gives it the same BVR range as well. So a Rafale can use MICA EM and IR in BVR, just like it can use both in WVR, if needed even at the same time! He can fire an EM and an IR at the same target in BVR, which forces the enemy to counter 2 different types of seekers at the same time (chaff, flares, jamming...).
Imo, a MICA IR and METEOR combo would be even hardy to counter, since the Rafale could use the MICA at first and completelly passive and fire the METOR later, but with the Ramjet propulsion, both could hit the target at the same time and give him no chance.

this would give advantage to rafale to ef 2000 in air to air combat which the latter only has over rafale

 

[gambit]

but buddy one missile is not having 2 seekers ,but one missile with one individual seeker that is either EM or IR so nothing special apart from a common missile frame,well there is no where written that MICA IR variant can go & hit target at range of 60 km only EM variant can do it ,then it would be a revolution indeed .as no 5th gen wbvr range apart from python5 has a range of 25-30 km

I heard there is a confusion as to why there is a 'maximum range' discrepancy between the variants: Active radar and Passive infrared. With the IR the inferior range.

The reason is not because there are some inherent physical laws that say if a missile is equipped with passive IR sensor, its range can only be X or Y. The real reason is because active radar sensor and guidance remain the superior in every way in terms of target resolutions once acquired: range, heading, speed, and aspect angle. Passive IR can provide only general direction and intensity. You can build a missile with a 1000 km maximum range but if its IR sensor is good out to 10 km, why would you need to build the 1000 km range capable missile airframe in the first place?

The confusion came from the misunderstanding that ALL sensor types are equal.

So here is the truth: The stated maximum range of a missile is based upon several factors: Fuel, aerodynamics, and sensor type. It is the last item -- sensor -- that will determine how you will design your missile. You can take an AMRAAM and stick in IR sensor in it and it would be a waste if you fire it as if it is EM equipped because the IR sensor is inherently inferior to radar. That mean if you take both MICA variants, remove their sensors, and shoot them off blindly, both missiles would have very close maximum range because now the burden of that range is upon fuel and aerodynamics. When you install a sensor, that burden is shifted to the sensor and how good is it for what you want to do. Which blind man is more capable? The man with the one meter cane or the man with the two meters cane? Likewise, because IR sensor is inherently inferior to radar, the manufacturer has no choice but have an inferior range for IR, not because the airframe itself is any different between the two variants.

 

[gambit]

All are saying the same thing....

MICA IR missile can be guided by the Aircraft till it reaches a stage where its own 'IR seeker' gets activated and tail the target.

MICA EM missile can be guided by the Aircraft till it reaches a stage where its own 'EM seeker' gets activated and tail the target, like any other BVR missile.

Then in this case, the manufacturer can rightly claim the same range for both variants. For the IR MICA, its own IR sensor is 'idle' while the missile itself is being guided by a superior sensor package: The aircraft itself.

 

[DrSomnath999]

So here is the truth: The stated maximum range of a missile is based upon several factors: Fuel, aerodynamics, and sensor type. It is the last item -- sensor -- that will determine how you will design your missile. You can take an AMRAAM and stick in IR sensor in it and it would be a waste if you fire it as if it is EM equipped because the IR sensor is inherently inferior to radar. That mean if you take both MICA variants, remove their sensors, and shoot them off blindly, both missiles would have very close maximum range because now the burden of that range is upon fuel and aerodynamics. When you install a sensor, that burden is shifted to the sensor and how good is it for what you want to do. Which blind man is more capable? The man with the one meter cane or the man with the two meters cane? Likewise, because IR sensor is inherently inferior to radar, the manufacturer has no choice but have an inferior range for IR, not because the airframe itself is any different between the two variants.

&

Then in this case, the manufacturer can rightly claim the same range for both variants. For the IR MICA, its own IR sensor is 'idle' while the missile itself is being guided by a superior sensor package: The aircraft itself.

well sir if a infrared guided missile can be fired at such a long range then it would be indeed the world's longest range heat seeking missile & heat seeking missiles are more manuverable than EM missiles due to TVC ,so it would be advantage in bvr warfare if u see what sancho said here

No, that's they are the same missile, just with different seekers, that's what makes MICA so special and different from other missiles, because the EM (active seeker) version has the same TVC features like the IR (passive seeker), what makes it as maneuverable in close combats like any other IR missile.
On the other side,the MICA IR has the same frame as the MICA EM, which gives it the same BVR range as well. So a Rafale can use MICA EM and IR in BVR, just like it can use both in WVR, if needed even at the same time! He can fire an EM and an IR at the same target in BVR, which forces the enemy to counter 2 different types of seekers at the same time (chaff, flares, jamming...).
Imo, a MICA IR and METEOR combo would be even hardy to counter, since the Rafale could use the MICA at first and completelly passive and fire the METOR later, but with the Ramjet propulsion, both could hit the target at the same time and give him no chance.

 

[gambit]

well sir if a infrared guided missile can be fired at such a long range then it would be indeed the world's longest range heat seeking missile & heat seeking missiles are more manuverable than EM missiles due to TVC ,so it would be advantage in bvr warfare if u see what sancho said here

I think you are still missing my point, which is sensor capability. Can we assume that the sensor -- radar or IR -- is capable of reaching out to 100 km because the sales brochure say so? No, we SHOULD NOT. We should demand technical data to see if the sensor type -- radar or IR -- is capable of reaching that claimed range. The point here is: Sensor range determine capable range.

 

[DrSomnath999]

I think you are still missing my point, which is sensor capability. Can we assume that the sensor -- radar or IR -- is capable of reaching out to 100 km because the sales brochure say so? No, we SHOULD NOT. We should demand technical data to see if the sensor type -- radar or IR -- is capable of reaching that claimed range. The point here is: Sensor range determine capable range.

so we cant assume that IR mica has a range of 60 -70 km am i right ?

 

[Jon Snow]

There's no point in comparing capabilities now- the IAF did that and shortlisted both these fighters, so if the EFT does turn out cheaper we will buy it even if it never fires anything more than a paveway II.
we should be comparing costs of the whole platforms. From what I can gather it seems that even in terms of cost of the whole package this competition is a lot closer than some of the rafale fanboys would have us believe.
Lets start with the weapons cost - the mica is currently used as primary bvr and wvr missile of the rafale but this will change soon when the meteor comes on to the scene - if we chose the rafale then we would be buying both these missiles with the mica's role now being wvr and secondary bvr missile.
if we buy the EFT then the bvr missile will be the meteor and the wvr missile will be either the asraam or the iris-t. ( I personally think it will be the asraam as we are integrating it onto the jaguar as well so it will have some commonality).
Cost of the MICA is 1 million $, while cost of the ASRAAM if 300,000-400,000 $ and cost of the IRIS-T is 520,000 $. significantly in favor of the EFT.
If we comapre the PGMs of both the EFT again wins hands down - considering a Paveway II costs 19,000 $ while the AASM of the rafale costs 100,000$( however the success rate of the AASM is 90% vs 70% of other LGBs but we are considering only cost here), I cant find the unit cost of the Paveway IV( its said to be low cost but exact cost is a mystery - so it still should be cheaper than the AASM)
Storm Shadow and Scalp are one and the same so both have same price.
AASM 250 / AASM 10
GBU-12 Paveway II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's virtually impossible to find the cost per flying hour of each plane but based on what the libya operations cost each country( 160 mill for france and 132 mill for britain) i dont think there is much difference in this regard - britains costs are lower but the french fired the majority of the ammunition so their costs being higher by around 30 mill isn't all that surprising.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/internationa...millions-d-euros-pour-la-guerre-en-libye.php( French source click on the next link if you want a translated version)
War in Libya: Paris has spent 160 million euros - The medical and societal journal of a vitreo-retinal surgeon. | Eye Dr DeLengocky

coming down to maintenance - this is another tricky one. Both these planes use massive amount of composites which help bring down the costs. But the french have an edge in this regard as India already operates the Mirage 2000 and there is said to be a lot of commonality between the two and we already have the facilities for the maintenance of the Mirage 2000. however one of the major contributors to maintenance cost is the engine maintenance and the EJ200 beats the M88 any day. The EJ200 has fewer stages and far fewer moving parts.
Eurojet EJ200 (International) - Jane's Aero-Engines
Low maintenance and life-cycle cost, along with high reliability, have been prime design criteria. Compared with previous-generation engines (Eurojet nominate the F404, F414, RB199 and M88) the EJ200 has "two to four compressor stages less, up to two turbine stages less, and up to one-third fewer rotating parts".

with the difference in unit fly away cost being less than 5%, this deal could swing either way. Another factor which might be taken into account by MoD is the cost of the Mirage 2000 upgrade - The french charge a huge amount for upgrading their planes and if they do the same for 126 rafale we might end up paying more than the initial deal's amount just to upgrade these planes when time for MLU comes.

 

[Firemaster]

So at what conclusion have you reached Somooo??? Does Mica has dual seeker in missile or they are different variants???

 

[DrSomnath999]

with the difference in unit fly away cost being less than 5%, this deal could swing either way. Another factor which might be taken into account by MoD is the cost of the Mirage 2000 upgrade - The french charge a huge amount for upgrading their planes and if they do the same for 126 rafale we might end up paying more than the initial deal's amount just to upgrade these planes when time for MLU comes.

this is the most important part of ur post ,well french had been charging high exactly like russians after signing another price deal ,but buddy can we expect that ef 2000 or EADS gruop wont do that to us ,as their many systems are not funded so in the long run if india keep on funding everything then we might end up paying more than the initial deal's amount.Do u get my point

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

So at what conclusion have you reached Somooo??? Does Mica has dual seeker in missile or they are different variants???

hey buddy the problem is not the seekers but the exact range of IR mica missile which some say 60 -70 km which i cant beleive

 

[gambit]

so we cant assume that IR mica has a range of 60 -70 km am i right ?

The US AIM-9L Super Sidewinder has a 20km effective range. You can use that as a gauge for your skepticism.

 

[Jon Snow]

this is the most important part of ur post ,well french had been charging high exactly like russians after signing another price deal ,but buddy can we expect that ef 2000 or EADS gruop wont do that to us ,as their many systems are not funded so in the long run if india keep on funding everything then we might end up paying more than the initial deal's amount.Do u get my point

I dont think the french raised the price after signing the deal - they just asked for a huge amount initially and we had no other option but to agree to their demands.
We will of course have to end up funding at least some of the weapons - but its not that huge an amount - the weapons are ready and developed all we will have to do is integrate them, which should be cheap enough( consider the LCA project - nearly all the cost overruns and expenditure was done on developing various parts - integration of weapons( R 73, the LGBs which were just tested)was smooth and cheap). The only thing needed to actually develop is the AESA radar which is already funded by the industry and all 4 partner nations support it - they should start funding it soon enough.
A big point in favor of the EFT is that once we are partners in the project we will get profits from future sales- Japan or Korea or Qatar - if it wins any one of these deals the money we pay for the integration of weapons will be more than compensated for.
Also we can involve HAL in the integration process and they will get some valuable experience.

 

[DrSomnath999]

The US AIM-9L Super Sidewinder has a 20km effective range. You can use that as a gauge for your skepticism.

well thats a releive ,i got really amused when i 1st saw that IR mica could have such a range i browsed 15- 20 websites no where did they specifically say IR MICA has such a range ,well then god forbids if it is true then i would be betting for rafale to have our winner as Only Python 5 has 25 -30 km range .
Thanks sir