MMRCA: Self Goal by IAF?

[IBRIS]

This deal is stupid, iv grown impatient. We are better off with paper planes

 

[Ragnar]

MMRCA made sense 10 years back. Now when the world is moving towards 5th Gen- we are paying horrendous amounts of cash for a 4.5 Gen. DRDO is shyte- building ICBMs now which Soviets built in 1950s. Russia is decent for now but no match for the cash that China or US throw into R&D. F-35 is the only real choice.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

This MMRCA deal was needed for India back in 2001.

And if they buy it now, they will have to spend money maintaining it for the next 40 years.

That is 40 years of money leaving India and going to the West. At the expense of India's domestic defence industries.

The enemies of India should really be congratulating the Congress party for this deal.

 

[Lostsoldier]

No, because it's not a choice to deploy 3 (or more) Tejas, but a necessity!Take a simple strike mission for example

Rafale:

1 x LDP
2 x fuel tanks
6 x 500lb bombs
2 x BVR missiles
2 x WVR missiles

View attachment 141288


Tejas:

1 x LDP
2 x fuel tanks
2 x 500lb bombs
0 x BVR missiles
2 x WVR missiles

View attachment 141289


So LCA can neither carry the same ammount of LGBs, nor can it carry bombs and BVR missiles, that's why you have to add more LCAs to carry the same load of a single Rafale. With the currently available configs you would need 3 x LCAs in the above mentioned strike config + at least 1 x LCA in A2A config.

1 x Rafale
=> 1 pilot
=> fly-away cost (for France including taxes) $86 million dollar
=> $12 to 16.000 dollar per hour costs
=> RCS of a single fighter

vs

4 x LCAs

=> 4 pilots
=> fly-away cost between $160 and 200 million (based on the estimated fly-way cost of Gripen between $40 and 50 million each)
=> $12 to 20.000 dollar per hour costs (based on Gripen per hour cost estimates, between $3000 and 5000 dollar each)
=> RCS of 4 fighters


Again, it's not we CAN buy 3 or 4 LCAs for 1 Rafale, but we MUST buy 3 or 4 LCAs to equal even basic roles of a single Rafale. Not to mention that LCA is not useful in long range roles, can't carry cruise or stand off missiles, doesn't have SEAD capability and even if it gets IRST or when it gets AESA is unclear so far. Not to mention that the induction of an MK2 which currently is only in design stage, was estimated at 2019. With the record of delays in the program, we shouldn't be surprised if that time line won't be met either. The first Rafale for IAF on the other side, can be available by 2016, a full squad by the end of 2017, because they are already planned for the Dassault production line in these years, with the licence production in India to start by 2018.

Even if we ignore the fact that the competition is not only about getting a new fighter, but also about ToT and high ammount of offsets to the Indian industry in return for the costs and look at the operational requirements of IAF only, the above shows why they wanted a proper MEDIUM class MRCA, that can actually provide IAF the capability to counter threats mainly at the north eastern borders.

The best reply to a fanboy. Well done. Give this man a rate.

 

[GORKHALI]

No, I showed the standard CAS configs, which doesn't include LGBs on the centerline for both. For more range both would however carry a 3rd fuel tank there, but that doesn't change the weaponload.



That's not correct, the wingtanks are larger and can carry 1200l, while the centerline station has size limitations, which is why only a 800l tank can be carried there. The single fuel tank is only useful for light A2A roles, or to add more fuel besides the 2 tanks at the wings.

But that's your assumptions mate. Official ADA schematics clearly mentioned 1200litres Drop tank in centre.Please provide me some source where it says it can't.

 

[Raul_AD]

As you can see in the latest pics of LCA with the 500lb LGB, there is very limited space to use a tandem pylon for these LGBs. They can try it with even smaller LGBs or dumb bombs maybe, but LCAs standard CAS weapons are 500 and 1000lb LGBs and if a tandem pylon with 500lb LGBs fits, needs to be seen.
Wrt the BVR missiles, please be realistic and lets not make fake points here. LCA will carry AAMs only at the wings and as all official load configs show, only at the inner or mid wingstations which both are blocked in strike config.

Wait and watch if other planes can use multiple rakes why not Tejas not in horizontal profile but vertical profile One after another.

Come on there is nothing blocking the sight of central line which is going to block launching of weapons, it can be used for that for sure. Have a good look at the images of Tejas.

The fly-away cost has nothing to do with the number of engines, it is the basic production cost of the fighter, without adding development or other costs. The per hour costs however include maintenance or fuel costs and here a single engine fighter of course have cost advantages, which however will be multiplied if you have to use more fighters.

Respected sir, your above post gives 1/2 answer to the question put by yourself. Please note Tejas carries weapon load of 6 Tons, if you fly 2 Single engine Tejas in place of Rafale with capacity of 9 Ton, you will get.

6+6=12 which is greater by 3 Tons the capacity of 9 tons of Rafale.

+ better turn around time of Single Jet + less maintenance headache.

A single Rafale! It also has AESA, it has the better flight performance, it has the better A2A weapons...

One simple question - Smaller Ra-Dia will accommodate more TR-modules or Larger Ra-Dia??????????

Which plane has Smaller Ra-Dia and how much is the difference in Surface Area of Ra-Dia of Both the Planes???

Do you think Elta EL/M - 2052 (on which the Indian radar will be based) is second in development to Thales RBE2?????????

PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT 2 TEJAS WILL GO IN AIR WITH 2 AESA WHICH CONFIG WILL DOMINATE????????????

11 per year

That depends on when the contracts will be signed and if they get Rafales from the orders of French forces, since they asked for a similar configuration, while ours will differ.

What do you think when will our THANKLESS HAL will be able to erect Assembly line of Rafale and start production?????

Sir Don't the Contract of Qatar is progressing faster then Indian Contract???? Infact Desault itself has'nt mentioned the if the contract is signed the delivery of Aircraft to India will be delayed????????

Don't you think ours is much complicated then the current ones which France produces will take longer to Manufacture????????

As said, the first squad will be available by 2017 and the productionline is expected by the next year and since the first will mainly be assembled, there shouldn't be a big problem. Also why would it be easier to set up LCA MK2s production line, if it's still on drawing board today, while the Rafale F3+ is in production for years?

Who are we to speculate let the which contract will be signed and which aircraft will join service when?????

Let the things progress because there is MOD, IAF, DESAULT, ADA, HAL who are fighting the war. Let the game continue and let us see ultimately who emerges as winner in the end.

 

[Raul_AD]

But that's your assumptions mate. Official ADA schematics clearly mentioned 1200litres Drop tank in centre.Please provide me some source where it says it can't.

Sir, there can be multiple options for fuel tanks the Central line fuel tanks are not certified till now. We can hope best will be 1200 Ltr. And Multiple Racks for Weapon Loads. Let them come with this.

The shape Tejas is taking is formidable, all you have to remember that it just started as POINT BLANK DEFENDER and now beats MIRAGE-2000 head-on. Mirage is ahead in only weapons load.

 

[Raul_AD]

The best reply to a fanboy. Well done. Give this man a rate.

Why don't you contribute with some Hard Facts and figures? Healthy debate is always welcomed.

 

[sancho]

But that's your assumptions mate. Official ADA schematics clearly mentioned 1200litres Drop tank in centre.Please provide me some source where it says it can't.

Which schematics are you refering too? Most load configs only show fuel tanks to show the wetstations, without specifying the size. The pics from earlier this year of the first test flights of LCA with a centerline fuel tank, clearly showed a smaller fuel tank too and this is even quiet common, be it the Mirage 2000, Gripen or J10, larger fuel tanks could be carried only at the wings. Not to mention that 1200l would still be too little fuel to carry strike loads to useful ranges, the pic with the 2 x 500lb LGBs showed 2 x 800l fuel tanks if I'm not wrong.

 

[sancho]

Wait and watch if other planes can use multiple rakes why not Tejas

It doesn't matter what other fighters can or can not, what matters is, if there is enough space at the midwing stations and that's needs to be seen, the pics with the Griffin kits seems to suggest otherwise. But even if, the difference isn't much either, you would have 2 x LCAs in strike config with up to 8 x LGBs but no BVR missiles, which means additional LCAs in A2A config are a must have in any mission and we still talk about at least 3 fighters here.

Come on there is nothing blocking the sight of central line

Please read the part of my post once more, I said that the inner and midwing station are blocked in strike config, since they use fuel tanks and bombs there, that's why no BVR missiles can be carried by LCA in strike config. If that changes in future depends on how much more fuel can be carried internally in the MK2.

Respected sir, your above post gives 1/2 answer to the question put by yourself. Please note Tejas carries weapon load of 6 Tons, if you fly 2 Single engine Tejas in place of Rafale with capacity of 9 Ton, you will get.

6+6=12 which is greater by 3 Tons the capacity of 9 tons of Rafale.

Payload is not important, the number of hardpoints for fuel and weapons is! LCA has only 7, while Rafale has 11 to 12.

Heaviest A2A load:

LCA - 3 x fuel tanks (2 x 1200l / 1 x 800l) + 2 BVR + 2 WVR missiles => around 3000Kg payload
Rafale - 3 x fuel tanks (3 x 1250l) + 4 BVR + 4 WVR missiles => around 4000Kg payload
2 x LCA - 6 x fuel tanks + 4 BVR + 4 WVR missiles => around 6000Kg payload

=> Even if 2 x LCAs offer more payload, they don't offer more weapons


Heaviest A2G load:

LCA - 3 x fuel tanks (2 x 1200l / 1 x 800l) + 1 x LDP + 2 x 1000lb LGBs + 2 WVR missiles => around 3500Kg payload
Rafale - 3 x fuel tanks (3 x 2000l) + 1 x LDP + 6 x 1000lb LGB + 2 BVR + 2 WVR missiles (2 more hardpoints free for missiles) => around 6800Kg payload
2 x LCA - 6 x fuel tanks + 2 x LDP + 4 x 1000lb LGBs + 4 WVR missiles => around 7000Kg payload

=> Even if 2 x LCAs offer more payload, they don't offer the same ammount of LGBs nor can they carry any BVR missiles, which then requires additional LCAs in A2A config again

So the payload on paper is only useful if you have enough weaponstations, with a useful weight limit, otherwise your weapon load will be limited.

One simple question - Smaller Ra-Dia will accommodate more TR-modules or Larger Ra-Dia??????????

Which plane has Smaller Ra-Dia and how much is the difference in Surface Area of Ra-Dia of Both the Planes???

Do you think Elta EL/M - 2052 (on which the Indian radar will be based) is second in development to Thales RBE2?????????

PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT 2 TEJAS WILL GO IN AIR WITH 2 AESA WHICH CONFIG WILL DOMINATE????????????

Smaller diameter logically can use less modules, but since we neither know the LCA diameter or the ammount of modules a future AESA of it will have (we don't even know what kind of AESA it will be or when it will be available), it's pointless to claim that it would have advantages over the RBE 2 of Rafale. As said, AESA alone doesn't make LCA superior, when it lacks behind in all key areas.

Sir Don't the Contract of Qatar is progressing faster then Indian Contract???? Infact Desault itself has'nt mentioned the if the contract is signed the delivery of Aircraft to India will be delayed????????

No, there was hope to sign it this summer, but nothing worked out so far and no Dassault never stated anything about delays so far, so that needs to be seen.

Don't you think ours is much complicated then the current ones which France produces will take longer to Manufacture????????

No, since it's the same fighter with some customizations, mainly the integration of different data links, possibly LDP or so, which however won't change much in the production of the fighter.

Who are we to speculate let the which contract will be signed and which aircraft will join service when?????

We don't have to speculate on that, since Dassault infos on the production line and how many fighters of the 2016/17 production lot are reserved for exports are publically known. So if we sign a contract they are meant for us and therefor we know when the first Rafale squad will be available.

 

[Raul_AD]

It doesn't matter what other fighters can or can not, what matters is, if there is enough space at the midwing stations and that's needs to be seen, the pics with the Griffin kits seems to suggest otherwise. But even if, the difference isn't much either, you would have 2 x LCAs in strike config with up to 8 x LGBs but no BVR missiles, which means additional LCAs in A2A config are a must have in any mission and we still talk about at least 3 fighters here.

Please read the part of my post once more, I said that the inner and midwing station are blocked in strike config, since they use fuel tanks and bombs there, that's why no BVR missiles can be carried by LCA in strike config. If that changes in future depends on how much more fuel can be carried internally in the MK2.

Payload is not important, the number of hardpoints for fuel and weapons is! LCA has only 7, while Rafale has 11 to 12.

Heaviest A2A load:

LCA - 3 x fuel tanks (2 x 1200l / 1 x 800l) + 2 BVR + 2 WVR missiles => around 3000Kg payload
Rafale - 3 x fuel tanks (3 x 1250l) + 4 BVR + 4 WVR missiles => around 4000Kg payload
2 x LCA - 6 x fuel tanks + 4 BVR + 4 WVR missiles => around 6000Kg payload

=> Even if 2 x LCAs offer more payload, they don't offer more weapons


Heaviest A2G load:

LCA - 3 x fuel tanks (2 x 1200l / 1 x 800l) + 1 x LDP + 2 x 1000lb LGBs + 2 WVR missiles => around 3500Kg payload
Rafale - 3 x fuel tanks (3 x 2000l) + 1 x LDP + 6 x 1000lb LGB + 2 BVR + 2 WVR missiles (2 more hardpoints free for missiles) => around 6800Kg payload
2 x LCA - 6 x fuel tanks + 2 x LDP + 4 x 1000lb LGBs + 4 WVR missiles => around 7000Kg payload

=> Even if 2 x LCAs offer more payload, they don't offer the same ammount of LGBs nor can they carry any BVR missiles, which then requires additional LCAs in A2A config again

So the payload on paper is only useful if you have enough weaponstations, with a useful weight limit, otherwise your weapon load will be limited.

Please @sancho Sir! don't spread lie!

Wing Span of Gripen is 8 meters. The SAAB JAS 39 Gripen

Wing Span of Tejas is 8.2 meters. HAL Tejas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How come Gripen with wing span of 8 meters can have multiple ejector rake but
Tejas with 8.2 meters cannot.

Look at the wing spacing of both Tejas and Gripen

Tejas

Gripen

is there any remarkable difference between payload stations on wings of both the planes?

Here is the Image of Gripen with multiple rakes

If Tejas can have multiple ejector rake then your all above post carries no value.

Smaller diameter logically can use less modules, but since we neither know the LCA diameter or the ammount of modules a future AESA of it will have (we don't even know what kind of AESA it will be or when it will be available), it's pointless to claim that it would have advantages over the RBE 2 of Rafale. As said, AESA alone doesn't make LCA superior, when it lacks behind in all key areas.

What crape you are posting not expected from senior member like you. I hope you are talking bout the size of TR-Module on each platform. No. of TR-module on each will depend on the size of TR-module. But kindly note that identical developments will not have much difference in size of TR-Module all will depends how they are fused in radar with one another, because cooling of Modules is also important.

Even though Tejas platform TR-modules may be somewhat bigger but due to larger Diameter of Radar will accommodate more TR-modules or say comparable TR-modules. So in end will not be any way lesser then Rafale.

No, there was hope to sign it this summer, but nothing worked out so far and no Dassault never stated anything about delays so far, so that needs to be seen.
No, since it's the same fighter with some customizations, mainly the integration of different data links, possibly LDP or so, which however won't change much in the production of the fighter.
We don't have to speculate on that, since Dassault infos on the production line and how many fighters of the 2016/17 production lot are reserved for exports are publically known. So if we sign a contract they are meant for us and therefor we know when the first Rafale squad will be available.

As I said I will not comment on the future Time-line of Deal with Dessault, as this is future. Let us wait and watch what happens in future. Let the future take its own course.

Hope I made every thing clear. Thanks for your detailed reply.

 

[Trawllu]

An internal redesign is probably needed for Tejas. A deal with SAAB regarding this would make the plane even better. Had read one report which had described Tejas as Maintenance nightmare with many sub-systems simply inaccessible. OTOH Gripen is said to be best plane viz-a-viz maintenance. If SAAB can help HAL in this regard, I think it will go a long way in further developing Mk-3 or, AMCA.

IAF and govt release says 3 hrs time between 2 sorties - which is considered quiet good enough

not even rafale boasts such times

 

[sancho]

How come Gripen with wing span of 8 meters can have multiple ejector rake but
Tejas with 8.2 meters cannot.

First of all, the Gripen doesn't have multi racks so far either, secondly it has more space because it has only 2 hardpoints under the wing and the 3rd one at the wingtip. LCA on the other side has all 3 stations under the wing, which reduces the space between them.

If Tejas can have multiple ejector rake then your all above post carries no value.

And till that time comes, lets simply stick to facts and not dreams only to make LCA better than it is.

I hope you are talking bout the size of TR-Module on each platform.

No I am talking about the radar diameter, bigger = more modules.

So in end will not be any way lesser then Rafale.

Exactly, so no advantage for LCA.

 

[Raul_AD]

First of all, the Gripen doesn't have multi racks so far either, secondly it has more space because it has only 2 hardpoints under the wing and the 3rd one at the wingtip. LCA on the other side has all 3 stations under the wing, which reduces the space between them.

Check the Image in previous post of Gripen with multiple rake for further information use Google Uncle for help.

And till that time comes, lets simply stick to facts and not dreams only to make LCA better than it is.

No I am talking about the radar diameter, bigger = more modules.

Exactly, so no advantage for LCA.

Respected Sir, with due respect we are talking here about Super Dooper Multi Billion Dollar Dream Fighter "Rafale"!!!

Not about Poor, Cash Strapped, Cheap and inferior "Tajes".

It is due to the Poor Guy "Tejas" Question Mark has arrived on the viability of Billionaire "Rafale".

 

[sancho]

Check the Image in previous post of Gripen with multiple rake for further information use Google Uncle for help.

You do realize that it's not a real pic right?

P.S. Current Gripen C with 500lb LGBs:

For comparison:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd....212_729486297145821_1356527991229583370_o.jpg

Both with LDP, 2 x fuel tanks, 2 x 500lb LGBs and 2 x WVR missiles!


Also Gripen NG with Meteor:

The increased internal fuel reduces the need of 2 fuel tanks and therefor frees hardpoints, but no multi racks needed. If they come somewhere in future is a different question.

It is due to the Poor Guy "Tejas" Question Mark has arrived on the viability of Billionaire "Rafale".

Where are these question marks? Did you ever have seen any MoD or IAF official stating that the MMRCA is too expensive? Did you have have seen an official confirmationa about the speculated cost increase, let alone the budget? Did you at least have heared the new PM stated his concern over MMRCA and his preference for LCA?
If not, then we have only the media an some forumers hyping the cost issue, ignoring the capability issue, just as well as the industrial advantages MMRCA is meant to give, which can't be given by ordering LCAs.