The World's Largest Fighter Aircraft Competition

M'kay, I know this is military related and that there is a thread for that, but I don't want to derail the general conversation there, nor do I want this topic derailed by such general conversation, so I'm making a seperate thread.

...don't kill me!

Okay, so here's what's going on: The Indian Air Force sent out a request back in 2002 to four companies to provide it a medium fighter. The reason being was that the IAF's workhorse fleet of Mi G-21s are nearing the end of their service life. A few are being extended, but even with that, none of the Mi Gs of that type will be flying by 2020.

India is building its own indigenous fighters in both the light and medium catagories, but the medium fighter won't be ready til 2020, and the light fighter, though itself already in trials, needs a better engine than the one it had been developed for, and so it has been delayed. In lieu of that, the Government of India initially sent out Requests for Proposal to four manufacturers: Dassault for the Mirage 2000-5, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Saab Grippen, and the Mikoyan-Gurevich Mi G-35.

Since then, Dassault has withdrawn the Mirage 2000-5 (since it's production line would be shut down by the time India chose a fighter) and replaced it with the Rafale. Also, in 2007, the United States entered the competition with the F-16 Super Viper and the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The deal is worth $10 Billion, and the contract calls for 126 fighters with option to build more. As such, it is the largest competition for a fighter contract ever held and its being watched carefully. The Indian Government has finished the evaluations and is reportedly about to publish the shortlist.

So what I ask is....which fighter does one think would win out? There are technical points, political points, practicalities, and the fact that the competition's requirements, initially calling for a medium fighter, seemed to have mutated to call for a medium fighter and a light fighter, with the F-16, Grippen, and Mi G falling into the light catagory (dunno about that last one...) and the Rafale, Eurofighter, and F/A-18 falling into the medium catagory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_competition

Eurofighter should win, though if the US sent the F-22 in, it'd be a more balanced competition (though I suspect the Eurofighter would still win on price).

The Rafale is great, and so is the MiG-35, but Saab? Really?

The MiG has a good shot at winning this 'cause it's somewhat cheaper than the other contestants and somewhat similar to the stuff that India has used so far, so there's less need for adapting to whole new systems (though there's several generations of fighter jets between the MiG-21 and the -35.)

If I were India, I'd go with the Typhoon.

I wouldn't buy Eurotrash fighters. Meaning the Mi Gs and US stuff would pass the first rounds of eliminations.

^^

What's wrong with Saab? And what makes Eurofighter better than Dassault or Mi G, which if I read properly you put on par with each other?

^

Any reason the European fighters are bad, or are you just saying that because they're European? C'mon, I wanna see comparions...

As for the American and Russian entrants, they're both quite good, but from what I've read, they both have problems with reliability: the Russians with parts and the Americans with following through.

Also, I'm no military expert, but if its one thing I know, India will never go for the F-16. It's the most tried and tested of all the fighters there, and so many countries around the region use it, so it makes for good possible joint training and all that...but Pakistan has them too (granted, its Block 52 rather than Block 60, which is what the US is offering).

They don't need the F-22 anyway. They're developing their own in that field too, with Russian help. Though I've heard the Americans are inviting India to look at the F-35.

edited 2nd Apr '11 6:58:58 PM by FFShinra

AFAIK, the US is very tight-assed about sales of the F-22 and wants exclusive control.

^^ A lot of Euro fighter designs (French especially) tend to be overhyped, overpriced and undereffective owing to a serious lack of combat experience lessons. Most Euro fighters involved in air to air skirmishes (or rather the near complete absence thereof) since 1975 have been the ones that were shot down. The French Mirage fighter was effectively the most populous jet in Saddam's arsenal in 1990. Compared to craft of its era, it lost horribly. (The results were repeated on much more even terms over Israel in 1973)

The Rafale and Eurofighter have never faced a foe in combat and are unproven. Migs (the 35 is based on the 29 which has plenty of experience under its belt) and F-16s/F-18s are combat proven.

Then cost comes into play. F-16s and F-18s are dirt cheap and widely exported even amongst the Eurozone. Migs are the same way.

Not to dig on the Euros, in theory their shit is pretty good, but theory is not something you want to base an air force on that actually needs to be combat ready at a moment's notice.

edited 2nd Apr '11 6:59:40 PM by MajorTom

Well, I checked the price tags and turns out the Eurofighter certainly isn't cheap, but as even Indian sources confirm, on technical basis, it's simply the best aircraft out of those offered. I also saw on the Wikipedia article about the current generation of jet fighters that American pilots who have flown both the Eurofighter and the F-22 say the planes are equally good, and this certainly means that the Eurofighter is better than the F-16 and the F/A-18.

The Saab isn't really at all sucky AFAIK, it's just that it's Swedish and I'm a Finn, so you know...

But seriously, it's a pretty good plane, pretty light and all that, and the Swedes and the French are offering the most technology out of all participants, but every plane comes with an offer to construct production facilities in India, so on that measure the planes are pretty much on equal footing.

India shouldn't choose the Russian plane 'cause there will be problems with deliveries and other details. The Russian arms deals aren't always as reliable as one might hope (for the most part, it's because of the corruption). While the Russian and French offers require the least change in infrastructure and training (as India already has MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s), it's not a good idea to be too reliant on a single supplier. So I would rule Russia out and since the American aircraft offered simply aren't on par with the rest (because the US isn't selling anything like the best that they've got), I wouldn't choose that, either.

That leaves India with the European planes, and out of them, if you look at performance charts like the one on the article, you'll see that the Eurofighter is the best there is.

Both planes are currently being used in Libya, but that's a pretty easy conflict so I'll grant you that.

Looked it up, the Rafale has flown compat missions and struck targets on ground in Afghanistan, but it has not seen air-to-air combat yet. For both planes, tests have been successful and results excellent.

edited 2nd Apr '11 7:09:00 PM by BestOf

^^

Fair point.

The F-16 may be dirt cheap, but when the enemy has the same aircraft (latest batch just delivered this year), what's the point? Or does the particular aircraft's Block actually make much of a difference?)

The politics surrounding each design is madness...

One of the Dassault guys got thrown out for trying to bribe an IAF officer, the Americans are saying the relationship with the US will be determined on the purchase of air craft, Eurofighter is offering India (via Hindustan Aerospace Limited, the state-owned aircraft manufacturer) a seat at the table in the consortium, Saab is dangling the ability to be totally self-sufficient in any future light fighters it wants to build,and Russia is...well...Russia. Everyone but the US is offering complete To T...

Makes me wonder if its possible for more than one plane to get a contract? Has that ever happened before?

It has happened before and there's been rumours that India would actually buy 2 planes, a 100 units of each, but they said there's no such plans.

And the versions of F-16 and F/A-18 offered, while they are the most up-to-date versions, aren't good enough to last decades and still be better than what India's neighbours have. They need a new plane, not an update of an obsolete one. That's why Dassault switched their offer from the Mirage 2000-5 to the Rafale.

edited 2nd Apr '11 7:29:19 PM by BestOf

Any chance the participants will duke in out in gladiatorial air combat? Because that might be something worth reconnecting my television set for.

^^

Yeah, I've heard that the manufacturers are all really hoping for a contract because whoever gets chosen gets an extra ten years on life while all the others are going to be scrubbed out of production by the middle of the decade.

^

I'd pay good money to see that. Teams or every fighter for itself?

edited 2nd Apr '11 7:44:25 PM by FFShinra

If they're smart they'll do both. As well as mix in any current fighters to see how well they'll work together.

I wouldn't sell the Viper Short. It is a surprisingly advanced aircraft on a proven airframe. That and it is a true Multi-role fighter. The F-18 Super Hornet while an excellent air craft is a bit limited in it's air to air role. Ok I take that back. I keep forgetting the damn plane is shockingly adaptable to modifications. Plus there is an update in the pipe for a block III improvement that should be good until the Gen 6 Fighter in 2024 Replaces it.

edited 2nd Apr '11 9:36:11 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Well it really comes down to whether or not there is a difference between the Super Viper being exclusively offered to India (which Boeing says is "the most advanced type EVER!" and happens to be Block 60) and the Block 50/52 being delivered as we speak to Pakistan. That seems to be the big hang up with them.

I could see that as being a problem. But the question is how much of package is included in sales to Pakistan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants

If the above link is to be believed, the Pakistanis have everything but the radar. The only other Block 60 variant went to the UAE, and while they're friendly with India, they're also friendly with Pakistan. I could see the ISI "acquiring" whatever they need to equalize their fighters with India's, if only because UAE is so close by and the ISI is so devious...and thats probably why the Indians have the hang up...

As well as (probable) fighter recognition concerns — but the main reason for the Indians rejecting the F-16 is to NOT have the same aircraft as Pakistan.

The rivalry is that intense.

Haven't there already been head-to-head joint wargames involving all of these already?

Ah, this is an interesting topic. Too bad that this type of topic has a bit of a tendency to devolve into ranting and raving*

Insults: they are the basis of a good argument! Anyways, I'll go and deal with Major Tom's other points.

So? You can say that of any new design, be it French, Russian, American, or whichever nationality you choose. The problem is with the pilots, not the airframe. In addition, Europe hasn't really been in any military situations that have justified the use of high-tech machines like the Eurofighter.

I'm very interested to see where you've got your facts, since I've checked and there doesn't seem to be any indication that European fighters made up most of the losses in air to air combat. Admittedly, though, my search-fu is very weak. As well, some aircraft like the Tornado F.3 were never meant to do what they did, since the aircraft in question is an interceptor rather than an air to air dogfighter. In that case, of course they're going to suffer in aerial combat. I'm not sure how much that applies to aircraft other than the Tornado, though, and it is a purely hypothetical situation with the aforementioned aircraft since I can't remember the Tornado being involved in any recent dogfights.

The various MiGs in Saddam's air force, including the MiG-29 - the one you pointed out as the machine the MiG-35 was based on - did quite badly, with the aircraft suffering 17 losses and 4 damaged.

Not combat proven /=/ no good at all. It simply means the Typhoon and Rafale have yet to flex their muscles, and that the other aircraft have a track record.

To be fair, this is because the F-16, MiGs and F/A-18 have been kicking around for a while, whereas the Rafale and Eurofighter are still very new tech. Once they've been around the block for a while, prices will drop.

True, but you do want to upgrade your arsenal all the time, and sometimes this includes aircraft that aren't quite battle proven. And could you not say the same of the F-22? After all, its' usefulness is currently theory due to the fact it hasn't been involved in any meaningful combat operations, if any at all.

edited 3rd Apr '11 3:42:31 AM by Flanker66

Huh? Every weapon system is only good in theory until it is fielded, so that's a moot point. Those are (relatively) recent designs, of course they aren't combat proven, except for the Rafale. Neither is the F-22, but I really do not doubt that it's one hell of a plane.

4.5 generation aircraft are all derived from the same lessons, and with the same missions in mind, especially those built in NATO countries. (And as far European aircraft quality is concerned - Panavia Tornados were once consided the pinnacle of low-level, precision strike aircraft, and have proven that in 1991.)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - assuming superiority just because you recently fought in a war and won is dangerous, especially in those, er, slightly one sided wars (from an aerial warfare point of view) US planes took part in. Besides that, European countries actually took part in the Second Gulf / First Iraq War, Kosovo and Afghanistan (plus quite a few other combat operations of similar or less intensity), and had plenty of chances to learn 'combat experience lessons'.

That being said, I'd have to lie if I were to recommend the Tiffy until combat readiness statistics from Libya arrive. It's peacetime readiness rate is quite bad - between 60 and 70 percent, and with a lot of software issues.

In terms of capability versus cost, my money would be on the Super Hornet in the medium category, but only because of the price tag and its unconfirmed high combat readiness. Capability-wise, it remains quite a notch below the Eurotrash in combat radius, payload, thrust-weight ratio and (lack of) supercruise speed. If money doesn't matter, I'd take the Rafale, especially since India has (combat) experience with Mirage 2000s.

In the light category, on the other hand, capability versus cost as well as capability only speak for the Super Viper. There might be an argument made for the Gripen in terms of (possible future) carrier capability, supercruise and expeditionary capabilities, but it's nearly as expensive with lesser combat range and payload, which should rule it out.

In the real world, none of all that will matter, and the decision will be based on a lot of political maneuvering, bribery and strange deals behind closed curtains. :)

edit: Huh. Kinda ninja'd here, because I read up to many statistics.

edited 3rd Apr '11 4:11:27 AM by kurushio

After extensive reading, these seem to be the pros and cons of each:

F/A-18 Super Hornet -

Pros: has, along with the F-16, the only fully developed AESA radar, middle-of-the-road price, excellent and battle tested strike capability, politically helpful. Has squad coordination capabilities to be, as one analyst put it, the "cricket captain in a fight". Uses the same engine that India has chosen for it's indigenously built HAL Tejas.

Cons: the US as an arms dealer is notoriously unreliable, politically speaking. It's also the most restrictive on technology, and so both irk Indian sensibilities in sovereignity. Also not as good in a dog fight as the others due to its aerodynamics, and considerably limited range. Needs totally new infrastructure.

F-16IN Super Viper -

Pros: the most experienced of the airframees, the final word in "tried and tested". AESA radar, excellent range, excellent fighting capability, probably the most advanced (even more so than the similar Desert Falcon used by the UAE) version of the fighter that will ever be produced.

Cons: Pakistan has essentially the same fighter, barring the radar, which creates militayr and political problems. Oldest of the airframes, it won't likely last more than a decade or so before they have to be put out to pasture. Needs totally new infrastructure. Same deal as with the F-18 with regards to the supplier.

Saab Gripen -

Pros: Cheapest of the fighters being offered, more capable than the F-16, can take off and land on roads, and like the F-18, it uses the same engine being given to the Tejas. Exceptional ordinance capacity for its size.

Cons: Short range, very few other international buyers (possibly limiting its ability to be modernized over decades), needs totally new infrastructure. AESA is not as developed as the Americans or Russians.

Mi G-35 -

Pros: Already has infrastructure, Indian Air Force already experienced in the Mi G-29 from which its based from, AESA radar, compatibility with currently existing Mi G-29 fleet, advanced missiles, full To T

Cons: slight redundancy (already having Mi G-29s and all), unreliability of acquiring spares, will only be able to get fighters out by 2015 at the earliest (India needs them by the end of 2012), the platform, as with the F-16, is very old and thus not likely to last more than two decades.

Dassault Rafale -

Pros: Demonstrated carrier capability (with the M variant), exceptional ordinance capacity for its size, superior aeradynamics to the F/A-18, extended ranger, possible supercruise ability, has some commonalities with India's existing Mirage fleet.

Cons: Has yet to win any of the other export competitions it has participated in, costs to integrate non-French weapons systems, lack of a developed AESA radar, possible problems in future procurement as the French trade it in for modernization. Supercruise is doubtful.

Eurofighter Typhoon -

Pros: optimized air-to-air combatant, excellent pilot interface, possible supercruise ability, supposedly second best air superiority fighter in the world after the F-22, being developed for multi-role.

Cons: the most expensive of the fighters by a long shot, claim as second best superiority fighter challenged by Su-30MKI, which India has, no developed AESA radar, no naval capability, would need totally new infrastructure.

Y'all keep me honest about these. This is just all from what I've read.

Hm... what do you mean by no developed AESA radar capability for the Typhoon?

I'd have to agree with you that there's no AESA radar currently mounted to the Typhoon, and there likely won't be by the time this competition ends. However, a variant of the Typhoon's CAPTOR radar (CAPTOR-E or CAESAR, although the latter could be a different radar system entirely) is in development that is an AESA system.

Since they'll probably be fitted ASAP when they become available, this could off-set the disadvantage of having no AESA radar currently.

EDIT:

Also, the Typhoon does have a supercruise ability - nothing "potential" about it.

I'm starting to sound like a shill, don't I?

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:32:03 AM by Flanker66

I meant it hasn't completed development yet, not that there IS no development.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I was just having a bit of trouble with the wording.

In any case, I think that the lack of AESA may be one of the biggest marks against the Eurofighter at this time, especially since from what I can see all the other competitors have it. I'm not sure if it'd be a "tie-breaker", but it'll definitely go against it.

I thought the Eurofighter was almost finished developing a variant that could be launched off an aircraft carrier? Not sure, though...