Posted on 01/26/2011 8:34:03 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Dogfight! India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision
Ashley J. Tellis
Carnegie Report, January 2011
The Indian air force (IAF) is entering the final stages of selecting a new medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). At a cost of about $10 billion for 126 aircraft, the MMRCA competition is the largest Indian fighter tender in years. Eight countries and six companies eagerly await the outcome of the selection process, which has garnered high-profile attention for its sheer size, its international political implications, and its impact on the viability of key aircraft manufacturers. Furthermore, the winner will obtain a long and lucrative association with a rising power and secure a toehold into other parts of India’s rapidly modernizing strategic industries. Once selected, the aircraft will play an essential role in India’s military modernization as the country transitions from a regional power to a global giant.
The MMRCA competition comes as challenges to India’s national security are increasing in intensity and complexity. Ever since the 1971 war, India’s defense strategy has relied on maintaining superior airpower relative to both China and Pakistan. In the event of a regional conflict, Indian air power would serve as the country’s critical war-fighting instrument of first resort. Due to delays in its defense procurement process as well as accidents and retirements of older fighter aircraft, however, India’s force levels have reached an all-time low of 29 squadrons, and the IAF is not expected to reach the currently authorized force levels of 39.5 squadrons before 2017. This growing and dangerous hole in the IAF’s capabilities comes as India’s neighbors are aggressively modernizing their own air forces, making India’s need to expand its combat aircraft inventories all the more urgent.
In choosing an aircraft, the government of India must employ a speedy decision process that is focused on the right metrics, taking both technical and political considerations into account. The IAF has already evaluated the six MMRCA competitors against 660 technical benchmarks and has provided its recommendations to the Ministry of Defense. While the IAF has paid special attention to the fighters’ sensors and avionics, weapons, aerodynamic effectiveness, and mission performance, India’s civilian security managers are certain to emphasize technology transfer as well as costs when making their decision. In fact, the winning aircraft for the IAF ought to be chosen on the triangular criteria of technical merit, relative cost, and optimal fit within the IAF’s evolving force architecture.
Political considerations, however, will be key in the selection process. In choosing the winning platform, Indian policy makers will seek to: minimize the country’s vulnerability to supply cutoffs in wartime, improve its larger military capacity through a substantial technology infusion, and forge new transformative geopolitical partnerships that promise to accelerate the growth of Indian power globally. While Indian leaders may be tempted to split the purchase among vendors to please more than one country, doing so would needlessly saddle the IAF with multiple airframes in return for meager political gains.
Given the technical and political considerations, New Delhi should conclude the MMRCA competition expeditiously, avoid splitting the purchase between competitors, and buy the “best” aircraft to help India to effectively prepare for possible conflict in Southern Asia. Because of the dramatic transformations in combat aviation technology currently underway, the Indian government should select the least expensive, mature, combat-proven fourth-generation fighter for the IAF as a bridge toward procuring more advanced stealth aircraft in the future.
Under this criterion, the European aircraft are technically superb, but the U.S. entrants prove to be formidable “best buys.” If Washington wants an American aircraft to win the game, however, it will need to offer generous terms on the transfer of technology, assure India access to fifth-generation U.S. combat aircraft, and provide strong support for India’s strategic ambitions—to counter the perception that the older U.S. designs in the MMRCA race are less combat effective.
In making its decision, India’s government must keep the IAF’s interests consistently front and center to ensure that its ultimate choice of aircraft is the best one for the service. This will not only help India to strengthen its combat capabilities in the coming years but position it as a rising global power worthy of respect far into the future.
Ping-pretty big and neat report. Article is a summary
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/dogfight.pdf
Great match-up chart of competing aircraft.
Thanks. Quite interesting. I do wonder though why they have listed the unit cost of the ‘Super’-Viper at US$30m, when the Block 60 for the UAE is at 80. Also, on the same platform, why they claim it can supercruise (the only aircraft in the MMRCA that I thought could do that at a speed that made sense and when not completely clean were the Typhoon and the Gripen NG, and even then only with an A2A loadout). When did the F-16 become a combat load s’cruiser?
As I remember Eurofighter’s payload is up to 8 tonnes.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
Empty weight: 11,150 kg (24,560 lb)
Loaded weight: 16,000 kg (35,300 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 23,500 kg (51,800 lb)
Hardpoints: Total of 13: 8 × under-wing plus 5 × under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 7,500 kg (16,500 lb) of payload
However, if the pricing above is correct, with the Eurofighter at $115 mil a pop compared to the F-16IN at $30 mil, you would get almost 3 times more Super Vipers.
And of all 6 entrants, the F-18 & F-16 are very well proven in extended wartime operations while the other cannot come close to walking the walk combat wise.
The information on the chart is rather dated and not entirely accurate. The cost of the UAE’s F-16 Block 60 at the begining of the last decade was about 80 million a-piece, so the F-16IN (based on the Block 60) would roughly only be a few million dollars cheaper in the face in inflation and cost of adding new systems.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=9877
The supercruise entry is a typo-the Rafale folks have claimed that their bird can do it with the newer M-88-3 engines and payload of 4 AAMs.
Didn't I say "...if the pricing above is correct..." and I still stand by my saying "...of all 6 entrants, the F-18 & F-16 are very well proven in extended wartime operations while..." the others are not and that is not a typo.
BTW which of the above do you favor?
While I'm not saying the French, Euro, Ruski or Swedish aircraft are not worth the effort, but it is rigorous pilot training and a well trained mechanical/support/logistics element that makes any aerial combat force effective, deadly and worth the cost. Neither of the other four have the combat experience or combat track record that the F-16 & F-18 have.
But then again, it is the Indian pilots and civilian's lives they protect that are at stake here if it comes down to war, isn't it?
There's supercruise and then there's supercruise.
I don’t think I said anything to descredit your post, did I!!!
About being proven in combat, well no one will dispute that. The question is would you want to buy a platform (the F-16) which will go out of service with its main customer in about 20 years. The Super Hornet is a better fit in that respect, but it’s sluggish as an airframe compared to the Eurofighter or Rafale. There are plenty of Freepers who hate the thing.
About what I favour-all of the six probably make the cut going by the IAF’s minimum requirements. In an ideal world, the Gripen would be the best best. Affordable, advanced and would keep the Americans and Euros happy.
On a more practical level, it’d probably be the Eurofighter vs the Super Hornet.
But why is the ferry range nearly identical?
I can't wait for the darn selection to be over ...at this stage there should be a front runner, but all we know is that it is not the F-16 or the MiG-35. Although, if all pass technicals, isn't it an automatic 'lowest bidder?' In my industry, when a Fund is bidding for a Manager (i.e. a Fund Management company), generally speaking all send in two proposals ...a technical proposal (saying what you can do basically) and a financial proposal (saying how much you will charge for what you can do). At the tendering process, the technical proposals are opened first and evaluated. If a Manager is eliminated from the process for not meeting certain technical factors, their financial proposal is returned without even being opened. However, let's say four Managers make it through, then the financial proposals are opened, and the lowest bidder gets the prize. Now, let's say Fund Company A had perfect service and a perfect track record, and they charge 45 basis points annual fund management fee. And Fund Company B has so so service, and a performance track record half that of Company A, but charges 29 basis points ...but (and this is the crucial part) even that so so service and half performance meets or exceeds the targets set by the tendering Fund, then Company B will win the tender in many cases. It is not about the best, but rather good enough at a cheaper price.
If it works that way in Indian military tenders, and we assume that all vendors passed the technical tests (and we eliminate the F-16 and the MiG-35 for obvious reasons), we have the Gripen NG, the Rafale, the SuperHornet and the Tiffy. Those four are past the technicals, and the financial proposals are opened. Well, we have the NG as the cheapest, and the Tiffy as the most expensive. For Tiffy to win, EADS would have to give the ENTIRE technology transfer, from CAPTOR to PIRATE to Meteor to the small rivet at the tail end, and even then the question would remain if that would be enough to knock out the NG. Same applies to the Rafale and the SuperBug. If it is based on cost, then it goes to the NG. Once other factors (like Sweden not having strong political influence, similarities to the Tejas as it the Tejas evolves, the Europeans and the Americans having far greater influence, etc) then the NG's chances get a tad skewed. However, based on price and price only, and considering the NG will definitely have passed the technicals, it would go to the NG (which by the way is the only competitor that meets the original requirements and is not flown by the Pakistanis).
Good observations!
Nice, more MMRCA fun. Is the SH TW ratio taking into account thhe 20% EPE boost? I see the EPE mentioned, but it doesn’t seem so since 0.98 is the old number. The SH is not the top air superiority fighter in this mix (that belongs to the Typhoon), but it is quite potent with the best radar of the lot, and after all, this is a Multi Role competition after all. Couple the Rhino with the Growler, the F-18 offers advantages the others can’t match.
That being said, it depends on what exactly India wants. If tech transfer is the priority, that skews the results to France....if for some reason they want yet another a2a bird to go with the su-30s and FGFA, then Typhoon is the favorite.
Sluggish without the EPE engines, yes.
The question becomes then what is India’s role for the Typhoon when they have Su-30 and will have FGFA? It’s not the bomb truck the others are. That begs the question what India is really after. Tech transfer may be it, then the Eurofighter Consortium has some advantages in this area.
The EPE will help but it can’t reverse limitations (if you want to call it that) in the Super Hornet’s design.
If you want to go by the bomb truck logic, then the F-16 is probably a very capable bet. Affordable, can move lots of mud and decent range with the CFTs. The Super Hornet and F-16 are probably the most ‘developed’ platforms out there, but the Rafale and Eurofighter can also carry a very hefty payload. The issues with the Rafale and Eurofighter is that capabilities have been added in a piecemeal approach primarily due to funding constraints, not necessarily technology issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.