Duel in the sky: Testing the MMRCAs and rating their chances

Photo 1: An aerial shot of Leh airfield. The fighter pens can be clearly seen.

Photo 2: The Gripen NG fighter, perhaps the contender with the best chance in the MMRCA competition.

Photo 3: (courtesy Boeing) Two F/A-18s, carrying out air-to-air refuelling over the United States.

Photo 4: The Dassault Rafale, which is the only MMRCA contender never to have flown in India.

by Ajai Shukla

Business Standard, 15th August 09

Over the preceding weeks, two Indian Air Force aces have busied themselves with what might well be the world’s most expensive video game: sitting at a simulator in the US and learning to fly one of the world’s most advanced fighters: Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet. After the simulator came an even greater adrenaline rush: strapping into a real Super Hornet, gunning its twin F-414 turbofan engines into a deafening roar and hurtling into the sky at speeds touching 2000 kmph.

But this was no game. Through the coming fortnight, those pilots will test-fly the Super Hornet in India, scrutinising every aspect of its performance to decide whether it meets the IAF requirements for a Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) to defend Indian skies, and support Indian ground troops, over the next four decades.

There are six contenders for this massive Indian tender for 126 medium fighters, an order worth some $11 billion dollars. Besides Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin has offered the F-16IN Super Viper; there’s the MiG-35 from Russia’s RAC MiG; the Rafale, offered by French company, Dassault; the Gripen NG, from Sweden’s Saab; and the Eurofighter Typhoon offered by a four-nation European consortium.

Over the next 8 months four IAF pilots will fly and fire all six fighters to evaluate which of them meet --- in every way --- the stringent requirements spelt out in the tender. This duel has been in the making for a full 8 years. That’s how long it has taken India’s notoriously sluggish Defence Ministry to frame its requirements, issue a global tender, and do a paper evaluation of the six responses that were received.

Now the ball is in the IAF’s court; it is time to see how the aircraft perform in the air. Being tested first, over the next two months, will be the two American fighters and the Russian Mig-35. Then, after a five-month winter break, the three European aircraft will be put through their paces.

The world’s toughest testing ground

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has assembled a team of its hottest top guns for evaluating the six fighters in the fray. Overseeing the entire testing process will be Air Commodore Rakesh Dhir, the Principal Director, Air Staff Requirements at IAF Headquarters. He will have two separate teams to do the actual flight-testing. One will test the two US fighters --- the F/A-18 and the F-16IN --- and the Russian MiG-35. The other team will be responsible for evaluating the three European aircraft: the Gripen, the Rafale, and the Eurofighter.

These teams will vie to uphold India’s reputation as the world’s toughest testing ground for military equipment. Each of the six fighters will fly in three types of terrain: hot and humid Bangalore, the desert heat of Jaisalmer, and the freezing high altitude desert of Ladakh. Any failure anywhere could signal the end of a campaign that will set back each of the contenders around $25-30 million.

Two Boeing F/A-18 will land this weekend at Bangalore, the home of India’s secretive flight testing agency, the Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment. Like Boeing, each contending company plans to bring in at least two fighters, in case of technical problems. Accompanying the fighters will be fully equipped maintenance teams to iron out niggles daily, after the Indian test pilots finish throwing their fighters around the sky.

Jaisalmer: heat and dust

After the testing in Bangalore, each team will travel for two days to Jaisalmer to test aircraft performance in the desert heat. During the Jaisalmer leg, each contender will also drop unguided bombs at a ground target placed in the Pokhran Range. But the really high-tech weaponry --- guided by radar, infrared or laser --- will be tested in each aircraft’s home base. Switching on airborne radar is a strict no-no when there is the remotest possibility of it being recorded by a foreign country. An aircraft’s radar signal is as unique to it as a fingerprint is to an individual. Every major air force, India’s included, maintains a worldwide “library” of radar signals; aircraft in those libraries can be quickly identified whenever they switch on their radar.

But the sting has been taken out of the desert trials; the summer is practically over. Months of MoD inactivity, caused by the general elections, has resulted in “hot weather” trials being scheduled in a balmy 35-40 degrees Centigrade, rather than the searing 50 degree heat of a real Jaisalmer summer. Officials from Eurofighter, which sailed through summer trials in the Saudi Arabian desert, grumble that the MoD lost an opportunity to discover the contenders vulnerabilities.

Ladakh: hot and high

From Jaisalmer, the fighters head for what could be the trickiest part of the trials: the “Hot and High” trials at the spectacular Leh airfield, in Ladakh. On the face of it, there isn’t much to do in Leh: each fighter must land with a specified load of weapons and fuel; switch off its engines and systems; the pilot must alight and do a quick visual check of his aircraft, during which the cold starts to seep into the aircraft components; then after getting back inside, he must start up the fighter’s engines and systems, without external help, and then take off.

Sounds simple! But this is the phase that is giving the contenders nightmares. At 10,682 feet, which is the altitude of Leh airfield, oxygen levels are so low that there is a real danger of the aircraft engines not starting up after they are switched off. And, once started, the oxygen-starved engines will strain to lift the fighters off that short airfield, even with a reduced payload that would be child’s play at sea level.

The testing teams: IAF top guns

A specially selected IAF test pilot of the rank of Group Captain will head each of the two test teams. He will actually fly each of the three fighters that he is responsible for evaluating. Flying in tandem with him will be another junior pilot; it will quickly become clear whether the fighter can be handled comfortably by a less experienced pilot. Each team will also include a clutch of technicians: an avionics system engineer to check high-tech gadgetry like the on-board electronic warfare equipment; a flight test engineer for performance related issues; and a maintenance engineer to observe how much maintenance each fighter needs before and after each sortie.

Making up the rest of each 8-10 person team will be: a logistician to evaluate how easily the spare parts and consumables can be kept flowing; technicians from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, where the fighter will eventually be built; and officials from certification and quality assurance agencies.

Who wins, who loses?

The MoD rulebook that governs defence purchases --- the Defence Procurement Policy of 2008 --- reduces the medium fighter competition to three simple steps. Firstly, the IAF specifies exactly the performance it wants from its proposed medium fighter. Next, it flies and evaluates all the aircraft on offer to see which ones meet all those requirements; and finally, the MoD buy the cheapest of those that qualify.

The most challenging of these steps is the first. Each detail of a fighter’s performance --- the runway length it must take off in; its rate of climb; turning radius; maximum and minimum speeds; range of operation; the weapons payload, its radar pickup; and dozens of similar parameters --- must be painstakingly quantified. Once all those are down in black and white, Step 2 becomes easy: the IAF test pilots fly each aircraft, checking each parameter one by one to see whether it matches up to what the IAF has laid down. The fighters that fail to meet the bill are eliminated from contention.

But there’s a hitch in the medium fighter competition, a problem of plenty! If the aircraft companies are to be believed, there’s a good possibility that all six aircraft might qualify. That would make the price the final determinant. The cheapest aircraft --- with costs calculated over its entire life of 30-40 years --- will walk away with the order.

This situation has arisen because the IAF has --- to use an automobile analogy --- set out to buy a Maruti-type car, but invited Rolls Royce, Jaguar, BMW and Audi to the bidding, along with Maruti and Hyundai. Four of the fighters in the fray (F/A-18, MiG-35, Eurofighter and Rafale) are expensive, two-engine powerhouses in the 25-30 tonne range. The other two (F-16IN and Gripen) are single-engine aircraft and, therefore, lighter (15-20 tonnes) and cheaper. And since avionics, sensors, radars and missiles are compact and light, the single-engine fighters are almost as combat-capable as their bigger rivals.

Experts agree that if the MoD plays by the rules, the Swedish Gripen --- the lightest and apparently cheapest contender --- will walk away with the contract. The single-engine F-16IN may be very close behind.

The superior range and weapons payload of the heavier fighters will earn them no brownie points for being far better than the tender requirements. To return to the automobile analogy, if the buyer specifies a top speed of at least 100 kmph, the Jaguar and the Audi get no credit for clocking twice that speed. If the Maruti can clock 100 kmph, it will be selected being the cheapest.

But the vendors fielding the twin-engine behemoths are confident about their chances. Admitting that their purchase price may be higher, they declare that when the “Cost of Ownership” is calculated over 30-40 years, their lower maintenance and spare parts costs, and higher aircraft availability will tilt the economics in their favour.

And Eurofighter chief, Bernhard Gerwert, told Business Standard in Delhi last week that superlative flying and combat performance would definitely count. He said, “The feedback that we have gotten after meetings in Delhi with the MoD and the IAF is that they will test more than just compliance with the tender. The IAF will take into account the performance excellence of each aircraft.”

The IAF, however, flatly refutes this. Senior officers say there are no extra points for exceeding the requirements by, say, 50%. Testing will be confined to a “Compliance Matrix”, with a box being ticked alongside each performance parameter in which an aircraft measures up to the required specifications.

Says a senior officer, “We don’t compare the aircraft with each other. We compare the aircraft with the tender requirements, filling in a Compliance Matrix”.

Amidst this uncertainty, and with billions at stake, the aerospace corporations have launched a media blitz to harness public and political opinion. Journalists, astronauts, corporate honchos, medal-winning athletes and politicians have in turn been taken up for high-profile joyrides. NDTV anchor, Vishnu Som, has flown co-pilot on four of the six aircraft, more than any of the IAF test pilots will be able to claim.

The game is on.

Face-to-face: rating their chances

F/A-18 Super Hornet: Overall chances: COOL

Pros

1. Battle-tested, frontline fighter with the US Navy

2. Powerful, agile, rugged, designed for aircraft carriers

3. Advanced avionics and missile systems

4. Can function as refuelling tanker with external fuel tanks

5. Fields fully-operational and deployed Raytheon APG-79 AESA radar

Cons

1. US restrictions on modifications and end usage

2. Earlier generation design, dating back to 1980s

3. Heavy, 30-ton aircraft, expensive

F-16IN Super Viper: Overall chances: WARM

Pros

1. Tested modern fighter, has logged over 100,000 combat missions globally

2. Single-engine, 19-tonne fighter, price competitive

3. Advanced avionics and missile systems

4. Advanced Northrop Grumman APG-80 AESA radar

5. Four F-16 production lines functioning world-wide

Cons

1. US restrictions on modifications and end usage

2. Earlier generation design, dating back to 1980s

3. Earlier vintage F-16s in service with Pakistan Air Force

Eurofighter Typhoon: Overall chances: COOL

Pros

1. Contemporary fighter, still evolving

2. High performance, high-end technology, including supercruise

3. Offering India development partnership

4. No end user restrictions, easy transfer of technology

5. EADS already helping to develop India’s LCA

Cons

1. No combat experience

2. Heavy, 25-ton aircraft, expensive

3. AESA radar still under development

Saab Gripen NG: Overall chances: RED HOT

Pros

1. Only Eurofighter and Gripen are capable of Supercruise: supersonic flight without afterburners

2. Can land, refuel, rearm and take off in 10 minutes

3. Light, single-engine, highly cost-effective

4. Selex Raven AESA radar with advanced swashplate technology

5. Willing to hand over source codes for high-tech equipment

Cons

1. Has US components, including engines and avionics

2. AESA radar still under development

3. India has never operated a Swedish fighter

RAC MiG, MiG-35: Overall chances: HOT

Pros

1. Dovetails easily with IAF’s MiG-29 fleet

2. Typical Russian fast, agile fighter

3. Vastly improved avionics and targeting system

4. Thrust-vectoring engines option exists

5. Cheapest ticket price of twin-engine fighters

Cons

1. Airframe barely improved from MiG-29

2. Zhuk-Phazotron AESA radar still under development

3. Life cycle cost of Russian fighters is traditionally high

Dassault Rafale: Overall chances: DARK HORSE

Pros

1. Amongst the most contemporary options

2. France deploys on land and aircraft carriers

3. IAF’s Mirage-2000 fleet creates comfort level with Dassault

4. Transfer of technology smooth; no end user restrictions

5. Only non-US fighter with deployed AESA radar

Cons

1. Limited combat experience

2. 25-tonne, twin-engine aircraft, expensive

3. Only contender never to have flown in India