MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 26 Jan 2011 18:45

Eurofighter boss outlines objectives as Typhoon fleet
FlightGlobal

First is the importance of maintaining customer satisfaction and in-service support, described as one of Eurofighter's "main priorities".

Second, the consortium will look to enhance the aircraft to ensure it is "always at the cutting edge of technology". Casolini said Eurofighter is in talks with its customers over enhancements for the next 10 years and beyond. An active electronically scanned array radar will be available on Tranche 3 aircraft for "relatively low cost". Further enhancements for export will be available on a case-by-case basis, Eurofighter adds.

Third part of the programme is an export drive, which is being supported by the governments of partner nations Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.

Eurofighter describes the Indian air force's ongoing procurement programme for a medium multi-role combat aircraft as a "one-time opportunity". The Typhoon faces competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Lockheed Martin F-16, RSK MiG-35 and Saab Gripen NG for the 126-aircraft requirement. Eurofighter officials say two of the Italian air force's aircraft will be sent to this month's Aero India air show in Bangalore. Meanwhile, one of the service's aircraft has been given special markings to celebrate the 100,000h milestone.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 26 Jan 2011 18:47

Let me restate what I had posted earlier.

There appears to be a lot of people mis-stating GE-F414 dimensions as being different from F-404. They are not. In fact, F414 was designed to be an upgrade to F404, and has same dimensions and near identical cross-section. It is marginally more in weight than 404, but not so much so that you need to redesign the fuselage etc.

Some time back I had posted the paper which discussed development of F414 from F404, and showed the various cross-sections and comparisons of the geometry itself.

Please, folks do read what others are saying. This is a forum -- i.e. we read and listen to what others are saying rather than simply hearing ourselves talk!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jan 2011 18:47

Sukhoy Airplanes Occupy Second Place in Worldwide Marketplace for New Multirole Fighters. MiG Is Sixth

((First place is held by Lockheed-Martin. After Sukhoy are the Chinese. Fourth place is held by Dassault, fifth by Boeing, seventh by Gripen International, eight by BAe Systems and ninth place is held by Eurofighter. Title says the rest. Not further translated.))
royfc.com/..
Source: 25.01.11, Sukhoy Aviation Holding Company

Chinese in the 3rd place.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 26 Jan 2011 19:03

Swedish Defense Minister Visits Singapore and India

Swedish Defense Minister Sten Tolgfors will visit Singapore and India from 25 to 28 January 2011. Thursday and Friday, January 27 to 28, he will travel on to India to hold talks with the Indian Defense Minister AK Anthony. On the agenda are issues such as materiel cooperation and security policy issues.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 27 Jan 2011 05:18

Dogfight! India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision

By Ashley J. Tellis - He is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues. While on assignment to the U.S. Department of State as senior adviser to the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, he was intimately involved in negotiating the civil nuclear agreement with India. Previously he was commissioned into the Foreign Service and served as senior adviser to the ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. He is the author of India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture (2001) and co-author of Interpreting China’s Grand Strategy: Past, Present, and Future (2000). He is the research director of the Strategic Asia program at NBR and co-editor of the seven most recent annual volumes, including this year’s Strategic Asia 2010–11: Asia's Rising Power and America's Continued Purpose.

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.

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.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jan 2011 16:49

The US is sh*tting bricks! It has learnt that the two Euro "twins" have bested the two ancient warriors of the US and that cost-wise their wares are likely to be significanly more than boh the Gripen or MIG-35.It explains why the sudden 100+ strong delegation from the US invading us who will try and 'plug the gaps" wherever the US is most vulnerable vis-a-vis its conntenders..

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jan 2011 17:59

Lalmohan wrote:Il76 with two underwing rotary drum launchers for R77's each carrying 30 missiles (total 60 missiles)
targets queued by awacs and escort su30's

don't laugh - its one way of doing it...

pyare lal! you must think Tu-160 MKI then at mach 2.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2011 18:41

Philip, Gripen will be the best option for MMRCA bang per buck, if required get half of them from the host country and let HAL manufacture the other half ( I am assuming we lic manf 300 odd MMRCA ) , single engine is good to keep operational and maintenance cost down multiply it with 30 years of operations its a great choice , Gripen already boasts of lowest cost per sortie , not sure how much is PR but its still is a believable PR

I would also like to believe ( and yes there are many doomsday prophet who would disagree ) that Gripen is the best bet for Tejas and there would be great deal of synergy between the two

Mig-35 in my list is the second best choice ,because it affords a great degree of commonality with exist IAF/IN bird and most of the weapons that MKI and most russian types carry can be integrated with this bird no no seperate weapons procuring and maintaining business , the not so good part is its a twin engine bird which means daily operating cost will be much higher , it would be nice to get some data from IN on how their new 29K is operating day in and day out since they had nearly a year to see and operate this bird , 29K is the closest to Mig-35 in most parameter.

jai · Post by **jai** » 27 Jan 2011 19:11

SaiK wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:Il76 with two underwing rotary drum launchers for R77's each carrying 30 missiles (total 60 missiles)
targets queued by awacs and escort su30's

don't laugh - its one way of doing it...
pyare lal! you must think Tu-160 MKI then at mach 2.

And it already has a rotary launcher....Russians would only be too happy to modify and supply it if we were to show $$$...... it should be able to fire Brahmos as well.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jan 2011 19:11

Ashley bhaiyya is basically making the case for Toofani with an oblique apparent plug for F18

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 27 Jan 2011 20:25

Wickberg wrote: I agree that we are agreeing. But I wont agree that Gripen is not something unique. It´s a Gen. 4+ fighter designed and produced by a country of 9 million people. A country placed in the northern out skirts. A country with the similar size as California and with the population of Manhattan. It is pretty unique to produce a fighter jet considering those circumstances don´t you think?

Wickberg,

I can understand what you are trying to mean. I salute your 9 million people on the other hand we are a country of more than 900 million people, we got our independence some 60 yrs ago. Till recent times we were considered a 3 rd world country. Look at the distance we have covered in this short time.

We have never built a decent 2 nd Gen aircraft till recent time; look at the jump we had made now we are knocking at the door 4.5 th Gen on our own. We not only have a 4 th Gen Fighter Aircraft but we have a Jet Engine project which as of now is able to produce 70-75 KN.

By any chance, do you have a Jet Engine project as well, a 5 th Gen fighter aircraft at least in planning stage, a MBT project which is considered among top 10 in the world, a Space Program, a Nuclear Program, a Combat Helicopter project, an Aircraft Carrier project, a Nuclear Sub project ?

Let me not go OT now and talk about the tread. MMRCA deal is not just about buying 126 fighter aircrafts. It’s about TOT and that too what we do not and not about the technology which we already have. You have out sourced the Radar, the Engine (from Unkil) etc. etc. Two of the most critical components in which we are also not upto the mark.

What Technology Grippen is bringing to the Table which we do not have?

On the other Mig – 35 brings at least this to the table along with L1 clause. Mig – 35 has other commonalities with the existing aircraft which India is operating.

I must say in the end you Saab is good at assembling an Aircraft, engine from someone, Radar from someone else, etc. etc.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jan 2011 20:33

That carnegie endowment article perhaps points to kalmadi and chaterrati playing spoil sport soon for IAF's requirement. If IAF can accept baboozed speaks, then they can very well accept drdo's long term objectives. The only way to ward off corruptions from babus hand is streamline the production setup in India.

Ashley tellis trying to bat for both the khans and IAF may have problems. The fact that this MRCA has hit the eyes of nukeperts, is alarming for Eu crafts. The khans are forcing a split of MRCA order.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 27 Jan 2011 21:18

B_Ambuj wrote:
Wickberg wrote: I agree that we are agreeing. But I wont agree that Gripen is not something unique. It´s a Gen. 4+ fighter designed and produced by a country of 9 million people. A country placed in the northern out skirts. A country with the similar size as California and with the population of Manhattan. It is pretty unique to produce a fighter jet considering those circumstances don´t you think?
Wickberg,

I can understand what you are trying to mean. I salute your 9 million people on the other hand we are a country of more than 900 million people, we got our independence some 60 yrs ago. Till recent times we were considered a 3 rd world country. Look at the distance we have covered in this short time.

We have never built a decent 2 nd Gen aircraft till recent time; look at the jump we had made now we are knocking at the door 4.5 th Gen on our own. We not only have a 4 th Gen Fighter Aircraft but we have a Jet Engine project which as of now is able to produce 70-75 KN.

By any chance, do you have a Jet Engine project as well, a 5 th Gen fighter aircraft at least in planning stage, a MBT project which is considered among top 10 in the world, a Space Program, a Nuclear Program, a Combat Helicopter project, an Aircraft Carrier project, a Nuclear Sub project ?

Let me not go OT now and talk about the tread. MMRCA deal is not just about buying 126 fighter aircrafts. It’s about TOT and that too what we do not and not about the technology which we already have. You have out sourced the Radar, the Engine (from Unkil) etc. etc. tTwo of the most critical components in which we are also no upto the mark.

What Technology Grippen is bringing to the Table which we do not have?

On the other Mig – 35 brings at least this to the table along with L1 clause. Mig – 35 has other commonalities with the existing aircraft which India is operating.

I must say in the end you Saab is good at assembling an Aircraft, engine from someone, Radar from someone else, etc. etc.

I was going to comment all that, but I figured I couldn't care less..... Christ.

Wake up.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 28 Jan 2011 00:19

The best part of this mmrca contest is that we know that there are exactly 6( SIX) =

CONTENDERS in this.
It had taken more than 12 (TWELVE)yrs for babus just to decide that they should make a official process on it , float a rfp, and evaluate the winner ., but they havent done it yet , they are still showing great beaurocratic spirit and determination in this whole thing. Had there been 60-70 contenders, then they would take more than 100 yrs for this...
This is the Great Indian Beaurocracy
And they talk, and talk and keep on talking, this and that,china and pakistan,. Meanwhile chinese build a brand new fgfa in 12 years, to be precise .
note..
All six are GOOD aircrafts. top notch,with few differences that can be tailored anyway. Just buy those damn planes

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Jan 2011 00:33

Lalmohan wrote:Ashley bhaiyya is basically making the case for Toofani with an oblique apparent plug for F18

Exactly. The fighter that seems to best fit the description of what the IAF will be looking for from its MRCA is the Typhoon and the Rafale follows closely behind. These will be followed by the Gripen NG and not the Super Hornet, since ToT is always going to be a questionable issue with regards to the US, and there will also be question marks about how the US will allow the IAF complete sovereignty over the MRCA during any conflict without trying to apply pressure or use threats of sanctions. The F-16IN and the F/A-18E/F have an enviable range of air to ground weapons at more accessible prices than the Euro-canards, but if the Typhoon can be made more capable of handling a secondary ground strike role, then it might well be the best of the MRCA lot.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jan 2011 04:14

Sope, which of these toppers can give us a ground attack twin-seat and still a multi role a/c? SH for sure on the paper and performance. EF and Rafale are getting there, but had some bad start.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jan 2011 08:19

Mr. Tellis may be PoI, but he has his pledge of allegiance with the khans. No doubt such authors are welcome for Indo-US nuke deal, where we were willing to consider certain aspects of freedom for the purpose of future NPT and FMCT pact and nuclear imports, the very same logic doesn't apply for front line of defence and military purchase where India has full authority to chose an a/c or cancel the whole order.

We cant' give into this sudden khan moods that swing from left to right. Israelis came step by step, from sub systems to sub systems, and let the khans do the same with DRDO. If India is a global giant, then the khans know they have the right to contend, but not influence in a manner that is not ethical and unprofessional, by influencing our babooze with JSFs and what not.

I hope we stick to professionalism with MRCA order.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jan 2011 09:11

jee.. what a long paper to read. It appears, it'd take another 12 years to finish reading it. may be ashley was lurking in BR for 12 years, and then went about presenting it. he must be really facing some pressure to bring that document for SD.

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Jan 2011 09:12

Come hell and high water , the US wants this deal,the money and the strategic leverage.And all their 'think tanks' are in overdrive extolling the virtues of American products, not forgetting to sniff at 'small countries','boutique manufacturers' and 'longevity' of their aircraft manufacturers ! It is as if they decide who lives and dies and they still 'rule' the world and decide whats best for others ! Weird !

Any way this is a nice exercise to know what the Indian political leadership is made of .

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jan 2011 09:15

1. This figure is based on based on the total contract cost of the recent Indian
MiG-29K naval purchase divided by the number of planes: “Project 1143,”
Bharat Rakshak, November 17, 2008, available at http://www.bharat-rakshak.
com/NAVY/Ships/Future/193-INS-Vikramaditya.html.

28. Squadron Leader Ajay Singh, “The Air War With AWACS Symmetry,” Indian
Defence Review, available at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LANCER/idr00008.
htm.

49. Air Marshal (retired) B. K. Pandey, “Selection of MRCA for the IAF,” Indian
Defence Review, vol. 20, no. 1, January-March 2005, available at http://www.
bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/2005/03/38-selection-of-mrca-for-the-iaf.html.

he did some reference here indeed.

and not all will feel disappointed:

A selection process that is transparent, speedy, and focused
on the right metrics will not only strengthen the IAF’s combat capabilities, but
it will also earn the respect of all the competing vendors and their national
patrons. Some of them will be disappointed by India’s fi nal choice, but those,
alas, are the rules of the game.

now, shed some tears for these people and bat for the losers? or prepare our IAF for the future?

AND...

TABLE 4. Potential IAF Force Structures: 2030
Role Aircraft Number/ Squadrons Option I Number/ Squadrons Option II
Air Superiority PAK-FA 100/~5.5 200/~11
Su-30MKI 300/~17 300/~17
Air Combat: MMRCA MMRCA Selectee 200/~11 200/~11
Air Combat: Light Tejas 125/~7 125/~7
Strike F-35 100/~5.5 150/~8
Total 825/~46 975/~54

wow!

jai · Post by **jai** » 28 Jan 2011 11:13

SaiK wrote:

TABLE 4. Potential IAF Force Structures: 2030
Role Aircraft Number/ Squadrons Option I Number/ Squadrons Option II
Air Superiority PAK-FA 100/~5.5 200/~11
Su-30MKI 300/~17 300/~17
Air Combat: MMRCA MMRCA Selectee 200/~11 200/~11
Air Combat: Light Tejas 125/~7 125/~7
Strike F-35 100/~5.5 150/~8
Total 825/~46 975/~54
wow!

Oops...no MCA !!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2011 12:02

I guess idea is JSF to scuttle the AMCA...

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 28 Jan 2011 12:10

dear Brf gurus,

What would be so bad by splitting the MMRCA in two contentdors.... say 90 raflaels and 90 EFT's or 90 eft's and 135 Mig 35's

addition on one extra type of Aricraft in inventory... we have the money for it ... getting two different types of AESA radar in MMRCA wont be bad, i guess?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Jan 2011 12:32

Members must notice that there is unusual takleef of all MMRCA contenders against the JAS-Gripen NG.
Whats more khan himself has started banning items for that plane, the others are also doing something or the other.

It tells us something.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 28 Jan 2011 13:05

Bait alert.... JSF is being offered to scuttle the AMCA, that too in the form - US may allow

India to participate in the JSF program...wow!!!

Goes on to show khans attitude and what will happen if the teens are chosen.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jan 2011 13:49

Tell-us is telling us to buy Yanqui wares as the JSF is in trouble,cost overruns and delays and the US is advising client states to buy more F-16s/F-18SHs until the JSF arrives.For these manufacturers to extend production enough orders are required for costs to be kept down.Hence the armtwisting and squuezing every last drop of upgrades/capability our of the two tired designs.If the Gripen has no future,then why did S.Africa,Thailand and others buy it or wanting it (Brazil)? It appears thatthese developing nations with tighter budgets find it the right aircraft for their requirements,"most bang for the buck"

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 28 Jan 2011 14:22

I for one think this is an excellent report that deserves to be read in its entirety. It marshals its facts, presents them lucidly and shows sound judgement. And no, I neither have a pro-American bias, nor a favorite aircraft amongst the 6.

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/dogfight.pdf

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 28 Jan 2011 14:41

If India builds good relationship with US Govt. then it can ask F-35s & F-22s to counter PRC's numeric capacity. Presently US needs a country which is economically and militarily cooperate.

It’s true that US fighters will not be allowed to attack Pakistan since it is its non NATO alliance but it can be used against PRC.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 28 Jan 2011 14:43

Philip wrote:Tell-us is telling us to buy Yanqui wares as the JSF is in trouble,cost overruns and delays and the US is advising client states to buy more F-16s/F-18SHs until the JSF arrives.For these manufacturers to extend production enough orders are required for costs to be kept down.Hence the armtwisting and squuezing every last drop of upgrades/capability our of the two tired designs.If the Gripen has no future,then why did S.Africa,Thailand and others buy it or wanting it (Brazil)? It appears thatthese developing nations with tighter budgets find it the right aircraft for their requirements,"most bang for the buck"

The Swedish government has commited itself to the Gripen till at least 2030-2040, so it won't go away anytime soon.

They have discussed dumping the Gripen for some other plane (european, american etc.) but came to the conclusion that there was no plane to suit Sweden's needs and that it would cost a lot more than to keep developing the Gripen. Also, one argument was that when you buy a plane from someone else, you always get second best when it comes to the more sensitive components. Therefore they say that to retain aerospace engineering knowledge, to save money and to protect Sweden the best way is to continue develop the Gripen into 2030-2040.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 28 Jan 2011 15:19

isn't we are perusing 2 project of 5G fighter programme
1. PAKFA/FGFA
2. AMCA
3. we shouldn't forget that Tejas MK.3 can be made a stealthy version after 2020

US will lobby for its fighters so it is better order F-35 which will make IAF to keep a PRC & PAF at bay

GoI should cancel MRCA project & infuse the amount to AMCA & Tejas Mk2 development since MRCA will be delivered after 18 months of agreement and it will not be delivered atleast by 2013-14 the same timeline set for Tejas Mk2 induction which will surely comparable to MRCA.

then pay to fighter which will be starting its carrier instead on fighter which will achieving MUL by the time of induction.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jan 2011 15:22

Loud thought here.Could a Gripen buy by the IAF see a possble JV/cooperation between Sweden and India for the AMCA? For the future,Sweden too would want a stealth fighter and use the experience/tech of the Gripen for the same.A single nation developing an aircraft imposes huge costs.Sweden could join in the AMCA programme for its own future reqirements.I say this becase the LCA and Gripen have similarities and the AMCA is clearly going to be a development of the LCA.The two requirements could merge into one aircraft.Sweden with its independent global viewpoint and India could wok together successfull.The FGFA is larger aircraft and the US will only want to sell the JSF,not help India develop its own aerospace industry.Just a thought,one never knows...!

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 28 Jan 2011 15:59

Philip wrote:Loud thought here.Could a Gripen buy by the IAF see a possble JV/cooperation between Sweden and India for the AMCA? For the future,Sweden too would want a stealth fighter and use the experience/tech of the Gripen for the same.A single nation developing an aircraft imposes huge costs.Sweden could join in the AMCA programme for its own future reqirements.I say this becase the LCA and Gripen have similarities and the AMCA is clearly going to be a development of the LCA.The two requirements could merge into one aircraft.Sweden with its independent global viewpoint and India could wok together successfull.The FGFA is larger aircraft and the US will only want to sell the JSF,not help India develop its own aerospace industry.Just a thought,one never knows...!

Well, SAAB is looking for a partner in both the NG project and future, more expensive projects. Sweden could bear the cost of NG by itself, but for a 5 gen we'll need to team up with someone. The same goes for Dassault.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 28 Jan 2011 16:01

Will the US let them do it? I doubt it very much . In doing so, a competitor to the JSF will be created which they will never allow. Heck, they are already ~~offering~~ allowing us to have the JSF for you-know-what reasons. Nip it in the bud buddy.

Not that AMCA will be a smooth ride; rather it will pose its own set of serious challenges but the out come will be worth it each and every bit.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jan 2011 16:09

PC,the only area/component that the US could deny Sweden will be the engine tech.The US cannot prevent even the Europeans from jontly developing their own 5th-gen+ fighterr they wish,though it is moe likely that stealth UCAV development is going to be the order of the day in Europe.UCAVs operating alog with manned fghters is going to be the next phase of aerial warfare,in fact it is already with us in its early stages.Anti-stealth developments are also taking place and a trade-off will arrive at some point of time.We will see more cyberwarfare in the air and the "fryng" of electronics/avionics by new weapons too.A future development awill be reusable long-range hypersonic aircraft ,equipped wth a variety of stand-off weaponry,very difficult to shoot down.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Jan 2011 16:22

so, is the 'industrial partner' clause of the MMRCA then about AMCA partner? if babu's are thinking this way then they have my pranams. partnering with Sukhoi for FGFA and best of Euro/Dassault/Saab for AMCA would be a wise move. Americans still get lots of money for selling us the less critical items

but the main cavalry horses need to be under our control (to learn from history)

jai · Post by **jai** » 28 Jan 2011 16:55

kmc_chacko wrote: It’s true that US fighters will not be allowed to attack Pakistan since it is its non NATO alliance but it can be used against PRC.

IMO, this is the problem - more severe than the age of the teen platforms or commonality with TSPAF.

Tomorrow, if Khan makes complete peace with the red devil, we will be stopped from using it against them as well. And IMHO, this appears to be very possible - given the trade deficit between the two and also given that dragon is a nuclear power and is/would be the largest economy in the world. I do not foresee the Khan taking on the Dragon ever....it never took on USSR and has made peace with Russia. The Dragon can certainly be expected to arm twist the khans very very sweetly and subtly, which they are already doing.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 28 Jan 2011 21:33

jai wrote:
kmc_chacko wrote: It’s true that US fighters will not be allowed to attack Pakistan since it is its non NATO alliance but it can be used against PRC.
IMO, this is the problem - more severe than the age of the teen platforms or commonality with TSPAF.

Tomorrow, if Khan makes complete peace with the red devil, we will be stopped from using it against them as well. And IMHO, this appears to be very possible - given the trade deficit between the two and also given that dragon is a nuclear power and is/would be the largest economy in the world. I do not foresee the Khan taking on the Dragon ever....it never took on USSR and has made peace with Russia. The Dragon can certainly be expected to arm twist the khans very very sweetly and subtly, which they are already doing.

Impossible

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 28 Jan 2011 21:38

Just look at the map and tell me at what cost Khan will make peace with Dragon

If it makes then it will be a paper piece not a real peace

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 28 Jan 2011 21:44

JSF Production Takes $11.5 Billion Hit

The newest Pentagon restructuring of the $380 billion Joint Strike Fighter program will result in an overall cut of $6.9 billion through Fiscal 2016, according to F-35 program officials.

This money was removed from the production portion of the program; 124 aircraft will be cut from the U.S. buy of F-35s through Fiscal 2016 if Congress approves the plan laid out by Defense Secretary Robert Gates early this month (Aerospace DAILY, Jan. 7).

The $6.9 billion cut from the production profile is on top of another $4.6 billion shifted from that account into research and development. “After funding the JSF [system design and development] program cost increase, approximately $6.9 billion was returned to the services over the Fiscal 2012-16 time frame,” according to Joe DellaVedova, director of public affairs for the government’s F-35 office. This money was dedicated to other service priorities, and does not reflect an overall reduction to the Pentagon’s topline in Fiscal 2012.

The United Sates is working with eight partner nations to develop the single-engine, stealthy F-35, which has three variants — conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL), short takeoff and vertical landing (Stovl) and a carrier version (CV). This is the third major restructuring since Lockheed Martin won the development contract in 2001. At that time, development was thought to cost $38 billion; it is now estimated at $59.4 billion.

It remains unclear exactly what the $4.6 billion added to the development program will buy. But program officials say there is money “to address known discrete improvements to include propulsion lift system, durability and structuring testing shortfalls, training systems, pilot-vehicle interface upgrades and others,” DellaVedova says.

Several problems with Stovl are known, including cracking in a bulkhead and issues with the propulsion system.

Testing and fielding of the Stovl version was previously the priority for the program to provide much-needed AV-8B Harrier replacements to the Marine Corps. Because of the commonality among the variants, Stovl testing was expected to satisfy many requirements for testing of the F-35A/C. Now, however, Gates proposes to decouple Stovl flight testing from the CTOL and CV versions and prioritize work on A and C.

Developmental testing for the A and C versions would be extended by 10 months until the first quarter of 2016, with double the amount of time needed to shore up Stovl developmental testing. The 20 months added to Stovl developmental testing will go until the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2016 (which ends in September 2017).

It remains unclear when the CTOL variant will be released to international customers for use; that was slated for 2014.

DellaVedova describes each of the known problems for the F-35B Stovl jet as “readily solvable through engineering adjustments and then testing to validate sufficiency of the adjustment.” Among the issues now being worked are problems with the lift-fan clutch heating, thermal expansion of the lift-fan drive shaft and roll post heating (which takes place in the wing near where fuel is stored). Additionally, “selective redesign” of the lift-fan doors is likely necessary to “increase durability,” DellaVedova says.

Also in the $4.6 billion added to development is additional reserves, or “funding to address unknown items that may be discovered in developmental flight test,” DellaVedova says. The government added up to 500 additional flights for the program as margin to avoid the need for further restructurings; if all of those flights are not needed, the development and operational testing phase could end earlier, according to a program source.

Gates did not say during his press conference what must be done for Stovl to graduate from probation. Completion of the system design and development (SDD) phase, including developmental and operational testing, is being assessed as part of a detailed schedule that will be released later this year, DellaVedova says. An integrated baseline review is expected to take place in the fall.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jan 2011 22:31

why jsf on the mrca thread?