'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8738
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2017 00:32

Cosmo_R wrote:You misread the statement. What I am saying is that it is no less sanctionable than a F16/18/F35 because if the US wanted to sanction us for whatever reason, the Gripen won't be untouched.

Okay...so all the above aircraft are sanctionable? Am I reading your statement right now? And if you are saying it, then I am sure the policy makers in the GoI know the same.

Since we qualified that, then the next question that needs to be answered is what act from our part constitutes sanctions from Unkil? Are these planes only to be used in the manner that the US expects us to? Or do we have free reign with these aircraft? Can we do with the F-Solah or Gripen E that we did with the Mirage 2000 in Kargil against Unkil's all weather friend? I am sure these are questions that need to be answered by the policy makers.

Now since you brought up the issue of sanctions, let us review history and see how many nations actually sanctioned our fighters and helicopters post Pokhran II ? The MiG series? The Mirage 2000s? Perhaps the Jaguar? Or the Su-30MKIs? Oh I know. The Sea King. Parts for that helo was sanctioned by India's now strategic partner - Unkil. Was it not Unkil who imposed sanctions post Pokharn II which delayed our Tejas program?

Now one can argue that times have changed since Pokhran II. We need to stop being so "narrow minded" on BRF and look at the bigger picture. Unkil and India now have a common enemy - China. But wait a second, India has had that enemy for the past 70 years at her doorstep. What changed exactly? A resurgent China that threatens Unkil's dominance in that region? Come to think of it, how different is this new relationship compared to the China-Pak relationship? An enemy of my enemy is my friend as the saying goes. However let me not arm my friend to the point where he also becomes my enemy. Let me give him just enough to keep my real enemy at bay.

Now if Japan is purchasing F-35s to barr a resurgent China from knocking at her doorstep and the US plans to do the same, I ask again...would it not make better sense for the third partner (India) to operate the same plane to deter China? After all, you are only as strong as your weakest link. The F-35 must be one amazing plane - with tremendous growth potential - for Japan to invest in a FACO line and assemble it locally.

Cosmo_R wrote:Yes. The problem lies in dumb people making what they think are 'smart decisions'. And that equation stands the test of time.

+1 to you Sir. Well said. Considering the above aircraft are all sanctionable, then purchasing the Gripen E or the F-Solah or the F-18 or the F-35 must all be smart decisions being considered by dumb people. Because regardless of what is said or wished on a forum, the GoI pulls the trigger. True? And if the GOI is willing to purchase them, then they must be dumb. And like you said, that equation stands the test of time.

Cosmo_R wrote:Depends on who's making the decision. If I were dictator and running it, I would order my supply chain to produce fasteners, gaskets, sprockets and widgets at scale to meet MRO requirements of the global F16 fleet. It would help lower the unit costs of components for the Block 70s for the IAF. 'Parts' does not have to mean big LRUs. It's the small stuff (see Ramana's point about machining titanium parts for the SU30 and the scale it requires) which has incredible margins. And it does not have to be about 'upgrades'. Maintenance and repair business is very lucrative especially if you have a captive audience.

Wait a second now! Depends on who is making the decision? Assumptions my dear Sir are VERY dangerous. We are being asked to buy the F-Solah or the Gripen E based on promises that have not been thoroughly thought out? When are we expected to find out how this is going to benefit us? After we sign the deal and then realise that the devil is in the details?

Secondly, I have a hard time picturing you as a dictator. Neither am I. Since we are not dictators, we have no decision making ability at LM or at the GOI. That quantity is now known and verified. So then the question arises, who exactly is making those decisions? The GoI or LM/US? Who decides to produce x number of fasteners, gaskets, sprockets and widgets at scale to meet MRO requirements of the global F16 fleet? Are we following a concept of just-in-time manufacturing (have the exact number of parts to fulfill a confirmed export order) or are we going to invest money in producing parts that will sit as inventory in a warehouse till the orders come in? Who makes that 'smart' decision?

Thirdly, we need to determine what is the captive audience for the global F-16 fleet that wants to upgrade their F-16s to the Block 70 standard? I am sure we can eliminate the largest operator out of the equation because they are focused on replacing their F-16s with F-35s. Agreed? Israel does not need a Block 70 upgrade, because IAI is modifiying them with equipment that there is little public info on. Despite that, Israel is purchasing the F-35 as well. Pakistan's F-16s will be upgraded by the US. But there are still a host of other nations that operate hundreds of F-Solahs. How many of them has India mapped out that require an upgrade to the Block 70 standard. After all, since the line is being transferred to India...it is our responsibility to find out the captive audience correct? Or is LM going to do that for us? Will they have time to do that with them being focused on the F-35 production? Let us assume they do. Will they be collecting fees for finding the customers for us? Let me state at the outset, I have no problem with that.

So many un-answered questions about this deal, but yet being led to believe that everything will be just fine...as long as we sign on the dotted line. The details will come later, just sign it though. That is a SMART decision.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8738
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2017 00:54

By the way, before we make up fanciful stories about quick inductions of F-Solahs, please read below. This is from none other than Mr Randall L. Howard who is in the F-16 Business Development team at Lockheed Martin.

http://www.spsmai.com/news/?id=875&q=Lo ... -the-world

Baranwal: What will be the turnaround time for the first delivery from the Indian facility post the decision? Can you give an exact timeline?

Howard: I think it is hard to give an exact timeline. The typical delivery period of F-16 is about 36 months range. The challenge we have is to train the workforce and put in place all the facility. We have given a notional time-line to the government on the production. To be very specific in the public forum is very hard, because there are lot of variables and dependencies. But I can say that we have done these many-many times and we have a proven track record of having it done successfully.

36 months = 3 years. I have to calculate that, because we tend to be very loose with time on BRF for certain products. The last I checked, we are in 2017 and the Babus at the MoD have yet to finish one chapter of the Strategic Partner policy. By the time that is complete, RFPs are reviewed, flight tests are done, back and forth negotations happen, deal signing and THEN three years before the FIRST plane is produced...what year are we looking at before a full squadron is inducted into the IAF? How many squadrons will the IAF be down to by then?

Marten Saar, you are 100% correct. You know what I am saying.

But for the sake of BRF members, please do calculate and state the time.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2602
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 19 Feb 2017 01:47

Cosmo_R wrote:@Rakesh ^^^" Are we going to focus on filling the numbers first or focusing on exports (i.e. upgarding them with parts)? "

Depends on who's making the decision. If I were dictator and running it, I would order my supply chain to produce fasteners, gaskets, sprockets and widgets at scale to meet MRO requirements of the global F16 fleet. It would help lower the unit costs of components for the Block 70s for the IAF. 'Parts' does not have to mean big LRUs. It's the small stuff (see Ramana's point about machining titanium parts for the SU30 and the scale it requires) which has incredible margins. And it does not have to be about 'upgrades'. Maintenance and repair business is very lucrative especially if you have a captive audience.


This whole part business for the whole world may not be possible. The outside operators aren't as many as you think. Largest is turkey and it is phasing the f-16s out and it has a huge facility that already services majority of middle east operators. Other operators are also replacing their f-16s bought in the late 80s to early nineties with new builds of other aircraft. USAF may not buy parts made in India. It will need all sorts of waivers and approvals, so like someone pointed out earlier, that market is unavailable to us.

"As Turkey prepares to phase out its fleet of F-16 fighters by 2030 due to high upgrade, repair and maintenance costs, it faces challenging options to rebuild a solid fleet with deterrent firepower." - http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-fighter-aircraft-choices-from-hard-to-hardest.aspx?pageID=238&nID=97049&NewsCatID=483 Last one was made in 2012. They sunset this operation.

Turkey also has some absurd laws in their production contract "Each new aircraft had to visit American territory under the terms of the PEACE ONYX Foreign Military Sales program before being turned over to the Turkish Air Force." I presume akin to cats visit to vets office to be neutered!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_D ... _operators
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... u-f-16.htm

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 19 Feb 2017 06:48

@Rakesh^^^ Good thoughts and questions. Here's the rub. As Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss observed, it is always about the best of all possible worlds. The emphasis is on 'possible' meaning what can realistically happen going forward from a certain point in time and not 'utopia'. What faces the IAF now is kind of 'remains of the day' option.

In that light, you have anywhere between a 200-300 fighter shortfall in the IAF over the next 3 years if we do nothing. It is the direct result of two dumbass MOD Joint Secretaries making what they considered a 'smart decision' in ~2000 to classify the M2K-5 as a new a/c unrelated to the M2K in the IAF and thus requiring a new tender. This stupidity which they considered a great intellectual coup that 'saw through' the IAF's effort to bend the rules gave birth to the MMRCA competition which was originally supposed to be a single engined fighter only. But because it took so long to finalize, the M2K line was shut down in France which then offered the Rafale, a 2-engined fighter. This led to everybody and his failing a/c manufacturer (RAC MiG) tossing their hats in the ring and the resulting tamasha which ended with another tamasha when we realized we could not afford the 126 ac with 100 ToT yada yada.

Anyone seriously suggesting we gap fill with Qatari M@Ks should look at how many there are (9 single seat plus 3 trainers). This is not a a solution.

So what are we left with? On the one hand, we have the IAF which needs planes not PowerPoint presentations and heroic static displays and desktop models but stuff that flies and gives it a chance to implement the mission it is charged with. On the other we have the need to build a local ecosystem so the next main fighter program is locally grown to the maximum extent possible. We obviously need to do both. The question is how.

~120 LCAs have been ordered. But they are not going to come in the EXCESS quantities (over and above the 120) in the time frame we need. The stipulated need is for a single engined fighter so no resorting to the 'more MKIs' or Rafales.

With that preface, what are we left with for the best of all possible worlds? If I were looking at it solely from the IAF's perspective, I'd say 100-150 F35s delivered from LM with a deal on maximum MRO and rope in the IN for the F35B. Scrap the FGFA and use the money to build the AMCA

If I were looking at solely from Modi's MII perspective, I'd say 200 F-16s because it would contribute to building up a local ecosystem. My whole point about the parts business is that every bit counts. If some of us a re still enamored of Qatari M2Ks at this stage (a 40 year old fighter), there must a whole bunch who would be also interested in refurbishing F16s.

The Gripen is a plane that will not arrive to meet the IAF's immediate needs—we're talking mid 2020s and it no less sanctionable than any US a/c and is simply like kicking the ball out of bounds to regroup. It's also only going to undo all the work that has gone into DTTI. Maybe that's OK too.

The middle ground is 100 F16s and 2-3 squadrons of F35 but that's really kind of cutting the baby in half. The economies of scale are horrendous.

Of course, we could also do nothing: it's a tried an true strategy. We've done it since 1990 and nothing (really) bad has happened. What could go wrong? Planes are not going to be used in the next war...

I'm out of constructive ideas on this. So I just plan to wait and listen.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 19 Feb 2017 08:02

negi wrote:Wait that F35 people seem to be drooling over is essentially a Yak-141 xerox copy turbojets have been replaced by a giant fan the rear swivelling nozzle design remains the same hell LM even bailed out Yakolev by paying them 400 million USD

That's actually a popular myth. The Yak-141, like the Yak-38, employed dedicated turbojets for forward vertical lift. There were similar projects in the west back in the 60s when lots of innovative designs including VSTOL/STOVL were being tested. This includes the Mirage III V, VAK 191, VJ-101 as well as a parallel project run by Hawker Siddeley that lost out to the Harrier.

The F-35B employs an entirely different concept - a 'cold' lift fan driven by the main engine through a complex driveshaft-clutch system; a design that won the 2001 Collier Trophy. The three bearing swivel nozzle was developed by Pratt & Whitney for the Convair Model 200, two decades before the Yak-141 entered the picture. If anything, the P&W design 'inspired' the Yak design.

You can read about the history of the 3BSD nozzle here (by a Skunkworks engineer): http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137

LM's interest in Yak meanwhile was primarily wrt risk reduction studies for the JAST/CALF projects. And its unlikely they paid anywhere near $400 mil for the collaboration (no further Yak-141 prototypes were constructed). Especially considering that the lift-system was a P&W-Rolls Royce collaboration (not an LM product).

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8738
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2017 08:13

Cosmo_R: I fully agree with everything you have said in the first five paragraphs of your above post, with the exception on the para of the Qatari M2Ks. I also spoke about the UAE M2Ks as well. However that issue has been hashed to death and for the purpose of moving forward, I am going to set aside the issue for buying used M2Ks. If there were laws in the country - to jail people for incompetence and stupidity - then the two Joint Secretaries should be the first to go in. Two fools who created this mess that the IAF is now in. So much for our esteemed IAS. But I digress.

Now on to the last seven paragraphs of your posts, I must ask more questions and have a few statements of my own.

- I agree that the Tejas in NOT going to come in excess quanitites. (My definition of excess is an order of 200+ Tejas fighters. I must point out that it is only my opinion on what excess is. IIRC, I believe the program called for 220 Tejas (200 single seaters + 20 trainers). That was back in the 1990s. I am sure you remember that number if you are as old as I am). That is a direct result of vested interests who want to see this program not succeed. I emphasize on the term succeed vs failure because proving failure of the plane would bring to light their own involvement which would defeat the purpose of importing. It is thus better to ensure that it does not succeed by ordering it in limited quanities and then harp on every negative point that presently ails it. I am not going to speculate who these vested interests are because that topic has been discussed a million times on BRF and it is pointless repeating the same thing again.

- Now in response to your statement that ...the need is for a single engined fighter so no resorting to the 'more MKIs' or Rafales contradicts what Defence Minsiter Manohar Parrikar said to Nitin Gokhale in a recent interview. I post the link below;

India looking for single and twin engine combat jets under Make in India, says Defence Minister Parrikar
http://bharatshakti.in/india-looking-fo ... -parrikar/

Now with all due respect (I actually put more credence to a single engine plane purchase) to Defence Minister Parrikar, I believe there is a serious disconnect between the Prime Minister's Office in South Block to the Ministry of Defence in North Block. The Raksha Mantri will say one thing and then the PMO will say the total opposite later and override what the MoD or what the Raksha Mantri has said. And for that reason, I doubt it is going to be anything other than a single engine fighter purchase. Therefore that having been determined, we are now left with two planes of the fourth generation type (F-16V and Gripen E) and one plane of the fifth generation type (F-35A) that has a chance of sporting an IAF roundel or who is going to be gifted with the Red Rose? :)

- Now your sixth paragraph is a utopian scenario which I also agree will not happen. However there is a point that needs to be noted. It is an open secret that the FGFA - in its current form - is unworkable for the IAF. Neither are the Ruskies proving to be open to IAF suggestions on improving the plane. Discussions are continuing, but I doubt that plane will ever see service in the IAF - at least in the avatar that it is in now. That leaves an interesting scenario for LM and the US Govt. Are 100 F-35As more expensive than 100 F-16Vs. Absolutely they are. No one is disputing that. However consider this scenario for a moment. Is spending more money on the FGFA program (in addition to procuring 100 F-16Vs or Gripen Es) financially sound? Would it not make better financial sense for India to drop the FGFA and acquire the F-35 instead, adopt a FACO line like Italy and Japan and do assembly of the aircraft? Would that not work cheaper for India in the long run? Maybe that is a question that brar will need to answer with his exquisite attention to budget detail. But any bania (which I am) will tell you that spending billions on FGFA and then spending upwards of $10 - $12 billion on 100 fourth generation fighters will prove to be more expensive (or for argument's sake - ON PAR) with acquring 100 F-35As for the Air Force and 57 F-35Bs for the Navy. Let us not even get into the spinoffs for the AMCA which is a whole other discussion.

- Now on to your seventh paragraph. Modi is the Prime Minister. He is the leader of the country who has set a vision of Make in India. However we must not make the mistake of attaching him (the individual or the title he holds) to the purchase of the plane. Don't get me wrong...I am not trying to cover for him. He does not need it anyway, because there is nothing to cover. The point I am trying to make is that the success (or failure) of the platform acquired should NOT be tied to a vision. Rather the success (or failure) of the platform lies with the user. The user determines which is the best platform and the GoI handles the negotiations - which the user has NO part in - with the nation that makes that platform. With that being defined, I ask the same questions I mentioned in my post earlier on the F-Solah. I am not repeating it again, because it is there. But those questions need to be answered. They need to be fleshed out. Ambiguity is VERY financally foolhardy in a deal like this. Every T must be crossed and every I must be dotted. Failure to do so - as you have so righfully pointed out - will result in chickens coming home to roost.

- Now on to your eight paragraph, I am fully convinced that the IAF is absolutely infatuated with the Gripen E and what has been promised by Saab. I must say, I have no evidence to prove it and it is an opinion of mine. Regardless, that it is a paper plane (I have been calling it Paper NG since day one), the IAF seems to be bending the very rules for the Gripen E, that it holds the Tejas to. If the IAF had its way, it would be the Gripen E hands down. The only spoiler in this entire scenario is the geopolitical angle and Unkil has FULL exclusive rights on that issue. With that issue under its belt, it is an absolute certain win for LM and the US Govt to offer the F-35 instead. You don't even need a competition. On paper alone, the Lightning-II is eons ahead that Saab can even conceive of. In the words of the 2005 Hollywood movie, Syriana - Corruption is Why we Win!. I love that movie!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwRgIX3D8eQ

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6860
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby habal » 19 Feb 2017 08:23

Whatever is written out casually in forums such as these are also read by foreign defence contractors & middlemen. Let us not give them any ideas.

'Single engine' make in India or made outside India is a direct threat to LCA, no doubt about it. Either Modi is playing us or Parikkar and defence babus are playing Modi. Who is the commission khor ??

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6860
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby habal » 19 Feb 2017 08:32

A country that couldn't get a MiG-29 to bootstrap a kaveri for high altitude tests is talking of ignoring major engineering glass ceilings and circumventing it by talking of 'make in India'. It will be made in same way as we make the Jaguar in India. Has assembling Jaguar made us any wiser on how to build the adour or kaveri engine.

Anyways if both Rafale and 'make in India' single engine program are tied to receiving engine expertise, then it makes some sense but what if they don't deliver as promised.

So all in all it makes more sense to fly the LCA with a kaveri that produces leaser thrust and then indulge in such negotiations.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2602
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 19 Feb 2017 08:35

Dunno what IAF likes or its all marketing spin, but the thing that stands in front of signing anything with gripen is it's inability to provide an article for testing till 2023 IOC (estimated), its estimated FOC date is 2026. Sorry I can't get over this and we discuss this in a circular manner all day long.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8568
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 19 Feb 2017 08:46

Viv S wrote:
negi wrote:Wait that F35 people seem to be drooling over is essentially a Yak-141 xerox copy turbojets have been replaced by a giant fan the rear swivelling nozzle design remains the same hell LM even bailed out Yakolev by paying them 400 million USD

That's actually a popular myth. The Yak-141, like the Yak-38, employed dedicated turbojets for forward vertical lift. There were similar projects in the west back in the 60s when lots of innovative designs including VSTOL/STOVL were being tested. This includes the Mirage III V, VAK 191, VJ-101 as well as a parallel project run by Hawker Siddeley that lost out to the Harrier.

The F-35B employs an entirely different concept - a 'cold' lift fan driven by the main engine through a complex driveshaft-clutch system; a design that won the 2001 Collier Trophy. The three bearing swivel nozzle was developed by Pratt & Whitney for the Convair Model 200, two decades before the Yak-141 entered the picture. If anything, the P&W design 'inspired' the Yak design.

You can read about the history of the 3BSD nozzle here (by a Skunkworks engineer): http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137

LM's interest in Yak meanwhile was primarily wrt risk reduction studies for the JAST/CALF projects. And its unlikely they paid anywhere near $400 mil for the collaboration (no further Yak-141 prototypes were constructed). Especially considering that the lift-system was a P&W-Rolls Royce collaboration (not an LM product).


Correct. This myth fails to go away. If one looks at the YAK it resembles most the Convair 200. Identical 90 deg. swivel engine, and two lift engines up front. Same concept. The Convair 200 was never built but P&W patented the nozzle back then and also bench tested the propulsion concept. Had Lockheed offered a lift engine they would have lost since the Marines right from the ASTOVL times were clear on the "No Lift Engine approach" because they did not want to run into hot air ingestion issues. The Lift Fan approach totally avoids that and is unique compared to the C200.

MDC offered a lift-engine approach and failed to even make the cut. In fact despite them being an original JAST awardee Boeing came from the outside and beat them to the down select primarily because they thought they would ignore what the USMC and the STOVL requirement demanded and cater more to the other design parameters. The lift engine approach (similar to YAK) cost them the competition and arguably with that the company as well.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... est-10148/
Last edited by brar_w on 19 Feb 2017 08:53, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2602
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 19 Feb 2017 08:50

habal wrote:A country that couldn't get a MiG-29 to bootstrap a kaveri for high altitude tests is talking of ignoring major engineering glass ceilings and circumventing it by talking of 'make in India'. It will be made in same way as we make the Jaguar in India. Has assembling Jaguar made us any wiser on how to build the adour or kaveri engine.

Anyways if both Rafale and 'make in India' single engine program are tied to receiving engine expertise, then it makes some sense but what if they don't deliver as promised.

So all in all it makes more sense to fly the LCA with a kaveri that produces leaser thrust and then indulge in such negotiations.


Agree with your post completely. But the whole idea of Mig-29 for engine testing was floated long long ago (couple of years ago) by me and I got the usual bamboo and was told that you can't just slap in a new engine willy nilly into a platform and it will take serious amount of work. Anyways its what we want on the forum. It may or may not be possible in real life.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Katare » 19 Feb 2017 09:00

Why not F-35? It's a single engine craft too :mrgreen:

Well IAF and govt would eventually decide based on real facts and fancies but my brain says we should go for 5th gen F35 which would be worlds foremost and most numerous aircraft for next 3 decades. It'll have best after sale support of any aircrafts, best upgrade path, most extensive weapons choices and an unmatched economy of scale. The deterrence value that it will bring against pukes and cheen itself is worth it to me.

It would take longer to get it in numbers so we could probably buy two additional squadrons of Rafael and speed up mki upgrades to cover the gap till F35 start coming.

If IAF is receiving F 35s it might be more willing to induct a lot more LCAs a lot faster. To fill immediate need, are we screwing up our future deterrence?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8738
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2017 09:03

habal wrote:Whatever is written out casually in forums such as these are also read by foreign defence contractors & middlemen. Let us not give them any ideas.

'Single engine' make in India or made outside India is a direct threat to LCA, no doubt about it. Either Modi is playing us or Parikkar and defence babus are playing Modi. Who is the commission khor ??

Saar whatever we discuss here or wish here is not going to have any effect on any decision the GoI, the US Govt or anyone makes. With regards to ideas, they are the master of it. They definately do not need to read up on ideas they have discussed to kingdom come already.

With that having being said, I direct this again to Cosmo_R and everyone else. There is a dark horse in this entire scenario. And that dark horse is none other than Dassault itself. She already has done the impossible - got the GoI to purchase 36 Rafales for an $8+ billion. Secondly, Snecma-Safran has already begun work on getting the Kaveri up & running. They are so confident that GTRE has promised that a Tejas with a Kaveri engine will be flying at Aero India 2019. From a comatose, vegatitve state that the Kaveri program was in to this state is HUGE. Make no mistake about that.

If Dassault plays her cards right, she can get the IAF to do a repeat order of another 36 Rafales plus secure the order for the 57 naval Rafales as well. But in order for this work, Dassault will have to look BEYOND just Make in India which is a given. They will have to offer the moon to India and that too in a competitive price/package. Keep the price low now, but gouge later on upgrades and maintenance. Either way, India will have to pay.

- Rope India in on nEUROn, as India is working on her own program --> Aura.
- Find commanalities of components, systems between the Tejas and the Rafale. Economies of Scale. Parts, Parts, Parts!
- Get Dassault in as a consultant for AMCA development, just as they did for the LCA, but with more - I don't how to state it - xxx

Any of them (or combination thereof) or other items can be offered in exchange for bagging the deal. Anything to win Baby! :)

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3276
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kakkaji » 19 Feb 2017 09:18

Katare wrote:Why not F-35? It's a single engine craft too :mrgreen:

Well IAF and govt would eventually decide based on real facts and fancies but my brain says we should go for 5th gen F35 which would be worlds foremost and most numerous aircraft for next 3 decades. It'll have best after sale support of any aircrafts, best upgrade path, most extensive weapons choices and an unmatched economy of scale. The deterrence value that it will bring against pukes and cheen itself is worth it to me.

It would take longer to get it in numbers so we could probably buy two additional squadrons of Rafael and speed up mki upgrades to cover the gap till F35 start coming.

If IAF is receiving F 35s it might be more willing to induct a lot more LCAs a lot faster. To fill immediate need, are we screwing up our future deterrence?


I agree that the F-35 will be a good buy, but it will have to be bought off the shelf because I don't think the US will allow its final assembly and integration anywhere outside the US, including its closest allies like the UK, for at least the next 10 years. What India can get it some workshare/ offsets that can help build local capabilities.

Even off the shelf, I don't think India can get the F-35 before 2025, unless one of the other purchasers release some out of their quota.

Maybe the LM idea of getting the F-16 to fill the numbers now, to be replaced by F-35 later, is worth looking into.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2602
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 19 Feb 2017 09:22

F-16s have been leased before to Italy. 4.5 million for 5 year term renewable by another 5 years.

https://theaviationist.com/special-repo ... n-details/

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 19 Feb 2017 09:57

Kakkaji wrote:I agree that the F-35 will be a good buy, but it will have to be bought off the shelf because I don't think the US will allow its final assembly and integration anywhere outside the US, including its closest allies like the UK, for at least the next 10 years. What India can get it some workshare/ offsets that can help build local capabilities.

Actually, in addition to the LM operated one in Texas, the F-35 has other two assembly lines - Italy (Leonardo) & Japan (Mitsubishi).

The First Italian Built F-35 Rolls Out Of The Hangar
The first F-35 Lightning II for the Italian Air Force has left the Cameri Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility. The "Roll-Out" took place recently at the Italian Ministry of Defence plant where Alenia Aermacchi, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, employs a highly skilled workforce of more than 750 people dedicated to the F-35 aircraft and wing production.

The AL-1, as the aircraft has been designated for Italian Air Force, is the first of eight currently being assembled in Cameri. The aircraft in CTOL (Conventional Take-Off and Landing) version ("A" meaning the version), equipped with avionics and engine, will now be subject to additional check-out activities before making its first flight later this year.

Within 2015, the aircraft will be delivered to the Italian Air Force and in 2016, along with three other fighters, will leave for the United States where it will be used for training the first Italian pilots and instructors at the USAF base in Luke, Arizona.

The FACO of Cameri, to date the only facility for the production of the fifth generation fighter outside the US, will produce all F-35A (CTOL) and F-35 (STOVL-Short Take Off and Vertical Landing) aircraft for the Italian Air Force and Navy and all the units ordered by the Netherlands. Moreover, at the end of 2014, the Italian plant was selected by the US Department of Defense as the F-35 Lightning II Heavy Airframe Maintenance Repair, Overhaul and Upgrade facility for the European region.

Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi, in addition to the responsibility for assembling all aircraft for the Italian and Dutch armed forces, is second source supplier for the whole wing sections (the central part of the fuselage with the wings) for all F-35 in production. Alenia Aermacchi has participated in the design of the wing which represents about 38% of all aircraft and whose parts of components are manufactured at the Foggia and Nola (Naples) plants, respectively for the composite and metal structures. The first full F-35A wing section for the USAF was recently completed and will be soon shipped to Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas, F-35 production line for final assembly.


Italian Assembly & MRO facility -

Image

Even off the shelf, I don't think India can get the F-35 before 2025, unless one of the other purchasers release some out of their quota.

The F-35 production line is geared for a max production rate of 200 aircraft/yr. So far they've only spooled upto ~100/yr. There's plenty of surplus capacity, and even it didn't none of its customers (aside from the USMC) require urgent deliveries.

Maybe the LM idea of getting the F-16 to fill the numbers now, to be replaced by F-35 later, is worth looking into.

I don't believe LM actually made that offer. There offer was more on the lines of buy F-16 today and it'll provide a easy transition to the F-35 tomorrow. Buying back/replacing the F-16 isn't feasible - its got a 8,000 hr air frame and there won't be a huge market for used F-16s in the 2030s. Plus we'll already have the FGFA in production by then.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8738
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2017 10:02

Thank you Viv_S for clarifying that point for kakkaji. You explained it in far greater detail than I was planning to :)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4536
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 19 Feb 2017 10:13

Neshant wrote:A great article by Bharat Karnad about how vested interests go about destroying projects.

Hardly a fraction of the shitload of money spent on foreign plane purchases is used to promote domestic aerospace R&D initiatives.

The objective of hurriedly importing hundreds of foreign single engined planes is largely meant to side line the LCA and with it the rise of any domestic aerospace R&D base.

Read it all.

--------------------------------

The Tragedy of Tejas
by Bharat Karnad

The Government doesn’t see that the commercial bonanza for foreign countries is choking off funds for home-grown aircraft


http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... y-of-tejas


+1

A good summary of all the things members of this forum have been saying about imports.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16526
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 19 Feb 2017 10:24

Deals with:

1) Strategic Partner roll out "soon" (2:00?)
2) Both, single and two engine requirements exist. The issue is quantity, under discussion (2:15)
3) Revisits SP (2:45)
4) Export LCA (3:45)
5) 2/3 years 16 LCAs per year (3:58)
6) PVT sector (4:50)


7) Arjun wt reduction (6:28)



Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Katare » 19 Feb 2017 10:26

Kakkaji wrote:
Katare wrote:Why not F-35? It's a single engine craft too :mrgreen:

Well IAF and govt would eventually decide based on real facts and fancies but my brain says we should go for 5th gen F35 which would be worlds foremost and most numerous aircraft for next 3 decades. It'll have best after sale support of any aircrafts, best upgrade path, most extensive weapons choices and an unmatched economy of scale. The deterrence value that it will bring against pukes and cheen itself is worth it to me.

It would take longer to get it in numbers so we could probably buy two additional squadrons of Rafael and speed up mki upgrades to cover the gap till F35 start coming.

If IAF is receiving F 35s it might be more willing to induct a lot more LCAs a lot faster. To fill immediate need, are we screwing up our future deterrence?


I agree that the F-35 will be a good buy, but it will have to be bought off the shelf because I don't think the US will allow its final assembly and integration anywhere outside the US, including its closest allies like the UK, for at least the next 10 years. What India can get it some workshare/ offsets that can help build local capabilities.

Even off the shelf, I don't think India can get the F-35 before 2025, unless one of the other purchasers release some out of their quota.

Maybe the LM idea of getting the F-16 to fill the numbers now, to be replaced by F-35 later, is worth looking into.


I see your point about the current operational gap but Adding another type of aircraft to IAF inventory is one big drawback i see in this whole single engine made in india tamasha. Add another squadron or two of Rafeal/MKI and go for the future and join the league our situation is going to get really tough as Chinese economy slows and their leadership looks at alternate issues to keep the masses united behind the party. Pukes are bending over backward to be used against india by their new sugar daddy. We need solid detterence and strong allies to ensure we have next 2 decade of peace to complete our economic development.

Joining F35 league would be a small but significant step towards that goal.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13108
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby negi » 19 Feb 2017 11:37

Viv , Brar on whether F-35 copied the Yak141 or not is a matter of narrative ; you see when Ola and Flipkart came up in India they are dubbed as Uber and Amazon clones. Obviously Americans wish to have their narrative however the 'FACT' is YAK-141 was exactly similar to F-35 in terms of layout it had 2 turbojets that just worked for takeoffs and landings behind the cockpit where F-35 B's fan sits and the main engine nozzle swiveled 90 degrees I mean if you guys wish to go into hair splitting semantics and claim how things are different obviously no one is going to deny that but that is not the point . The point here is CONCEPT was exactly the same the implementation was limited by technology of that time.

It is not based on some cursory glance that one says F-35 is a copy of Yak I mean otherwise even Harrier could qualify ; Harrier had a single engine with 4 vectored nozzles that was a different layout . If semantics is what wants to play with then even J-20 is not a copy of any of the American stealth AC.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 19 Feb 2017 12:12

negi wrote:Viv , Brar on whether F-35 copied the Yak141 or not is a matter of narrative ; you see when Ola and Flipkart came up in India they are dubbed as Uber and Amazon clones. Obviously Americans wish to have their narrative however the 'FACT' is YAK-141 was exactly similar to F-35 in terms of layout it had 2 turbojets that just worked for takeoffs and landings behind the cockpit where F-35 B's fan sits and the main engine nozzle swiveled 90 degrees I mean if you guys wish to go into hair splitting semantics and claim how things are different obviously no one is going to deny that but that is not the point . The point here is CONCEPT was exactly the same the implementation was limited by technology of that time.

Given that the Yak-141 didn't exactly pioneer the layout (forgetting the turboject vs lift fan issue for the moment), I don't see what makes the F-35 a copy.

Convair 200 (General Dynamics)

Three Bearing Swivel Duct Nozzle (Pratt & Whitney)

Both designs from the late 60s/early 70s. Convair was a subsidiary of General Dynamics, who's IP & products were bought out by Lockheed Corp. which later merged with Martin Marietta to become.. Lockheed Martin.

It is not based on some cursory glance that one says F-35 is a copy of Yak I mean otherwise even Harrier could qualify ; Harrier had a single engine with 4 vectored nozzles that was a different layout . If semantics is what wants to play with then even J-20 is not a copy of any of the American stealth AC.

The J-20 to the best of my knowledge has never been called a copy of any US aircraft.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 19 Feb 2017 12:22

Rakesh wrote:Thank you Viv_S for clarifying that point for kakkaji. You explained it in far greater detail than I was planning to

Sure thing. Image

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13108
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby negi » 19 Feb 2017 12:41

Viv as I said these are semantics fact is Yak had VTOL aircraft in active service operating from carriers ; US did not; only Harrier was the other active aircraft everyone else failed operationalising such concepts. As for LM consulting Yak for risk mitigation I am sure it was not about business risk and matters were technical in nature ; as I said it is matter of who runs the narrative .

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4430
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 19 Feb 2017 12:46

negi wrote:Viv as I said these are semantics fact is Yak had VTOL aircraft in active service operating from carriers ; US did not; only Harrier was the other active aircraft everyone else failed operationalising such concepts. As for LM consulting Yak for risk mitigation I am sure it was not about business risk and matters were technical in nature ; as I said it is matter of who runs the narrative .


Negi jee,

many posters post under garb of being weĺl wishers of Bharat.

They stood utterly exposed when IAF announced 12 - 0 defeat of british e2fk at hands of su 30 mki fighters.

These people are now known completely as to what they are. Amrika devotees.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16526
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 19 Feb 2017 13:34

from viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7263&start=2000#p2117844



Suverna Raju , at 5:22 talks of LCA production rate. At 5:50 states they will reach "16+".

It would be great if they can reach at least 24 per year. Starting 2019-20.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 19 Feb 2017 13:38

negi wrote:Viv as I said these are semantics fact is Yak had VTOL aircraft in active service operating from carriers ; US did not; only Harrier was the other active aircraft everyone else failed operationalising such concepts. As for LM consulting Yak for risk mitigation I am sure it was not about business risk and matters were technical in nature ; as I said it is matter of who runs the narrative .

The US did (and does have) VSTOL aircraft operational; the USMC operated both generations of Harriers (the Harrier II being a McDonnell Douglas-led project). And by most accounts it was a considerably more capable aircraft than its Russian contemporary i.e. Yak-38 (most of which were retired after serving less than a decade).

How successful the Yak-41 would have been is open to debate, since (unlike the Su-33 & MiG-29K) it was never operationalized. LM may have learned something substantial from Yak projects or may not have, point is, the concept of VTOL long predates the Yak designs (BAE had some significant . The F-35B in particular employs a different mechanism for carrying it out. In fact, the decision to have a shaft-driven lift fan was one of the riskiest aspects of the X-35 proposal. There was some scepticism about it being able to transfer enough power through the clutch assembly (esp. since conventional designs in the past all used a jet engine).

Anyway we're off-topic, so that's the last from me. :)

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 19 Feb 2017 15:03

^ I may be totally wrong but, My understanding is LM bought data from Yak such as expt, real life performance data etc. Thats definitely worth hundreds of millions if the quality of data was good, we will never know. That must have reduced a lot of work for LM, if so. Having an idea, a concept or a patent of something mean zilch, what matters is actually designing it, making it and deploying it in real life successfully.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rishi Verma » 19 Feb 2017 15:16

JayS wrote:^ I may be totally wrong but, My understanding is LM bought data from Yak such as expt, real life performance data etc. ......SNIP concept or a patent of something mean zilch, what matters is actually designing it, making it and deploying it in real life successfully.


Saar with due respect...
Above statement is true but carries weight only if if the person making the statement has actually done it by leading the effort (design, develop, deploy).

We all know the state of affairs in military hardware (design develop deploy) in India and the absence of MIC here, so just making a philosophy statement is akeen to a blind telling another blind the best time and location to view the sunset.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 19 Feb 2017 15:53

Rishi Verma wrote:
JayS wrote:^ I may be totally wrong but, My understanding is LM bought data from Yak such as expt, real life performance data etc. ......SNIP concept or a patent of something mean zilch, what matters is actually designing it, making it and deploying it in real life successfully.


Saar with due respect...
Above statement is true but carries weight only if if the person making the statement has actually done it by leading the effort (design, develop, deploy).

We all know the state of affairs in military hardware (design develop deploy) in India and the absence of MIC here, so just making a philosophy statement is akeen to a blind telling another blind the best time and location to view the sunset.


Dude, I totally didn't get your point. What above statement has anything whatsoever to do with state of anything in any damn country, let alone MIC in India..??

Folks have had ideas or patents in 1940s which are impractical even by today's technology standards. For example - contra-rotating jet engine with no stator stages. Can anyone make it today..?? NO. Who will you call the real inventor, the person who first had the idea in 1940 (and perhaps 10000 others who arrived at the same idea independently in last 80odd years) or the one who actually will build it in say 2040..? Such ideas are dime a dozen, everyone have them. But an idea or concept in itself carries no value unless it is realised. We are talking of engineering here, not mathematics or theoretical physics or Arts or Philosophy.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 19 Feb 2017 15:55

Congressional briefing. Final result for the F-35 from Red Flag 17-1



145 kills. 7 losses (all WVR). (>20:1)

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 19 Feb 2017 16:04

JayS wrote:^ I may be totally wrong but, My understanding is LM bought data from Yak such as expt, real life performance data etc. Thats definitely worth hundreds of millions if the quality of data was good, we will never know. That must have reduced a lot of work for LM, if so. Having an idea, a concept or a patent of something mean zilch, what matters is actually designing it, making it and deploying it in real life successfully.

Replied here -

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2117889#p2117889

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16526
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 19 Feb 2017 16:17

Viv S wrote:Congressional briefing. Final result for the F-35 from Red Flag 17-1

145 kills. 7 losses (all WVR). (>20:1)


Check out the "threats". 48/50 SAMs.

Very high density too.

I wonder why they need a 6th gen now. : )

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Nick_S » 19 Feb 2017 17:19

Vishnu Som commented on Keypub -

In having followed the now scrapped MRCA and MMRCA programmes for more than a decade, I do believe the Gripen E/F has a fighting chance at winning an order now for 200 jets. This will depend, almost entirely, on the industrial partnership being offered by SAAB which, by all accounts, is fairly impressive.

That said, I do not see a Sea Gripen variant being inducted into the Indian Navy - they have a stated requirement for a twin engine fighter ... they are seeking 57 of them. Whats more, the government remains committed to an LCA Navy Mk-2 aircraft, a sanctioned project that continues to be developed - this was clarified to me by Commodore Balaji (retd), the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) Chief a few days back. Thanks


A quick observation ... I was lucky to be flown onboard the LCA Tejas and the Gripen D on consecutive days last week and have a small observation to make. The Synthetic Aperture mode of the PS-05 V3 (possibly V4) on the Gripen was markedly inferior to the resolution provided by the Elta EL/M 2032 set onboard the Tejas while looking down and ground `targets. However, the air to air range on the Gripen's radar (not disclosing numbers here) was singularly impressive - meant to take advantage of the phenomenal range of the Meteor missile. Cheers.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13108
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby negi » 19 Feb 2017 17:39

^ Abe kitna fenkta hai ye ; who shows a Radar in active A2A mode publicly like that ? What did they even use for ranging ? Crows flying over the dump-yard in outskirts of Bengaluru ?

There are too many details involved when one talks about Radar ranging, detection and tracking ; this cricket commentary that XYZ has better 'range' than LMN is a joke ; what does one mean by range ? Range at which target is detected or tracked what sub modes were employed i.e. was it in RWS, TWS, LRS , MTT or some other mode (usually there are 5) they all will plot a different image on HUB as distance at which you detect/search/track varies .

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Marten » 19 Feb 2017 19:19

They are welcome to submit the PS-05 for the radar tender. I know it is happening, but we are being shown as rank idiots for accepting an aircraft that is basically the equivalent of an existing item, and which could potentially have reached the same status with enough participation by the IAF, enough ownership by HAL, and more transparency from ADA.
PS: I will probably join my insane relatives who are still grumbling about/protesting OROP implementation for some insane reason, except it will be for hobbling our own interests, by a govt. that we openly canvassed for. At the end, this will count for nothing, of course.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8738
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2017 19:35

negi: If LM got VSTOL/STOVL tech from Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs, it matters little. Do they have a working aircraft? Yes? Is that aircraft in active service with the US Marine Corps? Again yes. That's it. Whether that tech came from the Elves & The Shoemaker matters little. You know Dr Kalam went to NASA in his younger days and leart about rocket tech there.

NASA in turn learnt about rocket tech from the V2 Nazi rocket scientists - who they flew in droves to the US. Wernher von Braun - who became one of NASA's most famous rocket scientists - was a member of the Nazi Party and the infamous Schutzstaffel (SS)! Everybody learns from somebody who did it before them. The only exception are the Chinese - who instead of learning just shamelessly xerox everything.

Marten: well said. +100 to you! And I echo - A VERY IMPORTANT POINT - what cybaru said. Actually I am just going to quote what he said.

Cybaru wrote:Dunno what IAF likes or its all marketing spin, but the thing that stands in front of signing anything with gripen is it's inability to provide an article for testing till 2023 IOC (estimated), its estimated FOC date is 2026. Sorry I can't get over this and we discuss this in a circular manner all day long.

If the IAF goes in for this aircraft, then how urgent is this squadron shortage? I am not trying to be conspiratorial here, but why is the GoI even considering a plane that has not even had her first flight yet? This plane is not even in active service yet in ANY air force. What a farce of a plane.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3844
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby kit » 19 Feb 2017 19:42

NRao wrote:
Viv S wrote:Congressional briefing. Final result for the F-35 from Red Flag 17-1

145 kills. 7 losses (all WVR). (>20:1)


Check out the "threats". 48/50 SAMs.

Very high density too.

I wonder why they need a 6th gen now. : )


They got there by planning the F35 nearly 2 decades back .. 6th gen is for tomorrow when every tom and dick will have F 35 ski s :mrgreen:

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13108
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby negi » 19 Feb 2017 19:44

Rakesh I was merely pointing at the fact that we need force our own narrative and at times it is the right thing to resort to "ashwathama hatha iti narova kunjara" (Yes Aswathhama is dead ;I don’t know if its a man or an Elephant.) i.e. to turn the other way when facts come in the way of forming a narrative which suits our interests . A lot what India does or will do will be dubbed as 'xyz' copy or derivative facts be damned and hence my first post nothing more nothing less.

I am not much concerned about Gripen they won't win they neither have the platform nor the financial muscle power to bribe their way through the others are much powerful in both departments.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8568
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 19 Feb 2017 20:22

negi wrote:Rakesh I was merely pointing at the fact that we need force our own narrative and at times it is the right thing to resort to "ashwathama hatha iti narova kunjara" (Yes Aswathhama is dead ;I don’t know if its a man or an Elephant.) i.e. to turn the other way when facts come in the way of forming a narrative which suits our interests . A lot what India does or will do will be dubbed as 'xyz' copy or derivative facts be damned and hence my first post nothing more nothing less.

I am not much concerned about Gripen they won't win they neither have the platform nor the financial muscle power to bribe their way through the others are much powerful in both departments.


This isn't about any "Narrative" but about technical design configurations arrived to and solidied into formal funding proposals years before any interaction with YAK ever took place (in fact during the Cold War).

This claim (earlier one regarding the two) does not hold up to the accuracy test. There is only one thing that the two aircraft mentioned by you share in common and that is the Nozzle, a Nozzle that on the JSF is designed by P&W (For both its engine and the now cancelled GE F-136) based on it's own 3BSN designs that it tested in the 1960s including demonstrating to their airframe contractor, and the US-Navy vectored thrust for the purpose supplying vertical lift. As I have shown in the US thread, this propulsion design element was selected by Lockheed to be included in its propulsion system, and was pitched to DARPA based on which money was allotted to them to begin hardware demonstrations even prior to them reaching out to YAK design team.

So again, what exactly was copied? There is actually a better case to claim that YAK-141 was based on a lot of concepts proposed for the Convair Model 200 that also use a similar 3 engine set up (two in the front, one in the rear) and vectored the thrust by 90 degrees in the rear. In fact the similarly is even more striking and we know that on the Convair, both the front lift engine and the nozzle were tested more than a decade before YAK built their system. But that is besides the point..The Convair 200 only designed and tested some key propulsion components using this design...whereas YAK built it and flew it.

Similarly, one can claim that the MCD approach was based in principle to what the YAK team and Convair's team proposed in the 1960/70s and 1980s with some modification (one big lift engine in the front as opposed to two smaller ones). But the Lockheed approach is fundamentally different. So the claim that YAK-141 and F-35B offer similar propulsion concepts is ok if all one does is look at two photos and take an eyeball approach but it really does not pass the accuracy test at a technical level..

In Summary -

1. Convair's Approach on the Model-200 - 2 x Lift Engines in the front and a 3BSN equipped main engine in the rear that swiveled 90 degrees to provide additional lift. <---- This was designed (But full up vehicle never built) in the late 1960's based on components (Front engines and Nozzle for the rear) designed and tested in the mid to late 1960's and early 1970s.

2. YAK's Approach 2 x Lift Engines in the front and a 3BSN equipped main engine in the rear that swiveled 90 degrees to provide additional lift. < ---- This in the late 70's to 1980s.

3. Lockheed's Approach 1 High thrust engine in the rear equipped with a 3BSN that swivels 90 degrees to provide additional lift + A clutch mechanism that engages a lift fan up front (lift fan does not equal to an engine for obvious reasons) and provided power to it from the main engine in the rear.

I can understand if someone claims 1 and 2 are similar (or damn near identical design decisions) and if one was based on their review or both design teams arrived to a similar configuration through an independent trade analysis. What I do not understand is how 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 can be called copies of each other. They are fundamentally different. One would have understood the "influence" bit if Lockheed went to YAK and said, "we really like what you did with the Nozzle, could you please give us rights to use it". But they did not do this. They partnered with P&W and asked it to use the design (modified) that it had patented for Convair and the Model 200. So much was their risk aversion that they did not want GE to design, develop and bench test a competitive nozzle design for the F-136. They wanted no additional risk when it came to demonstrating the STOVL capability with both the GE F136 and PW F135 design proposals. They wanted one unified, de-risked 3BSN configuration that was based largely on the design PW physically tested in the 1960s.

They went to YAK for one thing - Getting them to test, repeat, test, repeat and provide results to submit along with their submission that showed reliability and the fact that the concept would be able to compete on these metrics when pitted against much less riskier nozzles proposed by their competitor. I attended Dr. Bevilaqua's lecture when he gave a similar one (to the one in the video on the US thread) at Johns Hopkins APL and someone asked him later during the meet and greet whether they had access to all of Convair's testing and analysis. His answers NO. They only had limited data that Pratt held rights to. The other data was actually controlled by their main competitor - Boeing.
Last edited by brar_w on 19 Feb 2017 22:02, edited 5 times in total.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest