MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5367
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 29 Mar 2010 00:29

sunilpatel wrote:Hi...Have a Nice Day Everybody...
i am regularly visiting BR forum from almost 2 years and now got registered...
This is my first Post...

Anyway... i dont think Swiss Airforce is using F-18.....
its used only by USN and ordered by Aussies....isn't it???


Sunil, it would take a minute to check on Google as to whether or not the Swiss operate the F/A-18s. They do operate F/A-18 C/Ds but the first aircraft that they're looking to replace are their older F-5s.

Other F/A-18 national operators are Spain (F/A-18 A/Bs), Canada (CF-18), Finland (F/A-18 C/Ds), Australia (F/A-18 A/Bs and now 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets) , Kuwait (KF-18 C/D) and Malaysia (F-18D).

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 29 Mar 2010 01:31

nukavarapu wrote:You missed the point what Brahamananda has to say. I am not sure whether american's would allow that, but yes, if any 3rd party funds the research funding of any technology, owns the IPR.


Yes I read somewhere that UAE funded RDY-2 radar for M2K and now whoever will upgrade their Mirages with RDY-2 will have to pay royality to UAE.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5367
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 29 Mar 2010 01:58

Manish_Sharma wrote:Yes I read somewhere that UAE funded RDY-2 radar for M2K and now whoever will upgrade their Mirages with RDY-2 will have to pay royality to UAE.


same with the F-16 Block 60, some of whose components were developed with UAE money. Block 60 sales incur a royalty for UAE.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2420
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 29 Mar 2010 03:29

Gates: May do multiyear F-18 purchase

This means F18 will be used by USAF for few years to come and the production lines are not being closed.

According to Gates, the Pentagon does plan to buy more F-18s in 2011, and may even go for a multiyear buy.

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 29 Mar 2010 03:38

I think because of the delays in this contest we may get several things clear and positive.

1. F 18 E/F for me remains the strongest of the lot, the argument that it will be phased out by 2030 looks no longer valid with the USN preparing to order more. There is even the chance of the F 35C getting cancelled and the future USN fleet comprising of F 18 E?Fs and UCAVs.

2. The Economic issues with Greece and others in the Euro zone has weakened the Euro against the dollar, this means in renewed commercial bids to be submitted the European jets will become more competitive to the American and Russian ones.

3. In the above context I would think the Rafale will still remain too expensive, the Eurofighter a bit more competitive with the Super Hornet but the Gripen will become an even more attractive offer from the price:capability equation.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4673
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Mar 2010 04:25

Rahul M wrote:CM, TWR wasn't the only factor mentioned.


Rahul, what other factors would be so critical if the issue was take off with meaningful loads? wingloading, lift/drag ratio? Perhaps Kartik/Shiv/Vina can shed some light here. Even so, the fulcrum is known to generate as much as 40% of lift via the body thanks to the LERX so wingloading is not as much an issue with this design. For that matter the teens and the Rafale too utilize a lifting body design although I doubt the teens would make it thanks to relatively poor TWR.

As an aside, let us not prematurely rejoice about the LCA making it in light of this MRCA failure. We simply don't have enough info IIRC re. what config the LCA flew with from Leh and at what configuration the MRCAs failed to do so. IOWs, what was the LCA/MRCA weight at take off? 50% of MTOW? MTOW?

CM

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 29 Mar 2010 04:44

Rahul, what other factors would be so critical if the issue was take off with meaningful loads?
CM, no one said that was the issue. :wink:

let me quote it for you :
Four of the contenders that underwent cold-weather evaluation trials at Leh didn't meet performance requirements. OK, major understatement. Four of the contenders bit dust in Leh. Read that again: four aircraft. That's huge. It's still unclear which part of the Leh test the four aircraft types failed at, though it is quite clear that it was either the switch off/on after landing, or the take-off with meaningful combat load at that altitude.


As an aside, let us not prematurely rejoice about the LCA making it in light of this MRCA failure. We simply don't have enough info IIRC re. what config the LCA flew with from Leh and at what configuration the MRCAs failed to do so. IOWs, what was the LCA/MRCA weight at take off? 50% of MTOW? MTOW?
why not ? we have the vids showing it flew with two of those large 800 litre EFT + 2 R-73, that's easily more than a typical A2A combat load.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4673
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Mar 2010 04:59

Rahul M wrote:
Rahul, what other factors would be so critical if the issue was take off with meaningful loads?
CM, no one said that was the issue. :wink:

let me quote it for you :
Four of the contenders that underwent cold-weather evaluation trials at Leh didn't meet performance requirements. OK, major understatement. Four of the contenders bit dust in Leh. Read that again: four aircraft. That's huge. It's still unclear which part of the Leh test the four aircraft types failed at, though it is quite clear that it was either the switch off/on after landing, or the take-off with meaningful combat load at that altitude.



Are you saying that the factor you referred to was not about meaningful take off loads? That'd make sense. I was mainly refering to the latter in my post of course.

why not ? we have the vids showing it flew with two of those large 800 litre EFT + 2 R-73, that's easily more than a typical A2A combat load.

It might be more than a typical A2A load, but we aren't sure that the MRCAs failed @ anything less than what was carried by the LCA. For all you know, they might have failed at MTOW! Btw, any idea how much internal fuel the LCA carried during that flight ( I presume it was full int. fuel?).

CM.
Last edited by Rahul M on 29 Mar 2010 05:05, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edited quote tags.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 29 Mar 2010 05:09

Are you saying that the factor you referred to was not about meaningful take off loads?
I would say we don't know yet. :wink:

It might be more than a typical A2A load, but we aren't sure that the MRCAs failed @ anything less than what was carried by the LCA. For all you know, they might have failed at MTOW!
didn't quite get that one. LCA's combat load and MRCA's combat load would be different. :-?

Btw, any idea how much internal fuel the LCA carried during that flight ( I presume it was full int. fuel?).
I would expect so but can't be sure. given how long it took to take off (the take off run went on and on) and the 2 EFTs I would guess it was full internal fuel.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5367
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 29 Mar 2010 05:32

Cain Marko wrote:Rahul, what other factors would be so critical if the issue was take off with meaningful loads? wingloading, lift/drag ratio? Perhaps Kartik/Shiv/Vina can shed some light here. Even so, the fulcrum is known to generate as much as 40% of lift via the body thanks to the LERX so wingloading is not as much an issue with this design. For that matter the teens and the Rafale too utilize a lifting body design although I doubt the teens would make it thanks to relatively poor TWR.

As an aside, let us not prematurely rejoice about the LCA making it in light of this MRCA failure. We simply don't have enough info IIRC re. what config the LCA flew with from Leh and at what configuration the MRCAs failed to do so. IOWs, what was the LCA/MRCA weight at take off? 50% of MTOW? MTOW?

CM


well lift is the critical issue here since the Leh airfield is situated 10,600 ft ASL.

Aircraft with lifting body fuselages (like the MiG-29) where the fuselage also generates quite a bit of lift along with the wings, are at an obvious advantage here. With the density of air being so much lesser than at sea level, any aircraft struggles to take off at what would be its regular take-off speed simply because they're not generating enough lift to be able to get them off the ground (since lift is directly proportional to the density of air).

So since you're not generating lift easily you need to have higher speed, which makes it quite difficult to descend into this airbase as well..first of all mountains surround it, which means that its quite a steep approach and high landing speeds, all of which test a pilot's skill. generally only delta wing aircraft were supposed to have higher landing speeds which meant higher brake wear but at Leh I'm pretty sure that if a flight is permanently based there they'll wear out their brakes fast as well.

The LCA video at Leh is really illuminating. The LCA was carrying 2x 1200 ltr drop tanks and 2 R-73 dummies so its a standard air-defence configuration. It has taken off in the same config in around 400-500 meters at Bangalore and yet at Leh it just kept going on and on and must have taken easily 1200 meters or more to rotate (not a scientific guess ok so don't jump on me) and even after that its labouring to really attain altitude. That is what happens when you have low density air.

see this video at the 7:52 mark and compare it with the earlier take-offs shown from Bangalore airport.

Then again, the LCA is an aircraft that has a very large wing surface area compared to its size, so it generates quite a bit of lift (again lift is also directly proportional to surface area of lifting body) so it still did well at Leh and met the parameters set for it.

But, here are the details of the LCA's Leh test- and we could guess that similar tests were conducted on the MRCA candidates.
- 4 take-offs and landings (Tejas performed energetically it seems)
- These included early morning start ups after overnight cold soaks. The LCAs were parked overnight in open blast pens with temperatures going down to -20 deg C.
- All systems performed flawlessly the next morning, although the startup as expected, was a bit laboured, but all other systems were unaffected by the extreme conditions and cold soak
- This despite the fact that the LCA had issues with its fuel system at the time of the Leh trials.

So we cannot really comment on who failed and how they failed since we don't really know what were the parameters set- for instance did the IAF want them to rotate at a particular distance (take off distance from stand still), while carrying drop tanks and some air-to-air missiles/bombs or all of the above ?

If they didn't meet that mark, it doesn't mean that they're useless at high altitude bases. I'm pretty sure that all of the MRCA candidates can be based at Leh with suitable modifications if any systems are having difficulties at that altitude. Of course some will be better than the others and its upto the IAF to judge how important it feels the Leh leg of the trials are and what weightage it gives to them in its report. Probably the easiest thing would be build climate controlled concrete blast pens for the aircraft. Its never good to expose them to the elements unless you want to face issues unexpectedly down the line.

My guess is that the MiG-35 wouldn't have had any issues with taking off with a meaningful load given that although its heavier than the IAF's MiG-29s, its still got a lifting body fuselage and its engines generate a bit more thrust as well and have FADEC too..it may be a different story regarding the cold soak and avionics and fuel systems having to work perfectly well when exposed to cold overnight, but I'm just guessing.

I don't think that the Rafale or the Typhoon would've had problems taking off with a meaningful load either since both have good T/W ratios and a low wing loading factor. However, the cold soak may have been a bug-bear.

OTOH, the F/A-18 is used by countries like Canada and Finland, which are extremely cold in winter..however they don't leave them out in the cold..this from something I read about Norwegian F-16s and how quickly they need to be brought into climate controlled hangars (they face even worse weather conditions than those at Leh with sudden snow, sleet and extremely poor visibility all being quite normal)

My guess is that the F-16 Block 60 might have had issues in both taking off with a meaningful fuel and weapons load and with its avionics and fuel systems starting up after a cold soak since this is definitely not standard practice for even Nordic operators of the F-16 based on their operational experience with the F-16s. I'm guessing about the load since its wing loading is worse than earlier blocks what with the added weight of new systems.

sawant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Sep 2009 23:04
Location: Sunshine state

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby sawant » 29 Mar 2010 09:35

if we are spending 10B$+ how much more costly is it to hav climate controlled hangers... or is it that in war scenario all planes wud be out in the open... :shock:

sunilpatel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 27 Mar 2010 17:11

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby sunilpatel » 29 Mar 2010 12:30

Kartik wrote:
sunilpatel wrote:Hi...Have a Nice Day Everybody...
i am regularly visiting BR forum from almost 2 years and now got registered...
This is my first Post...

Anyway... i dont think Swiss Airforce is using F-18.....
its used only by USN and ordered by Aussies....isn't it???


Sunil, it would take a minute to check on Google as to whether or not the Swiss operate the F/A-18s. They do operate F/A-18 C/Ds but the first aircraft that they're looking to replace are their older F-5s.

Other F/A-18 national operators are Spain (F/A-18 A/Bs), Canada (CF-18), Finland (F/A-18 C/Ds), Australia (F/A-18 A/Bs and now 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets) , Kuwait (KF-18 C/D) and Malaysia (F-18D).


Sirji, you are right, but We are discussing about MRCA , and f-18 ABCD is not part of it...
my reply was for SH...regret forgotten to Attach E :)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5367
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 29 Mar 2010 12:59

nukavarapu wrote:Do we have the supporting infrastructure to support Climate Controlled hangars like Power, humidity etc. where the climate control hangars are required??? We have airfields all the way from Rann of Kutch, close to Thar to Ladakh to North East. Do we have enough resources in place to have the luxury of climate control hangars? During war time, can we risk the operational readiness of fighters because some bomb hit the local transmission and electricity was cut off or the connecting highway was cut off due to carpet bombing or the best -- planes with fuel for generators cannot land because of bad weather?

The nordics need climate control hangars, because their weather is too harsh and they have not invested on technologies that can work in those climates without climate control hangars. Just my 2 cents onlee !!!


we don't need climate controlled hangars anywhere except where its too cold. Cold can have deleterious effects on systems, and I can only think of Leh that would require a few climate controlled blast pens. Everywhere else, simple concrete blast pens are more than adequate. Keeping them out in the sun, baking in the heat is not that great an idea and the hangars will be a fraction of the cost of a fighter..wasn't there talk of how the pilot that died in the first Sukhoi crash died because the ejection seat harnesses failed? and these were said to have failed due to exposure over long periods to the sun.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 29 Mar 2010 14:13

The Typhoon should not have "hot" weather problems as it is being bought by the Saudis in large numbers.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1301
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RKumar » 29 Mar 2010 15:10

Philip wrote:The Typhoon should not have "hot" weather problems as it is being bought by the Saudis in large numbers.


Yeah ...but you are fogetting that they have A/C sheds for cows... Might give you some idea ....how they will be protecting/park their Typhoons. So plz don't follow Mulla's funda :wink:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 29 Mar 2010 15:58

True,they might very well be treated as "sacred camels",but aren't they also serving in Afghanistan where dear old Hamid isn't exactly flush with cash?

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1301
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RKumar » 29 Mar 2010 16:44

Philip wrote:True,they might very well be treated as "sacred camels",but aren't they also serving in Afghanistan where dear old Hamid isn't exactly flush with cash?


How does we came to Afg from Saudis??

Anyways... they are deplyoed at Helmand Province and special changes were done to Typhoons before deployment.

Just another pointer these planes are not maintained by our dear old Hamid but RAF. And I have no idea how they are maintained/parked and if at all used extensively.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 29 Mar 2010 17:01

Lockheed Martin continues in 'damage control' mode...salvage everything they can for their birdie...

“I can assure you, the Super Viper is much more advanced in all aspects than the F-16s being given to Pakistan,” Lockheed Martin’s vice-president-Business Development (India) Orville Prins told a group of visiting Indian journalists here.

The assurance comes in the wake of reports that India was concerned over U.S. supplying a new set of F-16s to Pakistan, a decision which could be a crucial geopolitical factor when the Indian Air Force (IAF) decides on the $10 billion Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender, described as ‘mother of all deals’

“The F-16IN Super Viper will be more advanced than the F-16 Block 60 that were delivered to the UAE recently. The fighter jets being given to Pakistan by the U.S. government are F-16 Block 50/52 aircraft,” Mr. Prins said here.

However, the official said he would not discuss anything more about the company’s dealings with Pakistan, except the fact that it was not the firm that was selling anything to any country, but was just partnering with the U.S. Air Force.

“We don’t sell, the U.S. government does. We only support the U.S. government’s decisions,” he said when queried about the U.S. military support to Pakistan in the form of a set of 18 new F-16 fighters.

In fact, Mr. Prins tried to defend the military sale of his company’s fighter jets to Pakistan despite India’s protest, saying it was not just Lockheed Martin that was supplying to Islamabad, but all the six contenders in the MMRCA race were, either directly or indirectly
.


I almost feel bad for LM.. Its a good bird...

Probably the only time ever that a company would be feeling bad about getting a new sale order.. This sale to the Paki's couldn't come at a worse time for LM...

“The Super Viper could be described as the ultimate fourth generation fighter, tailored exclusively to meet or exceed all of India’s MMRCA requirements,” Mr. Prins said.

The Super Viper would have Northrop Grumman’s APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar, the only operational AESA in the international market today.

“This revolutionary all-weather, precision targeting sensor has been exported by the United States government and is defending a sovereign nation today; no other MMRCA competitor can make that claim,” he added.

The APG-80 AESA radar would provide outstanding situational awareness and detection; ultrahigh-resolution synthetic aperture radar mapping, fully interleaved modes of operations with automatic terrain following; and air-to-air tracking of multiple targets.

The F-16IN would be powered by the highest thrust engine in the competition, the General Electric F110-132A, with 32,000-pound thrust and incorporates latest technology, including full authority digital engine control, for maximum fuel efficiency and performance.


http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 321162.ece

Add on's..

According to Prins, an IAF team, while evaluating the F-16 at its manufacturing facility here, had found its performance “unbelievable and its acceleration and capability to manoeuvre remarkable”.


India’s partnership with Lockheed Martin, Prins noted, “can provide access to the highest technology, opportunities for technology co-development, low risk licensed production, transfer of technology and opportunities for extensive long-term business”.

The jet’s selection would also “facilitate a key strategic partnership with the United States and the US Air Force that would include joint training and logistical and operational concepts”, he added.


http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/bus ... 40776.html

AND IN THE SAME VEIN COMES THIS REPORT...

The Pakistan Air Force is scheduled to take delivery of its initial four new Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters in late June, according to a senior Pakistani official and a U.S. Air Force official. The four are the first of 18 F-16 fighters Pakistan is buying from Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp. They are part of a $2.9 billion arms package that includes electronics and weapons upgrades for 34 existing Pakistan F-16s.

The new F-16s are “at the heart” of a “strong relationship” between the U.S. and Pakistani air forces, Bruce Lemkin, deputy under secretary of the Air Force for international affairs, said in an e-mailed statement.

“These new aircraft will add full night- and precision- weapon capability,” and the arms package includes training and night-vision equipment, Lemkin said. Pakistani pilots are scheduled this year to train with U.S. pilots for nighttime attacks against terrorist ground targets.


Separately, Air Force spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Jeffry Glenn said 1,000 kits for converting unguided weapons into laser-guided bombs -- "the first ever sent to Pakistan' -- were shipped March 22. They could take as much as 30 days to arrive. They can be dropped from Pakistan’s existing older F-16s, he said in an e-mail. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley disclosed the order March 2.

F-16 Exercises:

The new F-16s are one facet of the U.S.-Pakistan air force relationship, Lemkin said. “Other recent military-to-military engagements include exercises that provide focused training for air refueling, close air support and other air-to-ground missions, and some air-to- air training,” he said. This training is designed to increase “weapons delivery precision and decrease potential for collateral damage,” Lemkin said.

“The U.S. has ongoing efforts to provide the Pakistan Air Force with night vision devices and associated training for their older F-16 aircraft,” he said. Lemkin said the senior Air Force leadership is also reviewing a Pakistani request to loan or lease excess or retired U.S. F-16s for ground operations before the newer ones are delivered. Still, “taking into account our own operational requirements and policy considerations, it is important to note that, currently, there are no available, retired F-16s that are readily available for transfer,” Lemkin said.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... -says.html

I actually quite liked the American birds.. (once upon a time) but not anymore... Such blatant 'double gamesmanship' cannot and should not be ignored..

I have now jumped to the European camp.. Ej200 for LCA, EF for IAF & India as a part of EADS consortium...

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby somnath » 29 Mar 2010 17:58

shukla wrote:I actually quite liked the American birds.. (once upon a time) but not anymore... Such blatant 'double gamesmanship' cannot and should not be ignored..

I have now jumped to the European camp.. Ej200 for LCA, EF for IAF & India as a part of EADS consortium


Hmmmm, Armaris made the Agostas for Pakistan, Saab provided the Eriye, Dassault has spoken of supplying the Rafale (Pakis cant afford them, but thats a different story) - barrgin the Russians, everyone else is a businessman! (Russians are too, but just that the India business is too huge :) )

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby merlin » 29 Mar 2010 18:02

somnath wrote:
shukla wrote:I actually quite liked the American birds.. (once upon a time) but not anymore... Such blatant 'double gamesmanship' cannot and should not be ignored..

I have now jumped to the European camp.. Ej200 for LCA, EF for IAF & India as a part of EADS consortium


Hmmmm, Armaris made the Agostas for Pakistan, Saab provided the Eriye, Dassault has spoken of supplying the Rafale (Pakis cant afford them, but thats a different story) - barrgin the Russians, everyone else is a businessman! (Russians are too, but just that the India business is too huge :) )


Who is selling and who is supplying it free of cost?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 29 Mar 2010 18:15

somnath wrote:
shukla wrote:I actually quite liked the American birds.. (once upon a time) but not anymore... Such blatant 'double gamesmanship' cannot and should not be ignored..

I have now jumped to the European camp.. Ej200 for LCA, EF for IAF & India as a part of EADS consortium


Hmmmm, Armaris made the Agostas for Pakistan, Saab provided the Eriye, Dassault has spoken of supplying the Rafale (Pakis cant afford them, but thats a different story) - barrgin the Russians, everyone else is a businessman! (Russians are too, but just that the India business is too huge :) )


The difference is that the US gifts their weapons to the Pakis while the others sell them.

prabir
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 27 Aug 2008 03:22

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prabir » 29 Mar 2010 18:55

I actually quite liked the American birds.. (once upon a time) but not anymore... Such blatant 'double gamesmanship' cannot and should not be ignored..

I have now jumped to the European camp.. Ej200 for LCA, EF for IAF & India as a part of EADS consortium...


If we do not want to go for Russian Mig 35 in name to putting all our eggs in one basket. Going with EADS is the best option as it would help the LCA.

We should not treat this in "price" terms as it is going to have a big leap in LCA as well as our own tech gains.

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 29 Mar 2010 20:50

Wrt "helping the LCA", should we decide the deal simply on which engine is going to be selected for the LCA? I don't think economies of scale would make a huge difference as we will be procuring amounts of engines for both planes. I think it could be used as a "tiebreaker" though.

dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby dorai » 30 Mar 2010 15:01

Extra Funding To Advance Gripen Missile Integration

HELSINKI - The funding boost Sweden provided this month to the JAS Gripen-NG project will advance the integration of new missile and precision weapon targeting systems on the fighter.

A large portion of the $282 million allocation, which will cover modernization of the existing Gripen fleet over the next four years, will be used for weapon integration, said Peter Nilsson, vice president of Operational Capabilities for Gripen International.

"The integration of missile and weapon systems, and the ability for us to carry out this work, is critical to the Gripen-NG's future as a marketable international combat aircraft," Nilsson said.

The Gripens currently operated by the Swedish Air Force (SAF) are armed with AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the Saab Dynamics RBS 15 anti-ship missile and the Maverick ground attack missile.

The weapon integration programs will allow the Gripen to carry a greater range of missile systems, including the Python, IRIS-T, AIM-9X Sidewinder, R-Darter, Meteor, A-Darter, Derby, AIM-132 Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and the AIM-9 air-to-air missiles.

Swedish Smorgasbord

Other weaponry available for fit on the Gripen C/D include the DWS39 Stand Off Dispenser, the RBS-15 Anti-shipping Missile, GBU (10/12/16) laser-guided bombs, Mk (82/83/84) bombs, optional Litening G III FLIR/LDP [forward-looking infrared/laser designator pod] and optional reconnaissance pods.

"We call it the Swedish smorgasbord. We will integrate whatever you like, even if you want Russian weapons. This is strictly a question of interface, and is totally up to the customer. We offer them fighters. We don't offer them security policy," Nilsson said.

The IRIS-T and the new GPS version of Paveway are the latest missiles to be integrated into the Gripen's arsenal capability.

Lockheed Martin is interested in putting the Sniper advanced targeting pod on the Gripen, Nilsson said.

"Lockheed Martin has asked us if we are interested in integrating the Sniper on the Gripen. You could say we were a little surprised. We do compete with Lockheed Martin on different campaigns, but at the same time this is not a usual situation. It just means that Sniper can be used with the Gripen," Nilsson said.

"We have a policy that we don't integrate weapons on our own. We integrate when customers ask us to do it. And when they ask, we have no limitations or restrictions," Nilsson said.

Gripen has run integration programs for U.S., European, Israeli, Brazilian and South African weapon systems.

"That's what a lot of customers like about the Gripen. Some customers do not like to see any U.S. weapons on their aircraft. Some want only U.S. weapons. At Gripen we do not export weapons, we export integration," Nilsson said.

Saab Dynamic, which also cooperates with the major European missile manufacturers in the development of air-to-air missiles for the Eurofighter and the Rafale, is working with Gripen on integration projects centered on the Meteor and the IRIS-T missile systems.

The Gripen is the only aircraft to have fired the radar-guided, medium range (10- to 120-kilometer) Meteor air-to-air missile. Meteor is an active, radar-guided, beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile being developed by MBDA to equip the Eurofighter Typhoons of the U.K.'s Royal Air Force (RAF), Germany's Luftwaffe, Spain's Ejército del Aire and Italy's Aeronautica Militare Italiana, the F-35 of the British Royal Navy, the Dassault Aviation Rafales of France and the SAF.

Saab secured $43 million in contracts in 2007 to conduct new missile tests with the Meteor, including air-launched firings and radar tests.

The first fully functional, guided version of the IRIS-T was fired by a Gripen at Vidsel in January 2008. The integration of the IRIS-T into the Gripen was funded by FMV, Sweden's defense materials administration, under a contract awarded to Saab in 2005.

Primarily funded by Germany for the Eurofighter, the IRIS-T is an IR-guided, short-range air-to-air missile backed by Saab Dynamics and Bodenseewerk Geratechnik.

The Meteor program's participants include MBDA, Saab Dynamics, Alenia Difesa, Marconi and Germany's LFK. The missile is expected to enter British service in 2015.

The development program will ensure that the Gripen remains Sweden's primary fighter until 2040, said Oscar Hull, FMV's project manager for the JAS Gripen.

"The new funding is a major step for the development of the entire JAS Gripen fleet. It will strengthen the Swedish Armed Forces' operational ability in national, regional and international missions," Hull said.

Funding will be channeled into specific programs, including Gripen's bidirectional air-to-ground unit digital communication system (forward air controller).

The Gripen-NG Demonstrator began flight testing in October after a modification that included the installation of tactical systems such as an active electronically scanned array radar, a new satellite communication system and an electro-optical (EO) missile warning system. The EO's Missile Approach Warning System's sensors are designed to shield the aircraft against the Man Portable Air Defense System.

Denel Dynamics delivered a test version of its A-Darter 5th generation short-range imaging infrared air-to-air missile to Saab for integration onto the Gripen 39C/D in February. Live test-firings of A-Darter from the Gripen are scheduled in the second half of 2010. ■

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4547991

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 30 Mar 2010 17:22

Update from Air chief: Effect of US arms sales to Pak on final decision..

Asked if the military aid issue could have any impact on the chances of the American companies in the fray to supply 126 combat aircraft to the Indian Air Force, Naik said, "As far as 126 multi-role combat aircraft deal is concerned, it will be a fair and square assessment... presently, there is no connection between the two."

He said the IAF was going ahead with the trials of the six companies offering their aircraft and "after that, we will sit down to finalise it (the award of the contract.)"


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 743124.cms

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55033
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 30 Mar 2010 22:19

Shankar wrote:most likely the two aircraft that have cleared high altitude trial are Mig 35 and F-18



Shankar< Arun says this:

In the 126 aircraft MRCA deal involving operation from Leh (Jammu And Kashmir) for high altitude basing test flights. The first two air-crafts (F16 and F18) that went to Leh failed miserably. Both barely manged to lift off at the fag end of the runway, and that too with ZERO payload.


OTOH Mig35 passed the test with flying colours.


Watch for statements about actual models will have more power etc...

BTW Kartik good analysis of the LCA 's Leh takeoff video.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16884
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 31 Mar 2010 00:26

shukla wrote:Update from Air chief: Effect of US arms sales to Pak on final decision..

Asked if the military aid issue could have any impact on the chances of the American companies in the fray to supply 126 combat aircraft to the Indian Air Force, Naik said, "As far as 126 multi-role combat aircraft deal is concerned, it will be a fair and square assessment... presently, there is no connection between the two."

He said the IAF was going ahead with the trials of the six companies offering their aircraft and "after that, we will sit down to finalise it (the award of the contract.)"


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 743124.cms


IAF is on technical side, not the political side!!! So what does the reporter expect the CAS to say?

Anthony Hines
BRFite
Posts: 104
Joined: 16 Jul 2009 22:09
Location: West of Greenwich

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Anthony Hines » 31 Mar 2010 00:59

How about Gripen NG with EJ 200?

b_patel
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 04:08

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby b_patel » 31 Mar 2010 02:19

The Typhoon should not have "hot" weather problems as it is being bought by the Saudis in large numbers.

The Typhoon had extensive trials in the Saudi arabian deserts before the Saudis purchased it. So it won't have any trouble in India.

In the 126 aircraft MRCA deal involving operation from Leh (Jammu And Kashmir) for high altitude basing test flights. The first two air-crafts (F16 and F18) that went to Leh failed miserably. Both barely manged to lift off at the fag end of the runway, and that too with ZERO payload.
OTOH Mig35 passed the test with flying colours.

How would he know that? There's been no offical press release regarding which aircraft failed, i doubt it will ever be released.

How about Gripen NG with EJ 200?

Its not the plan for the NG currently. Its a possibility but India doesn't have time to wait for Saab to make the modifications to the fuselage, fuel systems etc.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5367
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 31 Mar 2010 04:26

ramana wrote:Shankar< Arun says this:


Quote:
In the 126 aircraft MRCA deal involving operation from Leh (Jammu And Kashmir) for high altitude basing test flights. The first two air-crafts (F16 and F18) that went to Leh failed miserably. Both barely manged to lift off at the fag end of the runway, and that too with ZERO payload.


OTOH Mig35 passed the test with flying colours.


Watch for statements about actual models will have more power etc...

BTW Kartik good analysis of the LCA 's Leh takeoff video.


Thanks Ramana..when you say Arun says this, are you referring to the former BRFite Arun_S ?

I too am inclined to believe the part about the F-18 since I didn’t hear anything about the F-18 at Leh and before that they were gloating about how they “amazed” IAF guys when they broke their speed record over Bangalore and did a good dummy bomb drop over Jaisalmer, dropping it some 15 feet from the target..the F-16 part isn’t very surprising either as I mentioned in my earlier post considering its got the highest wing loading of all clean F-16 variants.

Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Bhaskar » 31 Mar 2010 04:35

The ties between Obama and MMS seem to have inked the end for the American planes in this competition.

Mig-35 and Typhoon seem to be leading... Or so it seems in the technical side.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 31 Mar 2010 06:32

SELEX Communications awarded an initial development contract to supply the IFF system for Gripen NG aircraft

SELEX Communications - a Finmeccanica company and a global supplier of advanced Communications, Navigation and Identification solutions - has been awarded an initial development contract by Saab to equip the Gripen NG (Next Generation) multi-role combat aircraft with an IFF (Identification Friend-or-Foe) system. This initial contract will be followed by production orders once the aircraft enters production.

The company is to develop a solution consisting of transponder, interrogator, antenna sub-system and a system simulator, delivering the latest IFF operating capabilities to identify both military (Mode 5) and civil aircraft (Mode S). The active, electronically-scanned IFF solution is able to match the primary radar e-scan performances in terms of agile operation, wide field of view and long range engagement.

Applying its proven and extensive expertise in the field, SELEX Communications has developed a family of state-of-the-art next-generation IFF systems, which are currently operational and NATO certified, able to provide robust and secure links to support military identification processes and data transmission to ground centres, in order to support Air Traffic Management.

The contract with Saab marks a further strengthening of the existing relationship between the two companies, which has already encompassed collaboration over the Saab Giraffe AMB multi-mission radar in the United Kingdom, and could extend to further fields of applications, such as the naval sector.


Guys any updates on Gripen trails?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4219
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 31 Mar 2010 08:27

Hines is right Wonder if the GE engines can be replaced with Eurojet in the Gripen! Throws up some interesting possibilities., mostly cost effective ones :mrgreen: Happy Europeans,more bang for the buck.,and probable engine for LCA as well.Eurojet in much larger numbers., so maybe India can get some manufacturing tech too.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1649
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby andy B » 31 Mar 2010 09:31

Marten wrote:I asked a similar question in the context of the LCA. Unfortunately no one replied. Here goes again:
What would be the scale of testing introduced by a change of engines + resulting sub-systems? If for instance, SAAB decided to chuck its 50% ownership via Volvo Aero and decided to humor the yindoos with an EJ2000 based aircraft, how much more testing it require? Would this scope include flight characteristics as well? This is a genuine noob question, so please do humor me if possible.


Saar ji a yumble try to your query:

- They will need to see if the intake provides enough air to the new engine
- If there is a change in COG due to new engine dimensions and weights (there most definitely will be due to 414 and EJ200 weighing difference and difference in dimensions)
- I would imagine if the new engine is shorter then there may be a possibility of going in for engine blockers or changing the shape of the intake to a more stealthy shape (this may prove to be prohibitively expensive however and may not have enough bang for buck onree)
- Calibarating the new engine to the airframe and controls ityadi
- If the new engine provides more thrust then testing to check how it affects the manoverability, turning/takeoff perfomance ityadi
- The above point may also affect payload
- If the new engine is more efficient this potentially then may need to be tested as to what extent and how that in turn affects the airframe, fuel/weapons payload ityadi
- I wonder if they would also need to check if the new engine affects the IR signature in terms of increase/decrease?
- As mentioned before a redesign of the air intake incase the engine is larger as in its fan compressor ityadi...

JMT

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1649
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby andy B » 31 Mar 2010 11:31

Marten wrote:
andy B wrote:Saar ji a yumble try to your query:

- They will need to see if the intake provides enough air to the new engine
- If there is a change in COG due to new engine dimensions and weights (there most definitely will be due to 414 and EJ200 weighing difference and difference in dimensions)
- I would imagine if the new engine is shorter then there may be a possibility of going in for engine blockers or changing the shape of the intake to a more stealthy shape (this may prove to be prohibitively expensive however and may not have enough bang for buck onree)
- Calibarating the new engine to the airframe and controls ityadi
- If the new engine provides more thrust then testing to check how it affects the manoverability, turning/takeoff perfomance ityadi
- The above point may also affect payload
- If the new engine is more efficient this potentially then may need to be tested as to what extent and how that in turn affects the airframe, fuel/weapons payload ityadi
- I wonder if they would also need to check if the new engine affects the IR signature in terms of increase/decrease?
- As mentioned before a redesign of the air intake incase the engine is larger as in its fan compressor ityadi...

JMT

Thank you very much Sir. That is a superb reply... so basically isn't that like 50-60% coverage between a 404 and an EJ2K? Perhaps not as much if intakes etc do not need to be modified much.


Saar me a phata dhoti abdul bliss to spare the saarji :mrgreen:

Now I am not sure what exactly u mean by coverage...if you mean similarity then yes if they are quite similar then it may not need as many modifications. Some more points of consideration will be:
- If the EJ provides more thrust than the 404 which it does then it will increase the peformance of the Gripen for sure, this may and will probably affect weapons payload however if the plane is able to carry more doesnt mean that may actually be able to given that the wing and the central fuselage are designed with specific max loads.
- Also you may be able to carry more weapons but then they may increase the drag significantly in which case if the new injun is not more fuel efficient then range suffers..
- Also we need to consider the Gripen NG is based around the 414 which we know is longer and heavier than the EJ which will mean that they will need to fiddle with the airframe to fit the EJ. Instead a better hedge would be to go for the 414 EPE and see where that leads to as it would be a more cost effective effort onree.
- The other thing that I can think of is stall perfomances and engine functionality at high AOA (this is not benis AOA but Angle of Attack mind it :mrgreen: ) as they will be different I imagine for both engines.
-

All the above is ofcourse hypothetical hoopla...

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby negi » 31 Mar 2010 11:40

Even if the two engines were to match up exactly in terms of specs and dimensions the mere difference in positioning of the gearboxes would mean substantial re engineering of the airframe , for instance the RD-93 which powers the bandar is basically a modified RD-33 with a gearbox mounted on the underside of the engine .

Now I am not sure about the layout of F 404 and F 414 but since Dassault at one time had Rafale flying on F 404 engines I am inclined to believe the M88 series should have its gearbox more or less in a same place as the GE engine i.e. below the engine (so talk about GTRE working with SNECMA makes sense ). I wonder what is the layout for the EJ200 , also one more difference is the GE series and even the SNECMA have inlet guide vanes in front of the compressor fan stage while EJ200 apparently does not have any such arrangement I doubt if it would make the cut as far as engine safety requirements for a single engined fighter are concerned.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 31 Mar 2010 11:50

negi wrote: I wonder what is the layout for the EJ200 , also one more difference is the GE series and even the SNECMA have inlet guide vanes in front of the compressor fan stage while EJ200 apparently does not have any such arrangement I doubt if it would make the cut as far as engine safety requirements for a single engined fighter are concerned.


But they are bidding for the LCA Mk2 re-engine program. So it has to make the cut doesn't it? Or will the EJ200 for LCA be different from the one on the Typhoon?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 31 Mar 2010 12:39

Kartik wrote:Shankar< Arun says this:


Thanks Ramana..when you say Arun says this, are you referring to the former BRFite Arun_S ?


Kartik yes Arun_S link

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 31 Mar 2010 12:47

b_patel wrote:
In the 126 aircraft MRCA deal involving operation from Leh (Jammu And Kashmir) for high altitude basing test flights. The first two air-crafts (F16 and F18) that went to Leh failed miserably. Both barely manged to lift off at the fag end of the runway, and that too with ZERO payload.
OTOH Mig35 passed the test with flying colours.

How would he know that? There's been no offical press release regarding which aircraft failed, i doubt it will ever be released.

and no one said he knows that from official press releases. :wink:

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 31 Mar 2010 17:45

The people who think sale of U.S F 16s to Pakistan will affect American chances of winning the MRCA may need to think again:...


Asked whether the deal with the American companies to supply 126 combat aircraft to the Indian Air Force would be affected by the military aid, Naik said that the deal would happened as planned.

"As far as 126 multirole combat aircraft deal is concerned, it will be a fair and square assessment... presently, there is no connection between the two."


http://news.oneindia.in/2010/03/30/indi ... -naik.html


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests