Farnborough International Airshow 2010 (19th - 25th July)

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 20 Jul 2010 01:04

Avinandan wrote:More JF-17 pics from GlobalAviationResource :--
http://www.globalaviationresource.com/b ... 100718.php

Boeing 787 in Farnborough :--
http://www.globalaviationresource.com/b ... 100718.php

Small Youtube Video of aircraft practising :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSSqq8vk ... re=related

Avinandan, you can watch the flight display in realtime both in visable and IR. It was thrilling to see the F22 in IR this afternoon

LINK

http://www.flightglobal.com/air-shows/f ... gh/flying/

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 20 Jul 2010 01:31

Sarang

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2010 06:22

More JF-17 pics from GlobalAviationResource :--
http://www.globalaviationresource.com/b ... 100718.php

Could someone please id the weapons/stores.
One appears to be a C802 - is that an antiship missile?
One is a dumb bomb
What is WMD-7 - weapon of mass destruction-7 Or is it WMD-T - weapon of mass destruction-terror?

naird · Post by **naird** » 20 Jul 2010 07:26

^^

apparently it stands for Wind corrected Munition Dispenser...... i had the same thought, still trying to dig the details..

The mijhile is replica of SD10 ...

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 20 Jul 2010 09:29

Well we can see the difference, while chinki technicians handle major issues, the paki technicians kapda marofy the indigenous fighter.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Jul 2010 09:52

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:They probably tried more than one concept or experimented with different prototypes before finalising an optimum design , with paki money the chinese took some liberty
The current intakes mimic what I have read about Mirage III intakes (and Mirage 2000) -i.e the simplest classic supersonic intake. I have no idea about the relative merits of such a classic shape versus something with splitter plates or some mechanical moving part that changes with airflow. Obviously everything is a compromise of sorts and I wonder what compromises the Chinese made.

Daaktar Sahib, AFAIK, those inlets are called DSI - Divertless Supersonic Inlets. Tested for 1st time on F-16 Test bed for F-35. See the pic here:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-35_ ... t_F-16.jpg

I managed to get this explanation on DSI from web:

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

DSI is divert-less supersonic inlet. A DSI is shaped to slow down the advanced compression wave without the use of mechanical diverts. A mechanical divert is an assembly of vanes which are opened and closed. They present a larger bulky complex radar cross section. In fact mechanical diverts are so cumbersome they are the leading reason why most modern jets are restricted to Mach 1.8 above which the mechanics are too expensive to manufacture.

As a note of comparison the engines on the SR-71 operated as pseudo-scramjets above Mach 2. They got 60%+ of their total thrust at Mach 2 and higher from SUCTION at the front inlets and 40% from thrust.

One reason the Su-27 based planforms use lifting body geometry is because of thrust vectoring in low speed performance. The shape has to claw every ounce of lift it can get.

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

The DSI on the P-04 of JF-17 is said to have reduced weight by 200-300kgs and offers more stealth.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2010 10:26

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66I1VZ20100719

On the defense side, Boeing said it expects slight continued growth in military aircraft sales over the next five to 10 years, bolstered by international sales -- including the prospect for India to double its order of 10 C-17 transport planes.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 20 Jul 2010 11:28

India shops for combat aircraft at Farnborough

Indian defence authorities, led by Minister of State for Defence M.M. Pallam Raju, are looking to see the international response to some of the latest multi-role combat aircraft on display at the Farnborough Air Show here which are being evaluated by India for upgrading its air force.
Pallam Raju is leading the Indian delegation, which includes Defence Production Secretary Raj Kumar Singh and the chief of the Southern Air Command, Air Marshal S. Mukerji.

Actual or close versions of four of the six latest combat aircraft that have completed trials in India and in the country of manufacture are on display at the air show. They are the naval version of the JAS 39 Gripen NG/IN of SAAB, the Swedish aerospace company; the Eurofighter Typhoon made by a European consortium; the F/A-18IN Super Hornet of Boeing and the F-16IN Super Viper of American giant Lockheed Martin.

Of the four fighter jets on display at the air show, the Gripen IN, a version of the Gripen NG (Next Generation), has increased fuel capacity, higher payload, increased combat range and endurance and super-cruise capability. SAAB International has proposed to India the transfer of technology if Gripen wins the MRCA and make India “an independent manufacturer” of its own fighter jets.

Boeing’s offer is the Super Hornet variant named F/A-18IN. It will include Raytheon’s Apg-79 AESA radar which sharply increases the pilot’s “situational awareness”. In August 2008, Boeing submitted an industrial participation proposal to India describing partnerships with companies in India.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is a twin-engine canard-delta wing – the wing platform designed as a triangle – multi-role aircraft designed and built by a consortium of three companies: Alena Aeronautica of Italy, BAE Systems of Britain and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), formed after the merger of three aeronautics corporations of France, Germany and Spain.

The F-16IN Super Viper, a variant of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, is a multi-role jet fighter developed by Lockheed Martin. It is a dogfighter with numerous innovations including a frameless bubble canopy for better visibility, a side-mounted control stick to ease control while under high gravitational forces, and a reclined seat to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot. Its manufacturer has described the Indian variant as “the most advanced and capable F-16 ever”.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 20 Jul 2010 12:45

Anti-aircraft laser 'more real than Star Wars'

Yet another sci-fi geek dream has been turned into reality, with the US Navy demonstrating a laser capable of shooting down moving targets.

Defence technology company Raytheon Missile Systems teamed up with the US Navy to unveil the high-powered laser weapon at the Farnborough Air Show in Hampshire this week

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 20 Jul 2010 14:32

rohitvats wrote:
DSI is divert-less supersonic inlet. A DSI is shaped to slow down the advanced compression wave without the use of mechanical diverts. A mechanical divert is an assembly of vanes which are opened and closed. They present a larger bulky complex radar cross section. In fact mechanical diverts are so cumbersome they are the leading reason why most modern jets are restricted to Mach 1.8 above which the mechanics are too expensive to manufacture.

As a note of comparison the engines on the SR-71 operated as pseudo-scramjets above Mach 2. They got 60%+ of their total thrust at Mach 2 and higher from SUCTION at the front inlets and 40% from thrust.

One reason the Su-27 based planforms use lifting body geometry is because of thrust vectoring in low speed performance. The shape has to claw every ounce of lift it can get.

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

The DSI on the P-04 of JF-17 is said to have reduced weight by 200-300kgs and offers more stealth.

Kartik explained about this LCA/Noob threads that this DSI tech is stolen from F-35. Here is his explanation:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... SI#p875151

What DSI does is to reduce the RCS as the vanes and doors of variable inlets are a source of RCS. They tend to be at angles that can reflect radar waves back to the emitter. By eliminating those variable inlets and even the splitter plate, the DSI basically reduces the RCS a bit. Its not a big deal for the Tejas anyway since it has a fixed inlet and already has a very small RCS. It also is claimed to help improve power available to the pilot in the subsonic range a bit..but its not an improvement that warranted a complete change from the existing inlet on the F-16 (on which it was first tested) to the new inlet..otherwise we'd have seen the F-16 Block 60 and the F-16IN sporting the DSI if it was such a whiz-bang improvement.

I have only posted small part though whole post is worth reading.

nits · Post by **nits** » 20 Jul 2010 14:59

A F-22 flies in a display during Farnborough International Airshow in England. (AP)

nits · Post by **nits** » 20 Jul 2010 15:36

^^ smoke at right side of the plane gives illusion of a cloud...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Jul 2010 16:30

BTW did JF-17 flew from Pakistan/China to Farnborough or was it transported and assembled there ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2010 16:36

Austin wrote:BTW did JF-17 flew from Pakistan/China to Farnborough or was it transported and assembled there ?

It is likely to have made multiple stops - terror land to Turkey to Germany to the UK

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Jul 2010 18:06

Avinandan wrote:
Overall it looks clean, i think it can do a dash but nimbleness is doubtful.
I guess it is nimble enough.. below is the youtube video that compares the turnrates of JF-17 with F16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5aUGum2EiM

hmm..ok..let me answer you in your style. Let say, if you are going to combat and given a choice which aircraft you choose for the ride in..

F-16 or F-16XL ?

LCA is much like F-16XL..

Going by the youtube stuff with all the director's cut..i think F-16 can have Thunder for its dinner..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Jul 2010 18:30

Well as a cost effective good enough fighter the JF-17 does its job and the Chinese can mass produce it and Pakistanis can paint it

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 20 Jul 2010 19:19

http://www.globalaviationresource.com/b ... 100718.php#

Plane has markings in Chinese and English, not Urdu. Looks like not even the paint is Pakistani

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2010 19:27

the cost will quickly go up if the PAF goes for franco-italian-avitronics avionics and weapons which they must to keep it competitive with the IAF threat. just the radar alone costs several million$ in pulse doppler format, not to speak of rbe2/selex1000 type aesa.

the russians can also jack up the price of RD93 OEM engines and spares anytime - and they will, if they sense a captive market.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Jul 2010 20:19

The number quoted with chinese stuff is already at 25million USD....with western avionics, this number is set to increase. So cheap and mass scale argument production is out of window. And porkis as it is need cheap credit aka alms to buy JF-17..even if they come at a lesser price.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2010 20:48

jamwal wrote:http://www.globalaviationresource.com/b ... 100718.php#

Plane has markings in Chinese and English, not Urdu. Looks like not even the paint is Pakistani

Check out the barefoot Paki in one pic. They will probably beg for shoes.

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 20 Jul 2010 23:07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr1 ... r_embedded

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Jul 2010 00:08

nits wrote:^^ smoke at right side of the plane gives illusion of a cloud...

its not smoke, its the water vapour.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Jul 2010 00:16

BTW, for those wowing at the video of the Bandar vs the F-16 turn rate comparison, keep in mind that the JF-17 is NOT a 9G fighter. It's max dynamic load factor is 8G/-3G.

This is per PAC Kamra, so whereas Paki fanboys will go red in the face claiming 9G and what not, they are not being honest. At no time will a Bandar go higher than 8G. And even with 8G max load factor, it weighs as much as a Tejas whose design load factor is 9G/-3G -don't confuse that with how many G's it has pulled as yet. The Tejas airframe was designed to be able to pull 9Gs. with the F-414 or Ej200 engine it should be able to do that whereas the Bandar won't (without causing damage to the airframe) even if an Al-31 was force fitted into its musharraf.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 21 Jul 2010 10:06

(below) Came across this image of the EF climbing on its display at Farnborough & then saw another similar pic of the Rafale at Cambrai Epinoy hence putting it up, they look so similar from this angle except for the refuelling probe.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jul 2010 10:20

Kartik wrote:BTW, for those wowing at the video of the Bandar vs the F-16 turn rate comparison, keep in mind that the JF-17 is NOT a 9G fighter. It's max dynamic load factor is 8G/-3G.

I would suppose a clean rated or lightly loaded aircraft can make those 9G turns , if you have medium load then its restricts the G an aircraft can pull.

BTW what BIG difference will a 1G less pull would make to JF-17 ? If both are involved in a knife fight any one who manages to get a first lock and fire will have an advantage.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jul 2010 10:35

in that video is there a way to see if the speeds of both a/c were similar? there is something called "corner velocity" - a speed at which a/c can achieve max turn rates - the higher this is, better for combat performance as it can fly faster at or near its max turn rate vs others.
A good airframe will have a higher corner velocity methinks.

Shalav had attempted some analysis based on then known details of bandar -vs- many other planes. if anyone has that XLS can you post the details of bandar and the inputs used for it.

nits · Post by **nits** » 21 Jul 2010 11:54

Article in Rediff hosts multiple pictures from Farnborough International Airshow

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2010 13:32

Some FB snippets.While the US is to sell Pak Predators,the Russians have recommended stopping any more sales of RD-33 engines for the JF-17,Sukhoi boss Pogosoyan citing sales competition.This will affect production of Pak's Chinese bird.Details of Flanker production and future Indian orders plus
Pilatus' trainer offers to the IAF also here,PC-7/9/21.
http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=41 ... &o=exthere.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 22 Jul 2010 04:20

Statement by Ashok Nayak, Chairman of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL)

As part of the defpro.com special focus on the Farnborough Air Show 2010, presents a series of defence and aerospace industry statements published by MILITARY TECHNOLOGY (MT).

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 22 Jul 2010 05:53

Can you please cite any non-paki sources which confirm that the US is selling them predators?

Philip wrote:Some FB snippets.While the US is to sell Pak Predators,the Russians have recommended stopping any more sales of RD-33 engines for the JF-17,Sukhoi boss Pogosoyan citing sales competition.This will affect production of Pak's Chinese bird.Details of Flanker production and future Indian orders plus
Pilatus' trainer offers to the IAF also here,PC-7/9/21.
http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=41 ... &o=exthere.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jul 2010 10:10

Philip wrote:Some FB snippets.While the US is to sell Pak Predators,the Russians have recommended stopping any more sales of RD-33 engines for the JF-17,Sukhoi boss Pogosoyan citing sales competition.This will affect production of Pak's Chinese bird.Details of Flanker production and future Indian orders plus
Pilatus' trainer offers to the IAF also here,PC-7/9/21.
http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=41 ... &o=exthere.

Philip yesterday Alexander Mikheyev from Rosbornexport stated that they will continue selling RD-93 engine to China as they do not see JF-17 as competition to Su or Mig as performance characteristic of Russian aircraft were far ahead link

I see no reason why they should stop selling engine as RD-93 is a good $$ earner in export market via costeffective JF-17 if it can make a good headway in the ~ 3000 Mig-21/27 market.

Unfortunately some eons back I had suggested to have a RD-33 variant of Tejas developed for export/local market with Russian/Indian weapons/sensors , so that it can gain a major share of Mig-21/27 replacement market globally with a quality fighter.

Now it looks like JF-17 is on the road to achieve that , while we are obsessed with Western quality expensive engine with little or no chance to get an export license and even if they do they will come with strings attached.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jul 2010 10:31

the RD33 was not a good engine to base LCA development on. the RD93 came much later. and it probably still lags the best western engines by a decade. russia is playing catch up and hoping to close the gap with their 5th gen engine in 2020 pakfa.

the ~3000 Mig21 market - a bunch of basket cases around the world
- pariahs who need vendor financing and continued opex (PRC sugar daddy type munnas we dont touch with a pole)
- Unkil munnas who can get used or gifted F-solah (eastern europe). Unkil has 1000s of F-solahs to refurbish and
hand out.

anyway I seriously doubt what is the number of active duty (as in flying regularly Mig21 and Mig27) in service worldwide. we are probably the biggest users by a long margin.

its not a hugely profitable niche at present imo. and unlike PRC we dont have knockoff radar and AAMs to offer.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jul 2010 10:35

us and SL are the only users of the flogger IIRC.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jul 2010 10:40

didnt RD33 issues ground most of our Mig29 fleet for a while in 1980s. smoky as hell and with the USSR collapsing like nine pines, hardly a hook for the Tejas designers to hang their hopes on. Snecma P53 engine didnt offer the desired thrust
and Dassault-Snecma likely rejected any feelers because we didnt take up the plan of 100 more m2k license make - a far better choice than Mig29 as it turned out with 20/20 hindsight

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jul 2010 10:42

the main problem was ridiculously low MTBO.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jul 2010 10:59

Singha wrote:the RD33 was not a good engine to base LCA development on. the RD93 came much later. and it probably still lags the best western engines by a decade. russia is playing catch up and hoping to close the gap with their 5th gen engine in 2020 pakfa.

the ~3000 Mig21 market - a bunch of basket cases around the world
- pariahs who need vendor financing and continued opex (PRC sugar daddy type munnas we dont touch with a pole)
- Unkil munnas who can get used or gifted F-solah (eastern europe). Unkil has 1000s of F-solahs to refurbish and
hand out.

anyway I seriously doubt what is the number of active duty (as in flying regularly Mig21 and Mig27) in service worldwide. we are probably the biggest users by a long margin.

its not a hugely profitable niche at present imo. and unlike PRC we dont have knockoff radar and AAMs to offer.

Well the 117S/117 engine is as good as any western engine out there so there is really no margin , they are almost on par with US slightly ahead with 5th gen engine.

The 3000 figure was claimed by Dr Kalam that saw it as a potential export figure for Tejas . Even if Unkil has F-16 every one knows it comes with strings attached and a simple example was how the Chinese managed to export their fighter to Bangladesh and Srilanka our own backyard.

There are enough countries out there who do not want or cannot afford Unkil weapons and simply Unkil does not like them and there are sufficient people who are willing to buy a cost effective fighter.

LCA is plagued with the same mentality of getting the best into it it while JF-17 took a pragmatic approach of being good enough with best being the enemy of good enough and some day this being best will also turn out to be its nemesis.

Tejas success will not be determined by how many they manage to sell to IAF , every country builds something to sell to its own forces but how much they can export against stiff competition and prosper , that hows Mig-21 and F-16 managed to become the most exportable and sucessful fighter and still persists in most AF , heck they are even competing in MMRCA with some F-16 after more then 30 years of induction and we still found Bison as worthy upgrades after 50 years of its induction.

Any ways my only grief is we need to make Tejas an export success ( atleast managed to sell 1/10 what Kalam thought could be its market ) and i see not the Tejas but JF-17 leading that direction.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jul 2010 11:02

Rahul M wrote:the main problem was ridiculously low MTBO.

The RD-33MK is a good engine on all parameters so there is nothing much to complain granted RD-33 was bad , heck but we never paid a single dollar to buy Soviet hardware it was all phukat or on easly long term credit and barter system as good as phukat.

While the M2K deal costs billion dollar in FE with Indira Gandhi even asked what the need to spend precious FE.

Like a good admiral told me we got the Kilo in 21 years long term credit as good as free. ( as a comparision we paid more than $250 million each for the last 2 - 3 Kilo sub we purchased post Soviet break up and ~ $80 million for upgrade we are doing now for each sub )

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jul 2010 11:16

no arguments there, we got things for wheat and tea ! at the time however the MK wasn't even thought of in russia and the point is rather moot.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jul 2010 12:30

Right but neither did Soviet existed by the time we made our mind to acquire Flanker.

Didnt one of the IAF Chief in an early 90's Airshow at Farnborough commented that there was no role for Flanker type in the IAF

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jul 2010 15:59

Malaysia's CRECOM to buy 50 Russia-produced MS-21 jets
Ilyushin Finance to buy up to 50 MS-21 jets

Wonder why cant we (HAL/NAL ) can join and contribute to the MS-21 project and build 150 - 200 seater medium haul passenger jets in India and sell to our local carrier and make some money. Thats 5 years more and not a completed project like short haul Sukhoi Superjet.

The single-aisle MS-21 family of passenger aircraft is designed to seat between 150 and 220 passengers and to fly up to 5,000 kilometers (3,125 miles).

The new passenger jet is expected to be 10-15% more efficient than the equivalent Boeing and Airbus aircraft while its target price will be just $35 million, which is $20 million less than the similarly-sized Boeing 737-700.

Its good to replace the Boeing 737/A320 for the dollar and bottom line conscious commericial market and may be the military will find some use for it.