Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

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.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 10 Oct 2014 18:32

Asit P wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:How much local manufacturing did you do of the first 40 MKI?


They had no objections when we decided to fit Israeli, French and Indian parts in Su.


You are attempting to change the topic, so I guess you agree that South Korea is doing more local manufacture on its 40 F-35 than India did on its first 40 MKI.

Thus criticism of SK's local manufacture package is unwarranted.

As to the rest of your argument, it's not true.

Asit P wrote:- Under the terms of EUMA, India cannot modify the purchased defence article or system in any form.


So there will be no MLU because that would be modifying the plane?

A little thought reveals those points are misleading at best.

Asit P wrote:- Also, to prevent the buyer country from freeing itself from dependency on the United States for maintenance, EUMA restricts India from getting US-origin defence equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission.


Clearly that has to do with security and nothing else. Yes, I'm sorry, you cannot contract maintenance out to a Chinese firm. There is nothing preventing you from performing the maintenance yourself, which is ultimately the goal, right?

Asit P wrote:Even spare parts need to be sourced only from the United States.


Practically, how is that any different than the situation that exists with Russia? You are free to source spares from anywhere, but they only come from Russia, so you are still stuck.

What that article is missing is the whole 'unauthorized' aspect of it. It's not that you can't add Indian components or manufacture your own parts, it's that it has to be through channels and official.

Basically what this comes down to is that you have to get Boeing to sign-off on stuff, and beyond performing quality-control to ensure that your changes don't cause problems, Boeing has no incentive to say no and every incentive to say yes as they want you for a customer in future.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 10 Oct 2014 18:41

George wrote:It is crazy and stupid to expect a 200kn turbofan that has to be on afterburners most of the time to be a low maintenance machine.


A couple points:

- It will not run at afterburner most of the time.
The variant that will see the most use is the C-variant for cat-launches. Beyond that, it will practically never run wet.

- You are confusing development issues with maintenance issues.
It has had many development issues (as expected), but they have been fixed, and once fixed, there's no reason for them to impact maintenance.

member_28714
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28714 » 10 Oct 2014 18:46

GeorgeWelch wrote:
George wrote:It is crazy and stupid to expect a 200kn turbofan that has to be on afterburners most of the time to be a low maintenance machine.


A couple points:

- It will NOT run at afterburner most of the time.
The variant that will see the most use is the C-variant for cat-launches. Beyond that, it will practically never run wet.

- You are confusing development issues with maintenance issues.
It has had many development issues (as expected), but they have been fixed, and once fixed, there's no reason for them to impact maintenance.



Sorry, but it will run afterburners MOST of the time. It cannot stay supersonic unless its on afterburners.

Indian pilots training on the F 35 wont be going on cruises and training how to press a BVR missile launch button. They will be training in live combat close quarter engagements. Once again allow me to point out that India's requirements are for MMRCA and not a long range BVR aircraft.

The only time that the F 35 wont be on afterburners will be when they are firing at targets from a long way off. That is not a scenario which will be relevant to india. our enemies are at our doorstep. Hence we HAVE TO ALWAYS expect close combat scenarios. And for the F 35 to survive close combat, the f135 will be stretched to its limits.

This plane was designed by America as primarily an AC based fighter that would fight from a distance. That scenario is not reality from an Indian perspective.

Finally I am not confusing anything. The F135 weighs the same as the F 110 but produces twice the peak thrust. It will need to sustain much much higher stress level. Material science advances can only compensate for so much. Most of the issues with the F135 have been stress related issues. These cannot be solved very easily. Instead those parts will be re-rated for a much lower useful life. Meaning a way more expensive engine over its lifetime.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 10 Oct 2014 19:05

George wrote:Sorry, but it will run afterburners MOST of the time. It cannot stay supersonic unless its on afterburners.


Most fighters are rarely supersonic.

They did a study adding up all the supersonic hours of all fighters everywhere and it was miniscule.

Even combining all planes from all countries, the vast majority of supersonic hours came from just 20 planes, the Concordes.

George wrote:The only time that the F 35 wont be on afterburners will be when they are firing at targets from a long way off.


The MKI needs afterburner to reach supersonic speeds, but I can guarantee you it rarely runs in afterburner either. Why? Because most situations don't call for it.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 10 Oct 2014 19:15

George wrote:Finally I am not confusing anything. The F135 weighs the same as the F 110 but produces twice the peak thrust. It will need to sustain much much higher stress level. Material science advances can only compensate for so much. Most of the issues with the F135 have been stress related issues. These cannot be solved very easily. Instead those parts will be re-rated for a much lower useful life. Meaning a way more expensive engine over its lifetime.


F135: 43,000 lbf
F110-GE-132: 32,000 lbf

So nowhere near twice as much max thrust (unless you're including the lift fan or something like that)

Yes, advanced engine design is not easy, but that is not the same as impossible. There is no evidence they're merely re-rating parts.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 10 Oct 2014 19:24

George wrote:The plane was designed for Americans to fight a war half a continent away from their home. So... best to ask our fighters the need to pulling g's


OK, get it.

IN requested LM for a presentation on the -C. So, let us see. IF at all I see "India" ordering the JSF, that is where it will occur (along with EMAL, E2 Hawkeye, etc).

I do not see the IAF asking for them, but one never knows. The recent reports about a two seater FGFA seems to indicate that the IAF is getting exactly what they want instead of what the Russians think what the IAF wants (which is good). But, since nothing has been confirmed from the Indian side so far, let us wait. But I do not see the JSF in IAF colors.

That said, there is nothign wrong with the Gs the JSF pulls. Point being that people compare the JSF to what THEY know to be the standards and not what the plane was designed for. So, yes, the USAF will happily not pull large Gs for decades. That plane is years beyond anything out there - not even close. People should read more widely. Do not have to agree with everything, but when there are huge holes in their knowledge base it is hard to discuss anything meaningfully.

Maintenance without going nuts? Have you been following the development of the fighter? So far not so good for a presumed low maintenance fighter.

Here is a chronological write up about the 'maintenance without going nuts' F 135.


Man, what a waste of bandwidth!!!! This article is an example of what I am talking about above.

This whole stupidity was posted ad nauseam in the turkey thread, which itself was a huger waste of band width.

But, I am glad you did not read the articles on the MKI - after a decade+ - having all the displays in the poor plane go blank - while flying!!!!!! (Of course a fix has been found for it.)

Or that the PAK-FA twice had fires in its OLD and TRUSTED engine (not even a new one)!!! The second while an Indian team that ultimately got access to that plane was watching it fly around and were not given access to the plane after the fire.

Did you ever check out the history of the F-22/F-16?

Be very, very glad AND great full that the LCA has never had a major accident. Programs like that face huge risks. Comes with the territory - with the exception of people who hunt turkeys and go looking for one.

Very sad that there are people who go looking for -ves in others.
Last edited by NRao on 10 Oct 2014 19:34, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 10 Oct 2014 19:34

George wrote:The plane was designed for Americans to fight a war half a continent away from their home. So... best to ask our fighters the need to pulling g's

1. Its been tested to 9.9Gs.
2. Air warfare for the foreseeable future will remain dominated by BVR combat.
3. It'll remain unrivaled at WVR combat for a long while yet. EODAS + VSI HMDS + Aim-9X Blk3

Maintenance without going nuts? Have you been following the development of the fighter? So far not so good for a presumed low maintenance fighter.

Yes its development has been followed very closely on the forum. And little of what you've posted (most of which related to expected developmental hurdles) has an impact on routine maintenance. What matters is stuff like the all LRUs being placed one panel deep, radar requiring zero maintenance with a design life matching the aircraft's, electrical actuators employed instead of hydraulics (a revolutionary concept), pneumatics instead of charges for munitions release, a revolutionary degree of self diagnostics (though the ALIS is still a work in progress).

“In many ways, the F-35 is easier to maintain than the F-16,” said Capt. Terje Vik, a maintenance lead from the Royal Norwegian Air Force. Vik has been at the F-35 ITF since the aircraft first arrived May 2010. “The F-35 has fewer LRUs [line replaceable units] and is more software driven. Normal scheduled maintenance is reduced. And the computer interface replaces a lot of test equipment. The aircraft also has more built-in test capability. Overall, fewer people are required to maintain the F-35.” (link)

George wrote:Here is a chronological write up about the 'maintenance without going nuts' F 135.
.
.
.

Very little of which has to do with maintenance.

It is crazy and stupid to expect a 200kn turbofan that has to be on afterburners most of the time to be a low maintenance machine.

The F-22 and PAK FA's 160kN+ engines won't have maintenance issues but the F135's 190kN will require heavy maintenance? And who says it has to be on afterburners 'most of the time'?

Would you like to compare the durability of the F-16's 'big fat' F100 engine to the MiG-29's smaller RD-33s? You're assuming that the technology employed in the F135 is at the same level as that in previous generation aircraft with merely thrust being upgraded. A hugely mistaken assumption.

A standard RX 135 from the factory will run 30000 km before a cylinder rebore is necessary. A piped and ported Rx that doubles it output torque will last about 100 km. Obviously not a fair comparison, but it is a good example to highlight the fact that extreme performance causes extreme wear. An F1 engine is 1500 cc and lasts 2 races.

The A380's Trent 900 can generate over 360kN of thrust compared to 200kN on the 747's original GE JT9D. Doesn't make the latter a more maintenance friendly option.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8853
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 10 Oct 2014 19:46

Love the argument that the F-135 has to be in afterburner "most of the time" because somehow, somewhere someone apparently has facts, that an F-35 would need to go into burners (more so then the aircraft it is replacing across the board) and as such run more engine cycles then a similarly kitted F-16. It would be advisable to do some research (time permitting) into the engine cycle life of the F-135, which has been designed to be at par or ahead of the F-16's the F-35's are replacing. Oppsite to what is widely believed, engine life for all practical purposes is measured in cycles and not notional hours. An hour on a fighter jet flying straight and level in cruise is a lot different form 10 minutes of combat maneuvers with varying throttle settings. There are a few Engine nuts over at the F-16 site with more than 10 years of experience with both GE and P&W combat engines, it would be a worthwile effort to reach out to them to seek some information before coming out with such horse dung. The bottom line is that the F-35A has been designed (as asked by the operators) to out fly the F-16C and give a multi-role strike performance in between the F-16C and F-15E while doing so with a stealthy airframe, internal carriage of weapons and an active-passive mix that is going to be the benchmark for future western fighters.

http://www.filedropper.com/usaf20strike20fighters20rev1

1. Its been tested to 9.9Gs.
2. Air warfare for the foreseeable future will remain dominated by BVR combat.
3. It'll remain unrivaled at WVR combat for a long while yet. EODAS + VSI HMDS + Aim-9X Blk3


Not to mention the ICP's that take their information from 7 IR Sensors (6 DAS sensors and 1 very capable IRST/FLIR EOTS) in addition to the entire EW package with the Apg-81 having the capability to operate in EW modes and fully (100%) passive modes from the get go (only to have this capability expanded). The Ability of the ICP to take all this information and track each and every bogey in a fur ball is its biggest advantage in close in WVR and with the arrival of the future block IR missiles and their likely ability to be carried internally (No one will wait for a seeker lock for a IR missile that has Aim-120B ranges) is whats going to push this dangerous part of air combat out to respectable distances thereby increasing survivability. This is obviously before DEW's come in, something which has been quietly on going with specific fighter applications (Lockheed Martin lead DARPA ABC program that tested a turret for fighter applications last month, and the ongoing HELLADS program).
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Oct 2014 20:13, edited 2 times in total.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 10 Oct 2014 20:05

For a few billion $ more than what price Russians are offering, French Rafale seem to be the ideal choice : not just tech wise but also to avoid political circus that comes along with USA. An expensive brand new jet that needs satellites for star wars is not what we need for MMRCA.

We have come this far without much help from USA while everyone has seen actual US shenanigans all over (realpolitics in brackets- whether providing arms to NE militants, bombing Vietnam or threatening IA who ended the Hindu genocide in Bangladesh (7th fleet) or helping terrorist munna pakis or not supporting najibullah in Afghanistan, meddling in Nepal and so on. USA is not going to change and is going to continue being a Vatican outpost that has grabbed all resources of natives and killed off the natives.)

By the way, it should be easy for GoI to get a few billion $ just be reducing oil import bill which is more than 150 billion $ PER YEAR. We can increase oil output of our own wells for this or dig more in Manipur. This should be the main issue at this stage, and others such as integration of available ammunition and so on.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 10 Oct 2014 20:10

George,

Do not be surprised if the Indians ask for the very engine for their AMCA.

A cursory search shows there is no engine to compete with it - none.

Or to say it another way: the risks are equal when all engines are considered.

India can get a dynamite engine, with low technical and financial risks and with high political risks or get an older engine with high technical and higher financial risks and low political risks accompanied by broken promises of a better engine in the future.

Then there is the ever effervescent topic of "strategic" interests. Touchy. However, with China all these years and now that little thing called ISIS better count on a US engine.

And, in 15-20 years IF India cannot do better than a France, then time to close shop and go home.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 10 Oct 2014 20:18

IF (HUGE if) the *future* is FGFA and AMCA, then Rafale has no place out there in 2014+.

Simple as that.

And France will not even be a player in a few years. They will command some respect on the technology front and that they should - but that is not the issue. The issue is about India/Indians making sure that in 5-10 years Inda is powerful enough politically to counter *any* threat on the political front. Shame if Indians cannot get it done.

Just like the "engine" start working on it. It can be done.

member_28714
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28714 » 10 Oct 2014 20:33

@GeorgeWelch

Where most planes dont need afterburners, the F 35 does. Whether they are supersonic always or not is not of any material consequence. Most planes need afterburners only in close combat other than to accelerate beyond supersonic and then cruise. The fact is that the F 35 needs every last gasp of energy from the F 135 during close engagements in order for it to reach anywhere close to rated AOA or G's. Thats where a twin engine fighter scores. The MKI does not need afterburners because it is a twin engine aircraft thats capable of producing 200KN of thrust and still has 50 to spare.

@NRao, we are not talking about IN, This thread is about Rafale and MMRCA and possible alternative. So lets not get into what the Navy loves.
Thank you for pointing out the design limitation of the F 35. The next part of your post was ad-hominem to the original author who has painstakingly documented the issues with the engine. The conclusion is undeniable - the design is not capable of longevity. I am not saying it will not work. I am saying that it will require frequent replacement of stress wear parts, way more than an engine rated for much lower power.

@Vivs
Why do those facts have very little to do with maintenance? The author has highlighted exactly why it will impact maintenance. All root cause analysis of F 135 failures have lead to the same thing stress related failures. Its obvious that it has to do with everything maintenance.

The F 22 and PAK FA are twin engine aircraft specifically built for air dominance. They have 350+ kn on tap. Of course two engines will be way lesser stressed than a single engine F 35. Please compare apples to apples.

Regarding the F 16 comparison, I was comparing like for like. Afterall the F 35 is the F 16 replacement. I was trying to point out that a similar size engine is producing almost twice the thrust. And that has consequences, its simple physics. In order to highlight this I will use your own example, the A 380 engine. It produces exactly twice the thrust of the F 135, yet weighs four times as much. It weighs 1.6 times as much as the JT9D's. Hence it is not a high stress engine.

The F 135 is an engine from which PW have squeezed out too much power for its size. Please read through their engine development notes. Why they had to keep uprating it with every addtional goodie that pentagon wanted. There is no such thing as unlimited thrust given a certain combustion volume. Physics. Since you have been absurdly condescending in each of your replies, I have to tell you to go learn some basic physics and laws of thermodynamics before giving absurd comparisons like A 380 engine etc..

@brar, you start with the assumption that you are better read than me. good for you. i dont need to reply to your horse shite.

@all
I am not intending to get on anyone's nerves. Please go back a couple of pages and see what I wrote. I claimed that the F 35 will not work for India as it will cost us more than $500 mill a plane over 35 years, excluding an MLU. I agree its a great plane, its just not a great plane for India. And one of the primary reasons for the high cost is the single engine design that has to do too much work and hence will require too much care.

member_28714
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28714 » 10 Oct 2014 20:37

NRao wrote:George,

Do not be surprised if the Indians ask for the very engine for their AMCA.

A cursory search shows there is no engine to compete with it - none.

Or to say it another way: the risks are equal when all engines are considered.

India can get a dynamite engine, with low technical and financial risks and with high political risks or get an older engine with high technical and higher financial risks and low political risks accompanied by broken promises of a better engine in the future.

Then there is the ever effervescent topic of "strategic" interests. Touchy. However, with China all these years and now that little thing called ISIS better count on a US engine.

And, in 15-20 years IF India cannot do better than a France, then time to close shop and go home.



@Nrao. The AMCA is a twin engine aircraft. It does not need 380kn of thrust. So I can guarantee you we will not be using the F 135 for the AMCA.

Secondly, I am not talking political compulsions, just technical stuff and cost implications.

member_28714
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28714 » 10 Oct 2014 20:40

NRao wrote:IF (HUGE if) the *future* is FGFA and AMCA, then Rafale has no place out there in 2014+.

Simple as that.

And France will not even be a player in a few years. They will command some respect on the technology front and that they should - but that is not the issue. The issue is about India/Indians making sure that in 5-10 years Inda is powerful enough politically to counter *any* threat on the political front. Shame if Indians cannot get it done.

Just like the "engine" start working on it. It can be done.


I am not arguing in favour of the Rafale either. Only debating against the F 35 for IAF.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 10 Oct 2014 20:45

George wrote:Where most planes dont need afterburners, the F 35 does. Whether they are supersonic always or not is not of any material consequence. Most planes need afterburners only in close combat other than to accelerate beyond supersonic and then cruise. The fact is that the F 35 needs every last gasp of energy from the F 135 during close engagements in order for it to reach anywhere close to rated AOA or G's.


False on multiple levels. The acceleration of a combat-loaded F-35 is comparable to a clean F-16. It has a very powerful engine and does not need to use after-burner more than any other plane. Secondly, AoA or Gs have nothing to do with engine power (practically speaking), those are aerodynamic and structural limitations that will not change no matter how powerful of an engine you use.

member_28714
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28714 » 10 Oct 2014 20:49

GeorgeWelch wrote:
George wrote:Where most planes dont need afterburners, the F 35 does. Whether they are supersonic always or not is not of any material consequence. Most planes need afterburners only in close combat other than to accelerate beyond supersonic and then cruise. The fact is that the F 35 needs every last gasp of energy from the F 135 during close engagements in order for it to reach anywhere close to rated AOA or G's.


False on multiple levels. The acceleration of a combat-loaded F-35 is comparable to a clean F-16. It has a very powerful engine and does not need to use after-burner more than any other plane. Secondly, AoA or Gs have nothing to do with engine power (practically speaking), those are aerodynamic and structural limitations that will not change no matter how powerful of an engine you use.


I would like to quote your post. Both for posterity as well as a lesson to myself. Thanks. I cannot argue with someone that says AOA and G's have nothing to do with power.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 10 Oct 2014 21:04

George wrote:
@Nrao. The AMCA is a twin engine aircraft. It does not need 380kn of thrust. So I can guarantee you we will not be using the F 135 for the AMCA.

Secondly, I am not talking political compulsions, just technical stuff and cost implications.


There things:

1) Derate the engine. Technical issues can be taken care of. Despite all its warts, it is the best engine out there. No two ways about it

2) And who out there is better qualified than a US company - both technically + financials - to act on such issues? Both in terms of time and cost? Let me know if you have any suggestions

3) IF there is a risk, it is political - all nations, no exceptions. It is a silly notion that one nation is better than the other. It is just that for the time being that the Venn circles have a decent overlap to be confident about a relationship. But those circles are constantly moving and when the overlaps reduce the risks increase. Simple as that. People who get attached to one or the other get their chadis into knots (as the saying on BR goes).

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 10 Oct 2014 23:24

George wrote:@Vivs
Why do those facts have very little to do with maintenance? The author has highlighted exactly why it will impact maintenance. All root cause analysis of F 135 failures have lead to the same thing stress related failures. Its obvious that it has to do with everything maintenance.

At no point was 'too much thrust' identified as even a probable cause of any of its issues. Most problems were design faults and have been rectified without any derating of the engine.

The F 22 and PAK FA are twin engine aircraft specifically built for air dominance. They have 350+ kn on tap. Of course two engines will be way lesser stressed than a single engine F 35. Please compare apples to apples.

Regarding the F 16 comparison, I was comparing like for like. Afterall the F 35 is the F 16 replacement.

Compare the durability of the two RD-33s on the MiG-29 to the single F100 on the F-16. I'm assuming that's 'apples-to-apples'.

I was trying to point out that a similar size engine is producing almost twice the thrust. And that has consequences, its simple physics. In order to highlight this I will use your own example, the A 380 engine. It produces exactly twice the thrust of the F 135, yet weighs four times as much. It weighs 1.6 times as much as the JT9D's. Hence it is not a high stress engine.

So as per you its the thrust-to-weight ratio that's the correct benchmark to measure durability? Basically what you're saying is that engines with higher thrust to weight ratios are always harder to maintain and less durable. That's an utterly absurd premise. Fifth generation turbofans like the F119, F135 and the 'Izdeliye 30' were/are designed to deliver higher TWR without compromising on durability or maintainability.

The F 135 is an engine from which PW have squeezed out too much power for its size. Please read through their engine development notes.

There's nothing you've posted on the thread that hasn't been posted and discussed at least twice over, on the JSF thread. And nowhere in the 'engine development notes' was 'too much power' been identified as the underlying cause.

Why they had to keep uprating it with every addtional goodie that pentagon wanted. There is no such thing as unlimited thrust given a certain combustion volume. Physics. Since you have been absurdly condescending in each of your replies, I have to tell you to go learn some basic physics and laws of thermodynamics before giving absurd comparisons like A 380 engine etc..

No one said anything about unlimited thrust.

The Rafale's M88 delivers a TWR of about 9:1 up from 6.5 for the Mirage's M53. Just what is so impossible about P&W progressing from the F100 (8:1) to the F119 (9.5:1) to the F135(11:1)?

As to the latter part, what did you expect when you claimed (based on a visual inspection no less) that the aircraft goes into stall conditions under 80% thrust. Or that BVR combat was relevant only to expeditionary operations. Or the implication aircraft wasn't capable of high G maneuvers.
Last edited by Viv S on 11 Oct 2014 00:05, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8853
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 11 Oct 2014 00:05

So as per you its the thrust-to-weight ratio that's the correct benchmark to measure durability? Basically what you're saying is that engines with higher thrust to weight ratios are always harder to maintain and less durable. That's an utterly absurd premise. A fifth generation turbofans like the F119, F135 and the 'Izdeliye 30' are designed to deliver higher TWR without compromising on durability or maintainability.


If that were true, then every generation aviation engines would become less and less reliable :)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SaiK » 11 Oct 2014 01:54

nrao, turbine jets and fans can't be derated just like that. none will perform jet engines at suboptimal levels in any 5th gen a/c. there is no question of taking care of technical issue. it is like say, i'd try to fit my grown up legs into a smaller size shoe by chopping my toes off!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 11 Oct 2014 02:15

"just like that" or not, the point is that the US companies are best positioned to produce an engine, derived from the JSF engine or not, for the AMCA: in terms of both time and cost.

IF there is any other company out there that you think that can do that please let me know.

RR may be close, but I think they get a lot of funding and some technical help from the US. ?????

The second point is that if people think that the JSF is fat and not designed with aerodynamics in mind they are not even close to the truth. Fat, stubby wings, not that cute looking (the Rafale and PAK-FA look far better), lacks kinetics, etc, etc, etc. All is fine. Yet this plane is the best out there - because it has other features that people have not bothered to read about or do not comprehend. One reason why others compare their products to it (and the F-22)!!!!!

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 11 Oct 2014 04:38

NRao wrote:..
Derate the engine. Technical issues can be taken care of. Despite all its warts, it is the best engine out there. No two ways about it


Yes!

Whatever it takes. We are not good at engines for anything. People think we are going to be dependent on the US for F-135 and that's bad.

Hey, we are dependent on Honeywell F-125s for the Jaguars, GE- F-404/414s for the LCA and ML2500s for a variety of naval applications.

Sad fact but we have not focused on an engine first that you can build an aircraft around.

member_28714
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28714 » 11 Oct 2014 09:27

@vivS, I've clarified across three posts that I did not say visual inspection. My statement was - Look at the plane from a design and engineering perspective. If you think that means visual, you have a comprehension disability. This despite me clarifying.

Regarding you 5th gen engine statement and durability, we wont know until we find out one way or the other in time right? Well the initial results for the F 135 are far from good. Cracks in turbine blades after 400 flight hours? Sure, very durable.

The rest of your post you continue to repeat yourself. Whatever floats your boat mate.

@Nrao, you want to derate the F 135 by 40%? Because the AMCA desired engine specs if I remember correctly states 120kn. Not convinced.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 11 Oct 2014 10:33

Ck out the biridie droppings about a certain species of hornet that may be bio-engineered here by a co. that you can always rely upon!

The F mag has a piece about the frenetic modernisation of the airfleets of Sino-Pak military JV aimed at India.A decision on augmenting the IAF's depleting numbers and capability must be taken asap.,preferably with a speedy induction of 1-2 sqds. of aircraft already in service with the country of origin.Desi alternatives cannot arrive anytime before 2020 and in any case the Mk-2 too will not be able to perform the role of a true medium multi-role aircraft like the Raffy or any of the other twin-engined rivals.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_20292 » 11 Oct 2014 10:51

Viv S wrote:2. Air warfare for the foreseeable future will remain dominated by BVR combat.


precisely. because most air fighting is over in a trice, in the snap of the fingers.

It is not, like a lot of people think, a game of mano-a-mano Mortal Kombat MK3. No.

You see the bogey first, fire first, he's down, and of course, at Mach 1, you are out of there before anyone can say Jack Robinson.

The See first, fire first is important, and this is where the stealth comes in.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 11 Oct 2014 13:38

you want to derate the F 135 by 40%? Because the AMCA desired engine specs if I remember correctly states 120kn. Not convinced.


Assume what ever you think the IAF wants in an engine and let me know which other nation can provide India with an engine for the AMCA.

Go ahead.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 11 Oct 2014 14:04

Very good question. So coming to engines now, we already know that we are generation or more, behind the best. Our primary concern should be to invent good enough engines too now on. If needed, build a whole lot of applications around logistics chain and make all fighters twin engine.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 11 Oct 2014 18:06

George wrote:@vivS, I've clarified across three posts that I did not say visual inspection. My statement was - Look at the plane from a design and engineering perspective. If you think that means visual, you have a comprehension disability. This despite me clarifying.

My mistake. I assume then your statement about the aircraft stalling under 80% thrust was based on technical data (examined from a design and engineering perspective) ? Do share your sources of information with the forum please.

Regarding you 5th gen engine statement and durability, we wont know until we find out one way or the other in time right? Well the initial results for the F 135 are far from good. Cracks in turbine blades after 400 flight hours? Sure, very durable.

1. What do you suggest is the purpose of testing, if not to identify and isolate such problems?
2. The engine had been operated for 700 hours including ground testing. That's longer than many Russian engines have lasted.
3. Last month P&W filed a lawsuit against a supplier with regard to deliveries of a substandard grade of titanium. Clearly not an endemic problem.
4. Just because heavy media scrutiny brought the event with F135 under the public eye doesn't mean it was a first of its kind, FYI -

F-16: An investigation into a rash of crashes at the nation's largest F-16 base has led to the discovery of engine cracks in 17 of the jet fighters, the Air Force said Friday. Cracks up to an inch long were found in the jets' Pratt & Whitney 220 engines link

Mirage 2000: Taiwanese Defence Minister Kao Hua-chu said a review was to be launched into the air force's French-made Mirage fighter jets due to concerns about a possible engine problem. During maintenance operations in May 2009, cracks were discovered in the engine rotors of Mirage jets, resulting in reduced flying hours.

Both operational types, well past their development phase where such issues should have been identified. Didn't stop either from being very successful programs.

________________________

Also, the circumstances behind the crack weren't normal either (its a development aircraft) -

"It was operating at levels four times higher than an operational mission, and four times greater than the levels we had qualified the engine for," says Croswell. "That was very good news, you don't want something like high-cycle fatigue or low-cycle fatigue." (link)

The rest of your post you continue to repeat yourself. Whatever floats your boat mate.

And you continue to duck every challenge to your bold premise (i.e. high TWR equals low durability).

1. How did the durability of the F-16's 'single fat engine' compare to the MiG-29's two smaller and therefore more efficient ones?
2. Is the F404 more durable than the F414, which weighs just 7% more, has the same volume, but delivers 25% more thrust?

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 11 Oct 2014 22:07

Philip wrote:Ck out the biridie droppings about a certain species of hornet that may be bio-engineered here by a co. that you can always rely upon!

The F mag has a piece about the frenetic modernisation of the airfleets of Sino-Pak military JV aimed at India.A decision on augmenting the IAF's depleting numbers and capability must be taken asap.,preferably with a speedy induction of 1-2 sqds. of aircraft already in service with the country of origin.

What is 'f mag' bro? Any link? But this is what makes the most sense now. Our patentable selection process has led us into a blind alley in Chauri Bazaar. Endless haggling and no steel in sight.

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1147
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby A Sharma » 11 Oct 2014 23:11


Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 13 Oct 2014 02:59

A Sharma wrote:http://www.forceindia.net
Force magazine

Ah, thank you.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 16 Oct 2014 12:31

AWST's new comprehensive combat aircraft guide,"all you wanted to know but were afraid to ask...".However,notable omissions are the LCA ,MIG-29 and Russo-Chinese stealth fighters like the JF-17,FGFA,etc.,plus the Asian "tigers:" from Japan and SoKo.

The Aviation Week Guide to Combat Aircraft
Price: $249.00

The Aviation Week Guide to Combat Aircraft profiles the fourteen most prominent fighters and bombers around the globe today. Each profile contains a detailed discussion of the aircraft’s features, including major differences among all of its variants, going back to the start of each program. The profiles go on to elaborate on current and future upgrade initiatives. Also included is a complete production and delivery history, specifying how many of each aircraft have been sold to each customer and when deliveries of the aircraft occurred. Each profile ends with a specification table, broken down by variant, which lists dimensions, weights, performance, weapons, avionics and unit costs.

The fourteen aircraft profiled include:

F-15 Eagle and Strike Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon
F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet
EA-18 Growler
F-22 Raptor
F-35 Lightning II / Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
A-10 Thunderbolt II
Eurofighter Typhoon
Dassault Rafale
JAS 39 Gripen
Su-27/30/33/35 Flanker and Su-34 Fullback
B-52 Stratofortress
B-1 Lancer
B-2 Spirit

NOTE: The following volume discounts apply to this product: 1-4 copies: $249.00 each; 5-9 copies: $199.00 each; 10-10+: $149.00 each

member_28442
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28442 » 18 Oct 2014 05:13

guys sorry for the noob question,

a few moons ago i read on this thread that the rafale (rambha?) had won the MMRCA race

i assumed the contract would be signed soon, but till now nothing has happened.

are we even gonna buy it or is it now deemed too expensive/not enough TOT?

or is modi going to push for the indigenous LCA instead?

sorry again for the noob question, theres just too many pages to read in this thread with far too much technical data

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 18 Oct 2014 07:52

Sharma ji, fact is that Indian cannot afford the MMRCA. In the name of national security, our politicians and generals pimp us away and then when we need to use these machines to advance our goals, we are informed that there are not enough bombs or what have you - the defence min goes running to Israel or Russia for a few bombs more at the 13th hour.

India needs to invest in the LCA or else shut the program down. Buy 200 MK1 or shelve the project. The MK1 is more capable than what our adversaries can bring to bear against it. And, enhancements don't require hundred of millions in development costs.

Making 100s of LCAs will give birth to domestic industry and lead to future benefits. But will they buy it .... or the Arjun ........!!

member_28442
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28442 » 18 Oct 2014 13:24

vivek ji i do understand the merits of the LCA and do subscribe to your theory of pushing for an indigenous fighter, even if it is inferior at this moment to the foreign maal

but the question is not about what we want, but about what the govt actually plans on doing

already we have wasted valuable time in selecting the MMRCA winner, now we are wasting even more time deciding whether we want to buy it or instead pick LCA.

personally i thought with modi would come a lot of clarity and speed in decision making, i hope he is not neglecting this crucial area and make a decision quickly so that atleast the LCA program can be pushed ahead at full speed

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Nikhil T » 19 Oct 2014 01:36

Sour grapes :-o

Rafale Fighters India is Buying Can't Match Chinese Fighters: Russian Envoy

New Delhi: The French Rafale Fighter aircraft that India is planning to buy, in what is being billed as the largest defence purchase by the country - "will be swatted like mosquitos in an August night," says Russian Ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin.

Mr Kadadin also claimed that Sukhoi-27 - aircraft manufactured in Russia that are supplied to China's People's Liberation Army (Air Force )- are far more capable and advanced than the Rafale fighters.
:lol:

Incidentally, Russian-made MiG- 35, as well as US-made F-16s & F- 18, Swedish-made SAAB Gripin and French-made Rafale were the key competitors for the defence contract. After a long and detailed evaluation, the IAF had selected the French-made Rafale Fighter jets to replace its ageing and depleting fleet. The deal is likely to cost India a whopping $23 billion.

Going on to question India's strategic forays with the Unites States and the erstwhile 'Western Bloc', the Russian Ambassador said the US has "transferred zero technology to India".

He cited the BrahMos Missile, a supersonic cruise missile jointly developed and produced by India and Russia, the Sukhoi-30MKi that is now being licensed and produced in India, and the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant as examples of critical technology transferred by Russia to India.

Russia, historically, has been a key strategic partner of India and the main supplier of weapon systems. But, in the last decade, India has increasingly looked towards Israel and US to meet its defence requirements. The shift, no doubt, has peeved Russia.

These issues are likely to dominate the summit-level talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. President Putin is scheduled to visit India on December 11.

Russia is expected to push India to source conventional submarines from them. Submarines are key to the strategy of "Sea Denial" - preventing warships of adversaries from accessing specific areas in the sea. India has only eight functional conventional submarines.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19582
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 19 Oct 2014 02:01

Must have been high on vodka. The Sukhois provided to the Chinese, Su-27SK and Su-30MKK/MK2 are a generation almost behind the Rafale in terms of avionics. The Su-35 is desired by the PRC but unlikely to be handed over given latters proclivity to reverse engineer/ripoff and is but now entering service into the RusAF (which means same gear wont go to PRC).

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 19 Oct 2014 04:41

Karan M wrote:Must have been high on vodka. The Sukhois provided to the Chinese, Su-27SK and Su-30MKK/MK2 are a generation almost behind the Rafale in terms of avionics. The Su-35 is desired by the PRC but unlikely to be handed over given latters proclivity to reverse engineer/ripoff and is but now entering service into the RusAF (which means same gear wont go to PRC).


Forget the Vodka, the implicit message is that "WE Russians have supplied something to PRC that will do you harm and are kinda proud of it. Of course, if you join the SCO and you follow us 2 big bros, you won't get hurt."

Vodka is merely releasing what they really think. India is a pivot one that RU and PRC don't take seriously but don't want to fall into US/Japan camp.

The SU-35 is funded by our dollars in the MKI.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 19 Oct 2014 05:10

Then, is the the FGFA a dud?

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_23370 » 19 Oct 2014 05:48

Rubbish. The Russians are currently 2 gen behind americans and a gen behind the Euros. They are trying to bridge that gap but lets see how the FGFA turns out. The Su-30 MKK etc are diluted crap that wouldn't pass IAF requirements.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests