Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

'Make in India' Single engined fighter

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 04 Aug 2017 23:54

Viv_S: I will buy that argument and that could be the reason for the snail's pace the GOI is taking on this issue. Delay till the F-35 cost becomes attractive. Anyway, let's see.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Vips » 05 Aug 2017 03:10

F35 at $80 Million a pop would be a steal. Even if Lockheed charges another $20-25 Million each for the multi year maintenance and assured availability contract, it is better then the 4th generation birds on offer. May be in 2019 when this thread is on Page # 312 we will get the news of Modi signing the contract with Trump. :D

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 05 Aug 2017 03:18

That is not the acquisition cost of the aircraft. It is the fly-away cost target. Per unit FMS acquisition cost of the F-35, associated systems, weapons, support, training etc will be in the $150 - $200 Million range. South Korea paid aproximately $190 Million per aircraft for the entire deal (including weapons and support) and this factored in offsets (including satellite development iirc) and engineering and technology assistance for their KF-X. Their FMS package came out to around $11.5 Billion for 60 aircraft that they asked DSCA to price out. The actual contract may well come slightly less than that since the moved their first batch from LRIP 10 to LRIP 11 which pushed more aircraft to the FRP stage than was originally planned. But a comparable FMS deal going forward would probably come in at 10-15% less than what was provided to the Koreans.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2804
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Aug 2017 23:05

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Great post Viv - have to agree. INdia needs to get a private player to get a FACO line for the JSF although the one downside to this could be its cost

CM, give it another 2-3 years and the F-35A will be cheaper than whatever block of F-16 they're offering. Simple outcome of vastly greater economies of scale. The F-16 will be running at 12-15 units per year max while the F-35 program will be putting out over 150 units annually.

A FACO line will probably run us about $1 bn plus/minus. More than an F-16 line but the difference is definitely worth it given what each is delivering.


The way the f16 makes sense is if it comes at friendship prices, which is what I'm expecting. LM could really undercut Saabs offer

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12908
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby negi » 06 Aug 2017 11:40

All these theories about economy of scale make me laugh ; look around fighter aircraft are not commodities which everyone makes talk about economy of scale may be relevant to actual production cost of LM coming down but that does not anywhere imply that they will pass it to consumer this is not some cloud app segment where companies compete on price.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2017 12:16

negi wrote:All these theories about economy of scale make me laugh ; look around fighter aircraft are not commodities which everyone makes talk about economy of scale may be relevant to actual production cost of LM coming down but that does not anywhere imply that they will pass it to consumer this is not some cloud app segment where companies compete on price.

The laws of economics (including scale) apply to every commodity including aircraft - both military & civilian. Other factors remaining the same, the program with greater scale will produce cheaper goods. That's why the F-16 outpriced the Mirage and why the F-35 is set to outprice the Rafale/EF.

With regard to the 'consumer', a military program of this kind doesn't operate in a free market. The program office (JPO) will negotiate with the supplier (LM), upto a point, failing which it has the legal authority to impose a price on the supplier.

F-35: DoD Forces Lockheed To Accept Its Price For LRIP 9
WASHINGTON: In an extraordinary action, the F-35 Joint Program Office decided 14 or 18 months of negotiations was enough and has issued a “unilateral contract” for the latest Low Rate Initial Production contract to defense giant Lockheed Martin.

In simple terms, the Pentagon got sick and tired of talking with Lockheed and told them, here’s how much we’re willing to pay you. Take it or leave it. All terms had been agreed to by both sides except one — the price. This may well be the largest unilateral contract ever issued by the United States government. That’s what I’ve heard from two well informed sources, but we don’t have anything definitive yet.

The definitized contract for LRIP 9 announced today was not a mutually agreed upon contract, it was a unilateral contract action, which obligates us to perform under standard terms and conditions, and previously agreed-to items,” Lockheed’s F-35 spokesman Mike Rein said in an emailed statement. “We are disappointed with the decision by the Government to issue a unilateral contract action on the F-35 LRIP 9 contract.”


As far as a foreign customer is concerned, it can negotiate directly with the company for a better deal, or it can get on the FMS boat where the US DoD will act as its agent, tacking on the export orders to the existing domestic orders, at a similar cost.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12908
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby negi » 06 Aug 2017 13:11

^ That is far away from reality I am aware of economies of scale and other gol gappa talk ; I was speaking strictly in backdrop of how military platforms are bought by India they do not even follow a 'proper' tendering process let alone such concepts.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2017 13:33

negi wrote:^ That is far away from reality I am aware of economies of scale and other gol gappa talk ;

'Gol gappa talk' because the underlying economic principle is false or because the principle doesn't apply to aircraft production?

I was speaking strictly in backdrop of how military platforms are bought by India they do not even follow a 'proper' tendering process let alone such concepts.

The pricing for any aircraft that India is looking to purchase, be it the Rafale, F-16 or C-295, will inevitably be affected by the scale of production. However, the tendering process, proper or not, is not supposed to examine any of this. Its all factored into the price offered by supplier.

Simply put, a firm that can manufacture a product at a lower price will have the capacity to sell it to the customer at a lower price.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19900
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Austin » 06 Aug 2017 19:33

There is little chance that F-35 in any variant will appear in IAF fleet for next 10-15 years things might change post that period but that is too far even for crystal ball gazing.

As of today IAF has a long wish list including the single engine fighter lets see what IAF can get in the next 5 years from today.

We dont even have a MOD as of Today and Jaitlee would be happy to get all the money it can get back so that he can show rosy picture on budget deficit come Feb 2018 .....he would be the last person to approve any major foreign outright purchase like Single Engine type.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 07 Aug 2017 02:06

Austin wrote:There is little chance that F-35 in any variant will appear in IAF fleet for next 10-15 years things might change post that period but that is too far even for crystal ball gazing.

I remember the same being said about the F-16 a few years ago. Never going to happen. No F-16 model will ever fly in IAF colors. And yet here we are today, 10 months and 104 pages into that very topic.

As of today IAF has a long wish list including the single engine fighter lets see what IAF can get in the next 5 years from today.

5 years from today, the F-16 will be out-of-production (final units being delivered to Bahrain), the Gripen's political prospects will still be non-existent, the PLAAF will have over 100 J-20s in service, the FGFA will still be another 5 years out, and the F-35A will be cheaper than ever.

We dont even have a MOD as of Today and Jaitlee would be happy to get all the money it can get back so that he can show rosy picture on budget deficit come Feb 2018 .....he would be the last person to approve any major foreign outright purchase like Single Engine type.

I don't think anyone believes the contract is likely to be signed before 2020, let alone before Feb 2018.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5848
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 09 Aug 2017 02:07

I see the scope creep. F-16 -> F-18 -> F-35. What is the way out? Some suggest license production of F-16 -> F-18 -> F-35. See the irony? May be not!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5848
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 09 Aug 2017 02:24

chola wrote:Rakesh, stop throwing feces around like a babu-oon supporter. The free market, whether Tata or one of its brethren, will eventually turn this thing around. No more commie style PSUs!

Chola has been warned for the following post. He has three outstanding warnings, which means he should be given a 3 month ban-vaas. But, I am giving him a reprieve for the moment. Rakesh, please back off his tail.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 09 Aug 2017 04:11

Yes Sir. I have not replied to him since Aug 02. I will not reply to him hereafter.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 09 Aug 2017 23:23

Austin wrote:There is little chance that F-35 in any variant will appear in IAF fleet for next 10-15 years things might change post that period but that is too far even for crystal ball gazing.

As of today IAF has a long wish list including the single engine fighter lets see what IAF can get in the next 5 years from today.

We dont even have a MOD as of Today and Jaitlee would be happy to get all the money it can get back so that he can show rosy picture on budget deficit come Feb 2018 .....he would be the last person to approve any major foreign outright purchase like Single Engine type.


I think IN will end up getting F-35 before IAF. IN will end up hedging bets with going with conventional carrier for the next one and will need something that will fit it (F-18 and Rafale probably can't). F-35B will be the only possible candidate. EMALS will end up getting pushed to the carrier after the next one.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 10 Aug 2017 05:59

...which will be perfect for the F-35C :)

By the way, what is the maximum weapons load (in kg or lbs) that the F-35B can take off with? I googled, but came up with no definitive answer.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 10 Aug 2017 06:48

F-35B on L-Class (558 ft takeoff) can execute with full internal strike payload (2 x 1000 lb JDAMs + 2 Aim-120s) and enough fuel for a combat radius of 860 km during a USMC specification tropical day with 10 Knot WOD. It can also land vertically with the same internal payload with enough fuel for the recovery profile. Of course payload and range can be traded since the V-22s will be able to provide mission fuel if range is to be extended. Air to Air missions will obviously be less stressful given the lighter take off weights.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Aug 2017 15:20, edited 1 time in total.

Schmidt
BRFite
Posts: 218
Joined: 19 Aug 2016 08:02

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Schmidt » 10 Aug 2017 13:06

In the event we do go for a foreign SE aircraft , I hope we have the sense to learn from Indonesia and at least do a barter deal

http://www.dw.com/en/indonesia-to-barte ... a-40003606

We have a variety of products that we can export , we will make some margins on these exports , conserve much needed forex , and create some jobs in the relevant sectors

I would say this is even better than the so called sham offsets which give us no benefit

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60468
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 10 Aug 2017 13:41

850km is a massive combat radius

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 10 Aug 2017 14:53

Singha wrote:850km is a massive combat radius


The now retired Marine Deputy Commandant for Aviation had during his tenure, publicly said a few times that with the F-35B they get equal or better range/payload from their Harrier replacement then what they got from the F/A-18 (Classic Hornets) on many missions. The only real reason the Marines are buying the F-35C is to play on the big flat tops and to make sure the DON purchase is high enough numerically so that the Navy specific changes are affordable. Of course the Super Hornet and the F-35A and C will outrange the B significantly but then you carry less fuel on account of the lift fan so it is a trade for other aspects of performance and flexibility.

Image

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 10 Aug 2017 15:01

^
What is f35A & C radius with same payload of B that you have posted?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 10 Aug 2017 15:10

Not with the same payload since the F-35 A and C are designed to carry the larger 2000 lb bomb internally but their strike profile (2 x 900 kg bombs bombs plus 2 x BVRAAM internally) combat radius is above 1200 km for their respective flight profiles. Even the F-35B can fly farther given certain conditions. For example its combat radius when operating from land and appropriate runway in the USMC strike profile improves to 930 km (9% improvement).

Indraanil and I had this discussion a few months back in one of the threads but basically the USAF, USN and USMC performance parameters require strike profile mission radius so we don't hear a lot about pure air to air or pure external load strike profiles. Since 5th generation fighters cannot really carry external fuel tanks on the most demanding missions (where signature needs to be the smallest possible) they are designed with a very large internal fuel capacity. Hence the F-35 is designed around missions the F-16 or F/A-18 would perform with 2-3 large External fuel tanks or in the case of the F-16, 2 Conformal fuel tanks and tanks under the wings. Where the F-35 is superior is that it gets the performance back - It remains a 9G (CTOL) supersonic fighter in that profile whereas the F-16s and F-18s (even the larger E/F variant which the F-35C does not technically replace) are basically bombers at those weights and configurations.

However, foreign nations have asked and Lockheed has included such profiles in their literature and materials provided. In a pure air to air profile for example (internally the F-35A/C/B carry 4 Aim-120s which can be expanded to 6 Aim-120s on the A and C in the near-mid term). In that profile the F-35A gets even better combat radius on account of a lighter payload.

> 1400 km with internal AMRAAMs and at altitude:

Image

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Gaur » 10 Aug 2017 15:56

Schmidt wrote:In the event we do go for a foreign SE aircraft , I hope we have the sense to learn from Indonesia and at least do a barter deal

http://www.dw.com/en/indonesia-to-barte ... a-40003606

We have a variety of products that we can export , we will make some margins on these exports , conserve much needed forex , and create some jobs in the relevant sectors

I would say this is even better than the so called sham offsets which give us no benefit


India had done something similar in 1960s for Mig-21s. Soviets had extended us 10 year credit which was mostly paid by using our exports (largely foodgrains) to them. So, to put it simplistically, it was barter of Mig-21s for food grains.

http://www.idsa.in/strategicanalysis/ArmsandPolitics_ksubrahmanyam_0305

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 10 Aug 2017 16:29

brar_w wrote:Not with the same payload since the F-35 A and C are designed to carry the larger 2000 lb bomb internally but their strike profile (2 x 900 kg bombs bombs plus 2 x BVRAAM internally) combat radius is above 1200 km for their respective flight profiles. Even the F-35B can fly farther given certain conditions. For example its combat radius when operating from land and appropriate runway in the USMC strike profile improves to 930 km (9% improvement).

Indraanil and I had this discussion a few months back in one of the threads but basically the USAF, USN and USMC performance parameters require strike profile mission radius so we don't hear a lot about pure air to air or pure external load strike profiles. Since 5th generation fighters cannot really carry external fuel tanks on the most demanding missions (where signature needs to be the smallest possible) they are designed with a very large internal fuel capacity. Hence the F-35 is designed around missions the F-16 or F/A-18 would perform with 2-3 large External fuel tanks or in the case of the F-16, 2 Conformal fuel tanks and tanks under the wings. Where the F-35 is superior is that it gets the performance back - It remains a 9G (CTOL) supersonic fighter in that profile whereas the F-16s and F-18s (even the larger E/F variant which the F-35C does not technically replace) are basically bombers at those weights and configurations.

However, foreign nations have asked and Lockheed has included such profiles in their literature and materials provided. In a pure air to air profile for example (internally the F-35A/C/B carry 4 Aim-120s which can be expanded to 6 Aim-120s on the A and C in the near-mid term). In that profile the F-35A gets even better combat radius on account of a lighter payload.

> 1400 km with internal AMRAAMs and at altitude:



I don't really follow F35, so I don't know much about it. But these are quite impressive numbers. Add to that US forces' extensive IFR capabilities and well spread bases around the world.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60468
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 10 Aug 2017 16:40

1500km is the combat radius of the Su30 in air to air profile. so pretty impressive.

looks like JSF A and C cart around 8 tons of internal fuel (same as the Su30), while B has 6 tons.
the F16 internal fuel is relatively small around 3.2 tons.

and with a more modern engine and less drag it approaches 2X the realistic combat radius of the F16

at the same radius it will have twice the loiter time.

that in itself is a huge force multiplier over opposing birds that lack in constant tanker support or have to ditch tanks to fight.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 10 Aug 2017 16:55

Its a trade for stealth and contested operations requirements. The F-35A is a medium class fighter (although towards the upper limit) that has an internal fuel capacity that comes in at about 90% of that of the Su-30. Profiles also matter. The F-35A can fly a more efficient strike profile than an F-16C on account of better survivability. This also helps since we are talking about mission profiles here and not ferry range.

There are also plans to add EFTs and this has been studied for the future where missions allow for external carriage. Israel is looking to bring them online ahead of the other operators.

Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 10 Aug 2017 17:17

brar_w wrote:
Image


They have pinched ETFs. LCA would have similar shapes. What is the Mach number for the flight shown in the picture..? Looks like Transonic Mach number to me.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19900
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Austin » 10 Aug 2017 17:48

Singha wrote:looks like JSF A and C cart around 8 tons of internal fuel (same as the Su30), while B has 6 tons.
the F16 internal fuel is relatively small around 3.2 tons


Su-30MKI has internal fuel capacity of 9.4 T and range @ 3000 km

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 10 Aug 2017 17:59

That is range not combat radius. Assuming Lockheed chose the very least amount of air combat on that air to air profile you still get a range in excess of 2800 km with whatever combat/TOS you can plug in to deploy the air to air payload. Extend combat time and you can reduce the range to perhaps 2500-2600 km which is still significant for the type. Combat radius will involve going XXXX km, staying on station and flying back with a set amount of reserve fuel for divert and emergency. I think the latter for the F-35A is 3% (250 kg fuel) but I could be wrong since I haven't looked into it for a while.

Point was that the F-35 is lighter by 4500 kg (empty) compared to the Su-30 and carries nearly 90% of the its internal fuel load. Moreover, in many mission scenarios it will be carrying an all internal payload without the associated drag penalty. Hence it gets a fairly significant range/payload bump for a medium capacity fighter compared to the aircraft it is replacing. As I wrote earlier, it is also a matter of flying more efficient strike profiles on account of more survivability. There will be missions you cannot even send an F-16 or F-18 at 25,000 ft. so their combat radius has to account for much higher time at low altitudes compared to the F-35.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Aug 2017 18:35, edited 4 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 10 Aug 2017 18:11

JayS wrote:
They have pinched ETFs. LCA would have similar shapes. What is the Mach number for the flight shown in the picture..? Looks like Transonic Mach number to me.


Yes Transonic. They tested a number of configurations in the tunnel before eventually choosing one. This will likely be a Block 5 capability for the partners but Israel will probably use these designs before that.

Image

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 10 Aug 2017 18:19

Singha wrote:and with a more modern engine and less drag it approaches 2X the realistic combat radius of the F16



Could it be due to the fact that it flies much higher than f 16?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 10 Aug 2017 18:27

Manish_Sharma wrote:


Could it be due to the fact that it flies much higher than f 16?


Flight profiles are important but they do not account for all this variance. The F-35 is designed to accomplish a particular mission on internal fuel since for some missions EFTs are not an option because of their negative impact on its RCS. For a pure air-air profile cited in the graphic above the profile will involve optimal altitude since for most air to air mission you need to be at the most favorable altitude for your sensors to work best. This will hold true for the F-16 as well.

External fuel tanks also add drag and you at the end of the day end up using a fairly significant amount of additional fuel to negate the effects of drag so you don't get the range impact as you would for additional internal fuel. Hence for fighters like the F-16 or F-18 the low drag CFTs have been pursued.

The image below is one possible configuration for the F-16 where it carries more fuel (but only about 10% more) than an F-35A. Note that the wing tanks are the 600 gallon tanks that Israel uses. There will be significant drag penalty in this configuration and an F-16 kitted in such a configuration would not be able to outrange an F-35A -

Image

Except two additional missiles and about 10-12% of the fuel, the F-35A carries all that is shown in the picture internally in terms of weight classes and missile count.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Aug 2017 18:51, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 10 Aug 2017 18:48

brar_w wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:


Could it be due to the fact that it flies much higher than f 16?


Flight profiles are important but they do not account for all this variance. The F-35 is designed to accomplish a particular mission on internal fuel since for some missions EFTs are not an option because of their negative impact on its RCS. For a pure air-air profile cited in the graphic above the profile will involve optimal altitude since for most air to air mission you need to be at the most favorable altitude for your sensors to work best. This will hold true for the F-16 as well.

External fuel tanks also add drag and you at the end of the day end up using a fairly significant amount of additional fuel to negate the effects of drag so you don't get the range impact as you would for additional internal fuel. Hence for fighters like the F-16 or F-18 the low drag CFTs have been pursued.

The image below is one possible configuration for the F-16 where it carries more fuel (but only about 10% more) than an F-35A. Note that the wing tanks are the 600 gallon tanks that Israel uses. There will be significant drag penalty in this configuration -

Image

Except two additional missiles and about 10-12% of the fuel, the F-35A carries all that is shown in the picture internally in terms of weight classes and missile count.


To add to that, its very easy to find data for drag penalties for each of the stores for F16 from internet. Somewhere there is A/B version's manual which has a lot of details for a large number of store types and for various mission profiles. Its a good place to find some numbers to get an idea about the impact of stores on the drag and mission capabilities. For example, while clean configuration would have total drag of about 220-250 counts, a single ETF alone could add about 40-50 counts of drag to it. 5-10 for AAMs, 15-20 for bombs and so on. Now add all of these and you can get a good feel to the overall impact the stores would have. Also, as a thumb rule, an ETF adds only about half of its fuels worth effectively to the fighter's internal fuel when considering increase in range in absolute numbers, the other half is spent in carrying the ETF itself. Not to mention reduced manoeuvrability and increased radar c/s that is already discussed.

As far as the engine is concerned, F135 is 2.5-3 generations ahead of F110. But at the same time it produces more power as well. While the SFC would be comparable, the fuel usage per unit time in absolute numbers would be still more for F35, I would say. The real advantage of F135 vis-à-vis its older counter-parts is that it gives much higher power in relatively lesser frontal area and weight. And that adds to the overall efficiency of the aircraft.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 10 Aug 2017 18:57

@JayS spot on. In the picture cited above the Drag Index on the F-16 is approaching 250 and it essentially becomes a subsonic aircraft with abysmal performance unless it ditches payload/fuel and provides a mission kill.

This from John who was an F-16 and T-50 engineering team member explains how it all works.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2804
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Aug 2017 10:10

F35 should probably be compared to pakfa, which is smaller than the MKI and therefore closer to jsf. Iirc the pakfa has very good range values as well.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 11 Aug 2017 10:48

Cain Marko wrote:F35 should probably be compared to pakfa, which is smaller than the MKI and therefore closer to jsf. Iirc the pakfa has very good range values as well.


Well, PAKFA would have the same advantages as the JSF due to the typical 5th Gen features. So would any other 5th Gen fighter. But for PAKFA the engine is still an issue. The final engine of PAKFA is supposed to have F135 equivalent numbers, last time I checked. But god knows when it will come. AMCA is not that lucky though. But again we will have to consider the design points for each of them. Not every one of them is optimized for same type of mission profiles. So that would give some variance. Still more or less we should see comparable improvements vis-à-vis their older counterparts.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 11 Aug 2017 14:47

Cain Marko wrote:F35 should probably be compared to pakfa, which is smaller than the MKI and therefore closer to jsf. Iirc the pakfa has very good range values as well.


The F-35 is a single engine, medium class fighter aircraft. The PAKFA is a twin engine heavy. The latter has an empty weight that is likely closer to an Su-30 and significantly more than the F-35A. I don't think one could justify putting the F-35 and the PAKFA in the same design class. They are intended to be used differently and replace different class of aircraft.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Aug 2017 18:00, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 11 Aug 2017 17:01

Opinion piece in the Gulf Times, UAE on the SE deal...

Top guns squawk ‘Make in India’
http://gulfnews.com/news/asia/india/top ... -1.2071763

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2804
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Aug 2017 22:55

brar_w wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:F35 should probably be compared to pakfa, which is smaller than the MKI and therefore closer to jsf. Iirc the pakfa has very good range values as well.


The F-35 is a single engine, medium class fighter aircraft. The PAKFA is a twin engine heavy. The latter has an empty weight that is likely closer to an Su-30 and significantly more than the F-35A. I don't think one could justify putting the F-35 and the PAKFA in the same design class. They are intended to be used differently and replace different class of aircraft.

Sure, but the f35 was being compared to the su30 earlier in terms of range, and I thought that the pakfa, being l lighter than the mki and a contemporary design like the jsf, would make a more appropriate comparison.

That aside, I wouldn't be surprised if it's weight was quite different from the standard flanker considering that it is much smaller..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 11 Aug 2017 23:13

Sure, but the f35 was being compared to the su30 earlier in terms of range, and I thought that the pakfa, being l lighter than the mki and a contemporary design like the jsf, would make a more appropriate comparison.


It is competitive with larger aircraft in this atribute because of the unique needs of the user but it is still a medium category single engine type and not in the same category as the F-22 or PAKFA.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Aug 2017 01:05

X-Post from the IAF News & Discussion Thread...

Austin wrote:https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status/896011303948492800

Indigenous Content of major Hindustan Aeronautics Limited produced platforms in terms of number of components.


Image

Let us take those numbers at face value. Two of the above our western platforms (nos 2 and 5). Two are indian platforms (nos 3 and 4), albeit with valuable foreign content (engines being the main chunk). The last is a Russian platform (No 1). I have been reading the spin on BRF that manufacturing "Western" platforms will lead India to the promised land --> move India from the agricultural sector to western manufacturing methods.

HAL has been doing screwdrivergiri on "Western" platforms for quite a while now --> Do 228 (~ 100 aircraft), the Hawk (~120 made or on order) and the Jaguar (120 were license built by HAL). These are all platforms currently in service with the Indian Air Force / Indian Navy. Can India make an aircraft of this type from scratch today?

So how is license producing 100+ F-Solah or Vaporware (by Tata or Adani) going to kickstart the economy and cause mulitiplier effect in other sectors of the economy? What bakwaas that is!

I know when you guys mean "Western" you are actually referring to American. Because only Uncle Sam can save the day, right? :roll:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 46 guests