http://m.hindustantimes.com/business-ne ... ceAeL.html
Boeing offers to set up production facility for F/A18 in India
Boeing offers to set up production facility for F/A18 in India
As you may well know the USN would not be moving from the F/A-18E/F, EA-18G to an FA-XX until perhaps the mid 2030s. The program to replace the Super Hornet has not even begun yet. Your point is valid about the F/A-18 A-C and that aircraft hasn't been in production for a long time and is not on offer. Boeing is proposing a block 3 F-18E/F, a version that the USN has just decided to buy for itself (60-80 units starting FY2018 (orders)). Yes the F-35C is superior but it is also less mature and more expensive, and would likely be more performance constrained while operating on a STOBAR carrier.Philip wrote:Yaaas.US aircraft cos. would love to dump their obsolete junk onto India when their own allies are dumping the F-16 and F-18 moving on to the JSF and other cheaper alternatives
A point apparently contradicted by Boeing program execs. who seem to think that they can make it work on the current carriers.Philip wrote:F-18 CANNOT be accommodated on our carrier's lifts!
I would be quite surprised if the EA-18G is considered on either side since it is more of a strategic asset. If you look at the one export deal signed for it, it is really about bringing in the Australians into the US EW/EA world with long term training of Aussie Growler crews at Whidbey island, a duplicate EW range facility in Australia that will likely be used for joint ops training by the US Navy and Australian pilots and now the apparent RAAF interest to acquire what superficially appears to basically be an aircraft that the USAF itself wants for its Compass Call re-host.Rakesh wrote:
Added Later: And no Growler discussions as of yet...
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/902143848985444353
Philip Saar suffers from selective amnesiabrar_w wrote:A point apparently contradicted by Boeing program execs. who seem to think that they can make it work on the current carriers.Philip wrote:F-18 CANNOT be accommodated on our carrier's lifts!
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7293&start=2480#p2205302
While I don't support the idea of buying SHs, Boeing is offering an up-engined Blk III variant so the effective payload should be at least comparable. And the approach speed is immaterial - the SHs have done hundreds of thousands of carrier recoveries over the last two decades. Arrested recovery is mechanically the same for the Vikrant as it is for the Nimitz. The advantage in terms of the avionics and reliability, vis a vis the MiG-29K, remains substantial.negi wrote:Boeing's VP of program management spoke like ONE F-18SH in current form has a higher wing loading than the 29K and also lower T:W ratio (for bench-marking assume both are flying clean) , not only that means a longer take off run for the 18SH it also translates into higher approach speeds , for all the limitations of the fulcrum platform , 29K's low speed handling is legendary (one should take a note that despite having lifting body design and low wing loading the wing's are much bigger on 29K as against the Baaz even the lifting surfaces are huge)
One can read up on the F/A-18 Ski Jump tests from decades ago that the article is referencing, belowBoeing has dismissed reports that the F/A-18 is too big for the hangar elevators on the INS Vikramaditya and the under-construction Vikrant class aircraft carrier. The company confirmed today that the Block III Super Hornet requires no modifications for full operations on either of these carriers. Discussions are currently ongoing with the Indian Navy. What appears unclear is if the dimensional clearances in the elevators are too small for comfortable deck handling. If no modifications are imposed on both the aircraft and the shaft systems of the carrier elevators, how much of a trade off would it be for other parameters, including turnaround and sortie generation? A bit of a grey call right now.
The emphasis on ski-jump operations compatibility — a capability that Boeing’s rival Dassault also claims on the Rafale — only amplifies the distance from an Indian Navy decision on whether its new class of aircraft carrier (IAC-2) will employ CATOBAR (steam or electro-magnetic) or a ski jump like the Vikramaditya and Vikrant.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/08 ... -fire.html
They are looking at the IN requirements as likely communicated to them (and others) via the MOD issued Request for Information, and responding to questions asked directly about their proposal's ability to operate within those parameters. I think this is pretty routine for any OEM that is interested in participating in a program and has been issued an RFI for a naval fighter procurement directly by a potential customer. Anyhow, this is not the first time that Boeing has come out and said that as per their analysis, their proposal can operate on INs existing carriers. Earlier this year thy said the same in an interview with Vayu.negi wrote:Shows how desperate Boeing is responding to small issue like elevator size and al
The article mentions that Boeing has in the past tested the classic Hornet on the ski jump just as an FYI. This obviously has nothing to do as far their actual response to the Indian RFI where they have said they have done some preliminary M&S. If and when this even advances to an RFP and a formal program of record I am sure both Dassault and Boeing will consider actually doing some hard demos to support their proposals if they think it will make their overall submission more competitive (Boeing PR person virtually says that they are looking to do this). There are number of ways this could be done both in the US and by using IN facilities. For all we know the IN may require a relatively advanced set of launch capabilities be demonstrated during the selection phase (if as I mentioned earlier we get to that point). Landing demos will be easy since Boeing can simply point to literally tens of thousands of traps across their fleet of Super Hornet and Growler with all sorts of landing weights including those on the Growler which routinely lands with 3 500 kg jamming pods, a couple of hundred kgs of additional RWR/ESM gear, and empty fuel tanks and/or missiles.F/A 18 ski jump tests are based on a ground based test harness which had a runway length of over 600 mtr which was limited to 308 meters for tests (that is in same ballpark as a Nitmiz class carrier) . F/A 18 is smaller than SH , has lower wing loading and marginally higher T:W ratio so Boeing's claims are salesmen like as of now.
We will know exactly what the configuration of the USNs block IIIs will look like by March-April of 2018. In their offer to the USN, Boeing has included the enhancements to the engine and we will know whether the USN requests those to be included in its FYDP by next year. If that is the case we could be looking at another 15-20% thrust improvement over the baseline F414-GE-400 which has implications across the LCA-MK2, and likely AMCA line as well.F/A 18 is smaller than SH , has lower wing loading and marginally higher T:W ratio so Boeing's claims are salesmen like as of now.
The Growler is a story of “incremental innovation” for Boeing. The Navy has almost doubled its original program of record to about 160 from 88.
The service is now moving forward with planned upgrades that will keep the aircraft relevant into the 2040s. The centerpiece of the “Advanced Growler” is Raytheon’s Next-Generation Jammer, which passed a critical design review in April. Complementary features are improvements to the Growler’s integrated ALQ-218 radar warning, electronic support and electronic intelligence systems, which also are produced by Northrop.
Boeing says it is still in contract negotiations with the U.S. Navy to pull all of the planned Growler upgrades into a single service-life upgrade program, which would include an extension of the aircraft’s structural service life to 9,000 from 6,000 hr. The airframer also is pushing the GE F414 Enhanced Engine for the Growler and Super Hornet, which would provide 18% more power. AviationWeek, May 2017
There is Kh-59Mk2 under works which looks bigger and designed with LO in mind might get a new name eventuallySingha wrote:the kh59 is quite cumbersome . its engine is fixed and hangs below the missile airframe and its needs a datalink pod on mothership that eats up one pylon. nevertheless we have a unknown number for lack of anything better.
the APK9 pod itself is 260kg and looks like a a2g missile
http://cmano-db.com/pdf/weapon/1024/
“The challenge is going to be that of categorisation. The tender process itself will take three years and then the torpedoes will have to be integrated with the submarines, which will take another two-three years, if not more. Unless there is a government-to-government deal, things are expected to drag on,” said a representative of a leading Indian defence firm, requesting anonymity.
However, these submarines will be commissioned without torpedoes. During their sea trials, the Navy had used 20-year old torpedoes from its inventory.
I've lost the link but I remember reading that is some discussion underway about fitting the F35B with the F35 wings. If that happens, would they be foldable?brar_w wrote:[....
The elevator issue is not small. Being able to operate within the design specifications of the elevators would be a key requirement and being able to demonstrate that they can successfully do this without requiring expensive modifications to the elevators, and/or the aircraft would give them (along with MiG) a competitive advantage over other aircraft that need to be modified to accomplish the same.
...
I assume you mentioned F-35C wings. No it would not happen because it would adversely impact performance where it matters. One could possibly design the existing F-35A/B wings to make them foldable but that is not a trivial thing from a cost point of view.I've lost the link but I remember reading that is some discussion underway about fitting the F35B with the F35 wings. If that happens, would they be foldable?
Yes. To clarify, it was F35C wings on F-35B. and I'm not sure whether it was David Berke who said or someone else.brar_w wrote:I assume you mentioned F-35C wings. No it would not happen because it would adversely impact performance where it matters. One could possibly design the existing F-35A/B wings to make them foldable but that is not a trivial thing from a cost point of view.I've lost the link but I remember reading that is some discussion underway about fitting the F35B with the F35 wings. If that happens, would they be foldable?
Question for naval officers on this forum. What are the options now - what role can the Scorpenes can do without torpedos. Can existing light weight torpedos be used.Rakesh wrote: