
Since the F-18 and F-16 fly out of Alaska which I imagine is colder than Leh maybe it wasn't those two.
Carl_T wrote:Uh...n00b question. How can a plane possibly fail a high altitude test...don't they all fly at high altitude?![]()
Since the F-18 and F-16 fly out of Alaska which I imagine is colder than Leh maybe it wasn't those two.
shukla wrote:putnanja wrote:Nope, if i recall right, someone mentioned that SH had problems at Jaisalmer or Leh, in one of those places. Each manufacturer toots their own horn, no surprises there
I think it might have been Kartik giving us an update on Jaisalmer trails.. I don't think anyones made any comments on performance results of the Leh trials so far but I take your point! Probably blowing his own trumpet..
I'm pretty sure they didn't do too well in Leh else they would have mentioned it in some press releases even if those weren't made to some external magazines.
b_patel wrote:The F-16 has never taken off from this altitude. The highest would probably be the air force academy (Peterson's) and that's not even close to the altitude of Leh. None of the other are regularly deployed from altitudes close to Leh's.
Shankar wrote:most likely the two aircraft that have cleared high altitude trial are Mig 35 and F-18
biswas wrote:Paki F-16 flies at high altitudes?
Shankar wrote:most likely the two aircraft that have cleared high altitude trial are Mig 35 and F-18
sunny_s wrote:Again, the opinion that MIG-35 and SH cleared the tests is simply wrong!
The Hindu wrote (which is the news Livefist is refering to) that 4 out of 5 tested aircraft failed.
These 5 tested were F-16, Eurofighter, Rafale, Super Hornet and MIG-35.
4 of these failed.
The 6th contender (Gripen) had not been tested.
bhavik wrote:sunny_s wrote:Again, the opinion that MIG-35 and SH cleared the tests is simply wrong!
The Hindu wrote (which is the news Livefist is refering to) that 4 out of 5 tested aircraft failed.
These 5 tested were F-16, Eurofighter, Rafale, Super Hornet and MIG-35.
4 of these failed.
The 6th contender (Gripen) had not been tested.
I completely agree. Since 5 aircrafts went there I believe they were able to fly in Leh.
Was'nt the test about being able to take off with "meaningful load" that's where some of them may have failed. As F16 can any gurus tell if with what load are pukis flying F16 @ Skardu.
I believe Swiss airforce uses also F18 but at what load?
I was in favour F18 but unkills double standards towards us (the headley case, aid to pak, afpak mess up) makes me look at other options seriously....
Shankar wrote:ok the problem appears to be starting engine at low temperature in low ambient air pressure not take off at full load - surely Mig 35 will not have that problem - so it has to be other four
kit wrote:I feel Indian American relationship is more on the back swing nowadays and quite possible that the entire Bush administrations work of engaging India strategically is essentially being reverted by the Obama administration.There seems only talk of strategic relationship and even that is becoming less frequent and less likely.American restrictions on high tech is only going to increase given its paranoid behaviour these days........
Shankar wrote:surely Mig 35 have cleared
that says a lot of the bird the weight to power ratio decided how much % of maximum payload it can lift on take off
if its one only then it must be Mig 35 -
Rahul M wrote:Shankar wrote:if its one only then it must be Mig 35 -
on the basis of what info ? faith ?
With a meaningful load of about 4 BVRs + 2 WVR missiles, plus about 900km combat radius, only 2 aircraft will have a TWR above 1.0 - the EF-2000 and MiG-35 (both being clearly above 1.0). The Rafale and Gripen follow (close to 1.0), with the Shornet and F-16blk60 being the slugs (well below 1.0).
So, if the issue is take-off from Leh (v.rarefied atmosphere) with a "meaningful" load (the heavier the load gets, the worse it will be in order of a/c put forth above), the most critical features on the fighter would be power and lift (wingloading/area?); clearly the US jets suffer the most in these parameters. My guess is that the 2 fighters that succeeded (if this was the failpoint) were the MiG-35 and the Typhoon.
If the point of failure was engine switch on/off after soaking, I'd think that most of these a/c would do well although here the French and Russians are better aware of Indian conditions than the rest. Again, the Americans would be at a disadvantage 'cause they simply have little idea of the Indian environment, iirc the F-18E/F had issues with sand at Jaisalmer after being left out in the open
b_patel wrote:I'm pretty sure they didn't do too well in Leh else they would have mentioned it in some press releases even if those weren't made to some external magazines.
I think the Super Hornet might have been the only one to do well in Leh. The extra thrust it has might have helped compensate for the lack of air flow (this is probably wrong though). All the contenders would be able to preform in the cold, so that wouldn't have been a problem.Its too bad that the evaluations for the Swiss competition aren't published b/c those trials would have been close to the ones conducted in Leh. Granted the altitude isn't the same but it would have given us an idea at least for the euro-canards. The F-16 has never taken off from this altitude. The highest would probably be the air force academy (Peterson's) and that's not even close to the altitude of Leh. None of the other are regularly deployed from altitudes close to Leh's.
Some vendors have expressed concern that the MMRCA project will be dependent on the political and economical situation, and may take more time for clearance, barring unforeseen circumstances like a security challenge.
“We do hope the process moves faster,” one OEM executive said. “However, we feel it might take time until India’s economy starts on a growth track of approximately 10 percent [gross domestic product], so that politicians can justify the expenditure to their political counterparts.”
vendors’ opinions on the prospect vary.
“We will redefine our bid, which will be cheaper than the one we submitted two years ago, as we were not as smart then as we are now,” one vendor said, declining to be identified. “We are more competitive and stronger now.”
biswas wrote:Paki F-16 flies at high altitudes?
GE 414 EPE delivers 120KN each or 240KN per aircraft which is higher than the current 196 KN.
Shankar wrote:on the basis of what info ? faith ?
Rahul just look at the Mig35 open source specs for a moment
..............
sathyaC wrote:GE 414 EPE delivers 120KN each or 240KN per aircraft which is higher than the current 196 KN.
the f18 that went 2 leh for testing did not have epe engine as it is still in development or might be in testing still not sure if the they will offer the epe 2 us yet
Brahmananda wrote:well the GE EDE was ground tested allready in 2006 and its core developement was funded by USN and GE EPE requires an export customer lunch. The EDE is then modified with a new fan which delivers more thrust. If we fund it we could use that leverage to make it here locally and when the current USN SHs get EPE engines during MLU, we get royalities. Lots of SHs means lots of money in the future for us.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests