MRCA News and Discussion

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 27 Mar 2010 09:25

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.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Mar 2010 09:35

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.

The problem isn't flying at high altitudes, its taking off at high altitudes. The rarefied atmosphere at high altitudes results in less air supply to the engine which results in reduced thrust. Taking off requires the most amount of thrust from the engine generally. Engines also sometimes have problems in starting up after being shut down in extremely cold weather.

AFAIK probably the worst case scenario is Hot (High temperature) and High (Hight Altitude) conditions. The high temperature reduces air pressure even further causing the air to be even less dense than it normally is at high altitudes.

This is of course a very crude answer. Aeronautics guru like Kartik, Vina or (the now sadly retired) Enqyoob can give you a much better answer.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 27 Mar 2010 10:15

I see, appreciate the info.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Mar 2010 10:36

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 · Post by **b_patel** » 27 Mar 2010 12:01

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.

arun · Post by **arun** » 27 Mar 2010 12:55

Neelam Mathews in Aviation Week.

Under the RFP for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition India was obliged to make a decision on the winner by April 28, 2010.

The deadline is unlikely to be met as the field trials at Leh for the Saab Gripen and weapon trials of the Eurofighter in Europe will only conclude on April 29, 2010.

This delay means that bidders will get the right to revise the prices they had bid :

Vendors May Get To Revise Indian Fighter Bids

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 27 Mar 2010 13:19

most likely the two aircraft that have cleared high altitude trial are Mig 35 and F-18

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 27 Mar 2010 13:21

^^
Mig-35(probably because Su-30 is operational in Leh) or Eurofighter should have made through high-altitude trials in Leh. Most fights dont take place at high altitude while if operational capability is in Himalayas (China/Kashmir specific) is a key-issue then it will play key role in its selection.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 27 Mar 2010 13:25

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.

So now the EUMA / ITAR will have a new clause saying that the US equipment will not be used at altitude greater than 10,000 feet so that IAF buys F 16 !!!

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 27 Mar 2010 13:27

Shankar wrote:most likely the two aircraft that have cleared high altitude trial are Mig 35 and F-18

Why ? Can you educate us ?

Kersi

biswas · Post by **biswas** » 27 Mar 2010 14:20

Paki F-16 flies at high altitudes?

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 27 Mar 2010 14:36

Hang on here.. flying at high altitudes has no bearing on take off at high altitude with a reasonable payload.
Most of the MRCA contenders can fly at 50K ft ++ but they certainly cannot take off at those height

sunny_s · Post by **sunny_s** » 27 Mar 2010 14:37

biswas wrote:Paki F-16 flies at high altitudes?

sir they fly F-16 at Skardu airport which is at altitude of 7,316

sunny_s · Post by **sunny_s** » 27 Mar 2010 14:39

Shankar wrote:most likely the two aircraft that have cleared high altitude trial are Mig 35 and F-18

though i cannot say about f-18 claering it iam sure mig-35 would have for sure cleared it,knowing the fact that we already have our mig-29's flying from leh ladakh

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 27 Mar 2010 15:33

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 · Post by **bhavik** » 27 Mar 2010 16:47

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....

sunilpatel · Post by **sunilpatel** » 27 Mar 2010 17:15

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....

Hi...Have a Nice Day Everybody...
i am regularly visiting BR forum from almost 2 years and now got registered...
This is my first Post...

Anyway... i dont think Swiss Airforce is using F-18.....
its used only by USN and ordered by Aussies....isn't it???

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 27 Mar 2010 17:20

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 -

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 27 Mar 2010 17:27

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

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 27 Mar 2010 17:30

I could not find a single refernce of F-16 taking off from skardu except a reference from f-16.net talking about f-16 deployment in skardu during Kargil. That is something we all know did not happen as per Air Cmdr Tufail's blog. So F-16 could have been one of those failures.

sunilpatel · Post by **sunilpatel** » 27 Mar 2010 17:33

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

I think it will be Typhoon, cause which for Leh, temperature wont be an issue, but it will be altitude.

Mig-35 is not known to be operating on such high altitudes. Though Mig-29 was used in Kargil, but with what payload???!!!

i think only, typhoon can clear it with full payload at such high altitudes.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 27 Mar 2010 18:20

Gripen has completed the trail at Leh just a few days back (correct me if wrong) and this news comes just days after that trail so I suspect that the gripen has failed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Mar 2010 18:49

Just curious.

With a RFP clearly mentioning such a test, I would expect all of them to "test" such scenarios before they bring their planes to Leh!!!! IF not in actual conditions, perhaps in simulated ones.

However, the last report I read stated that the IAF had suggested modifications in the fuel lines. So, it seems to be a correctable one. Why would it be a big deal in any terms?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 27 Mar 2010 19:14

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........

And people voted in millions for the Baba O'bummer government

Look at the things they are doing with the new Healthcare Bill, what a joke this has seem to begun!!! The US and India shared a lot of good deeds with the Bush Admin.. heck we even got a Brown representation where it matters with Piyush 'Bobby' Jindaal as the gov. of Louisiana, but with the likes of baba o'bummer, I wouldn't be surprised if the relations between 2 democracies strain further @least until the good ole Republicans get back to power!!!

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 27 Mar 2010 21:05

Seriously who cares? If they are not interested in us, why sit in a corner and cry? We should build partnerships with other nations who are interested.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Mar 2010 21:10

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 -

on the basis of what info ? faith ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Mar 2010 21:48

Rahul M wrote:
Shankar wrote:if its one only then it must be Mig 35 -
on the basis of what info ? faith ?

Actually, one is inclined to agree with Shankarosky on this based on what is available in open sources. Here is the reasoning: crossposting from AFM:

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

CM

sunilpatel · Post by **sunilpatel** » 27 Mar 2010 22:55

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.

what extra thrust F-18 have dear!!
it has one of lowest thrust to weight ration, which is the critical parameter when taking off from the air field like Leh..
cold is not at all a problem for any of the contender....but its ALTITUDE...... so, only thrust to weight ratio does the matter with "effective load"...i am not sure for all 4 which failed, but sure about the 2 which failed: they must be amarikan twins....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Mar 2010 23:33

CM, TWR wasn't the only factor mentioned.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 28 Mar 2010 06:34

From Neelam Mathews article:

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.”

So, does this indicate the timeline for final induction to be around 2014? Based on the 10% GDP, that's what it looks like.

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.”

Could this statement be from Dassault, considering that they have taken away some lessons from the Brazilian deal?

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 28 Mar 2010 12:19

cant really speculate or know the f-18 SH might have a lower TWR but its probably the only aircraft that can still manuever rreally well with a full load. Plus the SH for us is far different because it comes with 20% in crease in thrust, the GE 414 EPE delivers 120KN each or 240KN per aircraft which is higher than the current 196 KN. With these knew engines the SH will or should have a TWR which is higher or nearly equal to that of the EF or Rafale.

Plus the SH has had no problems so far, no crashes, no failure and very good reliability in terms of foreign objects. Plus being the only one being able to meet the dealine shouldnt count it out yet. Regardless of wha the US policy is with PAk, every contender will get a chnce to re bid and then who knows what the US might be willing to offer. I hope the deal is competitive enough with the shortlisted suppliers offering full-tot and source codes and then we'lll make a decision. I think the EF cleared the Leh trails, the mig-35 not so sure about it.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Mar 2010 12:21

biswas wrote:Paki F-16 flies at high altitudes?

Skardu AB ?

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 28 Mar 2010 13:13

on the basis of what info ? faith ?

Rahul just look at the Mig35 open source specs for a moment

Dimensions:
Length
19m (62ft 4in)
Wingspan
15m (49ft 3in)
Height
6m (19ft 8in)
Weights:
Empty Weight
11,000kg
Loaded Weight
17,500kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight
29,700kg
Engines:
Powerplant
2 × Klimov RD-33MK afterburning turbofans
Dry Thrust
5,400kgf, 53.0kN (11,900lbf) each
Thrust with Afterburner
9,000kgf, 88.3kN (19,800lbf) each

so we have with full after burner on (as always done ) a total of 18000 kgf of thrust against a loaded weight of 17500 kg and also the wing area of Mig35 (classified ) but we have enough expertise in BR to estimate from wing span and photos you will get your answer why Mig 35 is possibly the only aircraft to have cleared the high altitude test and add Russian engineers have with our high altitude air fields and ofcourse Mig29S in service

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Mar 2010 14:35

^^
Eurofighter Typhoon:
Crew: 1 or 2
Length: 15.96 m (52 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 10.95 m (35 ft 11 in)
Height: 5.28 m (17 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 50 m² (540 ft²)
Empty weight: 11 000 kg (24,250 lb)
Loaded weight: 15 550 kg (34,280 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 23 500 kg (51,809 lb)

Powerplant: 2× Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofans, 60 kN dry; 90 kN with afterburner (13,500 lbf; 20,250 lbf) each

Maximum speed: Mach 2.0+, 2390 km/h at high altitude; Mach 1.2, 1470 km/h at sea level; (1,480 mph; 915 mph) supercruise Mach 1.3+ at altitude with typical air-to-air armament
Range: 1390 km (864 mi)
Service ceiling: 18 000 m (60,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 255 m/s (50,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 311 kg/m² (63.7 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.18

sathyaC · Post by **sathyaC** » 28 Mar 2010 15:00

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

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Mar 2010 19:42

Shankar wrote:on the basis of what info ? faith ?

Rahul just look at the Mig35 open source specs for a moment
..............

at the pains of repeating myself, TWR wasn't the only factor mentioned.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 28 Mar 2010 20:35

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

They have already offered the EPE, its part of the bid, dont think IAF tested the engine yet.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Mar 2010 20:49

is the EPE even ready yet and is it confirmed that it will be developed ?

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 28 Mar 2010 21:02

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.

sunilpatel · Post by **sunilpatel** » 28 Mar 2010 23:44

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.

royalty!!!,

dear Boeing is US company