MRCA News and Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2010 21:00

Shatack wrote:Cad/Dam is nice to design, but production process is another matter!

everyone can draw a plane on a computer screen, my lil nefew do that!

why saab would launch another complet process production on a new plane when even the swedish mindef doen't buy the plane?
will any contries buys a plane that doesn't exist and need totally new airframe? hope F35 clients could tell alot about "cheap " F35 revolution they bough on computer screens!

Sure, you have a point. But that answers only part of the question that I posed.

However, in the case of SAAB it looks like - till now at least - that they have done what they have stated. I for one have to believe that the IAF would not have called for them to redo the trials in India IF the IAF was not convinced that the NG was for real - real as in walk the talk. ????? comments?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2010 21:06

hope F35 clients could tell alot about "cheap " F35 revolution they bough on computer screens!

You are confusing issues. No two ways about that.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 21 Apr 2010 21:41

Shatack wrote: gripen NG

Is that some weak attempt to try to be funny? If that's the case I can tell you that it is a pretty big "paper plane" that has flown 117 times and is able to supercruise. I've never heard of a "paper plane" that can supercruise, have you?

I guess that this was the Rafale prototype, yes? No wonder it turned out so expensive..

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 21 Apr 2010 22:11

IAF team flies Gripen Demo in Sweden with operational AESA radar

21 Apr 2010 8ak: One of the few benefits of the ongoing flight ban over parts of Europe meant that 8ak got extra time when we caught up with Eddy de la Motte, Director India for Gripen (Saab). Mr Motte confirmed that India had sent an IAF team to Sweden 2 weeks ago and flew the Gripen Demo making it the only foreign air force to have flown the advanced version of Saab's Gripen Demonstrator. IAF pilots did about 10 flights in Linkoping. Mr Motte said that in mid-May 2010 the Gripen Demonstrator will be sent to India and confirmed that the Gripen Demo was flown with a fully operational AESA radar developed jointly by Selex and Saab Microwave (Formerly Ericsson Microwave).

There was some controversy last month when the FMV (Swedish Defence Materiel Administration) blocked Saab from sending the Gripen Demo fighter to India on the basis that the only plane was needed by the Swedish Air Force for further testing. The RFP for the MMRCA states that the plane offered in response to the tender should be the one that is used for trials but as per Ajai Shukla, the IAF+MoD will give Saab some leeway in this. While this may cause the competitors to cry foul, it is a good sign that the IAF+MoD are using their discretion, where allowed, to assist them selecting the best fighter and this could work to advantage of others as well. For example, Eurofighter, for one is hoping that the dreaded 'L1' (lowest bidder) clause would not be the deciding factor where multiple fighters qualify in the final round.

To clarify, Saab's Gripen aircraft has 4 versions from A to D, then comes the Gripen Demo which is a demonstrator aircraft (and hence different to Gripen D) for the next generation version planned for India interchangeably called the Gripen NG or IN.

To date, Saab has conducted about 20 flights in India, mostly in Bangalore's Aircraft Systems & Testing Establishment (ASTE) where 2 Gripen-D fighters did low-level, high-speed supersonic tests. In Jaisalmer the 2 aircraft did a weapons release test and one aircraft sent to Leh did landing, engine cold start and take off with full internal fuel plus 2.6 tonnes external load.

Manu Sood, Editor, 8ak mentioned that the American components in the Gripen, mainly the GE F414 engine, is viewed by India as its biggest drawback. Motte said that if that was a genuine concern, then India would not have bought the P-8i and C-130-J aircraft which will play a crucial role in future conflicts and the IAF would not have considered the two U.S. fighters in the MMRCA competition nor the same GE F414 engine for its Tejas LCA which is now in the final stages of a race between that and the Eurojet 200.

Asked what he thinks is Saab’s strongest point, he said "Gripen is the only option that will make India completely independent of the need to purchase combat aircraft from other countries. Gripen IN is equipped with futuristic warfare technologies developed specifically for India and a perfect match to the IAF". He further mentioned that the low operational cost will translate in to more training hours and he believes Saab is the only company to not only offer a complete ToT on the source codes of the AESA radar (though Russia has promised something similar) but also joint development.

Saab did not comment on the issue of revising the bid price. Earlier AviationWeek had reported that since the commercial bids were valid for 2 years ending Apr 28, 2010, this meant that the vendors could now revise their commercial bids. Given the worsening economic situation globally and huge competitive pressure on this large and geo-politically important deal, surprisingly it means that the bids would be revised downwards! However, a person familiar with defence acquisition told 8ak that "sometimes a simple procedure like collecting certificates from vendors saying we are ready to give the same price also fulfils the need".

http://www.8ak.in/8ak_india_defence_new ... radar.html

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 21 Apr 2010 22:23

dorai wrote:
Dassault and Thales in conflict

Dassault wants to sell second hand mirages to India, while Thales is pitching to retrofit India’s existing fleet.

The Abu Dhabi Air Force and the Qatari Air Force earlier this month officially proposed selling their respective fleet of Mirage 2000 to the Indian Air Force. The Emirates own 68 aircraft, most of which are the more advanced 2000-9 version, while Qatar has some 12 Mirage 2000-5.

The proposal was carefully co-ordinated with Dassault Aviation, which is hoping to replace the Qatari and Emirati Mirages with brand new Rafales.

However Dassault is up against a serious obstacle in its India plans, in the shape of the French defense electronics group Thales. For several years, Thales has been negotiating a contract to retrofit the Indian Air Force’s fleet of Mirage 2000 (IOL 550,564). India will opt for either one or other of the two deals on offer, but not both.

Top brass at Thales are proceeding delicately with their negotiations: Dassault has held a 26% stake in Thales since 2008, while the French government also owns a 27% stake. Thales sales teams, however, are still very much in hot pursuit of the contract (IOL 612), worth an estimated €1.4 billion.
http://www.intelligenceonline.com/corpo ... 91-ART-REC

(login)

They can't even work together nationally so imagine with foreign partners.

If the fighter sale deal goes through AND by some chance the upgrade also goes through the IAF gets the MMRCA it really wanted

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2010 22:30

Henrik wrote:
IAF team flies Gripen Demo in Sweden with operational AESA radar

21 Apr 2010 8ak: One of the few benefits of the ongoing flight ban over parts of Europe meant that 8ak got extra time when we caught up with Eddy de la Motte, Director India for Gripen (Saab). Mr Motte confirmed that India had sent an IAF team to Sweden 2 weeks ago and flew the Gripen Demo making it the only foreign air force to have flown the advanced version of Saab's Gripen Demonstrator. .......................
http://www.8ak.in/8ak_india_defence_new ... radar.html

For a plane that is drawn on a screen this development seems to be very, very significant.

Perhaps the IAF missed that memo about it being a screen drawn plane?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Apr 2010 22:32

Shatack wrote:
Viv S wrote:
And despite all the experience and R&D muscle, the RBE 2 PESA is conclusively outperformed by the Captor and Bars.
RBE2 PESA is no more produced, Mech captor will be till 2020, and will light on Foe RWR a decade more!

It takes 1h to retrofit a Pesa with AESA antenna..

You've managed to miss the point altogether. Your claim that Thales makes the best radars because it has the most employees isn't borne out by the performance of the radar that's currently in service with the AdA. Unless this radar was developed by a different Thales?

Korrigan is a multipurpose tech demonstrator studies, no a specific applicative industrial projet..

GaN AESAs are nowhere near production even in the US, which has always led the field. Most of Europe is collaborating on developing the GaN technology, its not something exclusive to France.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 22 Apr 2010 03:51

NRao wrote: For a plane that is drawn on a screen this development seems to be very, very significant.

Perhaps the IAF missed that memo about it being a screen drawn plane?

You will be amazed how many idiots there are out there writing comments about subjects they know nothing about, I have specially noticed this among Rafale-fanboys....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2010 04:20

Wickberg wrote: You will be amazed how many idiots there are out there writing comments about subjects they know nothing about, I have specially noticed this among Rafale-fanboys....

Too many Ph. D. candidates out there I guess.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 22 Apr 2010 04:22

NRao wrote: For a plane that is drawn on a screen this development seems to be very, very significant.

Perhaps the IAF missed that memo about it being a screen drawn plane?

NRaoji,
What does plane drawn on a screen mean?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 22 Apr 2010 04:37

Non existent plane.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2010 06:19

tsriram wrote: What does plane drawn on a screen mean?

Shatack wrote:Cad/Dam is nice to design, but production process is another matter!

everyone can draw a plane on a computer screen, my lil nefew do that!

why saab would launch another complet process production on a new plane when even the swedish mindef doen't buy the plane?
will any contries buys a plane that doesn't exist and need totally new airframe? hope F35 clients could tell alot about "cheap " F35 revolution they bough on computer screens!

On second thought, the IAF not being a country it does not violate the above post! I am very glad that MMS did not send Tharoor to check out the NG.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 22 Apr 2010 11:54

NRao wrote:

On second thought, the IAF not being a country it does not violate the above post! I am very glad that MMS did not send Tharoor to check out the NG.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 22 Apr 2010 12:11

The US is still ahead in AESA and thats a fact, they have years of operational experience which is lacking in EU countries. Operational and combat proven is many steps beyond basic flight testing.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 22 Apr 2010 12:29

May be, but does it outweigh other weaknesses and disadvantages that the SH also brings? Point being, is a better radar worth the other problems?

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 22 Apr 2010 12:37

^^ Operating AESA does not necessarily make a country way ahead. Although, I am not saying other countries are good or in anyway better than US in AESA. Just a simple example, Apple was 0 in mobile phone market a few years back, while Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Errikson etc were making phones for more than 20 years. Look what has happened, Apple is 100% and others are just playing a catching game. It is not experience, it is Superior product which counts.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 22 Apr 2010 13:26

except for SH being US product, i dont see any other weaknesses. The new EPE engines should increase it aerial performance and is unparalleled in the number and types of roles SH plays. Its the true multirole aircraft in the competition. I expect the US will give full-tot and source codes as well.

True Apple is ahead because they came out with a new product i.e touch screen phones and they lead because of being first in the global market to mass market it. The first mover advantage is always there.

By the time other AESAs become mature and can deploy a vareity of weapons, the apg-79 will be at a whole different level. When you combine apg-79 with weapons like JDAM-ER, CBU-105 SFW WCMD, SDB its a whole different ball game of stand-off pounding while keeping costs low. Not to mention, the Network centricity of the SH is far ahead as well.

with nearly 100 NM tracking range for 1m2 target, the apg-79 is still the best on offer.

Shatack · Post by **Shatack** » 22 Apr 2010 17:00

Wickberg wrote:
Shatack wrote:
Saab will have to change most of the cellule structure to acheive this,

"Compared to the Gripen D, the Gripen NG's max takeoff weight has increased from 14,000 to 16,000 kg (30,900–35,300 lb) with an increase in empty weight of 200 kg (440 lb). Due to relocated main landing gear, the internal fuel capacity has increased by 40%, which will increase ferry range to 4,070 km (2,200 nmi). The new undercarriage configuration also allows for the addition of two heavy stores pylons to the fuselage. Its PS-05/A radar adds a new AESA antenna for flight testing beginning in mid-2009"

and only dreamers will beleive that changing all the balance into a so tiny plane adding 40% more fuel in wings will add only 200kg to the plane without reseizing cellule, structure and wings , reshaping all aerodynamic , as increasing the overall seize! its like making a brand new plane,
FYI the Gripen NG Demo that has been flying for a couple of years actually has a redesigned fuselage that carries 40% fuel, it has moved the landing gear and strengthened the fuselage to be able to carry more pylons and munition. It has a operational AESA radar onboard, new engine etc etc. It´s not some fantasy project on paper, it is flying and has done so for a long time...

telling lies and dreaming will not help!
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FCB6 ... _final.pdf
Gripen Demo programme
is just a stepping stone to the fully-fledged
Gripen NG (Next Generation) design. The
Gripen Demo aircraft will test and develop
many of the essential systems and capabilities
that will be applied to the Gripen
NG, but all of these aspects will be further
refined and enhanced in the final production
form of the Gripen NG.Not all of the extra fuel capacity of
the Gripen NG design will be utilised in the
Demo aircraft, but its feasibility will be fully
proven and implemented.

Guy, as a fanboyos you stand right, on realities you are far from convince anyone! a PhD? lol
a testbed isn't a production plane who need 100% redesign to makes place for 40% more fuel, and strenghent wings and structure to carry more payload, the best advice would be for you to leave aside Saab dreamology comercials mags!

200kgs only

i think the most funny about saab distress, is their communication about a Sea NG, we will talk back about it when they will get finished a producted serial NG operational, not a C/D showroom testbed, making a navy aircraft without STRONG restructuring design isn't easy and ask more knowledges from a assembling comp as Saab who never had this experience!

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 22 Apr 2010 17:49

Shatack wrote:telling lies and dreaming will not help!
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FCB6 ... _final.pdf
Gripen Demo programme
is just a stepping stone to the fully-fledged
Gripen NG (Next Generation) design. The
Gripen Demo aircraft will test and develop
many of the essential systems and capabilities
that will be applied to the Gripen
NG, but all of these aspects will be further
refined and enhanced in the final production
form of the Gripen NG.Not all of the extra fuel capacity of
the Gripen NG design will be utilised in the
Demo aircraft, but its feasibility will be fully
proven and implemented.

This just means there is some left to be done, and remember that the Demo isn't the finished product. But I guess the Rafale was carved out of cheese as a finished product?

Guy, as a fanboyos you stand right, on realities you are far from convince anyone! a PhD? lol
a testbed isn't a production plane who need 100% redesign to makes place for 40% more fuel, and strenghent wings and structure to carry more payload, the best advice would be for you to leave aside Saab dreamology comercials mags!

Really? Are you seriously saying that SAAB, who has been in the fighter business for the last 70 years, can't design or redesign a plane? You just shot yourself in the foot there mate.

200kgs only i think the most funny about saab distress, is their communication about a Sea NG, we will talk back about it when they will get finished a producted serial NG operational, not a C/D showroom testbed, making a navy aircraft without STRONG restructuring design isn't easy and ask more knowledges from a assembling comp as Saab who never had this experience!

You don't know much about the Gripen do you? There is not much more strengthening needed for a "Sea Gripen", since it's already optimised for very STOL operations with a high sink rate. Somehow I think SAAB knows a great deal more about this than a "cool internet dude" like yourself.

And seriously, didn't the frenchies perform tests on american aircraft carriers for their own planes? I mean come on, if France can do it, Sweden can too.

Shatack · Post by **Shatack** » 22 Apr 2010 18:19

Viv S wrote:
You've managed to miss the point altogether. Your claim that Thales makes the best radars because it has the most employees isn't borne out by the performance of the radar that's currently in service with the AdA. Unless this radar was developed by a different Thales?

GaN AESAs are nowhere near production even in the US, which has always led the field. Most of Europe is collaborating on developing the GaN technology, its not something exclusive to France.

haha, Rbe2 15 victories, Captor 2! it tells alot about, nah?

Gan tech existed years ago, what about you r talking? the 2005 now fading tiny 40m$ european subprogramm called Korrigan to stretch basis on Gan tech demonstrator leaded by thales? or the actual 200m€ french CEA Soitec Thales and Alcatel program for production of GaN?

This paper reports on the joint multinational
initiative KORRIGAN launched in 2005 to accelerate
the development of independent GaN HEMT foundries
in Europe. The project addresses several key research
areas such as materials, processing, reliability, thermal
management and advanced packaging solutions. The
benefits of GaN technology will be evaluated at system
level with the fabrication of circuit, MMIC and module
demonstrators. The project is supported by the MOD
of seven nations and is primarily dedicated to defence
applications. The KORRIGAN consortium consists of
major European system houses and research
laboratories, under the lead of Thales Airborne
Systems, providing all the necessary competence for the
establishment of the future GaN HEMT supply chain.

remember Amsar debacle? only thales is producting AESA gaas full systems actually, no demonstrator !

your Selex has 19m$ budget to keep alive a lil team for Gaas demonstrator for 5 years, till 2015, after nations will reflect if they want to pour money on it, production calendar to finalise such product need 3 years, at best, the first selex AESA Gaas "antenna only" product operational will be 2018, Rafale will get serial AESA Gaas full system with complex software moding, interleaving etc... for ada in 2012, UMS orsay will product operational GaN AESA antenna for rafale in 2014!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Apr 2010 18:29

There is an excellent old article in VAYU by SMazumdar,on the quest for an ultra long AAM designed to knock out enemy AEW aircraft.etc.A JV might be in the offing with Novator for the same.The aircraft designated to carry the missile well over 100km range,upto perhaps even 300km,will be the IAF"s Su-30s and IN's MIG-29Ks.Coupled with our own AWACS/AEW aircraft,the missile will have an ARH seeker and perhaps IR sensors too to defeat enemy countermeasures.The aim would be to destroy or deter enemy AEW aircraft from operating in the designated air space where IAF/IN aircraft require total dominance.The MMRCA is not expected to carry this missile from available info,therefore the performance of the AESA radar that comes with the contenders need not neccessarily be as capable as that on the Flanker,which will expectedly guarantee air dominance.These aircraft that will carry the ULR AAM will also supposedly provide top cover for IAF aircraft on strike missions.In the light of these details,it beggars the Q whether the MMRCA is to be more of a "bomb truck" than fancy fighter ?

Shatack · Post by **Shatack** » 22 Apr 2010 18:31

Henrik wrote: Really? Are you seriously saying that SAAB, who has been in the fighter business for the last 70 years, can't design or redesign a plane? You just shot yourself in the foot there mate.

You don't know much about the Gripen do you? There is not much more strengthening needed for a "Sea Gripen", since it's already optimised for very STOL operations with a high sink rate. Somehow I think SAAB knows a great deal more about this than a "cool internet dude" like yourself.

And seriously, didn't the frenchies perform tests on american aircraft carriers for their own planes? I mean come on, if France can do it, Sweden can too.

no need to be insulting,

i'm talking about cost, your add compagny just behaves as fanboyos of gripen in trying to make beleive that the Demo version is a gripen NG, its FAR from it, very FARRRRRRRR, it would be insulting all aerospace industries telling this. i don't doubt SAAB can redesign an airplane, but fighter is such sensitive to redesign even with Dassault Catia, that there is deferences between draw 3d computer and getting an operational and afordable plane without overweight and cost overrun, that's why Swedish Mod doesn't trust SAAB to order this plane, and that's why norway, nerderland, brazil etc.... weren't ready to pay the bill of complications for Saab as they do with F35!

i doubt India will pay the bill to develloppe NG when they can't find money where they struggle to finish same class airplane, the Tejas!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2010 18:32

ashish raval wrote:^^ Operating AESA does not necessarily make a country way ahead. Although, I am not saying other countries are good or in anyway better than US in AESA. Just a simple example, Apple was 0 in mobile phone market a few years back, while Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Errikson etc were making phones for more than 20 years. Look what has happened, Apple is 100% and others are just playing a catching game. It is not experience, it is Superior product which counts.

The example is not a good one.

The US has a mature AESA (that is it is far ahead of the others - say generation wise), then they have a huge lead on operating it and therefore experience AND THEN the US IIRC is the ONLY country that does ALL this over the entire world - networkS. Add to that supply chain and I very much doubt that they can be beat. ALL other nations combined, IMVVVHO of course, are not even close.

Furthermore, I really do not think we can look at these planes as mere planes - they way we thought 15-20 years ago. Range, A2A, A2G, etc. They can do plenty more and each AF has them tuned for a specific (range?) of purpose/s. So, a NG or F-16 with the IAF may not be a valid tool for say the Israeli AF or the USAF, but GREAT for the IAF. We (on BR) seem to putting too much faith into past stats, which IMHO are worthless.

Shatack · Post by **Shatack** » 22 Apr 2010 18:41

NRao wrote:
ashish raval wrote:^^ Operating AESA does not necessarily make a country way ahead. Although, I am not saying other countries are good or in anyway better than US in AESA. Just a simple example, Apple was 0 in mobile phone market a few years back, while Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Errikson etc were making phones for more than 20 years. Look what has happened, Apple is 100% and others are just playing a catching game. It is not experience, it is Superior product which counts.
The example is not a good one.

The US has a mature AESA (that is it is far ahead of the others - say generation wise), then they have a huge lead on operating it and therefore experience AND THEN the US IIRC is the ONLY country that does ALL this over the entire world - networkS. Add to that supply chain and I very much doubt that they can be beat. ALL other nations combined, IMVVVHO of course, are not even close.

Furthermore, I really do not think we can look at these planes as mere planes - they way we thought 15-20 years ago. Range, A2A, A2G, etc. They can do plenty more and each AF has them tuned for a specific (range?) of purpose/s. So, a NG or F-16 with the IAF may not be a valid tool for say the Israeli AF or the USAF, but GREAT for the IAF. We (on BR) seem to putting too much faith into past stats, which IMHO are worthless.

+100

Mech scanning doppler and electronic one are such different and complex, that any experience is a massive boost on efficience !
no one in the world has the operational knowledge advance of the USA microtech compagnies in this domain..

kit · Post by **kit** » 22 Apr 2010 20:09

Granted US is top dog as far as AESA is concerned ., but what does it mean for india ? India is not going to any tech transfer regarding AESA., period..nothing that would enable to make something even near to it.US is just as likely to give the AESA radars to PK to fight the Taliban.India s response should take into account such a likelihood as well as look for a dependable source of technology if a war with PK/China should indeed occur.After all that is for what India should be preparing for ! Who needs fancy stuff when you wont be be able to utilize it fully at the need of the hour ?

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 22 Apr 2010 20:14

Shatack wrote:
Henrik wrote: Really? Are you seriously saying that SAAB, who has been in the fighter business for the last 70 years, can't design or redesign a plane? You just shot yourself in the foot there mate.

You don't know much about the Gripen do you? There is not much more strengthening needed for a "Sea Gripen", since it's already optimised for very STOL operations with a high sink rate. Somehow I think SAAB knows a great deal more about this than a "cool internet dude" like yourself.

And seriously, didn't the frenchies perform tests on american aircraft carriers for their own planes? I mean come on, if France can do it, Sweden can too.
no need to be insulting,

i'm talking about cost, your add compagny just behaves as fanboyos of gripen in trying to make beleive that the Demo version is a gripen NG, its FAR from it, very FARRRRRRRR, it would be insulting all aerospace industries telling this. i don't doubt SAAB can redesign an airplane, but fighter is such sensitive to redesign even with Dassault Catia, that there is deferences between draw 3d computer and getting an operational and afordable plane without overweight and cost overrun, that's why Swedish Mod doesn't trust SAAB to order this plane, and that's why norway, nerderland, brazil etc.... weren't ready to pay the bill of complications for Saab as they do with F35!

i doubt India will pay the bill to develloppe NG when they can't find money where they struggle to finish same class airplane, the Tejas!

Norways decision was 100% political due to outspoken pressure from Uncle Sam. The Netherlands, you really think they don't feel the pressure from the US to pick the F-35? Why wasn't the Rafale chosen? Same reason.. Brazil, again (though still not 100% decided), 100% political due to extreme political pressure from France, they still have to sell Rafale heavily discounted.

You are also seriously wrong when you say that "Swedish Mod doesn't trust SAAB to order this plane". You are so wrong it's insulting frankly. You should read up a bit before even considering a statement like that. Here's a hint, SAAB has commitied itself to support the current Gripen C and upcoming versions for the next 40 years. The Swedish Air Force is still in the process of upgrading the existing fleet from A to C and from B to D. The MoD have stated clearly that it will be a lot cheaper to develop new versions of Gripen, than to buy or develop a completely new system. What has also been stated is that if no international partner or buyer is found for the NG, the NG will still be developed and intergrated into the Swedish Air Force. But it won't be developed and integrated at the same pace as if an international partner or buyer is found. And who knows what happens then, SAAB and the Swedish government don't have a 25% stake in the Neuron for nothing..

Personally, I think Dassault and SAAB have a lot to gain if they were cooperating instead of competing. The Neuron project is just a start, but a likeable one.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Apr 2010 21:27

Shatack wrote:
haha, Rbe2 15 victories, Captor 2! it tells alot about, nah?

Were you there at the exercises? And yes its pretty well known that the RBE2 is outperformed by the Captor and Bars.

Gan tech existed years ago, what about you r talking? the 2005 now fading tiny 40m$ european subprogramm called Korrigan to stretch basis on Gan tech demonstrator leaded by thales? or the actual 200m€ french CEA Soitec Thales and Alcatel program for production of GaN?

For your benefit I'll repeat myself again... GaN AESAs are nowhere near production. And if one wants to find out when the first one will go into production, its Raytheon that one goes to.

remember Amsar debacle? only thales is producting AESA gaas full systems actually, no demonstrator !

your Selex has 19m$ budget to keep alive a lil team for Gaas demonstrator for 5 years, till 2015, after nations will reflect if they want to pour money on it, production calendar to finalise such product need 3 years, at best, the first selex AESA Gaas "antenna only" product operational will be 2018, Rafale will get serial AESA Gaas full system with complex software moding, interleaving etc... for ada in 2012, UMS orsay will product operational GaN AESA antenna for rafale in 2014!

Repeating myself yet again, the CAESAR demonstrator was being flight trialled back in 2006 when the RBE2 still had to rely on American T/R modules. And most of the development effort was industry funded and export oriented. Eurofighter's IAF proposal includes the Captor-E and is independent of whether Austria wants it integrated or not.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 22 Apr 2010 22:03

The article says US offered us the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk free of cost under 'hot transfer' but MoD rejected it.
This is the first time I am hearing it....Is it true ??
What were the reasons behind such move ?

Thanks

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Apr 2010 22:56

sunny y wrote:
The article says US offered us the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk free of cost under 'hot transfer' but MoD rejected it.
This is the first time I am hearing it....Is it true ??
What were the reasons behind such move ?

Thanks

Just post the links for the article above instead of posting the entire image.

India refused the Kitty Hawk offer, because the Gorshkov had already been committed to by purchasing a squadron of MiG-29Ks. Also, the Kitty Hawk transfer was contingent on an air complement of Shornets being purchased which would effectively have ended the MMRCA competition. The offer wasn't as 'free' as claimed.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 22 Apr 2010 23:48

If SH is selected as the contender then USS kitty hawk may be selected to compliment the choice,. then IN would have two CBGs ,one russian other american , IN will be a zoo to watch

,having italian,american,russian,french,german,english and Indian ships

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 23 Apr 2010 00:06

A US aircraft carrier won't come without lots of attached strings..

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 23 Apr 2010 00:53

That article may explain a bit of Unkil's overt courting of the enemy...Unkil wants FMS route badly.126 aircraft in a recovering economy-Unkil is desperate enough to resort to all forms of twisting.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Apr 2010 02:45

Henrik wrote:A US aircraft carrier won't come without lots of attached strings..

hmmm ... that's a very generic statement to make ... could you be more specific about the strings that you can see.

We might have had to buy 40 F-18s, but then there is no reason why a Mig-29 won't fly off the deck of such a large aircraft carrier. But even if we would have had to buy those aircraft, I don't see such a big issue. Afterall F-18 is one of the most, if not the most proven modern fighter out at sea! If we want to operate an aircraft carrier, we have to buy airplanes!!!

SO moving on I am trying to understand GOIs decision on missing out on a "free" AC of that size (please dont jump on me for calling it free. I understand that it won't be completely free). Imagine the force projection of such a carrier! Besides the induction of Kitty Hawk would have been way faster, as it was an operational ship when it was being offered! And we would have had a platform for our Hawkeyes (if we really get them)!

Questions in my mind:
1. Would its refitting/refurbishing be prohibitively expensive? I dont believe it would be as expensive as Vikramaditya which has been for 15 years now and underwent major structural changes!
2. Would it have been very difficult to fit out our weapons on that carrier?
3. I feel one of the main reasons might be that we are not in position to build a CBG for a aircraft carrier of this size fast enough (as we already are trying to gear up for 2-3 others)? Lack of ship-building resources-certainly! Lack of money?!!!

Oh and by the way, USS Kitty Hawk was famous as the last USN aircraft carrier which had conventional propulsion (unlike what's printed in the article). So I don't see a quantum jump in knowledge required to operate the ship!

Would love to know the answers and if there could be more reasons.

Also this is OT here. So X-posting in the Naval thread. Please answer there!

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 23 Apr 2010 06:21

The Kitty Hawk would have needed nearly 40 Fixed Wing AC , Dozens of rotary ac, (Think how many additional pilots the IN would need) and nearly 6000 men to operate it. The Navy would need to train an additional 6000 men just to man a carrier. Where they going to get them from? Not to mention nearly a 100odd pilots?

Being 60,000+tons it would have needed proper berthing facilities which in India are few and neither do we have the facilities for its maintenance. Not to mention the amount of fuel it would consume.

Forget about the strings attached. Simply put as of today we cannot afford to operate 2 carriers if one of them is the size of the KittyHawk.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 23 Apr 2010 06:24

Gripen Nervous About Ferrying Demo Aircraft To India, But Confident Of Repeat Performance In MMRCA Trials
LiveFist

Indian Test Pilots at Work

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Apr 2010 07:01

^^^^ understandable fear indeed. Interesting though that the Russkis felt brave enough to bring their protos - whether it was the MiG-35 or the MiG-29OVT to AI multiple times. I recall some jingo mentioning that they did get some extry engines. Still, there were reports that the 35 made the flight from zhukovsky in like 51/2 hours with multiple top ups!

Of course the Saab guys might be nervous due to the rigors of testing too (which of course the 35 did not have to go through then, although Motte seems pretty confident about the trials).

Then again, it might just show that the russki birds are not as paper like as first thought.

CM

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Apr 2010 07:51

^^ quote from the Shiv Aroor's link above..

The first down-select in the MMRCA is scheduled to take place by October this year

Does he mean shortlists(?) will be drawn up in october?? It would take six months??? that seems awfully long....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Apr 2010 08:41

rkhanna wrote:The Kitty Hawk would have needed nearly 40 Fixed Wing AC , Dozens of rotary ac, (Think how many additional pilots the IN would need) and nearly 6000 men to operate it. The Navy would need to train an additional 6000 men just to man a carrier. Where they going to get them from? Not to mention nearly a 100odd pilots?

Being 60,000+tons it would have needed proper berthing facilities which in India are few and neither do we have the facilities for its maintenance. Not to mention the amount of fuel it would consume.

Forget about the strings attached. Simply put as of today we cannot afford to operate 2 carriers if one of them is the size of the KittyHawk.

Sumanji was very kind to solve that problem for you by making the KH a nuclear powered ship.

Can we get it now?

JK.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 23 Apr 2010 14:06

Navy Green Hornet goes supersonic with biofuel

The US Navy marked "Earth Day" today with a M1.2 supersonic demonstration of a "Green" F/A-18 Super Hornet using a 50/50 mixture of JP-8 jet fuel and biofuel developed in part by Honeywell subsidiary UOP.

The flight, out of the Navy's Patuxent River location, was the first of 15 flight demonstrations and 23 flight hours through mid-June that will be used to certify the 50/50 mix. The 45-minute flight was also the first flight of a supersonic jet with afterburners using a biofuel blend, says the Navy.

Preliminary results from test show that there was no difference in engine performance metrics attributable to the fuel mix, officials say.

Once the entire flight envelope is cleared for the F/A-18's GE F414 engine, the Navy plans to expand its certification efforts to other Navy and Marine Corps aircraft and Navy tactical systems.

The UOP process converts the raw camelina oil, which in this case was produced by Seattle-based Sustainable Oils from the inedible camelina plant, into a renewable fuel through a hydro-treatment at a facility in Texas. The renewable fuel portion, which does not have the aromatics associated with petroleum derived fuels, must be mixed with JP-8 to prevent damage to certain seals and other engine components, says a UOP spokewoman.

UOP is under contract to US Defense Energy Support Center to produce for the Air Force and Navy 600,000 gallons of hydro-treated jet fuel delivered by seven vendors using a variety of feedstock, including camelina, animal fats and algae.

The Air Force in March successfully performed the first flight of an A-10 Thunderbolt II using the camelina mixture.

UOP's "Green Jet Fuel" process technology was originally developed in 2007 under a

contract from the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to produce renewable jet fuel for the US military.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ofuel.html

Shatack · Post by **Shatack** » 23 Apr 2010 17:11

Viv S wrote:
Were you there at the exercises? And yes its pretty well known that the RBE2 is outperformed by the Captor and Bars.

such funny,

sorry!

any electronic beaming doppler will be quicker and superior to any mecha radar, at any range!
Captor isa RDY2 generation one, everyone has the right to dream! its free

GaN HEMT wafer are produced for years, you need somes knowledges about it, it was the main job of korrigan, get basis! now producing ultra sensitive gaN MMic for defense is another story out of korrigan perimeter!

thales produce Gaas in germany, and will produce GaN in france in 2012, this Gaas mmic wasn't produced in europe when they started AESA tests in the 90's for the rafale!