Farnborough International Airshow 2010 (19th - 25th July)

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 22 Jul 2010 16:44

Phil Camp's Farnborough Album

With all the closeups of the the thundaar

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jul 2010 19:52

Jagan wrote:Phil Camp's Farnborough Album

With all the closeups of the the thundaar

Phil if you're reading this - could you get some close ups of the undercarriage?

naird · Post by **naird** » 22 Jul 2010 22:25

Jagan wrote:Phil Camp's Farnborough Album

With all the closeups of the the thundaar

Looks like Thunder has MAWS !!! good development from chini's ... if this plane comes for 17 million -20 million pop...then nations from the selective Mig market will indeed be interested !!!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jul 2010 22:47

I think $25 - 30 million should be a reasonable price depends on the bells and whistles ( Chinese/Western ) it is loaded with , which is a competitive price even with cheap cost of production that Chinese can offer and cheaper weapons.

The teens and miggy will be expensive than that figure,Tejas export is out of question that leaves JF-17 good prospects for export

At 17 million I am not certain but the Indian Hawk costs more , last I heard it was $21 million per Hawk 132

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jul 2010 22:52

Reliability? Nobody knows. The price of the Mirage 2000 for India included first class reliability and IIRC modular systems that could be changed. That is the way to go. That is why you talk "lifetime costs"

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2010 22:52

Wow look at those weapons Cheenas have literally ripped off everything what likes of Raytheon have to offer. Apart from Sidewinder and AMRAAM copies I see a JDAM clone albeit with glide capability in LS-6.

naird · Post by **naird** » 23 Jul 2010 00:17

shiv wrote:Reliability? Nobody knows. The price of the Mirage 2000 for India included first class reliability and IIRC modular systems that could be changed. That is the way to go. That is why you talk "lifetime costs"

Thunder is pretty much modular else there wouldnt have been any talks for frenchie systems in there !

With regards to reliability -- any one has any idea how reliable Paki F7's are ? It may give some hints..

naird · Post by **naird** » 23 Jul 2010 00:20

Austin wrote:
At 17 million I am not certain but the Indian Hawk costs more , last I heard it was $21 million per Hawk 132

wow !! really !!!

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 23 Jul 2010 01:09

Austin wrote:
Philip wrote: Unfortunately some eons back I had suggested to have a RD-33 variant of Tejas developed for export/local market with Russian/Indian weapons/sensors , so that it can gain a major share of Mig-21/27 replacement market globally with a quality fighter.

Now it looks like JF-17 is on the road to achieve that , while we are obsessed with Western quality expensive engine with little or no chance to get an export license and even if they do they will come with strings attached.

Sorrow

It could be an Indo-Russian jet based on Tejas allready some years ago on the market, with the RD-33 engine partially or totally produced in India (coz it is licensioned in India anyway). Now it's obviously that f404 choice was a great mistake, put brakes on the Tejas program for years. Those who say RD-33 had no enough resource then, when the decision was done, make mistake too. THe resource is not a single or even a dominating characteristic for a fighter jet engine. RD-33 has many other good features like it's very reliable in fly, enough fuel-saving. For example, f404 has ToT limitation as 30 grad, while RD-33 has no ToT limitation at all, i.e it does not practically die-out because flow instability - something an ultimate feature for single engine planes. Now it's became obvious that the fighter selling is a strong instrument of the international politics, not just good profits, sorrow... Only hope they will allow the 90 kN RD-93 variant as an alternative engine for Tejas export version at least... If China goes to manufacture FC-1 with two engine (the Russian and domestic one) why India cannot do the same?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2010 06:30

shiv wrote:Reliability? Nobody knows. The price of the Mirage 2000 for India included first class reliability and IIRC modular systems that could be changed. That is the way to go. That is why you talk "lifetime costs"

The same argument can be made for Tejas since both aircraft are just entering service we do not know how reliable or life cycle cost involves , with the cost of Mirages upgrade you can have 2 JF-17 going with probably good enough reliability and then you have quality in numbers.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 23 Jul 2010 06:50

shiv wrote:
Phil if you're reading this - could you get some close ups of the undercarriage?

He sent in a few, added them to the gallery.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 23 Jul 2010 07:09

Gripen NG

EF2K Fully Loaded

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 08:01

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:Reliability? Nobody knows. The price of the Mirage 2000 for India included first class reliability and IIRC modular systems that could be changed. That is the way to go. That is why you talk "lifetime costs"
The same argument can be made for Tejas since both aircraft are just entering service we do not know how reliable or life cycle cost involves , with the cost of Mirages upgrade you can have 2 JF-17 going with probably good enough reliability and then you have quality in numbers.

Well if we are going to enter into the realm of argument and rhetoric, let me simplify the whole thing by saying "OK let us assume the Tejas is costly and unreliable" and remove the Tejas from the discussion. What we are left with is a cheap and unreliable JF-17. Is that what we want?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 08:08

Jagan wrote:
shiv wrote:
Phil if you're reading this - could you get some close ups of the undercarriage?
He sent in a few, added them to the gallery.

Jagan, in the following image the BR logo has exactly covered the "ferry range" figure on the image

What is it in the original?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Mis ... E.jpg.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2010 08:24

shiv wrote:What we are left with is a cheap and unreliable JF-17. Is that what we want?

So let me ask you what makes you think or believe JF-17 is unreliable ? Just because it is made in China or because PAF operates it or both ?

JF-17 cant be cheap it can be cost effective , like I said it just depends on the bells and whistles its fitted with , major cost will be its avionics/sensors/weapons ,add a capable Ga/N Western AESA and you will spike up the cost by couple of millions.

I certainly for one do not believe it will come at $15 million as wiki puts it .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 08:46

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:What we are left with is a cheap and unreliable JF-17. Is that what we want?
So let me ask you what makes you think or believe JF-17 is unreliable ? Just because it is made in China or because PAF operates it or both ?

Thank you for getting back to topic sir. Now please go back and read my post. I only wrote "Reliability?" implying that I don't know (and I assume you don't either) It was you who chose to do an equal equal by needlessly bringing in the LCA which you have now wisely removed from the discussion. That certainly adds to clarity.

Now please tell me what do you know about the reliability of the JF 17 that I don't know?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2010 08:54

Like I said we will not know the reliability or for that matter the unreliability of this new type unless they enter into squadron service and operate for few years , that should be the same for JF-17 , Tejas or any new development.

It has nothing to do with equal equal but just the risk associated with induction of new type.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 08:57

Austin wrote:Like I said we will not know the reliability or for that matter the unreliability of this new type unless they enter into squadron service and operate for few years.

Once again. No need to bring in the Tejas because that is a diversion from the point.

The JF 17 is a cheap aircraft. You don't know how reliable it is because it will not be known for some years.

Is it cheap? Yes
Is it reliable? Don't know.

So what makes an aircraft good if you don't know whether it is reliable or not?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2010 09:08

shiv wrote:Once again. No need to bring in the Tejas because that is a diversion from the point.

The JF 17 is a cheap aircraft. You don't know how reliable it is because it will not be known for some years.

Is it cheap? Yes
Is it reliable? Don't know.

So what makes an aircraft good if you don't know whether it is reliable or not?

Reliability is always a risk associated with new induction , whether I bring in Tejas or not that will not change the basis of that argument ( and its not a diversion point its just the way it is )

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 09:15

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:Once again. No need to bring in the Tejas because that is a diversion from the point.

The JF 17 is a cheap aircraft. You don't know how reliable it is because it will not be known for some years.

Is it cheap? Yes
Is it reliable? Don't know.

So what makes an aircraft good if you don't know whether it is reliable or not?
Reliability is always a risk associated with new induction , whether I bring in Tejas or not that will not change the basis of that argument ( and its not a diversion point its just the way it is )

Therefore this cheap new aircraft is a risk whether or not Tejas is a risk no? What is good about that?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2010 09:29

shiv wrote:Therefore this cheap new aircraft is a risk whether or not Tejas is a risk no? What is good about that?

Shiv jee , well if its cheap and unreliable and if it continuous to be unreliable then I can kill the project and save money over expensive and unreliable platforms and if that continuous to expensive and still unreliable.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 09:51

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:Therefore this cheap new aircraft is a risk whether or not Tejas is a risk no? What is good about that?
Shiv jee , well if its cheap and unreliable and if it continuous to be unreliable then I can kill the project and save money over expensive and unreliable platforms and if that continuous to expensive and still unreliable.

Reliability of your own project depends on you. You can make it reliable rather than committing soosai.

Reliability of a purchased project depends on
1) reliability of the product
2) reliability of the supplier

If neither are reliable or if even one is unreliable, you have to either live with that and say "Hey it was cheap and I got what I paid for" or kill it after having paid "cheap money" for an unreliable project to an unreliable supplier. And have no project of your own to depend on after that. Expensive or cheap. Reliable or unreliable.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2010 09:54

Agreed , so it is just a matter of time that will show if JF-17 is cheap and reliable or cheap and unreliable.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 09:55

Austin wrote:Agreed , so it is just a matter of time that will show if JF-17 is cheap and reliable or cheap and unreliable.

Cheap and unreliable=expensive

And the Pakistanis have already made it cheaper for the Chinese. Pakis don't know it will be reliable. Maybe like Chinese locomotives.

And since you brought in the Tejas - I am certain the Tejas will be both reliable and inexpenive for us.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2010 10:18

Well I would rather kill a Cheap and Unreliable project then keep it going because as you rightly said it will turn out to be expensive in long run for men and maintenance.

I would rather not pre judge and say Oh because its made by china , it surely must be cheaper and likely unreliable , because the chinese toys I buy is cheaper and unreliable.

It not far from now that we will know how JF-17 turns out to be in operational service. I guess they have mitigated the risk in some way by opting for a proven Russian engine and some Western Avionics/sensors , but the proof of the pudding is in its eating.

For Tejas I would say Amen.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 23 Jul 2010 10:22

shiv wrote: Jagan, in the following image the BR logo has exactly covered the "ferry range" figure on the image

What is it in the original?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Mis ... E.jpg.html

Shiv, the original image itself is sized small. So its blurry but I can make it out to be "3000 km"

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 23 Jul 2010 11:26

Jagan wrote:
shiv wrote: Jagan, in the following image the BR logo has exactly covered the "ferry range" figure on the image

What is it in the original?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Mis ... E.jpg.html
Shiv, the original image itself is sized small. So its blurry but I can make it out to be "3000 km"

Can you request a slightly higher resolution image?

The payload is only 3000kgs. Isn't that a bit low? Wonder what the internal fuel capacity is for range to be 3000km.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 23 Jul 2010 13:05

I am new kid on the block(16) and by no means all knowing guru. Disclaimer upfront.

one should not diss at JF Thunder, because the manufacturers must be aware of its limitations / imitations and hence work with in that.

If they induct in numbers and are easy to shoot down, even thenl some IAF chap has to do it risking his life and equipment.

So it has its own merits and threats.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 13:38

Austin wrote: I would rather not pre judge and say Oh because its made by china , it surely must be cheaper and likely unreliable , because the chinese toys I buy is cheaper and unreliable.

yes but the point stands.

It is cheap. That is known. Its it reliable? We don't know yet. Nobody is dissing the Chinese. I think all Chinese products are of the highest possible quality. I replace so many gadgets that I have a great idea of their quality and know what to ask for as replacement.

But until the quality angle of the JF 17 is known the cost angle means zilch. After the quality angle is proven to be good, the cost angle will begin to mean something. Till then cheap means only cheap. Not cheap and reliable.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 23 Jul 2010 14:09

putnanja wrote: The payload is only 3000kgs. Isn't that a bit low? Wonder what the internal fuel capacity is for range to be 3000km.

Oh it says Ferry Range with drop tanks - ... not just internal fuel. will ask for a higher res image

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Jul 2010 15:02

bandar is probably atleast as capable as the Mig21bis (not the bison) if not slightly more, maybe F5 Tiger shark type levels. not to be dismissed out of hand, but not a serious threat to IAF either

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2010 15:44

in A2G the bandar should be a credible former, armed with a laser pod and some bombs, plus wingtip AAMs.

in A2A it depends on what final radar and a2a missiles the pakis decide to run with. they need to match the RDY2 atleast to come up to snuff with the M2K-upg, Mig29-upg, Tejas and MKIs that IAF will put up in a2a role.

methinks they wanted a bomb truck and cheaper point defence fighter to replace MirageIII/V and supplement the F-7 and they got one.

F-16-block52 it is not and never will be.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 23 Jul 2010 16:27

naird wrote:Looks like Thunder has MAWS !!!

How do you say that from the pic? Can you point out where you can see the "maws"?

naird wrote:Thunder is pretty much modular else there wouldnt have been any talks for frenchie systems in there !
With regards to reliability -- any one has any idea how reliable Paki F7's are ? It may give some hints..

One can remove most of the systems and add western systems, that doesnt make the aircraft "modular" One can put aesa radar in mig 21 too! that doesnt mean its modular!
F7 of fizzle-ya make their back end and will be the first to be replaced by bandaar!

Is there any link or quote of the 21 million $ figure? or we are just passing hot air?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Jul 2010 16:50

do we know anything significant (i.e. honest) about the bandar's core Nav/attack system and databus architecture?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Jul 2010 17:18

>>It not far from now that we will know how JF-17 turns out to be in operational service.

Yeah, time for to know, "Thunder Ka splendour" or "Thunder aka blunder".

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2010 20:05

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 745656.jpg

why is the typhoon pilot wearing a helmet studded with pus filled swelling type things...yuck?

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 23 Jul 2010 20:51

May be this will help answer your q Singha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYeYwifq ... r_embedded

naird · Post by **naird** » 23 Jul 2010 23:29

K Mehta wrote: How do you say that from the pic? Can you point out where you can see the "maws"?

Phil's first picture !! Unfortunately i cant zoom the picture properly. So for your benefit -- please see the below image

K Mehta wrote:
One can remove most of the systems and add western systems, that doesnt make the aircraft "modular" One can put aesa radar in mig 21 too! that doesnt mean its modular!
F7 of fizzle-ya make their back end and will be the first to be replaced by bandaar!

So what do you mean by modular in aircraft terms ? I always thought it was the ease at which system's can be decoupled and other systems can be integrated into the main architecture. Pakis are negotiating with Frenchies -- for radar , avionics (EW , RWR , etc) , HMS , Navi , etc. They plan to incorporate all these or atleast they planned to till frenchies showed the middle finger on their aircraft , Plus Chinicoms will be integrating WS 13 engine.-- just indicates that system is modular atleast IMO.

Do tell us what do you mean by modular ?

K Mehta wrote:

Is there any link or quote of the 21 million $ figure? or we are just passing hot air?

[/quote]

No there is no quote or link -- however the crux of the discussion happening everywhere is that Thunder is a cost effective aircraft -- .i.e cheap to procure. Pretty much everyone is saying that pricing is said to between 17 - 20 od million dollars. Anything more and the thunder will fizzle out against other competitors.

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 24 Jul 2010 00:22

Lalmohan wrote:bandar is probably atleast as capable as the Mig21bis (not the bison) if not slightly more, maybe F5 Tiger shark type levels. not to be dismissed out of hand, but not a serious threat to IAF either

jf17 is a nice looking bird imho. Downright performance of its aerodynamics can be seen once it starts flying in the airshows few years down the line. Weapons and sensor package will decide the rest. Till then i feel the Chinese has done a commendable job in making it, it has gone through changes shows that they tested a optimal solution among all with/without computer simulation.

PAF knows very well the very best of the west cannot be used against India in 21st century unlike Cold War times. It essentially fills the same void of technology that will come from the Chinese, without strings attached. Throw in some western goodies (targeting pod, ecm, weapons, radar) and you have a formidable bird!

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 24 Jul 2010 07:22