mattIt has been said that IAF was not considering flankers for MMRCA because of its high operating cost and IAF cannot afford to operate a large number.
Is this true? especially when compared to SHornet, Typhoon & Rafale- all of them being comparable to flankers performance and also twin engined.
Ignoring the Rafale and talking just of the Sewer Hornet and Typhoon;
In terms of maintainence and repair the lower part counts to a comparable metalic aircraft of same category of craft (going on a massive massive limb here) in the Stingless hornet and Typhoon due to increased usage of composites should negate all that. Less worries also when it comes to things like fatigue etc.
Less environmental damage acrued in composite wing skins etc which is a massive bonus in Indian conditions.
My main worry however is that for repair purposes things could get very difficult for India. If the US should ever deam fit to embargo India they would not be in a position to acquire the requisite composite system. As it would be protected and material certs would be owned by the supplier companies. The UK suppliers of EFA may end up in no mans land as the materials are wholey American (not really sure if ITR would cover these).
As was the case when Europe and i believe japan decided that It would not supply PAN precursor to India for its carbon fibre plants in Gujarat and at NAL facilities. Due to the recent testing of Agni III.
(I wouldnt so far suprised if a filament wound motor casings instead of marageing steel using Indian produced (the key thing here) carbon fibre turned up on a few of the Indian missile program).
Unless India has the facilities and capabilities to make the next generation resin and carbon + graphite fibres it really should stay away from that for a while. And that will be difficult as the Americans, British, European and Japanese own most of the IP in this enabling technology area.
And as my resent internet and other research methods found out India is very susepteble to Embargoes when it comes to certain composite materials.
on another note what the blazes do they use of the LCA? any details?
http://www.eurofighter.com/et_mp_ma_cf.asp
The airframe surface area is made up of 70% Carbon Fibre Composites (CFCs), 15% lightweight alloys and titanium, 12% Glass Reinforced Plastics (GRP) and 3% other materials. In other words, metals make up only 15% of the materials used in building a Eurofighter Typhoon.
In tandem with the aerodynamically unstable design, these strong but lightweight materials mean that the weight and size of the airframe and engine are 10 – 20% smaller and 30% lighter, than they would otherwise have been. This not only means that the aircraft has a reduced radar signature but is also stealthy.
Please click on a material name to identify the aircraft”s component construction.
mattThey are all useless! India should buy the super manourverable super stealthy
the one and only true star of any airforce!
mattSome of the claims that have been BAe might only be based RCS looking at the EFA from the front.
As for the rest of it will find out soon enough. I still think if the RAF had creamed the Su-30’s we would hear of it soon enough.
Knowing a few RAF guys and their ilk i really cant believe they could keep stum about defeating a airshow stopper like the Sukhoi.
theirs something more at stake here than just pride. Considering the fact that BAe has been touting the Eurofighter as the next best thing to the F-22 to us taxpayers It is going to be questioned even more about how it spends its money (read reports on back handers to sauds etc) if it looses out to the Su-30.
The Sauds wouldnt be so happy, nor the Austrians and many other EFA partners
mattThese are fighter jocks were talking about!
do you think if either side had creamed the other side we would not hear about some time in the future? how many of us have head Red Flag stories of the USAF being defeated by tornados etc etc etc etc blah blah blah bye RAF guys?
They are fighter jocks and by nature and competitive so things will be blabed some place.
The way BAe has billed the Typhoon as being a cheaper alternative to the F-22 the Su-30 is going in as an underdog and has not a lot to loose
mattF-18 Super Hornets to Get IRST
05-Jul-2007 18:31 | Permanent Link
Related stories: Contracts – Awards, New Systems Tech, Americas – USA, C4ISR, Fighters & Attack, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, IT – Software & Integration, Sensors & Guidance, Design Innovations, R&D – Private, Transformation, Warfare – Trends
IRST: B-2, ICU
(click to view full)The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block IIs are just beginning to enter service, with significantly improved AN/APG-79 AESA radars and other electronic upgrades. Recent years have seen another spreading improvement within global fighter fleets, however: Infa-Red Search & Track (IRST) systems that provide long range thermal imaging. Not only can this approach defeat radar stealth by focusing on (for instance) the F-35’s huge single engine and its unshielded exhaust – it also offers a passive way to locate and target enemy aircraft that won’t trigger radar warning receivers. When coupled with medium-range IR missiles like some Russian AA-10 variants, France’s MICA, or even future versions of AMRAAM NCADE, an IRST system offers a fighter both an extra set of eyes and a stealthy air-air combat weapon.
F/A-18F w. tanks
(click to view full)Retrofits into existing aircraft can be tricky, but Boeing has undertaken an RFI selection process and tapped Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control division to supply up to 150 IRST systems for F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II aircraft. Boeing and Lockheed Martin will invest more than $10 million of their own money on a risk reduction demonstration, with U.S. Navy participation. They expect to receive a US Navy IRST development contract in the summer of 2008, with a total value of over $500 million through the development and production phases of the program.
Instead of modifying the airframe’s structure or wiring, the partners will be taking an unusual route: modifying a 480 gallon centerline fuel tank to carry 330 gallons of fuel + the IRST system. This approach would also allow refits to existing Super Hornets, and indeed to all “teen series” fighters in the US arsenal, once software integration is performed for each aircraft type. The drawback to this approach is that a centerline tank with IRST needs to stay on the airplane in combat, compromising aerodynamic performance somewhat. First production deliveries of F/A-18 E/F IRST systems are expected in 2012, with initial operational capability anticipated in 2013. Boeing release.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After Reading that I can only think the F/A-18II in its current form would pose a major weak link (if bought in the numbers stated) for the IAF! remember that the IAF will be facing J-10’s and J-11’s and J-13’s etc what the neighbour on the west throws at IAF will be nothing compared to these planes from the north!
mattfor WVR wouldnt the Su-30MKI’s IRST give it an advantage over the Eurofighter?
mattAre they Tier 1 suppliers or are they futher down the food chain?
matttheir is no chance in ‘ell, that the wonderful western intelligence that missed the preperation of india and pakistans nuclear test, lost a ton of WMD’s in the iraqi desert after the US invaded and have tracked and caugh Osama Bin Laden after so many few years would ever miss the Russians flying a new plane.
its just not possible.
mattDoesnt the ultra high bypass ratio do anything for the engines? Also the lack of a Fan cowl and containment must also reduce weight, and us something like the Russian D-27 and you get rid of gearings so you save further weight.
overall the engine becomes a bit lighter than before, so your pylons dont have to be as strong and dont need as many millions of bolts as you had before which means the spars dont need as many pad ups and pad downs and in general dont need to be stressed to the same amount as you would have done if you had the extra weight. fair enough its not like you would save 50% by removing the containment case, cowl etc but you would reduce some of the weight the wing, or engine pylon would have to support.
That has to do something for the efficiency of the aircraft.
mattMig-35, simply because it will be what Boeing want Superhornet Mk II+ to be in the future. IRST, Sensor fusion, AESA, RWR etc ECCM etc etc Is their already in the Mig-29. I doubt the IAF would be sold the superhornet block II+…
matt🙂
Wow! its soo beautiful! the love you have for each other! who said india wasnt a progressive society!
Almost makes me cry..
Its amazing where one is the other follows..
you two truely the the perfect infallible beings!
All hail you….
mattCare to point out who posted that? The only dribble I can see are your poorly phrased somewhat incoherent posts. 21Ankush has no reason to be sharing his information -he’s doing so as a fair chap, but all you have in return are asinine comments. Take this piece of bilge for instance:
This when 21A points out that the R73s had to be factored in as compared to the R60s earlier. When you dont even bother to read whats written, why make smarmy comments?
Swell! Thank you for the education! I don’t know what the world would do without such wonderfully perfect thorough and coherent people as your self’s.
You are the great!
p.s. oh great guru, I don’t mean to be picky with your wonderful perfect self but
21Ankush Quote:
Originally Posted by matt
So the aircraft can only do 6Gs after so many flights?so many flights ? only 658 flights and around 380-400 hours total flight testing..it needs to have over 2000 hours to attain IOC..whats wrong with 6Gs as of now anyway ? its not like the Tejas has to pull 9Gs to impress anyone. its structurally capable of doing that, and as the flight envelope is expanded more, it’ll reach that limit too. FYI, the Typhoon too is only limited to 8.1 G AFTER SO MANY FLIGHTS due to a software control limitation but that will be lifted soon.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…-training.html
the Limit Load testing has been done for the Tejas which allows for 6G to be flown, but once Ultimate Load testing is done and successfully validates the structure, 9G will be flown. anyway, no hurry for that..there are more pressing things to be tested prior to that- weapons and radar.
My reply about adding all sorts of weapons was in regards to this (see above) earlier statement.
But as always you wonderfully perfect people with all your years of Aerospace Engineering experience are correct.
mattNot really Matt, if you see my post carefully I have explicitely mentioned 6G on Kh2004 airframe, now Simply put we dont have ANY DETAILS of the flight envelope explored on the PV3 airframe.
– Vegeta from Namek :diablo:
Thank you very much 🙂
Thats why i posed the question. 🙂 if that was explained earlier I would have not minded instead of some overly patriotic barrage of dribble that has been posted.
mattdoesnt make sense for me, that some one would carry on attaching all sorts of weapons to a plane before even making sure that the structure can cope with what it is designed to do.
sounds like a snag has developed some where in the wing structural design as one of the previous posts says they have boosted the structure
mattRemember back a couple of years back when people said the Raptor couldn’t even do the Cobra? :rolleyes:
Where are they now?
giggling at the people who are now laughing at the people who said the raptor cant do cobras because the same people were laughing at the useability of the cobra in air combat.
hypocrisy, its a wonderful drug.
Sign In
