BlackArcherWrong link.
Bellow an illustration of the expected design:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236053[/ATTACH]
Notice that it will need a higher landing gear and the landing stability might be poor
so the KAI-Airbus LCH isn’t going to be a dedicated gunship?
BlackArcherLast batch of An-32s stuck in Ukraine due to conflict
NEW DELHI: In a direct hit to India of a far-away conflict that is threatening Russia’s relations with the western world, a batch of Indian Air Force military transport aircraft are stuck in Ukraine due to the ongoing border conflict and internal strife.
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has revealed that the last batch of Indian Air Force AN 32 transport aircraft that had been sent to Ukraine as part of a larger $400 million deal to modernise the fleet and extend its service life are now stuck because of the conflict.
The defence minister has said that officials are working on getting the aircraft back from the crisis-torn nation and that he is hopeful that things would be sorted out shortly. The Soviet-origin AN 32 aircraft are the transport workhorse of the Indian Air Force and are vital to maintaining and supplying troops located in the Eastern and Northern borders.
As per a 2009 contract with Ukraine’s state-owned Ukrspetsexport Corp, India was to send 40 aircraft for upgrade over four years, starting 2011.
At least 30 of these have been returned. Another 65 of the aircraft were to be upgraded with Ukrainian help at an Indian facility in Kanpur. The upgrade would extend the service life of the transporters from 25 years to 40 years.While several batches of the aircraft have been refurbished and flown back to India since 2011, Parrikar’s statement indicates that the last batch of 5-10 aircraft that were to be completed by March 2014 are now stuck with efforts on the retrieve them.
The conflict with Russia has severely affected Ukraine’s industry as large parts of the nation that provided equipment are now under rebel hands. Parrikar said efforts are on to find alternate sources for Ukrainian spares with efforts on to find suppliers in Israel and France.
Also, flying of military aircraft has been restricted in Ukraine after the shooting town of Malaysian Airlines MH 17 last year.
BlackArcherIndia to get first 2 upgraded Mirage-2000s this month
India will get its first upgraded Mirage 2000 later this month from France under a Rs 10,000 crore deal.
French defence major Dassault Aviation, the original manufacturer, will handover two upgraded aircraft to India on March 25 in Istres DassaultAviation Flight Test Center.
..
BlackArcherIt’s all about dry thrust, so the RD-33 is not better in this regard.
Look at the EJ-200 or F414-GE400 for state of the art engines with a comparable air mass flow.
if you were talking about dry thrust and not maximum thrust in afterburner, then yes the 60kN figure is close to the mark.
BlackArcherHmmm… With such air mass flow the maximum thrust should be in the 60 kN ballpark.
why is that? the RD-33 had a mass flow of 79 kg/s, and its max thrust is much higher than the 60kN figure..so on what basis are you making this claim?
besides, the Kaveri nearly achieved the dry thrust goal of 11,500 lbs, with it reaching 11,100 lbs in tests on the Il-76 test bed. It was the afterburning thrust which was nowhere near the target figure, with it achieving 15,800 lbs vs the target of 18,200 lbs.
India’s Kaveri engine good for something
Under development by India’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), the Kaveri’s afterburning thrust is less than designed and well short of that needed to power the overweight LCA, but its dry (unreheated) thrust is adequate to power the under-10-tonne USAV, the report says.
The Business Standard says tests at Russia’s Gromov Flight Research Institute, mounted on an Il-76 flying testbed, showed the Kaveri’s afterburning thrust is 15,800lb, versus the planned 18,200lb. But dry thrust was almost 11,100lb, close to the planned 11,500lb.
BlackArcherAgain thats a largely moot point nomad. Its not a case of deploying CATOBAR ‘at that time’ it would have been a case of sensibly programmed spend. IAF scoped its MMRCA requirement and had put out the RFI in 2001 if memory serves?. The list of likely candidates was one that had Rafale in it for obvious reasons even if, IIRC, the 2000 was favoured initially. Making the long term naval fighter determination a factor at that point…advised by the IAF options and scoped in the same timeframe to match a longer term CATOBAR carrier design/build cycle was an entirely feasible and practical option.
Actually the IN considered the Rafale before the IAF ever did..The original MRCA contest for the IAF did not feature the Rafale..the Mirage-2000 was the firm favourite, and the Rafale only entered the fray when Dassault discontinued Mirage production, and that happened some years later. Both services had their own procurement, driven by their own needs and a common fighter for the two only appeared possible a few years ago, once it became clear that the US would offer a catapult and be considered a reliable supplier.
Before that, throughout the ’90s, CATOBAR was considered a no-go option since the only nation that could provide the IN with a catapult, the US, had frosty ties with India.
India couldn’t have decided on a CATOBAR fighter and gone ahead with a decision to build a CATOBAR carrier in the 1990s or early 2000s when there was so much uncertainty on whether the catapult would be available or not. They instead chose to go with a reliable supplier in Russia and the STOBAR option..as things stand, IAC-I will also host a squadron of MiG-29Ks in addition to N-LCAs as a result. Towards that, there will be commonality of types that can operate on both Vik and IAC-I. Only with IAC-II does the possibility arise that a catapult system may be available. In 2003, when IAC-I was finally approved by the MoD for construction, the IN was firmly wedded to STOBAR ops since it appeared to be the only feasible option.
There would have been no way that India could’ve fielded CATOBAR in the same time it ‘theoretically’ could have fielded STOBAR/MiG…that isnt contended…the point is though that it didnt need to and, much like the SHAR/MiG comparison thats a meaningless metric. STOVL could have been extended to retain adequate capability beyond what actually happened…as Swerve alludes to. It could have done so at minimal expense…certainly compared to what STOBAR was going to cost.
the MiG-29K brought a quantum jump in capabilities over the SHar..even the LUSH SHar, which does offer a decent fleet defense capability. I don’t think that anyone in the IN will try to justify a SHar over a MiG-29K, capability wise. As others and I have mentioned earlier, the IN, at that point of time, when the decision on the Gorshkov and IAC-1 was taken, had no other option but to go with the STOBAR carriers. STOVL imposed severe payload and operational restrictions, and CATOBAR was deemed not feasible due to the US being the only supplier.
The simple illustration is that, the way this transpired, the IN has just deployed an old STOBAR carrier with at most a couple of dozen MiG-29’s and a Kamov AEW det. They could have deployed a new CATOBAR carrier with a couple of dozen Rafale-M and an E-2 detachment. I know which offers more capability and which offers the better platform for their naval aviation to evolve from. I’ll leave it there as I’ve said all this before too many times and this is a Rafale thread!
Who would’ve supplied the cats for the new CATOBAR carrier that would’ve been operational with the IN as we speak?
BlackArcherThere was no CATOBAR option available to India in the same timeline and at a price competitive with what was offered for the Gorshkov refurbishment. Period. (Of course by the time the true nature of the Gorshkov deal was known/revealed, it was too late to pull out.) To compound that there were no aircraft that India could have competitively acquired for CATOBAR operations at the time. The Rafale had just entered service and was very pricey while (relatively) cold relations with the US put the SH out of contention. Flogging the Viraat further would be something the IN would have wanted desperately to avoid, with the ship already over 40 years old (far past its design life) and proportionately temperamental.
Exactly. There were 3 aircraft that were evaluated- the MiG-29K, the Su-33 (a Su-27KUB was flight tested by IN pilots in the Crimea), the Rafale M F1 which was deemed to be a little immature back then (as per Admiral Arun Prakash in an interview he gave long ago) and had the added disadvantage of being only available with catapult launch systems.
In his book ‘From the Crow’s Nest’, Admiral Arun Prakash mentioned that back then, the CATOBAR option was ruled out since relations with the US were not good and they were the only nation that could offer catapult launch systems. That meant that the Rafale M was also ruled out.
However, at the end of all our studies, one factor emerged clearly: aircraft catapults were manufactured only in the USA, and since this piece of machinery was unlikely to be available to India, we could discard ship designs which were based on conventional aircraft requiring a catapult launch. This eliminated all US-origin deck aircraft as well as the Rafale as viable options.
Article by Admiral Arun Prakash on Indian Navy’s quest for carriers in the 1990s
Clearly tells us that the geopolitics of that time meant that STOBAR carriers were the only option for the IN and it left the MiG-29K as the only viable carrier borne fighter. Now, with relations with the US having improved drastically, and with EMALS also being a possible option, the IN is able to take another look at the IAC-II with catapult launch.
BlackArcherIndia has to pursue indigenisation from a modest base to the sky’s limit, whilst maintaining force levels in the present against esp. an emerging superpower, whilst taking advantage of the opportunities availed by the nation’s diverse foreign relations, and amidst highly variable national economic performance. Even the most diligent and forward-thinking of planners would have difficulty navigating this matrix with any semblance of efficiency.
Naval LCA is a national development project, and essential to the development of future carrier-based combat aircraft, UCAVs, etc. MiG-29K is part of the Vikramaditya saga. Certainly the latter acquisition is open to criticism, but it would have been a brave man indeed to turn down the Russian offer in the context of the recent retirement of INS Vikrant, the obsolescence and impending retirement of INS Viraat, and the immaturity of the nation’s own carrier development program.
Going forward, it is clear that India will pursue a third carrier and that this carrier will represent an advance over Vikramaditya and Vikrant, certainly in terms of technology and likely in size as well. Similarly, it is clear that India will need aircraft to fly from such a vessel and these too should be an advance over existing solutions. Exactly what the configuration of this future carrier or the structure of its airwing turns out to be is as yet unclear, but it would be folly of the highest order to limit either so as to increase training or sustainment efficiency or maintain cross-deck compatibility with older vessels.
Personally, I question whether Rafale is enough of a step forward given the post-2025 likely commissioning timeframe for IAC-2, but given the IAF acquisition it should certainly at least be considered alongside other candidates of F-35B/C, naval AMCA, and whatever the Russians plan on bringing to the table (naval T-50 or LMFS).
excellent post Rii. You’ve put across the peculiar situation of the IN and India beautifully here.
BlackArcherer, the French do use catapults, so the Rafale never had to demonstrate a ramp lift off capability… but it doesn’t mean that the Rafale can’t do it.
When compared to the Mig, the Rafale about 2 tons less thrust than the Mig, but the Mig is 2 tons heavier empty… one could expect similar acceleration with more or less similar load (which would give still 2ton overall weight difference)
Another interesting thing to notice is that the Rafale lands at around 115kts, while the Mig needs 160. That would indicate that the Rafale generate lift much more efficiently at low speeds. The implication would be that the Rafale should be able to take off with similar weight (meaning already 2 tons heavier loadout) at a lower speed, or take off at similar speeds with an even heavier load than the Mig.. both of which would mean better safety (and capability) when operating from a ramp
Basically, should India express serious interest in the Rafale M, chances are it would be able to come and demonstrate a ramp take off capability just fine
precisely.
The very idea of asking Dassault for an RFI is for the IN to be able to gather information that it can use for an informed choice on what fighter to go for IAC-II. Super Hornet was also considered in the past and from what I recall, they were asked about take off weights and payload that would be possible, were it to be operated off a ramp.
No reason why a Rafale M cannot perform a ramp assisted take-off..some payload penalty perhaps, but that is where a theoretical study, followed by a demostration will be required.
besides, this isn’t new. the IN was interested in the Rafale M’s capabilities earlier as well and there was talk about how an IAF buy of Rafales would mean greater synergies for the IN..since the Rafale M and C share very significant commonality apart from the changes required for marinisation.
They’ve even had RFIs sent out to Saab for the Sea Gripen, but the Rafale M is an operational naval fighter and from what Navy officers have said in the past- the aircraft to aspire to.
BlackArcherFirst MiG-29UPG upgraded in India takes to the skies for the first time
First modernized in India MiG-29UPG took to the skies
The first Mig-29UPG, modernised by Indian specialists, completed its first scheduled test flights in February, said Sergei Korotkov, general director of the MiG Corporation.
In 2009, the IAF and the MiG Aircraft Corporation signed an agreement on the modernisation of 62 Indian MiG-29s, turning them into the MiG-29UPGs. The aircraft are now equipped with modern avionics complexes, similar and compatible to those used in the MiG-29K fighter jets flown by the Indian Navy. The contract is estimated to be worth $964 million.
According to the portal vpk-news, this modernisation significantly expands the range of tasks that the MiG-29 can perform. Currently, the plane is primarily designed to intercept aerial targets and achieve air superiority. The upgraded aircraft, along with expanded capabilities to destroy air targets, now has the ability to attack ground (surface) targets, both stationary and mobile, with precision weapons at any time of day and in any weather conditions.
The first six MiG-29s were modernised in Russia. The rest will be upgraded in India, where currently four aircrafts are undergoing the reconstruction process.
BlackArcherLooks like Dassault and HAL have agreed on a co-contractor deal that allows each firm to issue guarantees for the parts they produce that will be used on the Indian-assembled Rafales..that seems to be one issue sorted out now. Follows on from HAL Chief’s statements at AI-’15 where he said that HAL doesn’t need any other company to guarantee what it produces.
The co-management setup would imply that Dassault would take full responsibility for parts that it sources from suppliers (whom it manages) or produces itself, whereas HAL would take full responsibility for parts that it would produce in-house.
Dassault and HAL to be co-contractors for Indian built Rafales
France’s bid to sell 126 Rafale combat jets to India moved a step closer to reality in recent weeks, with Dassault Aviation and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) reaching an agreement as to who will be responsible for guaranteeing 108 Indian-built aircraft required under the deal.
The first 18 Rafale jets are to be built in France. After that, India’s HAL would take over production of the remaining aircraft.
“This is the first time Dassault agrees to be a co-contractor,” Dassault CEO Eric Trappier said following his company’s annual earnings conference March 11. “Dassault and HAL will both take responsibility for the part they will each build on the Rafale aircraft made in India,” he continued, asserting the commitment is in line with the Indian government’s initial request for proposals under the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender.Trappier’s comments track with those of French defense procurement chief Laurent Collet-Billon in February: “Dassault will not be responsible for the whole contract,” Collet-Billon said. “It is a co-management setup,” meaning France will not assume full liability for the HAL-produced aircraft, and therefore HAL will not be a subcontractor to Dassault.
The question of production of Rafale aircraft on Indian soil has been one of the main sticking points between Paris and New Delhi in talks over the estimated €10.2 billion ($12 billion) agreement underway for the past three years.
Trappier did not confirm the amount of the MMRCA contract, saying only that Dassault’s offer “stays the same.”..
BlackArcherits a LIFT / light fighter. not an F16. If one compares it to other aircraft in its category, its good. However if you want to go “one notch up” and it doesn’t compare favourably against JF17 in terms of payload variety / sensors (it does however have 3x the airframe life of a JF17).
the FA-50 was supposedly meant to be a combat capable twin seater jet, not a LIFT..the T-50 could easily fulfil the role of a LIFT even without a radar in its nose. And with an Elta 2032 in its nose and with 3500+ kg payload capacity, in both areas it compares very favourably with the JF-17.
The only question is why isn’t it being fully exploited by integrating more weapons and pods to it? It doesn’t need to be a F-16 to get an LDP, LGBs, an ARM and an AShM integrated. Other light fighters like the Gripen already have these, and the LCA will get these integrated.
An HMD with the AIM-9X would make it a dangerous opponent in close combat.
BlackArcherThey have the standard stuff listed in the Korean Aero product page. No BVR capability. Rumor says that the FCS has BVR capability that only requires a software update to activate, but this is unconfirmed. To my knowledge, so far there is no test of FA-50 firing a BVR capable missile yet. I don’t know Korean though so I may have missed news of such a test.
Fire control radar will be EL/M-2032. The missiles are Sidewinders and Mavericks, although I don’t know the exact version numbers. No AIM-120.
The price includes 2 years of ILS and the initial training. It also includes the equipment needed for lead-in fighter trainer capability. Apparently this is usually taken out since ROKAF doesn’t need them in their FA-50. Armaments cost an additional $100 million or so for several hundred missiles and PGM, although I don’t know the details.
PS: ROKAF is the launch customer for FA-50. Iraq is the first foreign customer, although for some reason they want theirs to be called T-50IQ instead of FA-50. To be frank, I don’t know for sure if theirs are FA-50 or TA-50, but they are definitely armed, and since Iraq is paying over $1 billion for 24, the FA-50 makes the most sense.
Any other guided missiles integrated with the FA-50, other than the Maverick? Any LDP and/or recon pod integrated? Any ARM missile? What about anti-ship missiles, which would seem to be of prime importance to the Philippines..the payload is respectable, but I’ve never seen any info on any of these other types of weapons or pods integrated. Lack of a BVR missile would make this a very limited air defence fighter..if the Elta 2032 is already on board then the Derby would make ample sense as the BVR missile, if the US has issues releasing the AIM-120 for sales to certain countries.
Sign In
