Airbus set to sign Indian MRTT tanker contract

Airbus and the Indian MoD are set to sign a contract to procure the multirole tanker transporter (MRTT) aircraft based on the A330 platform.

Well informed officials told Defenseworld.net Delhi correspondent that the contract negotiations committee has completed discussions with Airbus Defence and Space executives and the contract signing could happen “anytime, most probably after the conclusion of Aero India 2015 in Bangalore.”

..

Irkut to conclude shipment of Su-30MKI kits to India

Russia’s Irkut will complete deliveries of Sukhoi Su-30MKI assembly kits to India in 2015, with the firm stating that a “complete transfer of technology” has taken place in the programme.
When deliveries are completed, the Russian firm will have delivered a total of 222 kits, it says in a statement. Hindustan Aernautics (HAL) builds the Su-30MKI under license at its Nashik factory.
“Currently HAL is in Phase IV of assembly, which means it is manufacturing parts from the raw material stage with complete transfer of technology from Irkut Corporation,” it says. “The Su-30MKI program is a shining example of India-Russia defence cooperation.”

Irkut adds that HAL has also “mastered” the overhaul of the fighter type, having delivered the first overhauled aircraft to the air force at the end of 2014.
“To master the whole scope of overhaul procedure is a real challenge with the overhaul technology documentation having been developed by HAL specialists,” it says. “We at Irkut supplied the overhaul equipment and assisted in their installation and shared with HAL our experience in such work.”
Future work related to the programme includes the integration of the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile and other aircraft upgrades.

..

Of course, realistic numbers are way less then what is quoted but combat radius depends on mission. Our german pilots clear it much better;

So we understand 150nm combat radius is for CL-EFT MiG-29 for 1 min dogfighting, and 15 min station. By using his numbers, MiG-29 can reach 250 nm without waiting on station, and carrying EFT.

Just out of curiosity; I wanted to cross-check his claim with MiG-29G flight manual:

Now what MiG-29G manual suggests;

-Total fuel with CL tank is 4658 kg, but 4231 kg usable.
-Manual doesn’t mention about taxi or take-off fuel usage I will take his word and use 400kg
-MiG-29 has 800kg bingo-fuel limit, not 1000kg; he possibly counted some of the non usable fuel.
-MiG-29 consumes 9.2 kg/sec at Full AB at 5000m, M1.0, taking this as average means 552 kg, for combat
-MiG-29 consumes 38 kg/min at max endurance at 16000 kg weight. 570 kg for staying 15 minutes on station, not 1000kg.
-MiG-29 consumes 200 kg for military accelerations between max endurance and max range, which he didn’t mention

So for travelling, MiG-29 has 4231-400-800-552-570-200 = 1709 kg remaining.

So MiG-29 consumes 4.8 kg/nm at optimal cruise at 20000 feet (yields M0.68 speed) which gives 356 nm flight range, or 178 nm combat radius.

Of course, this is all for optimal points, ~150nm looks pretty reasonable. I may make similar calculation for F-16 to see how much range could it travel..

Those figures make sense and the German pilot’s statements are clearly based on experience..

yet there are those who fervently believe that the JF-17, with a single RD-93 (derived from the RD-33 with a change in gearbox location, and half the internal fuel as on the MiG-29) will somehow fly a combat radius of 1000 KM (which works out to 540 NM)..physics and maths be damned.

There is no significant improvement in SFC on the RD-93, the JF-17’s internal fuel is half that of the MiG-29 (being single engined), but the combat radius somehow balloons to approx 4 times that of the MiG-29 thanks to voodoo and ppt slides.

Gripen fanboys quote this for its range!

1300km combat radius with 30min on station..
2500km ferry range on internal fuel
4075km ferry range with internal fuel

which works out to 700 NM combat radius with 30 min on station!

And here is the stuff that is peddled by JF-17 fanboys

This shows that the JF-17 has a combat radius of 1,400km in the A/A mode (H-H-H) comprising 2x ASRAAM, 2x MRAAM, 2x 1,100l tanks and 1x 800l tank, not that far off the Gripen C.

In the A/G mode (M-L-L-H) comprising 2x SRAAM, 4x 250kg bombs, 2x 1,100kg tanks and 1x 800l tank, the combat radius is 1,000km.

From the presentation, the 3 drop tanks give a total external fuel load of 3,000l, which suggests that the combat radius on internal fuel alone, and with 2x SRAAM and 2x MRAAM, is aprox >700km, again, not that far off the Gripen C, although there’s no details on what combat load the SAAB figures are based on.

755 NM combat radius with 3 drop tanks and 377 NM combat radius on internal fuel alone! 😀

Apparently one has to believe that the MiG-29 is one heck of a draggy airframe to be soo low on combat radius figures compared to the JF-17 and Gripen. 😀

Two nuggets of info that I had to point out:

F-16 and MiG-29 both have max AoA limits of 26 deg but the MiG-29 pilot can override the limiter to go to 45-50 deg AoA.

And the MiG-29 has a combat radius of approx 150 NM with a centerline tank.

Although the Fulcrum has the same angle-of-attack limit as the F-16 (26°), the Fulcrum pilot can override the limiter and get to 45° to 50° angle-of-attack. The only caution when doing this with the MiG is that it loses some directional stability above the angle-of-attack limit.

The Fulcrum only carries a few hundred more pounds of fuel internally than an F-16. That fuel has to feed two fairly thirsty engines. The jet doesn’t go very far on a tank of gas. We figured on a combat radius of about 150 nautical miles with a centerline fuel tank. This included a high subsonic cruise out to its area-of-responsibility, about 2 minutes of afterburner and a high subsonic cruise back to base.

Even acknowledging the short-legged nature of the MiG-29, it kind of clears up the air on how fanciful brochure figures that get bandied about by some fanboys in relation to certain fighters are completely and utterly unrealistic. We have some guys here on this forum quoting 1000+ NM combat radius figures for certain fighters and attributing it to low drag and magic..

So another possible export launch customer..after South Korea, Morocco, UAE, India and Qatar..:D

Lets see if this deal goes through or not..the very generous financing terms seem to be penance for the Morocco fiasco.

Absolutely horrific accident..:(

deepest condolences to the families..

again, you bring the blame on Dassault while, as said before, it is the Indian posters (media, whatever) that claimed Dassault should be liable fir everything.

Dassault does its job, pretty much any delay Rafale has known was due to delays in orders (french state having cut the defense budget after collapse of WP and did not order aircraft as was supposed to do.

Dassault has zero reason to delay a deal in such a manner as it sheds bad light on it for any future potential customer (and there already aren’t many left)

In france some wonder even if all the fuss isn’t there because indias officials have had some “profitable visits” from Dassault’s competitors in order to do everything possible to break the deal… looking at the past performance of Dassault regarding deliveries schedules and India’s past corruption scandals, it doesn’t sound so foolish

Where did I blame Dassault for trying to protect its interest? I’m saying that the MoD is well within its rights, nay, its duty to ensure that after paying such a huge sum, it doesn’t allow the OEM to get away with anything that delays the deliveries.

HAL has zero reason to delay the deal as well. It stands to gain from the MRCA, but it has to ensure that it doesn’t get penalised for delays that may not be its fault entirely. There are historical precedents where OEMs have not delivered on their promises and the IAF and the Indian media has laid the entire blame on HAL’s doorstep.

Conspiracy theories aside, if this deal doesn’t bring in what was originally promised and at a cost that somehow makes sense, it won’t get signed. People in France can theorise all they want on corruption, competitors and so on, but the fact is that Dassault has lost deals in other nations where corruption isn’t cited as a reason. So Dassault’s track record isn’t glowing to be very polite when it comes to sealing deals and high costs and a perceived lack of flexibility in attitude have been cited. Remember what the UAE official said about Dassault that was so embarrassing?

“Regrettably, Dassault seems unaware that all the diplomatic and political will in the world cannot overcome uncompetitive and unworkable commercial terms,” said Mohammed, deputy supreme commander of the UAE Armed Forces.

FG link

Now another customer appears to be arriving at similar conclusions, but Western posters would like to believe that all the blame lies in the Indian customer’s doorstep alone.