anandaIf they go with Gripen NG or F/A-18 Shornet, could GE F414 non afterburner versions be fitted toward AMX ? It will be able for Embrear further upgraded AMX (say AMX-NG) with similar non afterburner engine from what ever come out as winner in FX-2.
After all the non afterburner versions of F414, M-88, and EJ200, will be smaller in weight and dimensions compare to present Fiat Avio/Spey non afterburner in present AMX. AMX NG with non after burning version of that 3 engine above will be very interesting. I like that plane, it nearly win order in Southeast Asia in the 90’s, however has to lose to Hawk 200 mostly in the ground of better economic performance of Adour compared to Spey.
anandaSo with SSJ have high momentum to speed ahead (the crash in Indonesia seems the findings indicated more to Human error), I do agree the UAC should drop An-148 altogether. SSJ so far seems the only design that come out from Russia, which has enough momentum facing Airbus and Boeing.
MS-21 seems promising, however with Tu-204/214 still (according to your gents and Tupolev claim) have open production line for some time in the future, how this can work with MS-21 ?
Is there a big hurdle for UAC to just concentrate with SSJ and MS-21 ?
anandaJust to be clear: For Russian Civil Aviation program, UAC will be fokus with SSJ for capacity below 140, while 140 to 200 will be the domain of MS-21, right ?
Thus this means TU 204 plug will be terminated ? Could Ukraine can further developed An-148 without Russia (since the capacity of AN-148 will be on SSJ domain) ?
anandaCWB was dropped because of a strict drag requirement. Indonesia requires 600 nm combat radius, which means they had to pick the lowest possible drag stealth-shaped configuration to reach that radius, cutting 1% here and there.
I have to admitted that I can only find some bit of information on KFX from Korean or Indonesian forum, since official CRDC info still small. However in my oppinion don’t ommited possible CWB as compromise design. What you have put is probable ideal design, but from CRDC side potentially not the realistic design.
With the time frame they have and possible tech partner they can get from the market, they probable made that. CWB being put since Korean do have some engagement with Boeing on F-15, so CWB tech that Boeing developed for F-15 so called’stealth’ Eagle can be used.
anandaWhy don’t just wait for CRDC devinite design. They are that given the authority to produce the choosing design for KFX/IFX or whatever they call it in the end. So far CRDC put C-103 as their prefered design. CWB, still being considered since it’s more realisrically to developed within the time frame. Remembered CRDC try to use as much as exixting technology in the market as possible, not not try to developed everything from scracth like on F-35 project.
anandaIn other forums (e.g. Secret Projects, here) models and CAD-screenshots clearly show internal weapon bays.
That’s not official design from CRDC. What KDN sites reveal seems the design being choosen by CRDC for KFX which they called design #C-103.
anandano sir, the model does not seem to have room for a bay if the size of those missiles are correct. especially with those semi-recessed missiles in the way.
no wonder Turkey left the project.
Conformal weapons bay still possible. Turkey wants equal status with South Korea (thus ownership position of 40% ROK, 40% Turkey and 20% Indonesia). While ROK wants to keep Senior Partner status with 2 Junior Partner (60% ROK, 20% Indonesia and 20% Turkey). That’s the biggest contentious problem that made Turkey has not signed in with the project.
ROK wants the Senior Partner status (with one of the reasons) so they can speed up and maintain the design and development stages in order to keep up with the Time Frame of 2020 operational. Indonesia did not mind with Junior Status and followed with Korean agenda since for Indonesia it’s a learning curve (kind of what Brazil did when join AMX program).
anandaCould the recent encounters with RAAF Hornets (and the Flanker’s performance against them) be a cause for such a huge shift in TNI-AU’s future force-structure goals?
Abraços
There are several ‘probable’ reason, but performance is not one of them:
1. Rosoboron insist the payment for Flankers procurement using commercial credit and not part of USD 1 bio state credit that Putin already agree to be allocated for Indonesian Arms purchase to Russia. Russia seems want big part of that credit to be used for Submarine purchase, while Indonesia more wiling to used them as part of additional Flankers contract. Seems no agreement come out from that since presently only less that a third of that USD 1 bio deal being used (mostly related to Marines BMP-3F procurement and other small item procurement).
2. US more willingness in providing more F-16, seems come to big factor on this. Indonesia procured Flankers initially as ‘alternative’ for F-16 which in the early 2000 come under US embargo. With US willing to provide 24 upgrade F-16 (upgrade with electronics up to Block 50+ standard), and TNI-AU experience so far that show operational costs of F-16 averaging only 40% of Flankers operational costs, seems indicating Indonesia wants to keep more F-16 even though still maintaining Flankers.
Rumors in local forum also indicating that the existing 10 Block 15 OCU F-16 will also going to be upgraded into the similar standard of 24 F-16 ex USAF that being upgraded presently. If that’s true, then the budget for additional Flankers seems (at least some of that) moved to another F-16 upgrading project.
3. With additional F-16, it’s enough for TNI-AU to field up to 3 Sq of F-16 (even though not all of them in full Sq strength). With that TNI-AU by 2014 at least will have ORBAT of 1 Sq of SU-27/SU-30, 2-3 Sq of F-16, 2 sq Hawk 200 (presently some of them also being upgraded), 1 Sq Super Tucano for COIN, and 1 Sq of TA-50 for LIFT. If the rumors also true of possible transfer of ex ROKAF F-5 (thus enanable TNI-AU to maintain F-5 Sq until 2020), then with 8-9 sq of combat Aircraft will be enough until 2020.
Also the present Administrations will only in power until 2014. I do believe they are not planning for additional Fighter procurement, and further procurement for will up to next administrations.
I think the 200 Flanker plan was never realistic, and financially impossible.
There are never 200 (or 10 sq) of Flanker plan. This is misquote of some International Media that got it from local media. The Min-Def actually say they plan up to 10 sq of Combat Aircraft for TNI-AU by 2014, and ideal size of 1 sq should be up to 18-20 fighters. However it’s misquoting by Local Media as 10 Sq of Flankers, since at that interview Indonesian Minister of Defense also talking about getting additional Flankers (those 6 additional contract). Somehow the Media quote him talking about getting additional Flankers up to 10 Sq (180-200 fighters) by 2014.
anandaF-50 will have a stronger airframe and more hardpoints single seat with more fuel/avionics and similar engines options to the Tejas MK-2
And it can have an AESA Radar like RACR/SABR or a Korean AESA from LIG Nex1 or Samsung Thales
So Tejas Mk-1 and FA-50 are comparable but Mk-2 will be made while F-50 will not (our airforce has no need)
Don’t rule out F-50 yet. If KF-X programe did not move-on from drawing board, I do believe development of TA-50 as F-50 as envisions by KAI can be happen.
anandaAm I the only one that thinks a real maritime SAR aircraft should actually be able to land on the water? :confused:
A modern (and probably bit bigger) take on the PBY Catalina.
Dimensions & Performances US-2(ShinMaywa)
Length 33.3m
Wing Span 33.2m
Height 9.8m
Engine Rolls-Royce AE2100Jx4
Propeller Dowty R414
Max Take-Off Weight/Distance 47.7t / 490m
Max Landing Weight/Distance 47.7t / 1,500m
Max Take-Off Weight/Distance (on water) 43.0t / 280m
Max Landing Weight/Distance (on water) 43.0t / 330m
Range over 4,500 km
Cruise Altitude More than 6,000m
Cruise Speed More than 480km/h
Max Speed More than 560km/h
Wing Span 33.2m
Modern PBY already exist for some time: http://www.shinmaywa.co.jp/english/guide/us2_capability.htm
Shinmaywa already promoted the latest US-2 versions as the most versatile and adaptable amphibian in the service now : http://www.shinmaywa.co.jp/english/guide/us2_purpose.htm
With the longest operational radius and biggest capacity (compared to Beriev and Bombardier ones), Shinmaywa seems now told the world, their US-2 can compete with most MPA Platform in the market.
In my opinion JMSDF should operate them as MPA platform as complement to Kawasaki P-1.
anandaThis was the impetus and reasoning behind the common Support Aircraft program. The plan was to replace AEW, EA, ES, EW, IFR, COD, ASW, ASUW, etc with a common airframe that supported all the various rolls with little customization.
Isn’t that one of the opposition against CS based on argument that EA.ES.EW etc will need smaller airframe to be efficient, while AEW minimum requirement need larger airframe than EA,ES,EW need.
Besides as Wiki said, with FA-18G already in hand, the potential population need for CS will be much smaller, which in turn increased the Investment costs.
anandaThe Indonesian air force 4 Sukhoi SU-30s will be joining Australia, Singapore, Thai and United States aircrafts in Darwin for Exercise Pitch Black 2012.
The Indonesian Brass have been given permission by RAAF to take a look on Australian Shornet few months ago. This help the Government effort on ensuring most Indonesian Political factions in the Parliament that Australian cooperation with Indonesia will be conducted in more open environment.
anandaThe question why the USN never built a AEW-Viking has probably to do with internal volume and that a AEW-Viking would probably have required a stronger engine.
Agree with Distiller, Viking seems to small for AEW platform. If Viking can’t do, what other option out there ?
Land based AEW can used ‘proven’ commercial design as the based, which in turn much reduce the costs to developed. For Carrier AEW, which ‘commercial’ platform are there that can be used for ?
None, thus if jet based AEW Platform want to be chosen, then an entirely new design has to be invented. With market potential only for 30 up to 50 (only counted USN and French), there will be a very,very expensive program (which under current conditions is near impossible to be financed).
Yes there’re arguments to support jet based carrier AEW platform, however does the advantage really that significant from current platform (Hawkeye) that justified the Investment to developed one ? I Don’t think so.
anandahttp://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=5218&thisSection=military
Boeing working with Embraer as part of wider co-operation pact.
With Boeing coming on board, it can potentially open new market which before not really a traditional Embrear market. For example, Boeing does have large lobby in Indonesia where 300+ Boeing planes in order by Indonesian Airliners. Wonder if this means somewhere in the future C-17 facility will take part with KC-390.
I do believe with Boeing already in line with KC-390 project, the potential as ‘genuine’ C-130 J alternative is in hand.
anandaRegardless of the greater or lesser merits of LO technology the simple fact that a survivable CAS platform now has to have more about it than a titanium ‘bathtub’ to sit the pilot in and a honking great tank-shredding gun or to be a small and quick target. Simply put CAS isnt cheap now…unless you have an agreeably stone-age opponent. F-35B means that you are not limited to engaging dusty compound dwellers going forwards. The ‘cheaper’ solutions for next gen Harriers etc as suggested do.
Harrier NG can be developed with better electronics and sensors, but if LO is the next game for CAS, then F-35B is the answered. The question is, Does LO really the ‘absolute’ need for future CAS ?
With the budget now being thrown for F-35B, this will rendered any VSTOL development other than F-35B is a no go (base on the present economic conditions). However with the cost of F-35B, this also mean future VSTOL will not be provided in the numbers available on past generation VSTOL. It will then go back to questions whether 1 F-35B can do much better job than 2 or 3 Harrier on CAS (which I believe still the main merit for VSTOL).
Since RN aviation is currently at a very low point, it will be interesting to see if that promts Argentina to move against the Falklands before the F-35s arrive.
The current flight of Eurofighter in Falkland I do believe can still handle whatever Argentinian AF still have left in their arsenal.
Sign In
