KramerBTW, this is the final certification for airworthiness. Sub-system and system level certification has been on-going for several years now with CEMILAC taking the lead.
By Anantha Krishnan M.
Bangalore
The final certification process for Tejas, India’s Light Combat Aircraft, has begun ahead of its crucial initial operational clearance (IOC), program official P.S. Subramanyam tells AVIATION WEEK.The certification process is being conducted by a team headed by K. Tamilmani, chief executive at the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (Cemilac). It is one of the most significant developments in the last nine and a half years of the program. The first prototype of the Tejas initial technology demonstrator made its first flight on Jan. 4, 2001.
“The certification mainly ensures that the user [the Indian Air Force] will be handed over a safe, mature and reliable aircraft with specified performance,” says Subramanyam, who is program director for combat aircraft and director of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). “Cemilac has given a clear road map segmenting two major steps—equipment and system certifications. The process was started a month ago.”
More than 300 engineers from ADA, Cemilac, the Defense Research and Development Organization, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., the National Aerospace Laboratories and other program partners are working in tandem to ensure that Tejas enters the much-awaited IOC by December 2010.
“There’s excitement in the air,” Subramanyam says. “We are ensuring that everything goes as per the script—be it the tests on the ground, on the aircraft and while [in the] air. The Tejas certification mission is in full throttle.”
For its part, Cemilac has been updated with all the test schedules. “All operational equipment needs to be certified,” Tamilmani says. “We look at the reliability of all systems . . . especially in the flight-control systems. Tejas has four levels of redundancy stages for its flight-control computer.”
Tamilmani says Tejas has proved itself as a safe platform, and the Cemilac team interacts very closely with the users conducting the airworthiness certification.
“The envelope for IOC is frozen and we are working very closely with the [Indian Air Force] program management team at ADA and with other partners,” Tamilmani adds.
(This is the first in a series of stories by Aviation Week exclusively capturing all the developments of Tejas’ crucial entry into the IOC phase.)
KramerWhy its so difficult for some people to accept the truth??
what truth ?
KramerWhat weapons are the Thais purchasing alongwith their new Gripen C/Ds ? What air to air and what air to ground weapnos will they be getting or can they use their existing F-16 and F-5 weapons ?
KramerI didn’t say ineligible for the competition, I said ineligible for selection. Because of the timescales, Mirage 2000 was faced with being hopelessly uncompetitive. Unlike other competitors (even F-16E, though IIRC LM has also put in money), it had no flow of government money paying for upgrades. Therefore, as I said, it would have been necessary for Dassault to have spent its own money on a new version.
Dassault is a much, much smaller firm than Lockheed Martin or Boeing. It really had no choice. It couldn’t afford the scale of upgrade needed.
MiG is in a very different situation. It has no other prospect for remaining in the fighter business than MiG-35, and is (& always has been) an entirely state-owned firm, with no accountability to any private shareholders. The ‘company funds’ you refer to did, in fact, belong to the state, as did the funds which paid for development of all the new avionics (by other state-owned firms), & MiG would have gone bankrupt by now if it had been a private firm.
You mention the F-16 Block 60: LM didn’t pay to develop that. The UAE did. Development cost over 50% of the annual turnover of Dassault Aviation. Think about that: Dassault would have been betting the company on your hypothetical new Mirage 2000 version. Fail to get a big (very big) order, & it would have broken the company. And with the need to recover the development costs from the early customers, what do you think the unit price would have been? Oh yeah, that would have been a great move, wouldn’t it? “You can have a new Mirage 2000 version, or you can have Rafale. BTW, they’re the same price”.
That it would’ve been uncompetitive is certainly not the fault of the customers, Brazil or India. And if they couldn’t afford to develop a newer variant using technologies already developed or being developed for the Rafale, then well it was nobody’s fault. The Mirage-2000 line died a natural death.
I agree that LM was lucky to find a customer like UAE who bankrolled the Block 60 development and bought a large number of them, but there must’ve been reasons why Dassault couldn’t do that with the customers it was trying the same with. Brazil and India, both had political reasons that led to delays and seriously, that can happen in any democratic nation, after all no nation is obliged to purchase any product if it cannot for any reason. Unfortunately for Dassault, the timing of the MRCA and F-X competitions coincided with the end of all other orders.
BTW, Saab has also funded on its own and with part support from the Swedish govt., the Gripen NG development program knowing that if it didn’t it would have a difficult time competing with the F-35 in the coming decade. And as far as we know, it’s not as expensive as a Rafale. Neither in operational costs nor in procurement costs. So it’s not unheard of that a small company would put in a substantial portion of its own money into a program without a firm customer. Dassault had the luxury of banking on the Rafale and so they pulled the plug on the Mirage and it was a mix of their own situation and the situation in the customer countries that led to that.
KramerCertainly, on the other hand, as soon as the line up for the MMRCA has been compose of Typhoon or Super Hornet, do you think it would have been wise for Dassault to let the Mirage 2000-5 by itself ?
They knew that the process would take quite some time, so they propose the Rafale instead.
That is not anyone’s fault and what Swerve said was that the rules of the competition made the Mirage-2000 ineligible. That is not at all true. If Dassault could have kept the line open, the Mirage-2000 could have been offered. It’s a different matter that it would’ve been uncompetitive against the likes of the Typhoon and Super Hornet.
That’s certainly true, Boeing has the same problem betwen Super Hornet and Eagle.
It might have been in French and Dassault’s own interests to develop a Mirage-2000-X derivative like the Gripen NG. It would’ve kept Dassault competitive in many smaller markets where the Rafale was simply unaffordable. I still have a pdf copy of a 1980s Flight International where Dassault’s exec himself was stating that the lighter planes have historically sold more than the heavier ones..and yet they moved out of the market themselves.
Feasibility doesn’t equal with efficient operationnal plane, mirage with OSF or RBE2 were prototype only.
So, yes, dassault was in position to heavily upgrade the mirage 2000 with lots of technologies from the rafale program …. so they would propose for the same price a mirage 2000-x or a Rafale, that doesn’t looks wise.
You just have to look at the huge difference of price between a F-16 block 52+ and a block 60.
But that is because it’s a test-bed for the Rafale’s radar and OSF. If an AESA can be tailored for the Gripen NG or F-16 (even the retrofit SABR and RANGR AESAs) then there is absolutely no reason why a Mirage-2000 cannot be operational with an AESA. Thales could’ve certainly custom-made an array for the Mirage-2000’s nose, power and cooling requirements.
Maybe the issue is that the French didn’t have the kind of captive markets that the US does which allow for large volumes and spread development costs over several airframes.
The M53-PX exist http://www.scribd.com/doc/29188425/Snecma-M53 and no customer has shown any interest.
Thanks for pointing that out. But why would they need it for their existing variants which are not under-powered? The only need would’ve been if Dassault had developed a post Mirage-2000-5 variant with added capabilities or payload, which would’ve then required a new engine.
Dassault can’t be blamed because of a decision from the french governement.
So it was the French govt that decided that the Mirage-2000 line should be closed?
KramerYes, BUT –
WHY did Dassault withdraw the M2K? For the reasons I’ve given, & which were made public at the time. Production was ending, & there was no prospect of another order in time to keep the production line running. Therefore, to keep offering it for sale, the production line would have had to be kept intact, but idle. This is expensive. The new competition for MMRCA (1) pushed any possible order several years into the future (i.e. the line would have had to be kept ready for several years) & (2) had rules which made the Mirage 2000-5 ineligible for selection, therefore necessitating a new variant.
This isn’t true, there were no new rules that made the Mirage-2000-5 ineligible for the MRCA competition. It was purely a Dassault decision on economic grounds, to close the Mirage-2000’s assembly line due to lack of orders and withdraw it from the MRCA competition, and also because they wanted to promote the Rafale instead.
It was the advent of the Super Hornet with its APG-79 that changed the face of the competition. Before that the LM offer was for the F-16 Block 52 and MiG was offering a MiG-29M2 variant, all with mechanically scanned array radars. BTW, there are no explicit rules that say that an AESA was mandatory requirement but it has been oft stated that the IAF is looking for an AESA equipped fighter since the MRCA will only be inducted in the mid of the coming decade. If it was mandatory to have AESA then the Typhoon would’ve been eliminated in the first round of technical scrutiny itself.
Meanwhile, Brazil had postponed the F-X selection indefinitely, & would probably want something more advanced than M2K-5 by the time the competition was re-opened, & the only other possible M2K customers were interested only in small numbers, & in no hurry to buy.
Dassault concluded that it was not worth keeping the line open for an indefinite period in the hope that it could keep going on a trickle of small sales, & developing a more advanced variant (a sort of Rafale-ised M2K) in the hope that eventually, India or Brazil would place a big order. Better to focus on Rafale.
The biggest issue with the Mirage-2000 has been the fact that it has been expensive to purchase, compared to the F-16. That meant it was not able to compete with the F-16 in terms of volumes of sales.
But the bigger issue was the fact that Dassault didn’t develop the Mirage as much as it should have, possibly because they were afraid that it would eat into the Rafale’s sales.
Feasibility is not an issue here- there are Mirage-2000 flying testbeds with the RBE-2 AESA and OSF (not sure if functioning or not though), so with company funds it would have been possible to further develop the Mirage-2000-5 into a Mirage-2000-X model with RBE2 and OSF, or at least elements of OSF, coupled with light weight composites derived from the Rafale, allowing a lighter all-up weight and even more sprightly performance. that would’ve been similar to the F-16 Block 60.
IMO, Dassault made a mistake in not further developing the Mirage-2000-5, because they basically lost a superb single engine fighter that was probably more affordable to more customers than the Rafale.
They didnt’ push Snecma for a new engine with more thrust, or at least newer variants of the M53-P2 with higher thrust which precluded the development of any new variants with higher weight and added capabilities, otherwise at least a few nations would’ve been interested in a Mirage-2000-X variant. Compare that to the F-16 and how every other block got new engines with higher thrust which allowed more equipment to be fit in without compromising on performance.
Imagine that a man points a gun at you & says ‘Your money or your life”. You give him your money. He is caught, & put on trial. He argues that he did not rob you, because you made the decision to give him your money. Of course, that is nonsense. You chose to give him the money only because the alternative was no real alternative. It’s the same in this case. Dassault chose to offer Rafale to India & close the M2K line because the alternative was not realistic.
Why was it not realistic ? MiG developed the MiG-35 variant purely on company funds from MiG-29K sales and has to date not yet found any customer but is still trying. if Dassault chose to end the Mirage-2000 line simply because customers who were not under any obligation to purchase, delayed their competitions then whose fault is it ? I can scarcely believe that you are implying that India or Brazil are in any way responsible for Dassault’s actions. They had valid (or not, it doesn’t matter) reasons to delay their competition and if Dassault couldn’t develop their product to keep in line with the competition then they had to offer their next product (Rafale), and dump their original product because it was not selling, simple as that.
they wanted to concentrate solely on the Rafale then it’s not anyone else’s fault. and had the French not screwed Taiwan over so badly by cozying up to the Chinese, they’d have definitely got larger orders from them. If anyone is to blame for the Mirage-2000 line’s demise, it is Dassault and nobody else. They couldn’t keep up against strong competition from the F-16.
KramerOk Grey Area, so we’ll just have to bear with it and ignore posts meant to incite responses.
Status of Kaveri engine
The Indian government today provided a comprehensive update on the indigenous Kaveri turbofan programme. Here it is, in full:
(i) All major engine sub-assemblies have been tested for aerodynamic performance and structural integrity (life & safety) requirements from qualification point of view. (ii) Critical sub-systems have been developed. (iii) Full authority Kaveri Digital engine Control System (KADECS) has been designed and developed. (iv) Various critical technologies in the fields of instrumentation/measurement, health monitoring, data acquisition, etc. have been developed. (v) Twelve materials (Titanium, Steel and super alloys) have been developed and type certified. (vi) Directionally Solidified (DS) casting technology and high temperature tip brazing technology for the High Pressure and Low Pressure turbine blades & vanes have been developed. (vii) Adequate manufacturing technology base has been established.
The reasons for the delay in developing the said engine are as follows:
(i) Non-availability of critical materials, viz., nickel and titanium based alloys in the country. (ii) Low priority from foreign manufacturing agencies in view of the Minimum Order Quantity (MOQ) vis-à-vis the production order quantity from other engine houses. (iii) Lack of manufacturing infrastructure for critical components. (iv) Flying Test Bed (FTB) trials were not originally envisaged but included subsequently, based on the recommendations of Certification Agency and IAF. (v) US sanctions imposed during 1998 affected the delivery of critical systems & components. (vi) Lack of infrastructure of engine testing and component / system level testing within the country leading to dependency on foreign agencies.
Kaveri engine testing under simulated altitude and forward speed conditions during February 2010 has been successfully completed. Another engine has been integrated with IL-76 aircraft at Gromov Flight Research Institute (GFRI), Moscow for ground and flight test which is expected to complete by October 2010 (sic). These two major milestones would make ‘Kaveri’ engine certified for flight operations. Productions of LCAs are, meanwhile, as decided by user, being fitted with imported engines.
Kramercomparatively? Do we compare with giant Western corps or just with ISRO?
India is not a developed nation but a developing one and have all the problems associated with a developing nation. India is no exception to it. A lot of materials are available on internet on this topic. We still face issues like corruption, lack of accountability and lack of resources. But just because of it should we hid our heads in the sand and believe that no one is watching us? Definite no.
If a developed nation like USA has trouble in bringing out F-35 on time and within the budgeted amount, do you really expect India to do any better? But look at the difference. In US, as part of accountability, you may fire the CEO or the technical person associated with the project and prove to the tax payers that they are accountable. But did it really bring down the cost or eliminate the issue, no. Now, why was it possible to fire, because there was a replacement, probably a better one. And because the US economy would make an Indian one feel like an ant standing along side an elephant.
Some of the suggestions made by few Indians on this board was that they want to fire people to bring accountability. And then what with whom are you going to replace? They assume as if India is a paradise that just blossomed and is just like a developed nation.
Look at the solution that they have proposed
1. Fire
2. JV
3. DismantleIs that all, and to what depth was the post made, foot deep? No wonder if people starts losing their patience. I wished at least they are capable of appreciating a little progress that has been made than continuing with the rant whole time.
Three pages of gibberish, I really hope the mods delete these posts including mine
Thank you JimmyJ for that great post. You’re right that what we have is 3 pages of rubbish by 2 motivated posters who have basically not the foggiest idea about the issues on the ground, but will talk about “blisks” and “single crystal blades” like they’re child’s play or as if firing people will automatically bring in the most knowledgable people who will miraculously resolve the issue. It’s no use changing someone’s viewpoint, especially that of those who cannot grasp the truth.
Mods, please delete the garbage that has been posted on these 3 pages and my post as well. Thanks.
KramerM
P.s. I would check spelling mistakes in your post before you have a go at others again 😉 :rolleyes: :p
look who’s talking..:rolleyes:
p.p.s If i have a mobile phone back in 2000 which had a video capture facility I would have put up a video of a gas turbine a friend had made in a month powered by Oxyacetylene … I would never claim it would be good to power an aircraft though! Oh wait I found something similar
Unfortunately friends gas turbine was not as clever and someone had to stand at the hot end with a welding torch striker resulting in me nearly burning my eyebrows off… but was good to hear it run…
if you’re actually showing some home videos to compare a military gas turbine with some home made stuff, then its no use even trying to make sense with you..its like a child who says that a RC helicopter can be made at home so why not a full scale helicopter. its just a case of such obvious ignorance being displayed that its going to be either futile or too time consuming to make the child understand any better.
KramerPlenty of details are known about the MiG-29UPG upgrade. It’s a very comprehensive upgrade and will generally bring the MiG-29B/UBs to a MiG-29K standard, but the forward fuselage will remain as it is.
– total 65 MiG-29B and UB fighters to be upgraded
– deal cost $850 million
– early 2009, six IAF MiG-29s (4 single seat and 2 double seat) arrived in Moscow to be repaired and upgraded at the MiG factory in Moscow.
– Testing to begin in early 2011
– Other aircraft to be upgraded by N0.11 Base Repair Depot, Nasik
– Scope of the upgrade is deeper than the MiG-29SMT
– Radar will be Zhuk-ME2 (same as MiG-29K but with new modes such as the ability to identify the type of target while scanning)
– OLS-UE electro-optical sight (same as in the MiG-29K)
– Includes French, Israeli and Indian systems (ala MKI)
– Fighter’s life will be extended from the present 25 years to 40 years (or 3500 flight hours) giving the MiG-29UPG another 15 years of service life
– On condition maintenance procedures will be implemented instead of fixed schedule
– The IAF’s MiG-29s came from 3 different batches and have slightly different internal structures and systems but now all will be brought to same standard
In addition,
– It will receive a comprehensive upgrade to the cockpit avionics, with new MF LCD displays and a (possible) French strap-down INS with embedded GPS (Sigma)
– New HUD (ILS-2)
– New TV signal switching and digital processing unit (BKTsO) and video recorder system (SVR)
– New integrated FBW system (KSU-941UB)
– New RD-33 Series 3 engines with electronic engine and air-intake control systems (KSA-33M)
– New Central onboard digital computer (BTsVM-90/BTsVm-486-2)
– New Stores Management System (SUO-17P)
– New VOR/ILS/MKR navigation system and new TACAN navigation system
– Indian UHF/VHF radios
– Tarang RWR
– Chaff and flare dispensers
All this will allow it to carry and use various types of guided air to surface weapons and new wing drop tanks will be carried as well. IFR probe will be added.
KramerFirst time I’m hearing about French radars on Su-30MKI..IMO, just a mistake by the journo. Russia has some good radars that it will offer for the Su-30MKI and can integrate weapons with, France would need to transfer source codes to allow such extensive weapons integration.
Kramerthe cost of the first squadron of Tejas Mk1 fighters for the IAF was around $27 million per unit. Is that cheaper than used Gripen A/Bs ? For 24 Tejas Mk1s, the cost would be about $650 million fly-away and then you add the cost of support, maintenance and training and it’d go up by at least 20-25%, which would be around $160 million..total costs might be around $800 million for 24 brand new Tejas Mk1s.
anyway, none of this will happen since HAL is hardly so interested in exporting the Tejas. The first priority is to get the IAF to accept it and then produce them as quick as possible for them till the Tejas Mk2 is ready for production.
KramerIndian Multi Role Helicopter (IMRH) details from AW&ST
– 13 metric tons platform with max speed of 275 kph (171 mph)
– 22,000 ft service ceiling
– Indian forces want it to have payload capacity of 3500 kgs (7716 lbs) and range of 500 km (311 miles) at sea level.
– HAL has increased the estimated number for the Indian armed forces to 390 units from 350
– IMRH to feature a new 5-blade composite main rotor and 4-blade composite tail rotor and twin turboshaft engines with dual full-authority digital engine controls.
– The powerplant’s transmission system would have to be capable of running dry for 30 mins
– all IMRH helis to feature all-digital cockpit which will be a first for India it seems, and Samtel Group and HAL’s existing avionics joint-venture partner Elbit Systems will be mainly responsible for the displays
– The original competition for a partner, started in June 2009, which had the Mil Bureau facing off against Eurocopter, was scrapped after the Indian armed forces changed their requirements substantially
– New competition has not yet moved beyond expression of interest from potential partners
– Eurocopter is pitching the EC725 Caracal as a technology platform and Sikorsky is bidding its S-92A
– S-92 cabins are built in India by a JV with Tata Group
– Agusta Westland is pitching the AW-101 and Mil is pitching the Mi-17-1V
KramerCommonality is a huge advantage when it comes to quickly inducting any new equipment. Pilots can be converted to the new Mi-17V5s faster and since they’re accustomed to the Mi-8 and Mi-17 it is a lot easier. Same is true of technicians. Spares commonality will be a factor and the IAF will be able to use a significant percentage of the spares it would’ve stocked for the existing Mi-17 fleet. I’ve not heard much about the Mi-8/Mi-17 fleet suffering from poor spares availability since the Mi-17 is a pretty popular model and Kazan has plenty of orders and existing models that it supports. Basically, the new Mi-17V5s would be able to get into opertional roles faster than any other heli, which would mean that the IAF could retire the oldest Mi-8s whose airframe and engine lives are truly very heavily used up.
As far setting up an Indian assembly line was concerned, HAL already had its hands full with the Hawk, Su-30MKI, Dhruv assembly lines plus umpteen other upgrade programs and it also adds to the cost of the program. And the Brazilian EC735 deal was quite expensive, far more so than the Mi-17V5s and with HAL now looking to start scouting for a global partner for the IMRH (Indian Multi-Role Heli) in the Mi-17 class, it makes more sense to invest in our own indigenous heli rather than splurging on some European or US model that brings nothing very substantial to the medium lift utility and transport role. If these were helis required for specialised operations like ASW operations, then yes it makes sense to invest heavily in expensive avionics, but IMO the Mi-17V5 is good enough for the IAF’s requirements.
KramerI had completely forgotten about the price escalation on the Mi-17V5 deal.
The article that you gave also had this
The European NH90 is more expensive still, and offers greater capabilities including a rear ramp and better lift – but suffers from serious delivery and availability problems. The Mi-17, in contrast, offers comparable performance for less, no political restrictions on its use, greater integrated armament capabilities than its competitors, optional versions that include western engines and avionics, and availability that has remained good thus far.
The problem for India’s MoD was that Russia had most of the negotiating leverage. The competing European NH90 medium helicopter is still badly backlogged on the production lines, as is the American CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter that has become so popular in Afghanistan’s “hot and high” conditions. The European medium-heavy EH-101 is in better shape than the NH90, but its still backlogged to the point that Britain bought Denmark’s fleet to upgrade its front-line capacity, rather than waiting for delivery from the factory. That leaves Russia’s Mi-17, which has abundant international orders and does not depend on India; or adoption of the American S-70 Black Hawk, with its corresponding removal of key features and questionable “hot and high” performance; or possibly Eurocopter’s EC532/EC725 Cougar.
Inducting either the S-70 Black Hawk or Eurocopter Cougar into service would come with an additional cost of its own, however, since the helicopters would lack commonality with with India’s existing 12 squadrons of Mi-8s and Mi-17s. These helicopters are already significantly more expensive than the Mi-17; Brazil will pay over $1 billion to buy 50 Eurocopter Cougars, and based on recent orders the simple fly-away cost of 80 UH-60M Black Hawks would hover near $1 billion.
Additional training, maintenance tooling, spare parts inventory, and related factors add an expected 30-40% to a new helicopter type’s procurement cost. Which means that available alternatives remained significantly more expensive, even when compared to a Russian deal that has doubled in price.
it is pretty much self-explanatory as to why the IAF and MoD went with the Mi-17V5 even after the price escalation.
Sign In
