Jobim today:
– He made a choice and will recommend only one option to Lula.
– The price was not the most important criterion.
– Lula should make an announcement at the end of next week.

http://noticias.r7.com/brasil/noticias/ministro-da-defesa-vai-entregar-para-lula-na-semana-que-vem-nome-de-caca-para-equipar-a-fab-20100505.html

Crystal clear …;)

I’ll wait till next week and then see if this time they do as they say they’re going to do..

I was simply understating the fact that there are more complicated procedures.

look at their tanker procurement… once the deal was signed, a completely different ministry decided to cancel it because “it’s not the cheapest option”… I didn’t see any other argument, while maybe, the costlier option was also more capable and closer to what the IAF needed

that was a case of political interference, pure and simple and not procurement rules. The IAF and the MoD did their job and identified the aircraft they wanted. The Finance Ministry has no technical acumen, and they have never before interfered in this manner. It was clearly done at the behest of US pressure..its no coincidence that when they re-released the tender, they included Boeing in it when the Boeing tanker was not part of the original deal.

the same Finance Ministry has no problems with the single-source FMS deal with the US for 10 C-17s. Just wait and watch. the IAF is now expecting a Letter of Intent from the US in a short while and by the end of this year the IAF will have signed for the C-17s. Where there is political backing, the procurement can be done very fast.

more on that topic.

Flight Global blog link

By
Stephen Trimble
on November 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0) |ShareThis

I hope this is my last post on Col Terrence Fornof’s YouTube indiscretions. Much has been written throughout the blogosphere and the press since I posted the infamous video here a couple of weeks ago.

But I didn’t want to let it go without a firm rebuttal from the Indian side. The Indian Air Force has declined comment, but I can present a response by Vayu Aerospace Review Editor Pushpindar Singh.

He writes:

Being aware of the IAF’s views on the subject, and while fully respecting the IAF Vice Chief’s statement that the ‘leaked’ video and its content was ‘too demeaning for reaction’, I have decided to share the facts with readers, not those fancily conjured up by Colonel Terrence Fornof.
YouTube rebuttal:

Being aware of the IAF’s views on the subject, and while fully respecting the IAF Vice Chief’s statement that the ‘leaked’ video and its content was ‘too demeaning for reaction’, I have decided to share the facts with readers, not those fancily conjured up by Colonel Terrence Fornof, an F-15 fighter jockey and now Director of the Requirements and Testing Office at the USAF Air Warfare Centre at Nellis AFB. The USAF later issued a statement to say that Fornof’s was a private briefing to the ‘Daedalians’, a group of retired military pilots. “Colonel Fornof did not mean to offend any U.S. allied forces, as he knows firsthand the importance of training with allied forces and the awesome firepower they bring to the fight. His comments during this briefing were his personal opinions and not those of USAF Warfare Centre or of the Air Force”.

Still, to get the record straight, the facts are :
Ø The IAF did not undertake any IvIs at Nellis during Red Flag, nor did they engage thrust vectoring during the Exercise. IvIs were flown only at Mountain Home AFB. In none of the IvIs were the Su-30MKIs ever vulnerable, let alone shot down. As all exercises were flown with ACMI, the situations are recorded and available to substantiate this aspect. Additionally, the MKI’s behaviour with thrust vectoring is dramatically different from that described by the Colonel. F-15 and F-16 aircrew were well appreciative of IAF manoeuvres with thrust vectoring.

Ø Colonel Fornof’s statement on Su-30MKI rates of turn with thrust vectoring (20o/ sec) is grossly ‘out’ but apparently gives away actual F-22 performance (28o/sec) Pitch of the talk seemed as to whether thrust vectoring was important or not. As all sorties were with ACMI, entire profiles are recorded, can be analysed and surely would have been replayed to drive the point home and make the ‘chest thumping’ sound more real. Apparently this was not done. Perhaps, as the Colonel is aware of F-22 data, he has tried to down play the Su-30MKI in comparison. Surprisingly, while there was no systems / avionics / comparison between the two types or with any other type of ‘legacy’ aircraft, the speaker does admit that radar of the MKI is ‘superior’ to that of the F-15 and F-16, however ‘inferior’ to AESA of the F-22 (a correct assessment). However, the IAF used the Su-30’s radar in the training mode, with downgraded performance vis-à-vis operational mode, as they could hardly participate without this primary sensor

Ø The ‘Bison’ radar : the USAF should be aware that the ‘Bison’ does not have an Israeli radar, it is Russian. Nor does the Su-30MKI have Tumansky engines (but the NPO-Saturn). Surprisingly the Colonel seems oblivious of such facts, yet tries to convey that he is an authority on the matter.

Ø Fratricide by IAF fighters : this is correct, the IAF did ‘shoot down’ some ‘friendlies’ and that was assessed and attributed to the IAF not being networked. However, what the Colonel did not bring out were the two essential reasons for this. Firstly, this occurred mainly when the AWACS was not available (unserviceable) and controlling was done by GCI. More significantly it happened during extremely poor controlling by their operators, this fact being acknowledged during debriefs and the controllers being admonished accordingly. ‘Accents’ were perhaps the main culprit here, which very often led to American controllers not being able to understand Indian calls.

Ø Now hear this : the F-15C and other USAF fighters had the same number of fratricides as the IAF ! Considering they are well networked, yet their pilots shot down the same number of ‘friendlies’. This was not only a major concern but also turned out to be a major source of embarrassment as the USAF had everything — Link 16, IFF Mode 4 etc and the IAF had nothing. Under the Rules of Engagement, they did not even permit the IAF to use data link within themselves. All cases of USAF fratricide were covered in the next day’s mass briefing as lessons learnt by concerned aircrew. In the IAF, the incidents were covered by concerned controllers, and attributed to lack of adequate integration, excessive R/T congestion and poor controlling. Gloating on cases of IAF fratricide is frivolous and unprofessional.

Ø However, Colonel Fornof did appreciate IAF ‘professionalism’ and that the IAF were able to dovetail with USAF procedures within short time. There was not a single training rule / airspace violation. This is a most important aspect.

Ø Since the Colonel could hardly tell his audience that the IAF had given the USAF good run for their money, they downplayed the Su-30’s capability. It is correct that the IAF aircrew included some very young pilots — nearly 70 percent – but they adapted rapidly to the environment (totally alien), training rules (significantly different), airspace regulations etc but to say that they were unable to handle the Su-30 in its envelope (something that they have been practicing to do for four to five years) is just not credible ! If young pilots can adapt to new rules and environment within a short span of two weeks, it is because they are extremely comfortable and confident of their aircraft.

Ø The IAF’s all round performance was publicly acknowledged during, and at end of the Exercise, specifically by those involved. Not a single TR / airspace violation was acknowledged. Mission achievement rate was in excess of 90%. The drop out / mission success rates of all others, inclusive of USAF, were significantly lower. This is of major significance considering the fact that IAF was sustaining operations 20,000 km away from home base while the USAF were at home base. (The 8 Su-30s flew some 850 hrs during the deployment, which is equivalent to four months of flying task in India over 75 days). IAF’s performance at Mountain Home AFB was even better that that at Nellis AFB.

Ø FOD : At Mountain Home, IAF had reduced departure intervals from the very beginning (30″ seconds) considering that operating surfaces were very clean. However, a few minor nicks were encountered and it was decided to revert to 60 seconds rather than undertake engine changes. This was communicated by the IAF at the very start (IPC itself).

Ø There is no need to go in for ‘kill ratios’ as that would be demeaning. However, the IAF had significant edge throughout and retained it. In fact the true lesson for the USAF should be : ‘do not field low value legacy equipment against the Su-30MKI’ !.

(demeaning or otherwise, it is understood that the kill ratio (at Mountain Home AFB) was 21 : 1, in favour of the Su-30MKIs).

Let’s not forget how badly MKIs did at Red Flag.

pure humbug from a guy who wasn’t even there.. :rolleyes:

did you read what the IAF had to say about the MKIs at Red Flag ?

Tango III, you might be interested in reading this article written by Air Marshal S Raghavendran on his deputation to Iraq..has some rare pictures as well.

:rolleyes:

ever looked into indian procurement procedures? 😀

but the volumes make up for the drag. Just look at the Hawk AJT deal..66 + another 60 likely to be signed soon..who else has BAe sold so many Hawks to in the recent past ?

Besides, if the French don’t like Indian procurement procedures so much, they don’t need to bid. No one is forcing them to, are they ? On the contrary, when they were disqualified because they didn’t respond to certain queries during the technical qualification stage, it took a lot of hectic political intervention and pleading to get Dassault back into the race.

overG, Tejas’ wing is much evolved from Mirage-2000’s simplistic delta wing. It is compounded and is also slightly cropped i.e. it is actually a trapezoid, and not a simple right angle. Also, the leading edge close to the root has a 5 degree downward bent that helps in vortex creation over the wing. I think all these combinations are definitely a world-first.

a picture can do a better job of giving people a good idea of what you’re saying..so I’m attaching a pic of the Tejas from up front.

It has one of the largest wing areas, despite being the world’s smallest modern fighter jet. This helps it to carry high amount of loads for a jet of its size.

more importantly it bestows very low wing loading to the Tejas. That translates to agility in air combat.

Tejas’ designers once tested a mock-scale model with canards in the wind tunnel. But as they were not found to add any advantage, so they were dropped.

yup, was done for the N-LCA studies..the original configuration had a set of canards up front, like small moustaches..they found that it didn’t do much to improve performance and instead had a weight penalty..so they dropped it and went for LEVCONS.