The APG-79 being significantly better than APG-80? I don’t buy that. Maybe it’s easier to maintain or cheaper to build. But from a physical aspect it cannot be much better than the APG-80.

why not ? there were better and faster processors available when the APG-79 was designed than there were when the APG-80 was designed. this article mentions that.

link

DATE:28/06/05
SOURCE:Flight International
Guard requests F-15 radar upgrade

The bulk of the ANG’s 160 F-15A/Cs are equipped with mechanically scanned APG-63s, although 18 USAF F-15Cs at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska have been equipped with the APG-63(V)2 AESA radar. This uses heavier “brick” modules than the “tile” technology introduced with the (V)3 variant now sought by the ANG.

Raytheon has built one prototype APG-63(V)3, but the radar had until recently appeared unlikely to secure production approval. The USAF plans to upgrade its F-15E Strike Eagles with the newer APG-63(V)4 variant from 2008, which will reuse transmit/receive modules from the (V)3 and introduce updated processors from Raytheon’s APG-79 AESA radar installed on Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Block 2 Super Hornet. The radar upgrade would enable the aircraft to track an expanded group of threats, including cruise missiles.

STEPHEN TRIMBLE/WASHINGTON DC

Well, I said it’s radar is fine. But the F-16 tender comes with the APG-80 which surely isn’t much worse. And the EF comes with CAESAR which will be superior most likely. Zhuk’s new AESA should be in about the same league as the APG-79 and 80. So we’re back at the beginning: where’s the distinct advantage of the F-18?

IMO, the advantages are-

1) cheaper compared to Typhoon and Rafale at least on a unit cost basis. the overall package could turn out to be much costlier, including training/simulators/ground support equipment/manuals/weapons,etc. in which case the advantage wouldn’t exist. probably cheaper on a unit cost basis than even the Gripen NG ! although the NG (and F-16IN) will win back a lot more in lifetime costs being single engined fighters.

2) excellent maintainability (although I’m sure that the Gripen NG, Typhoon, F-16 Block 60+ and Rafale would meet that criteria as well. not so sure about the MiG-35, and it will be interesting to see how the MiG-29K/KUBs perform in this regard. poor MiG OKB support for IAF MiG-29s in the 1990s has really dented their reputation very severely)

3) a very advanced set of avionics and a very wide range of weapons, all certified, all tested and all operational.

4) possibility of converting some of the 126 MRCAs to Growlers like the Australians did. the IAF has nothing of the sort of capability the Growlers bring.

5) the USN will support and fund further developments of the SH at least out till 2025. and while that may not seem like a big advantage, it really is a big deal. the MiG-35 is at a dead end almost. Russians won’t buy it, so only export nations will fund its future development, and most will be happy with its existing configuration till the end of their service life, so India will have to foot the bill. Typhoon partners dithering on Tranche 3 is setting a bad trend for it, because like it or not, its capabilities will be enhanced only based on demand and pushing things like Meteor integration till 2013 saying that they don’t envision threats that require Meteor till then is stupid. its clearly a financial decision. France has shown that its extremely expensive when it comes to upgrades and with the Rafale gaining no export orders as yet, it doesn’t seem like there will that much international demand for upgrades. so it’ll be very costly to upgrade Rafales with newer technologies later on, unless India can do it on its own or use Israeli help.

Scooter, in case you haven’t noticed yet: I was just messing with you a little bit. Surely the Hornet isn’t a bad fighter aircraft. I just wanted to point out that it isn’t particularly special in any way either. If it was hands down kick your ass better than the F-16 the USAF would be using it. It isn’t so they aren’t.

the Super Hornet was developed only in the 1990s from the legacy C/D Hornets. and at the time of its development, it was heavily criticized for some features like poorer acceleration compared to the F-16. its high alpha performance has always been good, but it lacks good range. the USAF was already committed to the F-22 and the very capable F-15Es were being inducted as well in the 1990s. so where was the question of them adapting a naval fighter to a landbased role ?

even when the SH was an average performer, its reliability has been consistently a strong point. fewer maintenance man-hours, a much lower attrition rate, and very high availability made the USN really like it. but, it was only when the Block II Super Hornet configuration came along that the Super Hornet really stood out because of its electronics. the airframe disadvantages still exist, but the APG-79 radar really sets it apart from almost every other US fighter, probably excepting the AESA fitted F-15s and now the F-22.

I am not surprised. If we are to believe “forum rumours”, the main reason that we don’t jump immediately in the Rafale wagon once more, is the upgrade cost (plus missiles prices and spares). We ‘ve been Dassault client since 1974 and this is the first time that we don’t just order the “new toy” with direct procurement. Because it’s not that we aren’t satisfied by the aircrafts themselves. We are. But this thing with costs, is getting out of hand. We bought some new M2000-5, upgraded a few M2000 to -5 and we still have 20 in a limbo, not knowing whether to upgrade or not , because of the $$$ required.

Your story is similar with the difference that you could put non-french items for the upgrade and they don’t let you… So we ‘re back to square 1, that you find the upgrade cost too high.

Aspis, the IAF has been a Dassault customer since the 1950s ! they bought the Dassault Ouragans, then Mysteres as well. then the USSR stepped in to become the biggest supplier and the cheaper and capable MiG-21s won out against Mirage 3/5s and the Mirage F1 lost out to the Jaguar, but the Mirage-2000 was procured to counter the F-16s of the PAF.

but the price factor has really taken away the export quotient of Dassault’s sales. the fact that the Rafale needed to be able to replace so many different types of aircraft in French service, and be a naval fighter meant that it had to be twin-engined, and in a weight class higher than the Mirage-2000. consequently, costs go up and very few countries can afford to buy twin-engined fighters in sizeable numbers. most will be happy with a Gripen/F-16 class fighter because they’re cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate as well.

Just a simple question. Do these people actually write for this particular website?

it says the following-“This article first appeared in the magazine INDIAN AVIATION.” but the article is reproduced in BR with his permission and he happened to be related to one of BR’s longtime member. But in many cases, articles by retired officers are written specifically for Bharat Rakshak only.

Many OEMs are also smart – they put clauses saying modify the design, if it breaks, your issue, pay us more to fix it.

reminded me immediately of a great article on Bharat Rakshak, written by the Late Wing Cmdr ‘Kukke’ Suresh.

BR article link

As explained above, since there were serious limitations to unrestricted operation of the aircraft and no tangible solution was forthcoming from BAe, we had to do something. There were several insinuations from BAe: IAF aircraft were being subjected to excessive number of cycles of slat operation. Strictures were passed on IAF maintenance practices, permitting entry of air into the system, during the process of charging hydraulic fluid. The first allegation of excessive slat operation was negated after our Air Advisor in London checked with the RAF and found that their slat operation cycle was identical to that of IAF. The second allegation was negated after it was pointed out that the Jaguar had a self-bleeding hydraulic system and there was no scope for air remaining within the system.

Bharat from Air HQ exhorted HAL to study the whole problem and come up with quick solutions, so that the aircraft could be cleared for unrestricted operations at the earliest. The damaged slat motor of JS 139 was brought to Bangalore for detailed metallurgical examination at National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL). By now it was clear that the accident of JS 120 could also be due to the same reason. On our request the wreckage (of JS 120) was searched again and the damaged slat motor located and brought to Bangalore. Jam put in relentless effort to analyse the cause of failure by interacting continuously with metallurgists of NAL and scientists of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). Detailed analysis was made using ELFINI, structural analysis software. It was found that the brake body of the slat motor had inadequate corner radius (by design) in the body unit, at the circlip holding groove, resulting in a sharp corner, leading to be a stress raiser. This component was prone to early failure even with normal load and duty cycles. The corner radius of 0.01 mm to 0.1 mm was permitted as per design. Jam and his team of scientists then worked out the duty cycles obtainable at different radii. Calculations revealed that even under normal operating conditions, units with corner radius of less than 0.03 mm were likely to fail prematurel,y around 1500 flying hours. This was precisely what had happened in both the accidents.

Jam presented the detailed analysis to BAe who were very reluctant to accept the findings. After a number of meetings and presentation of accurate facts and figures, BAe did accept the shortcoming. In the meantime, BAe had also examined RAF aircraft with about 1500 flying hours and found that the brake bodies of slat motors with lower corner radius showed signs of impending failure. BAe then took action to correct the design requirements and advise AVIACA accordingly. The reluctance on the part of BAe was probably to avoid any liability or legal hassles. We had learnt our lesson at the cost of one aircraft and almost another one.

Modifications.

There were a number of brainstorming sessions at the Aircraft Division of HAL to develop and introduce suitable modifications. The aim being to clear the aircraft for unrestricted operations by being able to manage the emergency, should it recur. The first modification was the introduction of a warning light on the Central Warning Panel (also wired to the Master Warning Flasher), to come ON the moment the reservoir levels dropped, consequent to a hydraulic fluid leak This was relatively easy and Mr Veluswamy, Design Engineer came up with trumps in no time. The second and most important part was to be able to use the residual fluid to lower undercarriage without putting off the battery. Jam came up with a concept; ? why not selectively de-energise one of the solenoid-operated valves, so that the fluid trapped exclusively for controls from one of the systems could be diverted to operate services like undercarriage. Controls could still be operated with the fluid from the other system?. This idea took shape and with tremendous encouragement from Mr Haridas, then General Manager of Aircraft Division and Bharat from Air HQ. Veluswamy, Rajshekar, Jayamohan and the team of the Division came up with a viable modification scheme. An additional switch was provided in the cockpit, which enabled the pilot to selectively isolate one of the hydraulic systems and divert the fluid for services, while the other system took care of the controls. Aircraft could thus operate unrestricted, as it was not required to put off the battery.

Both the modifications were rigged on one aircraft in record time, (less than two weeks). These were assessed and evaluated by HAL test pilots. In early February 94, Bharat and a team from Air HQ came to Bangalore and assessed the modifications. Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE) was also involved at this stage. Air HQ gave a go ahead to fabricate the required components and introduce the modifications on the Jaguar fleet of the IAF. HAL undertook the task on priority, sent teams to Jaguar operating bases and the entire fleet was modified within six weeks. The limitations on Jaguar operations were removed by April 94. In June 94 it was found that BAe introduced these modifications as applicable to the Jaguar fleet all over the world. Interestingly the Company Notice of BAe was identical to that of HAL, word for word; expect that the letters BAe substituted letters HAL. There was a very fine print (visible only through a magnifying glass) that the modifications were based on ?work done by HAL? Contract.

Since the modifications were developed in India and adapted by BAe, it was decided to examine the possibility of claiming “Intellectual Property Rights” from them. Some interesting features of the Jaguar contract and licence agreement signed in 1978 by Government of India with the BAe emerged. The gist without actual legal terminology is given below: Operator (India) may introduce modifications on their own aircraft, the details of which are to be communicated to BAe. If we (BAe) have any technical observations, we will inform you within two months. In any case, the introduction of modification is at your own risk and cost.

If we (BAe) find that the modification is useful and should be introduced on the entire Jaguar fleet world over, we shall do so. However, this does not attract any “Intellectual Property Rights” or Commercial considerations.

It is amazing that the contract signed even before the aircraft were inducted had incorporated clauses as above. We learnt that a team of experts specialised in drawing up contracts draft these documents and bring to them the desired thoroughness.

We may not come to know what IAF pilots would “vote” if they were to get a poll, but you can be certain that their opinion will count at the end. Because, their “opinion” will influence the criteria up to a point. So what the IAF prefers , will be “boosted” in the evaluation criteria.

I don’t want again to be “accused” for derailing the discussion to greek matters, but here’s more or less how a competition is done:

For us, HAF has sent some pilots to fly with and/or against the aircrafts. These pilots made an opinion and report. This report, combined with the plans of what KIND of aircraft is currently needed (and baring in mind future plans), arrives to the committe that must prepare the “scoring” part in techical criteria. Some 400+ criteria are listed. To each of this criteria, a factor of importance is granted. And here’s is where the wish of the airforce and opinion can promote one aircraft, over the other. For example the list is : T/W ratio score x 1.05 —- engine thrust score x 2.5 —- radar perdormance x 4.0. This goes on for all criteria. At the end, some aircrafts, since the factor of importance is arbitrarily given according to HAF’s wishes , some aircrafts will get higher score than others.

Then, you proceed to the more bureaucratic part. The “mathematical formula” that will give the “most convenient offer”.

For us, it’s : Best offer = 0,5x comparable price + 0,1 x Local Industry Partecipation + 0,1 x greek added value + 0,1 x offsets + 0,1 x procurement cost + 0,1 x life cycle cost.

The “comparable price” has yet a formula of its own to be calculated and has biggest “weight” (0.5 factor). The “comparative price” is complicated, it’s more or less the total cost/ total ranking in technical criteria.

Each of the other factors in the equation has by its turn its own criteria (and formula) that give a score.

The procurement cost for example, isn’t simply the “contract cost”. It depends on “Present value” and “date of delivery”. On their turn, a formula gives the values of these 2.

You can very well imagine, that the political factor, can then “boost” a partecipant by influencing factors in the above formulas and sub-formulas.

In our case, some HAF criteria changed importance factor (hmmm, maybe someone told HAF not to penalize so much a competitor?). Then imagine what play you can make with the “offsets”, “added value”, “local industry partecipation”. Because two contenders can give you 100% offsets. But the offsets of the 1 , will be ranked more “desirable” than those of the other. And who can influence this? The political wishes. :rolleyes:

I wouldn’t be surprised, if the Rafal was in DEED ousted for a while (for not satisfying 1 minimum requirement in IAF’s list) and put back for political reasons. Or contrary, if the Rafale was leaked to the press by the goverment that had been ousted, to give a message to France to take the competition more seriously and then the goverment simply came out and denied it was ever ousted. :diablo:

So, i don’t know the way that India calculates the best offer, but i imagine they do something similar. Of course, the importance factors will be different, adjusted to indian criteria.

But, that’s just to say, that a winner isn’t simply made by “what the pilots like” or ” who’s the best” or simply “who will give a lower cost contract”. Even the “lower cost contract” can be something relative.

And for countries that DO look on the political side of the matter, there is PLENTY of space, to “help” someone win, although apparently doing a “mathematically accurate”, and thus “objective” ranking.

Because nobody can tell you “Why do you have the radar perfomance at x4 and not x 2 ?”. The answer is “because that’s how i like it”. Or “why do you give the other competitor’s offsets a higher score”? “Because for my criteria, getting the stuff the other gives me, is more important than those that you give me, for the same value of money”. So they can’t accuse you of being “unfair”. In fact, we have adopted this formula thing, so that we can avoid situations like when HAF had ranked F15 first and the PM chose the Typhoon. Now theoretically, the PM will simply say that the winner, is the 1st ranked at the “best offer” formula result.

I hope this will also help the Indian friends to find some peace, because i have been reading BR forum and it’s funny, it’s the same chaos as the greek ones. There is the Rafale supporter, the ones that says “we must stick with Russians”, the Tejas fan, the other who is afraid of US dependance, the one who wants the cheaper, the one who wants the “best performing” in this or that role, and ALL think that the Indian Airfoce is walking in the dark because there doesn’t seem to be a logic in these competitors. Well what do you know, you can read the same in greek fora. But that’s only because neither you nor we, have actually seen the airforce criteria and the importance factors nor what the politicians have in their mind.

So, my Indian friends, despite what one or the other wants or thinks that India wants, the final result, will be influenced by what IAF wants (which don’t worry, in her criteria , she will boost her preferable aircrafts) and what your goverment wants (which will also make sure to boost the contenders that suit her political tastes). At the end, the battle will be done, probably between the 2 that most got “boosted” by your airforces and goverment’s criteria. Probably your goverment doesn’t have an absolute favourite either, because otherwise you could just make a direct procurement from that country. But probably your goverment has 2 top vendors in mind and will make sure that one of the 2 will finally get the contract. The one that is higher in IAF’s own preference list.

excellent post Aspis.

I did ask, very recently, a serving IAF Mirage-2000 squadron leader about what he would think the best MRCA candidate should be and I fully expected him to support the Rafale (because this guy loves the Mirage-2000)..but he said, from a pilot’s POV, that for the majority of the IAF pilots, any MRCA fighter will be good enough and they’ll make the best use of it. 🙂

Now you have done it.

Our glorious archaelogist will spend entire days telling you how inherently biased aviation engineers are (about aviation).

We should ask sanitation experts about aircraft, and ask aircraft engineers to lay roads.

Entire days mind you.

Thats what my glorious nation’s tax money goes for, so that our research scholars can spend their “days” on the internet and win glorious wars for their ego.

And here I was thinking that these guys actually worked.

Guess, now I know where the babu stereotype comes from.

Glad he didnt say he’d ask me to get him some tea and munchies while he was busy “working” on the internet.

Brrrr.

its the typical chai-biskoot types. apne ko sab topics pe sab kuch aata hain..”doosre saale kuch nahi jaante, apun sabko sab sikhaayega”- type attitude. they know everything about everything, however unrelated it may be with their own field of education or experience. the virtual anonymity of the internet really makes them feel all powerful, all encompassing.

everything the US makes is glorious and great. nevermind that they don’t know any of the actual happenings in these places- for instance how the 787 that was rolled out on 07-08-07 ACTUALLY had fake panels, no interiors, all to bluff the media and generate more sales, while engineers struggled to keep its huge weight issues under control. or how the first 4 787s will be so overweight that its launch customer will not take delivery of it and Boeing is paying huge bucks to get the weight down.

LM puts one “F-16IN” sticker on a F-16 Block 60 and we have fanboys jumping up and down. who says marketing gimmicks don’t work ?