21AnkushChina vs Taiwan would seem most likely sometime in the next 10-15 years..
21AnkushTo quote the Flight article:
“To help phase out the air force’s Dassault Mirage 2000 and Hindustan Aeronautics-built Sepecat Jaguar strike aircraft by around 2015, the proposed twin-engined MCA would also augment the service’s Sukhoi Su-30MKIs and its planned future fleet of at least 126 medium multirole combat aircraft.”
The way I read this is that the aircraft would be available around 2015. There must be something wrong with my reading. EIS of the MCA by around 2015 would be impossible, would it not?
The Mirage-2000s are due to be upgraded and the negotiations are in a very advanced stage on this between HAL, IAF and Dassault. They won’t be retired till 2020 at least. The first IAF aircraft to be replaced after the MiG-21s will be the oldest in-service MiG-27s. Approx. 40-60 MiG-27s will be upgraded and will serve till 2020 by when the MRCA will be fully absorbed and then they can be retired as well. Then we’ll see the oldest Jags retire and then the MiG-29s since their airframe life is shorter than the Mirages.
21AnkushAs far as I know (and you will certainly know more than me, so could confirm or deny this) the LCA project was intended to produce an Indian aircraft with an Indian designed and manufactured engine – for delivery some 10 years ago.
I understand that a GE engine was selected for initial aircraft so that a flying aircraft could be developed while the Kaveri was developed for production aircraft. The F-404-IN20 was never intended to be the engine used in the production aircraft, was it?
Spitfire, the Kaveri was not going to power the first 20 LCA’s, that fact twas known to the IAF some years ago. So, the F-404-IN20 was chosen to power the first 8 Limited Series Production LCA’s because the IAF found the thrust on the F-404-FJ2J3 inadequate. Then, the IAF placed an order for 20 more LCA’s and these too were to be powered by the F-404-IN20. However, after the trials at Arakonnam (where the engine used was the F-404-F2J3) which were disappointing, they found that the thrust of an F-404IN20 would still be inadequate.
The initial plan was that the first 2 squadrons of IAF LCA’s would be powered by the F-404-IN20 engine and then onwards, the Kaveri would power the next batches. But because the Kaveri hasn’t moved forward and GTRE basically used up the last of its rope, the issue became one of getting a foreign engine maker to consult on it and find solutions to the problems. Rolls-Royce did not respond to the tender, Snecma and Saturn did and Snecma was chosen. After that, it was decided that the Kabini core would be replaced by the M-88 Eco core.
On a completely different path, the IAF wanted the first batches of the LCA to be powered by a 90-95 kN thrust engine. only the EJ-200 and F-414 fall into that category, so they’re the ones that are going to be sent RFIs soon. One of them will power the LCAs after the first batch of 20.
I presume that the Kaveri-M-88 hybrid engine will be used for the batches of LCA produced a few years after the developmental and test trials are over. It could also be used on the MCA later on and a scaled down version could be used for UCAVs.
OK, when I said the Kaveri had been abandoned as a military engine, I was simply quoting the person running the GTRE, responsible for developing the Kaveri. If you prefer to describe the engine to replace the Kaveri as the Kaveri, so be it.
elements of the Kaveri will be retained in the new engine that they’re developing. its not like the M-88 is being taken and dropped directly into the LCA, nor is a brand new engine being developed from scratch, but yes there will still be a lot of work to do
If a bought-in foreign engine is to be installed in the LCA, what is the JV engine for?
For the first 60-80 LCAs I guess.
Both the GE and Eurojet engines will make the Tejas more expensive than a Tejas using a locally manufactured (mostly) JV engine. In saying that, I assume that one can be reasonably certain that SNECMA can provide the knowhow to make the engine work.
Not necessarily. For instance, on the Dhruv ALH, the new Shakti engine is nothing more than a Snecma Ardiden engine. It improves the performance of the Dhruv at a slight cost penalty (which still means its cheaper than comparative Bell or Eurocopter models) but the IA and IAF are still ordering more of it because at high altitudes the extra power is invalueable.
It looks to me like the whole project – which set out to make a low cost 4th gen Indian aircraft – has turned into something of a disaster. It’s a shame. Had the project been better managed, it could have resulted in India offering a low cost aircraft which could have sold well on the export market.
keep in mind that its the first time India attempted something this complex. From afar, people who don’t know the level of technologies involved in this program will scoff, but those in the know will actually applaud how much has been achieved considering that no experience or expertise, zilch, existed even as far as the late 1980s.
And it was very ambitious to begin with..a country that couldn’t make a car engine and had only been assembling licenced 1960’s and ’70s turbojets and turbofans, on its own took up the task of making a turbofan and it faltered. and even today, R&D expenditure in India is ridiculously low compared to western nations. they pay a salary that can’t attract or retain the best brains in the nation, so its a systemic problem, not just project management.
India’s space program had humble beginnings but incrementally grew to what it is today. on the aviation front however it was all built up at one go, whatever was learnt on the HF-24 Marut was lost and learnt from scratch.
Nevertheless, an enormous amount of experience has been gained. I hope that lessons will be learnt and applied to the MCA, should that be pursued.
thats the silver lining in the cloud. HAL was able to build and fly the IJT Sitara within 3 years of conceptualization because of the experience gained on the LCA. Because of the Dhruv, they now have a Light Combat Heli that will fly soon, and a Light Observation Heli that will fly by 2013-14. They also want to start on a 10 ton helicopter program. Add to that the Medium Transport Aircraft and PAK-FA.
I’m quite optimistic that they’ll cut down the development time on the MCA and won’t repeat the mistakes of the LCA program.
21AnkushI dunno but Saab cut 200Kg from the Gripen 39-7 Demo aircraft between first presentation and roll-out. Now: 7100Kg.
Meanwhile, The Indian LCA Tejas is now 6500 Kg… about 40% more heavy than planned. And it still lacks a refueling probe. GG. 🙂
what 40% heavier ? are you suggesting that its approx 2500 kgs heavier than planned ? :rolleyes:
21Ankushthe picture looks fake to me..its vertical stabilizers are present in a couple of the shots, and in some others, they’re not..
21AnkushThe Mirage 2000s are scheduled to be the first replaced… why on earth would they get more?
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D93I2U0G3.htm
The Associated Press October 1, 2008, 10:12PM ET
the article makes some serious gaffe’s so I wouldn’t take it as being the best source of info on whether the Mirage-2000s will be the first aircraft to go..he said that LM’s F-35 was offered. It wasn’t- the F-16BR was offered, with specs similar to the F-16IN, in that its a derivative of the F-16 Blk.60 developed for the UAE.
21Ankushif it has edge against J-10, then how can it be on par with mkk? J-10 crushes mkk in all the PLAAF exercises. Don’t underestimate the plane.
whats the source of your claim that the J-10 “crushes” the MKK in all exercises ? a relatively new fighter crushing a MKK would imply that the MKK is either poorly piloted, uses bad tactics, or simply speaking, is not quite as great as its supposed to be. and if its true that the J-10 trumps the MKK, then even the Taiwanese F-16 and Mirage-2000s could have an upper hand over the MKK, since the J-10 is probably roughly equivalent to their later models.
21AnkushI have followed the Tejas saga on this thread for some time. It seems that the aircraft is not yet sufficiently developed to be acceptable to the IAF. I am surprised that the lack of thrust provided by the intended Kaveri engine should be portrayed as an unexpected revelation. I get the impression that help to overcome this problem has been sought for a long time from foreign military engine designers. Ergo the problem has been known about for a long time.
If you’ve been following the Tejas thread then you’d know that the engine that the IAF is cribbing about is not the Kaveri, its the F-404-IN20. The fact is that as per its original ASR, the Kaveri was to have more thrust than the F-404-IN20, but its only met about 90% of its dry thrust and there are other technical issues (some metallurgical, some production) that we do not know of clearly.
Abandonment of the Kaveri as a military jet engine was announced some months ago in favour of joint development of a new engine based on the core of the SNECMA M-88. It will certainly take several years to develop this new engine and (I imagine) the airframe will need modifications in view of the engine swap. Whether those would involve minor or major redesign I would not know. Is 8 years to induction of a re-engined Tejas therefore unrealistic?
again wrong. The Kaveri is not completely abandoned. the M-88-Eco core will replace the Kabini core of the Kaveri, but there will be several elements of the Kaveri that will be carried over to the new engine. So, even though its a new engine, much of the basic design and analysis work would have been done, and now there will need to be a lot of new integration work (which also involves design and analysis, but a lot less than starting from scratch as you’re implying).
Also, the re-engined Tejas that the ACM is referring to will be powered either by the F-414 or the EJ-200, not the Kaveri-M-88Eco mix. 8 years is more than enough for ADA/HAL to integrate the new engine with the Tejas, and test fly it to certify it.
BTW I find it unfortunate that the decision to swap engines was not made years ago. Had the M-88 core joint venture engine been selected far earlier India might have been in a position to order Rafale with Indian built engines to meet the MRCA requirement.
The decision was not made because GTRE, the research establishment that was developing the Kaveri, underestimated the problems and probably did not give an honest assessment of what it would take to resolve them.
And from the IAF’s perspective, the idea was that the F-404-IN-20 would power the first 40-50 fighters that would enter service till 2015 and by then the Kaveri would be ready. Now, they say that the IN-20 is providing inadequate thrust and hence they need a more powerful engine for the LCA’s to be built after the first batch of 20.
21AnkushI too feel that the bumbling Sengupta made up the Zhuk-ME stuff..could be the N019M Topaz instead..and as someone already mentioned, the N019M Topaz is compatible with a wide range of air-to-air weapons, including the R27ER1, R27T1, R27ET1, RVV-AE and R73E, but no guided air-surface weapons.
21AnkushHyperwarp, here is an article by Prasun Sengupta on SLAF getting MiG-29SEs and Mi-35Ms..according to him, SLAF also wants the IAF to upgrade its Kfir with the Israeli Elta E-2032 and its Mi-25s too..blelieve it at your own peril though..:)
The Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) will by the year’s end begin receiving five RAC MiG-built MiG-29SE multi-role combat aircraft and one MiG-29UBS tandem-seat operational conversion trainer, all worth US$75 million, plus three Oboronprom JSC-built Mi-35M attack helicopters—all from Russia. While the SLAF will be responsible for first- and second-level maintenance of these new acquisitions, the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Nasik-based India-Russia joint venture—Indo-Russian Aviation Ltd (IRAL)—will provide flying training, technical type-training and depot-level maintenance support for them.
IRAL is currently providing similar product support to the SLAF’s existing six Mi-17V-5s, 10 Mi-25s and three Mi-35Ps of No9 Attack Helicopter Squadron, and for the 10 ex-Ukrainian MiG-27Ms and one MIG-23UB trainer of No5 Fighter Squadron. [b]
In addition, state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) is likely to be involved in upgrading the SLAF’s two Israel Aerospace Industries-built Kfir TC.2s, two Kfir C.7s and eight Kfir C.2s of No10 Fighter Squadron. The SLAF wants these Kfirs to be retrofitted with ELTA’s EL/M-2032 multi-mode monopulse radars (which HAL is presently installing on board the Indian Navy’s Sea Harrier FRS Mk51s) and armed with RAFAEL-built Python-3 air combat missiles. The SLAF has also requested the IAF and HAL to help upgrade its Mi-25s to enable them to have a modest night-fighting capability. Another noteworthy addition to the SLAF’s combat aircraft inventory has been five Chengdu F-7Gs and one FT-7G (both armed with PL-5E air combat missiles), which were delivered last March by China free of charge. These aircraft have supplemented the SLAF’s three F-7Bs and three FT-7Bs that were acquired in the late 1990s.
The MiG-29SEs on order will each be equipped with a Phazotron JSC-built Zhuk-ME airborne radar, which has a 80km target detection range. It also has modest air-to-surface modes that include Doppler-beam sharpening, synthetic aperture scanning (with 5-metre resolution) and moving target detection. Powerplant for the MiG-29SE will comprise twin Klimov RD-33-3 turbofans. The armaments suite will include Vympel R-73E air combat missiles, R-27ER1 and R-27ET1 medium-range air combat missiles, as well as KAB-500Kr laser-guided bombs that would be guided to their targets by manportable ground-based LDR-3 laser target designators supplied by Pakistan’s Al technique Corp.
The Mi-35M comes fitted with a 9K113K all-weather weapons suite that includes an Urals Optical & Mechanical Plant-built OPS-24N ‘Zarevo’ optronic system, GOES-342 gyro-stabilised chin-mounted turret, IRTV-445MGII thermal imager with a 4km range, and the BREO-24 radio communications suite. The Mi-35M’s cockpit displays are NVG-compatible. Its main and X-shaped tail rotor blades are all-composite, while its main and tail rotor hubs and gearbox are the same as those developed for the Mi-28NE attack helicopter. The Mi-35M’s twin stub wings are each equipped with twin APU-8/4U weapons pylons, each of which can carry eight supersonic anti-armour guided missiles (130mm 9K114 Shturm-S with 5km-range or 9M120 Ataka with 6km-range, both built by the Kolomna-based KBM Machine Design Bureau) or four Strelets air combat missiles. Powerplant for the Mi-35M comprises twin Klimov VK-2500 engines that enable the helicopter to be operated under ‘hot-and-high’ conditions at elevated humidity and high temperature levels.
The specs sound like almost as good as the MiG-29K for less than half the price (Zhuk-ME, RD-33-series3)..a little fishy, but I’d guess he’s gotten it wrong somewhere.
anyway, what would the SLAF need R-27ERs and R-27ETs to deal with Zlins, the R-73Es are more than enough so the MiG-29s can get in close, ID them and then shoot them down.. And KAB-500 Kr’s are tv-guided bombs, not laser guided, so he’s mixed up KAB-500Ls and KAB-500Kr.
21Ankushso they’re still poking the bear eh ?
21AnkushI wouldn’t put it past the IN to think of a upgraded block MiG-29K with AESA for the next purchase. After all, the IAF is looking for the MRCA with AESA as a mandatory clause. What I find a little difficult to digest is the TVC stuff he’s written about. while it may seem to be a little advantageous for a naval fighter approaching a carrier at low speeds, it may not be worth the difference in training and maintenance unless the IN standardises all its Fulcrums to the same standard.
its been written by Prasun Sengupta, so please take it with a pinch of salt. The guy routinely fibs and is not a very reliable source of any new information. the TIDLS portion of the article for instance, is very heavily “inspired” by a Bill Sweetman article on the Gripen. parts of it are taken verbatim without any credit given to the original author whatsoever.
21AnkushNice to see polite arguments and comments. Grow up.
actually that was funny. 😀
21AnkushSo France could stand to lose two potential customers in Libya and Brazil if they choose the Su-35..that would be one heck of a loss for them in that case.
what about Iran? There’s nothing stopping the Russians from selling them the Su-35 and they’ve already threatened the US that if it was to continue to expand the NATO alliance footprint in ex-CIS states, they would sell it the S-300. even a couple of squadrons of Su-35 would be a quantum jump in capabilities for the IRIAF over the old Tomcats, F-5s and few MiG-29s that they’re operating right now. we can forget about the indigenous F-5 clones, since they possibly represent the same generation in capabilities.
Sign In
