VnomadYou must have tried to look into Klimov data yourself rather than depending on someone else ‘expertize’. He is quoting the dry weight for F414.
Here is the figures for RD-33MK
The UEC figures haven’t been updated. The weight of the baseline RD-33 is 1055kg.
I was under the impression that the original RD33s dry weight was 1055kg (generates 81kn in reheat) and the new RD33MK’s dry weight is 1145kg (generates 88kn in reheat)?
Correct.
VnomadNo Mr.Expert. I’m quoting you only now. In the earlier post I was giving a humble advise to swerve so as to avoid the thread hitting your economic storm.
Swerve’s been here longer than both of us. He doesn’t need you to hold his hand.
Also, please dont bring up your backside stuff by typing the obvious (underlined above) that have been said by many including me as to why we should avoid and minimize imports from western suppliers.
The ‘above underlined’ portion was pointing out the glaring flaw in your ‘analysis’ of the cost. Claiming that rupee value of a deal between two countries stays constant is the same as saying falling currency makes imports cheaper. If the exchange rate was INR90/USD, Rs 10,575 crore would equate to $1.1 billion. Perhaps the Indian govt should start printing more money.
Btw, it was you who again quoted me even though I fullfilled your earlier wish of not to quote you, with the below quote of yours.
Quote me if you like. Just don’t whine about it. (Post #658)
If you want to debate something, debate it. If you want to be the bigger man and walk away, feel free. But then don’t slink back with – ‘I did not bother replying to Mr.Expert not because he was right, but coz…’.
The real question you skipped which I asked you after this expertise of yours and I repeat it for you so that you can answer —— why is Indian Navy quoting a figure of Rs.4881.67 crore in their press release when the deal was signed in dollars.
That equates to about $1 billion at TY rates and includes support and infrastructure augmentation. The price being reported in the media prior to that was $800 million+ for the refurbishment. The price reported later was $974 million.
And the Indian Navy reported a cost in INR because the release was to the Indian media. The UK MoD too releases costs in GBP to the domestic media, even for import/export deals signed in USD.
VnomadF414 is higher thrust engine but I think it is very heavy relative to thrust.
Do you really?
GE-F414-400
Thrust – 98,000N
Weight – 1,150kg
Klimov RD-33MK
Thrust – 88,000N
Weight – 1100-1200kg (http://klimov.ru/files/main/klimov_katalog.pdf)
F-18E is the heaviest fighter for its size despite extensive use of composites and it does not gain that much range advantage over MIG-29K despite 33% larger fuel capacity.
This was about the F414 and RD-33 not F-18E and MiG-29K. Trust you go off on a tangent.
RD-33MKM is the cheapest variant in this class of engines. Gripen NG will be neither cheap nor light weight once it is certified with heavier loads. Sea Gripen is non starter with this engine.
I guess I’ll have to take your word for it. :rolleyes:
Vnomadbesides, @ Vnomad, if you need to have it explained in a simpler way:
MMRCA is the way for India to gather knowledge from various sources, which is always better than remain dependant on a single one. As for the USA, they restric access to technology even to their closest allies (like UK), so you can bet they won’t provide anything really useful to an independant country like India
It appears that according to you, the primary strength/objective of the MMRCA, is the technology transferred from such programs.
Well ToT is an expensive and ultimately inefficient means of gaining know-how. A deep ToT of the Su-30MKI did not confer upon HAL, the ability to design a long range heavy fighter, nor did GRTE start manufacturing single crystal blades for the Kaveri engine. Even if complete ToT for the RBE 2AA and SPECTRA takes place, developing equivalent systems for the Tejas or AMCA isn’t going to become significantly easier (foreign consultancy will help, blueprints won’t). At best, it’ll make in-house modifications to the IAF’s Rafales easier.
With regard to the US, its not relevant to the current debate (higher end aircraft = better choice), but since its come up… had the F-18E/F been awarded the MMRCA contract, they’d likely have transferred as much technology as the contract required. There’ll be little sharing done with regard to the F-35 because of both industrial and security concerns, but on the upside there’s a lot of political commonality – they’ve been the biggest opponent to the lifting of the EU arms embargo on China and France its biggest proponent.
VnomadI wonder why the IAF chose the F-414 to power their Tejas and not the RD-33 family? RD-33 is already in IAF and IN service, so plenty of commonality. The Indians obviously know something?
The F414 is a higher thrust engine. And while the RD-33 variant is said be evolving into a 98kN engine, its still starting from a lower baseline (which might be why it didn’t bid for the contract). In contrast the growth prospects for the EJ-200 and F414 are much better. Even assuming that HAL/ADA opted for a 100kN engine, instead of the 120kN variant on the Gripen E), the operational cost will likely be much better than the competition.
Vnomadexcept that the PAK-FA is not a multirole platform,
It’ll be complemented with Su-30s, Mirages, Jaguars etc. Besides, if it were integrated with the Litening and Paveway (or Damocles and AASM if you prefer), would you then support its acquisition as a substitute for the Rafale?
and US stuff comes with no ToT to speak of (either yestardays tech, or simply not available).
That’s the basic point. ToT delivers limited utility. The actual progress is achieved through domestic research regardless of whether its succeeds or fails. The Rafale will arrive (if it does) too late to influence the Tejas’ development and too early to impact the AMCA.
Besides, while the PAK-FA is a monster from dynamic PoV, the technological level (radar, electronics etc) may, or may not be more advanced than European stuff… only those that can put their hands on both without restrictions can have an idea… and India is one (if not the only one) nation that will have that opportunity
Even if its not perfectly at par technologically with the Europeans, across the board, the PAK FA will still remain the better platform. And therefore by your logic about the better aircraft being the better choice, it should be the sole induction for the IAF for the next twenty years.
VnomadTBH, Sea Harriers probably would have been the best option. It’s much too late for it now, with no real chance to acquire any working airframes. I always thought the British should have made Sea Harrier possible to launch from a low power catapult to squeak out more takeoff weight, but the ski jump success more or less made that idea moot.
They were bought for air defence since the RN was primarily an ASW force (until the Falklands). Payload requirement was relatively low and the stresses of catapult launch would have increased its already high accident rates.
Vnomadso you think there is no inflation in dollars?. when you sit on selection for 3 years. it is highly likely that original price become invalid.
Both prices are quoted in dollars. Inflation in dollar value is not relevant. What might have had an impact was EUR-RUB rate, which has not changed significantly.
And the A330 was identified as L1 in Jan 2013. So you’re wrong… again.
VnomadAlso plans very often change and Russian officials very often say disinmformation to confuse their adversaries. Its also of little relevance what some official said …
Yet you so confidently present such casual claims (on RCS for example) as unimpeachable.
VnomadWhich doesnt mean everyone will agree. Source is here http://vanguardcanada.com/mission-satisfaction-rafale-offers-proven-capability/
Btw, this price tag was also quoted in front of Ductch parliament.
I wasn’t disputing the Rafale’s operating cost in Mali, just pointing out that it didn’t necessary reflect peacetime operating costs.
Coming to your link it says €14,000. That’s over $19,000/hr. So when you were disputing Toan’s figure ($16,500/hr), did you intend to say that it actually costs more than his figure?
VnomadI did not bother replying to Mr.Expert not because he was right, but coz its a wastage of time and space. He would have wonderful answers on why Indian Navy press release mention a value of Rs.4,881.67 crore when all we know from the news reports all these years is a contract value of nearly $1.5billion in 2004.
Seems you replied after all. And it doesn’t an expert to know that a fall in the value of domestic currency doesn’t make imports cheaper.
VnomadHonestly, how many fighters were succesfully navalized???
Sea Harrier, MiG-29 and Su-27. You could also count the Jaguar, though the navalized variant never saw service. Perhaps the Tejas in a few years.
Besides, how many countries have a long tradition of carrier aviation? US, UK and France. To a lesser extent, perhaps Russia and India. The US Navy has funded its own aircraft as did the French with their Etendards.
VnomadWont discuss some of the numbers, just one : opch about Rafale is wrong (14000 in Mali)
Somebody… I think Tu-22m explained how operating cost of fighters actually decrease during combat operations; sortie rates increase with an unchanged or reduced maintenance/downtime schedule.
VnomadThat was couple of years back before devaluation of Indian rupee. L1 does not mean lower initial capital expenditure.
Devaluation of the rupee doesn’t change the life-cycle costs associated with aircraft (determined in dollars).
VnomadSarkozy visits Morocco, pushes Rafale. A month later Morocco orders F-16s. Now Hollande visits Brazil, pushes Rafale. A week later Brazil announces Gripen purchase.
:scratches head: The transcripts from these meetings would be interesting.
Sign In
