VnomadEgypt is not middleast. and it will be shown to be thrown out of it.
Oh I see. Egypt was once a part of the Middle East but was ‘thrown out of it’.
The poor Egyptians. Its one thing to be haunted by history, but to be betrayed by geography. Tsk tsk.
We should have a dedicated thread for JSR quotes. 😀
MTA is digitally created. MTA is part of that 250 transport and there is firm guarantee to engine builders to increase production.
Well the KC-390 has signed DoIs from five countries in addition to Brazil while the MTA is ‘digitally created’. So yes this round goes to the MTA. :rolleyes:
There is serious decline in Embarer profits and backlog. They need to concentrate on there core business of regional jets rather than creating Cargo Lifter for which they have zero experiance and practically zero gain to Brazilian industry as every thing is imported.
No no, the first thing they should do is bring you on as chairman and CEO. Or an empowered consultant at the very least. Poor fellows simply cannot see that their venture will lead to ‘zero gain’ for the Brazilian industry. Maybe after a while your wisdom will rub off on them.
MTA is in design stage and than Ruaf orders will be fullfilled for next 15 years. so i am not sure what current operators of C-130 have anything to do with new generation airlifter that will come to market in post 2020 period.
The C-130J is in the same segment and is very much in competition with the KC-390 and MTA. Its no coincidence that Boeing has entered an MoU with Embraer on the KC-390, and that the UAE was examining it as an alternative to the C-130J-30.
Also, the MTA is expected to enter service in the latter half of the decade not post 2020.
I can also count resource rich countries like Kazakhistan, Azerbaijan, Turkemenistan, Venzuela, Iraq, Algeria, Iran. and even UAE, Vietnam, Brazil. and why should China be out of it?. They are still using IL-76. and biggest importer of Russian engines.
So the MTA’s potential operators include both China and Brazil. 😀
Well in retrospect, considering who I’m talking to, I shouldn’t be surprised at all.
VnomadEgypt is not part of middleast just like Somali, Sudan, Ethopia.
Egypt became superficial leader of arab world due to Soviet support against Israel. It will be further cut down when Russia completes East-West railway and open Arctic route between Europe and North Asia.
My comment had nothing to do with the Arab world or Russia.
But, just to ensure that there hasn’t been any miscommunication, could you confirm this once again please –
Egypt is not a part of the Middle East.
Is that what you are clearly unequivocally stating?
Show me sign order like IL-476 which is beginning of MTA project. These countries don’t even know the price of KC-390.
As if the MTA has any signed orders. :rolleyes:
Embarer has not much to offer beside regional jets and that with more than 90% imported components. Even the titanium is imported. It is not hard to drive them out of business with suitable product and financing.
You’re absolutely right. Now if only Putin would relinquish his position to you, you could show the world how its really done.
Russia is just started to recaptilazing so production lines will be open for long time. And aviation industries are now more integrated. Like all An-124, IL-476, MTA will be built at same location.
The did with Superjet & Flankers. And now MS-21 &Yak-130.
Its a pity the news hasn’t reached Brazil as yet. I’m sure Embraer will simply fall apart the day it receives the telegram.
C-130 and C-17 are not built at same place. None of US based products can remain competitive without USAF orders which are declining.
They can sell one off expensive orders to Gulf arabs but than they have to raise the oil price way higher to afford it which is extremely beneficial to Russia as they use the money more efficiently and effectively.
C-130J operators – Australia, Canada, Denmark, India, Italy, Norway, Oman, Qatar, UK, US.
Soon to be C-130J operators – Mexico, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Oman, South Korea, Tunisia, UAE.
With China and Pakistan non-starters, aside from a few small forces like those of Malaysia and Venezuela, the MTA has simply nowhere to go. And even for countries will smaller budgets, the C-130J ,with its lower lifetime operating cost, will remain the medium airlifter of choice.
VnomadSomali land, Ethopia, Sudan is also Middleast.
No they’re not. Libya is occasionally considered an extended part of it but not the countries you mentioned. And I’m giddy with anticipation of the ‘JSR spin’ you put on this one.
But, believe me its not escaped anybody’s notice that you started off with –
A. Egypt is a not a part of the Middle East
and by the very next post you’d flipped around to claiming –
B. Ethiopia and Sudan are a part of the Middle East.
KC-390 has paper oder. KC-390 uses A-321 systems whose catalog price is above $80m (consider the volume ). Brazil will be lucky to produce KC-390 under $150m. It has no market anywhere.
Brazil, Argentina and Chile are committed so far. Others will follow.
Embarer orders are now at 6 year low now with profits falling. and era of Superjet is just begining. Embarer jets were defualt choice in this segment but with increase in productionof SSJ. Brazil will have to fold up Embarer.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/embraer-results-orders-idUSL1E8LO5MA20121024
LOL. So not only are you predicting the failure of the KC-390, you’ve decided all of Embraer is on the verge of collapsing. 😀
Middleast has alot of countries. All the way from Algeria to Iran. They will need most fuel efficient replacement with engines equal or better than Leap X. If Superjet can sell in Indonesia. There is not reason that MTA cannot sell in far east. Even in China.
Most ‘fuel efficient replacement’ is why the C-130J will continue to dominate the market in its segment, especially amongst those looking to replace their older C-130s.
VnomadWhat has Egypt (north Africa) any thing to do with middleast. When I use middleast I mean SWF (soverign wealth funds) countries like UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi, etc. the countries that keep interest rates low.
The Middle East is not a continent.
When normal people use the term ‘Middle East’ it denotes the region from Egypt to Iran including both.
IL-476 has higher TWR than An-70. And turboprop is obsolete concept. See jet powered MTA and KC-390.
For better or worse, the KC-390 has the South American market sewed up. The C-130J has already made inroads into the Middle East and will dominate that segment in that region as well as in traditional US markets in East and SE Asia.
Post-2016, the MTA’s export prospects are destined to be bleak, regardless of its performance.
VnomadWith regard to the IL-78 v A-330M debate –
Airbus Wins India’s Tanker Rebid
NEW DELHI — Airbus has been selected as the preferred vendor over Russia’s Ilyushin to supply six aerial tankers for the Indian Air Force in a $1 billion tender, according to Indian Defence Ministry officials.
After the commercial bids were opened earlier this month, the base price of the Russian Il-78 tanker was quoted as lower than that of the A330, but when factoring in maintenance and fuel costs, the Airbus was the better value, said a Defence Ministry official. The official refused to provide the exact quotes of the bids, and said the Russian government-owned company had not yet been officially informed about the decision.
In addition to lower fuel costs, the Airbus tanker is optimized for high-altitude cruise and fitted with advance avionics, the IAF official said.
EADS/Airbus Wins Indian Tanker Competition
EADS/Airbus has won the Indian Air Force’s $1.3-billion tanker competition, with its A330 MRTT beating the Il-78M.
VnomadThere is a difference between a modern production line, and the several aircraft being stapled together @ Antonov these days.
Il-476 has a functioning production line, An-70 has yet to establish one (within Russia especially).
The ability to ‘staple together’ a few An-70 does not make it a production line. I’m sure when when Trident says that the An-70 lacks a production line, he’s referring to a modern production line.
VnomadAn-70 already has production line at Antonov. Where do u think the first two for Ruaf are being built?.
.
.
.
An-70 does not lack production line. See first ones are being built at Antonov.
.
.
.An-70/IL-96 does not have modern production line. So it cost cannot be compared.
Bravo. Encore.
VnomadWait, they needed a process to determine that the Chinook, a helicopter of much smaller size, weight, and power, would be cheaper to acquire and to operate than the Mi-26?
That ain’t exactly rocket science.
Actually the Mi-26 (like most Russian aircraft) probably had a lower acquisition cost than the Chinook which would have to be formally weighed against its higher lifetime operating cost.
That said, given its payload and the lack of expected logistically commonality with the IAF’s Mi-26s (owed to them being mostly grounded), the odds were certainly stacked against it. I don’t suppose they’d have been many eyebrows raised had Mil/UAC decided to sit this one out.
VnomadCH-47 beats Mi-26 in race for Indian contract
US pips Russia as ‘lowest bidder’ for heavy-lift 15-chopper deal
NEW DELHI: The US is now all set to bag yet another mega Indian defence deal, with the iconic Boeing-manufactured Chinook heavy-lift helicopters emerging as the cheaper option than its strong contender the Russian Mi-26 choppers.
Defence ministry sources said the commercial bid for the twin-rotor Chinook, which has seen recent action in Iraq and Afghanistan, has emerged as the “L-1 (lowest bidder)” in comparison to the Mi-26 after both the huge helicopters passed the extensive technical field trials conducted by Indian Air Force (IAF).
“The present contract is for 15 such multi-mission helicopters. The Chinook bid was lower both in terms of initial direct acquisition cost as well as life cycle cost. The contract negotiation committee will now finalize the deal for the Chinook,” said a source.
Known for their powerful contra-rotating tandem rotors, Chinooks are being operated by around 20 countries for heavy-lift assault, troop movement, logistics support, aerial battlefield recovery and special operations. Capable of being refuelled mid-air for extended range, a Chinook can carry 55 combat-ready troops or over 11,100 kg of logistical supplies or weight.
This is the second time that American helicopters have outclassed — both technically and commercially — their Russian counterparts in recent months. As reported earlier, India is getting ready to order 22 heavy-duty Apache attack helicopters for around $1.4 billion.
Boeing’s AH-64D Apache Longbow met all ASQRs (air staff qualitative requirements) but its contender the Russian Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant’s Mi-28 Havoc had failed to pass muster during the field trials held by IAF.
Overall, the Indian armed forces are looking to induct as many as 900 helicopters in the coming decade, including 440 light-utility and observation, naval multi-role (90), light combat (65), heavy-duty attack (22), medium-lift (139) and heavy-lift (15), among others. Several of these procurement and production projects are meandering through the long-winding acquisition process.
The US is increasingly bagging deals in the lucrative Indian defence market, having already notched up military sales worth over $8 billion in the last few years. These include the $4.1 billion contract for 10 C-17 Globemaster-III strategic airlift aircraft, $2.1 billion for eight P-8I maritime patrol aircraft and $962 million for six C-130J “Super Hercules” planes. Negotiations are being finalized for acquiring six more C-130J as well as four more P-8I aircraft.
There was a lot of heartburn in the US after its F-16 and F/A-18 fighters lost out to the French Rafale in the almost $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to supply 126 jets to IAF, which is in the final commercial negotiations stage.
Vnomad[U]”what’s the Tejas’ fundamental problem?”[/U
Well, the project is exactly as old as the Gripen. (Both started in 1983). It had the same exact project-aims (cheap, multirole fighter). The Gripen flew in 1989 and the first division was operationell in -96/1997.
The Gripen was suppose to recplace the fighter/attack/reconnaissancev Draken and Viggens in the Swedish air force with one multirole aircraft.
The LCA was suppose to start replace the old MiG-21s from the start in the mid -90s.
I thought we’d already established the fact that the LCA program did NOT actually start in 1983 even if the foundation stone was laid. SAAB had an enviable pedigree as far as fighter aircraft development was concerned continuously delivering domestically designed jet fighters to the Swedish Air Force since 1950. The folks at ADA on the other hand were starting from scratch.
Even if for the moment we put aside A) absence of a design authority, B) lack of a technological base and C) international sanctions imposed mid-development, fact is substantive funding for the LCA project didn’t come about till 1993. So there’s no question of the Tejas replacing MiG-21s ‘in the mid -90s‘. And there’s no Gripen = Tejas case to be made here. While the aircraft designs may have similarities, the development programs don’t.
VnomadIts basically a fighter from the 70s with modern materials.
The F-15E is set to remain in production past 2015. Its fundamentally the same design as the F-15A that flew in 1972.
* If they where to get the Gripen they would most likely get to build it themselves = know how in manufacturing for future systems (the purpose of Tejas).
* SAAB, as always, would offer them all the know how thats needed to alter the design and make a unique Indian version. A Naval Gripen E with F414EPE has been discussed, and that could become an Indian version.
* Open architecture for weapons integration (since the critical systems are separated from wepon controls etc. This makes it easier to implement custom specific systems like new pods, apps and weapons.
HAL has been building MiG-21s, MiG-27s and Jaguars from ground up since decades ago, and is currently producing the Su-30MKI from the raw material stage. As things stand, there’s nothing new to be learned from the Gripen.
I stand corrected and yes, that was my source. Still, the design looks very much like the Mirage III and other fighters from that era (1960-1975) so I didn’t bother to question it.
Its got little in common with the Mirage III. If anything its design is similar to the Mirage 2000 (and perhaps a little less so with the F-16XL).
So maybe it isnt a disaster as a project, it’s just 23 years of waiting for a design that would have been modern in 1965.
Full scale funding started in 1993 and its expected to enter service in 2013. That’s 20 years in development. The equivalent figure for the Eurofighter and Rafale is 15-20 years as well, if not more. While its not in the same class as either of the two, given the utter lack of a technological base at its inception, its not to be scoffed at either.
As far as modernity goes – digital FCS, composite airframe, glass cockpit, decent radar, decent EW system, FADEC engine, modern HMDS and modern munitions, are cumulatively more than enough to justify production and continuing development.
It is underpowered yes and the airframe has potential for further refinement, but lack of agility by itself doesn’t not make an aircraft unworthy to serve on the modern battlefield – a principle the world’s strongest military is banking its future air power on. And in any event, the shortfalls in flight characteristics will be addressed in the Mk2 variant.
VnomadI think the real issue is the false paradigm that international cooperation has any kind of benefits on complex programs. It’s far from true, as evidenced here.
International cooperation, except in some particular bilateral examples, only leads to loss of efficiency and loss of independance.
Nic
I suppose its ironic then that today France is spearheading the multinational nEUROn program while the UK has opted to independently develop the Taranis. 🙂
VnomadIL-78 are based on D-30 engines and lack glass cockpit/new flight control systems of IL-476.
The Ilyushin entered the Il-78MK-90 in the competition against the A-330M.
PS-90A-76 and partial glass cockpit included.
And any purchase of A330 purchase will be small in numbers and arrive very late.
‘Big’ and ‘small’ is irrelevant. The IAF has fixed requirements regarding the size of the tanker fleet, for servicing its future fighter and transport aircraft.
And a three year wait for the delivery of a brand new aircraft is perfectly reasonable. There’s no ‘very late’ about it.
This is suboptimal deal. It will not like 8 IL-78 supply quickly and with low budget.
And here I thought that an IL-78 ‘based on D-30 engines and lack glass cockpit/new flight control systems of IL-476‘ was a ‘suboptimal’ deal.
IAF already stuck with obsolete Hawk for training while Ruaf chose Yak-130 and IDAF M-346. IAF either buys obsolete stuff in greater numbers or buy super expensive in very limited numbers.
I’d tell you that the BAE Hawk is more than adequate for the purposes of training and the IAF did not require an aircraft in the performance class of the M-346 (unlike the Russian Air Force which planned to use it as a base for a light attack aircraft), but trouble is next you’ll introduce a comparison of the Kilo and Scorpene subs and after that the T-90 and Arjun tanks. Question is, do you realise you’re trolling or is it something you do subconsciously. :confused:
Vnomad100% agree!
That is already happening and there were earlier articles on the pilots leaving for private airlines which is less stressful than the services. This will happen in the future and with induction of P-8, C-17 etc it will accelerate in the future. We will get to see the full affect of the new platform by 2020 or in next 10 years.Ex-IAF pilots are much valued in commercial sector and I even have a bet with someone who lurks around in commercial aviation on this same scenario that there is going to be high “attrition rate” from the IAF transport/VIP fleet in the future towards commercial aviation.
The P-8I is not going to be operated by the IAF. Flying hours racked up on the C-17 like the Il-76, don’t necessarily equate to those flown on a conventional civilian type.
Putting aside the fact that A-330M deliveries aren’t likely to begin until 2016+, truth is the involvement of ‘pilots and technicians’ in the selection of the aircraft doesn’t go beyond participation in the flight trials. Those decisions are made by individuals who’re far higher up the food-chain.
If JSR had suggested that Airbus was tempting a few officers with offers of plum positions with itself post-retirement (not unheard of in the US/Europe), it would still have been unsubstantiated drivel. But unsubstantiated drivel with a veneer of plausibility. The only utility of the Airbus’s civilian connection is with regard to maintenance and serviceability, where the huge global pool of civilian A330s confers advantages the Il-78 cannot match.
VnomadThe can get management positions in airlines and may even get discounts from Airbus for airlines run by them since they had sold overpriced deal to IAF.
Management positions in what … Airbus Airways? I see you’ve dropped the garbage about ‘pilots and technicians’ fixing the system to their benefit and have now rolled towards the next trough.
So two possibilities –
1. GENERAL OPINION – The IAF found the Il-78MKI inadequate for their needs and like almost all western or western-ized air forces decided to opt for a tanker based on a civilian platform offering considerably superior performance as well as competitive lifecycle costs.
2. JSR THEORY – A grand scheme was launched by the dozens of officers and civil servants involved, wherein they decided to form a cooperative society that would negotiate kickbacks on their behalf with Airbus. Airbus in turn formed a pact with civilian airliners where they promised to buy ‘discounted’ aircraft from Airbus (regardless of whether they could afford more capacity in a recession) as long as they promised to hire away the IAF top brass as well as assorted bureaucrats.
Your prediction – There will be a torrent of retired officers going to GoAir and JetAirways within the next three years.
You have to skeptical about there decisions.
No. No. No. YOU have to be skeptical about their decisions. I’m not following you down the rabbit-hole. I like the normal world.
See LCA example. They continue to support a project with a lot of waste (various engine and testing places). and practically dead end aerodynamically. Cannot even pull 9g. and there is no certified structural life.
Wonderful. Now you want to discuss the LCA.
They supported Rafale in evaluation even though it is unworkable for UAE until this point. (which is lowest denominator). IAF is going to afford A330MRTT in small number that it will have minimum operational impact.
Oh and the Rafale/MRCA too.
Sign In
