A great thread

1) We now know that the LCA is not as delayed as some clowns love claiming, articles to proove it

Pardon me? It was planned to have been in service in the second half of the 1990s, yet you think this thread proves that it isn’t? Please. And the whole dogma which has now developed that the whole project was only started in 1987/1988 is a fraud – so please, keep it serious.

2) INdia can make advanced metal alloys

Not denying that.

3) The radar is similar in size to the Gripen

That’s not proven, that has been deduced. The only thing proven so far is that a Zhuk-M radar won’t fit.

4) The LCA aerodynamics are optimised to beat the M2000, the benchmark of the designers and its delatas, which are cranked produce different vortices than a Viggen!!!!!!

Again, this is not proven, only suggested. Where are the airflow diagrams comparing a Viggen wing and an LCA wing?

You see Sameer, it is exactly this attitude of yours i’m really having a hard time with. Selective reading, and interpreting everything even slightly ambiguous into something that is factual and absolutely in support of your point of view. While in fact, of the four points you just named only one has actually been proven in this thread (the metallurgy bit), albeit without any direct relation to the construction of supersonic aircraft.

Do you now understand where the phrase ‘fanboy’ comes from?

Rafale, i think the article you linked to is actually worth posting entirely. Especially since it suggests this isn’t the end of the saga yet.

We had joy, we had fun
We had Sea Kings in the sun
But the engines are on fire
And the Sea Kings must retire

Ottawa forced to buy Sikorsky, sources say
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040726.wxchoppers26/BNStory/National/

By DANIEL LEBLANC
From Monday’s Globe and Mail

Ottawa — The federal government concealed the fact last week that it was forced to buy Sikorsky helicopters to replace its fleet of Sea Kings after the only other competitor in the $5-billion race had been previously disqualified on technical grounds, sources say.

Instead of saying that the contract had been awarded to the only company that was still standing, government officials made it seem as if the contract had been a two-way race to the end.

The revelation that Team Cormorant was quietly thrown out of the competition earlier this year is the latest twist in the ongoing saga that is now expected to be played out before the courts.

A government official said information about Team Cormorant’s disqualification was not made public last week because the government thinks it will be a pivotal point if Team Cormorant decides to launch a lawsuit over the outcome.

Defence Minister Bill Graham, in announcing the decision to buy 28 helicopters from U.S.-based Sikorsky, said on Friday that it “represents the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians.”
Even at a thorough technical briefing that day, senior bureaucrats did not tell journalists that the contract was awarded to the only bidder still in the running.

“It gave the impression that there were two companies, and that we went for the cheapest,” the government source said yesterday.

There is growing bitterness between Team Cormorant and the government over the process. A senior government official yesterday dismissed a report that there was only a 1-per-cent price difference (about $50-million) between the winning bid of Sikorsky and the disqualified bid of Team Cormorant.

The government is arguing that the difference was more in the range of 15 per cent, meaning that Team Cormorant’s bid was about $750-million higher.

The fact that Team Cormorant was disqualified in recent months is surprising because the federal government adopted a complicated process two years ago to prevent such an outcome. In 2002, the government created a “prequalification” phase under which the competing helicopters would have to meet specific technical requirements before entering the final leg of the competition, which would be settled solely on the issue of price.

Team Cormorant and Sikorsky met the requirements of the prequalification process, but Team Cormorant was, nonetheless, disqualified from the competition later. The reason for Team Cormorant’s disqualification is unclear, as government and industry officials remain coy about recent events.

It is a stunning twist for a company that won the first competition to replace the Sea Kings in the early 1990s under the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. That contract was cancelled by then-prime-minister Jean Chrétien in 1993, but Team Cormorant later won a smaller competition to produce search-and-rescue helicopters for the Canadian Forces.

“It’s an incredible outcome after Cormorant won in 1992, won in 1998, prequalified in 2003, to be told that their bid is not acceptable in 2004,” an industry source said.

The government now expects that its decision to exclude Team Cormorant from the competition will be at the centre of a lawsuit from AgustaWestland, the Anglo-Italian consortium that builds the aircraft.

Team Cormorant has long alleged that the process to replace the Sea Kings was rigged in favour of other competitors, and has vowed to take the matter before the courts if it lost the contract.

Team Cormorant has three legal options: the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court and the Ontario Superior Court.

The CITT, an administrative tribunal, provides the quickest way ahead for Team Cormorant, which could challenge its disqualification as well as Sikorsky’s qualification. If Team Cormorant wins its case, the CITT could order the retendering of the contract or call on the government to offer financial compensation to Team Cormorant.

Second, the Federal Court could provide a judicial review of the process, and it could eventually send the contract back to the government for retendering.

Finally, Team Cormorant could argue before the Ontario Superior Court that Sikorsky did not meet the government’s requirements and did not deserve the contract. If Team Cormorant was successful, the Ontario Superior Court could order the government to offer financial compensation to Team Cormorant.

In addition, the Auditor-General is expected to review the contract and determine whether the federal government adopted the best strategy to replace the Sea Kings.

Thanks I’73, that is an answer.

Those Superalloys are ment for engines, turbines and the like. All extremely durable materials and as such they could well be suitable for engines if the blades made from ’em are capable of whirling around in a turbine.

No airframe-suitable alloys though.

Sameer, posting adresses of Indian metal companies doesn’t mean diddly squat if we don’t know what sorts of metals they work with or produce. If they produce aviation-related alloys they’re interesting, but somehow that’s not the idea i get from a company called Saru Smelting Pvt. Ltd.

EDIT – Thanks for the latter one, it nicely nullifies this post.

The Tejas is similar in size to the Mirage III.

No it isn’t, it’s smaller and lighter (and has a far better t/w ratio than this fighter from the late 1950s).

Mirage IIIE
Length: 15,03m (half a metre more on Mirage V’s).
Wingspan: 8,22m
Empty weight: 7050kg
MTOW: 13700 kg
Engine: Atar 9C, 6200kg/thrust.

LCA/Tejas
Length: 13,20m
Span: 8,20m
Empty weight: 5500kg
MTOW: only figure i can find is 12500kg
Engine: F404-GE-F2J3, 8220 kg/thrust

Try explaining that too Arthur, the LCA nose was designed for a MMR size radar which is similar in size to the Gripen radar which oher memebrs never say is too small, sometimes I wonder. 🙂

Exactly what part of the MMR acronym describes the size of the radar? You can still put an antenna one metre or 25cm across on the radar.

Btw, could it be that the high use of composties can also be attributed to a lack of experience in metallurgy and experience with modern metal alloys ??

Running the risk of some people getting their torches out again, but it’s certainly an interesting theory. And a lack of experience in metallurgy could also explain certain delays in engine development. Just theorising of course.

Hey, a car i navigated in once managed to drive on the wrong side on the road in France. On a motorway actually, but it was an accident. The lanes were split with such a lush shrubbery, we thought it was just a normal road so we simply made a U-turn when i discovered we were going the wrong way.

Lucky it was a very quiet sunday morning, so we could do another U-turn 😉

And there is a certain roundabout in the An der Wahe-street in Landstuhl, which i always take the wrong way. But that’s because it is a very silly, useless and annoying roundabout.