Nick_76The sensor suite could be at least roughly comparable. The difference is that the RCS of Su-30MKI is 7-8 times larger than th eone of EF.. BVR is where Typhoon should still enjoy a great advantage..
That is provided the MKI has not had its RCS reduced itself by a significant margin compared to a baseline Flanker. And according to reports in edefense, that has been done.
On websites which favor Russian aircraft, no sign of gloating (as what happen after Cope India), and you know the results of any of these exercises are known by air intelligence.
I find it particularly hilarious, that the first news of the Cope India debacle were broken by the US media, particularly AWST and Americans like yourself continue to stress upon Indians as being responsible! And of course, the Russians will play it up- havent they had their share of ribbing over Desert Storm and the usual russian items are junk claims from the US side?
Face the facts- your people screwed up in Cope 1 when it came to mission planning, thought they were facing a rag tag AF, got whupped, had the US media play it up to their embarassment, and at the end of the day create controversy. But being professionals, they learnt from their mistakes and didnt make a hue and cry about it via muzzling the media either.
The Indian media otoh, is as eager to find dirt on the IAF as to praise it. Dirt sells more than any once in a while exercise, and they wouldnt know a Flanker from a F-15 if both were presented to them on a red carpet.
In this case, all that the lack of news means is that both sides, being professionals, are not leaking news. The IAF almost never leaks news. I know that from first hand experience. Pilots are told to watch their speech when the fourth estate is around. Dont imagine the RAF is different, or the USAF for that matter, bar the mistake of Cope 1.
Nick_76can any one help me about the empty weights and % of composites material in PV-1/2/3/4/5 and limited series production Tejas ???
Jawad, the answers can be found if you peruse:
http://journal.frontierindia.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=38
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/Aircraft/Tejas-Radiance.pdf
LSP will match production specifications.
Nick_76Joey, Himanshu,
These trolls are dime a dozen. How long does one reply to such idiotic comments as the one posted above in #515. No matter how much resources you put up, there will always be these illiterates who come with the express intent of trolling. If these patriots had their way, India would be designing its fighter on palm leaves with sharp stylus, not using anything “imported” such as high end silicon graphics workstations. Talking sense to these fools is like throwing good money after bad, you’ll end up hurting your own brains.
Nick_76When BAe/EADS made an initial presentation to the IAF for the MRCA, they indicated that India could join a European 5G program. So there might be plans for one.
Nick_76These collaborations are apart from the imported components. The programme does not have much to show after 25 years or so
Your post is silly. Taking somebodys assistance to cut down on timeline while learning from it, is common sense. All that matters is whether these collabs are enough to speed up the program. Each of those collabs apart from the engine can be done in India if time was not critical.
Nick_76Posted by JC at BR.
AIN News
India’s Tejas missed the show because of tests
By David Donald
Paris Air Show >> June 2007
Aircraft
Among the most eagerly awaited show participants listed in pre-Paris releases was the HAL Tejas–India’s Light Combat Aircraft. Two were originally on the list, of which one was due to fly in the air display. However, a new urgency has descended on the program, and the aircraft could not be spared from test flights.
Having proceeded at a leisurely pace since the LCA’s first flight in January 2001, the program’s progress has recently been given top priority. Last month a 14-person Indian air force team was embedded in the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) that was created to manage the Tejas. This allows the air force to maintain a daily interaction with the development team and to keep it moving along at the required pace.
Key areas of the project are in the process of receiving major boosts. Elta of Israel has been brought in to fast-track development of the indigenous multimode radar (MMR). ADA is currently deciding on an international partner to bring in to similarly assist with the floundering Kaveri engine program: the choice is between the French Snecma concern and NPO Saturn from Russia. For the time being, sufficient General Electric F404-GE-IN-20 engines have been bought from the U.S. to power the trials aircraft and first production batch. While LCAs are currently flying with representative Russian R-60 and R-73 missiles, Aviation International News understands that the final air-to-air weapons mix will be the Israeli Rafael Python 5 and Derby.
Driving the new urgency is the requirement to have at least 88 LCAs (four squadrons) in service by 2017, the year in which the last of the MiG-21s (aside from those upgraded to Bison standard) are due to be retired, if they can last that long. To achieve this schedule, the Tejas has to have reached an initial operating capability by 2010, with full capability two years later. A new production facility is being built at Bangalore that will be able to produce eight aircraft a year initially, ramping up to 12 and then 20 as production matures.
Today ADA has six aircraft flying, which have now flown more than 700 sorties. Recent milestones include sorties with drop tanks and the Litening laser designation pod. The two initial technology demonstrators (TD-1/2) were followed by three single-seat prototype vehicles (PV-1/2/3). On April 21 this year the first of eight limited series production (LSP) aircraft (KH-2010) took to the air from the Bangalore plant. Three more LCAs will fly by the end of 2007: another LSP and the last two prototype vehicles, PV-5 and PV-6 (there is no PV-4). PV-6 is the first two-seater, due to fly in October or November. The eight LSPs will be followed by an initial production batch of 20 LCAs completed to IOC standards, which will allow an Indian air force trials unit to be formed. This first batch has already been paid for. A decision on which engine will power subsequent aircraft depends largely on how swiftly the Kaveri can be developed to meet its requirements.[/QUOTE]
Nick_76http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE120070617113551&Page=1&Title=Bangalore&Topic=0
Fighter project on fast track mode
Monday June 18 2007 00:00 IST
BANGALORE: Everything seems to be working well for the indigenously designed and developed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which has been delayed by several years.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) team headed by an officer of Air Vice Marshal rank is helping the city-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) to put the project on a fast track mode, while the agency has successfully conducted sea level tests at Arkonam in Tamil Nadu in last two days.
“Conducting sea level tests is a significant step in the project and the aircraft behaved as per our expectations,” ADA Director P S Subramanyam told this paper.
So far, test flights were conducted in Bangalore, which is 3,000 feet above mean sea level. It was crucial to know how the aircraft behaves at sea level, so tests are being conducted from INS Rajoli (Arkonam) where Prototype Vehicle-3 (PV-3) is flying. PV-2 is likely to join sea level test team in a day or two.
Meanwhile, the IAF team headed by Air Vice Marshal BC Nanjappa is assisting ADA to get all support from various IAF units. “Induction Team has certainly helped us by getting all support from Air Headquarters. It has been working as an interface between the ADA and the IAF,” ADA chief said.
The team based at ADA is working closely with the agency to provide user inputs and ensures that small glitches would not delay the project. On the weaponisation front, next few months are crucial for the project.
“We will see major work on weaponisation front in next six months. Drop tanks, dash helmet and various other equipment will be added,” he said. The LCA’s technology demonstrator-1 (TD-1), TD-2, PV-1, PV-2, PV-3 and the first of the limited series production (LSP-1) are flying and have completed over 680 test flights.
Five more Tejas aircraft would fly by end of this year giving a major fillip to test flights.
Tejas is expected to get the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) by 2010 and the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) a year later. In all probabilities, the fighter will be inducted into the air force by 2015.
On its part, the Bangalore headquartered Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has put the production line in place. A dedicated team is working on the project to ensure that LSP is on schedule, said HAL Bangalore complex Managing Director A K Saxena.
Nick_76Su-30 MKI to replace its Thales MFD-55/66s with Indian made displays..
And SAMTEL is also working on HMDs for HAL via JV with Thales.
http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?gid=73&id=482093
Samtel signs pact with Thales to develop defence avionics
REZAUL H LASKAR, PARIS, JUN 19 (PTI)
Samtel Display Systems today inked a pact with European defence electronics major Thales to set up a joint venture to develop sophisticated cockpit displays for military aircraft for the Indian and export markets.
The deal, signed by Samtel chairman Satish Kaura and Thales senior vice president Emmanual Grave in the presence of Defence Production Secretary K P Singh at the Paris Air Show, envisages the production of helmet-mounted and heads-up displays for fixed wing and rotary aircraft.
“This cooperation generates the opportunity for the creation of a joint company in India,” Thales said in a statement.
Rajesh Kakkar, vice president of business development for Samtel, said the joint venture was likely to be set up within the next three to six months.
“Thales is a leader in such products and there were certain elements missing in our technology that we can achieve through such a tie-up. The deal will help reduce development time for new products and also allow both Samtel and Thales to take advantage of India’s new offsets policy for defence contracts,” Kakkar said.
Samtel, which posted a turnover of 300 million dollars last year, has a unit in Germany that is a leading producer of cathode ray tube displays and this will help in the development of new products. “We supply displays to Thales, Rockwell and Elbit of Israel,” said Kakkar.
Samtel expects its new deal with Thales to dovetail with its existing Delhi-based joint venture with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to develop multi-function cockpit displays for the Sukhoi-30 combat jets of the Indian Air Force.
“This joint venture is about a year old and the displays for the Su-30MKIs are undergoing final flight trials and are expected to be inducted by September,” said Kakkar.
Samtel is also working with HAL to develop similar displays for the Light Combat Aircraft and Intermediate Jet Trainer and upgrades of the IAF’s MiG-29s and Jaguar jets.
Thales officials said the deal with Samtel will allow both companies to use their engineering strengths and create new market opportunities.
Thales is currently providing the Indian Navy with head-mounted displays for the MiG-29 jets it plans to induct with the Gorshkov aircraft carrier and has won a contract for supplying six Scorpene submarines.
Nick_76and Do u think Boeing can order GE since i am selling F-18E u better provide engine license also? Boeing simply cannot force independent firms like GE/Raytheon/Rockwell and countless other subcontractors which may even be in some other countries nor does the Government. It is the amount of money that will be deciding factor for each separate firm. Simlar is the case of Dassualt/Thales/Snecma/MBDA. i wonder how much TOT Thales/Sagem gave with MKI.
Russia case is different as all the firms are under state controlled untill this point. so single decision authority.
So there is no such thing as Vertical integration in commercial firm. every firm fiercely protects its intellectual capital.
First, get an education, a job, learn how to spell and talk in civilized company. And stop sponging off your parents contribution to your education by wasting your time acting like a troll on the internet, h177. Do all that, and expect replies once you stop the bilge you litter this forum with.
Nick_76Nick, you seems to take this very personal so I will end the discussion now.
Really, and what about the uncivil ad hominems about consultants etc? Who started with those, Roger? Can you Gripen fans look at the flaws in the overall package offered instead of taking it personally that the Gripen NG package may not be the best choice for a customer like India, which has its own set of constraints?
Just a few details first. It would be very unlikely that USA should stop delivering of parts to SAAB as that would mean an embargo also on Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and Czechia. The two later are especially important as they are NATO allied. Who owns the relevant tech in various parts I don’t know, it’s a matter of contracts between the involved companies and it’s up to the Indian governement to sort that out.
For hecks sake, use some common sense man. You are talking something which is totally irrelevant and tilting at a windmill. Either you have a problem with the English language or you are being deliberately obtuse. What you stated has nothing to do with what I said.
If the US slaps a ban on exports of arms and spares to India alone, wtf can SAAB do? Will it go against USG law and risk its Gripen support for Sweden and other countries? And nice wave of the hand about “Indian Govt to sort that out”- why should the Indian Govt sort it out and what guarantee does the Indian Govt have that this sorting out is of any use? Why is it the Indian Govts problem to individually chase down each tech provider and acquire tech, when this should be SAABs job? And what guarantee are those pieces of paper against a Congressional decision in the US that weapon supplies to the “area of concern” must be stopped?
Why should it take such a risk when it can get fighters with all this stuff sorted out, from “reliable” suppliers like France or Russia who will not impose sanctions on it?
Is this really so hard to understand?
You seem to have NO understanding of what the system is, even whilst you were busy pontificating about consultants and seminars. Are you aware that Sweden has to seek export permission for ANY US technology that it reexports? Are you aware that the US can refuse this permission?
And what I pointed out was that even the big Boeing buys tech from abroad, as a reaction to your “highly vertically integrated industries”
And another facile claim, since its clear that the core technology remains Boeings or its US subcontractors and Volvo does little than provide small subsystems which can be replaced. I notice that you couldnt challenge the basic claim about Russia or the USs core self reliance thanks to their NIH complex, despite your silly ad hominems about consultants.
And how can you? Anyone with an iota of sense, knows what the truth is.
For all your bluster about vertical integration being a buzzword, it is clear that the US, and Russia and to some degree France- as nations can field entire subsystems, from propulsion to radars to airframe.
Now fools like Star49 can mangle Lexis Nexis to make up any stories they want, but the reality is that the US is not seeking Swedish Tx/Rx bricks for its radar, and that Volvo is at the end of the day, a subcontractor to a massive firm like GE, not vice versa. And that it is Sweden which license manufactures the GE414 whose overall design authority and majority of its core systems belong to the US, not Sweden.
And to a customer like India, which is concerned about its independence and combat fleets availability, these are non trivial concerns.
India has had a severe problem with US sanctions in the past. The non European, American content in the Gripen is a problem for India- its that simple!
Something which you cant wave away by saying “ah the Indian Govt should negotiate those”…why? Why should it, when easier options are available, and when it cannot secure any worthwhile guarantee from the US?
And if it does indeed wish to take such a risk thanks to its short sighted policies and politics, what makes the Gripen so much better than the F/A-18 E/F in terms of combat potential?
Think and then answer. And I would appreciate reason, not rah! rah! for the Gripen and ad hominem attacks just because I had the temerity to point out that it – as a package deal- has weaknesses!
Nick_76Nick, you sound like some of the consultants I have had to listen to at some conferences. “highly vertically integrated industries” is just some buzz words that doesn’t mean anything.
Absolute nonsense from you, Roger- quite sad that.
If you werent insistent on being deliberately dense, what the terms mean is that Russia can decide to export AL-31 FP tech to India without consulting the US. Can Sweden do that for the Ge414 , 404 or whatever? Uh wait, what if the US tells Sweden that Moog actuators are no longer available? Or if the INS is no longer available for export? Any idea of how much US gear is in the Gripen? Whos going to pay for it to be replaced ? You or I (an Indian taxpayer!)?
Its a fact of life that vertical integration helps, when it comes to specific countries. And the degree of vertical integration in the US, France and Russia is far more than what Sweden can muster. Russia can virtually turn out an entire Sukhoi on its own – down to the last nut and bolt if it so wishes. And on variants like the MKI, the non Russian components are chosen in specific by the customers!!
Who owns the IP for the engine, Volvo or GE? Ever thought that out?
Actually some of the vital parts in the GE-414 engine in the Super Hornet are developed and produced by Volvo. Does this disqualify Boeing from the tender too?
Your lack of reading comprehension is staggering! Who cares if a few parts in the Ge414 are from Volvo- it still doesnt translate into Volvo being able to make an engine on its own or being able to provide support without US consent. Who owns the IP for the entire engine? Is Volvo a subcontractor or prime manufacturer? Push come to shove, Boeing could go tell Volvo to take a hike. And if Sweden exports something the US doesnt want, the Gripen is as dead as a dodo till your lot yank out everything US in it and replace it with some European equivalent…good luck on that!
If India wants to fight a war with Pak against US arm twisting, these things matter. Heck, I know your lot require US export clearances for quite a few spares and consumables deliveries for your engines. Good show that.
But you think you already know what will be the result of this procedure from what you can read off the Internet.
More persiflage. I daresay I know more about the reality of most of these “procedures” than you ever will and had a chat with the Gripen team a few years back, where they acknowledged this weakness in their product- that of multi sourcing when it comes to a customer like India with specific concerns of its own. Of course, I also had some marketing chaps try to sell one over about “globalization”, the next few seconds even whilst the Thales and Snecma reps were sniggering loudly at their attempt to gild the lily.
Admitting the truth doesnt make you look weak, its only when you are in denial and aggressive about it, does it make you look absolutely silly, especially in front of someone who knows how far you are yanking the bloody chain, mate.
As far as the Gripen is concerned, the US content in it is a huge weakness for the Indian MRCA contract, not to mention its other disadvantages vs the contenders in terms of range, payload and persistence. Now you can be in denial about it, but if India does decide to ignore the US content bit, it might as well go for the F/A-18 E/F- whats the Gripen got besides lower TCO, (and lesser combat ability), than what the F/A-18 E/F offers.
Fine bird and all that, but a) not really suited for the Indian contract and b) too much US content in it for the IAF to be happy
Now spin it anyway till Sunday mate, but I really couldnt give a damn, the reality speaks for itself.
Uh, and on Page 5 of that PDF linked earlier- theres another bit of some nice US made gear in the Gripen.
And if you were into reading carefully, you should have noticed I made no judgement call on what the result of the contest would be- just pointed out it would be unlikely, that the Gripen would win, and that competing requirements (including politics) have made the entire thing a big mess.
Nick_76How could nations have anything to do with technolgy transfers? All of them has subcontractors that delivers parts to their planes. And either they have the contractual rights to transfer the involved technology or not. National borders do not matter.
Actually they do. Russia, US and France have highly vertically integrated industries which make all the critical items that go into the jet, the core systems that is excluding commercial off the shelf electronics which are available to everyone. Hence these countries can make a judgement call on what is released and what is not, depending upon whether their strategic interests are affected, what their policy on tech transfer is etc. A consortium like EF also represents diverse manufacturers under one label, and hence with a single decision making body, it can coordinate things. Now of all these, Russia is the most amenable to TOT along with Sweden, but unlike Sweden, it is not beholden to the US or anyone else to transfer radar tech or engine tech. And its stated US policy not to transfer “core technology”, even though they can. Which is why India is looking at Israel to supplant some systems on the MRCA if it does buy American.
Personally I’m sceptical to that anyone of the manufacturers would be able to give technology transfer in a way that it would matter anyway. Sure, you could get the blueprints for the engine, but the knowledge to produce it? I don’t think so. Much of the needed know how is spread widely within many companies, some of it isn’t even on paper but in the hands of individual employees.
Well- the answer is, it depends. Does TOT mean that India can now churn out AL-31 class engines in the thousands? Clearly no. But its not a zero learning game either. There are advances in metallurgy, in manufacturing methods etc- which the Indians will pick up- but again, something like the Kaveri as painful and time consuming as it may be, will teach them far more. TOT is very useful though from the objective of self reliance in terms of spares and consumables. Given how messed up the supply chain is in terms of getting items from Russia – and even the US at times, this by itself is a very valid reason. Nevermind that the money goes local, not abroad.
What matters in this is things as the source codes for FCS and radars, also EW threat libraries. Because this decides if you can use the system fully to your own needs without help from the manufacturer.
Very true.
But which is why the Indian DPP procedure specifies all the above- what you just stated, to TOT, plus offsets. Quite ambitious, but then it is a multi billion $ deal.
Nick_76Signatory, no need to huff and puff- just correct what you think is incorrect and post it.
Exactly how much of the RM12 engine is US-made nowadays? According to GE, it delivers kits of components to Volvo, which assembles the engines, but it’s a matter of public record that Volvo has modified the design. I presume the Volvo modifications are Swedish-made. Also Volvo makes some components of the F414 (GE says so!), so I’m damn sure Volvo makes some F404 components other than RM12-specific.
Yup, but still US made content.. shame really..otherwise this was a pretty nice bird without the sanction issue added to it..
Apart from the engine, AFAIK all the US-made parts of the Gripen are easily replaceable. The engine could be replaced by (e.g.) the EJ200, which would fit (Saab & Eurojet did a feasibility study a few years ago, & decided it was entirely practical) but it’d take some time & money. However, the knowledge that there is a potential alternative engine available might make US technology transfer issues less of a worry, particularly as the most advanced elements of the RM12 might well be Swedish – the F404 is quite an old engine, nowadays.
This is way overstating the case imho. Integrated avionics and propulsion are not as plug and play as the PR would have one believe. Who’ll for instance replace the flight control actuators overnight? They are from Moog, the engine we’ve discussed and so on and so forth..Testing, flight qualification, not to mention timeframes all need to be kept in account. And who pays for all this? Is SAAB going to be able to offer an all European Gripen, and with TOT on its own, merely on the presumption that it might increase its chances in the MRCA contest? I think not…way too much money and risk. It took well nigh two years, rivers of ink and much effort before an “all European” HAWK was made available for the IAF..for the Gripen, I daresay it will be much worse!
Saab has recently established an unmatched record in honouring offset agreements, & in accompanying technology development. S. African offsets have already exceeded the agreed level, & Saab is continuing to buy from the S. African offset suppliers, having assisted them in reaching the standards it requires. Czech offsets were a year ahead of schedule at the end of 2006, & Hungarian offsets are also significantly more than required
.
SAAB provides offsets, but India requires far more than just offsets but TOT as well. Now both EF and Rafale, and even the Russians and Americans represent somewhat unified consortiums or national bloc’s…in the case of the Gripen, its a melange of parts from the world over. Doesnt detract from its capability, but makes it much harder to meet the Indian requirements.
But none of that changes the fact that Gripen is too similar to Tejas.
True, and India doesnt gain as much from investing in it as it might, in terms of pure combat potential. The IAF needs a heavier fighter. The NG, all talk apart, is a paper product at this stage.
Nick_76My previous post, which showed how a report stating that a 5% cost increase over the MKI production run- year to year, would lead to Russia making an extra 500 M over the production run could be checked out, and lead to a good guessestimate of the % indigenization..
Compound factor
1.05 1.1025 1.157625 1.21550625 1.276281563 1.340095641 1.407100423 1.477455444 1.551328216
cost of MKI
36.5 M$ 38.325 40.24125 42.2533125 44.36597813 46.58427703 48.91349088 51.35916543 53.9271237 56.62347988
% of kit 0.1 3.65 3.8325 4.024125 4.22533125 4.436597813 4.658427703 4.891349088 5.135916543 5.39271237 5.662347988
Number/ Yr 13 15 15 16 16 13 13 13 13 8
$ to russia 47.45 57.4875 60.361875 67.6053 70.985565 60.55956014 63.58753815 66.76691506 70.10526081 45.29878391
610.2082981
Crazy formatting apart…at 5% compounding…it shows how if russia supplies 10% of the kit, the compounding adds to a cool 610 million bucks over a 10 year production run.. which more or less matches the figures claimed in the article.
So the numbers I crunched were accurate!
A 90% indigenization figure, in fact even more is entirely possible.
As the news report stated that Russia would make 500 Million..and my numbers show that @ 10% imported content, they make $ 610 Million.
A lower production cost of the MKI would bring that to the $ 500 M figure. Or a slightly higher % indigenization figure. Either ways, we have corroborating evidence now.
Some proof from another source about the % indigenization of the MKI…Kanwas talk with Sukhoi/ HAL at AeroIndia-07. Posted from the other thread…
Nothing much just outlines HAL, Sukhoi colaberation. 65 MKI orders confirmed.
Sukhoi have no idea the porgress of J-11B production.
While sukoi can not have gained through J-11B, they can with HAL.
2004-2005 2 MKI assembled. 2005-2006 6 assembled. 2006-march 2007 13 assembled. indiginization of parts at 80% after 2009 they hoped to be 100% indiginized but recently India considered ordering parts for Hydraulic systems as local production would be too expensive. Indian media reported the possibility of increasing the payment by 350 million to include parts. 2008 will also produce 13 MKI. Total production will cease in 2014, 3 years ahead od schedual.
By the end of this production run, India will be making almost all the Sukhoi spares inhouse (ie high flexibility in keeping high flight hours) and it will have 230 MKIs in service.
Wonder if a MLU will be signed midway in the production run..
Nick_76Thanks TPH!
Sign In
