Snow Monkey@elChele: Read the file name for that image. Unless Boeing and UAC are secretly sharing development programs as a cost-saving measure, that doesn´t have anything to do with PAK-FA or any Russian program, it´s a mock-up of the follow-on to Super Hornet / F-35 for USN… If you squint at the background, you can see the next booth is of Ceradyne.
Snow MonkeyI think Kramer covered that…
That assumes that the F-414 engine buy includes ToT. It doesn’t. the F-414 parts will be built in the US, and then shipped in CKD and SKD form to HAL, which will only do the job of assembling them together before bench testing and eventually putting them on the aircraft. There is no ToT involved in this process, only screwdriver tech.
…So, whether a F-414 powered jet or an Ej-200 powered jet is chosen makes no difference in terms of the eventual purpose. Its not like the LCA Mk2 deal has given India the technology for the F-414.
@Seahawk: Your argument could make sense for procuring a non-M88 platform given Snecma´s involvement with Kaveri
(though I feel Rafale is a good contender, and deepening involvement with Snecma/m88 would certainly also bring benefits itself, possibly speeding Kaveri Mk.2),
but India isn´t going to be PRODUCING EJ200 and F414 so it doesn´t seem to make much sense there.
Snow MonkeyThat seems to be the plan… along with Charles de Gaulle.
Commonality and cross-operations with allies (US and French) were the big talking points for the switch from B to C.
Snow Monkey`as shown by the US leaked cables`? What do the US cables show, besides what the US ambassador thinks?
Seriously, Quadbike, I wasn´t aware anybody was taking the WikiLeaks CableGate material as word-for-word ´statements of truth´. As everybody here´s been posting, the entire tone is rather absurd, but is clearly explainable as ´true believers´ who swallow their own party line propaganda. The same effect can be seen in any totalitarian organization, e.g. would you REALLY want to be the general who told Hitler that the strategy was doomed to failure?
The rest of the CableGate leaks must be read in that context, i.e. what the US thinks/believes (and at least what it`s allies represent to the US what they believe), rather than manifest truth per se. I mean, unless you really think the US has some divine-sanctioned access to manifest truth… The material is clearly what US Government thinks about different matters, and while in many cases the US Government apparently had a pretty good handle on objective reality (in contrast to their public statements, e.g. the cables revealing that the US did not believe it`s own propaganda attempting to connect Venezuela with an Iranian nuclear weapons program), that equally so isn´t always the case… (cue delusions of cheering Iraqis ready to send donations to Israel in gratitude to the US)
In any case, the entire cable reads like a sales pitch, which by definition is not going to be a neutral objective reflection of truth. If the Super Hornet truly was superior in all ways and the Dassault claims utter lies, why repeat that fact over and over again? Even if the US Ambassador to Brasil felt her superiors at the State Dept. were secret Rafale fans, why would that matter, Rafale isn´t on sale to the US? But true believers tend to be emotionally involved and hyperventilate of this type of ****.
Snow MonkeyOK, besides this wierdo talk of declaring total war on Argentina, some-how because they are acquiring new tanker/transports, what about Argentina´s actual participation in C-390 program?
What sort of systems might they be involved in producing? Brazil`s aerospace industry is obviously much more advanced in current fact, but Brazil seems keen to develop the program in a way emphasizing Unasur/etc, so it seems like including (developing) Argentine industry would be desirable for them….?
Snow MonkeySomebody mentioned Typhoon GPS being US-sourced. I expect that along with indigenous Datalinks, that India would implement a Glonass compatable SatNav receiver… Though if anybody has information otherwise, please share.
Snow MonkeyGiven that Meteor adoption will mean Rafale will be carrying an exclusively medium-long range missile,
What is the chances a ´follow on´ to MICA would NOT be a 1:1 replacement, particularly in regards MICA`s range, but could be programmed to have closer to an ASRAAM like range, which would seem an obvious opportunity for further FR-UK cooperation?
Snow MonkeyI don´t see how you´re reading that to suggest launching off naval platforms besides carriers.
That COULD be planned, but I only see a mention of launching from ¨land, sea, and air¨,
Which a platform not launchable from any ship besides a Carrier would fulfill.
What´s interesting to me is the ¨launching from air¨ bit, which would presumably be underslung or ramp launched from transport types…
Snow Monkey…The final nozzles may well have 2.5 axis TVC, but I don´t think that is because of a shortcoming in the vertical stabilizers.
The fact they are shorter is more than off-set by the fact THEIR ENTIRE SURFACE MOVES.
If it ends up with 2.5 vs. 2D TVC it will be because having even more control authority is never a bad thing in Russia,
and WHY NOT if they know how to do it and it doesn`t have particular draw-backs?
Is there any publicly available info on the new TVC system?
I recall that gas-dynamic vectoring was being considered, which previously has only been seen in missiles AFAIK…?
Snow MonkeyPlausible? Yes. Credible? Not so much, there`s been so many leaks favoring every jet and their cousin that unless there`s serious official news nothing much has changed.
Personally, I think issue of force structure and intended role (e.g. A2A, A2G focus) will (or SHOULD) be very serious factors, but of course that isn´t a factor within the official scope of the contest… Of course, the originally mooted non-bid MMRCA Mirage 2000-5 was based upon a platform optimized for A2A which the IAF ended up finding useful in an A2G role (because of avionics integratable on any platform). Personally, I think Rafale and F-18 would create the optimal force structure (alongside Tejas, M2K`s, MKI, and FGFA eventually), though I doubt the America ToT offer re: F-18. Especially when the USN is set to be dependent upon the Super Hornet even longer than planned.
On the other hand, I think Eurofighter really has the best ToT possibilities.
Gripen NG might be tied, and possibly could be helped by the F414 win for the less-and-less indigenous Tejas engine, though apparently that decision is NOT supposed to effect MMRCA in any way… :confused:
Snow Monkey…I feel that Danell`s post recognizes the reality here:
Brazil requires a FULL transfer of technology to ensure its independence, so the only question is: who can guarantee a full TOT and who cannot…
If none of the FX2 offerers truly offer full ToT, then sure, choices of single/plural dependencies come into play, as well as strategic parallels with such dependencies.
But if full TOT is truly on offer, Brazil ISN`T dependent on anybody. They can sell planes to whom they want (presumably paying their per-plane fee if they want to stay friendly/legal, but they have the ability to do what they want as well), they can upgrade any aspect of the plane and integrate any capability they want completely independently, and they can sell these upgrades to any other Rafale user independently of Dassault/Thales/Snecma.
Of course, continued cooperation with the original designers is of great value, especially considering that Brazil will not want to continue building the same block (F3+) for the 120-180+ fighters it´s planning to build (including naval), and being able to use the same upgrades developed by other users of the model it selects is more cost effective then self-funding every upgrade… And here strategic parallels come into play. Likewise, Brazil isn`t realisitcally going to manufacture every last component indigenously because that doesn`t make economic sense, and thus strategic parallels also come into play via the prospects for future international relations (even if Brazil gains access to all design and manufacturing data needed to replicate every nut and bolt). But Brazil is insisting on the full ToT so that it`s own options are never closed, and it will cooperate with strategic partners at it`s own pleasure, not by necessity.
Snow MonkeyBack to topic, Possibilities I see:
Cross Decking / Carrier Patrol Coordination
Sharing maintenance on common platforms like Hawkeye
Pooling operational resources, possibly Hawkeye, and probably A330 MRTT and A400M.
SSBN Patrol Coordination
Future cooperation in SSN/SSGN/SSBN and nuclear deterrrent (WOULDN¨T BE MENTIONED NOW IN ANY CASE, focus is on reducing use rate to stretch out life spans)
Tighter cooperation in ground vehicles (future french light tanks for scout, VBCI for utility, VBMR? CT40 is a good start)
Joint procurement of drones – Mantis, and the successor to Taranis/Neuron
A long endurance UAV for AEW/C, and possibly Anti-Sub and Maritime Patrol seems quite do-able, circa 2020+. At least for AEW/C role, I wonder if ´blimp´ designs have been considered, they should be able to land on a carrier for re-fueling, could be disassembled/defalted for storage if a problem comes up (and the sensor/propulsion payload transferred to a fresh frame), and should be able to keep up with carrier group speeds to provide air coverage. Again, this probably won´t be announced right now given immediate budget needs.
Snow MonkeyJessmo, please drop it or take it up in another thread.
Snow MonkeyIf (in the near future) Naval UCAV can land themselves why can`t a manned fighter land itself automatically?
Millimeter radar or something could provide precise data on ship/plane orientation in real-time,
and if the vector shifted towards something with a higher chance of crash, the landing could be aborted.
Snow MonkeyI`m not sure of the signifigance of JDRAAM vs. JDRADM…
(type-o, or JDRAAM could be the DARPA program while JDRADM is the evisioned final product)
but the quoted article itself says this is DARPA funded, not by any of the services themselves,
i.e. any acquisition would be a separate bid contested by both Raytheon and Boeing.
Sign In
