Snow MonkeyI realized, that if UAE is ordering Meteor for their Rafales, giving away some MICAs could work out fine…
I agree that spending LESS money than budgeted for the next fighter tranche makes the UAE deal the best move right now. It`s a fighter that will improve Greece`s capacity in the Aegean AND lets the government spend the remainder on urgent civilian needs. Realistically, upgrading the EGMs will not and should not ever happen given the budget situation, and this would ensure that those plans are abandoned, which is for the best…
Selling off HAI just makes me think of Skaramanga and it`s current situation. đ
If it were to be sold, I think that explicitly linking it to the future fighter purchase (i.e. within the comparison of fighters, including their price tag) is the best approach… Not simply selling it to whomever bids highest (instead just give it a fixed price), but based on the best ToT and workshare (including future projects). …In other words, more like how India or Brazil are running their fighter competitions, just using the purchase of HAI as the vehicle for ToT. I don`t know if SAAB could buy it under those conditions…?
As you point out, selling independently for the highest price is just a vehicle for manufacturers to manipulate Greece`s fighter purchases.
And I don`t see why Lockheed wouldn`t also be an interested in such an arrangement…
Beyond the next fighter selection, I think any future manned fighters in Europe will involve all the major builders, i.e. no European competition. Once Rafale and Gripen`s sales prospects are concretized a bit more (and presuming Dassault has some success exporting Rafale, e.g. Brazil and UAE at least), I could even see Dassault and Thales buying SAAB. Whoever buys HAI would only be expecting favorability in future projects like UAVs, which I guess isn`t the worst price to pay.
Politically speaking, Gripen could be seen as favored by the EU itself given Greece`s budget is essentially under supervision.
(BTW, I like the avatar)
Snow MonkeyWould India actually be interested in purchasing the Taurus cruise missile?
Don`t they already have this capability via Russian weapons (and Indigenous production)?
Why bother establishing a separate infrastructure when they already have the capability?
Snow MonkeyUAE Mirages seem like the perfect fit with Greece`s existing fleet and weapons, and it`s budget.
Do you know what weapons UAE might include with them?
I don`t see why they would part with any MICA`s or Black Shaheen`s given they can use those on new Rafales.
But who knows…
It doesn`t make sense to sell the -9`s in the first place (certainly not the new builds), so why not include the missiles too?
Buying the UAE Mirages would also reinforce Greece`s relations with France, since it`s helping resolve the problem of selling the Mirages which is necessary for UAE to purchase new Rafales. It`s clearly quite understandable why Greece may not want to buy a new relatively expensive new platform like Rafale (or EF), but this continues the relation with France, whose track record in weapons and counter measures is pretty good.
Assuming Greece goes with UAE -9`s and Gripen NG for new jets,
it seems possible to negotiate some further benefits from Dassault (who really needs a customer for the UAE jets)
What if Dassault agreed to grant Greece full rights and access to allow Greece itself to upgrade it`s older Mirages, i.e. independent of Dassault? I`m guessing Saab could put together a very cost effective upgrade package, which would bring these jets on par with the Gripen NG or at least -9`s, at least in areas like counter-measures, sensors, and weapon integration. Realistically, Dassault isn`t expecting Greece to ever spring for upgrading these to -5 or -9. Saab could probably even sell the upgrade to other Mirage users like Peru and Egypt. …Science Fiction?
At the least, Greece should try to negotiate SOME side benefit from taking the UAE Mirages off France`s hands, whether better pricing for MICAs and SCALP or even production workshare in Meteor.
Tech transfer and workshare as potentially the launch customer of Gripen NG is obviously a big possibility in that deal as well.
Snow Monkey@Hammer, by “Italian-style ship combo” are you referring to more capable radar/ AAW set, or something else?
From what I can tell, DCNS will be offering Greece a version of FREMM upgraded beyond that ordered by France, so they could be offering that version or a related variant tailored to Brazil`s requirements.
Snow MonkeyIf anybody could post any remotely convincing links to sources demonstrating that India has been approved for EA18 Growler export, that would provide a factual base of reference with which to discuss that topic. Any indication that the Indian Gov. / IAF is actually interested in capability would be nice as well.
Without any shred of evidence, I would not assume that is the case or will be the case, much less future products like NGJ. It´s a very nice capability, but without a basis to assume India would be in the pipeline for it with a Super Hornet purchase, I don´t find it that interesting to discuss…
I find the idea that it´s preferrable that India buy an engine that will be upgraded/evolved at other party´s expense a double sided coin.
Of course, that would normally be preferrable. But when ToT is a huge factor, it seems equally or more preferrable to purchase a mostly modern engine which you will licence produce, but be involved yourself in it´s upgrading with the latest technologies, which means paying for some part of the upgrade yourself. India could possibly later buy an upgraded version of 414G (though who knows if they are getting assurances like this in writing, or if it will actually happen regardless) with CMC compressor technology, but that is just local assembly, that doesn´t really help India design or modify it´s own engines with that technology, because it is just production of a known product and not familiarity with the variables of that technology that would be needed for adapting the technology to future needs. Paying a fraction of development costs certainly seems worth it to learn cutting edge engine techniques. If a large country like India isn´t willing and eager to pay for that, it shouldn´t be tossing the ToT phraseology around, certainly not in regards to jet engines.
Snow Monkeywhat use is TVC for Tejas? Oh, about the same use as for Eurofighter, another canard aircraft?
I.e., helping MTOW, reducing canard deflection (radar X-section) and improving in-flight fuel economy, i.e. range,
not to mention redundancy for when other control surfaces are damaged…
I was under the impression that the EJ200 actually currently matches size/weight balance of LCA and GE414 would require more extensive modification of fuselage to account for size and weight differences, which would also add more time and risk to development schedule. If lower weight variant of GE414 is later developed/offered to India THAT would need ballast if LCA had in the mean time been modified for the previous weighting.
It seems disingenuous to froth at the mouth over future GE414 upgrades, while ignoring that EJ200 has a 20% growth margin, some of which may be used for efficiency (thus range) rather than thrust. Comparing who has greater thrust is absurd, it matters if it meets the requirements… and enlarging LCA to accomodate GE414 is certainly going to increase it`s weight as well.
But if GE won on costs (EJ hasn`t disputed that), which isn`t surprising,
they won by the rules of the game, so complaining about `pulling political strings` is very disingenuous.
Snow MonkeyI would think rotation of the helo is provided by the two side rotors, so if you replace them by a pusher rotor (which makes sense for all the reasons distiller mentionned, then you also need a tail rotor?
Not if you have a coaxial main rotor like Sikorski`s X2 does (or Kamov`s non-hybrid coaxial helicopters).
Another approach not mentioned here is seen in Piasecki`s X-49,
conventional main rotor and single ducted pusher with `TVC` which handles torque/yaw control.
It may not be the sexiest option, or ultimately the best option,
but it seems like this is definitely planned to be taken to market in the near future,
which I don`t get the feeling with from Sikorski… maybe they`re happier to wait for a DoD contract.
Snow MonkeyPerhaps a ¨Should have could have would have¨ thread could be started,
to keep this thread focused on the SDR and viable options `going forward`…?
Snow MonkeyI liked the previously seen mock-up images from Eurocopter,
with pusher props on swept stub wings BEHIND the main fuselage.
In any case, the props aren`t a problem when landing because they will be disengaged and not rotating.
EDIT: I agree with HK, this seems to be all about what is the approach that can be brought to market most easily and with the least risk, being able to maximally re-use existing sub-system designs as well as infrastructure… It also seems likely to be more compatable with existing helo pilots` and mechanics` training, which a compound rotor system may not (?)
Word of the next gen Heavy Lift Helicopter seems to have been sparse, budgets probably having nothing to do with that of course… But I can`t help but want to see such pusher wings on a large platform… Certainly if speed is seen to offer a meaure of protection of it`s own, a larger more expensive platform carrying more passengers seems just as eligible for it…
Snow Monkey@Aspis: As you say, Gripen NG seems like the smart option at this point for whenever the Air Force can move forward with it`s next fighter tranche. Given that Rafale seems poised to (finally) win in Brazil, it would seem that there`s a good amount of work-share available that Greece could potentially receive, especially given their long-term needs are on-par with Brazil (if the economy doesn`t improve longer term Gripen NGs and not F-35´s are what is viable to acquire in numbers, in any case). Greek industry certainly doesn`t have all the same capacities as Brazil, but it seems like a good workshare package could certainly be negotiated, especially if Greece is the `launch customer` for NG. Is any news on this floating around in the wild currently, or what? Supposedly a better approach to work-share / re-investment and cooperative projects was a goal of the new (current) defense minister, and this is right in that line…???
Snow MonkeyB.t.w. that illustration look very bad.
How will the wing structure fare when doing a 9G turn..
The wings would snap right off:D
Right. If Paralay is reading this, I`m pretty sure the `mystery lobe` should be sized for FOLDING FIN missiles, which from the posted hypothetical cross-section obviously frees up alot of room for normal wing structures, etc.
Personally, I wonder why the `mystery lobe` (shoulder AAM bay) doesn`t extend the full wing chord… allowing carriage of larger missiles, or possibly 2 small ones in each bay. I wonder if that may be an option on the 2-seater / FGFA version…?
Snow MonkeyPossibly prices and price of upgrades in future. Economics of scale is not good in the French offer, the other Eurobirds can get American weapons which are much cheaper, for Rafale weapons are expensive as well.
Rafale can equip American weapons too…
If Dassault doesn´t want to integrate them thinking it can sell Thales/MBDA weaponry,
India can integrate them itself, that´s the point of FULL TECH TRANSFER.
In any case, India is developing plenty of it´s own weapons that it will be procuring rather Western equivalents,
that will cost the same to procure and integrate on whichever platform is chosen for MMRCA.
Snow MonkeyI get that same impression, that there may well be replacements for some of these munitions by the time the UK has a substantial fleet of F-35`s, in which case there`s no sense in paying for integrating something that will be replaced soon. Since it also looks like many of the other European partner nations will be delaying their buy, there could be an intent to sychronize with that, so as to share the burden of weapon integration as much as possible with other users. Probably also a sense that this sort of thing (external Brimstones, etc) can be dealt with after getting out of the woods, so to speak (budget wise), with a better eye as to what capabilities will actually be needed closer to 2020.
However long legacy platforms are retained, tasking them to CAP until their last flights hours seems the most likely scenario, which means that isn`t a high priority for F-35. …After all, CAP can be done alot more cheaply than F-35. The pounds to integrate/certify more weapons/pylons can be used for UCAV`s that are much more efficient CAP for theatre`s where the UK is currently involved.
@jessmo: I doubt anybody thinks it would be `an issue` WRT weight, but it still costs pounds to certify any weaponry on a new pylon.
Snow MonkeyIt is no longer so since the 70s. From the AIM-9L, Magic-2, Python-3 and R-73 that performance is tasked to the AAMs and the related HMS. Just “idiots” or someone seeking the former kick in exercises will go into something like a furball. Even in Vietnam the dogfights performance manuvering was not an issue? What happens when LO tech makes BVR less effective than the numbers predict?
What percentage of pilots is a gov’t willing to lose if an engagement makes it to the merge?:)
Hmm… about the same percentage of pilots who would prefer to lose energy maneuvering their own aircraft dog fight style after a merge, rather than rely on higher maneuvering, higher accelarating HOBS missiles and HMS? …Which their opponent will be using unless they are equally stupid. Saying that dogfight maneuverability is no longer important has nothing to do with saying close range combat will never happen, it comes down to that missiles will out dogfight any fighter jet (sans anti-gravity inertia cancellation), and HMS make noise-pointing irrelevant unless it comes down to guns. So if you want to continue that argument, you`re really going to have to deal with the likelyhood of GUN only fights, not just short ranges. (I feel a bit silly repeating Sens` exact argument BTW)
If anything, the only type of maneuverability that matters any more (for air combat) is how little energy you can lose when turning, not the maximum degree of maneuverability no matter the energy loss.
Snow MonkeyMmm, air/ground mode interlacing… love that irony…
Sign In
