Snow MonkeyBoeing and Lockheed seem to have lost their S-duct capability judging from F/A-XX designs.
Perhaps China can help them out to re-achieve that S-duct glory. Maybe even throw in the WS-15 engine.
Seriously, how does rattling off the designation of the engine and radar provide any basis for why those are desirable?
Rattling off a bunch of keywords and moaning ‘…very cool…’ should be reserved for private chats with Lockmart fanbois who can counter with ‘…5th generation, loverboy…’.
That you couldn’t provide even one compelling operational/functional justification reveals the lack of substance in this fantasy.
If you reduce everything to ‘it’s China, it’s fast, it’s strong, and I’ll trade it for your sister’ that just doesn’t seriously qualify as ‘aviation fandom’.
If it happens that you aren’t familiar with developments outside China, other countries like Russia and US are developing solutions to negate engine RCS without need for S-ducts which introduce inefficiencies in airflow and airframe structure/aerodynamics… (simply put, a non-radar reflective engine doesn’t need S-ducts, even blockers can be just as effective if the engine itself can’t be modified with exotic materials) If you don’t NEED an S-duct to block RCS, you aren’t going to want to use one… even if some Chinese dude lech’es on your sister.
Snow MonkeyThe “We trade J-20 for your women and your gas” bit was kind of irresistable… 😀
Snow MonkeyI’m sure Russia would die to be able to get some Chinese S-Ducts :rolleyes:, but J-20 is not ‘likely’ at all. What does the article say?
“We have started development of a new aircraft of this type and I think we can develop this plane before the state armament program ends in 2020,”
Unless Russia’s goal is to let fast jet development stagnate after going to the trouble of PAK-FA, that means they need to nearly continually have some development programs going. Although PAK-DA will manifest in some form, it seems certain that another true fighter platform will be developed, the question would be whether a MiG-31 replacement or LMFS type or Su-24 replacement is developed first. I read this quote as the VVS staff being aware of that and agitating to develop the MiG-31 replacement. The quote itself acknowledges that MiG-31 will likely fly until nearly 2030, and saying they ‘think’ they will develop this MiG-31 replacement by 2020 doesn’t mean that VVS will be flying it by then… you can say that PAKFA has already been developed right now. I just don’t see why Russia would not develop a MiG-31 replacement itself… Horny chinese men lusting after russian women and J-20 exports not withstanding 😉
Snow MonkeyI don’t know, but it seems like a convenient detour from the revelations of TPC fan blade vs. JSTUFF’s denouncements of discussing such developments in this thread and his conclusion that the Type 30 fan can only be hollow Ti. I’d prefer if we can keep this thread on-track for PAK-FA developments, which we now know include plastic fan and composite turbine. Thanks for finding the interview Austin, and I look forward to more sleuthing from Jo.
Snow MonkeyIf it were to be used for ship-board ops, those wings would have to fold, as well as the prop/rotor. I don’t know how complicated that would be with the fuel lines for the engines, not to mention it looks like they have a full-span flap, which could be split in two but that would still be a complicated fold. I’m honestly not expecting this one to be acquired, although it could very well be pursued thru the next development phase. Those wings just like too juicy of targets for ground fire if this design is supposed to also apply to an Apache replacement.
It’s hard to compare with the large wings and tail, but the core fuselage itself doesn’t seem to be much larger for payload/passengers than a Blackhawk… Hasn’t the plan been to up-scale all niches as well as eventually going for a much larger super-heavy (~Mi-26+) model?
Snow MonkeyWell, it looks like Jo must have psychic powers because as we all know, the only valid basis to predict future developments is current in-production products, not research developments.
Actually, I’m not sure if Shmotin was saying that the new engine will have variable bypass, as much as saying there has been research into that and provisions made to add that at a future upgrade of the engine (future upgrades were the point of the question posed). If that’s not what he meant, I’m not sure exactly what he is meaning in response to that question.
That he didn’t speak of the (gas dynamic?) TVC / nozzle was a shame, but there’s enough else in that short interview that I can’t complain.
Snow MonkeyHow does EF’s announcement of increasing the local production change things?
Assuming a single bidder doesn’t come in below the $7.9B figure, is offset/local production a specific rating factor?
Even without that, it could just be an effort to decrease their price, increasing the utilization of the local production infrastructure makes it that much more cost effective to set up that production.
Snow MonkeyExactly, HALs past failures to perform to plan re: localizing production of Sukhois on schedule, as well as problems with Hawk, is exactly the concrete evidence backing up Dassault’s position. Not that HAL specifically needs to guilty of anything, Dassault or any other commerical company would simply not allow themself to be given unlimited liability for a partner(HAL)’s potential failures. And there is absolutely no real explanation for why a multiparty contract specifying Dassaults exact obligations to government and HAL is not doable, or why Dassault’s contracts could not be solely with HAL as the integrator if that approach was preferred.
The tender requirements of HAL being prime integrator simply does NOT in any way logically lead to the conclusion that the contract must only be structured exactly as MoD (clearly pushed by HAL) is claiming. If MoD wants to push Dassault into an unlimited liability contract with responsibility for things outside their control, they cannot expect to sign a fixed cost contract. Offer Dassault a ‘cost plus’ contract and I’m sure they will be happy to cooperate with whatever incompetence HAL wants to offer up. I don’t see why Dassault wouldn’t accept fixed-price on the portion of the contract under their control, and cost-plus on the portion of the contract involved with HAL if the government insists on that structure.
Snow MonkeyIt is not that the alternative to the MoD’s (or HAL’s) preferred contract format mean that Dassault would have no responsibilities, or that Dassault/HAL co-responsibilities would not be subject to contracts between them… Either thru a 3-way contract, or HAL contracting with MoD for the entire contract and sub-contracting with Dassault for what Dassault needs to do, that is the outcome. Dassault can and should have a contract with HAL laying out what Dassault is expected to do, including ToT and objective criteria for how that is verified including training HAL staff, etc, signing off at each stage. There can even be a clause specifying how Dassault will help HAL in cases where HAL has problems fulfilling it’s end, e..g at-cost consulting. It seems to be solely about HAL trying to absolve itself of any responsibility for fulfilling it’s commitments, and removing risk for Indian failures to produce. HAL should be able to specify exactly what they need from Dassault in order that HAL can do it’s job, and Dassault shoudn’t need to be liable for anything else. If HAL can’t do such a thing, they are simply proving their incompetence.
Snow Monkeywhat is the basis for why India cannot sign a 3-way contract laying out the contractual responsibilities each party has to each other?
why can’t HAL be the sole signatory if they want the local prime integrator role,
and contract themselves with dassault to specify dassault and HAL’s responsibilities to each other?
no company will sign up to open-ended liability. the entire point of dassault’s stance is that they consider themselves legally bound to fulfill their contractual obligations and be held accountable for failure to perform. that is the professional expectation. if HAL wants to local prime, they should take that role, and sub-contract out with Dassault. how can HAL be a modern aerospace company if they cannot handle contracts with other companies? and Dassault is supposed to open itself to open-ended liability with such a company?
Snow Monkeysurreal… HAL is the specified integrator… yes is to not bear the responsibility for that…
India wants to implicate 3rd parties in the contractual obligations yet insists that the details of Dassault/HAL interaction cannot be in the contract…
@Loke: i considered that Dassault could sign a contract with HAL specifying responsibilities before signing with MoD,
but the problem with that is that Dassault is then still fully responsible, they simply have supposed legal right
to sue HAL for failure on their part, which is an indirect process that doesn’t ensure that HAL’s responsibility fully covers Dassault’s
and is subject to delays and vagaries of Indian justice system…
if MoD wants to insist on a single point of contact in their contract, they should make that actor HAL,
and HAL can have it’s own contract with Dassault, Dassault’s specifies their contractual obligations with HAL,
and the difference vs. the total program obligations to MoD is covered by HAL…
Snow MonkeyAs per what he has said, the SE wins on the price alone..The closer it is to the magical 7.9 billion the capability does not matter…
Understood: if deemed to have sufficient capability, lowest bid wins.
That is not what has been posted here…
Only if one qualifying bidder comes in at or under 7.9 billion do they automatically win based on price.
If two bidders come in above that figure but below ~$9.5 billion, the winner (if DAPA chooses to proceed) is chosen based on a weighted composite rating, of which lowest price (7.9 billion being 100% score, $9.5 billion being 0%) is but one factor, rating of operational effectiveness is another factor. If two bidders come in below 7.9 billion a similar process would take place.
Am I correct in thinking that whereas the F-35 quote is for delivery of 60 new frames, the SE quote is for upgrading the F-15K aircraft already delivered to Silent Eagle status?
No.
Snow MonkeyHasn’t 117S (interim/stage 1 engine) been described as meeting ‘5th gen engine’ performance parameters?
Snow MonkeyThanks for the info. Probably too bad for Rafale they aren’t participating under the new process.
As you show, simply the existence of a true cost-driven competition will reduce costs regardless of who wins. (also see KC-X)
And without a REAL fair competition (with teeth to enforce the result), the competition can’t really be taken seriously which is necessary to achieve the results (good price).
I do think the fact that only upfront costs are considered for the ‘price gate’ (and price score if a single winner isn’t decided by the gate) is in favor of Boeing, I would presume that had whole-life costs (for forseeable training and other usage… economics of additional operations would be a factor of operations rating) been considered as the price/cost, that would help EF (and certainly Rafale if they had bid). Of course there is an interest in reducing immediate budget demands, but standard financial calculations can give proportionate value to now-costs vs. 15-years-away-costs, and the total figure is what is the ultimate cost to Korean treasury, which having access to sovereign debt should prefer the optimal total cost (taking into account financing for now-costs).
Snow MonkeyIronic that ROKAF is now worrying over EF’s bombload when Rafale isn’t competing because they were burned before.
Was the Rafale/F-15 deal decided by this independent civilian board?
Sign In
