hopsalotNot sure how this will play out any different to how MMRCA did. Why do they need to wait until 2021 to ink a deal, that is 4 years from now (yes I understand Indian bureaucracy…).
They are seemingly dead set on retaining their “worst run procurement on earth” title from the recent Canadian contender.
How on earth can you conduct a hugely complex and expensive evaluation that includes both the F-16 and Gripen only a couple years ago yet still not know what you want today?
If either/both of the designs can meet their new requirements ask the companies for bids and get on with it. Launching yet another multi-year procurement effort to re-evaluation two designs they just got done evaluating? Idiotic…
hopsalotUgandan deal probably is the most comparable “all inclusive” deal similar to what Western manufacturers offer to 3rd world countries: weapons, spares, simulators, training, support etc. If so, $123 million apiece is still reasonably cheap, but not “omg I’ll buy a hundred” cheap.
I could certainly believe $123 million each, and even less than that. I don’t doubt that Russian fighters are cheaper than the Western competitors, they would have to be given Russia’s predominantly 3rd-world customer base. What they aren’t is one half or one third the cost of the cheapest Western fighters.
Nobody can build a modern fighter for less than half the cost of an F-16 or Gripen, and if somebody could it wouldn’t be Russia. (and it wouldn’t be a heavy-weight twin engined design)
A little commons sense should tell people that, but then common sense isn’t evenly distributed it seems…
hopsalotNope.. the situation is more complicated.. the last contract mandates that not only radars, avionics and propulsion, but also all raw materials, components (over 1,720,000 in total), metal plates, castings, forgings, bolts, screws and rivets must come from Russia (for whatever reason)..
As India’s Business Standard writes:
“For example, a 486 kg titanium bar supplied by Russia is whittled down to a 15.9 kg tail component. The titanium shaved off is wasted. Similarly a wing bracket that weighs just 3.1 kg has to be fashioned from a titanium forging that weighs 27 kg…. manufacturing sophisticated raw materials like titanium extrusions in India is not economically viable for the tiny quantities needed for Su-30MKI fighters.”
And you think parts aren’t machined in Russia? Or that Su-30s built in Russia don’t use Russian parts? Do you really think you are making an argument here?
OK, and in what way do they differ? enlighten me, pls..
I don’t have the details on that, but that doesn’t prevent me from recognizing an impossible number. In all likelihood different accounting methods are being used for costs/payments between government entities, similar to the “government furnished equipment” in aircraft like the F-35. It may be accurate on some level to say that a contract was signed and that the amount is XXX… but that contract may not represent the full cost of actually building a complete aircraft.
[quote That is not an explanation.. and BTW, I surely would not buy a Russian car, even if it was sold for 1/3rd the price of an BMW..[/quote]
:rolleyes: No doubt you are quite the connoisseur of cars…
Lots of cheap talk, zero arguments..
Yes, logic and common sense. I wouldn’t expect you to make heads or tails of it.
hopsalotInstead of responding to this “Sure RT is propaganda but CNN is too which makes it okei” BS from MSphere, report it instead. This has no place whatsoever here. Maybe if enough people actually report it moderators will wake up from their self-induced coma and actually do any moderating.
Of course this whole thing is the real point of Russian propaganda efforts. It isn’t so much a case that they are trying to make people think RT/Sputnik are more credible than mainstream international media, they are happy if they can convince people that they are all equally or similarly bad and leave it to people to pick the source that tells them what they want to hear.
Look at how MSphere struggles with even the most basic facts about the aircraft he obsesses over in this forum. Can there be any doubt he is happy to believe any source that will tell him what he wants to believe?
hopsalotAnd in the real world MMRCA was cancelled because it was much more expensive to build a Rafale in India by HAL than to build it in France.
But let’s not let facts get in the way of your prejudice.
Nic
Yes, establishing an entirely new production line in India to build Rafales would cost more than buying them from the existing under-utilized line in France.
but…
India started manufacturing Su-30MKIs years and years ago. The line exists. The workers are trained. Those costs are sunk. If you told me it cost 10% or 20% or maybe even 50% more to build Su-30s in India than Russia I might believe you.
There is no way it costs 3x to build them in India.
But lets not lets facts get in the way of your ignorance.
hopsalotOf course, you know it all better, how could I forget? And all that supported by multiple sources, as per your usual standard 🙂
OK, bro, I’ll bite, disprove those figures by providing “true” numbers for unit price of an Su-30SM for the VKS.. Show me what you’re made of !!! :very_drunk:http://www.defenseworld.net/news/14018/Russian_MoD_May_Order_75_More_Su_30SM_Jets#.WGqSYVMrLIU
Aaaaaaahh.. a very bad start, buddy… exactly those additional 40 Sukhois are to be produced by Irkut, not HAL.
Just so we are clear, you are saying that India is not producing Su-30MKIs at roughly $75 million apiece?
I am well aware of the extremely low prices quoted in the media for Russian fighters, but as I already explained, these numbers do not represent apples to apples comparisons with Western designs. It would be as if Russia announced tomorrow that it was building a car competitive with the latest BMW, but planned to sell them at 1/3rd the price. Any reasonable person (which is obviously where I have gone wrong in trying to explain this to you…) would recognize that that is impossible.
Cheaper labor, etc, might allow a developing world economy like Russia to produce a finished product slightly cheaper, but cheap labor can only do so much on a high tech product where labor is the minority of the total cost.
Russia is utterly uncompetitive as a manufacturer but you expect us to believe they are producing fighter jets for a third of the cost of the rest of the world. Engage your brain…
hopsalotThese numbers are plausible.. they represent something like Russian version of URF recurring flyaway or total flyaway cost. Similar to the “below-100-mil” quotes for an F-35.. As already said, the dollar prices do fluctuate significantly, therefore taking ruble figures at face value is advisable.
Nothing surprising.. The Su-30 series has always been cheaper than F-16. Now, the devaluation of the Ruble has pushed the dollar prices down even more..
No, believing those numbers would require a level of suspension of disbelief similar to that required for an action movie…
Russia is wholly uncompetitive as a manufacturer and while the collapse of the Ruble helps some it isn’t going to come close to allowing them to sell a heavy weight twin engined fighter for less than half the cost of an F-16 or Gripen. Seriously, use your head for once.
If Russia were able to achieve such results in a high-tech industry they are wasting their time building fighter jets.
Edit:
For example India, hardly a high-cost producer, is building the latest order of Su-30MKIs at ~$75 million per unit. Do you honestly think Russia can produce an Su-35 for less than a third of the cost of what India can produce an Su-30MKI for? Think…
hopsalotHow old is that chart?
154 airframes in LRIP 9? The actual number was 57 airframes.
The JPO says that the SDD will be finished in 2018.Cheers
The chart may be old, but he was correct that high AoA testing was completed a while back:
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., May 16, 2013 – The latest in a series of Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35A high angle of attack (AOA) testing was recently completed. The testing accomplished high AOA beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations. This included initially flying in the stealth clean wing configuration. It was followed by testing with external air-to-air pylons and missiles and then with open weapon bay doors. The F-35A began edge-of-the-envelope high AOA testing in the Fall 2012. For all testing, recovery from out of control flight has been 100 percent successful without the use of the spin recovery chute, which is carried to maximize safety.
hopsalotAny clue about what you are saying?
It is pretty garbled, but the basic point is correct. The Eurocanards are limited to 25-30 AoA because that is where they are controllable. Yes, it is possible to take them to higher AoA under certain specific test conditions but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
We have had Eurofanboys claim the limits are arbitrary to make pilots fly fast (not true), we have had them claim that it isn’t actually useful to be able to fly high AoA (not true), and of course we have had fanboys try to claim that high AoA only works with “small wing” fighters (also not true of course).
Perhaps at some point we will see people acknowledging the obvious, that all aircraft designs are collections of compromises and no single approach does everything best…
hopsalotyou got it 180 degree wrong, gripen/rafale are always controllable at very high AoA, and safe to operate at high AoA.
That is hardly what your attachment says…
hopsalotyes, it was a bit of trolling, here’s what i think:
for an aerodynamic fighter with low wing load, big wings in relative terms, or a frisbee,
its downright dumb to have it fly with the wide surface head on.
for a fighter with high wing load, small wings in relative terms, or a football, it matters much less what attitude it is at,
a football makes no difference in attitude with regards to drag,
and if i got unlimited thrust, a football is the best shape, specially if i also got thrusters in every direction,
and perhaps one day there will be such an engine, but until that day, i will favor the arrow shaped fighter
Of course this theory falls apart when you consider that aircraft like the Hornet, Super Hornet, F-22, Su-35, PAK FA, etc, were all designed with high AoA capabilities and big wings…
Maybe you know more than the collective design teams of Boeing, Lockheed, and Sukhoi.
Or maybe you have no idea what you are talking about.
hopsalotThanks for bringing that up. TVC is another way to waste all your energy by increasing AoA & turn, as F22 pilots found out.
Nic
Get a grip dude.
hopsalotbecause it is not the Gripen nor the Rafale… 😉
its aerodynamics were made for high speed interceptor role in the first place, with the long coupled canards which act more like elevators (and help stabilize it better at supersonic speeds)… the others, with close coupled canards use them to control airflow over the wing roots which allow them to better solve the problem of pure deltas limitations at extreme AoA. something that Eurofighter guys try to solve (or at least reduce) with makeshift fixes as they can not put their canards closer to the wing now…
The Rafale and Gripen can operate at higher AoA than the Typhoon, but they are both still pretty pedestrian by the standards of recent designs.
hopsalotRafale & Gripen are controllable at over 100% AoA. They are limited around 30 because going over thirty makes the plane itself a giant airbrake, which is stupid.
When testing of the F35 is over in 2045, it will probably be limited to about 30° too.
Nic
No, while they may sometimes be controllable at very high AoA, they aren’t safe and predictable to operate there, which is why the limits were set where they were.
If additional capability was available, why are they working to improve the Eurofighter’s AoA?
Typhoon’s supersonic agility is reportedly unbeatable, but its current angle-of-attack (AoA) limits at lower speeds are less impressive; a Cassidian (Airbus Defence & Space) -led effort is testing an aerodynamic modification kit for Typhoon that would remedy this. The ‘Aerodynamic Mod Kit’ (AMK) will include new re-shaped strakes,leading-edge root extensions (which have already been tested), and extended trailing-edge flaperons. The AMK aims to deliver increases to the maximum wing lift, the AoA limit and the roll rates at high AoA. The strakes will generate vortices that will maintain a controlled airfl ow over the wing surface even at high angles-of-attack. According to Airbus Defence and Space Test Pilot Chris Worning: “The fi rst stage was to proof the concept. Do some measurements to see if the strakes did what we thought they would do … we will fly the Aerodynamic Modification Kit next. We have a mod kit and we’re hopefully going to fly it here (Manching) this summer. This is basically what you could put on a series production aeroplane.” Flying at high angles-of-attack can be helpful in close-in combat, allowing a fighter to point its nose quickly and accurately (this is one of the reasons why the F/A-18 remains such a nasty opponent in the WVR arena). The Typhoon’s current AoA limit is slightly more than 24°, approximately the same as the Lockheed Martin F-16 (which is around 25°). The new changes are expected to increase the limit to at least 34°. Worning was keen to point out that fl ying at high AoA in combat must be performed with due consideration. “You have to remember when you have a very high AoA there is also a disadvantage: you’re creating an awful lot of drag.” Worning admitted that, currently, the Dassault Rafale has a slightly higher maximum AoA (29° in the air-to-air mode) than the Typhoon but is confident that the new kit will at least equal, and probably surpass, the higher figure of the French
rival. The flight testing of AMK is expected this year and will be a verifi cation of the computer modelling.
Once tested, Airbus Defence & Space will be able to develop the flight control software for a strake
on an operational aircraft. The strake is designed to improve agility at subsonic speeds; it will not
affect the aircraft in the supersonic regime but, as Worning confidently added, “there’s not much you
can improve there, to be honest”. There’s rarely a ‘free lunch’ in aerodynamics but the strake (which
will weigh only few kilos) seems to come close.
http://gnanavelaviator.blogspot.com/2014/06/eurofighter-typhoon.html?m=1
Also, the F-35’s final limit is already set, at 50 degrees AoA. It was tested at higher AoA. (And the F-35 is hardly the first US fighter with high AoA capabilities, the original Hornet, Super Hornet, and F-22 all have similar or greater high AoA capabilities. )
hopsalotactually, as the G’s are pretty much the ratio between produced lift and aircraft weight, the lighter F-35 will, essentially, produce exactly the same lift at the same AoA and same speed (as it is the same aircraft) but generate more G’s (i.e. turn tighter) because the ratio is more favorable (same lift force pulling less weight)
Yes, that is what I said. The lighter aircraft could generate less lift and yet turn faster…
Sign In
