hopsalotonce again, hoq do you know Rafale and Gripen systems????
Well, we know that the AESA upgrade to the Rafale is just that, an upgrade. It replaces the PESA antenna with a new AESA antenna, but otherwise leaves the radar’s back-end intact.
That means architecturally speaking, it dates to the late 1980s, along with the rest of the Rafale.
In fact, an AESA flew on Rafale in May 2003. According to Ramstein, a migration to AESA has been considered from the early days of the programme, and the RBE2 is designed so that an AESA front end can replace the current passive antenna and TWT. Power and cooling are adequate for the job. A programme called Demonstrateur de Radar a l’Antenne Active (DRAA) started in 2000, and the radar flew on a Falcon in late 2002 before flying in Rafale B301. “It was a difficult integration, taking two or three days,” jokes Ramstein. The problem, however, is that DRAA relied on US-sourced high-power processing chips – which, after Korea and the Iraq war, no longer seemed like a good idea. A new AESA version of the RBE2, DRAAMA (DRAA modes avancées), using all-European technology, was launched in July 2004 and will be ready in 2007-08. “We have a firm commitment to AESA, which allows us to propose it for export,” Ramstein says.
However, Dassault and Thales are not proposing to make the AESA the all-encompassing RF Cuisinart that Boeing (for example) envisages for the Super Hornet, with features such as passive detection, multi-beam operation and jamming. Nor does the team intend to exploit the AESA’s wide bandwidth, which would mean a new radome. (This suggests that the current radome is a bandpass design, transparent at the RBE2 frequency but stealthily reflective at any other.) Rather, the approach is to minimise cost and risk by keeping the same modes as the RBE2, while harvesting what are seen as the most valuable advantages of the AESA. These include a 50 per cent-plus increase in detection range – a better match for Meteor – much better performance at the edges of the elevation and bearing envelope, better reliability through the elimination of single-point failures and lower through-life costs. With only 120 aircraft planned by 2012, the pace of the Rafale programme has been influenced more by budget considerations than by technology.
From a Jane’s article, but original link seems dead. I can get a proper citation next week sometime if it really matters.
hopsalotAnd yet, the Navy seems satisfied with requesting more Super Hornets. F-35C just does not justify its expense. Juvenile comparisons of questionably relevant stats does not change the fact the the F-35C and the Super Hornet are more or less equivalent, except the that Super Hornet offers more bang for the buck.
No, the Navy does not seem satisfied ordering more Super Hornets, that is why the line will close in the next few years. They have put some on their unfunded priority list, even then only to prevent a temporary shortfall in airframes. (which is prudent)
One could reasonably argue if the Super Hornet was funded with the cash that the F-35C will receive in SDD funds, you would have a superior aircraft that could be acquired for 40 – 50 percent less than F-35C.
No, you really couldn’t. Per the quote above the F-35C already performs like a completely clean Super Hornet. No weapons, no pylons, no external fuel. Do you really think adding conformal fuel tanks, a weapons pod, an IRST, and a MAWs to the Super Hornet is going to result in a competitive aircraft?
Even after all of that the Super Hornet would be shorter ranged, less stealthy, slower, and have a smaller internal payload.
hopsalothopsalot, your need to insist on the superiority of US technology and products (even if it’s true to some extent) on every thread is getting tiresome.
Where did I insist on any such thing? He raised a question, I provided him with a quote and a source that addressed that exact question.
Most would be happy to have that information brought to their attention.
hopsalotAnother datapoint to be dismissed or ignored:
F-35C flies like a completely clean Super Hornet
hopsalotthere’s one big difference: the F-35 was publicised as an affordable platform, with prices quoted nowhere near reality. It was a requirement at first (dropped long ago).
The Rafale was supposed to be cheaper to operate than multiple platforms of the same generation specialized in its various missions, by using a lesser number of versatiles (more capble) airframes and by standardisation of support infrastructures . It was never supposed to be cheaper in a plane to plane comparison with the older types it replaces.
Again, “affordable” doesn’t mean something isn’t expensive. Whether or not something is affordable depends on far more than price.
The F-35 will end up more expensive than was originally hoped, but then so has pretty much every other fighter of the last 25 years. It is on track to achieve price parity(or quite possibly advantage) with something like the Rafale in the next few years. For the US that is affordable.
hopsalotThe same worn and tired arguments…. yes, let us hang hang all possible bags and fat bombs on the poor old F-16AM so that it can finally lose to the F-35…
Nevermind that the F-16 doesn’t spend even 2% of its lifetime in such heavy config.. certainly not in Norway which has noone to throw bombs onto..So the F-35 is a better striker – guess what, this was known from Day one and never a topic for an argument.
It also has more range than an F-16 with half the empty weight – big deal.. which aircraft in this weight class doesn’t?
It is also some 50 knots faster than an F-16AM hanged all over like a Christmas tree – guess what, the F-16 can always drop the ordnance and turn in circles around the pig..Articles like this only assure me that there are no more surprises to be expected from the F-35 as the flight testing goes along..
He was clearly talking about air to air where he is discussing AMRAAM launch conditions. :stupid:
“In the F-16, I must use afterburner and take running speed before a missile shot. F-35 “cruiser” both faster and higher. Therefore, I am ready to shoot far anytime.”
Perhaps you can provide us with a better translation?
hopsalotFrench say no. Emirs from Dubai say yes. Now go figure..
Well, since you mentioned it…
One Rafale pilot at Solenzara who has flown in the UAE remarked that one reason they want a more powerful engine is that its pilots are now used to the latest F-16 Block 60, which is essentially a small airframe built around a very big engine, and so find the Rafale underpowered by comparison.
hopsalotAnother datapoint for people here to ignore or insist cannot be true…
Google translate:
It is an advantage to have the fastest fighter. Superior speed makes it possible to collect or escape an opponent. All javelin throwers user misses to throw as far as possible. Likewise, it is advantageous to fly high and fast when a missile being shot. The missile gets more energy which in turn increases the range so that the missile can be fired by the longer distance. If we assume equally proficient pilots, equally good sensors and equally good missiles, it seems that raw performance alone can determine the outcome of a dogfight – the fastest flying can shoot first. Whoever shoots first wins often.
Pierre Spey and other critics have pointed out that the F-35 is not as fast or maneuverable as modern Russian fighter. In a previous section I argued that the performance of the F-16 at air display is theoretical and not available in a war situation. Combat aircraft like the F-16 carries the load out. This reduces the practical range, speed, maneuverability and maximum altitude. (This also applies to your opponent’s aircraft, which carries the load out).
With the F-35, we get more of all this, compared to what we are used to today. To discover how much more was a positive surprise for me. In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 can, without using afterburner. The speed in ‘cruises’ is without further 50 to 80 knots higher. In the F-16, I must use afterburner and take running speed before a missile shot. F-35 “cruiser” both faster and higher. Therefore, I am ready to shoot far anytime.
In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 fails
F-35 also has more fuel than we are accustomed to, it carries the load inside and is not as dependent on afterburner. Therefore we are left with more range than the F-16 and similar aircraft can achieve. “Combat radius” for the F-35 is between 30% and 70% longer than we get with the F-16! The extra range comes in handy in our elongated country. Range may alternatively be replaced in endurance over a given area. This is useful for our little organization, which disposes tanker and relies on versatility in all aspects.
hopsalot@ JSR
considering China still struggles to make comparably reliable copies of cfm56, which a 40+ years old snecma design, I doubt anyone here will be impressed by chinese engines technology (still in copying stage most of the time anyway)
Everyone was doing such a good job of ignoring him.
hopsalotFire… a useful tool, or a dangerous adversary?
hopsalotI personally would be careful taking Indian figures as a face value. They seem to have some issues with the SNECMA M53 reliability, as well. Can’t say whether it’s some fundamental flaw in the IAF maintenance system or something else.
Now you want to blame maintenance practices? Weren’t you the one who just got done saying…
Russian depot maintenance assumes running the engine as you run your car – without replacements, only basic field diagnostics and changing liquids.
So which is it?
This is not some mere philosophical difference as you tried to spin it. Russian engines have been forced to trade durability for power in an effort to keep up. You can still build an effective weapon system around a less advanced engine, but that is exactly what they are.
hopsalotThere is a thing I am missing here.. the well known problem of using different maintenance philosophies which render a direct comparison almost impossible..
Western type maintenance dictates daily basic visual inspections, then advanced inspections on an installed engine (filters, borescope inspection etc.) and then a major overhaul in a depot every 1,500-2,000 hours of use (diagnostics, replacement of worn parts, etc.) At the end of the service life (6,000-8,000 hours) it is still “the same” engine but with most core components having been changed 2-3 times.
Russian depot maintenance assumes running the engine as you run your car – without replacements, only basic field diagnostics and changing liquids. After three overhauls (after each 1,000 hours) it is replaced by a new engine and no one cares or bothers to inspect whether it’s still good or not.
The Western approach is less material intensive as you are reusing the old good parts again and again.. But it is more labor intensive as you need to do more diagnostics, more inspections, more overhauls, more disassembling and reassembling and more part changing.
As usual this is to put it mildly, ignorant.
Depending on the specific comparison point you would expect a typical Western engine to operate 2-4x as long as a comparable Russian engine.
Presently the total technical life of an Su-30MKI is 6,000h/25 years, and time between overhaul for its NPO Saturn AL31FP engines is 1,000h, with a total technical life of 2,000h. The time between overhaul and total technical life for the thrust vector nozzle is half of that of the engine.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-india39s-fighters-battle-for-relevance-408269/
That means that India is overhauling the thrust vectoring nozzles every 500 hours, the engines every 1,000 hours, and replacing the engines after one overhaul. (Using their math, 6,000 hours over 25 years, that means the engines are being overhauled every four years and replaced every eight.)
For comparison, the latest F100 series engines …
The F100-PW-229 is the most mature Increased Performance Engine (IPE) available and is the engine of choice for air forces worldwide. It is very much a new engine, with approximately 20 percent to 30 percent parts commonality with the F100-PW-200. It is the only IPE engine operationally matured in both the F-15E and F-16 Block 52 aircraft. Using technology developed from the F119 and F135 engine programs for the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, the current production PW-229 incorporates modern turbine materials, cooling management techniques, compressor aerodynamics and electronic controls. Under takeoff conditions this engine can produce 28,500 pounds of thrust wet and 17,000 pounds dry. Selected by Israel for its F-16I fighter, South Korea for its F-15K Slam Eagle. In 2010, the Engine Enhancement Package (EEP) was introduced, extending the depot service interval up to 40 percent, taking the average time between overhaul from 4,300 to 6,000 cycles, equivalent to approximately 10 years service life.
http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F100
A complete overhaul of the F100-220 major modules is called for every 4,000 cycles. A cycle is roughly equivalent to about an hour to an hour and a half of operation, Mr. Ezzell said, and 4,000 cycles equates to “approximately six to eight years, depending on mission and flying hour requirements.” Cycle time is calculated and tracked by electronics on the engine, taking into account the number of hours the engine is operated in flight and the number of hours the engine is idling on a tarmac or runway while the pilot awaits permission to take off.
The time between overhaul on the F100-PW-229 is longer than the total life of the AL31FP.
As for the business about “most core components having been changed 2-3 times,” read here:
Pratt & Whitney’s newest member of the F100 engine family, the F100-PW-229 Engine Enhancement Package (EEP), has successfully completed more than 6,000 total accumulated cycles (TACs) in an accelerated mission test (AMT) at the U.S. Air Force’s Arnold Engine Development Center in Tennessee. This year’s long test was specifically designed to demonstrate the new engine’s capabilities to provide dependable operation and significantly reduce life-cycle-costs for our customers. Pratt & Whitney is a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX) company.
“The conditions the engine experienced throughout this test represent the outer edge of the operating environment,” said Mark Buongiorno, director of F100 Programs, Pratt & Whitney. “It would take the average engine 10,000 TACs, or more than 25 years of operation, to experience the same levels of time and temperature exposure built into this test plan. Furthermore, the EEP engine ran the duration of the test flawlessly, without having to replace any of the turbo machinery. Completing this benchmark test, ahead of schedule and within budget, is a great accomplishment for the Pratt & Whitney and U.S. Air Force team.”
http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20101115-0100/2010/All%20Categories
Finally, your portrayal of Russian engines working like the engine in a car while Western engines are somehow babied with daily care and feeding is essentially completely backwards.
The Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) Su-30MKI multirole fighter fleet is plagued by frequent “engine failure-in-air and engine-related problems” and poor operational serviceability, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told parliament on 17 March.
…
Parrikar said between January 2013 and December 2014 the IAF had recorded technical problems with 35 Saturn AL-31FP engines that power the licence-built Su-30MKIs. The problems were related to faulty bearings and low-pressure oil.
Of 69 Su-30MKI engine failures investigated since 2012, the minister said “33 were due to finding [metal] chips in the oil, 11 due to vibration in the engine, and 8 because of low pressure of lubricating oil”.
He did not provide any explanation for the remaining 17 engine-related problems, but Parrikar said that the engine’s original equipment manufacturer (OEM) had “offered nine modifications or technological improvements in the production of new aero-engines and during overhaul of engines”.
These included “better lubrication, better fitment of bearings, and better quality of oil”.
All these measures, the minister stated, had been incorporated into 25 AL-31FP engines that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) had since licence-built at its Koraput plant in eastern India.
As a result, engine maintenance and overhaul, which had been taking place after 500 flying hours, now took place after 900 hours.
The IAF operates 200 Su-30MKIs, but of these only 110 or 55% were operationally available due to poor serviceability, Parrikar said, adding that this would increase to 70% by the end of 2015.
http://www.janes.com/article/50038/india-defence-minister-admits-su-30-serviceability-issues
35 engine failures in two years… 69 engine failures… since 2012… in a fleet of only 200 aircraft, of which only half are actually operable. They are also only recently, and only on ~25 engines, extending the time between overhaul to 900 hours. (short of the advertized 1,000 hours)
The only good news is that the Su-30MKI has two engines. The J-10 doesn’t…
hopsalotOn the contrary, J-10 is one of the less aesthetically attractive Eurocanards — uglier than Rafale, certainly. Nonetheless, it embodies all the qualities that made F-16 such a laudable and successful platform, with a more advanced aerodynamic design offering improved performance and agility (plus a Typhoon-style variable intake — DSI on J-10B — to take full advantage of those possibilities), and without the performance-sapping (and yes, ugly) modifications that’ve been required to keep F-16 competitive in the latter stages of its life.
As such, J-10 is a worthy successor to the F-16 heritage, amidst a gaggle of contemporaries falling mostly into one of two categories — those that even the manufacturing nations themselves can neither afford to buy nor operate, let alone export — and significantly smaller and mostly less sophisticated aircraft (JF-17, T-50, Gripen, Tejas) that are in another class of capability all together.
The non-Chinese project that comes closest to the superb balance of J-10 is Gripen E/F. But as laudable and sorely-needed as that aircraft is, the Chinese deserve credit for getting it right the first time around.
Again, this is based on what exactly? What do you know about how the J-10 performs?
Yes, it borrowed the basic layout of the Lavi, which like the Eurocanards represents essentially the state of the art in the late 1980s. Other than that, what can we say about it?
It has a Russian engine which badly lags the engines available in the F-16. It has a Chinese avionics fit of mostly unknown capability. We have no reliable information on how it actually performs or what its durability/maintainability is.
In the sense that it represents what the F-16 likely would have looked like if designed in the 1980s you are correct that it could almost be a successor… but that doesn’t really say much about why it hasn’t been exported.
hopsalotNo question that the aircraft itself is a beast — a veritable next-gen F-16. Makes everyone else look a bit silly, really.
So basically you think it looks cool…
hopsalot…yet a substantial portion even on this forum is or was possessed with a theory that flying subsonic, and even loiter,
all the while flinging over the shoulder shots with the I Win button was the essence of future BVR combat,
taking pot shots 100 km away and what not.
But it didn’t even stop there, u see, it wasn’t even the primary mission nor loadout,
it was just targets of opportunity as a kind of recreation on their way to some ground target
If indeed a “substantial portion” of this forum has made that argument you should have no trouble finding a few quotes.
😮
Sign In
