Spitfire9Tejas has been great in a way that it helped develop various subsystems. But as a product its certainly below-par/average.
I have said it many times and I say it again, during the design and development phase the Tejas team was over ambitious and they bit an awful lot more than they could chew.
Whatever the failings of the Tejas Mk1, if it is more capable than the MiG21 and allows 2 squadrons of those to be retired, it’s progress.
That’s quite apart from the project having brought Indian aviation to a position where it can design fast jets. That capability did not exist before LCA, did it?
Spitfire9IF you look at net income for first half for EADS. it is not that much. You simply cannot fund new complex projects with this small NI figure. They will have to go back to banks or Government for new projects.
What you say does not make sense. EADS does not have to finance projects out of current profit being generated or otherwise need to borrow from governments and banks. You have forgotten/don’t know that companies can have cash reserves. These can be used to cover development costs. How much cash has EADS got at the moment?
“EADS, the owner of Airbus, built up a record €12.2bn (£10.6bn) cash pile by the end of the first quarter, on new orders for Airbus planes.”
Spitfire9I perfectly understand the market. A320 will sell as long EU banking system is working and alternative assembly lines are not in production.
Your comments don’t make sense to me. The EU banking system doesn’t work now but Airbus seems to have no problems selling the A320. What alternative assembly lines are you talking about?
It has practically nothing do with technological level.
No? After Airbus announced the A320NEO (incorporating new engine technology) they received 1000+ orders in less than a year. The A320NEO became the fastest selling jet airliner in the history of aviation.
Spitfire9high performance AESA. India wouldnot be buying 5G fighter if there was such thing in EU.
Are you saying that India is buying PAK-FA because it has high performance AESA and Rafale does not have high performance AESA? I do not think that is possible. India could have chosen a US aircraft for MMRCA if AESA radar performance was SO important.
you would be still be improving the same A320 30 years from now.
I don’t think you know much about the short/medium range narrow body aviation market, do you?
As is said before both Rafale & EF will practically retire with same engines and radar.
Engines: Rafale may get a boost in thrust if a customer wants it. Same for Typhoon. Typhoon may also get thrust vectoring if a customer wants it. The limitation is not lack of technological knowledge and ability. The limitation is what the customer wants to buy.
AESA: Rafale is in the process of getting AESA. Typhoon is getting it soon. Both Rafale & EF will retire with very different radar to the radar first installed.
Spitfire9high performance AESA. India wouldnot be buying 5G fighter if there was such thing in EU.
Are you saying that India is buying PAK-FA because it has high performance AESA and Rafale does not have high performance AESA? I do not think that is possible. India could have chosen a US aircraft for MMRCA if AESA radar performance was SO important.
you would be still be improving the same A320 30 years from now.
I don’t think you know much about the short/medium range narrow body aviation market, do you?
As is said before both Rafale & EF will practically retire with same engines and radar.
Engines: Rafale may get a boost in thrust if a customer wants it. Same for Typhoon. Typhoon may also get thrust vectoring if a customer wants it. The limitation is not lack of technological knowledge and ability. The limitation is what the customer wants to buy.
AESA: Rafale is in the process of getting AESA. Typhoon is getting it soon. Both Rafale & EF will retire with very different radar to the radar first installed.
Spitfire9I think if Turkey can manage to create a truly lightweight fifth gen. fighter with an affordable cost can find many customers at that timeframe! Sure reliable partners may take part at both development and marketing 🙂
Change the word “Turkey” to “USA”, take out the shared marketing and I think you have the brief for a low cost 5th generation F-16 replacement project that’s already been tried by an American manufacturer. Look what happened to that proposal! 🙂
OK, the US 5th gen F-16 replacement was probably not truly lightweight…
If Turkey wants to give it a try, great, but does Turkey have the capability to design a 5th gen fighter?
Spitfire9Wrong. It produces the same thrust like the early F100s. Just for life-time cycle cost it is run to minimum settings or you find the thrust claim of the 90s still quoting 60-90 kN. 69-95kN and up to 102kN for a limited time for some years ago already. The people from GE have just the better advertisement department.
Thanks for the info. I did not now the EJ200 was run at minimum settings to save on costs.
. In the case of Sweden and the EJ200 it is not the limited cost of redesign, but the contract with GE, the money spent and the knowledge about the F404 and F414 for decades now. The USA pushing the Swedes too hard can bring a change of mind about that. In that case political considerations will overrule the financial ones given before.
Understood about the desire to stick to an engine type they know extremely well.
If the US does ever block a Gripen sale I don’t see how SAAB could redesign, test and build an EJ200-based aircraft fast enough for the potential customer to retain an interest. Seems to me the time to make a political decision was when SAAB decided to redesign the Gripen C/D to produce a more advanced aircraft.
Spitfire9WOOHAAA !! This is how it’s done !
From post in Gripen thread 20th July…
Quote:
Buyers of the new Gripen E/F will get a “double digit” percent price saving against the cost of the aircraft’s predecessor, the Gripen C/D, the CEO of Saab said on Tuesday.
Quote:
Speaking at the Farnborough International Airshow, Hakan Buskhe said the new fighter will also offer a 25 percent increase in capabilities.
The price drop and capability hike was a Saab specialty, he said, since the Gripen C/D had cost less than its own predecessor, the Gripen A/B, while offering a 20 percent hike in capabilities.
SAAB seems to have cottoned on to what should be a winning formula: instead of offering more for more, offer more for LESS!
There may turn out to be several NATO countries that can’t afford F-35 during this decade. Gripen offers one solution to the problem: lower performance but at a much, much lower price. What other solutions are open to current F-16 users? Life extension of their frames past 2030? New F-16’s?
Spitfire9“The Czech Republic has turned down the latest Swedish proposal for a lease on 14 Swedish-made JAS Gripen fighter jets.
Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas says the deal would be too expensive for his country.”
The current deal runs out 2014. I presume Czech Republic wants it to carry on, just want to get a better price – SAAB has been asked to requote. If a Gripen lease deal is too expensive, anything else would be even more too expensive, surely.
Spitfire9In the case of the Gripen NG the USA are aware that the Swedes can switch from the F414 to the J200 should the need arise f.e.
The EJ200 in its current form produces 10% less thrust with afterburner than the F414 so it cannot be an alternative, can it?
If SAAB wanted to sell to a particular customer and the US blocked the sale, how many years and how many hundreds of millions of dollars would be needed to redesign Gripen to use the EJ200 (even if Eurojet increased the engine’s thrust)?
SAAB must have considered this when opting for the F414 rather than the EJ200 for the post C/D Gripen design.
Spitfire9OK, the reason for the delay in Tejas IOC and FOC is out. As per Vijainder K Thakur, the tiny airframe of Tejas has a high variation in weight between different LSPs because of outdated production technology used for assembling them, which has increased the distance between center of gravity and lift, far more than anticipated. End result is that the LSP’s are far more unstable than intended at high AoA (beyond what FBW can handle).
https://plus.google.com/u/0/115477337653794596531/posts/3BMVLgfmJLS
Moreover, the link says that this is the reason why IAF will not be inducting any of the LSPs.
Good thing that IAF has refused the LSP’s. I could see pilots being killed by them.
I presume HAL has been aware of the problem for several years and wonder if in that time they have come up with a robust production method to ensure the problem will not arise with series production aircraft. I hope that the C of G and positions of centre of pressure on a correctly assembled aircraft are where intended by the designers. If not, the designers have a big headache, don’t they?
Spitfire9well, Belgium is looking to retire the F-16AM/BM fleet in the 2020/2025 timeframe and a replacement might be required in that timeframe.
last year it was noted the our MoD was looking into the F-35A as a prefered replacement, but the aircraft has become so expensive to aquire and maintain that this now seems very unlikely to happen.to reduce costs, we are now looking at Joint puchases and opreations with the Netherlands, so it is likely that if NL selects the F-35, so will Belgium, but the word “Gripen-NG” has also been mentioned in whispers, witch seems like a more realistic option concidering Belgiums shoestring budget (about $3.4 Billion annually, most of it going to personel costs/wages)
I suspect the new financial climate in which markets pressure countries to correct the excesses of the past will be here for many years. Under those circumstances, would it not be better to “cut your cloth according to your means” and switch to cheaper hardware? The air forces of the world may not be enthusiastic but to return to my analogy, you are a bit dumb if you say I want to be given the best clothes to wear and nothing else will do. If the choice is cheaper clothes or none at all, would any sensible person choose to walk around naked?
I see a market for Gripen / FA-50 / Tejas -style lighter fighters for countries that cannot afford fighters costing $100 million each with very high $ per hour costs. To oversimplify, flying a $50 million fighter for 5000 hours @ $5000 per flying hour costs $75 million; flying a $100 million fighter for 5000 hours @ $12,500 per hour costs $162.5 million. Choosing the more exotic aircraft more than doubles costs per aircraft.
Spitfire9CEMILAC paper pertaining to the issue, pg 4 on wards.
Thank you for that.
Spitfire9indeed, they are quite similar so I dunno why the other poster said they are not comparable. The only major difference is that one went delta and the other went conventional.
whats odd is that you figure a delta air frame would be less draggy, yet the tejas has drag issues. Could it be the F-18E of light fighters? 😮
I know this thread is about Tejas and F-50. Lessons must have been learnt from Tejas Mk1 data. Does ADA have the design know how to exploit that data to significantly improve Tejas Mk2 drag characteristics?
Spitfire9http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/23/f-22-raptor-kill-markings/
“However, as already explained several times, simulated kills scored during dissimilar BFM engagements don’t prove a fighter plane is better than another one, and are almost meaningless unless the actual Rules Of Engagement (ROE) and the training scenario are known.”
Out of curiosity, are there ever any combat exercises where the participants are allowed to make best use of all the systems on their aircraft? The results of a reasonable number of WVR duels between different types using all assets at their disposal would become meaningful then.
Sign In
