Spitfire9No. As per the news report you quoted, the Tejas will get IoC by Dec. 2010, and FoC by 2012. What the ADA official probably meant at the end was that the 1st full squadron of Tejas will complete induction by 2014. Induction per se will obviously start by 2011 itself, else how will the IAF grant IoC by 2012 as mentioned ?
For the uninformed, by the very nature of granting FoC certification, a few Tejas units will have to be inducted into IAF and used extensively for 2 years, before granting it the certificate. So, the first few Tejas units will be inducted starting 2011.
Thanks for that clarification about IOC, FOC and squadron stand up dates.
“I can declare that LCA is going to be a reality, at last. I can tell you with confidence that by December 2010, the initial operational clearance is going to take place and the final operational clearance by the end of 2012,” Antony told reporters.
Mr Anthony tells us “with confidence” that this and that is going to happen by this and that time. It seems that almost everything I have read about the pitiful management of this project indicates that such confidence is unwarranted.
There should be a Tejas with a Kaveri engine by now – it was promised pre-2010. Has that happened or is that just another example of something associated with Tejas being late? Perhaps the idea has just been quietly buried due to subsequent events (foreign engines for Tejas MkII).
By the way, what weapons are scheduled for integration as part of FOC? For a state such as Great Britain it does not matter too much that the Typhoon has extremely limited A2G capabilities. The likelihood of any state attacking Great Britain is zilch. India, however, does not find herself in that situation so bringing an aircraft into service lacking the capabilities envisaged is a lot more serious.
So what A2A and A2G capabilities will be integrated on Tejas by entry into service date? Note that I use the phrase “will be integrated” indicating reality rather than “are planned to be integrated” indicating fantasy.
Spitfire9“The LCA is in the critical phase of weapon carriage and release and flight envelope expansion towards initial operational clearance. It is expected to be inducted into IAF by 2014,” an ADA official told IANS on the margins of the event.
2014? So when is MkII likely to first appear in IAF service: 2016/2017/2018? If it’s likely to be that long, why bother with foreign engines? Better to throw a load of money at foreign consultancy to get Kaveri working in a non-Indian aviation time frame ie reasonably quickly.
Spitfire9as for kaveri-M-88, you are assuming they will produce an engine of the same class. if the demands are of a higher powered engine kaveri folks will know that quite well, better than the EJ walas and will design it accordingly.
IIRC part of the brief to Eurojet was that the engine design should be such that it incorporated a capacity for a 10% (or more?) increase in thrust. I presume that means without a major redesign being necessary. So if the demand is for a higher powered engine, the “EJ wallas” look better placed to deliver than the “kaveri folks”.
it will be major work no doubt, but this project is supposed to be a major one, not just an improvement of what’s already in place.
Do you mean an engine so different that it could be termed a new engine?
Edit: re EJ200 thrust growth potential:
The EuroJet consortium were required to build an engine (often referred to as EJ2x0) which had at least a 20% growth potential. There are already plans to carry out the necessary modifications to reach this higher (Stage-1) output in the 2000 to 2005 timeframe. Such an improvement will require a new Low Pressure Compressor (raising the pressure ratio to around 4.6) and an upgraded fan (increasing flow by around 10%). This would result in the dry thrust increasing to some 72kN (or 16,200lbf ) with a reheated output of around 103kN (or 23,100lbf).
Source: http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html
Spitfire9Hm. I hear through the grapevine that tomorrow the German Federal Government is going to file a lawsuit against EADS because of the A400M. And the Netherlands will do they same in a couple of days.
Anyone able to confirm this?
It will be interesting if customers go to court to obtain injunctions enjoining Airbus to deliver. A contract to deliver at a certain price is a contract.
If Airbus makes a larger profit than expected on a fixed price contract, it does not argue that it should give the excess back to the customer. Neither should it argue that if it makes a smaller profit than expected on a fixed price contract, the customer should give the shortfall to Airbus.
Spitfire9After the first competition, in which the S. Koreans more or less admitted afterwards that the decision was political, & didn’t try very hard to hide the fact that they’d only invited bids from anyone other than Boeing to get better terms from Boeing & the US govt., nobody else would bid for the second batch
I presume that in the same way Eurofighter would only be used to get better terms out of Boeing as a development partner, so why bother even getting involved in discussions?
Spitfire9New article on the Romanian deal:
From the Google translation:
The Romanian Government advances several acquisition schemes, but sources close to negotiations told us that the most likely option is the 24 aircraft, with a price estimated unofficially at 20.7 million dollars each. Cost is not the proper equipment – because Americans have expressed that they can be delivered free of charge, but the repair, revitalization, replacement engines and ammunition – which interventions to be carried out by American companies.
So what level of capability would the F-16’s have and what is the 10 year cost of operating them? After which replacement with F-35 would be proposed at what cost over 30 years? No-one knows.
I think a lower risk approach would be to buy a bunch of low mileage Gripens from Sweden. If they needed replacement after 10 years and F-35 was proving expensive to own and operate, buying the latest Gripen would be a convenient alternative if Gripen was already in use by the air force.
Spitfire9Plz, read original text from link.
Part of the linked article says:
…Richard Aboulafia, vice-president analysis at the Teal Group. “But for Japan and Singapore, there’s a need for any technology that will help them overcome quantitative inferiority and cement a strategic relationship with the USA.”
Sounds to me like Mr Aboulafia is arguing that Japan and Singapore should only be considering US materiel. I disagree. Since there is no apparent possibility of getting the F-22 – which in my understanding is desired to gain air superiority over opposing fighters – the Typhoon looks to be the next best thing to fulfil the role.
Spitfire9They could have produced the engine to if wanted. But the Babus in officialdom decided it was to expensive and there went the chance to obtain the single crystal blade technology. 😡
Who is “they” – GTRE? (I think it’s called that.) I presume we are talking about the Kaveri engine. How many years would it have taken to develop such technology? Could they have developed it in time for Tejas to enter service ~ 2010 if they had been given the funds to do so in good time?
Spitfire9LM & the DOD were confident enough on the full rate production cost to offer a deal to partner nations that they would pay $58.7 million (flyaway FY2008 dollars) for LRIP F-35As – which works out to be right in line with the projected full rate production cost of $70-75 million in FY2014 dollars. Note that THAT deal has fallen through so now partner nations will pay the same LRIP price as the US.
So the $58 million price tag IIRC reported in Norway’s decision to go for F-35 rather than Gripen was more or less what I thought at the time – a fantasy.
As delays push F-35 to the right the replacement schedule for F-16’s etc in various air forces remains the same. I foresee some air forces that opted for F-35 as a replacement paying much, much more than $58 million at 2008 prices since they will not be able to defer purchase until F-35 reaches volume production rates. Any MOD finding itself in such a position will likely have to cut other programs / reduce F-35 order numbers or both.
I think the F-35 promises to be late (OK, it’s bound to keep that promise), more expensive to acquire than promised, more expensive to maintain than promised. Export aircraft may have degraded LO. Then there’s the little matter of integrating non-US weapons without source codes. Promise on that already broken as far as the UK is concerned IIRC.
I am an opponent of the F-35 principally because I see it creating all sorts of problems for export customers’ (a) defence budgets (b) operational sovereignty.
Spitfire9It sounds to me that Gripen has the right characteristics (short take off / landing and good low speed handling) to be considered for adaptation as a carrier aircraft. It seems to me that SAAB has a good record in developing this aircraft (no big delays / no big budget overruns). On that basis Sea Gripen sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.
What is the likely world market (excluding US, Russia, China and France) for carrier-borne fighters in the next 25 years? Could Brazil be involved in Sea Gripen development if it opted for Gripen in the current competition?
Spitfire9Seconded. As a liberal of the Adam Smith variety (i.e. a real liberal, one who understands what liber & liberalis mean), I resent all the Leftpondian perversions of its meaning.
“Leftpondian”: I like that. Nicely coined. I also understand liber & liberalis. Ironic that those who find themselves in a Leftpondian situation find themselves positioned to the right, isn’t it?
Spitfire9Fighter Industry In Japan Risks Shrinkage
Japan is risking a rapid loss of fighter engineering skills, an official review of the industry warns, urging the government to avoid fully importing combat aircraft.
Engineering-effort estimates starkly illustrate an unspoken argument for Japan to buy and develop advanced versions of the Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F-15 or Boeing F/A-18E/F to fill its F-X requirement for 50 fighters.
I saw this in the linked AviationWeek article:
“Eurofighter has even said that Japan could do anything it wanted with the Typhoon design.”
I don’t see how Japan could do “anything it wanted with the Typhoon design” without access to anything it wanted ie an agreement to transfer any part of the Typhoon design desired.
Typhoon looks like a good solution to the amalgum of Japanese defence/industrial needs. I wonder how fast Japan can to make a decision to avoid engineers bleeding away from its military aviation engineering sector. It seems to me that time is of the essence if Japan wants to preserve its engineering capability.
Spitfire9Has this forum been taken over by children? In the another thread some are complaining about the realism in a cartoon. And the world shouldn’t buy American because Detroit makes crappy cars that no one buys even Americans.
Since I started the Tejas cartoon, it would be unwise for me to ask how the J-10 compares with the Tejas, would it not?
Spitfire9The fact is, again, Rafale costs $82.3m (~$130-140m), EF $81.8m (~$120-150m), but F35 $172m-197m – page 33 (~$XXXm) of a flyaway price (program price within brackets), which is actually more expensive than F22 and the projections for the 2010 still put F35 more expensive than F22. F35’s flyaway price is higher than Rafale’s or EF’s program price.
One problem identified some time ago is that if an export customer orders F-35’s for delivery say in 2015, the price will be much higher than if those were supplied in 2020. With program delays and a reluctance by buyers to purchase at early LRIP prices if they can avoid it by letting others buy the aircraft from early production batches, the point at which prices will fall keeps shifting to the right.
Spitfire9last i heard GE414 have a wider fan dimension than F404, but not much wider? but i could be wrong
The GE website gives the same width and length for 404 and 414 so I think Wikipedia must be correct.
Sign In
