Spitfire9Tejas is going to be used as the Kaveri test platform but the next seven squadrons of Tejas are going to have foriegn engines.
At the moment the plan seems to be:
40 x Mk1 with GE-404
100 x Mk2 with GE-414/EJ200
??? x Mk3 with Kaveri/SNECMA
If the Kaveri/SNECMA JV fails to make progress fast enough, will the Mk3 be abandoned in favour of more Mk2 aircraft or would Tejas production be shut down and revived when the JV engine was ready?
I take it that the JV engine would still be used for the MCA so its development would still be justified if it were never used in the Tejas.
Spitfire9Tejas Mk2 will NOT have bigger wings. There will be some small changes to the fuselage to accomodate the changes to the air intake. The main difference will be the new more powerful engine and the new air intakes to accomodate the increased air flow requirements.
Forgive me for not checking and citing sources but several sources report an increase in wing size for MkII. Is this really not going to be the case?
Spitfire9Tejas Mk2 will NOT have bigger wings. There will be some small changes to the fuselage to accomodate the changes to the air intake. The main difference will be the new more powerful engine and the new air intakes to accomodate the increased air flow requirements.
Forgive me for not checking and citing sources but several sources report an increase in wing size for MkII. Is this really not going to be the case?
Spitfire9The Dutch Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence on Feb. 17 formally requested that Secretary of State for Defence Jack de Vries (CDA Christian Democratic party) issue a “formal, legally-binding Request For Proposal to obtain a fixed price” for all three candidates to replace the Dutch air force’s F-16 fighters. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-16 Block 60, and the Saab JAS-39NG Gripen, are competing for the contract.
Consequently, it recommended that the State Secretary for Defence should provide the House with greater clarity about:
— the total cost of the JSF programme;
— the procurement budget in the internal investment plan;
— the budgetary consequences of the alternative to the horizontal line price (the consortium buy);
— the withdrawal costs.Until now, De Vries has refused to provide this information, but a majority of over 85 members in Parliament’s Lower House is insisting on a direct, “apples with apples” comparison of each candidate aircraft’s price.
The defence committee’s request is supported not only by opposition parties, but also by two of the three parties, PvdA (Labour) and CU (Christian Union), that make up the governing coalition.
The committee’s request is bound to create tensions between Government and Parliament, ad may force a full debate on the F-16 replacement project just weeks before the Netherlands are to make a final decision on whether to sign a contract to buy the first and second F-35A aircraft. These aircraft are intended as the Dutch participation to the F-35’s Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) phase.
Dutch observers believe it will be impossible to resolve the price issue, and obtain Parliamentary approval for the purchase, in time for the contract signature…
I have always been surprised that LM should believe the politicians of export customer countries will sign a blank cheque by ordering F-35 before its cost is known. The way I see it is that if it’s too late to resolve the price issue before ordering 2 evaluation aircraft, it would be better to scrap the whole idea of buying them.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/102663/dutch-mps-demand-binding-prices-for-jsf%2C-gripen.html
Spitfire9The Dutch Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence on Feb. 17 formally requested that Secretary of State for Defence Jack de Vries (CDA Christian Democratic party) issue a “formal, legally-binding Request For Proposal to obtain a fixed price” for all three candidates to replace the Dutch air force’s F-16 fighters. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-16 Block 60, and the Saab JAS-39NG Gripen, are competing for the contract.
Consequently, it recommended that the State Secretary for Defence should provide the House with greater clarity about:
— the total cost of the JSF programme;
— the procurement budget in the internal investment plan;
— the budgetary consequences of the alternative to the horizontal line price (the consortium buy);
— the withdrawal costs.Until now, De Vries has refused to provide this information, but a majority of over 85 members in Parliament’s Lower House is insisting on a direct, “apples with apples” comparison of each candidate aircraft’s price.
The defence committee’s request is supported not only by opposition parties, but also by two of the three parties, PvdA (Labour) and CU (Christian Union), that make up the governing coalition.
The committee’s request is bound to create tensions between Government and Parliament, ad may force a full debate on the F-16 replacement project just weeks before the Netherlands are to make a final decision on whether to sign a contract to buy the first and second F-35A aircraft. These aircraft are intended as the Dutch participation to the F-35’s Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) phase.
Dutch observers believe it will be impossible to resolve the price issue, and obtain Parliamentary approval for the purchase, in time for the contract signature…
I have always been surprised that LM should believe the politicians of export customer countries will sign a blank cheque by ordering F-35 before its cost is known. The way I see it is that if it’s too late to resolve the price issue before ordering 2 evaluation aircraft, it would be better to scrap the whole idea of buying them.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/102663/dutch-mps-demand-binding-prices-for-jsf%2C-gripen.html
Spitfire9While I support the LCA programme whole heatedly there is nothing cutting edge there.
As an attempt to get into 4G fighter production there does not need to be cutting edge technology, surely.
I don’t know the history of evolving requirements with this aircraft but I get the impression that what is being created goes a long way past the original brief.
Spitfire9I’ll remember to bring this claim up everytime someone says a particular pilot said somethng good about his aircraft. going by the same yardstick, we should use a pinch of salt whenever a pilot from the country of its development praises the Typhoon, Rafale, F-16, F-18, F-22 or any other aircraft for that matter.
Good idea.
I think there may also be a psychological element if you are deeply involved in a test program. It may be that you have a profound desire that the aircraft you are testing be a “success” and that desire tends to colour your subjective perception of the aircraft.
Spitfire9Ankush spitfire has a point. The Tejas may well be a joy to fly. But the IAF pilots are not likely to say otherwise. I am sure thats all he meant.
That was all I meant. Unfortunately test pilots tend to publicly praise products of their own country, however good or bad they may be, which undermines the credibility of genuinely positive comment.
Spitfire9From the article:
“The Meteor was scheduled to enter UK service in August 2012, after an eight-year development period. That date has been redefined as the “platform-ready In-service date”
In other words we are talking nonsense but if we use the term “redefine”, we hope nobody will notice.
Spitfire9as per IAF test pilots, it is “a joy to fly” and handles very well.
Do you know of any test pilots publicly reporting that the aircraft produced by their mother country they are tasked to test fly is not very good/disappointing/lousy?
Spitfire9Related News:
Last week, the Post reported that each plane would cost Israel over $100 million and not the estimated $50-$60 million that Lockheed Martin had initially claimed it would cost.
Looks like reality is starting to get the upper hand over marketing fantasy where price is concerned.
Related News:
Defense sources said that the cost would make it very difficult for Israel to see through with its initial intention to purchase 75 aircraft. He said that if not for operational considerations, the IDF would have preferred to wait several years before ordering the aircraft and once the price goes down.
I imagine that the significance of this will be lost on the Norwegian military, perhaps the Dutch, too (don’t have much idea). The politicians of the countries concerned may not be best pleased. If I were a Norwegian politician I would be scratching my head at this news. I would be wondering why Israel looks set to pay 50+% more its frames than Norway thinks it will.
I continue to think that the F-35 will prove to be more expensive than Gripen (much more expensive), Rafale and Typhoon. I suspect that if any are supplied at a low price, it will be on the basis of it being an inject printer plane (supply at a loss knowing you can subsequently charge a fortune for consumables).
Spitfire9I think it mostly comes down to “a secret ain’t a secret if you tell everybody”. That and Israel’s history of loose lips makes the decision to tell them “no way” a no-brainer.
So why not say that when you are first approached for F-35’s? A conversation along these lines would have avoided many people wasting a great deal of time:
ISRAEL: “We would like to order some F-35’s and install our own equipment on them.”
US: “You can order some F-35’s but you can’t install your own equipment on them.”
Spitfire9US Trying To Get Israel To Leave Joint Strike Force Program?
In October, the Pentagon approved the sale of 25 F-35 stealth-enabled joint strike fighters to the Israeli Air Force, with an option to purchase up to 50 more. Just last week, I reported that cost overruns that may make the jets cost more than $100 million each were causing the IDF to rethink the purchase…
…You can bet that there’s going to be a lot of pressure placed on Israel to place that order. With a recession on, what is potentially a $75 billion order would be a huge boost for the American defense industries.
Errr… 75 F-35’s to cost $75 billion? I don’t think so!
US Trying To Get Israel To Leave Joint Strike Force Program?
When Israel expressed interest in the jets, it asked to install its own technology on them. This wasn’t just a question of buying Israeli out of patriotism. Israel fears that the jets will be sold to other countries in the region – like Saudi Arabia – and if our own technology is installed it will allow Israel to maintain a qualitative superiority even if the jets are sold to our enemies.
The US is refusing to allow Israel – the first country to whom the jets have been offered which is outside the US and the eight countries who are full members of the Joint Strike Force program – to install its own technology.
Last week, in an interview with Aviation Week, Maj.-Gen. Charles Davis, executive officer of the JSF program, said that Israel would not be allowed to put its own systems in the JSF, also known as the F-35.http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-trying-to-get-israel-to-leave-joint.html
I’m a little surprised that even Israel would be denied sovereignty over its F-35’s.
Spitfire9Yeah the Rafale and EF are sooo cheap…. The only difference is that when you decide to buy a Rafale/EF you already know that you’ll have a black hole. But you are right, that would be an anticipated black hole…
I think you may partially have got the point: if the most expensive component of your defence can be costed fairly accurately, you are in a far better position to plan your overall defence.
However well the Gripen or F-35 may appear to meet or exceed your air force’s requirements, it’s risky to commit to either unless you have a good idea of now big a chunk it will take out of your defence budget.
Spitfire9I like your sense of humour, Abhimanyu!
Sign In
