Spitfire9Rolls Royce (and not Eurojet?) to offer an EJ-200 derivative engine for the AMCA fighter
I recall reading that the brief for the EJ-200 was that it must be possible to increase the engine’s thrust by 20% or more. I wonder how much work was done to check out such a design (ie how much cost for designing/developing such a variant has already been incurred).
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). Given recent increases in the weight of the Typhoon it may not be unexpected to find this upgrade performed in the near future.
More interestingly perhaps is Rolls-Royce and EuroJet’s plan to increase the output 30% above the baseline specification as a Stage-2 modification. Such an upgrade will require more substantial plantwide changes including a new LP compressor and turbine and an improvement in the total pressure ratio. These upgrades would yield a new dry thrust of around 78kN (or 17,500lbf) with a reheated output of around 120kN (or 27,000lbf). The indications are that these improvements will come on stream between 2005 and 2010, in time for the Typhoon’s Mid Life Upgrade expected around 2016.
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html
What reasons would favour selection of Eurojet rather than GE to power AMCA?
Spitfire9They hopfully will have ppl to meet them wherever they land, othervise its hard to refuel and reload the plane dont you think.
Is there ever a circumstance where the aircraft lands somewhere and there is no support? Pilots don’t land somewhere to have a walk around to stretch their legs before taking off again to continue their journey, do they?
Spitfire9Software for SDB II is around the corner. The only F-35 with an SDB II issue is F-35B, because its bay is smaller.
What went wrong? I don’t understand how the F-35B bay was designed in such a way that the SDB II would not fit unless SDB II postdates F-35B design. Then I would ask why SDB II was not designed to fit the F-35B bay.
Spitfire9Beat me to it. I was about to post the above.
This bit interests me: “Development and delivery of the Gripen NG avionics will last four years…” Does that mean no Gripen E deliveries for at least another 4 years? If it does, what are SAAB’s chances of landing a contract with any country needing aircraft before 2020?
Spitfire9Even if it were still 10-12 billion in then-year dollars there are other factors to consider:
1. It ain’t gonna be 12 billion in constant dollars
2. The weakness of the Rupee since 2012
3. The oft-repeated (possibly untrue) rumors that MoD had reported that some equipment they thought was included in the contract, was not.The Indian press has been reporting a total value of 18-21 billion for years now, not just some anonymous posters.
I think it is unfortunate that a $US value is quoted. What matters most to GOI is the number of rupees it needs to find to fund a Rafale procurement. What matters to Dassault is the number of euros it receives from a Rafale contract. Yes, the rupee has weakened since 2012. So has the euro. At the beginning of 2012 the euro/rupee rate was ~ 1:68. The rate now is ~ 1:70.
Spitfire9IAA has already started making wings.
Thanks. Did not know IAI had a MOU to produce a large number.
Spitfire9PARIS — A delegation of defense ministry officials in the US signed a contract over the weekend finalizing the purchase of 14 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35A fighters, the second such order signed by Israel to date.
The deal, approved last November by the Ministerial Committee on Nov. 30, is valued at $2.82 billion, the Israeli Ministry of Defense said in a Feb 22 statement issued in Hebrew.
This second contract, however, covers only half of the number of aircraft originally planned, but was scaled back owing to financial difficulties and continuing technical issues in the aircraft’s development, production and flight testing. The missing aircraft are now been turned into an option for 17 additional aircraft.
To date, Israel has ordered 33 F-35s, at “an average price of US $ 110 million per plane,” according to the MoD statement.
The price of this latest contract also includes development and integration of Israeli weapons, avionics and aircraft systems as well as logistical support, infrastructure, flight trainers and ground crews training, spare parts and maintenance capabilities in Israel.
These transactions include Elbit Systems’ contract for the production of unique pilot aircraft helmets and other aircraft parts. IAI will produce the wings and has been established for that purpose an advanced production line in Israel, while other companies in the country are involved in manufacturing the aircraft, its subsystems, its operating software and in training.
Well, it is interesting to hear that the aircraft suffers from “continuing technical issues in the aircraft’s development, production and flight testing”. After years and years of reading from LM and its supporters here that (a) everything was hunky dory with F-35 (b) when that proved to be a lie, everything was about to become hunky dory with F-35 (c) when (b) proved to be a lie, everything was about to become hunky dory with F-35 (d) when (c) proved to be a lie, everything was about to become hunky dory with F-35… it is refreshing to read that Israel seems to recognise that everything is NOT hunky dory with F-35.
But the reason I was drawn to post this: IAI is going to produce the wings? Sounds like insanity to me. Can anyone explain how setting up to manufacture wings just for 2 or 3 dozen aircraft is sane?
Spitfire9Interesting to read in the Eurofighter publication that the RAF are keenly anticipating AESA on the Typhoon so that they can carry out SEAD as well as use Meteor as it was intended.
Out of curiosity, why would they not be able to use Meteor as intended?
Spitfire9The idea that India will just drop the negotiations and just move to the next bidder seems absurd considering the complexities apparent. It took Dassault and the Indian MoD 3 years to get to this point. More than likely the whole MMRCA program would be dropped.
I seriously doubt that India wipe the slate clean and simply order F-18E/F’s.
I agree it is too late to switch horses on a tech transfer MMRCA aircraft. It’s Rafale or nothing in a tech transfer deal IMO. If Dassault knowingly underbid to win L1 and are now too expensive – too bad, it will mean no deal.
I don’t see the point in considering F/A-18. Might as well buy something Made in India (more MKI). At worst ramp up local production as much as is practical and buy more assembled frames direct from Russia if desperate. Ramp up Tejas Mk1 production, too. Preferably set up a second, non-HAL Tejas production line.
I’m sure a mix of an extra 125-200 Su30MKI/Tejas Mk1 will be far cheaper to build and operate than 125-200 Rafale. TOT? Pay a few $ billion to get help on designing, building and testing AMCA and the transfer of technology required to do so.
Spitfire9…anyway any western fighter and/or weapon is compromised like it was last time,
if Argentina has any intention of wrestling with any western nation,
so: only Chinese options left
I have not seen this reported here:
Argentina, China Could Jointly Develop Fighters
…Argentine’s President Cristina Kirchner traveled to Beijing, Feb. 2-5, and announced Argentina and China were creating a working group to facilitate the transfer of a variety of military equipment, including fighters. To further sweeten the pot, China takes Argentina’s position on the Falkland Islands and has compared the dispute to China’s sovereignty claims over disputed islands in the East and South China Seas.
Two types of Chinese fighters are candidates: The FC-1/JF-17 and the J-10, both built by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC).
Spitfire9Typhoon enhancement contract signed.
Alberto Gutierrez, the CEO of Eurofighter, said:
“This capability upgrade gives the Eurofighter Typhoon unrivalled full multi-role and swing-role capability. Although the prime focus is the introduction of the Brimstone 2 missile required by the UK RAF, P3E enhances the capabilities of the Storm Shadow long-range strike missile, the Meteor, Paveway IV and ASRAAM weapons, as well as introducing modifications to further improve the aircraft’s already impressive availability. Support for the contract will come from all four core nations and the enhancement package will benefit all who use it.”
Spitfire9There is no such thing as a MINIMUM production rate, only an actual production rate. Ramping up takes a lot of time.
Agreed. The 11 pa rate is the minimum Dassault is prepared to accept (in order to make a profit of acceptable level).
Since the Egyptians are paying for new planes (even if they get a couple of used ones initially), it means that Dassault will either have to ramp up, or someone will have to wait their turn.
Which is precisely what the French government wants – to wait longer until it is their turn to receive the aircraft ordered ie a slower delivery rate.
Now, this also means that Dassault (if they don’t ramp up) will have enough orders for 3-4 years and that gives them (a) enough time to bag UAE or Quatar, and (b) the comfort of not changing anything (who wants to do TOT) and still make money.
Perfect order from Dassault’s point of view IMO.
In contrast, the MRCA promises lots of problems over a longer period. So my point is really that Dassault could decide that it’s not worth the trouble of bending over backwards.
There is something seriously awry when potential buyer and seller disagree over something as fundamental as the reported HAL liability problem. It should be very clear to both parties whether this bone of contention was included in the RFP. In a way, the debate over this is ridiculous: the RFP will not have said that the buyer might require this or might not. It will have said in the RFP that the buyer required this, if that is true. All the GOI has to do is to draw Dassault’s attention to the relevant section(s) and clause(s) in the RFP to which Dassault responded to clarify. If they can’t do that, they are talking a load of b***ocks. If they can, Dassault are talking a load of b***ocks.
Spitfire9Stand up an industry based on Tejas?
HAL have existed for over 70 years. You know, the age gap from say, Boeing, to HAL is about 25 years. In those 70 intervening years, HAL have not closed that 25 year maturity gap.
At the end, they’ve produced something that almost equates to the Mirage 2000… which has only been in service for over 30 years. [Which is even worse considering Dassault and Snecma both helped out in the earlier days.]
I’m not sure it equates to the Mirage 2000. I think at the outset the idea of LCA was to produce an aircraft that would replace MiG-21’s (at the time) a long time into the future. Then there was upward capability creep which exacerbated other delays.
I don’t think that Tejas Mk1 costs as much as a Mirage 2000 would (if still in production).
I don’t think that Tejas Mk1 costs as much to fly per hour as Mirage 2000 costs.
I don’t think that Tejas Mk1 weapons will cost as much as Mirage 2000 weapons.
I don’t think that Tejas Mk1 MLU will cost the equivalent of Mirage 2000 MLU.
Spitfire9Originally Posted by Spitfire9
I wonder how much Indian bureacracy will put potential foreign partners off. If a country sees an opportunity of co-developing with India but needs things to happen according to schedule because it will need to retire old frames in x years etc, teaming up with a partner saddled with administrative nightmares seems very risky to me.
They are notoriously difficult to work with, no doubt. They also seem to think they can get everything on a silver platter, a state of the art aircraft, 100% tech transfer, complete local production, and all at an affordable price and on a reasonably short timeline…
The point I was making was not so much about how difficult it is to work with a partner. It is to do with certainty so that plans can be adhered to.
Take the case of Canada: because F-35 is so late and consequently not yet in full scale production, the cost to Canada to buy in time to retire F-18’s as scheduled is much higher than was expected. All the smoke and mirrors stunts by its advocates within the Canadian administration to hide its cost show this is the case. The upshot of this is that Canada will be extending the life of its F-18’s. BIG extra cost, that.
Or take the case of Australia: F-111’s should have been replaced with F-35. Because the F-35 was so many years behind schedule Australia was faced with forgoing the capability offered by F-111 entirely for several years or mitigating the capability shortfall by buying a gap filler. BIG extra cost, that.
So let’s just imagine India finds a partner capable on its own of developing an AMCA-style aircraft with a view to EIS in ten years to replace another type reaching the end of its life. The attraction of co-development to India’s partner is lower overall unit cost. However, uncertainty about schedule adherence is an important consideration to India’s development partner since failure to adhere to schedule risks a BIG extra cost for that partner. Given the comparative chaos that seems to reign in India, is co-development with India a risk worth taking?
Spitfire9also LOL at Japan joining with India. wet dreams.
Japan wouldn’t mind selling to them, but working with them? Ask the French and Russians how that went.
I wonder how much Indian bureacracy will put potential foreign partners off. If a country sees an opportunity of co-developing with India but needs things to happen according to schedule because it will need to retire old frames in x years etc, teaming up with a partner saddled with administrative nightmares seems very risky to me.
Sign In
