Conspiracy theories aimed at disturbing the Indo-US Alliance. There is nothing new in the article. These sorta things take their time, but any thing like squeezing India won’t work.
As I said the Impetus is one these people. Give us good terms or we walk away as simple as that.
Its pretty clear that India isn’t happy with end-user agreement. and for US foreign military sales, its mandatory. TOT means a lot more agreements have to be signed and hence more delays to sort out issues if US Aircraft is selected. worrying thing for India here is delay, politicians simply will delay it for years saying that things haven’t been resolved with US. if Congress is elected next time, they won’t simply walk away without delaying the whole thing for many years.
India Balks at C-130, P-8 Restrictions
http://www.defensenews.com
WASHINGTON and NEW DELHI – Washington’s restrictions on resale and other conditions could dampen New Delhi’s interest in American defense goods, said officials, excutives, and observers in both countries.
As the world’s aerospace industry converges on Bangalore for the biennial Aero India exhibition, Indian officials say they won’t accept Washingon’s standard conditions for U.S. arms customers, including that customers seek permission before reselling U.S. equipment.
“We’re frustrated at both sides that this has been an issue for at least two-and-a-half or three years now and we haven’t found a way to come to closure on it,” said Jeffrey Kohler, Boeing vice president of international strategy for Integrated Defense Systems Business Development and the former head of the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA).
The End Use Monitoring (EUM) provision “has been an issue all along,” Kohler said. “We’ve sort of pushed it down the road while the two governments work on it. But we’re reaching a very critical point now. Lockheed is reaching a critical point on the C-130. We [Boeing] now have a major contract that, obviously, we would like to see this issue resolved.”
If no agreement is reached this year on EUM language, Kohler said, “There will be a serious blow to the relationship and, obviously, it would make it virtually impossible for U.S. defense companies to work with the Indians.”
The annual value of U.S. arms sales to India is set to soar from tens of millions of dollars to billions this year. U.S. defense sales to India totaled $76.4 million in 2007, according to the U.S.-based Aerospace Industries Association. Then came 2008, in which New Delhi agreed to buy six Lockheed Martin C-130Js for $596 million, and last month, when the government agreed to buy eight Boeing P-8I maritime reconnaissance planes for $2.1 billion.
With Boeing and Lockheed competing for India’s $10 billion fighter jet contract, and New Delhi’s interest in ballistic missile defense systems, such as Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and the Aegis combat system, some believe the United States could be on track to become India’s top weapon supplier, displacing Russia, which sold the country arms worth more than $2 billion last year.
But disagreements over post-sale limits could stop that from happening.
‘Will Not Comply’?
Several Indian Defence Ministry officials said privately that New Delhi will not comply with EUMs and other export-control limitations that Washington requires of its weapon customers. They said the government has promised on several occasions not to share U.S. weapon technology with other countries. But they said India will not be told how and where to operate the equipment it buys for its own military.
Among the limitations they cited were the EUM, which would allow U.S. officials to block retransfers of the planes; the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement, which guides the sharing of sensitive information between two nations; and the Logistics Supply Agreement, which regulates things such as logistics support and fuel for fighter jets and naval warships.
Indian Defence Ministry spokes-man Sitanshu Kar said the two countries were discussing these issues, but he declined to elaborate.
Sources in both countries said India wants the United States to alter the EUM provisions.
Rick Kirkland, president for South Asia of Lockheed Martin Global, said the United States and India are discussing how to implement “a number of agreements,” including EUMs, for U.S.-India trade in general.
“All of these agreements, of which End Use Monitoring is one of them, are going to need to be put in place and understood and accepted so we can get to the point where we’re dealing in the same construct with India that we are with all the other countries that we do defense business with,” Kirkland said. “I’m very confident these are all issues that are going to be resolved.”
DSCA spokesman Charles Taylor said his agency has no plans to change EUM requirements or exempt any country.
But he said DSCA Director Vice Adm. Jeffrey Wieringa recently met with Indian officials to talk about India’s defense acquisition strategies. He declined to say whether new guidelines on EUM provisions resulted.
India has shown in the past they “will sign contracts that have the End Use Monitoring terms and conditions contained,” Taylor said.
However, one Indian Defence Ministry official said, U.S. and Indian officials modified the EUM in at least one other deal: the 2005 purchase of three Boeing business jets for the Indian Air Force squadron that ferries top dignitaries. A senior Indian Navy official said the agreement still contains the provision for physical annual verification by U.S. officials, but Washington has said the provision won’t be implemented strictly unless concerns arise.
C-130s, P-8I
Sources said India has been reluctant to sign EUM provisions in the C-130J deal.
Sources in India and the United States said New Delhi either did not sign EUM provisions as part of the C-130J deal or agreed to terms that temporarily delay the signing of those conditions.
Lockheed’s Kirkland said he doesn’t know whether India agreed to the EUM conditions. He said Lockheed is not party to those provisions in the government-to-government deal. But he said New Delhi had signed the letter of offer and acceptance, the government-to-government agreement.
The DSCA’s Taylor said that, to his knowledge, India has signed an EUM for the C-130Js as well as for the 2007 sale of the USS Trenton, an amphibious warship now called the INS Jalashwa.
“When they signed the [C-130J] agreement, they signed to accept the terms and conditions of everything contained, and contained in that are the terms for the End Use Monitoring,” said Taylor, whose agency handles foreign military sales and notification to Congress of those sales.
Lockheed already has started building the C-130Js for India, with the first plane set for delivery in January 2011.
As for the P-8I deal, India has signed no EUM provisions, one Indian Defence Ministry source said. He said the Boeing aircraft won’t arrive before the end of 2013, so the Indian government can buy time until then to sign the EUM provisions for the deal.
Boeing and the Indian government have agreed to the P-8I sale, but the deal is still undergoing the process of notification to Congress, according to Kohler.
Unlike the C-130J purchase, a foreign military sale handled through the DoD, the P-8I deal is a direct commercial sale in which the selling company obtains export licenses for the planes and the agreement between the company and the country contains retransfer or EUM provisions. The U.S. State Department regulates this type of sale but isn’t a party to it.
Other Countries
Many European countries don’t have end-user conditions as strict as the U.S. ones, but they do evaluate the risk that equipment might be sold to a third party. British officials were displeased in 2006 when India sold two Britten Norman maritime patrol aircraft to Myanmar, which is under a European Union arms embargo.
Britain complained to New Delhi and received a “one-finger salute,” according to one defense exports specialist in the United Kingdom. The specialist said India might sell more equipment to Myanmar, perhaps surplus Britten Norman patrol aircraft, and there is little Britain can do about it.
Israel, which sells more arms to India than to any other country, tightened its defense export controls last year to require that the end user be clearly defined on all export licenses and contracts signed by authorized defense goods sellers in Israel. As with the U.S. system, the buyer in the deal must seek Israel’s approval for resale of the product.
But there are no procedures to make sure that happens, an Israel Ministry of Defense official said.
“There’s no way we conduct an investigation or inspection in customer countries,” the official said. He said Israel is counting on the strengthened export procedures to forestall problems with retransferred exports, and there have been no violations so far.
Last year’s U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal may strengthen defense ties, but India’s ties with Iran, including security cooperation agreements, may make U.S. and Israeli officials wary.
Nevertheless, observers see U.S. firms and officials continuing their vigorous pursuit of Indian defense business.
“Ultimately, what the U.S. does will depend upon their national interests and international strategic aspirations,” said Ravi Vohra, retired Indian Navy Rear Adm. and director of the New Delhi-based National Maritime Foundation. “India has placed several important orders with U.S. companies. Thus the window has opened and I do not think the American companies, having got a foothold in India after several years, would want their government to scuttle future chances.”
this is not at all good for Viper and SH.
go Rafale 😀
I think if Major wants AESA only, he must order individual AESA rdars for existing fighters in the IAF like Su-30 and even Tejas (as per Col. Ajai Shukla, Tejas was offered AESA radars by EADs last year).
It would be more economical than ordering entire jets, simply because they come pre-installed with AESA radars. It may be proof of how “hare-brained” the MRCA scheme may be (pardon the use of the word).
but then they will have to redesign AESA for smaller tejas and bigger Su-30. also we have a JV with Israel on LCAs Radar.
Chief says they need 75Kn Engine for LCA and F404 won’t do it but then F404 provides 78KN.
interview with AF Chief. posted by ante.
How important is the AESA Radar specification for MMRCA?
We need a weapons mix where you can switch roles. The kind of weapons must be mission compliant. The type of weapons we are looking for must have architecture that is capable of integration. AESA is important because it provides tremendours situational awareness
What types of aircraft will MMRCA replace?
We shall be phasing out Mig variants. The Mig-23s in our fleet will go, as well a portion of Mig-27 inventory.What will be the deciding factors for MMRCA?
The best guy wins. When we start evaluations, the aircraft should have what we asked for. We want stringent product support and lifecycle management program and offsets. The qualitative requirements have been fair in looking for capability and reliability.When will first MMRCA units be inservice?
The first planes should come 2013. Flight evaluations should start by March or April this year.When does the IAF plan to introduce Sukhoi’s fifth generation PAK-FA fighter into Squadron service?
When we are talking of fifth gen, we are talking of a plane that can replace MMRCA. We are talking of a huge time frame with design and development. If the MMRCA enters service in 2012-2013, it would be atleast 2018 before we start talking about Fifth Gen.on Tejas development status
The LCA is expected by end of 2011. We ordered 20 to equip our first squadron. These will be initial operational standards. We have also ordered 10-12 twin seat versions as trainers so that HAL can keep its assembly lines working.on Tejas Engine
A new engine will be integrated by 2011. We need five squadrons of the Tejas Mk2 LCAs. The engine should be easier to integrate. We are looking at 75 KN of thrust. The GE F404 won’t do. When integrated, the LCA Mk2 should fly in 2013.on asking if JF-17 fighter is threat
The JF-17 is a fairly good plane, though there is nothing sensational about it. It is a class of lower than the F-16. I flew the simulator at Singapore air show. It is capable, but nothing that bothers me.on delays in Mirage 2000 upgrade deal
we should see initiation of upgrade project in couple if months. The upgraded aircraft will start rolling out and enter operational service withint 2-3 years.
if IAF likes A2A capabilities of Typhoon (which ofcoz they will), they would definitely consider it, CAPTOR cannot taken granted for. four euro airforces would’t induct it with CAPTOR for no reason. in any case they should be able deliver production AESA by 2012-2013.
To
Sintra and others…who disputed an earlier dti claim that MIG 35 AESA radar has a range of 300 Kms
DTI again claims that the detection range of MIG 35-AESA radar is near 300 kms
250-280 for a fully populated array. 140 km for the current working array.
Page 33 dti Ferbuary 2009
http://www.zinio.com/express3?issue=368748439
Also to notice that in the same issue. The ACM of the IAF, Fali H Major states this – ‘When we start evaluations, the aircraft should have what we asked for’ – note at the start of evaluations not when the stuff is delivered. This for me will rule out Gripen NG and Eurofighter as AESA is one of the stated requirements and neither have one ready at the time of evaluation. In short it points in the direction of the American Jets and Rafale.
Can you plz post the whole article. i am unable to open that website.
BTW is it anywhere given that AESA is mandatory for MMRCA. Eurofighters Radar is probably the best MSA availaible, should be comparable to Bars on MKI. accepting first one or two squadrons with captor and then going for AESA is good enough.
We will have the LCA even if costs more than the MRCA :). It may not make economical sense but there’s a lot at stake including national pride.
its not just pride but about self sufficiency that India always aimed. we have seen how can big players like Russia and US **** off their customers. if US does it with sanctions, Russia is now doing it with delays, cost escalation etc. another worrying part was, a lot of weapon systems secrets will be with them, and they can pass their classified info about its strength and weakness to our enemies anytime. atleast with western, you are sure that development of product complete and ready made but with Russia, india will end up funding their developments only to suffer from their industry inefficiency (just like they failed to figure out how much the work/money will have to into Gorshy), So Armed forces end up giving a push their industry instead of ours.
IAF will obviously not have LCA if it costs more than MMRCA and is also less capable. it would be absurd. BTW its simply impossible that LCA will cost more than any MMRCA fighter, even Gripen or Mig-35.
In my view, the Aero-India shows have been reduced merely to “parades”, where the MRCA contenders come every two years to “woo” IAF. The same excercise was done 2 years ago also.
It may be unfortunate that IAF is entertaining x, y and z from across the world, when a fraction of the $10 bn that it intends to “splurge” on this MRCA, could easily have been used to buy the best consultancy speed up the Tejas project, besides making a Mk.II version comparable to Gripen-NG or F-16 Block 52.
All these years, ADA has worked all alone, with the intended end-user, the IAF, pointing the “nose” the other way. At the 11th hour, it comes and demands from ADA that engine thrust is insufficient, the ASRs are not met etc. & etc. & etc.By now, Tejas Mk.1 would have long been inducted and a Mk.II version commenced work. By now, MCA would have completed preliminary studies and scale modelling and testing would have begun.
Unfortunately IAF’s utter neglect towards indigenous industry has resulted in the slowdown of Tejas project.
In my view, this behaviour of IAF is irresponsible given that ADA is working for it, and not any other Air-Force.
about the engine. you should look into this.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200902061122.htm
“We are looking to procure either the GE-414 from US or European consortium Eurojet’s EJ 200 to fly with the LCA Mk II version,” Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) Director P Subrahmanyam told PTI here.
“Since the beginning, we knew that the present engine would be the interim solution as it is adequate for the IOC aircraft. We are looking to get the higher derivatives of GE-414 or EJ-200,” he said, adding “we told them (GE and Eurojet) that whatever you have on your drawing boards, we will go ahead with that”.
This is LCAs director speaking, So it wasn’t IAF which asked for higher thrust in 11th hour.
The South Koreans would be the ideal place based on cost, quality, and schedule. For an Indian built IAC………Clearly, Europe and the US could do as good or better. But never as low or even more important on-time!
but then indigenous industry needs to given priority. perhaps if Navy ties with private shipbuilder instead of govt one, things would happen much faster and definitely on time.
Brace yourselves for the ‘Luftwaffe’ at AeroIndia 2009
URL
BANGALORE: Brace yourselves for the ‘Luftwaffe’, which dominated the skies over Europe with their tactical fighters during World War- II, and will soon be seen over the city skies. But this time they will not be unleashing their blitzkrieg doctrine which they resorted to during the War and instead will be indulging in different tactics to woo the audience at the Aero India 2009 and also create an lasting impression on the Indian Air Force (IAF).
Four Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft belonging to the German Air Force will arrive at the Air Force Station, Yelahanka on February 5 to take part in the bi-annual show. The Eurofighter Typhoon, which will be making it’s debut in India, is among the six contenders that are lobbying to bag the contract for the 126 multi-role combat aircraft from the IAF. Officials from European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company(EADS), which is the major partner in the Eurofighter consortium, told Expresso that the four aircraft belonging to the German Air Force will take part in the airshow. “A total of four Eurofighter Typhoons will be seen at Aero India for the first time. The aircraft which comprises both the single and two seater seat variants, will also be taking part in the flight displays,” said an official.
This is the first time the German Air Force is sending it’s fighters outside Europe since the World War-II. Post war, the German Air Force has been largely confined to self defence.
“The decision to fly it’s aircraft to India is seen as a step where the Germans want to open up. This is seen as an exposure for a long range deployment and future NATO assignments in Afghanistan,” said defence sources. The German Air Force is also toying with the idea of having a guest to co-pilot the Eurofighter Typhoon which is considered to be a highly agile air superiority and air-to-surface, multirole / sw i n g – r o l e weapon system, making it the most capable front line fighter available.
does anyknow the status of Mi-46 development? its apparently competitng with Chinook and CH-53K for IAF Mi-26 replacements.
Has the Apg-80 been offered to the Indian Air force formally (i would definately want to see something on that) , I would think for NG it would be better to offer the SABR and have that developed with the work and help of the indians , atleast from a sheer buisness stand point developing the SABR would be better for NG and with india’s help (money) they could push it forward , because at some point the USAF would definately require new radars for its vipers and the SABR will cater to that market very well. Moreover for India it means no legal tangles with UAE and they can cater the SABR to there own requirments (pakistan cant get anything on the SABR from UAE for example).
its not just radar but India also wants technology and local production. thats a real political issue. there are still questions about how much TOT US Govt will allow, source codes etc. india is also not entirely happy with end user agreements which she has to sign for buying US arms. Now that US would offer technology, they would expect India to sign more comprehensive on agreement on IP, physical verification etc. there also question as to how much cuztomization will US allow.
1) Most probly a bigger radar because of a bigger nose. Even the P5 radar was suposed to detect a/c targets @ 150 odd km iirc.
you mean to say Gripens nose is bigger than F-16s?
an exciting article for the new thread.
Supersonic Sales Call
airspacemag
If you want a customer to spend $10 billion on your jet fighters, you gotta bust some Mach.
The Eurofighter Typhoon, armed for sales combat, will take on Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Ricardo Traven, Boeing’s chief corporate test pilot for the Super Hornet, was physically in a briefing room at Naval Air Station Cecil Field near Jacksonville, Florida, one sweaty day last June. But mentally, as he prepared to fly a practice routine in the F/A-18E/F, he was eight months ahead and 10,000 miles away at Aero India, a corporate airshow at Air Force Station Yelahanka, near Bangalore. As he moved the imaginary control stick between his knees, he was flying at 550 mph 200 feet off the ground, competing for one of the biggest fighter contracts in history: 126 aircraft valued at $10 billion.
The potential customer, the Indian air force, is looking to replace its aging fleet of cold war-era MiG-21s. Though India has traditionally looked east for arms, Traven’s job is to fly his F/A-18 so well during the course of the February 11–15 airshow that the business goes to Boeing instead. That means each day at the show, he must put the Super Hornet, 30 percent larger than the original F/A-18, through its most aggressive maneuvers with a couple of tons of armament beneath the wings, afterburners going almost nonstop, in order to convince military and other government brass to buy the aircraft.
“I close my eyes when I go through the routine in my mind,” Traven says of the preflight ritual. “I’m meditating. I visualize every maneuver in my head, taking into account weather and the wind and what I should expect to see as a result of those variables. No surprises.” With precision, he performs eight basic maneuvers, each followed by a repositioning maneuver, all in six minutes, a blur to the spectator but a routine hardwired in Traven’s head. He retraces each one in detail before every flight, practice or primetime.
Okay, so not much different from the way most safety-obsessed show pilots would rehearse their moves. But a bad performance by Traven carries bottom-line, balance-sheet consequences for a global aerospace corporation: diminished prestige, lost revenue, perhaps even the early closing of a production line, with the resulting loss of jobs. He’s well aware that one wrong flinch of the hand on the control stick could send a supersonic sales pitch toward the ground, killing more than just a sale.
The same goes for the other five contenders heading to Bangalore: Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Fighting Falcon; the Eurofighter Typhoon, made by a European consortium led by EADS; the Dassault Rafale from France; the Saab Gripen from Sweden; and the Russian Aircraft Corporation’s MiG-35. The MiG will be the only aircraft to offer thrust-vectoring engines (see “How Things Work: Thrust Vectoring,” June/July 2008), which steer exhaust in any direction and let the jet dance in mid-air. (The thrust-vectoring Lockheed Martin F-22 is not for sale abroad.)
To try to land this contract, each company will rely on a team of professionals, from the CEO to the engineers who build and prep the aircraft. Plenty of corporate schmoozing will happen behind the scenes. But the most visible element of the process is the test pilot, the man who performs the aerial display and gives the test drive. “A chief of an air force,” says Traven, “wants to talk to a pilot.”
Traven might put on a business suit for a company event in the evening, but more likely, he contributes during the day, appearing in the booth, briefing room, or chalet in his flightsuit, available for questions from the people qualified to ask them.
“Any country that evaluates a plane has a team doing it,” says Traven. “On that team will be test pilots who score the aircraft. They need to like the aircraft to recommend it for purchase. So we meet those folks, and take them flying.”
The test drive is a golden opportunity for a salesman to land a sale. For the corporate test pilot, that means guiding the customer through a demo flight. The majority of riders are active military pilots who fly only after preflight simulations with a team of trainers, and cockpit coaching from the test pilot—a minefield of language and cultural differences. A slip of the tongue could destroy rapport with a potential buyer.
Mary Ann Brett, a Boeing public relations representative for the Super Hornet who travels everywhere Traven does, notes that Boeing counts on him for more than flying. “We’ve brought him into our marketing meetings for his expertise about the aircraft, and for his unique perspective on the customer’s requirements,” she says. Ricardo picks up on a lot in the cockpit, when he’s demo’ing the airplane to the customer, that only he can apply to discussions once on the ground—with either the customer, to explain why the airplane does what it does, or to the Boeing team, to get them to understand what the customer is really interested in or concerned about, likes, etc.”
Corporate test pilots prepare a mix of shows: a high show, when good weather permits an imaginary “box” for the pilot to climb to 5,000 feet or more; a medium show, when cloudy weather brings the top of this maneuvering box down to 3,000 feet or lower; and a low show, 1,500 feet above the runway. Any lower and the aircraft simply isn’t flown. Pilots work to visualize that box beforehand with their own preflight rituals.
“All the display pilots do this,” says MiG test pilot Pavel Vlasov. “You have to cut away the secondary data and concentrate on your immediate mission.” Vlasov and fellow test pilot Mikhail Belyaev approach their jets before each display, contorting their bodies to mimic the movements of the routine in a “walking sortie.” To the casual observer, the pilots seem to be dancing a strange tarmac ballet.
“It [the flight plan] has to be crystal clear when you walk to your jet,” says Phillipe Duchateau, Dassault’s test pilot. “If not, chances are you’ll screw up, since there’s not much thinking capacity left when pulling 9 Gs.” To him, any airplane demands respect. “You can have 5,000 hours on fast jets and still kill yourself in a Cessna trying to impress your grandma.”
Airshow officials ground pilots for any deviation from the box. Thanks to strict safety rules, few test pilots have crashed at airshows in recent years. But going back a few decades, there have been tragedies, such as two test pilots who fatally crashed the Northrop F-20 Tigershark during demonstrations in the mid-1980s. Northrop failed to sell a single F-20 (see “The Airplane Nobody Wanted,” Aug./Sept. 2000). The Soviets lost two Tu-144 supersonic transports, one at the 1973 Paris Air Show in an accident that killed all six people on board and eight more on the ground, and destroyed 15 houses. They failed to sell the Tu-144 abroad, and Aeroflot retired it in 1978.
“There’s an old saying that’s been kicked around,” says Troy Pennington, who flew for the Marine Corps for two decades before he became Lockheed Martin’s F-16 test pilot. “ ‘Are you lucky, or are you good?’ Risk management is something of a pervasive attitude for us.” The day of the show, Pennington repeats the display in his mind countless times, and refers to his deep concentration as “being in the bubble.” Two hours early, he heads to the portable maintenance shed near the runway. “When I come out to the airplane, all my maintenance guys are out there and we’re jokin’. But there’s a point in time where I will walk away to be by myself in the bubble.”
The job attracts the sort of pilot able to handle high levels of corporate expectations and public scrutiny. Candidates are chosen from an international military pool and all the top test pilot schools—Pennington, for instance, graduated from the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School in Patuxent River, Maryland, and has more than 6,000 hours in 31 aircraft types.
All the test pilots who will fly at Aero India are superachievers, and the corporations they work for are highly competitive. “It’s like watching caged wrestlers in a slap-down fight,” says Traven, referring to the intense corporate elbowing already in progress.
In Pavel Vlasov, the Russians may have an advantage beyond their historically good relationship with India’s air force. He is considered a master of the MiG, according to his fellow pilots. The corporate test pilot, Vlasov says, “stands out among his colleagues. However, he displays only the visible part of an iceberg.”
Adds Vladimir Barkovsky, deputy general director of the Russian Aircraft Corporation, “In Russia we enjoy a cult of the personality. Historically, Russian pilots are revered personalities because of the attitude towards them within our country…. We love heroes.”
Yet it’s the capabilities of each aircraft that will ultimately determine who wins the contract. The airplanes differ in weight, from the nimble F-16, which may weigh as little as 13 tons, to the Rafale and Super Hornet, in excess of 20 tons with stores.
“Each pilot showcases what his plane does best,” says Gripen test pilot Magnus Lewis-Olsson. “From the Sopwith Camel to the F-22, there is no single aircraft that can do everything. So you show what it is you can do.” The highlights of an F-16 performance are effortless vertical climbs; of the F/A-18, barrel rolls with armament; of the MiG, cobra-like high-angle-of-attack maneuvers and controlled stalls.
However, with safety a chief concern, pilots often put aside competition in favor of cooperation. They see one another regularly at all the shows, and in some cases have known one another for years.
“In our opinion there is no competition when you get on that side of the ramp,” said Lockheed’s Pennington on a July day last year. He pointed toward where the demonstration jets were parked beyond throngs of well-heeled businessmen at the Farnborough International Air Show in Hampshire, England. (“Farnborough,” as it is known, is held every other summer to alternate with the Paris Air Show.) “We leave the competition…over here with the guys in suits. The airshow pilot business is camaraderie. It’s a club.”
Traven, who also flew at Farnborough last summer, agrees that the competing pilots look out for one another. “I’ve literally climbed down from the cockpit at the end of a demo, run over to the Russian plane waiting to take off, and crawled up the ladder to tell him the tower is calling the clouds at 4,000 feet when they’re really at 3,000.”
For big airshows, these pilots train for months, and in Traven’s case attend to details as specific as the content of daily meals. Each day’s preparation is an exact replica of the previous one, with his display coach, safety officer, and an engineer constantly assessing the routine’s risk levels. Traven flies the Super Hornet with plenty of room for error 5,000 feet above the Florida coast near Cecil Field to define the box in which he maneuvers. He repeats the display twice daily, creating a descending “ground line” in the sky until he brings the performance down to 500 feet above the runway.
Why Cecil Field? It’s the southernmost facility in the United States where Boeing can support F/A-18 operations. It’s hot. It’s humid. It’s like Bangalore, where, despite being 3,000 feet above sea level, it can be 100 degrees Fahrenheit in February. It makes sense to practice in a similar climate to pinpoint how the engines and flight control surfaces will respond. “I can’t find a hot spot in the U.S. 3,000 feet above sea level,” Traven says.
In November Traven traveled to India to further prepare for the February show. “I met with the airshow organizer,” he says. “I met with the guy that will be the air boss in charge of actual flying displays.” It’s about familiarization with the base, landmarks, and flying rules. He then assembles a routine he can do in his sleep.
Aero India will differ from the other major international shows. “We’re not flying the Indian show for a host of countries,” says Traven. “We’re flying the show for India. That is a very focused and intentional airshow. There’s a lot at stake. There’s a lot of pressure.”
Nonetheless, Farnborough, which, along with Paris, has become known for major orders of airliners, still offered a good audition for all the fighter pilots honing their acts for India. And those routines took off and landed rapid-fire, as they do at all the big international shows. The most marked difference between a corporate test pilot’s demonstration flight at Farnborough, Paris, or Aero India and a military pilot’s recruiting flight at a military airshow is that the corporate pilot is given much less time—rarely more than six minutes, sometimes as much as eight, as will be allotted at Aero India. That’s because there’s plenty of business to take care of on the ground at a corporate show.
“These international shows, they’re more tradeshow than airshow,” says Traven. “They’re filled with contractors that supply the industry. There are hangars full of them. You almost have to go see it to believe it.” With meetings and negotiations starting early in the morning and running through the day, he says, the noise and spectacle of a fighter demo create a distraction. So all the flying happens in a few scheduled hours, say noon to 3 p.m., and the pilots are expected to observe strict time limits.
“It is a very exhilarating six minutes,” says Pennington. “It is a helmet fire, and it’s very busy, physically demanding, physically straining and stressful, mentally stressful, both in the preparation and actually in the event itself.”
“You barely get to breathe,” says Traven. “It’s really like one continuous maneuver. You’re in afterburner almost the whole time. I burn a thousand pounds [of fuel] a minute.” Because he chooses to carry stores under the wing to portray the airplane in an operational configuration, Traven has to counter drag, and uses the afterburners that much more. By contrast, the ordinary military pilot at a Memorial Day show at some U.S. Air Force base might be in afterburner only about half the total flight time, he says.
To keep things short, corporate show pilots have to perform within that imaginary box right over the runway. In the case of Paris, the constraints also keep performers away from airline traffic at nearby Charles de Gaulle International Airport. Military pilots at a military show, on the other hand, get to stretch out in a radius perhaps five miles around the show center, while enjoying 15 or 20 minutes to set up and execute an array of graceful maneuvers. Shows by Britain’s Red Arrows or the U.S. Air Force’s Thunderbirds exceed half an hour.
Not so in Traven’s world. “There’s a relevance for every maneuver I do, and that’s to display the capabilities of the plane to the military operational pilot and senior decision makers.”
Still, he says, part of his job is to go “beyond extremes, so that the end-user, when he needs it, can push within a window of safety. We don’t fly up to the ‘edge,’ we go over the cliff. We then come back and we draw a line in the sand for others that says, ‘Cliff here.’ ”
The gee-whiz factor of a public display is undeniably important. Says Dave Desmond, another Boeing test pilot, “The international airshow scene caters to two fronts: the public that attends to enjoy the thrill and the noise, but who probably doesn’t fully appreciate the significance of the maneuvering dynamics, and the potential customer, who is keenly assessing the capabilities being displayed.”
“You want to be able to win the hearts and minds of your customer and the public, and there can’t be room for any disappointment,” says Craig Penrice, a former Eurofighter test pilot. “You can’t replace the moment.” He learned that lesson just before a flight at a foreign airshow when a problem arose with an inertial system that helps control the airplane’s attitude. “From the marketing standpoint, there was an expectation level [to take off], but I had to cancel the flight,” says Penrice. The company eventually made the sale, but “we learned to always bring two airplanes.”
With multiple airplanes on hand, the six companies and their pilots, ready for business, head to India. There they’ll light the afterburners and trace out their Power Point presentations in the sky, and hope to win a few hearts, a few minds, and all the dollars.
————————–
i am hoping to see all six birds at aeroindia.