FORCE October 2009
http://www.forceindia.net

Chairman, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Ashok Nayak

What preparations have you done at HAL regarding the M-MRCA, including talks with competitor companies for absorption of offsets, creation of new or more infrastructures, and hiring of manpower?

It is too early to talk about all this. As you know, the MRCA has six contenders and currently the field evaluation trials are going on. HAL is participating in this to evaluate the maintenance aspects. Regarding the offsets, a clearer picture will emerge after the selection of the aircraft. Once that happens, HAL will initiate talks with the selected company to align its infrastructure to meet the offsets obligation. We have a fairly dedicated export-oriented unit for aerospace structures. We hope to increase this division to meet some of the offset obligations in respect of structures. Depending upon what further needs to be done in this particular area, we will increase the infrastructure.

What he really meant :- You see, in our 70 years of existence, we at HAL have had a State-gifted monopoly in the supply and manufacture of aircraft. So, why should we be bothered to design anything on our own ? We just buy the licence and manufacture, because we are the unchallenged middlemen between the IAF and foreign companies. That’s why we contributed in the abject neglect of Tejas and lobbied very hard for this MRCA.

Compare us not with Embraer and Boeing, but with PAC Kamra. We are the No. 1 licence producer and copier in Asia !

Also, when we are very happy making doors for Boeing, why should we make our own airliners ? Let there be an HAL in every Boeing and Airbus than just HAL designed jets flying.

Director General Sukhoi, Michail A. Pogosyan said at MAKS-2009 that the Russian fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) prototype’s maiden flight will happen by end-2009 and that the basic version of the Indian and Russian FGFA is similar with software changes only. Is this correct? What does this mean for HAL in terms of sharing work, transfer of technology, intellectual property rights issues, and time-frame for the evolution of the Indian aircraft? He also mentioned that Indians could later look at a two-seat aircraft and a naval version.

I would not like to comment on Mr Pogosyan’s statement and you may take it as the current status.

What he really meant :- I told Pogosyan to keep quite, but … !

The Indian version obviously cannot be very different from the Russian version.

Real meaning :- HAL’s marketing director Fakhruddin was lying when he said that FGFA would be very different from Russia’s PAK-FA.

Certain modifications according to the technical requirements will be incorporated in the Indian version and these have already been discussed in detail between HAL and IAF. This then, is the starting point. As you know, it takes a few years between the prototype flight and the acceptance of an aircraft, this time will be utilised between Russia and India to work closely on the Indian version.

Real meaning :- Only the IAF has confided to HAL in what it wants in the FGFA. But the Russians have finalized and frozen the design. I don’t know with what face should I request them to incorporate IAF’s desires. It’s been 3 years since HAL has been haggling with Sukhoi….but

I would also like to dispel a prevalent notion that while India will pay 50 per cent of the money, it may just get about 10 per cent of the work-share. This will not happen.

Real meaning : I’d like to dispel the myth that India will share even 10% of the technological work. It’s more like 0.10 %.

You see, I’ve always admired those shiekhs of Saudi Arabia around whom westerners prance around for money. This was my moment. I’m the rich guy and I love to see those cash-starved Russians ask me for money.

What is the progress on the Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA) with Russia?

An amendment to the Inter-Government Agreement (IGA) on the MTA has been sent to the Russians. Once we get their signature on this amendment, work on MTA will start. According to the amendment, while India and Russia are equal partners, on the Russian side the partnership will be represented jointly by the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and Rosoboronexport. Meanwhile, various agreements and memorandums have already been vetted by both sides and once the amendment to IGA is signed by the Russian side, further progress will begin. For your information, we are going to Russia in September for our regular bilateral meetings, where the MTA issue will also come up. I am hopeful that things will finally start moving in September on this matter.

Real meaning : What did you say ? NAL ? Indigenous 90-seater RTA ? I only know HAL and MTA, which we will develop in a 50% joint venture, equal collaborative partnership in tandem with Russia. I don’t know any local satraps like NAL, PAL …..

HAL will work with IAI Malat on this project. The IAI Malat will make the first UAV and the remaining seven out of an expected order of eight from the navy will be made by HAL.

Real meaning : First IAI Malat will make the first UAV, and then we will promptly copy. Copying is also an art. I’m proud to announce that we’ve mastered it.

What do you think about the future of the LCA?

The IAF has already ordered 20 LCA MkI aircraft and they are also talking of an order of a few trainers of the same class to keep the line going. ADA has also issued an RFP for the new engine. This, of course, will mean design modifications on the aircraft, which will be a fairly major work.

Real meaning : LCA is an ADA project simply thrust on the already highly JV’ed shoulders of HAL. I told IAF can’t we contact China to jointly manufacture their J-10 in a 50-50 venture ? Or the Koreans ? How about the Japanese Misubishi fighters ?

Almost complete nonsense. Whether an engine is more suited for supersonic flight or subsonic flight depends moreso on bypass ratio (BPR) and exhaust velocities, than sheer thrust. Generally the higher the BPR the lower the exhaust velocity and vice versa and generally the engine designed for a particular performance regime will be more efficient IN that regime than an engine designed for another.

EJ2000 reportedly has a BPR of 0.4:1 whereas the F404 has a BPR of 0.34:1. If correct the F404 has a lower BPR, which should result in higher exhaust velocity (and better high speed performance) than the EJ2000.

Bearing in mind the EJ2000 also is a higher thrust engine than the F404-402, the F404 powered aircraft “should” have better “high speed” performance and be more economical at these high speeds.

However the Eurofighter is generally accredited with much better high speed performance capability than the F/A-18C. This appears a complete contradiction, doesn’t it?

So how can you say the Eurofighter has “better” fuel efficiency than the F/A-18C based on engine thrust?

The fact is however that there is SO many variables in these equations that simplistic answers are next to useless…

See, the point is that Typhoon requires lesser thrust to reach the same speed than an F-18 C (on virtue of it’s design, or engine or whatever). So, it manages to not only supercruise without afterburners, but also expends lesser fuel for the same thrust — at any speed. Thus, it has greater range.

That is why it has survived the stringent range requirements expected of a fighter of 11 tons. Actually, if we take Gripen as the benchmark, then a fighter of 11 tons must indeed have 160 kN of thrust (like F-18 C), if the Gripen’s proportions are to be maintained. However, when the airframe is strengthened to carry specialized heavy payloads like nukes and cruise missiles, the take-off weight increases drastically to have range implications. Hence, more fuel is needed (like E/F Super-Hornett) or a better design like supercruise et. al (like Typhoon).

Now, we must cease discussions on F-18 C.

It must be noted that the MiG-35 is also in the weight class of the Typhoon. However, it too has had to increase it’s internal fuel to 4,500 kgs (to ~5 tons of Typhoon) AND engine thrust upto 172 kN (180 kN of Typhoon), to have an acceptable range (like n the MRCA specifications). Only because it carries lesser payload than even the F-16, can it be guaranteed to have equivalent range as the Typhoon; otherwise with 500 kg less fuel and 8 kN less thrust and no supercruise, it was bound to have somewhat lesser range than Typhoon.

F/A-18C
empty weight: 23,050 lbs (10,455.4 kg)
internal fuel capacity: 1,700 gal (6,435.2 L) ~11,390 lbs (5,166.5 kg) [JP-8 @6.7 lbs/gal, add 1.5% weight for JP-5]
F/A-18D
internal fuel capacity: 1,621 gal (6,136.2 L) ~10,860 lbs (4,926.1 kg) [JP-8 @6.7 lbs/gal, add 1.5% weight for JP-5]

Eurofighter Typhoon
Scorpion82 is the only one to have posted to an ACTUAL official source so I will use the numbers from it.
empty weight: 11,000 kg (24,250.6 lbs)
internal fuel capacity: 6,125 L (1,618.0 gal) ~10,840.6 lbs (4,917.3 kg) [JP-8@6.7 lbs/gal, add 1.5% weight for JP-5]

difference
empty weight: 1,500.6 lbs (680.7 kg) lighter F/A-18C
internal fuel capacity: 82 gal (310.2 L) ~549.4 lbs (249.2 kg) [JP-8 @6.7 lbs/gal, add 1.5% weight for JP-5] more fuel F/A-18C

My figures were based on fas.org and toan’s reference on this forum itself, that state that Typhoon’s internal fuel is 4,996 kgs or ~5,000 kgs. Since Ausie Air Power has a poor record, it’s estimate of 5,700 kgs won’t be taken.

In any case, the difference in fuel of just 80 kgs (advantage, Typhoon) still clubs them in the same class. Similarly, the difference in empty weight i.e. of just 190 kgs (lesser, F-18 C) is insignificant.

The difference in engine thrust has NOTHING to do with the relative range of the two aircraft.

The F/A-18A was built to a set of design requirements & it met or exceeded the range requirements & 1st flew in Nov 1978.

The Eurofighter Typhoon was built to a very different set of design requirements & 1st flew in Mar 1994.

The above is inaccurate. The Eurofighter’s design is superior to the F-18 C in that despite weighing the same, and carrying nearly equivalent empty fuel and external load, it can supercruise. Besides, it’s engine is of a better technology that provides more thrust economically — even if not supercruising. Supercruising is of course, very economical.

Hence, the Typhoon has greater range than the F-18 C. It was this very deficiency in a naval jet that led to the F-18 E/F (not that USN was “inspired” by Typhoon in any way).

No, the F/A-18C is LIGHTER than the Eurofighter Typhoon (you can debate the relavance of the difference but the F/A-18C is LIGHTER) AND has a GREATER internal fuel capacity than the Eurofighter Typhoon (you can debate the relavance of the difference but the F/A-18C does have a GREATER internal fuel capacity).

See, please understand that this is not a contest between sumo wrestlers to guage their weight to the last pound or measure their flab to the last inch. Both the jets are of the SAME CLASS or CATEGORY.

Besides, I can’t understand what the A-12 had in relation to F-18 E/F’s development. From whatever I’ve read, A-12 was a reconnaissance jet like SR-71 Blackbird.

Please stop this nonsense! The F/A-18C is NOT a contender for MMRCA & NOTHING about it (or even the F/A-18E/F) has ANYTHING to do with the Eurofighter Typhoon.

You may please stop “jumping to conclusions” and comprehend properly. Your claims about the F-18’s variants apart, we are very aware of all the 6 contenders of the MRCA contract, and nowhere has F-18 C/D been suggested as an MRCA contender.

I was discussing the categorization of the F-18 E/F, and why MiG-35 and Typhoon “survived” being in category 3, whereas the F-18 C did not. The F-18 C had to transform into the Category 4 F-18 E/F.

Whoever said that F-18 C is an MRCA contender ?

Although it may seem difficult that Typhoon has >5,000 kgs internal fuel despite being generally smaller than F-18, it may carry high density fuel.

As mentioned earlier, the F/A-18 C/D was a category 3 jet : 11 tons and 160 kN. But as it’s range was short, a category 4 jet in the form of E/F was developed.

A Category 3 jet (like Typhoon) must have atleast 5,100 kg internal fuel and/or supercruise ability. This will give it decent range. Typhoon has both. In contrast, the F-18 C/D neither had so much fuel, and had only 160 kN thrust (even though 160 kN for a 11 ton jet is exactly proportional to 100 kN for a 7 ton jet like Gripen-NG); these didn’t give it the required range.

MiG-35 too has only managed 4,500 kgs of internal fuel — after lots of celebrated “redesign”. It too would’ve gone the way of F-18 C/D, had it not have had a 172 kN thrust like Typhoon’s 180 kN. Although it doesn’t give it supercruise ability, it does increase range somewhat. However, it has lesser range compared to Typhoon.

The F/A-18C/D is not a comtender for MMRCA, the F/A-18E/F is. The F/A-18E has a 14,400 lbs fuel capcity (‘3,000 lbs’ greater than the F/A-18C & ‘3600 lbs’ greater than the F/A-18D).

That is well known. F/A-18 E/F is a Category 4 jet : 14 tons, 196 kN thrust, and 6200 kg internal fuel –> all of which are exactly twice that of Gripen-NG.

The F-18 C/D was thus, a flawed design in that a Category 3 jet must atleast have about 5,100 kgs of internal fuel to maintain the ratio of Gripen in category 1, or F-16/Rafale in category 2. The Typhoon maintains it.

The ability to briefly exceed M1 in a dive is not accepted by anyone as making an aircraft truly supersonic.

Yes, the T-50 is supersonic – with afterburner. Really supersonic, in level flight. So what? What relevance does that have to the performance of Hawk? If the IAF thinks that a supersonic trainer might meet its needs, fine – it doesn’t change the performance of subsonic trainers.

It is very unclear how does the IAF regard a “dive” supersonic to meet the same needs as a “level” supersonic trainer ? In fact, the IAF does not seem to have a definite roadmap for “rookie” pilot training at all.

It is foregoing the NAL Hansa tandem seater — in fact, skipping tandem seat training altogether — to purchase an HTT-16 type trainer. And even if an HTT-16 like trainer is needed, the indigenous HJT-36 Sitara is already present. Why doesn’t the IAF induct that ? Why float another “glamourous” global tender ?

Besides, the twin-seater trainer of the Tejas (India’s equivalent of KAI T-50) is almost ready — and that doesn’t have to go through all the IoC and procedures that Tejas Mk.1 has undergone. By next year, it will be ready for mass production. It’d better pursue that instead of the “long-drawn” process of tenders, then tests and contract negotiations and what not. This, in my view, would be a much faster procedure.

The Yak-13 is not claimed to be supersonic. Look at the manufacturers website. The manufacturer actually claims that

Arey yaar, another competitor the Aermacchi is based on the Yak-130, and that is supersonic at M 1.2. I got confused between the two.

Where do you get a higher level speed for the HJT-36 than Hawk? I’ve not found a single source that agrees with you.

There I agree you are right. HJT-36 flies at M 0.80, whereas Hawk-128 flies at 0.84 mach.

The Hawk is not supersonic.

No, the Hawk is a supersonic trainer. In the IAF, it is the third stage of pilot training, before he is deputed on an actual fighter jet.

Indeed , why dont they use the all composite Hansa-3 trainer its even type certified by DGCA for basic training , IAF can make use of hansa-3 or let NAL develop a version which suits IAF needs , instead of floating yet another global tender for basic trainer ?

The above is the obvious question that occurs.

Current situation :-

HTT-32 Deepak ————HTT-16 —————- Hawk
(Tandem seat) ————(Twin seat)———–(Supersonic)

The obvious suggestion is :-

NAL Hansa ————–HJT-36 Sitara———Hawk
(Tandem seat) ———–(Twin seat) ————(Supersonic)

What IAF reportedly suggests :-

Imported Twin seat ———– –Hawk
(And skip tandem seat?)———-(Supersonic).

It may be hoped that unlike the 18-year acquisition of Hawk trainers, the IAF doesn’t “botch” this acquisition once again. The precious lives of pilots are at stake, at the “mercy” of the top-heavy bureaucracy in the IAF.

Do you have any range numbers for the F/A-18? There are some available for the Gripen NG from the Dutch proposal. That would make it easy to compare the both platforms.

I think the combat radii of Gripen-NG and F/A-18 would be similar, if loaded in the fighter configuration, because of the reasons outlined below :-

Actually it’s 2x480Gal underwings and 1x330Gal underbelly. Same thing for the Gripen (2x450Gal + 1x300Gal).

The above will result in F/a-18 having 90 gal. more than twice Gripen’s fuel.
However, as mentioned earlier, because the Gripen is much smaller in size dimensions, with greater wing loading and low-aspect wings, it will have a significantly lesser drag than F/A-18.

Thus, the effect of 90 gal. extra fuel on the F/A-18 vis-a-vis Gripen will be nullified to quite an extent. Though, this may still not result in equivalent range (as Gripen should actually have greater fuel than F/A-18 to have the same fuel fraction), the combat radius of Gripen would closely approach that of F/A-18.

And both will have a significantly shorter range than the Rafale with its 3x2000L tanks and low drag.

Although the above data about fuel is true, the same cannot be said about drag, as like the F/A-18, the Rafale too is quite larger than the Gripen-NG. More dimensions implies more drag.

Vis-a-vis the F/A-18 SF, the Rafale’s internal fuel is 2,000 kgs lesser than the former. So, there is no range advantage over F/A-18 at all.

Sorry but even 5,000 lbs of external payload changes the fuel fraction of the Gripen NG MORE than iut does the Super Hornet.

This has been elaborated just above in the reply to Blue Apple.