Key notes…

*Initially both the RuAF (almost all are single-seat with some twin-seat as trainer) and IAF (50 single-seat followed by 200 twin-seat) will buy 250 ac each. With options to buy more.
*HAL and UAC will be equal partners in a joint venture company, much like the Brahmos JV, that will develop and manufacture the FGFA.
*Overall development cost is $ 8 to 10 billion
*Each ac will cost around $ 86 to 100 million
*RCS ~0.5 m2
*A key strength of the FGFA would be multi-sensor data fusion

India, Russia close to PACT on next generation fighter
Ajai Shukla / New Delhi January 05, 2010, 0:38 IST

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-russia-close-to-pactnext-generation-fighter/381718/

Late last year, a defence ministry delegation to Sukhoi’s flagship aircraft facility in Siberia became the first Indians to set eyes upon the next-generation fighter that is slated to form the backbone of the future Indian Air Force (IAF). In that first meeting, carefully choreographed by Sukhoi, the new fighter, standing on the tarmac waved a welcome to the Indians, moving all its control fins simultaneously. The effect, recounts one member of that delegation, was electric. The senior IAF officer there walked silently up to the aircraft and touched it almost incredulously. 😀

RCS ~0.5m^2? That doesn’t sound right…

AFM, Jan, 2010

Typhoon Over Spain

by Ian Harding, Chris Lofting, and Keith Chilton

1. Before the end of 2009, Spanish AF has acquired 26 EF-2000s in total (19 Tranche I and 7 Tranche II).

2. The experience of Spanish AF’s pilot for the flight performance of EF-2000:

“A fighter that is born for flying supersonically ~ even at the height of 10,000ft (3,048 m), flying Typhoon at speeds below Mach 0.9 is not good for the aircraft.”

“The supersonical tendency of Typhoon causes problem sometimes to slow it down, especially during the flight of high AoA. There is no idle speed.”

“Typhoon performs just as well configured with extra wing and centreline fuel tanks plus weapons. The only noticeable difference is the extra 10 kts required for rotation.”

3. During a recent international exercise, two Spanish Typhoons had engaged eight F-15s in one stimulated A2A mission, and the two Typhoon scored hits of seven Eagles finally.

Were the Typhoons lost as well or did the last Eagle bug out? My guess is the latter, but it would be nice to know for sure.

flatbread

Ah, finnaly friday, thank god! Working week is through!

Here’s my personal favourite

Still nothing about this exercise in the international press? Only the French briefing so far?

I’m taking this too far I know. I highly recommend:

We don’t know ROE’s. We don’t know what the aircraft were flying with. We don’t know what sensors were degraded or operating in a lower mode (French military is very picky about Spectra operation in foreign territory, and presumably the same goes for other operators of the Typhoon). A HUD kill shot is always fun to crow about and rub in your opponents faces, but how much more are they beyond that?

From which source and who’s French?

You’re talking about pilots learning their aircrafts still, remember?

The kill was probably scored but if the F-22 scored only once it says a lot about the Rafales and their pilots…

Oh yes we will, they start talking now and it is not going to please a lot of people. 😎

I was referring to this article:
http://www.flugrevue.de/de/business-aviation/fluggeraet-hersteller/eurofighter-signature-for-tranche-3-gets-urgent.4750.htm

Anyways, the Rafale is an excellent aircraft, and I’m sure the pilots are top-notch as well.

How do you figure? It’s top speed is >M2.4. Aside from a Mig-31, what other fighter is going to go faster than an F-22, especially carrying weapons?

A Mig-25? 😀

Some people on this forum don’t realize that radar is an E-M wave which can be reflected, absorbed, scattered, diffracted, destructively interfered, transmitted (in different directions) and even actively cancelled. Super computers are needed to optimize these oten conflicting effects to minimise RCS. Shaping for stealth is rather simplisic and ineffective.

Actually, I think we all know this… The bottom line is that is significantly easier to do shaping (i.e. computer optimized prediction and optimization of RCS) than active cancellation.