Make in India
- Thread starter AVERAGE INDIAN
- Start date
Srinivas_K
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,420
- Likes
- 12,945
'Make in India' initiative: 90 per cent of DMRC trains manufactured in India
NEW DELHI: When it comes to " Make in India", the Delhi Metro is already walking the talk. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) said 90 per cent of its trains are being manufactured in India. And a case in point is Phase III. Of 846 coaches that have been ordered for this phase, only 120 are from Korea. The rest have been manufactured in the country.
That's not all. These trains, made in India, are being exported abroad too, like to the Queensland and Sydney Metro systems in Australia.
"We have been consistently increasing the number of indigenous trains in the system," said Delhi Metro's director, rolling stock, H S Anand. Of 1,234 coaches in Phase I and II, 36 were from Germany and 64 were from Korea.
The DMRC said over the last 10 years, it has been able to keep the capital cost for procurement of these coaches at a consistent level. "These costs are substantially lower than the cost of Metro coaches world over," said DMRC spokesman, Anuj Dayal. For instance, while the capital cost of a coach is around Rs 8.94 crore in India, the cost in Vancouver is Rs 16.08 crore and in San Francisco is Rs 15.13 crore.
Mangu Singh, the DMRC head, said, "Delhi Metro's initiative to indigenize the manufacturing of its trains and ancillary technologies is in consonance with the 'Make in India' initiative of the government of India."
The reason why the Delhi Metro has been going local is because, due to because of contract conditions mandating indigenization have resulted in major coach manufacturing companies setting up production facilities within the country.
"The conditions in the DMRC train contracts mandate a cap on upper limit of 25 per cent for production abroad, while the balance of the contract order has necessarily to be manufactured in India either through tie ups or a wholly-owned subsidiary," the Delhi Metro spokesman said. That the quality remains high in these local manufacturing cases is a given, officials added.
In fact, three Metro coach manufacturing units have set up their base in India. These are Bombardier Transportation in Savli, Gujarat, state-owned Bharat Earth Movers Limited in Bengaluru, and Alstom, which has established a new facility at Sricity near Chennai in Tamil Nadu.
Besides manufacturing coaches in the country, 18 major sub-systems of these coaches have also been indigenized in the country in a phased manner. "This has led to a lot of in-house ancillary industry and skilled manpower development. Window glasses, battery boxes, brake blocks, bogie frames, vacuum circuit breakers, HVACs, propulsion etc are being manufactured in India now," the spokesman said.lking the talk. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) said 90 per cent of its trains are being manufactured in India. And a case in point is Phase III. Of 846 coaches that have been ordered for this phase, only 120 are from Korea. The rest have been manufactured in the country.
That's not all. These trains, made in India, are being exported abroad too, like to the Queensland and Sydney Metro systems in Australia.
"We have been consistently increasing the number of indigenous trains in the system," said Delhi Metro's director, rolling stock, H S Anand. Of 1,234 coaches in Phase I and II, 36 were from Germany and 64 were from Korea.
The DMRC said over the last 10 years, it has been able to keep the capital cost for procurement of these coaches at a consistent level. "These costs are substantially lower than the cost of Metro coaches world over," said DMRC spokesman, Anuj Dayal. For instance, while the capital cost of a coach is around Rs 8.94 crore in India, the cost in Vancouver is Rs 16.08 crore and in San Francisco is Rs 15.13 crore.
Mangu Singh, the DMRC head, said, "Delhi Metro's initiative to indigenize the manufacturing of its trains and ancillary technologies is in consonance with the 'Make in India' initiative of the government of India."
The reason why the Delhi Metro has been going local is because, due to because of contract conditions mandating indigenization have resulted in major coach manufacturing companies setting up production facilities within the country.
"The conditions in the DMRC train contracts mandate a cap on upper limit of 25 per cent for production abroad, while the balance of the contract order has necessarily to be manufactured in India either through tie ups or a wholly-owned subsidiary," the Delhi Metro spokesman said. That the quality remains high in these local manufacturing cases is a given, officials added.
In fact, three Metro coach manufacturing units have set up their base in India. These are Bombardier Transportation in Savli, Gujarat, state-owned Bharat Earth Movers Limited in Bengaluru, and Alstom, which has established a new facility at Sricity near Chennai in Tamil Nadu.
Besides manufacturing coaches in the country, 18 major sub-systems of these coaches have also been indigenized in the country in a phased manner. "This has led to a lot of in-house ancillary industry and skilled manpower development. Window glasses, battery boxes, brake blocks, bogie frames, vacuum circuit breakers, HVACs, propulsion etc are being manufactured in India now," the spokesman said.
'Make in India' initiative: 90 per cent of DMRC trains manufactured in India - The Economic Times
NEW DELHI: When it comes to " Make in India", the Delhi Metro is already walking the talk. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) said 90 per cent of its trains are being manufactured in India. And a case in point is Phase III. Of 846 coaches that have been ordered for this phase, only 120 are from Korea. The rest have been manufactured in the country.
That's not all. These trains, made in India, are being exported abroad too, like to the Queensland and Sydney Metro systems in Australia.
"We have been consistently increasing the number of indigenous trains in the system," said Delhi Metro's director, rolling stock, H S Anand. Of 1,234 coaches in Phase I and II, 36 were from Germany and 64 were from Korea.
The DMRC said over the last 10 years, it has been able to keep the capital cost for procurement of these coaches at a consistent level. "These costs are substantially lower than the cost of Metro coaches world over," said DMRC spokesman, Anuj Dayal. For instance, while the capital cost of a coach is around Rs 8.94 crore in India, the cost in Vancouver is Rs 16.08 crore and in San Francisco is Rs 15.13 crore.
Mangu Singh, the DMRC head, said, "Delhi Metro's initiative to indigenize the manufacturing of its trains and ancillary technologies is in consonance with the 'Make in India' initiative of the government of India."
The reason why the Delhi Metro has been going local is because, due to because of contract conditions mandating indigenization have resulted in major coach manufacturing companies setting up production facilities within the country.
"The conditions in the DMRC train contracts mandate a cap on upper limit of 25 per cent for production abroad, while the balance of the contract order has necessarily to be manufactured in India either through tie ups or a wholly-owned subsidiary," the Delhi Metro spokesman said. That the quality remains high in these local manufacturing cases is a given, officials added.
In fact, three Metro coach manufacturing units have set up their base in India. These are Bombardier Transportation in Savli, Gujarat, state-owned Bharat Earth Movers Limited in Bengaluru, and Alstom, which has established a new facility at Sricity near Chennai in Tamil Nadu.
Besides manufacturing coaches in the country, 18 major sub-systems of these coaches have also been indigenized in the country in a phased manner. "This has led to a lot of in-house ancillary industry and skilled manpower development. Window glasses, battery boxes, brake blocks, bogie frames, vacuum circuit breakers, HVACs, propulsion etc are being manufactured in India now," the spokesman said.lking the talk. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) said 90 per cent of its trains are being manufactured in India. And a case in point is Phase III. Of 846 coaches that have been ordered for this phase, only 120 are from Korea. The rest have been manufactured in the country.
That's not all. These trains, made in India, are being exported abroad too, like to the Queensland and Sydney Metro systems in Australia.
"We have been consistently increasing the number of indigenous trains in the system," said Delhi Metro's director, rolling stock, H S Anand. Of 1,234 coaches in Phase I and II, 36 were from Germany and 64 were from Korea.
The DMRC said over the last 10 years, it has been able to keep the capital cost for procurement of these coaches at a consistent level. "These costs are substantially lower than the cost of Metro coaches world over," said DMRC spokesman, Anuj Dayal. For instance, while the capital cost of a coach is around Rs 8.94 crore in India, the cost in Vancouver is Rs 16.08 crore and in San Francisco is Rs 15.13 crore.
Mangu Singh, the DMRC head, said, "Delhi Metro's initiative to indigenize the manufacturing of its trains and ancillary technologies is in consonance with the 'Make in India' initiative of the government of India."
The reason why the Delhi Metro has been going local is because, due to because of contract conditions mandating indigenization have resulted in major coach manufacturing companies setting up production facilities within the country.
"The conditions in the DMRC train contracts mandate a cap on upper limit of 25 per cent for production abroad, while the balance of the contract order has necessarily to be manufactured in India either through tie ups or a wholly-owned subsidiary," the Delhi Metro spokesman said. That the quality remains high in these local manufacturing cases is a given, officials added.
In fact, three Metro coach manufacturing units have set up their base in India. These are Bombardier Transportation in Savli, Gujarat, state-owned Bharat Earth Movers Limited in Bengaluru, and Alstom, which has established a new facility at Sricity near Chennai in Tamil Nadu.
Besides manufacturing coaches in the country, 18 major sub-systems of these coaches have also been indigenized in the country in a phased manner. "This has led to a lot of in-house ancillary industry and skilled manpower development. Window glasses, battery boxes, brake blocks, bogie frames, vacuum circuit breakers, HVACs, propulsion etc are being manufactured in India now," the spokesman said.
'Make in India' initiative: 90 per cent of DMRC trains manufactured in India - The Economic Times
Blackwater
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2012
- Messages
- 21,156
- Likes
- 12,211
Sambha ka Boss
Regular Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2014
- Messages
- 701
- Likes
- 375
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
David Cameron supports 'Make in India'; offers help to make fighter jets
Cameron has renewed the offer to sell Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets to India, terming it as a "better deal" than the Rafale made by France which is locked in a race with Britain to secure the multi-billion dollar contract for the Indian Air Force.
Cameron, who is in heavy campaign mode for the UK's May 7 general election, also stressed on Britain being a better partner for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'Make in India' campaign.
"The British offer of Eurofighter Typhoons to India is still on table. It will come along with technological and engineering assistance for India to develop its own world class fighter aircraft. It will be a better deal than Rafale," he told Midlands-based newspaper 'Asian Lite'.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is manufactured by a multinational consortium of the Airbus Group and has been in competition to secure an order of fighter jets for the much-needed upgrade of the Indian Air Force (IAF) to replace its outdated Russian MiGs with modern Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).
Cameron told the newspaper, "I am looking forward to meeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss a heavy agenda. India is going to play a very big role in the success of British economy".
"Trade and investment relations have improved in the last five years and we need more political cooperation on climate change and other issues," he said.
The British premier who has been working hard to attract the estimated 1.5 million Indian diaspora vote, reiterated his view that the first Asian or black prime minister in the UK will be from the Conservative Party.
"We fielded Mr Rishi Sunak (son-in-law of Infosys co-founder Narayan Murthy) at Richmond, the former seat of William Hague and one of the safest seats for the Conservatives in North Yorkshire, the former seat of William Hague and one of the safest seats for the Conservatives in North Yorkshire. The party will persuade experts in different fields to join to bring changes in the communities," he said.
David Cameron supports 'Make in India'; offers help to make fighter jets - The Economic Times
Cameron has renewed the offer to sell Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets to India, terming it as a "better deal" than the Rafale made by France which is locked in a race with Britain to secure the multi-billion dollar contract for the Indian Air Force.
Cameron, who is in heavy campaign mode for the UK's May 7 general election, also stressed on Britain being a better partner for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'Make in India' campaign.
"The British offer of Eurofighter Typhoons to India is still on table. It will come along with technological and engineering assistance for India to develop its own world class fighter aircraft. It will be a better deal than Rafale," he told Midlands-based newspaper 'Asian Lite'.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is manufactured by a multinational consortium of the Airbus Group and has been in competition to secure an order of fighter jets for the much-needed upgrade of the Indian Air Force (IAF) to replace its outdated Russian MiGs with modern Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).
Cameron told the newspaper, "I am looking forward to meeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss a heavy agenda. India is going to play a very big role in the success of British economy".
"Trade and investment relations have improved in the last five years and we need more political cooperation on climate change and other issues," he said.
The British premier who has been working hard to attract the estimated 1.5 million Indian diaspora vote, reiterated his view that the first Asian or black prime minister in the UK will be from the Conservative Party.
"We fielded Mr Rishi Sunak (son-in-law of Infosys co-founder Narayan Murthy) at Richmond, the former seat of William Hague and one of the safest seats for the Conservatives in North Yorkshire, the former seat of William Hague and one of the safest seats for the Conservatives in North Yorkshire. The party will persuade experts in different fields to join to bring changes in the communities," he said.
David Cameron supports 'Make in India'; offers help to make fighter jets - The Economic Times
Srinivas_K
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,420
- Likes
- 12,945
India should have gone for Typhoons instead, this fighter jet is a good dog fighter and for strike missions we already have mirages, jaguars and sukhois.
plus we can manufacture them locally.
plus we can manufacture them locally.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
Eurofighter Typhoon - Demon or Lemon?
http://www.ausairpower.net/JOW/Typhoon-DD-RIAT-2009-JOW-1S.jpg
The RAF's new Eurofighter Typhoon has the distinction of being the most controversial European combat aircraft since the stillborn TSR.2. Lauded by its proponents and trashed by its opponents, the aircraft seems to have an extraordinary ability to generate public argument.
What is all the more curious is that much of the hostile coverage it has received is factually wrong, but by the same token much of the pro-Eurofighter argument we see is no less dubious.
What is the reality? Is the Eurofighter Typhoon an exceptional combat aircraft, or is it an anachronism unworthy of production?
In this month's feature we will attempt to strip away the emotive hype and take a closer look at the strengths and weaknesses of this aircraft.
The Eurofighter Typhoon - A Brief History
The genesis of the RAF Typhoon lay in the early seventies AST.396 requirement for a STOVL light ground attack fighter intended to replace the Jaguar and Harrier. This requirement was abandoned in favour of the AST.403 specification for a multirole fighter with similar capabilities to the emerging US F-16 and F/A-18. The STOVL requirement soon disappeared since neither Germany nor France saw any such need and they were the most likely teaming partners for a project too big for the UK industry to tackle alone. The objective thus became the replacement of the RAF Jaguar and Phantom FGR.2. With Germany seeking a highly agile F/RF-4F/E replacement, and France seeking a Jaguar replacement, AST.414 was created.
The European Combat Aircraft (ECA) study group was formed, and by 1979 a joint BAe-MBB proposal for the European Combat Fighter (ECF) presented. With Dassault joining the BAe-MBB consortium, a twin engine delta canard was agreed as the preferred configuration. By 1981 the ECF collapsed, since the French wanted a fighter small enough to operate from their aircraft carriers.
Concurrently the national manufacturers worked on their own studies, BAe the P.110, MBB the TKF-90 and Dassault the ACX (which became the Rafale).
In April 1982 a new team was formed comprising the former Panavia Tornado players, and the extant design studies were merged into the Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA). To prove the concepts proposed in the ACA, the UK funded the Experimental Aircraft Program (EAP), the other two governments not coming to the party. Supported by UK government funding and industry funds from all three countries, the EAP first flew in August, 1986. The EAP demonstrator flew until 1991, logging 191.3 hours of total flight time.
European air forces continued to show interest in the idea of a common European design, and in late 1983 a common European requirement for the Future European Fighter Aircraft (FEFA soon changed to EFA) was defined with the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain participating. The EFA was to be a highly agile twin engine, single seat fighter with STOL capabilities. Its role was to be BVR counter air combat, short range air superiority over the battlefield, while a respectable strike capability would be provided.
The influences of the period were quite evident. The Soviets were fielding the Su-27S and MiG-29, during what was to be their final surge in the Cold War arms race. Europe's BVR air defences and air superiority hinged on the availability of USAF F-15As based in Germany and Holland, while most European air forces flew the agile but day-VFR F-16A. Germany and Britain flew tired F-4s of various vintages, and France the Mirage F.1 and 2000. The FEFA reflected these pressures, and was clearly intended to provide a smaller and cheaper European BVR capable substitute for the then expensive F-15, in numbers competitive with the F-16, with enough multirole capability to support the dedicated strike assets in any NATO vs Warpac contingency.
It was a European solution to a European scenario. The nearest comparison to the teen series would be an F/A-18 class multirole fighter with the BVR capabilities and agility of an F-15. The USAF replaced their Phantoms with the longer ranging, agile BVR F-15, whereas the USN replaced theirs with smaller and lighter F/A-18, compromising top end BVR performance in favour of numbers and strike capability. The RAF and Luftwaffe, the leaders in the EFA, rolled the equivalent of the USAF and USN Phantom replacements into a single F/A-18 sized airframe.
The question an Australian observer might ask is why not buy a mix of F-15s and F/A-18s off-the-shelf? This would have been unthinkable to the Europeans since they would lose the design expertise and manufacturing base the Eurofighter promised, as well as the massive investment by then sunk into the program, the production base built up for the Panavia Tornado, and concede the future fighter market to the US.
By 1984 the extant divisions between the French and the remaining players surfaced again, over carrier compatibility. The French wanted a 19,000 lb aircraft (between the F-16 and F/A-18) and the British a 24,255 lb aircraft (F/A-18 class empty weight). A compromise 21,000 lb weight was agreed upon. The French also sought design leadership, 50% of total workshare, control of the umbrella company and exports. A schism arose between the French and the other players and the EFA collapsed.
August 1985 saw the UK, Germany and Italy decide to resurrect the program and Spain and France were invited to join. Spain did, France went solo with the Rafale. By June 1986 the Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH company was formed, and in September 1986, Eurojet Turbo GmbH was formed to design and build the engine. The ECR-90 radar was awarded to GEC Ferranti in the UK.
The RAF EFA requirement was SRA.414, which sought a lightweight twin turbofan BVR and close combat fighter, with a secondary strike capability. The RAF sought 250 aircraft, the Luftwaffe 250, Italy 165 and Spain 100.
The EFA was in trouble again by 1992, under threat from the "peace dividend" expectations of European parliaments. Germany threatened to pull out altogether, after initially chopping numbers to 140, while Italy and Spain reduced the size of their planned buys. After much political bickering, the programme survived with revised build numbers, but serious delays were incurred.
Reports suggest that the F-22 was proposed to the UK, a historical fact which would explain the peculiar fixation on comparing the EFA to the F-22 in much of the marketing literature. The comparison is curious in the sense that the EFA is conceptually an evolution in the teen series fighter paradigm, whereas the F-22 combines sustained supercruising engines and Very Low Observables (stealth), thus representing a completely new paradigm.
The first prototype Eurofighter 2000 DA.1 flew from the DASA Manching facility in March 1994.
The Eurofighter Typhoon - A Technical Summary
The Typhoon employs a combined delta canard configuration with a wing area similar to the F-15, and similar internal fuel capacity, yet the aircraft has an empty weight of around 24,250 lb, much like a late model F/A-18C. The excellent empty weight of the Typhoon in relation to the wing size is as much a result of the compact configuration, as it is of the generous use of carbon fibre composites in the fuselage and wing of the aircraft. Titanium canards and outer control surfaces, and Aluminium Lithium alloy leading edges were employed to minimise weight yet achieve high structural strength.
The combined delta canard configuration and 538 ft2 wing size confer very low wing loading on 50% internal fuel, and are optimised for transonic manoeuvre and supersonic dash performance. The combination of sweep angle and unstable aft CoG is clearly intended for minimising supersonic drag, and is comparable to a classical supersonic interceptor like the Mirage series, but is more modest than the "supercruiser" 72° swept inboard wing section of the F-16XL/E.
The Typhoon is unlikely to match the supersonic high G envelope of F-16XL/E due to a lower wing sweep angle, but will have a useful advantage over most teen/teenski series types optimised for transonic turning. In transonic manoeuvre, the automatic full span leading edge slats are used to adjust the wing camber and therefore reduce the lift induced drag at high G characteristic of classical deltas in this regime. Fuselage vortex generators on either side of the cockpit are employed to promote vortex formation at high AoA and low speeds, and thus increase lift.
The paired inlet is optimised for high AoA performance, using forebody flow to promote air ingestion, as well as a boundary layer splitter above the inlet. The combination of vortex lift and inlet geometry used by the Typhoon exploits the same ideas used in the F-16A/C/XL/E.
The loosely coupled canard is intended to provide high control authority at high angles of attack, by placing the surfaces ahead of the main vortices, but also to provide lower trim drag in supersonic flight.
In comparing the Typhoon to established fighters, the aerodynamic design exploits basic ideas used in F-16 family, but combines them with a strongly swept delta and canard configuration to extend the supersonic envelope, although not as aggressively as GD did with the 660 ft2 cranked arrow F-16XL/E wing. The simpler wing design in the Typhoon in turn required canards to achieve the desired supersonic drag and manoeuvre envelope.
From the perspective of airframe optimisations, the Typhoon is without doubt optimised for its two primary design objectives, which are supersonic BVR interception and close in combat at transonic speeds, with no obvious concessions made to the secondary objective of strike. The low wing loading will confer excellent climb performance for the installed thrust, and the the delta configuration lower supersonic drag, in comparison with the F/A-18. The low wing loading is not optimal for low level strike profiles, but the gust sensitivity will be alleviated by the large sweep angle and the use of artificial stability and canards. The airframe is rated to +9/-3G at an undisclosed combat weight, pylon G ratings have also not been disclosed.
The aircraft is powered by a pair of Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofans, rated at 13,500 lbf dry and 20,000 lbf reheated at sea level, which is comparable to growth variants of the F/A-18's GE F404. The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance rather than cruise burn. Eurofighter claim the engine has a supercruise capability, although the duration of possible supercruise has not been disclosed. As the engine is technologically of the same generation as evolved teen series engines, expectations that it can deliver the kind of supercruise performance provided by uniquely designed supercruising powerplants like the US F119 and F120 are difficult to accept.
In an OCA/DCA combat configuration, clean, at 50% internal fuel (~6,500 lb), the Typhoon delivers a nominal sea level dry thrust/weight ratio of 0.82:1 and reheated thrust/weight ratio of 1.22:1 with a wing loading of 60.8 lb/ft2. Both are in the class of the F-15A/C, F-16A/C, MiG-29 and Su-27SK.
The aircraft uses a quadruply redundant digital flight control system intended to provide carefree handling, the latter an advancement over the teen series, and in many respects a necessity given the inherently pitch unstable aerodynamic configuration.
An experienced F/A-18 pilot who flew the Typhoon simulator commented to the author that the aircraft's manoeuvre/handling performance did not appear to be a dramatic improvement over the F/A-18, and rudder authority at high AoA did not match the F/A-18. It is however possible that further refinement of the flight control software could have yielded handling improvements since the mid nineties.
The overall impression resulting from a review of the aircraft's basic configuration, propulsion and fuel package is of a fighter with F-15 class transonic and supersonic agility at optimal weight, instantaneous manoeuvre performance slightly exceeding the teen series, all packaged into an F/A-18 sized airframe with installed thrust comparable to late build F/A-18 models. This reflects very closely the initial EFA design objectives.
The Typhoon's avionic package is built essentially upon the technology base used in the teen series fighters, but employs a higher level of integration against established in service teen series types.
The centrepiece of the avionic package is the X-band (I/J-band) ECR-90 pulse-Doppler multimode radar, similar in concept to the US Raytheon APG-63/65/70 series and derived from the Blue Vixen (Harrier FRS.2). Eurofighter are claiming twice the output power of the F/A-18's APG-65/73 series (typical power output for this class is 10 kW peak), and twice the detection range of the F-16's APG-68. However, in the absence of published data on the ECR-90's mechanically steered planar array aperture size, and peak power ratings, it is impossible to robustly verify these assertions. The radar is frequently credited with a detection range advantage over the F-15's APG-63/70 series, a necessity for the intended use of ramjet BVR missiles with an 80 NMI class A-pole range.
In terms of modes the ECR-90 incorporates the typical package we are familiar with in the teen series, or equivalents. Eurofighter emphasise the rapid slew rate of the planar array.
At this time an active phased array, the AMSAR, is in development as an upgrade to the ECR-90 and the Rafale's RBE2 passive phased array. The AMSAR/ECR-90 is technologically in the same category as the APG-68 ABR (F-16C/B.60) and APG-73 RUG III. It is expected to be available by around 2005, and would provide like the ABR and RUG III improved BVR performance, much lower sidelobes, interleaved search and engagement modes and the potential for interleaved terrain following and ground attack modes. AMSAR offers the potential for LPI operation, but would require further design optimisations and a fundamental redesign of many portions of the ECR-90 back end.
The ECR-90 is supplemented by two passive sensors. The Pilkington Optronics PIRATE mid-wave IRS&T/FLIR can be used for detection, identification and terrain avoidance, with eight discrete operating modes. It is tightly integrated with the radar's functions and either can be slaved to the other. In the absence of aperture and detector size data it is impossible to estimate the effective range under clear sky conditions.
An ESM is integrated into the Defensive Aids SubSystem (DASS), and could be employed as a passive targeting tool in engagements, in addition to its basic function as a sensitive long range RWR. The antenna packages are in the wingtip pods.
The DASS package is comprehensive, incorporating the ESM/RWR, a MAWS, a forward sector Laser Warning Receiver (RAF), expendables, DECM and an optical fibre towed decoy. This is a competitive package by any measure, against its US contemporaries.
The core avionic architecture is based upon the federated model, using multiple Mil-Std-1553B busses, making it comparable technologically to late build teen series systems. Eurofighter claim the use of sensor fusion techniques in the system software, to combine the data produced by the radar, IRS&T and ESM to provide a very high confidence of early BVR target identification and engagement. Given the significantly lower available computing power in the Typhoon, against the F-22A's Cray class CIPs, assertions that this capability is competitive against the sensor fusion software in the F-22A are somewhat peculiar, given that real time sensor fusion is a computationally intensive task.
Eurofighter take much pride in the aircraft's cockpit, which incorporates a holographic HUD, 3 colour MFDs, HOTAS controls, and pilot voice input for selecting system modes. Marconi are developing a HMD, which is intended to provide the pilot with visor projected binocular NVG imagery, FLIR/IRS&T imagery and symbology. On the available data the cockpit is state of the art, and clearly very competitive against teen series equivalents.
Primary navigation reference is provided by a Litton LN-93EF RLG INS, supplemented by GPS and TACAN. A GPWS (ground prox warning) and Microwave Landing System (MLS) are incorporated, the former to aid in low level operations. The aircraft carries secure VHF and UHF comm, an IFF interrogator and a MIDS/JTIS terminal.
For BVR combat the Typhoon's primary weapon will be the Matra-BAe Meteor FMRAAM, a ramjet powered AAM with a radar seeker evolved from the Matra-BAe MICA. The proposal to use the extended range AMRAAM derived ERAAM, or an ramjet AMRAAM derivative, was rejected in favour of a wholly European AAM. The interim BVR weapon will be the US AIM-120B AMRAAM. Most sources credit the FMRAAM with 80 NMI engagement range against a closing target, about 20% better than the ERAAM. The FMRAAM is to outrange the Russian Vympel R-77M ramjet Adder derivative. Four BVR AAMs will be carried in wing root semi-conformal wells.
For close-in combat the RAF Typhoon will be armed with the AIM-132 ASRAAM, soon to be deployed on the RAAF's F/A-18A+ fleet. Non-RAF Typhoons will carry a single Mauser 27 mm cannon, the MoD having decided to delete the gun from RAF aircraft. Weapon interfaces are compatible with standard Sidewinder and AMRAAM interfaces, it is likely the FMRAAM will use the AMRAAM interface.
For strike operations, a range of weapons may be carried. The primary RAF standoff weapon will be the Matra-BAe Storm Shadow cruise missile, derived from the French Apache, the Luftwaffe is likely to stay with the Tornado's KEPD-350. Variants of the Paveway laser guided bomb may be carried, with a TIALD FLIR/laser pod occupying one forward AAM well. For close-in tank busting, the millimetric wave Brimstone (AGM-114F Hellfire derivative) will be used. We can expect to see the Matra-BAe ALARM used for SEAD by the RAF, the AGM-88 HARM by the Luftwaffe. Mil-Std-1760 interfaces are provided as with current build teen series fighters to facilitate the integration of new weapons.
A wide range of options exist for external fuel carriage. For supersonic OCA/DCA combat, around 4,500 lb can be carried in upper wing root Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) and around 1,800 lb each in a pair of drop tanks. For subsonic strike sorties, 1,500 L or 2,000 L drop tanks may be carried in addition to CFTs.
Eurofighter marketing literature makes much mileage out of a claimed "stealth" capability, acquired by the use of S-bend inlet tunnels and selective application of radar absorbent materials. The design spec is claimed to have included bounds on RCS performance.
The assertion that the aircraft has a "stealth" capability is curious by any measure, since there is no evidence of planform alignment, panel edge alignment, blending or faceting, all established techniques used and proven on US types such as the F-117A, B-2A, YF-23A, F-22A and the JSF prototypes. Indeed the external carriage of stores alone would make the Typhoon's radar signature at least 10-100 times greater than the golfball to insect sized RCS we are accustomed to with US types. Unless the Europeans have invented new laws of radar scattering, the aircraft is at best a conventional fighter with reduced forward sector RCS, comparable to evolved F/A-18, F-16 variants, the Rafale or the B-1B.
The benefits of such limited RCS reduction are marginal, since the detection range curve is fairly steep in this region and modest increases in opposing radar performance can largely offset any gains in such RCS reduction. While every dBSM down is useful, beyond 0.3 of a square metre the payoff is questionable with external stores being carried. Moreover, unless an LPI radar is carried, the emissions of the radar will betray the fighter to an opponent from well outside radar range.
Published detection range performance for the NIIP N-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph (Su-30MK upgrades) and Agat 9B-1103M/9B-1348E R-77/R-77M seekers would suggest that a Typhoon loaded with external stores could be successfully engaged within the 50-65 NMI envelope. The Meteor ramjet AAM is therefore vital to the Typhoon, since the AMRAAM cannot fully exploit the range advantage of the BVR weapon system.
The Eurofighter Typhoon. This example is flown by 3SQN RAF (Royal Air Force).
Is the Typhoon a Demon or a Lemon?
Given the vigorous marketing effort of the Eurofighter consortium both in Europe and Australia, and the often extremely hostile coverage the aircraft has received in the international press, and moreso UK press, it is worth exploring the aircraft's strengths and weaknesses against some established baselines.
The aircraft's counter air performance is cited as its major strength, and it is frequently cited to be "82% as effective as an F-22".
The magic 82% number is derived from a mid nineties DERA simulation against a postulated Su-35 threat. The number is based upon the rather unusual metric of "probability of successful engagement" in BVR combat, rating the F-22 at 91%, the Typhoon at 82%, the F-15F (single seat E) at 60%, the Rafale at 50% and the F-15C at 43%.
The probability of a successful engagement can be translated into the more commonly used metric of a kill ratio by making some reasonable statistical assumptions, and doing this yields about 10.0:1 for the F-22A, 4.6:1 for the Typhoon, 1.5:1 for the single seat F-15E, 1:1 for the Rafale and 0.75:1 for the F-15C. So in the most common terms used, the Typhoon is by the DERA simulation about half as combat effective as the F-22A, about three times as combat effective as the F-15F, about five times as effective as the Rafale and 6 times as effective as the F-15C. If we compare this with cited USAF claims rating the F-22A as 10-15 times as combat effective as the F-15C in BVR engagements, this means that the DERA study roughly agrees with USAF assessments of F-22A vs F-15C combat effectiveness. The detailed assumptions applied to this study have not been disclosed.
The validity of this study in today's environment must be questioned. Since its compilation the Russians have developed the NIIP-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph phased arrays for the Su-27/30, the R-77M ramjet Adder, the extended range R-74 digital Archer, 2D and 3D thrust vectoring nozzles, higher thrust AL-31 engine derivatives, and active radar seekers for the R-27 Alamo, as well as fielding an anti-radiation variant of the Alamo. The F-22A is likely to be shooting the ERAAM, and some USAF F-15Cs are being fitted with active phased arrays, with the likely prospect of getting ERAAMs as well, or even a ramjet AMRAAM variant. Therefore it is likely that most of the supporting assumptions used in the study are very stale, if not irrelevant. Until Typhoons are equipped with the AMSAR and Meteor, the projected 4.6:1 BVR kill ratio is by any measure optimistic, against an evolved Su-30 variant.
Clearly the Typhoon is robustly in the BVR lethality class of the F-15C/E, and the principal driver of relative effectiveness between these types will the radar and missile capabilities. Until the USAF field phased arrays and ERAAM or ramjet AAMs on the whole F-15 fleet (some aircraft are currently being retrofitted with APG-63(V)3 active phased arrays), the Typhoon will hold a decisive advantage. US longwave IRS&T technology is available off-the-shelf and would much reduce any advantage conferred by the PIRATE to the Typhoon.
The other important considerations in BVR combat are transonic and supersonic acceleration, persistence and sustained turn performance. While the latter are difficult to estimate, the former can be directly compared by looking at thrust/weight ratios.
The clean Typhoon, with 50% internal gas and 6-8 AAMs is firmly in the class of the F100-PW-229 powered F-15F, on dry thrust, and about 15% behind the F-15F on reheat. Where the Typhoon falls behind the F-15F is when its operating radius is stretched and additional external gas is being carried. If we take a Typhoon with 3 x 1000L external tanks, and an F-15F with 2 x 600 USG external tanks, we have configurations which deliver very similar endurance and operating radius for a point intercept. In the latter situation, approaching the target, the Typhoon is around 12% behind the F-15F in critical reheated thrust/weight ratio. If we compare a Typhoon with CFTs, 3 x 1000L external tanks against an F-15F with only CFTs, we get a shortfall of about 20% in thrust/weight ratio in addition to the drag penalty of the external tanks. These are very approximate estimates, not accounting for combat gas, but even doing a very accurate simulation would yield the inevitable conclusion - an F/A-18 sized fighter, no matter how agile when clean, cannot compete in thrust/weight ratio with an F-15 sized fighter at extended operating radii.
The argument that the smaller fighter can fly out in a less encumbered configuration, and rely upon a tanker, disregards the need for enough internal gas to safely if an AAR fails over water. By the same token, the use of higher thrust growth EJ200 engines in the Typhoon alleviates the problem, but it would still remain behind an F-15F fitted with the growth 32 klb F100-PW-232 or its GE equivalent F110 variant.
Clearly in any scenario where unrefuelled operating radius is not a major issue, the Typhoon is a highly competitive conventional fighter, and exceeds the capabilities of an F-15 variant without a phased array and extended range AAMs. However, a new build F-15 with current technology engines, and AESA/ramjet AAM package will maintain a healthy performance margin even over a growth variant of the Typhoon, and an operating radius advantage. The relative effectiveness would then boil down to issues such as tactics, and any relative advantages of the specific AAMs carried and radars fitted.
The comparative advantages of the Typhoon over the Su-27/30 family exhibit similar sensitivities to technology upgrades in the Sukhoi fighters. Fitted with a phased array, longwave IRS&T, carrying ramjet R-77M missiles, supported by SuAWACS, and using growth engines we must seriously question how great a lethality margin the Typhoon would hold against such a fighter. The Sukhoi, inevitably, exhibits the same thrust/weight ratio advantages the F-15 does in extended range combat, which was a design objective for this type as it was for the F-15.
In comparing the Typhoon against the only other fighter in its weight class, the F/A-18A/C, the benefits of using later generation technology show very clearly. The Typhoon outperforms the F/A-18A/C in BVR weapon system capability as well as aerodynamic performance. While much better than the F/A-18A/C in operating radius and agility, its optimal operating radius is not in the class of the F-15 and Su-27/30.
Conclusions
What conclusions can we draw about the Typhoon? The notion that the aircraft is "almost as good as an F-22" is not supportable, indeed upgrading the F-15 with engines and a radar/IRS&T/AAM package of the same generation as that of the Typhoon would equalise almost all advantages held by the Typhoon over older F-15C/E variants. By the same token, no upgrades performed on the F/A-18A/C would equalise the performance advantages of the Typhoon over these aircraft.
The strength of the Typhoon is its very modern and comprehensive avionic package, especially that in the RAF variant, and its excellent agility when operated around its optimum combat radius of about 300 NMI (a figure to be found in older Eurofighter literature, which has since disappeared with the export drive to compete against the bigger F-15 and F-22).
The Typhoon's weaknesses are its F/A-18C class weight and thrust and the implications of this in combat at extended operational radii, and the longer term sensitivity of its BVR weapons advantage to equivalent technological developments in opposing fighters.
In terms of where to position the Typhoon in the current menagerie of fighter aircraft, it can be best described as an F/A-18C sized fighter with BVR systems and agility performance better than older F-15 models, similar to growth F-15 models with same generation systems and engines, but inferior to the F-15 in useful operating radius. The Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft, despite various assertions to this effect, nor is it a genuine supercruiser like the F-22. Its design incorporates none of the features seen in very low observable types, nor does the EJ200 incorporate the unique design features of the F119 and F120 powerplants.
The Typhoon is certainly not a lemon, although the wisdom of mass producing a high performance conventional fighter of its ilk in a period where stealth is about to hit mass production in the F-22 and JSF programs could be seriously questioned. It represents what is likely to be the last major evolutionary step in the teen series design philosophy.
Eurofighter Typhoon - Demon or Lemon?
http://www.ausairpower.net/JOW/Typhoon-DD-RIAT-2009-JOW-1S.jpg
The RAF's new Eurofighter Typhoon has the distinction of being the most controversial European combat aircraft since the stillborn TSR.2. Lauded by its proponents and trashed by its opponents, the aircraft seems to have an extraordinary ability to generate public argument.
What is all the more curious is that much of the hostile coverage it has received is factually wrong, but by the same token much of the pro-Eurofighter argument we see is no less dubious.
What is the reality? Is the Eurofighter Typhoon an exceptional combat aircraft, or is it an anachronism unworthy of production?
In this month's feature we will attempt to strip away the emotive hype and take a closer look at the strengths and weaknesses of this aircraft.
The Eurofighter Typhoon - A Brief History
The genesis of the RAF Typhoon lay in the early seventies AST.396 requirement for a STOVL light ground attack fighter intended to replace the Jaguar and Harrier. This requirement was abandoned in favour of the AST.403 specification for a multirole fighter with similar capabilities to the emerging US F-16 and F/A-18. The STOVL requirement soon disappeared since neither Germany nor France saw any such need and they were the most likely teaming partners for a project too big for the UK industry to tackle alone. The objective thus became the replacement of the RAF Jaguar and Phantom FGR.2. With Germany seeking a highly agile F/RF-4F/E replacement, and France seeking a Jaguar replacement, AST.414 was created.
The European Combat Aircraft (ECA) study group was formed, and by 1979 a joint BAe-MBB proposal for the European Combat Fighter (ECF) presented. With Dassault joining the BAe-MBB consortium, a twin engine delta canard was agreed as the preferred configuration. By 1981 the ECF collapsed, since the French wanted a fighter small enough to operate from their aircraft carriers.
Concurrently the national manufacturers worked on their own studies, BAe the P.110, MBB the TKF-90 and Dassault the ACX (which became the Rafale).
In April 1982 a new team was formed comprising the former Panavia Tornado players, and the extant design studies were merged into the Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA). To prove the concepts proposed in the ACA, the UK funded the Experimental Aircraft Program (EAP), the other two governments not coming to the party. Supported by UK government funding and industry funds from all three countries, the EAP first flew in August, 1986. The EAP demonstrator flew until 1991, logging 191.3 hours of total flight time.
European air forces continued to show interest in the idea of a common European design, and in late 1983 a common European requirement for the Future European Fighter Aircraft (FEFA soon changed to EFA) was defined with the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain participating. The EFA was to be a highly agile twin engine, single seat fighter with STOL capabilities. Its role was to be BVR counter air combat, short range air superiority over the battlefield, while a respectable strike capability would be provided.
The influences of the period were quite evident. The Soviets were fielding the Su-27S and MiG-29, during what was to be their final surge in the Cold War arms race. Europe's BVR air defences and air superiority hinged on the availability of USAF F-15As based in Germany and Holland, while most European air forces flew the agile but day-VFR F-16A. Germany and Britain flew tired F-4s of various vintages, and France the Mirage F.1 and 2000. The FEFA reflected these pressures, and was clearly intended to provide a smaller and cheaper European BVR capable substitute for the then expensive F-15, in numbers competitive with the F-16, with enough multirole capability to support the dedicated strike assets in any NATO vs Warpac contingency.
It was a European solution to a European scenario. The nearest comparison to the teen series would be an F/A-18 class multirole fighter with the BVR capabilities and agility of an F-15. The USAF replaced their Phantoms with the longer ranging, agile BVR F-15, whereas the USN replaced theirs with smaller and lighter F/A-18, compromising top end BVR performance in favour of numbers and strike capability. The RAF and Luftwaffe, the leaders in the EFA, rolled the equivalent of the USAF and USN Phantom replacements into a single F/A-18 sized airframe.
The question an Australian observer might ask is why not buy a mix of F-15s and F/A-18s off-the-shelf? This would have been unthinkable to the Europeans since they would lose the design expertise and manufacturing base the Eurofighter promised, as well as the massive investment by then sunk into the program, the production base built up for the Panavia Tornado, and concede the future fighter market to the US.
By 1984 the extant divisions between the French and the remaining players surfaced again, over carrier compatibility. The French wanted a 19,000 lb aircraft (between the F-16 and F/A-18) and the British a 24,255 lb aircraft (F/A-18 class empty weight). A compromise 21,000 lb weight was agreed upon. The French also sought design leadership, 50% of total workshare, control of the umbrella company and exports. A schism arose between the French and the other players and the EFA collapsed.
August 1985 saw the UK, Germany and Italy decide to resurrect the program and Spain and France were invited to join. Spain did, France went solo with the Rafale. By June 1986 the Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH company was formed, and in September 1986, Eurojet Turbo GmbH was formed to design and build the engine. The ECR-90 radar was awarded to GEC Ferranti in the UK.
The RAF EFA requirement was SRA.414, which sought a lightweight twin turbofan BVR and close combat fighter, with a secondary strike capability. The RAF sought 250 aircraft, the Luftwaffe 250, Italy 165 and Spain 100.
The EFA was in trouble again by 1992, under threat from the "peace dividend" expectations of European parliaments. Germany threatened to pull out altogether, after initially chopping numbers to 140, while Italy and Spain reduced the size of their planned buys. After much political bickering, the programme survived with revised build numbers, but serious delays were incurred.
Reports suggest that the F-22 was proposed to the UK, a historical fact which would explain the peculiar fixation on comparing the EFA to the F-22 in much of the marketing literature. The comparison is curious in the sense that the EFA is conceptually an evolution in the teen series fighter paradigm, whereas the F-22 combines sustained supercruising engines and Very Low Observables (stealth), thus representing a completely new paradigm.
The first prototype Eurofighter 2000 DA.1 flew from the DASA Manching facility in March 1994.
The Eurofighter Typhoon - A Technical Summary
The Typhoon employs a combined delta canard configuration with a wing area similar to the F-15, and similar internal fuel capacity, yet the aircraft has an empty weight of around 24,250 lb, much like a late model F/A-18C. The excellent empty weight of the Typhoon in relation to the wing size is as much a result of the compact configuration, as it is of the generous use of carbon fibre composites in the fuselage and wing of the aircraft. Titanium canards and outer control surfaces, and Aluminium Lithium alloy leading edges were employed to minimise weight yet achieve high structural strength.
The combined delta canard configuration and 538 ft2 wing size confer very low wing loading on 50% internal fuel, and are optimised for transonic manoeuvre and supersonic dash performance. The combination of sweep angle and unstable aft CoG is clearly intended for minimising supersonic drag, and is comparable to a classical supersonic interceptor like the Mirage series, but is more modest than the "supercruiser" 72° swept inboard wing section of the F-16XL/E.
The Typhoon is unlikely to match the supersonic high G envelope of F-16XL/E due to a lower wing sweep angle, but will have a useful advantage over most teen/teenski series types optimised for transonic turning. In transonic manoeuvre, the automatic full span leading edge slats are used to adjust the wing camber and therefore reduce the lift induced drag at high G characteristic of classical deltas in this regime. Fuselage vortex generators on either side of the cockpit are employed to promote vortex formation at high AoA and low speeds, and thus increase lift.
The paired inlet is optimised for high AoA performance, using forebody flow to promote air ingestion, as well as a boundary layer splitter above the inlet. The combination of vortex lift and inlet geometry used by the Typhoon exploits the same ideas used in the F-16A/C/XL/E.
The loosely coupled canard is intended to provide high control authority at high angles of attack, by placing the surfaces ahead of the main vortices, but also to provide lower trim drag in supersonic flight.
In comparing the Typhoon to established fighters, the aerodynamic design exploits basic ideas used in F-16 family, but combines them with a strongly swept delta and canard configuration to extend the supersonic envelope, although not as aggressively as GD did with the 660 ft2 cranked arrow F-16XL/E wing. The simpler wing design in the Typhoon in turn required canards to achieve the desired supersonic drag and manoeuvre envelope.
From the perspective of airframe optimisations, the Typhoon is without doubt optimised for its two primary design objectives, which are supersonic BVR interception and close in combat at transonic speeds, with no obvious concessions made to the secondary objective of strike. The low wing loading will confer excellent climb performance for the installed thrust, and the the delta configuration lower supersonic drag, in comparison with the F/A-18. The low wing loading is not optimal for low level strike profiles, but the gust sensitivity will be alleviated by the large sweep angle and the use of artificial stability and canards. The airframe is rated to +9/-3G at an undisclosed combat weight, pylon G ratings have also not been disclosed.
The aircraft is powered by a pair of Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofans, rated at 13,500 lbf dry and 20,000 lbf reheated at sea level, which is comparable to growth variants of the F/A-18's GE F404. The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance rather than cruise burn. Eurofighter claim the engine has a supercruise capability, although the duration of possible supercruise has not been disclosed. As the engine is technologically of the same generation as evolved teen series engines, expectations that it can deliver the kind of supercruise performance provided by uniquely designed supercruising powerplants like the US F119 and F120 are difficult to accept.
In an OCA/DCA combat configuration, clean, at 50% internal fuel (~6,500 lb), the Typhoon delivers a nominal sea level dry thrust/weight ratio of 0.82:1 and reheated thrust/weight ratio of 1.22:1 with a wing loading of 60.8 lb/ft2. Both are in the class of the F-15A/C, F-16A/C, MiG-29 and Su-27SK.
The aircraft uses a quadruply redundant digital flight control system intended to provide carefree handling, the latter an advancement over the teen series, and in many respects a necessity given the inherently pitch unstable aerodynamic configuration.
An experienced F/A-18 pilot who flew the Typhoon simulator commented to the author that the aircraft's manoeuvre/handling performance did not appear to be a dramatic improvement over the F/A-18, and rudder authority at high AoA did not match the F/A-18. It is however possible that further refinement of the flight control software could have yielded handling improvements since the mid nineties.
The overall impression resulting from a review of the aircraft's basic configuration, propulsion and fuel package is of a fighter with F-15 class transonic and supersonic agility at optimal weight, instantaneous manoeuvre performance slightly exceeding the teen series, all packaged into an F/A-18 sized airframe with installed thrust comparable to late build F/A-18 models. This reflects very closely the initial EFA design objectives.
The Typhoon's avionic package is built essentially upon the technology base used in the teen series fighters, but employs a higher level of integration against established in service teen series types.
The centrepiece of the avionic package is the X-band (I/J-band) ECR-90 pulse-Doppler multimode radar, similar in concept to the US Raytheon APG-63/65/70 series and derived from the Blue Vixen (Harrier FRS.2). Eurofighter are claiming twice the output power of the F/A-18's APG-65/73 series (typical power output for this class is 10 kW peak), and twice the detection range of the F-16's APG-68. However, in the absence of published data on the ECR-90's mechanically steered planar array aperture size, and peak power ratings, it is impossible to robustly verify these assertions. The radar is frequently credited with a detection range advantage over the F-15's APG-63/70 series, a necessity for the intended use of ramjet BVR missiles with an 80 NMI class A-pole range.
In terms of modes the ECR-90 incorporates the typical package we are familiar with in the teen series, or equivalents. Eurofighter emphasise the rapid slew rate of the planar array.
At this time an active phased array, the AMSAR, is in development as an upgrade to the ECR-90 and the Rafale's RBE2 passive phased array. The AMSAR/ECR-90 is technologically in the same category as the APG-68 ABR (F-16C/B.60) and APG-73 RUG III. It is expected to be available by around 2005, and would provide like the ABR and RUG III improved BVR performance, much lower sidelobes, interleaved search and engagement modes and the potential for interleaved terrain following and ground attack modes. AMSAR offers the potential for LPI operation, but would require further design optimisations and a fundamental redesign of many portions of the ECR-90 back end.
The ECR-90 is supplemented by two passive sensors. The Pilkington Optronics PIRATE mid-wave IRS&T/FLIR can be used for detection, identification and terrain avoidance, with eight discrete operating modes. It is tightly integrated with the radar's functions and either can be slaved to the other. In the absence of aperture and detector size data it is impossible to estimate the effective range under clear sky conditions.
An ESM is integrated into the Defensive Aids SubSystem (DASS), and could be employed as a passive targeting tool in engagements, in addition to its basic function as a sensitive long range RWR. The antenna packages are in the wingtip pods.
The DASS package is comprehensive, incorporating the ESM/RWR, a MAWS, a forward sector Laser Warning Receiver (RAF), expendables, DECM and an optical fibre towed decoy. This is a competitive package by any measure, against its US contemporaries.
The core avionic architecture is based upon the federated model, using multiple Mil-Std-1553B busses, making it comparable technologically to late build teen series systems. Eurofighter claim the use of sensor fusion techniques in the system software, to combine the data produced by the radar, IRS&T and ESM to provide a very high confidence of early BVR target identification and engagement. Given the significantly lower available computing power in the Typhoon, against the F-22A's Cray class CIPs, assertions that this capability is competitive against the sensor fusion software in the F-22A are somewhat peculiar, given that real time sensor fusion is a computationally intensive task.
Eurofighter take much pride in the aircraft's cockpit, which incorporates a holographic HUD, 3 colour MFDs, HOTAS controls, and pilot voice input for selecting system modes. Marconi are developing a HMD, which is intended to provide the pilot with visor projected binocular NVG imagery, FLIR/IRS&T imagery and symbology. On the available data the cockpit is state of the art, and clearly very competitive against teen series equivalents.
Primary navigation reference is provided by a Litton LN-93EF RLG INS, supplemented by GPS and TACAN. A GPWS (ground prox warning) and Microwave Landing System (MLS) are incorporated, the former to aid in low level operations. The aircraft carries secure VHF and UHF comm, an IFF interrogator and a MIDS/JTIS terminal.
For BVR combat the Typhoon's primary weapon will be the Matra-BAe Meteor FMRAAM, a ramjet powered AAM with a radar seeker evolved from the Matra-BAe MICA. The proposal to use the extended range AMRAAM derived ERAAM, or an ramjet AMRAAM derivative, was rejected in favour of a wholly European AAM. The interim BVR weapon will be the US AIM-120B AMRAAM. Most sources credit the FMRAAM with 80 NMI engagement range against a closing target, about 20% better than the ERAAM. The FMRAAM is to outrange the Russian Vympel R-77M ramjet Adder derivative. Four BVR AAMs will be carried in wing root semi-conformal wells.
For close-in combat the RAF Typhoon will be armed with the AIM-132 ASRAAM, soon to be deployed on the RAAF's F/A-18A+ fleet. Non-RAF Typhoons will carry a single Mauser 27 mm cannon, the MoD having decided to delete the gun from RAF aircraft. Weapon interfaces are compatible with standard Sidewinder and AMRAAM interfaces, it is likely the FMRAAM will use the AMRAAM interface.
For strike operations, a range of weapons may be carried. The primary RAF standoff weapon will be the Matra-BAe Storm Shadow cruise missile, derived from the French Apache, the Luftwaffe is likely to stay with the Tornado's KEPD-350. Variants of the Paveway laser guided bomb may be carried, with a TIALD FLIR/laser pod occupying one forward AAM well. For close-in tank busting, the millimetric wave Brimstone (AGM-114F Hellfire derivative) will be used. We can expect to see the Matra-BAe ALARM used for SEAD by the RAF, the AGM-88 HARM by the Luftwaffe. Mil-Std-1760 interfaces are provided as with current build teen series fighters to facilitate the integration of new weapons.
A wide range of options exist for external fuel carriage. For supersonic OCA/DCA combat, around 4,500 lb can be carried in upper wing root Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) and around 1,800 lb each in a pair of drop tanks. For subsonic strike sorties, 1,500 L or 2,000 L drop tanks may be carried in addition to CFTs.
Eurofighter marketing literature makes much mileage out of a claimed "stealth" capability, acquired by the use of S-bend inlet tunnels and selective application of radar absorbent materials. The design spec is claimed to have included bounds on RCS performance.
The assertion that the aircraft has a "stealth" capability is curious by any measure, since there is no evidence of planform alignment, panel edge alignment, blending or faceting, all established techniques used and proven on US types such as the F-117A, B-2A, YF-23A, F-22A and the JSF prototypes. Indeed the external carriage of stores alone would make the Typhoon's radar signature at least 10-100 times greater than the golfball to insect sized RCS we are accustomed to with US types. Unless the Europeans have invented new laws of radar scattering, the aircraft is at best a conventional fighter with reduced forward sector RCS, comparable to evolved F/A-18, F-16 variants, the Rafale or the B-1B.
The benefits of such limited RCS reduction are marginal, since the detection range curve is fairly steep in this region and modest increases in opposing radar performance can largely offset any gains in such RCS reduction. While every dBSM down is useful, beyond 0.3 of a square metre the payoff is questionable with external stores being carried. Moreover, unless an LPI radar is carried, the emissions of the radar will betray the fighter to an opponent from well outside radar range.
Published detection range performance for the NIIP N-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph (Su-30MK upgrades) and Agat 9B-1103M/9B-1348E R-77/R-77M seekers would suggest that a Typhoon loaded with external stores could be successfully engaged within the 50-65 NMI envelope. The Meteor ramjet AAM is therefore vital to the Typhoon, since the AMRAAM cannot fully exploit the range advantage of the BVR weapon system.
The Eurofighter Typhoon. This example is flown by 3SQN RAF (Royal Air Force).
Is the Typhoon a Demon or a Lemon?
Given the vigorous marketing effort of the Eurofighter consortium both in Europe and Australia, and the often extremely hostile coverage the aircraft has received in the international press, and moreso UK press, it is worth exploring the aircraft's strengths and weaknesses against some established baselines.
The aircraft's counter air performance is cited as its major strength, and it is frequently cited to be "82% as effective as an F-22".
The magic 82% number is derived from a mid nineties DERA simulation against a postulated Su-35 threat. The number is based upon the rather unusual metric of "probability of successful engagement" in BVR combat, rating the F-22 at 91%, the Typhoon at 82%, the F-15F (single seat E) at 60%, the Rafale at 50% and the F-15C at 43%.
The probability of a successful engagement can be translated into the more commonly used metric of a kill ratio by making some reasonable statistical assumptions, and doing this yields about 10.0:1 for the F-22A, 4.6:1 for the Typhoon, 1.5:1 for the single seat F-15E, 1:1 for the Rafale and 0.75:1 for the F-15C. So in the most common terms used, the Typhoon is by the DERA simulation about half as combat effective as the F-22A, about three times as combat effective as the F-15F, about five times as effective as the Rafale and 6 times as effective as the F-15C. If we compare this with cited USAF claims rating the F-22A as 10-15 times as combat effective as the F-15C in BVR engagements, this means that the DERA study roughly agrees with USAF assessments of F-22A vs F-15C combat effectiveness. The detailed assumptions applied to this study have not been disclosed.
The validity of this study in today's environment must be questioned. Since its compilation the Russians have developed the NIIP-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph phased arrays for the Su-27/30, the R-77M ramjet Adder, the extended range R-74 digital Archer, 2D and 3D thrust vectoring nozzles, higher thrust AL-31 engine derivatives, and active radar seekers for the R-27 Alamo, as well as fielding an anti-radiation variant of the Alamo. The F-22A is likely to be shooting the ERAAM, and some USAF F-15Cs are being fitted with active phased arrays, with the likely prospect of getting ERAAMs as well, or even a ramjet AMRAAM variant. Therefore it is likely that most of the supporting assumptions used in the study are very stale, if not irrelevant. Until Typhoons are equipped with the AMSAR and Meteor, the projected 4.6:1 BVR kill ratio is by any measure optimistic, against an evolved Su-30 variant.
Clearly the Typhoon is robustly in the BVR lethality class of the F-15C/E, and the principal driver of relative effectiveness between these types will the radar and missile capabilities. Until the USAF field phased arrays and ERAAM or ramjet AAMs on the whole F-15 fleet (some aircraft are currently being retrofitted with APG-63(V)3 active phased arrays), the Typhoon will hold a decisive advantage. US longwave IRS&T technology is available off-the-shelf and would much reduce any advantage conferred by the PIRATE to the Typhoon.
The other important considerations in BVR combat are transonic and supersonic acceleration, persistence and sustained turn performance. While the latter are difficult to estimate, the former can be directly compared by looking at thrust/weight ratios.
The clean Typhoon, with 50% internal gas and 6-8 AAMs is firmly in the class of the F100-PW-229 powered F-15F, on dry thrust, and about 15% behind the F-15F on reheat. Where the Typhoon falls behind the F-15F is when its operating radius is stretched and additional external gas is being carried. If we take a Typhoon with 3 x 1000L external tanks, and an F-15F with 2 x 600 USG external tanks, we have configurations which deliver very similar endurance and operating radius for a point intercept. In the latter situation, approaching the target, the Typhoon is around 12% behind the F-15F in critical reheated thrust/weight ratio. If we compare a Typhoon with CFTs, 3 x 1000L external tanks against an F-15F with only CFTs, we get a shortfall of about 20% in thrust/weight ratio in addition to the drag penalty of the external tanks. These are very approximate estimates, not accounting for combat gas, but even doing a very accurate simulation would yield the inevitable conclusion - an F/A-18 sized fighter, no matter how agile when clean, cannot compete in thrust/weight ratio with an F-15 sized fighter at extended operating radii.
The argument that the smaller fighter can fly out in a less encumbered configuration, and rely upon a tanker, disregards the need for enough internal gas to safely if an AAR fails over water. By the same token, the use of higher thrust growth EJ200 engines in the Typhoon alleviates the problem, but it would still remain behind an F-15F fitted with the growth 32 klb F100-PW-232 or its GE equivalent F110 variant.
Clearly in any scenario where unrefuelled operating radius is not a major issue, the Typhoon is a highly competitive conventional fighter, and exceeds the capabilities of an F-15 variant without a phased array and extended range AAMs. However, a new build F-15 with current technology engines, and AESA/ramjet AAM package will maintain a healthy performance margin even over a growth variant of the Typhoon, and an operating radius advantage. The relative effectiveness would then boil down to issues such as tactics, and any relative advantages of the specific AAMs carried and radars fitted.
The comparative advantages of the Typhoon over the Su-27/30 family exhibit similar sensitivities to technology upgrades in the Sukhoi fighters. Fitted with a phased array, longwave IRS&T, carrying ramjet R-77M missiles, supported by SuAWACS, and using growth engines we must seriously question how great a lethality margin the Typhoon would hold against such a fighter. The Sukhoi, inevitably, exhibits the same thrust/weight ratio advantages the F-15 does in extended range combat, which was a design objective for this type as it was for the F-15.
In comparing the Typhoon against the only other fighter in its weight class, the F/A-18A/C, the benefits of using later generation technology show very clearly. The Typhoon outperforms the F/A-18A/C in BVR weapon system capability as well as aerodynamic performance. While much better than the F/A-18A/C in operating radius and agility, its optimal operating radius is not in the class of the F-15 and Su-27/30.
Conclusions
What conclusions can we draw about the Typhoon? The notion that the aircraft is "almost as good as an F-22" is not supportable, indeed upgrading the F-15 with engines and a radar/IRS&T/AAM package of the same generation as that of the Typhoon would equalise almost all advantages held by the Typhoon over older F-15C/E variants. By the same token, no upgrades performed on the F/A-18A/C would equalise the performance advantages of the Typhoon over these aircraft.
The strength of the Typhoon is its very modern and comprehensive avionic package, especially that in the RAF variant, and its excellent agility when operated around its optimum combat radius of about 300 NMI (a figure to be found in older Eurofighter literature, which has since disappeared with the export drive to compete against the bigger F-15 and F-22).
The Typhoon's weaknesses are its F/A-18C class weight and thrust and the implications of this in combat at extended operational radii, and the longer term sensitivity of its BVR weapons advantage to equivalent technological developments in opposing fighters.
In terms of where to position the Typhoon in the current menagerie of fighter aircraft, it can be best described as an F/A-18C sized fighter with BVR systems and agility performance better than older F-15 models, similar to growth F-15 models with same generation systems and engines, but inferior to the F-15 in useful operating radius. The Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft, despite various assertions to this effect, nor is it a genuine supercruiser like the F-22. Its design incorporates none of the features seen in very low observable types, nor does the EJ200 incorporate the unique design features of the F119 and F120 powerplants.
The Typhoon is certainly not a lemon, although the wisdom of mass producing a high performance conventional fighter of its ilk in a period where stealth is about to hit mass production in the F-22 and JSF programs could be seriously questioned. It represents what is likely to be the last major evolutionary step in the teen series design philosophy.
Eurofighter Typhoon - Demon or Lemon?
Hari Sud
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,775
- Likes
- 8,502
Before we go too deep into Eurofighter discussion, which is theory only as India has made up its mind on Rafale, let us discuss something else.
India's fancy for foreign weapons is legendary. We hate Indian made products, find faults, set unusually difficult specifications which favor imports, our Marshals, Generals, Admirals reject any thing local in favor of imports. Our bureacracy is so tardy that latest reports indicate that there are 70% of Arjun tank components are imported and while contracting imports they forgot to negotiate TOT for the maintenance of components, hence any regular repair or preventive maintenance has to be performed in suppliers workshop. Therefore a large contingent of Arjun is not operational.
Our General's eyes are bigger than their stomach. They want US grade weapons to fight minor irritations like Pakistan. Chinese will never fight again in Himalayas. They are so afraid that their defeat at the hands of Vietnam in 1979 may be repeated again in the Himalayas and their prestige may suffer.
Fight with Pakistan has become a missile fight. They could arm them with nuclear weapons. First they have to demonstrate that they have miniaturized the nuclear weapon. China and North Korea, their main suppliers are at the early stages of miniaturization, hence cannot help much.
Still our General's, Admirals and Marshals want weapons of the latest design and high caliber to fight a poor equipped enemy. Here is a partial list of what they want.
1. 1500 brand new artillery guns in next three to five years. They need light artillery also.
2. They want to replace 700,000 INSAS rifles (all rifles jam under various weather conditions)
3. They want to replace a nicely working anti Aircraft guns with more modern (again this is taking a knife to a gun fight).
4. They want to replace all carbines (in a missile fight, carbine is less important)
5. They have not learnt that artillery shell tracking radar is unoperational. All because US will not supply spares. Indian made radar has been rejected.
6. The communication hardware is hard to comeby, but the generals insist on the very best.
7. They are holding a gun at head of civilian money managers to buy hand held American anti tank missile. Although Indian made Helina and Nag will suffice.
The list is unending for the army. It goes on and on and the arms merchants have been feeding their craze with propaganda and money.
The Airforce is not to be left behind...
1. They want 126 Rafale (36 is insufficient).
2. They want attack helicopters, transport helicopters and all other kind of helicopters. They want brand new and all imported.
3. They want to replace Avro transporter like yesterday.
4. They want to get American Chinook helicopter other than transporting light artillery, what.
And so on on an enending list....
The Navy admirals, although totally incompetent after sinking and junking two submarines in a gap of few months still want ....
1. 12 more submarines - all imported or made under foreign supervision, themselves they are incompetent to learn and supervise.
2. They want 4 nuclear powered submarines
3. They want four aircraft carriers. - two new ( one under construction completion ) are insufficient.
4. They want sea landing aircrafts from Japan.
5. They want if possible F35 naval version for the aircraft carriers.
And the list goes on and on...
What is the matter with our military command structure. I know or guess the reason - they have been corrupted by sight of foreign money and are holding a gun to India's head I.e. If you want us to fight and win, we need these weapons or else. As a matter of fact India fought and won in 1965, 1971 and 1999 with our existing inventory of weapons. Our enemies are much more poorly equipped. Chinese have a big obstacle in Himalyas and Pakistan's are poorly equipped to be much of threat.
India's fancy for foreign weapons is legendary. We hate Indian made products, find faults, set unusually difficult specifications which favor imports, our Marshals, Generals, Admirals reject any thing local in favor of imports. Our bureacracy is so tardy that latest reports indicate that there are 70% of Arjun tank components are imported and while contracting imports they forgot to negotiate TOT for the maintenance of components, hence any regular repair or preventive maintenance has to be performed in suppliers workshop. Therefore a large contingent of Arjun is not operational.
Our General's eyes are bigger than their stomach. They want US grade weapons to fight minor irritations like Pakistan. Chinese will never fight again in Himalayas. They are so afraid that their defeat at the hands of Vietnam in 1979 may be repeated again in the Himalayas and their prestige may suffer.
Fight with Pakistan has become a missile fight. They could arm them with nuclear weapons. First they have to demonstrate that they have miniaturized the nuclear weapon. China and North Korea, their main suppliers are at the early stages of miniaturization, hence cannot help much.
Still our General's, Admirals and Marshals want weapons of the latest design and high caliber to fight a poor equipped enemy. Here is a partial list of what they want.
1. 1500 brand new artillery guns in next three to five years. They need light artillery also.
2. They want to replace 700,000 INSAS rifles (all rifles jam under various weather conditions)
3. They want to replace a nicely working anti Aircraft guns with more modern (again this is taking a knife to a gun fight).
4. They want to replace all carbines (in a missile fight, carbine is less important)
5. They have not learnt that artillery shell tracking radar is unoperational. All because US will not supply spares. Indian made radar has been rejected.
6. The communication hardware is hard to comeby, but the generals insist on the very best.
7. They are holding a gun at head of civilian money managers to buy hand held American anti tank missile. Although Indian made Helina and Nag will suffice.
The list is unending for the army. It goes on and on and the arms merchants have been feeding their craze with propaganda and money.
The Airforce is not to be left behind...
1. They want 126 Rafale (36 is insufficient).
2. They want attack helicopters, transport helicopters and all other kind of helicopters. They want brand new and all imported.
3. They want to replace Avro transporter like yesterday.
4. They want to get American Chinook helicopter other than transporting light artillery, what.
And so on on an enending list....
The Navy admirals, although totally incompetent after sinking and junking two submarines in a gap of few months still want ....
1. 12 more submarines - all imported or made under foreign supervision, themselves they are incompetent to learn and supervise.
2. They want 4 nuclear powered submarines
3. They want four aircraft carriers. - two new ( one under construction completion ) are insufficient.
4. They want sea landing aircrafts from Japan.
5. They want if possible F35 naval version for the aircraft carriers.
And the list goes on and on...
What is the matter with our military command structure. I know or guess the reason - they have been corrupted by sight of foreign money and are holding a gun to India's head I.e. If you want us to fight and win, we need these weapons or else. As a matter of fact India fought and won in 1965, 1971 and 1999 with our existing inventory of weapons. Our enemies are much more poorly equipped. Chinese have a big obstacle in Himalyas and Pakistan's are poorly equipped to be much of threat.
bose
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2010
- Messages
- 4,921
- Likes
- 5,961
The defence acquisition council (DAC) on Wednesday cleared a slew of proposals including the lone bid of Airbus-Tata consortium to replace the Indian Air Force’s ageing fleet of Avro transport aircraft and accepted Russia’s offer to build 200 light-utility helicopters under the Make in India initiative.
The DAC, headed by defence minister Manohar Parrikar, also cleared acquisition of 145 pieces of M777 ultra-light Howitzers from the US under a government-to-government deal.
Proposals for six new BrahMos supersonic cruise missile systems for the Indian Navy, worth Rs 2,700 crore, and upgrading two Boeing 777-300 ER for VVIP travel were also accepted, defence sources said.
The council also constituted a panel to work out the modalities, such as price and offset, for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France cleared during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit.
The defence ministry had set the process to replace the Avro transport aircraft in May 2013 when it invited original equipment manufacturers, including US firms Boeing and Lockheed Martin, European multinational Airbus Defence and Space and Antonov of Ukraine, to come up with their proposals.
They were required to tie up with an Indian private firm. However, only Airbus and Tata responded to the invitation. Under the current defence procurement policy, single- vendor situation is not entertained unless cleared by the DAC.
Wednesday’s decision to accept Airbus-Tata consortium’s bid to replace IAF’s 56 Avro aircraft with the C-295 transport carriers would cost Rs 11,930 crore.
Provided by Hindustan Times A Rafale fighter jet is prepared to be catapulted for a mission over Libya from France's flagship Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, in the Gulf of Sirte, off the Libyan coast.
As part of the deal, 16 aircraft would be bought off-the-shelf and 40 manufactured in India.
Another major bid cleared at the council meet is the Russian proposal to assemble advance twin-engine Kamov helicopters. The cost and other modalities for the 200 Kamov Ka-226T helicopters would be worked out later, defence sources said, pointing that some of them could be bought off the shelf.
The DAC also approved the request from the army – which desperately needs new artillery guns – for 145 pieces of ultra-light howitzers through the foreign military sales option. The BAE’s M777 Ultra-Light Howitzer project was initiated in 2008 but differences that cropped up in 2013 stalled the Rs 2,900 crore deal.
Under this government-to-government deal, the US would guarantee delivery and the price. “Spares, maintenance and ammunition will be operated through Indian systems,” a source said.
link: http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/natio...rs-under-make-in-india/ar-BBjL870?ocid=LENDHP
The DAC, headed by defence minister Manohar Parrikar, also cleared acquisition of 145 pieces of M777 ultra-light Howitzers from the US under a government-to-government deal.
Proposals for six new BrahMos supersonic cruise missile systems for the Indian Navy, worth Rs 2,700 crore, and upgrading two Boeing 777-300 ER for VVIP travel were also accepted, defence sources said.
The council also constituted a panel to work out the modalities, such as price and offset, for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France cleared during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit.
The defence ministry had set the process to replace the Avro transport aircraft in May 2013 when it invited original equipment manufacturers, including US firms Boeing and Lockheed Martin, European multinational Airbus Defence and Space and Antonov of Ukraine, to come up with their proposals.
They were required to tie up with an Indian private firm. However, only Airbus and Tata responded to the invitation. Under the current defence procurement policy, single- vendor situation is not entertained unless cleared by the DAC.
Wednesday’s decision to accept Airbus-Tata consortium’s bid to replace IAF’s 56 Avro aircraft with the C-295 transport carriers would cost Rs 11,930 crore.
Provided by Hindustan Times A Rafale fighter jet is prepared to be catapulted for a mission over Libya from France's flagship Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, in the Gulf of Sirte, off the Libyan coast.
As part of the deal, 16 aircraft would be bought off-the-shelf and 40 manufactured in India.
Another major bid cleared at the council meet is the Russian proposal to assemble advance twin-engine Kamov helicopters. The cost and other modalities for the 200 Kamov Ka-226T helicopters would be worked out later, defence sources said, pointing that some of them could be bought off the shelf.
The DAC also approved the request from the army – which desperately needs new artillery guns – for 145 pieces of ultra-light howitzers through the foreign military sales option. The BAE’s M777 Ultra-Light Howitzer project was initiated in 2008 but differences that cropped up in 2013 stalled the Rs 2,900 crore deal.
Under this government-to-government deal, the US would guarantee delivery and the price. “Spares, maintenance and ammunition will be operated through Indian systems,” a source said.
link: http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/natio...rs-under-make-in-india/ar-BBjL870?ocid=LENDHP
Ind4Ever
Regular Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2015
- Messages
- 197
- Likes
- 118
MUMBAI: Foxconn Technology is in talks to manufacture Apple's iPhone in India, government officials said, in a move that could lower prices in the world's No.3 smartphone market where the US firm trails Samsung Electronics and local players.
India could help Foxconn mitigate accelerating wage inflation in China, where it makes the majority of iPhones, and base production sites closer to markets where its key clients want to grow.
Lower production costs could also help Foxconn keep hold of Apple orders amid intensifying competition with nimble manufacturing rivals such as Quanta Computer Inc.
"Foxconn is sending a delegation of their officers to scout for locations in a month's time," Subhash Desai, Industries Minister of Maharashtra, told Reuters.
Foxconn has said it is aiming to develop 10-12 facilities in India, including factories and data centres, by 2020, but had given no detail.
The Taiwan-based tech giant, the world's largest contract maker of electronic products, declined to comment on detailed plans on Thursday, citing commercial sensitivity.
Desai said Foxconn had yet to make any firm commitment, but he said the group was looking to manufacture iPhones, iPads and iPods, both for domestic as well as global sales.
Apple representatives in India did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
Apple's iPhone 6 with 16 GB sells for around 44,000 rupees ($687.82) in India, versus Samsung's Galaxy S6 with 32 GB which sells for around 40,000 rupees ($625.29).
It has 10 per cent market share in India, trailing Samsung and local manufacturers such as Micromax, which dominate the market, according to Counterpoint Research Market Monitor.
MAKE IN INDIA
A return of Foxconn -- which was forced to shut up shop in India last year after client Nokia closed -- would be a major victory for India, which badly needs to turn its tech boom into a manufacturing and employment boost.
India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has sought to reboot manufacturing, but the country is yet to rival China, particularly in technology where most factories will likely be assembly units to begin with.
But local businessmen are betting that as global companies invest in the country, suppliers will follow.
A lack of good infrastructure and suppliers are the biggest hurdles to making technology products in the country, forcing most of India's more than 100 different phone companies to get their products from the mature markets of China and Taiwan.
Apple is among the biggest clients for Foxconn -- the trade name for Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd -- which also makes components for companies such as Xiaomi, Acer and Sony.
"The smartphone boom in India indicates the time is just right to focus on expansion plans and increasing volume in India to a comparable level with the China market in the next five years," said Sky Li, vice president of phone manufacturer OPPO.
India has the second-highest number of mobile phone accounts behind China. According to networking solutions company Cisco Systems, there will be 650 million smartphones in the country by 2019. The number of tablets will rise 9 per cent to 18. ..
Read more at:
Make in India: iPhone maker Foxconn in talks to build first Apple plant in India - The Economic Times
India could help Foxconn mitigate accelerating wage inflation in China, where it makes the majority of iPhones, and base production sites closer to markets where its key clients want to grow.
Lower production costs could also help Foxconn keep hold of Apple orders amid intensifying competition with nimble manufacturing rivals such as Quanta Computer Inc.
"Foxconn is sending a delegation of their officers to scout for locations in a month's time," Subhash Desai, Industries Minister of Maharashtra, told Reuters.
Foxconn has said it is aiming to develop 10-12 facilities in India, including factories and data centres, by 2020, but had given no detail.
The Taiwan-based tech giant, the world's largest contract maker of electronic products, declined to comment on detailed plans on Thursday, citing commercial sensitivity.
Desai said Foxconn had yet to make any firm commitment, but he said the group was looking to manufacture iPhones, iPads and iPods, both for domestic as well as global sales.
Apple representatives in India did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
Apple's iPhone 6 with 16 GB sells for around 44,000 rupees ($687.82) in India, versus Samsung's Galaxy S6 with 32 GB which sells for around 40,000 rupees ($625.29).
It has 10 per cent market share in India, trailing Samsung and local manufacturers such as Micromax, which dominate the market, according to Counterpoint Research Market Monitor.
MAKE IN INDIA
A return of Foxconn -- which was forced to shut up shop in India last year after client Nokia closed -- would be a major victory for India, which badly needs to turn its tech boom into a manufacturing and employment boost.
India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has sought to reboot manufacturing, but the country is yet to rival China, particularly in technology where most factories will likely be assembly units to begin with.
But local businessmen are betting that as global companies invest in the country, suppliers will follow.
A lack of good infrastructure and suppliers are the biggest hurdles to making technology products in the country, forcing most of India's more than 100 different phone companies to get their products from the mature markets of China and Taiwan.
Apple is among the biggest clients for Foxconn -- the trade name for Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd -- which also makes components for companies such as Xiaomi, Acer and Sony.
"The smartphone boom in India indicates the time is just right to focus on expansion plans and increasing volume in India to a comparable level with the China market in the next five years," said Sky Li, vice president of phone manufacturer OPPO.
India has the second-highest number of mobile phone accounts behind China. According to networking solutions company Cisco Systems, there will be 650 million smartphones in the country by 2019. The number of tablets will rise 9 per cent to 18. ..
Read more at:
Make in India: iPhone maker Foxconn in talks to build first Apple plant in India - The Economic Times
Ind4Ever
Regular Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2015
- Messages
- 197
- Likes
- 118
Wage increase will the down turn for China and turn around for India . Only benefits of buying Chinese goods is their low cost even though with poor quality . Now wage increase is looming Chinese industries price of the goods manufactured will also increase . Has to increase no other go.
Some stupid Chinese experts in communist party will say that they will bring in robots to reduce the cost . Which will create more chaos as many will go unemployed so money for destroying newly built bridges or another ghost towns will literally comes to stand still in the future !!!
While India cleverly use this opportunity to bring in more companies from China and therefore creating new jobs for youngest country of the world with high quality education and training .
Hope is on government under modi ji to make use of this condition and start improving education system from preschool training and train may older population with new skill needed for particular company . Or create company level training necessary for many big industries. So the quality of life of our 1.2 billion people will get better ...
Some stupid Chinese experts in communist party will say that they will bring in robots to reduce the cost . Which will create more chaos as many will go unemployed so money for destroying newly built bridges or another ghost towns will literally comes to stand still in the future !!!
While India cleverly use this opportunity to bring in more companies from China and therefore creating new jobs for youngest country of the world with high quality education and training .
Hope is on government under modi ji to make use of this condition and start improving education system from preschool training and train may older population with new skill needed for particular company . Or create company level training necessary for many big industries. So the quality of life of our 1.2 billion people will get better ...
avknight1408
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2015
- Messages
- 1,099
- Likes
- 5,014
Foxconn already had a plant in chennai to suppply nokia plant. They will make it there i guess.
OneGrimPilgrim
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2015
- Messages
- 5,243
- Likes
- 6,810
do the bummmm-factories in WB and Kerala count in the 'Make in India' initiative?!
avknight1408
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2015
- Messages
- 1,099
- Likes
- 5,014
The only factory in WB is terrorists bomb making factory with foreign direct investment!
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 7,114
- Likes
- 7,761
Low cost jobs are already moving from China to other SE Asian countries like Thailand, Malaysia and Bangladesh.
If India does not quickly reform land and labour markets, these jobs will go to these countries and at the end of decade India would not be in similar position. Time is running fast.
If India does not quickly reform land and labour markets, these jobs will go to these countries and at the end of decade India would not be in similar position. Time is running fast.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,254
- Likes
- 3,061
If Foxconn (known as Hon Hai precision) comes it'll bring its suppliers with it .
Taiwan’s Innolux looks to invest in India
It mulls entering India with its major shareholder Hon Hai, also known as Foxconn.
Taiwanese panel display maker Innolux Corp is looking at investing in India to expand into the sub-continent with its biggest shareholder and key supply chain client Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd., a senior executive said.
“Currently Hon Hai is talking with India about a bunch of things and we have participated in some of the talks,” Innolux Chairman H.C. Tuan told reporters on the sidelines of the company’s annual shareholders meeting on Monday.
“We are very willing to go with Hon Hai.”
He didn’t detail with whom or where the talks were going on.
“If we go, it will not just be one location in India,” Mr. Tuan said, tipping India’s west, particularly its north-western region. This area is more developed in terms of high technology and it is where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is from, he said.
Mr. Tuan said there would be issues of finding local partners and clients if Innolux were to enter India by itself. Hon Hai, which goes by the trade name Foxconn, owns about 8 per cent of Innolux through direct and indirect holdings.
In late May, Hon Hai Chairman Terry Gou told Reuters that his company, the world’s biggest contract manufacturer of electronic products and the key assembler of Apple Inc’s iPhones, aims to develop 10-12 facilities in India, including factories and data centres, by 2020.
Foxconn is the latest tech powerhouse to set its sights on the world’s second most populous nation.
Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi in March announced plans to begin manufacturing in India.
Xiaomi sources a lot of its components for its mobile phones from Taiwanese companies, including those in the Foxconn group of companies.
“From our perspective, we won’t set up our own manufacturing. We will do it in contract with our partners. We are talking to Foxconn and others,” Manu Jain, head of Xiaomi India told Reuters. “The factory here will be like a captive. The partner will have some sort of agreement that they recover their costs.”
Mr. Gou said at that time that in addition to Chinese brands, Foxconn was aiming to cooperate with Indian companies such as Micromax Informatics.
http://www.thehindu.com/business/In...x-looks-to-invest-in-india/article7295278.ece
Taiwan’s Innolux looks to invest in India
It mulls entering India with its major shareholder Hon Hai, also known as Foxconn.
Taiwanese panel display maker Innolux Corp is looking at investing in India to expand into the sub-continent with its biggest shareholder and key supply chain client Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd., a senior executive said.
“Currently Hon Hai is talking with India about a bunch of things and we have participated in some of the talks,” Innolux Chairman H.C. Tuan told reporters on the sidelines of the company’s annual shareholders meeting on Monday.
“We are very willing to go with Hon Hai.”
He didn’t detail with whom or where the talks were going on.
“If we go, it will not just be one location in India,” Mr. Tuan said, tipping India’s west, particularly its north-western region. This area is more developed in terms of high technology and it is where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is from, he said.
Mr. Tuan said there would be issues of finding local partners and clients if Innolux were to enter India by itself. Hon Hai, which goes by the trade name Foxconn, owns about 8 per cent of Innolux through direct and indirect holdings.
In late May, Hon Hai Chairman Terry Gou told Reuters that his company, the world’s biggest contract manufacturer of electronic products and the key assembler of Apple Inc’s iPhones, aims to develop 10-12 facilities in India, including factories and data centres, by 2020.
Foxconn is the latest tech powerhouse to set its sights on the world’s second most populous nation.
Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi in March announced plans to begin manufacturing in India.
Xiaomi sources a lot of its components for its mobile phones from Taiwanese companies, including those in the Foxconn group of companies.
“From our perspective, we won’t set up our own manufacturing. We will do it in contract with our partners. We are talking to Foxconn and others,” Manu Jain, head of Xiaomi India told Reuters. “The factory here will be like a captive. The partner will have some sort of agreement that they recover their costs.”
Mr. Gou said at that time that in addition to Chinese brands, Foxconn was aiming to cooperate with Indian companies such as Micromax Informatics.
http://www.thehindu.com/business/In...x-looks-to-invest-in-india/article7295278.ece
manindra
Regular Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2012
- Messages
- 236
- Likes
- 338
NEW DELHI: India is considering a proposal to make it mandatory for the strategic sectors of Defence, Space and Atomic Energy to use 'made in India' chips in an initiative that will meet not only national security needs but also kick start the domestic semi-conductor manufacturing business that has been struggling to take off.
Sources said that preliminarily talks on the matter have already taken place and a meeting that included top government representatives from the strategic departments of space, atomic energy, information technology and defence research took place at the Niti Aayog recently.
At the heart of the issue is the setting up of two semi-conductor fabrication facilities in India that were cleared by the UPA government in 2013 but have still not taken off given a lack of direction and government support for the very high investment units.
Officials say that the government is aware that 'Made in India' chips and electronics are necessary in national interest, given the dependence currently India has on imported products that can be rigged and bugged.
"There is a fear of overdependence on foreign sources for such a vital thing. Cases of spurious and even suspicious electronic parts from abroad have come to light, making it necessary for at least the core strategic sectors to have an Indian option," an senior official told ET.
Officials have also identified cyber security at a key area where India made chips can be encouraged, given that it falls within the purview of the government. By most estimates, the strategic electronics industry in India is worth over Rs 12,000 crore annually and growing.
"It is clear that the semi-conductor industry has to stand up on its own and be competitive. However, the industry will never take off on its own due to the global competition. Encouragement in the form of a firm, committed market will be useful in starting the industry," the senior official said.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/make-in-india-govt-may-make-strategic-sector-source-chips-from-local-manufacturers/articleshow/48061540.cms
