Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259

F-16 - Various
Agile Falcon/production extension
F-16 Versions main menu
Agile Falcon
In 1984, General Dynamics proposed the Agile Falcon as a counter to new Soviet fighters such as the MiG-29 and the Su-27. It was designed to make use of some of the already-planned improvements to the Fighting Falcon known as MSIP IV. In addition, it had a 25-percent larger wing and was powered by an improved General Electric F110-GE-129 or Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engine. Very little interest was attracted at that time.







Impression of a proposed version, the Agile Falcon. This larger version of the F-16 never got into production. Features of this variant were integrated into the block 40 aircraft. The Japanese took over the concept for their F-2. This is slighty larger, with 4 underwing hardpoints, just like the proposed Agile Falcon. (GD impression)


Not giving up easily, General Dynamics proposed the Agile Falcon as a low-cost alternative to the F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter. It is intended for the US and the four original NATO members, General Dynamics arguing that the new European fighters such as the Dassault Rafale and the SAAB Gripen lacked the performance and avionics to dominate the MiG-29/Su-27 threat.

In October of 1987, the USAF announced that they might develop the Agile Falcon on its own even if the European partners backed out of the program. However, in the current military drawdown, the Agile Falcon program remains in limbo, and is unlikely to proceed any further.

F-16AT, Falcon 21
The Falcon 21 or F-16AT was proposed in 1990 as a low-cost alternative to the ATF. It was to use the basic F-16XL design, along with one of the proposed ATF engines. However, it was to use a trapezoidal delta wing rather than the F-16XL's cranked-arrow wing.

CK-1 test bed fighter
The CK-1 is an F-16D "Block 40" test bed fighter, built by Lockheed according to MANAT's specifications. (MANAT is the IAF Flight Test Center). This version is packed with sensors, measuring control surface movements and the airplane's rhythm of reaction to those movements. All measurements are delivered and analysed in "real time", to a test engineer sitting at the back seat. Special sensors are built into the CK-1 along the wing's root, measuring wing flatter and torsion forces. Other sensors could be installed in external pods or even at an extension attached to the fighter's nose.

The IAF intends to use this airplane to test various flying configurations, new avionics, and conduct weapon system delivery tests. The CK-1 would also be used to conduct various test flights in which the F-16s flying qualities would be further investigated.

Production Extension
The last USAF F-16 on order is scheduled for delivery in 1997, and the last foreign one in 1999. Lockheed Fort Worth Company (LFWC) announced on July 6th, 1994 that it had offered the Air Force a block of cheap F-16s in an effort to extend the type's production life. These would be Block 50D F-16Cs which would cost only $20 million per aircraft, a reduction of about $3 million over the "standard" F-16C, made possible, it was said, by new manufacturing techniques and process improvements. The USAF is expected to have a shortfall of about 100 F-16s by the end of the century due to attrition and the retirement of older aircraft.
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,540
Likes
16,985
Country flag

F-16V, the next generation of Fighting Falcon
 
Last edited:

suny6611

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Messages
160
Likes
77
Country flag
F-16 XL
Cranked-Arrow Wing
F-16 Versions main menu
History

In February of 1980, General Dynamics made a proposal for a Fighting Falcon version with a radically-modified wing shape, which was originally proposed for use on supersonic airliners. The project was known as SCAMP (Supersonic Cruise and Maneuvering Program) and later as F-16XL. The delta wing was to be of a cranked-arrow shape, with a total surface of 633 sq. ft. (more than double the area of the standard F-16 wing).




The research objectives included exploring innovative wing planform and camber shapes to provide efficient supersonic cruise performance while providing fighter-like transonic and supersonic turn agility. The design was intended to offer low drag at high subsonic or supersonic speeds without compromising low-speed maneuverability.

Structure & Avionics



Unique F-16/79 and F-16XL (Ship no. 1) formation. (LMTAS photo)


The program was initially funded by the manufacturer, and involved conversion of two FSD F-16A's. In late 1980, the USAF and General Dynamics agreed on a cooperative test program, with the Air Force providing the third and fifth FSD F-16s (A-3 (#75-0747) and A-5 (#75-0749)) for modification into F-16XL prototypes.

The fuselage was lengthened with 56 inches (142 cm) to 54 feet 1.86 inches by 'inserting' 2 new fuselage sections at the junctions between the three main fuselage sub-assemblies: one 26 inch (66 cm) section was inserted at the rear split point, and a 30 inch (76 cm) section at the front one. However, the rear 26in section, was not a continuous segment from the bottom to the top. Below the wing, a 26 inch segment was inserted just aft of the main landing gear, above the wing the segment was still 26 inches long, but inserted 26 inches farther aft than the segment below the wing. This made the section look like a backward "Z". The fuselage lengthening enabled the tail section to be canted up 3 degrees, necessary to prevent the engine nozzle from striking the runway during take off and landing.

The XL has no ventral fins for the same reason, but evidently did not need them, since the XL stability characteristics are in general superior to that of the F-16.

The engine inlet was only affected by the rear lower fuselage 26in extension, since the 30in forward fuselage extension was applied to the upper fuselage only. As a result, the F-16XL engine inlet is 26in longer than on a standard F-16A.

The wing planform was altered in a cranked-arrow delta wing (120% larger than the original F-16 wing), with extensive use of carbon composite materials (in the upper and lower layers of the skin) to save weight. Weight savings in the wings alone amounted to 600lbs. or 272kg. The wing is of multi-spar design with the leading edge sweep angle ranging from 50º to 70º, and is 2,800lbs (1,179 kg.) heavier than the original. The increase in internal volume (both by lengthening the fuselage and expanding the wing) allowed for a 82% increase in internal fuel capacity, while the increased wing area allowed the incorporation of up to 27 stores stations. Despite the apparent lengthening of the fuselage involved with the program, the new XL designation does NOT stand for "extra large".

Through wing planform improvements and camber optimizations, the final configuration offered a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio over the F-16 supersonically, and 11% improvement subsonic. The handling of the F-16XL was reportedly quite different from that of the standard F-16, offering a much smoother ride at high speeds and low altitudes. The configuration had matured into a very competent fighter with a large wing that allowed low-drag integration of large numbers of external weapons.




Formation take-off of the two F-16XL ships. (Erwin Boone Collection)


The first of two F-16XL's (#75-0749) to be modified, A-5 (5th Full-Scale Development F-16A) had a single seat and was powered by an F100-PW-200 turbofan. It flew for the first time on July 3rd, 1982, with James McKinney at the controls. The second F-16XL (#75-0747), was originally powered by a 29,000 lb.s.t. General Electric F110-GE-100 turbofan. It was converted from the 3rd FSD aircraft (A-3), which was severely damaged in a landing accident (nose tire failure) during the Edwards Open House in August of 1980. The aircraft took-off and blew it's nose tire in the event. The decision was taken to land with gears up. As soon as the nose gear touched down, it dug into the lake bed and snapped off. This caused the trailing edge of the radome , the leading edge of the forward equipment bay and the intale to carry the load. The intake scooped up tons of dry lake. In the process it was ground off on a line even with the forward bulkhead, (where the radar antenna hangs and the main gear tires). The radome was trashed and the equipment bay was ripped up. When this airframe arrived at Fort Worth for use in the XL program, it was accordingly missing the entire front end, and a new 2-seat front section was constructed for this aircraft. XL no. 2 flew for the first time on October 29th, 1982, piloted by Alex Wolf and Jim McKinney.

USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter Program
In March of 1981, the USAF announced that it would be developing a new advanced tactical fighter. General Dynamics entered the F-16XL in the competition, the McDonnell Douglas company submitting an adaptation of the two-seat F-15B Eagle. Because of its increased internal fuel capacity and payload, the F-16XL could carry twice the payload of the F-16 and 40% further. The increased payload was carried on 27 hardpoints, which were arranged as follows:

  • 16 wing weapons stations (750 lb capacity)
  • 4 semi-submerged AIM-120 stations
  • 2 wingtip stations
  • 1 centerline station
  • 2 wing "heavy / wet" stations
  • 2 chin stations for LANTIRN





F-16XL carrying a full complement of weapons: 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders on the wingtip stations, two underwing 370 gal fuel tanks, 10 Mk.82 (500lbs) General Purpose bombs on underwing stations, 2 Mk.82s on the centerline, and 4 semi-recessed AIM-120 Amraams. Note the aircraft is carrying the maximum amount of underwing stores with fuel-tanks fitted. (Erwin Boone Collection)


However, on each wing, the "heavy / wet" station was at the same buttline (distance from the center of the Fuselage) as two of the wing weapon stations. This means that you could use either the one " heavy / wet" or two weapon stations but not both at the same time.

Furthermore, if the "heavy / wet" station was used for an external fuel, the tank physically blocked one more wing station This meant that with external fuel tanks, the maximum number of weapons on the wings was 10. Two weapons could also be carried on a centerline adaptor. If no underwing fuel tanks were used, the maximum number of 500 lb class weapons was increased to 16. Although the XL could carry the centerline 300 tank, it was not really an operational loadout since mission range would actually be decreased unless the CL-300 could be dropped when empty.

In February of 1984, the Air Force announced that it had selected the McDonnell Douglas design in preference to the proposed production versions of F-16XL. The McDonnell Douglas proposal was later to enter production as the F-15E Strike Eagle. Had the F-16XL won the competition, production aircraft would have been designated F-16E (single-seat) and F-16F (two-seat). John G. Williams, lead engineer on the XL: "The XL is a marvelous airplane, but was a victim of the USAF wanting to continue to produce the F-15, which is understandable. Sometimes you win these political games, sometimes not. In most ways, the XL was superior to the F-15 as a ground attack airplane, but the F-15 was good enough."

Following the loss of the contract to MDD, General Dynamics returned both F-16XL's to Fort Worth during the summer of 1985 and placed them in storage. They had made 437 and 361 flights respectively, and although supersonic cruise without afterburner had been an original goal of the F-16XL program, the aircraft did never quite achieve this feat.

Modifications & Upgrades / NASA
In late 1988, the two prototypes were taken out of storage and turned over to NASA, where they received the serials #849 (A-5, ex #75-0749) and#848 (A-3, ex #75-0747). They were used in a program designed to evaluate aerodynamics concepts to improve wing airflow during sustained supersonic flight.




Superb photograph of F-16XL ship no. 1 in black/white color scheme, with afterburner lit. (NASA photo)


The first F-16XL, ship no. 1 was reflown on March 9, 1989 and delivered to the Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards AFB. This aircraft was modified for laminar-flow studies, with an experimental titanium section on its left wing (called a glove), with millions of tiny laser-cut holes (typical 2,500 holes/sq inch and 5 sq feet of holes).

Designed and built by Rockwell International's North American Aircraft Division (El Segundo, CA), its purpose was to siphon off (through active suction) a layer of turbulent surface air. This turbulent air layer, usually found on the wing's surface, affects flying performance by causing increased drag and fuel consumption. By removing the turbulent air layer, the laminar flow layer touches the wing's surface and far less drag is produced. Research by NASA to improve laminar flow dates back to 1926 when NASA's predecessor organization, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA), photographed airflow turbulence in a wind tunnel at its Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA. Smoke was ejected into the air stream and photographed as it showed visual signs of turbulence on the upper wing surfaces.




NASA two-shipper: SR-71A no. 844 and F-16XL Ship no. 1 #849, which was involved in sonic boom research. (NASA photo)


Early research such as this led to the eventual elimination of protruding rivet heads and other construction and design features that could create turbulence on high speed aircraft.

The first flight with the new wing took place on May 3rd, 1990, pilot Steve Ishmael at the controls. In January 1995 it performed a series of high-speed flights with NASA's SR-71. The aircraft were used to study the characteristics of sonic booms as part of the agency's high-speed civil transport program. Speed during these flights ranged from Mach 1.25 to Mach 1.8. During the flights, engineers recorded how sonic booms are affected by atmospheric conditions.

Later, ship no. 1 was transferred to NASA Langley, VA, where it was part of a flight test program for improving takeoff performance and reducing engine noise, and it was painted in an attractive high-viz black/yellow color scheme (with white front fuselage). The #849 went back to Edwards AFB by 1995, where it takes part in a sonic boom research project with an SR-71A.




F-16XL Ship no. 2 involved in supersonic laminar flow testing - note the active suction glove on the port wing. (NASA photo)


The second F-16XL, ship no. 2, a two-seater, was delivered to NASA with a developmental engine that needed to be replaced before any flight testing could be done. NASA acquired a General Electric F110-129 engine through GD Ft. Worth, which provided surprisingly good performance. Supercruise was accidentally achieved in military power early on in the program; a speed of Mach 1.1 was achieved at 20,000 feet. A passive glove (foam and fiberglass fairing) was installed on the right wing in order to examine the aerodynamic fluid mechanics along the leading edge of a supersonic surface, noise environment, and pressure distribution. On the left wing, a new active glove was installed (double the size of ship no. 1's glove) consisting of a foam and fiberglass fairing around a test section of a high-tech composite with a porous titanium skin.

The glove has a maximum thickness of 2.5 inch, and covers 75% of the wing's surface and 60% of its leading edge. It was designed by a NASA-contractor team which included the Langley Research Center, Dryden, Rockwell International, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas. The wing's S-Shaped blend was extended straight forward on the left side to match more closely the proposed wing for the high speed civil transport. The active section, the middle 66% of the glove, has at least 2,500 laser-drilled holes and is at least 10 sq feet large. The holes lead into 20 cavities beneath the wing's surface, which are used to control the suction at the wing's surface. The glove is chemically bonded to the skin itself with common epoxy resins. After the paint is removed from the aircraft, a couple of fiberglass layers are applied onto the skin of composite material, serving as protection for the skin when the glove is taken off again. Ship no. 2 is currently used as a testbed in the supersonic laminar-flow research project.

Specifications
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbofan (ship no. 1), rated at 12,240 lb.s.t. dry and 23,830 lb.s.t. with afterburning or one General Electric F110-GE-129 turbofan (ship no. 2), rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning

Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,260 mph) for ship no 1 and Mach 2 (1,400 mph) for ship no. 2 at 40,000 feet. Service ceiling 50,000 feet. Maximum range 2850 miles. Initial climb rate 62,000 feet per minute.

Dimensions: wingspan 34 feet 3 inches, length 54 feet 2 inches, height 17 feet 7 inches, wing area 633 square feet.

Weights: around 22,000 pounds empty, 48,000 pounds maximum takeo


its seems to be much better than the F16 at that time but it never went in for production ......... Y ?
 

suny6611

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Messages
160
Likes
77
Country flag
should we opt for XL( with current avionics & stealthy changes in air frame etc) if its going to be in production here ?
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,540
Likes
16,985
Country flag
The F-16 Is Not Dead As Yet

Lockheed sees bright future for F-16V
There might only be 15 F-16s remaining to be built at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility in Texas, but there is still a lot of life in the fighter, the company says. While many at Fort Worth are now focussed on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Randy Howard, director F-16 business development, has a different task.
“We are taking technologies from the F-22 and F-35 and rolling it into the F-16,” he says. "The latest kid on the block is the F-16V – it’s an upgrade programme for existing F-16s and the natural next step for those existing and emerging customers of the jet." More than 3,000 F-16s remain in service, he adds.
The Northrop Grumman APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar, a development of the APG-81 in the F-35, is the jewel in the F-16V’s crown. It is Northrop's fourth active electronically scanned array radar, after systems in the F-22, the United Arab Emirates' Block 60 F-16s and then for the F-35.
“It collects a lot of data, which means we have to add in a high-speed data network and a new computer system to allow the information flow into the jet’s new displays,” Howard says. “The speed and agility of the F-16 is great, but in many ways it is about information going into the cockpit – so instead of the pilot managing displays they make tactical decisions.”
The F-16V upgrade also includes a new 6 x 8" centre pedestal display, and additional operating capabilities if required, such as auto ground collision avoidance, a joint helmet-mounted cueing system, Link 16 data link, Lockheed Sniper targeting pod and conformal fuel tanks which can allow the jet to fly for more than 900 miles. There is also the option to buy more sophisticated weaponry.
According to Howard, three customers have ordered more than 300 F-16s modified to the new standard, but he is reluctant to name them.
However, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in September 2011 outlined a $5.3 billion deal for the upgrade of 145 F-16A/Bs for Taiwan. In July 2015 the Republic of Korea Air Force awarded Lockheed a $2.5 billion contract to upgrade 134 KF-16C/Ds, after dropping a similar deal with BAE Systems. The third customer could to be India, where the CEO of Lockheed was in talk with the Indian Ministry of Defence officials a couple of days back.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/07/the-f-16-is-not-dead-as-yet.html
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,540
Likes
16,985
Country flag
NEED To Know Why India Air force need Gripen fighter planes - national news stories
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,631
Likes
21,110
Country flag
Although there is a great deal of justifiable pride in developing a supersonic fighter, something only a handful of countries have attempted, it may not make good sense to dismiss Gripen out of hand. Tejas is by no means out of the woods

LCA development started 33 years ago, and has yet to produce a production standard aircraft. SP-1, 2 & 3 are not up to production standard SP-1 hadn't even been delivered to the Indian Air Force more than 10 months after the delivery documentations was turned over and SP-1, 2 & 3 won't be to true production spec. It appears that LCA has become acceptable to Indian air force because they have reportedly waived those requirements it doesn't meet. This isn't unique. In the US, for example, this was the case on the F-111, Hornet and F-35.l.

As far as MK 1+ (also widely known as MK1A)is concerned, if successful, will be the first version that will have a meaningful combat capability. It looks like it consists primarily of a new Israeli AESA radar co-produced in India, a significant improvement which will finally give BVR capability, a new jammer, some other avionics improvements and air refueling capability. It will be the first model to have true combat capability and Ministry of Defense is pushing the air force to order 100 of them. Because the Tejas is so far behind schedule and the need is so great (the interim aircraft developed because of those delays are now themselves wearing out), it is doubtful that there is time to develop and test significant weight reduction or aerodynamic improvements in the MK1A. Because of the expertise needed to integrate these new systems, talks are underway with a foreign partner to help develop the MK1A. Ironically, that partner is Saab.

The MKII reportedly has been moved to low priority. It would require so much change and take so long to develop that the air force can't wait and looks like it will just go with the MK1A. Even then, whether it could march a Gripen E is problematical. This is a rough situation for the Navy. The naval LCA is even heavier than the presently overweight land version, because of all the extra equipment needed. Only two of the eight ordered have been received, and none of the eight will be to production standard. The current version with a 20 knot Wind Over Deck can depart on internal fuel only, only carry short range missiles and would have very limited flight time. This would get better with a MKII version, but that would be dependent on the air force developing its MKII, since the naval order alone would be too small to economically justify its development.

With the Gripen, on the other hand, Sweden is offering full cooperation and technology transfer on a very advanced aircraft, a new version of an aircraft with a proven track record. India could gain expertise in design, integration and production, with a production line located in-country and could customize the aircraft to meet its unique needs. Saab would gain a bigger production base and further credibility) As long as India didn't make unreasonable demands (such as requiring that Saab warranty Gripens produced in India that it has no control over), this could be one of those so-called "win-wins"

Aerodynamic changes are sure to come and 8% aerodynamic improvement will come. these together should make it a very dynamic platform. Other things like AESA and a very good EW suit are also coming so Mk1+ is going to be a great aircraft. We need to take a continual improvement in phase manner like F 18.
 

Zebra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
India's requirements are huge.

Plenty of room for F/A-18 ASH and Gripen E and Tejas aircrafts.

My two cents though.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,631
Likes
21,110
Country flag
Make LCA Navy MK2 immediately. 3D printing has come design and validate within a year and half. Make aircrfat withing next year and half. Testing for 2 more years and induct. Airforce MK2 should come from Navy Mk2 i.e 15.5 M long, uktra long range, speed Mach 2. Weight carrying 6 + tons and range 3000 KM, weight < 7 tons. Even we shall not need MKIs in many roles.
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,540
Likes
16,985
Country flag
Lockheed Martin sees $15-billion export potential for 'Made in India' F16 jets

NEW DELHI: US arms giant Lockheed Martin sees a $15-billion export potential for a new generation of 'Made in India' F16 fighter jets, with a top executive telling ET that a proposal to make India the sole producer of the aircraft has been shared with the government.
The proposal, backed by the US government, is among at least four similar applications by global aviation leaders to set up a fighter jet line in India to cater for the requirements of the Indian Air Force (IAF). The defence ministry is currently evaluating the proposals.
Lockheed, which has already sold its hardy C-130J airlifter to the IAF, believes that besides the Indian requirement that would be the basis of setting up a production line, it can export at least 100 of its Block 70 F16 fighter jets to customers in the Middle East, Europe and Asia.
"This is a state-of-the-art fighter — the most modern F16 in the world and our proposal is to make it in India. We want to make India the sole producer of all future variants of the F16. This is an offer we have never made to anyone before," says George Standridge, vice-president (aeronautics strategy and business development), Lockheed Martin.

As first reported by ET in April, the US government for the first time offered India both the F16 and the F/A18 jets to be produced domestically under a transfer of technology agreement.
The F16, one of the most mass produced fighter jets in the world, has been manufactured at several locations in the past, including South Korea, Turkey and Belgium, besides the US. Lockheed's proposal is to shut the only active production line in Fort Worth, Texas and shift it to India if its plan is accepted. "We are looking at a joint venture model where the prime ownership will reside with the Indian company.
It will be an Indian company led program and we see a great potential for at least 100 jets to be exported within 5-7 years," Standridge said. Lockheed said it has shared its experience of setting up fighter lines across the world with the Indian government and is confident that this would give it an edge against competitors. In a series of discussions over the past few months, Lockheed executives have been answering questions on how a joint venture model would work out.
"We have described in detail our experience in Turkey, where we started working from 1989 on the jet. Our partner there is now the biggest defence company of Turkey and has even partnered in the F35 fighter jet program," Standridge said. India has been planning to set up a fighter jet line to meet upcoming deficiencies in the fleet.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/08/lockheed-martin-sees-15-billion-export.html
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,540
Likes
16,985
Country flag
Lockheed Martin Sees $15 Billion Export Potential For 'Made In India' F16 Jets
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
32,366
Likes
150,048
Country flag
It seems they are offering block 70, for make in india ...
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,540
Likes
16,985
Country flag
Lockheed Martin offers to shift F16-Block70 production line to India
To meet Indian and global requirement American defence major Lockheed Martin today said that it has offered to move its lone production line of F 16-block 70 to India from Texas.
American defence major Lockheed Martin today said it has offered to move its lone production line of the latest version of fighter aircraft F 16-Block 70 to India from Texas to meet Indian and global requirement.

However, the company made it clear the proposal is "conditional" to IAF choosing the worlds largest-sold fighter aircraft for its fleet.

"The offer we have given to the Indian government is unmatched and from our side unprecedented," Randall L Howard, F16 Business Development head at Lockheed Martin, said here.

Interacting with mediapersons here, Howard said the company wants to make F 16-Block 70 "for India, from India and export to the world".

However, he parried questions on whether the company is willing to give a commitment not to sell F16s to Pakistan saying it will be part of discussions between the Indian and American governments.

NEW AIRCRAFT TO BEEF UP DEPLETING STRENGTH

Asked if the offer to move the production line from Fort Worth to India is conditional to IAF picking up the aircraft for its fleet, Abhay Paranjape, National Executive, India said, "Yes".

He said it is conditional to assured orders from the Indian Air Force which is looking to acquire new aircraft to beef up its depleting strength.

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has said India will choose at least one more aircraft, besides the indigenous Tejas, for the IAF through the Make in India route.

Lockheed Martin, which has sold 4,588 F16s in the world, faces competition from its American rival Boeing (F/A-18E), Dassault Aviation of France (Rafale), Swedish plane Gripen by Saab and the Eurofighter. All the companies have offered to set up a production facility here.

F 16-BlOCK 70 THE BEST AIRCRAFT IN THE INDIAN REGION

"But we are offering not only moving the lone production line to India but also meeting the global requirement through the same unit here," Howard said, adding it is a "win-win situation".

Arguing the F 16-Block 70 will be the best fighter aircraft in the Indian region, he said, "It is critical for you to pick up a partner who will deliver on his promise".

Howard said the company is having multiple discussions with the government here besides the industry and "they have not been told to go away", indicating the discussions are on.

He added Lockheed believes the production in India will also bring down the cost of the aircraft which in turn will increase its global demand.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...-f16-block70-production-line-to/1/732305.html

 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top