MMRCA news and discussions.
- Thread starter nitesh
- Start date
Raven radar equipped Gripen to fly by year-end
In late March Saab announced a teaming agreement with Selex Galileo to develop the ES-05 Raven active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for the Gripen Next Generation fighter program. Selex Galileo is also the lead in the Euroradar consortium developing the Captor radar for the Eurofighter, while Saab Microwave Systems (formerly Ericsson) builds the mechanically scanned PS-05/A radar currently installed in the Gripen.
The Raven builds on the programs of both companies, including the antenna technology developed for Selex Galileo’s Vixen AESA family and ongoing PS-05/A development work. The radar has around 1,000 transmit/receive modules, mounted on an angled swashplate.
Swashplate technology allows the radar to be repositioned so that it scan a wider volume of sky than if it was fixed. Saab quotes a scan angle of 100 degrees from the centerline, allowing ES-05 to see targets behind the so-called “3-9 line.” The angled positioning of the antenna also helps to reduce frontal radar cross section.
A developmental version of the Raven is due to fly before the end of this year in the Gripen Demo aircraft. The Demo is a one-off test aircraft intended to de-risk the key technologies for the Gripen NG, including increased fuel capacity achieved through repositioning the main undercarriage, new avionics, additional stores pylons and the General Electric F414G engine.
Under the initial Gripen Demo program, Thales supplied an AESA antenna for the aircraft, based on the technology developed for the RBE2 AA radar for the Rafale. The Thales antenna was originally due to fly in the Demo this spring, but following ground trials was found to be unsatisfactory for the Gripen.
Meanwhile, the Gripen Demo continues its test campaign, and by mid-May the aircraft had flown 80 times. A key milestone was achieved in late January when the aircraft supercruised (sustained supersonic flight without afterburner) at more than Mach 1.2. Various stores configurations have been tested and the results have been very positive.
NG for India and Brazil
The Gripen NG is being offered to both India and Brazil for their current fighter competitions, both bids including the Raven AESA and Meteor missile capability. Saab is competing in India for a 126-aircraft order, of which 108 will be built locally. Evaluation of the six competing aircraft by two parallel Indian teams begins later this year.
Brazil is initially looking at a 36-aircraft purchase for its FX2 requirement, although the figure could ultimately climb to around 120. A best and final offer was submitted earlier this month, with a decision expected in the second quarter of next year, leading to an in-service date of 2014.
One area where the Gripen is believed to have the edge in Brazil is the lack of restrictions on the technology it can transfer. “Handing over source-code is natural to us [Sweden]: we know what it’s like to want to be independent,” said Bob Kemp, Gripen International’s sales and marketing director. “Brazil is looking for a strategic partnership, and part of our offset is that we can offer participation in the NG development program.” The Gripen NG is at just the right point in its development to bring in a partner such as Brazil. The Raven radar has been approved for export, with Selex Galileo owning its own codes.
There are other synergies: Brazil operates a dispersed base concept similar to that pioneered by the Swedish air force, and also employs the same AEW system (Erieye), for which datalinks are already fully integrated. Brazil is at the heart of a growing nonaligned partnership (the IBSA group, with India and South Africa) into which Saab has already made significant inroads through the sale of the Gripen to South Africa. A partnership with Brazil could possibly lay the foundation for future fighter development.
Away from Brazil and India, the Gripen is competing aggressively in a number of campaigns. The defeat in neighboring Norway set the company back, and there is a need to restore confidence. Saab has publicized the discrepancies it sees in the way the evaluation was conducted and its conclusions (particularly with regard to cost calculations), and this has become an election issue in Norway itself.
Elsewhere, the Gripen is pitched against the Eurofighter and Rafale to replace Switzerland’s F-5s. A decision was originally due to be taken this summer, but has been deferred by the Swiss government until next year. The government has defined a requirement to be fulfilled, rather than a number of aircraft. Figures of between 22 and 33 have been touted. “How green is your fighter?” is one area that is important to the Swiss. “We see environmental issues increasingly raised in the RFIs,” Kemp told AIN. “In Switzerland and the Netherlands especially…and we think it’s a good thing.”
The Netherlands is looking for 85 aircraft to replace its F-16s, and is a JSF industrial partner. However, Saab questions whether the air force’s ambitions match national policy, and suggests that the Gripen is more in line. Denmark (48 aircraft), where cost is a major issue, is another country that falls into the same category. There also has been active requests for information on the Gripen from Bulgaria (16), Croatia (12), Greece (40+), Romania (48) and Slovakia (14).
Some new opportunities to emerge recently are Malaysia (18 aircraft to replace MiG-29s), Argentina (Mirage replacement), Ecuador, Qatar and Oman. The UK–already a Gripen “operator” through the long-term deal with the Empire Test Pilots School–is examining the potential of establishing a dissimilar air combat training unit, for which the Gripen would be ideal.
Baltic Air Policing
On May 1 the JAS 39C/D Gripens of the Czech air force’s 211.tl took over NATO’s Baltic Air Policing detachment, which provides a two-aircraft, 24-hour, 15-minute readiness armed quick reaction alert (QRA) for the airspace of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The four-month deployment of four Gripens to Siauliai air base in Lithuania represents the type’s first out-of-country operational tasking.
On May 21 the Gripens undertook their first live “Alpha” scramble, intercepting a German-registered lightplane that violated the no-fly buffer zone between Lithuania and Russia. At the same time, with just 14 aircraft on the squadron’s strength, 211.tl also maintain a 24-hour QRA commitment at its home base at Caslav, highlighting the Gripen’s reliability and serviceability.
Raven radar equipped Gripen to fly by year-end: AIN Online
In late March Saab announced a teaming agreement with Selex Galileo to develop the ES-05 Raven active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for the Gripen Next Generation fighter program. Selex Galileo is also the lead in the Euroradar consortium developing the Captor radar for the Eurofighter, while Saab Microwave Systems (formerly Ericsson) builds the mechanically scanned PS-05/A radar currently installed in the Gripen.
The Raven builds on the programs of both companies, including the antenna technology developed for Selex Galileo’s Vixen AESA family and ongoing PS-05/A development work. The radar has around 1,000 transmit/receive modules, mounted on an angled swashplate.
Swashplate technology allows the radar to be repositioned so that it scan a wider volume of sky than if it was fixed. Saab quotes a scan angle of 100 degrees from the centerline, allowing ES-05 to see targets behind the so-called “3-9 line.” The angled positioning of the antenna also helps to reduce frontal radar cross section.
A developmental version of the Raven is due to fly before the end of this year in the Gripen Demo aircraft. The Demo is a one-off test aircraft intended to de-risk the key technologies for the Gripen NG, including increased fuel capacity achieved through repositioning the main undercarriage, new avionics, additional stores pylons and the General Electric F414G engine.
Under the initial Gripen Demo program, Thales supplied an AESA antenna for the aircraft, based on the technology developed for the RBE2 AA radar for the Rafale. The Thales antenna was originally due to fly in the Demo this spring, but following ground trials was found to be unsatisfactory for the Gripen.
Meanwhile, the Gripen Demo continues its test campaign, and by mid-May the aircraft had flown 80 times. A key milestone was achieved in late January when the aircraft supercruised (sustained supersonic flight without afterburner) at more than Mach 1.2. Various stores configurations have been tested and the results have been very positive.
NG for India and Brazil
The Gripen NG is being offered to both India and Brazil for their current fighter competitions, both bids including the Raven AESA and Meteor missile capability. Saab is competing in India for a 126-aircraft order, of which 108 will be built locally. Evaluation of the six competing aircraft by two parallel Indian teams begins later this year.
Brazil is initially looking at a 36-aircraft purchase for its FX2 requirement, although the figure could ultimately climb to around 120. A best and final offer was submitted earlier this month, with a decision expected in the second quarter of next year, leading to an in-service date of 2014.
One area where the Gripen is believed to have the edge in Brazil is the lack of restrictions on the technology it can transfer. “Handing over source-code is natural to us [Sweden]: we know what it’s like to want to be independent,” said Bob Kemp, Gripen International’s sales and marketing director. “Brazil is looking for a strategic partnership, and part of our offset is that we can offer participation in the NG development program.” The Gripen NG is at just the right point in its development to bring in a partner such as Brazil. The Raven radar has been approved for export, with Selex Galileo owning its own codes.
There are other synergies: Brazil operates a dispersed base concept similar to that pioneered by the Swedish air force, and also employs the same AEW system (Erieye), for which datalinks are already fully integrated. Brazil is at the heart of a growing nonaligned partnership (the IBSA group, with India and South Africa) into which Saab has already made significant inroads through the sale of the Gripen to South Africa. A partnership with Brazil could possibly lay the foundation for future fighter development.
Away from Brazil and India, the Gripen is competing aggressively in a number of campaigns. The defeat in neighboring Norway set the company back, and there is a need to restore confidence. Saab has publicized the discrepancies it sees in the way the evaluation was conducted and its conclusions (particularly with regard to cost calculations), and this has become an election issue in Norway itself.
Elsewhere, the Gripen is pitched against the Eurofighter and Rafale to replace Switzerland’s F-5s. A decision was originally due to be taken this summer, but has been deferred by the Swiss government until next year. The government has defined a requirement to be fulfilled, rather than a number of aircraft. Figures of between 22 and 33 have been touted. “How green is your fighter?” is one area that is important to the Swiss. “We see environmental issues increasingly raised in the RFIs,” Kemp told AIN. “In Switzerland and the Netherlands especially…and we think it’s a good thing.”
The Netherlands is looking for 85 aircraft to replace its F-16s, and is a JSF industrial partner. However, Saab questions whether the air force’s ambitions match national policy, and suggests that the Gripen is more in line. Denmark (48 aircraft), where cost is a major issue, is another country that falls into the same category. There also has been active requests for information on the Gripen from Bulgaria (16), Croatia (12), Greece (40+), Romania (48) and Slovakia (14).
Some new opportunities to emerge recently are Malaysia (18 aircraft to replace MiG-29s), Argentina (Mirage replacement), Ecuador, Qatar and Oman. The UK–already a Gripen “operator” through the long-term deal with the Empire Test Pilots School–is examining the potential of establishing a dissimilar air combat training unit, for which the Gripen would be ideal.
Baltic Air Policing
On May 1 the JAS 39C/D Gripens of the Czech air force’s 211.tl took over NATO’s Baltic Air Policing detachment, which provides a two-aircraft, 24-hour, 15-minute readiness armed quick reaction alert (QRA) for the airspace of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The four-month deployment of four Gripens to Siauliai air base in Lithuania represents the type’s first out-of-country operational tasking.
On May 21 the Gripens undertook their first live “Alpha” scramble, intercepting a German-registered lightplane that violated the no-fly buffer zone between Lithuania and Russia. At the same time, with just 14 aircraft on the squadron’s strength, 211.tl also maintain a 24-hour QRA commitment at its home base at Caslav, highlighting the Gripen’s reliability and serviceability.
Raven radar equipped Gripen to fly by year-end: AIN Online
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2009
- Messages
- 202
- Likes
- 108
The question is - if the AESA RBE2 of rafale is any way lose to the proven aesa of - F-16 and f/a super hornet.
Its still under - process of development and will be ready by 2012.
Its still under - process of development and will be ready by 2012.
J
John
Guest
The present RBE-2 PESA radar air-to-air modes include long-range search; multi target track and engagement; air combat modes; Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR); and look down/shoot down functions. In air-to-air mode, the RBE2 gives a tracking range beyond 60 nautical miles against a 30-square-foot target, with detection ranges up to 75 nautical miles. The radar can track and prioritize up to 40 targets simultaneously and engage up to eight with Mica, and soon Meteor, air-to-air missiles.
The RBE-2 AESA has 50% increased range than the RBE-2 PESA or around 160NM or 296km and max detection range is similar to the block 52 f-16 apg-69, however the RBE-2 is far more advanced. The APG-79/APG80 are better since the APG-79 has a max detection range over 500km and APG-80 has detection range of over 440km. APG-79 V-3 is the most advanced.
The RBE-2 AESA has 50% increased range than the RBE-2 PESA or around 160NM or 296km and max detection range is similar to the block 52 f-16 apg-69, however the RBE-2 is far more advanced. The APG-79/APG80 are better since the APG-79 has a max detection range over 500km and APG-80 has detection range of over 440km. APG-79 V-3 is the most advanced.
F-18
The Hornet is a direct descendant of the Cobra. In nature's environment, this statement would not make any sense, but in aviation such relationships are not uncommon. Thus, the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet traces its direct ancestry to the Northrop Cobra, a twin engine multimission fighter design developed for the export market in the late 1960s. The Cobra was never built in this form. In 1971, the Air Force requested proposals for a lightweight fighter prototype program; Northrop's entry was derived from the Cobra design. One of the two winners in the Air Force competition, Northrop was awarded a contract in 1972 for two YF-17 prototypes, each powered by two General Electric YJ101 engines. General Dynamics was the other winner, building two single engine YF-16s.
First flight of the YF-17 was in June 1974. By this time, the Air Force had decided to proceed with Air Combat Fighter (ACF) Program, based on flight testing of the YF-16 and YF-17 prototypes. The Navy was also initiating a program to develop a new VFAX in this time period--a strike fighter to replace both the F-4s and A-7s in its carrier air wings.
The following year, 1975, brought major program action: the Air Force selected the F-16 to be produced for the Tactical Air Command, and the Navy was directed by Congress to base the VFAX on either the YF-16 or YF-17 designs. Two of the companies having a major interest in the VFAX, which was redesignated the Navy Air Combat Fighter, paired with the F-16/17 builders; neither of the latter had experience in producing Navy carrier fighters. Vought as a prime contractor teamed with General Dynamics on a single-engined F-16 derivative, while McDonnell Douglas became the prime, paired with Northrop, on an F-17 derivative. To meet Navy requirements, considerable improvements in areas such as combat radius and radar capability were incorporated, in addition to carrier suitability features. The resulting redesign was extensive and, when the McDonnell Douglas design was selected as winner in 1976, it was assigned the F-18A designation. The developed versions of the YF-17's YJ101 engines were redesignated F404s.
While the general configuration of the YF-17 was retained, the F-18 became a completely new airplane. To meet the single-place fighter and attack mission capability, full use was made of new technology in digital computers. Coupled with cathode ray tubes for cockpit displays and appropriate controls based on thorough pilot evaluations in simulators, a single airplane and subsystems configuration for both missions was evolved and the Hornets are now F/A-18s, a new type of designation recognizing their dual capability.
During development, two-place trainer versions were added, to be built in limited numbers as TF/A-18s, intermingled with the basic F/As. Minimum changes were made to incorporate the second cockpit, with the two-seat airplanes retaining the ability to perform combat missions.
Making the first flight in November 1978, the F/A-18 and its two-place derivative have undergone most of their development testing at the Naval Air Test Center, under the new single-site testing concept. While much attention, both internal and external, was focused on development problems, these have largely been typical of those in any new program with their resolution being part of the development process. For the most part, these have occurred in the basic aircraft hardware rather than in the digital electronic systems.
The initial production airplanes, the first training F/A-18s have been in service with VFA-125 since November 1980. The new capabilities introduced by the F/A-18 have met with an enthusiastic response among operating personnel.
Current F/A-18s in the inventory included F/A-18As, F/A-18Bs, F/A-18Cs and F/A-18Ds. The Hornet is a critical element in the plan to recapitalize the Navy and Marine Corps aviation capability. When the A-6 Intruders and F-14 Tomcats have left the inventory, the F/A-18 Hornet alone will represent the Navy's carrier-based strike fighter capability.
Upgrades and modifications continue to be made and developed for the F/A-18C/D aircraft. These upgrades include radar, advance targeting FLIR, countermeasures dispenser system, standoff land attack missile system, and other electronic systems.
Modernization development is underway for the next Hornet series, the F/A-18E/F, which will provide increased mission radius, endurance, and survivability above that of its predecessor while providing the capacity for twenty-plus years of growth that is unavailable in the current F/A-18C/D. There will be extensive commonality in weapons systems, avionics, and software between the two aircraft and the infrastructure for supporting the new Hornet will grow from in-place organizations. The lethality, flexibility, reliability, and survivability of the F/A-18E/F will make it the aircraft of choice to fulfill the majority of missions associated with regional and littoral scenarios.
F/A-18 Hornet
The Hornet is a direct descendant of the Cobra. In nature's environment, this statement would not make any sense, but in aviation such relationships are not uncommon. Thus, the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet traces its direct ancestry to the Northrop Cobra, a twin engine multimission fighter design developed for the export market in the late 1960s. The Cobra was never built in this form. In 1971, the Air Force requested proposals for a lightweight fighter prototype program; Northrop's entry was derived from the Cobra design. One of the two winners in the Air Force competition, Northrop was awarded a contract in 1972 for two YF-17 prototypes, each powered by two General Electric YJ101 engines. General Dynamics was the other winner, building two single engine YF-16s.
First flight of the YF-17 was in June 1974. By this time, the Air Force had decided to proceed with Air Combat Fighter (ACF) Program, based on flight testing of the YF-16 and YF-17 prototypes. The Navy was also initiating a program to develop a new VFAX in this time period--a strike fighter to replace both the F-4s and A-7s in its carrier air wings.
The following year, 1975, brought major program action: the Air Force selected the F-16 to be produced for the Tactical Air Command, and the Navy was directed by Congress to base the VFAX on either the YF-16 or YF-17 designs. Two of the companies having a major interest in the VFAX, which was redesignated the Navy Air Combat Fighter, paired with the F-16/17 builders; neither of the latter had experience in producing Navy carrier fighters. Vought as a prime contractor teamed with General Dynamics on a single-engined F-16 derivative, while McDonnell Douglas became the prime, paired with Northrop, on an F-17 derivative. To meet Navy requirements, considerable improvements in areas such as combat radius and radar capability were incorporated, in addition to carrier suitability features. The resulting redesign was extensive and, when the McDonnell Douglas design was selected as winner in 1976, it was assigned the F-18A designation. The developed versions of the YF-17's YJ101 engines were redesignated F404s.
While the general configuration of the YF-17 was retained, the F-18 became a completely new airplane. To meet the single-place fighter and attack mission capability, full use was made of new technology in digital computers. Coupled with cathode ray tubes for cockpit displays and appropriate controls based on thorough pilot evaluations in simulators, a single airplane and subsystems configuration for both missions was evolved and the Hornets are now F/A-18s, a new type of designation recognizing their dual capability.
During development, two-place trainer versions were added, to be built in limited numbers as TF/A-18s, intermingled with the basic F/As. Minimum changes were made to incorporate the second cockpit, with the two-seat airplanes retaining the ability to perform combat missions.
Making the first flight in November 1978, the F/A-18 and its two-place derivative have undergone most of their development testing at the Naval Air Test Center, under the new single-site testing concept. While much attention, both internal and external, was focused on development problems, these have largely been typical of those in any new program with their resolution being part of the development process. For the most part, these have occurred in the basic aircraft hardware rather than in the digital electronic systems.
The initial production airplanes, the first training F/A-18s have been in service with VFA-125 since November 1980. The new capabilities introduced by the F/A-18 have met with an enthusiastic response among operating personnel.
Current F/A-18s in the inventory included F/A-18As, F/A-18Bs, F/A-18Cs and F/A-18Ds. The Hornet is a critical element in the plan to recapitalize the Navy and Marine Corps aviation capability. When the A-6 Intruders and F-14 Tomcats have left the inventory, the F/A-18 Hornet alone will represent the Navy's carrier-based strike fighter capability.
Upgrades and modifications continue to be made and developed for the F/A-18C/D aircraft. These upgrades include radar, advance targeting FLIR, countermeasures dispenser system, standoff land attack missile system, and other electronic systems.
Modernization development is underway for the next Hornet series, the F/A-18E/F, which will provide increased mission radius, endurance, and survivability above that of its predecessor while providing the capacity for twenty-plus years of growth that is unavailable in the current F/A-18C/D. There will be extensive commonality in weapons systems, avionics, and software between the two aircraft and the infrastructure for supporting the new Hornet will grow from in-place organizations. The lethality, flexibility, reliability, and survivability of the F/A-18E/F will make it the aircraft of choice to fulfill the majority of missions associated with regional and littoral scenarios.
F/A-18 Hornet
F-18s Cracking Up
July 22, 2009: The U.S. Navy found cracks in two of its older F-18A/B/C/D series of aircraft. The apparent cause was a missing fastener. But to be on the safe side, all 622 of these F-18s are being inspected. The navy has been watching its F-18 carefully, because as aircraft age, they develop unexpected cracks. And the F-18 fleet has been aging fast.
Over the last decade, the U.S. Navy found that their older F-18C Hornet fighters were wearing out faster than planned for. This was sort of expected with the F-18Cs, which entered service during the late 1970s and early 80s. These aircraft were to last about twenty years. But that was based on a peacetime tempo of operations, with about a hundred carrier landings (which is hard on the airframe) per year. There have been more than that because of the 1991 Gulf War (and the subsequent decade of patrolling the no-fly zone) and the war on terror. So to keep enough of these aircraft operational until the F-35 arrives to replace them in the next decade, new structural components (mainly the center barrel sections) are being manufactured. This is good news for foreign users of the F-18C, who want to keep their aircraft operational for longer. But if the tail cracks problem is not related to missing fasteners, that's another matter.
Two years ago, the U.S. Navy discovered that part of the wings on their F-18E (officially the "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet") were wearing out faster than expected. But an inspection of 476 F-18Es, only ten more were found to have cracks. The cracks indicated that, instead of lasting 6,000 flight hours, the portion of the wing that supports the pylons holding stuff (bombs, missiles, equipment pods or extra fuel tanks) is now expected to be good for no more than 3,000 flight hours. The metal, in effect, is weakening faster than expected. Such "metal fatigue", which ultimately results in the metal breaking, is normal for all aircraft. Calculating the life of such parts is still part art, as well as a lot of science. The navy will modify existing F-18s to fix the problem, which is a normal response to such situations. Sometimes these fixes cost millions of dollars per aircraft, but this particular fatigue problem will cost a lot less to fix.
The problem does not occur with the older F-18s (the A, C and D models) because, while they are also called F-18s, they are not the same as the F-18 E, F and G models. That's because, when the navy decided to build a replacement for the earlier F-18, they found they could get away with calling it an upgraded F-18 model. Thus, instead of it being called the F-24 (the next number available since the start of the Department of Defense's standard designation system in 1962) it could be called the F-18 E and F. While the F-18F looks like the original F-18, it is actually quite different. The F-18E is about 25 percent larger (and heavier) than the earlier F-18s, and had a new type of engine. By calling it an upgrade, it was easier for the navy to get the money from Congress. In the early 1990s, Congress was expecting a "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War, and was slashing the defense budget. That's when the "F/A" designation was also invented, ostensibly to indicate that the aircraft was a fighter (the "F") and light bomber (the "A" for "Attack"). There was a lot of commonality between the two F-18s, but they are basically two different aircraft.
Attrition: F-18s Cracking Up
July 22, 2009: The U.S. Navy found cracks in two of its older F-18A/B/C/D series of aircraft. The apparent cause was a missing fastener. But to be on the safe side, all 622 of these F-18s are being inspected. The navy has been watching its F-18 carefully, because as aircraft age, they develop unexpected cracks. And the F-18 fleet has been aging fast.
Over the last decade, the U.S. Navy found that their older F-18C Hornet fighters were wearing out faster than planned for. This was sort of expected with the F-18Cs, which entered service during the late 1970s and early 80s. These aircraft were to last about twenty years. But that was based on a peacetime tempo of operations, with about a hundred carrier landings (which is hard on the airframe) per year. There have been more than that because of the 1991 Gulf War (and the subsequent decade of patrolling the no-fly zone) and the war on terror. So to keep enough of these aircraft operational until the F-35 arrives to replace them in the next decade, new structural components (mainly the center barrel sections) are being manufactured. This is good news for foreign users of the F-18C, who want to keep their aircraft operational for longer. But if the tail cracks problem is not related to missing fasteners, that's another matter.
Two years ago, the U.S. Navy discovered that part of the wings on their F-18E (officially the "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet") were wearing out faster than expected. But an inspection of 476 F-18Es, only ten more were found to have cracks. The cracks indicated that, instead of lasting 6,000 flight hours, the portion of the wing that supports the pylons holding stuff (bombs, missiles, equipment pods or extra fuel tanks) is now expected to be good for no more than 3,000 flight hours. The metal, in effect, is weakening faster than expected. Such "metal fatigue", which ultimately results in the metal breaking, is normal for all aircraft. Calculating the life of such parts is still part art, as well as a lot of science. The navy will modify existing F-18s to fix the problem, which is a normal response to such situations. Sometimes these fixes cost millions of dollars per aircraft, but this particular fatigue problem will cost a lot less to fix.
The problem does not occur with the older F-18s (the A, C and D models) because, while they are also called F-18s, they are not the same as the F-18 E, F and G models. That's because, when the navy decided to build a replacement for the earlier F-18, they found they could get away with calling it an upgraded F-18 model. Thus, instead of it being called the F-24 (the next number available since the start of the Department of Defense's standard designation system in 1962) it could be called the F-18 E and F. While the F-18F looks like the original F-18, it is actually quite different. The F-18E is about 25 percent larger (and heavier) than the earlier F-18s, and had a new type of engine. By calling it an upgrade, it was easier for the navy to get the money from Congress. In the early 1990s, Congress was expecting a "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War, and was slashing the defense budget. That's when the "F/A" designation was also invented, ostensibly to indicate that the aircraft was a fighter (the "F") and light bomber (the "A" for "Attack"). There was a lot of commonality between the two F-18s, but they are basically two different aircraft.
Attrition: F-18s Cracking Up
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 3,474
- Likes
- 1,062
36 Rafales for $ 2 billion works out to 55 million per plane . It should be even less for India as we have more requirement .
Dassault May Build Rafales in Brazil to Win Sale, Valor Reports - Bloomberg.com
Dassault May Build Rafales in Brazil to Win Sale, Valor Reports - Bloomberg.com
p2prada
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,017
Rafale is actually cheaper than all other contenders except the Mig-35. The Russians are trying to bring the cost of a Mig-35 and the Mig-29k closer to the Rafale, for more bucks.
Viper and SuperHornet cost almost $15-20million more than Rafale. And Gripen costs almost the same as Rafale. EF-2000 is the most expensive in the MRCA.
Viper and SuperHornet cost almost $15-20million more than Rafale. And Gripen costs almost the same as Rafale. EF-2000 is the most expensive in the MRCA.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
I think if French offer proper help in making the kaveri project back on track. And may be later stages replacing the M 88 with kaveri then it will make an excellent proposition. May be offering to fit the common radar between LCA and Rafale. Then this should become and unbetable combination. The same could be done by SH and typhoon on engine front not sue about the radar though
p2prada
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,017
The French no longer want anything to do with Kaveri now. Snecma said the earlier design was useless and offered to provide the M-88 core for the Kaveri. India rejected the offer. GTRE is working on the core again. So, expect a very long delay. Perhaps, after 2015, maybe more.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
Here is the point offer help in design and then give an offer (this is my personal thinking). Any way trusting a new engine for a large part of fleet will not be a good idea so my suggestion was for offering the engine replacement at later stages perhapes when the MRCA winner will go for MLU
p2prada
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,017
If the dimensions fit properly, which is the case as in M-88 and the kaveri, then any engine can be fitted after modifications. We can go in for American equivalents too. So, in the future expect the Kaveri on the Rafale, if purchased.
Nevertheless, it may not at all be required if we go in for FGFA, LCA Mk2 and MCA in large numbers. Perhaps in the future, economy willing, we may just dump all the working planes too, for logistics reasons. Perhaps sell the Rafale or any other contender as a second hand aircraft to some African or Latin American country.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2009
- Messages
- 202
- Likes
- 108
never get carried away with price of mig-35
We all know whar russians do always - we might end up paying upto 80 million per fighter by end of - 2017 when we get our first mig-35 , and in 2017 we find out the problem in airframe of some other avionics.
------------------------
i seriously think cheapest option is - rafael and grippen , but then again - we all know how our defence deal normally go - we end up going for - viper or mig-35 with way more price than expected. who ever can pass more money under the table.
We all know whar russians do always - we might end up paying upto 80 million per fighter by end of - 2017 when we get our first mig-35 , and in 2017 we find out the problem in airframe of some other avionics.
------------------------
i seriously think cheapest option is - rafael and grippen , but then again - we all know how our defence deal normally go - we end up going for - viper or mig-35 with way more price than expected. who ever can pass more money under the table.
J
John
Guest
Brazilian 2 billion order is just a price estimate, the Rafale is the second most expensive and no way cheaper than the Viper or SH. According to the UAE deal the price could touch as high as $13 billion for 60 aircraft excluding weapons.
United Arab Emirates Closing in on Rafale | AVIATION WEEK
If the Brazilians pick the Rafale, it wont come for anything less than $5 billion.
United Arab Emirates Closing in on Rafale | AVIATION WEEK
If the Brazilians pick the Rafale, it wont come for anything less than $5 billion.
Dassault will send two Rafales equipped with the new generation active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars for flight trials to India in September, the head of military aircraft, Eric Trappier said.
"India is a marathon, not a sprint," he said, referring to India's international tender for 126 medium range multi-role combat aircraft.
Dassault Seeks Tighter Cost Control at Thales - Defense News
"India is a marathon, not a sprint," he said, referring to India's international tender for 126 medium range multi-role combat aircraft.
Dassault Seeks Tighter Cost Control at Thales - Defense News
“We’re taking Eurofighters flown by the German Air Force for the trials. And the idea is to conduct weapon trials in the United Kingdom using their aircraft. This will give the Indian Air Force a chance to interact with two other forces using the Eurofighter,” said Bernhard Gerwert, CEO of EADS Military Air Systems. He was talking to Express on the sidelines of the Royal Air Tattoo, an air show involving NATO air forces at Fairford, London.
“We see India as a partner rather than just as another prospective market. We want your country to play a role in future EADS programmes.
We’re open to the possibility of India becoming a manufacturing hub for our future exports,’’ Gerwert said.
As a first step EADS will launch its aviation research centre in Bangalore.
“We have already entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with L&T. EADS will recruit 200 engineers in the next two years who will work on avionics and sensors,’’ he said adding that the manufacture of certain critical components could be totally offset to India.
“These parts will come directly to our assembly line like other components reaching us from partner countries UK, Spain or Italy. This will also give India a chance to showcase its technological prowess in handling complex technology,’’ he pointed out.
EADS has also decided to support India’s effort to fly an indigenous Light Combat Aircraft.
The LCA team recently visited Munich and held discussions with EADS to identify possible grounds where the two firms could meet to support the LCA programme. India’s LCA is facing cost and time overruns following a host of technical and technological issues.
According to Gerwert, EADS will help in LCA flight evaluation and tests. We are ready to provide engine technology which no other country will be ready to. The benefits we plan to give India are unparalleled, he said.
But according to IAF sources, Eurofighter is facing a tough flight plan as it costs more than its competitors.
“There are several positives like a modern airframe, avionics etc. We need to wait for the field trials to be over before any conclusion can be drawn,’’
EADS looks for an edge
“We see India as a partner rather than just as another prospective market. We want your country to play a role in future EADS programmes.
We’re open to the possibility of India becoming a manufacturing hub for our future exports,’’ Gerwert said.
As a first step EADS will launch its aviation research centre in Bangalore.
“We have already entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with L&T. EADS will recruit 200 engineers in the next two years who will work on avionics and sensors,’’ he said adding that the manufacture of certain critical components could be totally offset to India.
“These parts will come directly to our assembly line like other components reaching us from partner countries UK, Spain or Italy. This will also give India a chance to showcase its technological prowess in handling complex technology,’’ he pointed out.
EADS has also decided to support India’s effort to fly an indigenous Light Combat Aircraft.
The LCA team recently visited Munich and held discussions with EADS to identify possible grounds where the two firms could meet to support the LCA programme. India’s LCA is facing cost and time overruns following a host of technical and technological issues.
According to Gerwert, EADS will help in LCA flight evaluation and tests. We are ready to provide engine technology which no other country will be ready to. The benefits we plan to give India are unparalleled, he said.
But according to IAF sources, Eurofighter is facing a tough flight plan as it costs more than its competitors.
“There are several positives like a modern airframe, avionics etc. We need to wait for the field trials to be over before any conclusion can be drawn,’’
EADS looks for an edge
p2prada
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,017
Rafale is the second cheapest aircraft in the MRCA deal after Mig-35. Rafale is cheaper than EF-2000, SH, Gripen and the Viper. SH is the second most expensive in the deal.
The French Airforce bought the Rafale at $62million apiece. By transferring the Rafale production line to Brazil, the costs will come down by atleast 10-20% in the short term and much higher in the long term. Similarly, a manufacturing plant in India will further decrease the unit cost of the fighter.
SH and Viper are in the $70-80million price range.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MMRCA 2.0: News & Discussions | Indian Air Force | 1598 | |
|
MMRCA News and Discussions - Part II | Indian Air Force | 996 | |
| J | Breaking news MMRCA Cancelled due to suspected scam | Members Corner | 4 | |
|
Opinion Su-57 MMRCA choice over Rafale ???? | Indian Air Force | 84 |
