MRCA News & Dicussions (IV)

[luckyy]

A senior air force officer told Mail Today: "We should use the deal to get concessions on enrichment technology, and accessing dual use technologies that we are denied at the moment." However, before negotiations on these aspects are addressed, a few steps need to be taken first.

IAF looking to use the deal to get concessions on enrichment technology, and accessing dual use technologie
the vist of UK prime minister , CEO of EADS or the statements by german ambbaseder , all pointing toeards steps taken before negotiations .

 

[EagleOne]

among the six , F-18 has the lowest thrust/weight ratio....

highest in twin engin categorie
Dry thrust:62.3 kN each - 2× GE F414-GE-400
Afterburner thrust:98 kN each
source :wiki

 

[nrj]

It ain't just the hydraulics and switching valves that Superbug fliers found to be a problem (those problems were hopefully fixed, since they did occur a while ago), a Boston Globe report found in mid-2007 that a mechanism within the wings was wearing out prematurely, which, while not impacting operation directly, caused a serious fatigue issue that military experts found could drastically shorten the fighter's life from 6,000 to about 3,500 hrs. That prompted the Navy to order the company to make changes in the plane's production and retrofit several hundred planes already operational on aircraft carriers. I also recall severe brake problems the plane had in the middle of 2005, and a more recent report that found about 16% of Block A/B/C/D models were 'aging poorly' due to airframe cracks, far earlier than expected.

That might be/is true. But we can not forget the fact that F18 is the most produced fighter among all. It has seen the actual warfield on the active duty to the larger extent than others. US forces ordered F18s & used it on regular basis on the purpose of actual work. The fighter has undergone stress during its active duty. No other fighter has that proven record for more than a decade.

Now if the problems with its systems are discovered, I'd think that its a good thing. You do not know how is the vehicle unless you drive it for yourself. And F18s have been used more than any other. :happy_7: No machinery is perfect. We use it, we understand the issues, we fix it. I mean we do not know what issues Gripen NG or Mig35 or any other might have unless we use it to the extent the fighter can not bear. Only Rafale & EF has some operational experience to some extent but nothing quite like SH IMO. I'd like to think that if SH has issues, its good that we know it & we can work on since we know something is there to be fixed. If one doesn't know the problem, how will he fix it?

Now speedy deliveries, proven platform are the advantages of SH to others. However, EUMA, CISMOA are still the major roadblocks IMO.

I like the APG-79 radar. It sets it apart from the others, especially given the challenge in producing a fully-digitized, solid state radar. But my optimism is tempered by the knowledge of software problems the radar experienced in 2007, including aircombat maneuvering modes that took multiple seconds to lock on. I don't know if they've been fully resolved, I suspect they are. But that only serves to demonstrate that a fully-capable AESA was more recent in the making. Btw, isn't Selex offering a fully-functional AESA radar to UK for the Eurofighter? They might be up for offering it to us as well.

If I'm not wrong Selex was rejected for Indian partnership of AESA development. UK has asked Selex to develop test prototype of fully-functional AESA. On the other hand Saab has already awarded Selex-Galileo to integrate Swordfish AESA on Gripen NG. Maybe we can work with Selex on that but we never know MOD will do :angry_6:

But all in all, an F-18 that is a train wreck of airframe problems, wrapped around a fairly decent avionics package, doesn't exactly catch my fancy.

SH will probably make to the shortlist. Although Rafale will be giving tough fight to SH in final decision.

 

[nrj]

this means are we going to get 126 bomb trucks ????

If Boeing convinces Finance ministry that the reinvestment will be larger & Indian partners be it private or public will benefit in terms of business then YES, we are getting at least 126 bomb trucks. But OT question is regardless we get bomb truck or invisible fighters, are we going to use it to bomb enemies? :angry_1:

 

[youngindian]

$ 10 bn combat jet deal eyes strategic 'leverage'

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/106816/India/$-10-bn-combat-jet-deal-eyes-strategic-leverage.html

 

[ejazr]

Mig-35 offered to India matches all requirements: Russia

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Mig-3...-all-requirements-Russia/Article1-577956.aspx
Russia on Monday said that its new Mig-35 fighter had passed Indian Air Forces three evaluation tests and matched all requirements listed by New Delhi in the $10 billion tender for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). "The requirements of the tender are quite rigid, but we have already
held three evaluation tests, and we believe we have offered an aircraft which entirely corresponds to the tender requirements," a senior official of the Rosoboronexport State Corporation Sergei Kornyev said.

His comments come as India is believed to be in the process of shortlisting the bidders.

Major aircraft manufacturers including the French Dassault Aviation with its Rafale jet fighter, US Lockheed Martin with its F-16 Falcon and Boeing with F-18 Super Hornet, the Swedish Saab with its most up-to-date Gripen fighter and Eurofighter are in the fray along with MiG-35 Fulcrum-F.

"Of course, the buyers will make the final decision.

"We are sure that we will participate in this tender until the end, and we hope we will win," Kornyev was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti.

Mig-35 Fulcrum-F with thrust-vectoring engines is a highly maneuverable single seater multi-role air superiority fighter is an export version of the MiG-29M OVT (Fulcrum F).

The plane was first officially presented at the Aero India 2007 air show in Bangalore

 

[luckyy]

$ 10 bn combat jet deal eyes strategic 'leverage'

one and only Eurofighter.............otherwise inplace of spending $11 bn , MoD could easy buy the requered numbers of mig-35 by just spend $5 bn ..

german ambbaseder already talking about strategic partnership....

summerising the resent events and statements made at higher levels.....126 aircraft MMRCA tendor will go for Eurofighter to get a strategic partnership into the program and IAF will also buy 50-60 mig-35 outside the tendor to keep everything under budget ...

 

[SANJAY AKKARA]

I think the political dimensions are already in play (a major role in the mrca fight).....

Lets see what visits are lined up for mms in the comming months.????...

1) british pm striking first for ef in aug-sep
2) president obama comming in november....

Me suspects that the contensious issues of euma, cismoa are being negotiated as of now that explains the frequent visits of american top officals....
If everything goes wel and the roadblocks removed to mutual liking....then superhornet it will be.....also the americans might offer the growler as a sweetner...the proof lies in the puding

the iaf has its hands full....i strongly beleive that the deal would eventually go 2 ways
iaf needs to buld and equip its squardons fast and at the same time bite into future technologies
superhornets---provide a fast interem solution as a hi tech,mature aesa platform with amazing air to ground strike variations

all in all, we live in interesting times !!!!

 

[luckyy]

$ 10 bn combat jet deal eyes strategic 'leverage'
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/106816/India/$-10-bn-combat-jet-deal-eyes-strategic-leverage.html
IAF looking to use the deal to get concessions on enrichment technology, and accessing dual use technologie

the more i read it the more bigger it looks...

strategic 'leverage'.....dual use technologie ...these are big thing and IAF,MoD, GoI can't get it unless they are a partner in the project..
even russian never allow india dual use of their technologie .....
we buy 2000 t-90 from them still they won't share the bbarral tech with us...
we developed bhramoswith them but still , they didn't share the propeller tech with us ..
we bought 280 su-30 from them , can we use the radar or engine tech in our program ..no....
to get concessions on enrichment technology, and accessing dual use technologie ..is a big thing...

there is indeed no compitition..one and only eurofighter qualifies.....

 

[SANJAY AKKARA]

What does the iaf want from the mrca ???.......

A top line 4.5 generation fighter,will all bells and whistles,ew,avionics,weapon systems of top notch....an aircraft that basically fulfills its role of a credible air/ground strike fighter...


The critical question then is,how fast ??? And whitin what time frame ???

Lets look at possible options
1) rafale @ gr8 platform but too costly,spectra ew may not be offered,diificult to fill in numbers
2) gripen ng @ too much dependance on us components,no stategic political value from sweden
3) mig 35 @ iaf would not be placing all its eggs in one basket,radar/avionics are still to mature
4) f16 @ an absolute non starter,old platform with new cosmetic face....
5) eurofighter @ top notch but still evolving..tanche 3 platforms only by 2015 time frames

so i feel this is how the iaf will play out....
It will order the first 120 super hornets and buy 80 from eurofighters.....superhornets fill in the numbers and with the eurofighter,iaf gets to bite in future technologies....politically too,it makes
perfect sense....this explains the iaf quest to prepare for a 2 front air war in the comming decade

 

[nrj]

What does the iaf want from the mrca ???.......

A top line 4.5 generation fighter,will all bells and whistles,ew,avionics,weapon systems of top notch....an aircraft that basically fulfills its role of a credible air/ground strike fighter...


The critical question then is,how fast ??? And whitin what time frame ???

Lets look at possible options
1) rafale @ gr8 platform but too costly,spectra ew may not be offered,diificult to fill in numbers
2) gripen ng @ too much dependance on us components,no stategic political value from sweden
3) mig 35 @ iaf would not be placing all its eggs in one basket,radar/avionics are still to mature
4) f16 @ an absolute non starter,old platform with new cosmetic face....
5) eurofighter @ top notch but still evolving..tanche 3 platforms only by 2015 time frames

so i feel this is how the iaf will play out....
It will order the first 120 super hornets and buy 80 from eurofighters.....superhornets fill in the numbers and with the eurofighter,iaf gets to bite in future technologies....politically too,it makes
perfect sense....this explains the iaf quest to prepare for a 2 front air war in the comming decade

MRCA order will not be split. If we order other fighters, it will be separate deal. The separate deal will not materialize any soon

 

[Welcome]

Mig-35 offered to India matches all requirements: Russia

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Mig-3...-all-requirements-Russia/Article1-577956.aspx
Russia on Monday said that its new Mig-35 fighter had passed Indian Air Forces three evaluation tests and matched all requirements listed by New Delhi in the $10 billion tender for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). "The requirements of the tender are quite rigid, but we have already
held three evaluation tests, and we believe we have offered an aircraft which entirely corresponds to the tender requirements," a senior official of the Rosoboronexport State Corporation Sergei Kornyev said.

His comments come as India is believed to be in the process of shortlisting the bidders.

Major aircraft manufacturers including the French Dassault Aviation with its Rafale jet fighter, US Lockheed Martin with its F-16 Falcon and Boeing with F-18 Super Hornet, the Swedish Saab with its most up-to-date Gripen fighter and Eurofighter are in the fray along with MiG-35 Fulcrum-F.

"Of course, the buyers will make the final decision.

"We are sure that we will participate in this tender until the end, and we hope we will win," Kornyev was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti.

Mig-35 Fulcrum-F with thrust-vectoring engines is a highly maneuverable single seater multi-role air superiority fighter is an export version of the MiG-29M OVT (Fulcrum F).

The plane was first officially presented at the Aero India 2007 air show in Bangalore

no doubt mig-35 is a good aircraft but not better than euro fighter. i think mig-35 will rejected only due to life time cost. i think there is only three competitor in the MRCA"Eurofighter,F-18 and Rafael" most probably EU will won the MRCA bcoz EU is best operation aircraft in the world and they r agree for TOT. F-18 will rejected bcoz USA will never agree for transfer of technology and it's already failed in LEH. Rafael can won the MRCA but Rafael was already declared failed in first phase of technical evaluation(no official report).

 

[ppgj]

It ain't just the hydraulics and switching valves that Superbug fliers found to be a problem (those problems were hopefully fixed, since they did occur a while ago), a Boston Globe report found in mid-2007 that a mechanism within the wings was wearing out prematurely, which, while not impacting operation directly, caused a serious fatigue issue that military experts found could drastically shorten the fighter's life from 6,000 to about 3,500 hrs. That prompted the Navy to order the company to make changes in the plane's production and retrofit several hundred planes already operational on aircraft carriers. I also recall severe brake problems the plane had in the middle of 2005,

can you link me to the Boston globe article 2007 if you can?

and a more recent report that found about 16% of Block A/B/C/D models were 'aging poorly' due to airframe cracks, far earlier than expected.

as to the "cracks" - most of these refer to FA-18 hornets (not the SH) which have passed their lifetime and this cuts across A, B, C and D versions of the Hornets.

http://air-attack.com/news/article/...hter-aircraft-to-be-inspected-for-cracks.html

http://air-attack.com/news/article/3430/Ten-FA-18-Hornets-Grounded-After-Hinge-Crack-Discovery.html

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4537356&c=AME&s=AIR

however one of the above reports "alludes" to the metal fatigue wrt SH too though no specifics are there.

interesting element -

Unlike the newer F/A-18 E/F super Hornets, the Hornets under scrutiny have 5,000 – 7,500 light hours on their airframes, in an aircraft initially designed for 6,000 hours. Life extension programs have extended that limit to 8,000 hours, and structural improvements that include center barrel replacements are expected to extend that to 10,000 hours.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Aging-Aircraft-Cracks-in-USAs-FA-18-fleet-05131/

it needs to be noted SH and most of the US legacy Hornets are part of the USN and the USMC. they operate in highly "corrosive" environment and go thro' "heavy" stress due to their high stress landing on limited runway. i guess even the arrestor wires which stop the aircrafts also "add" to the stress factor. IMO this is true for all naval fighters.

also an interesting and a worthy read on SH fatigue test -

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...wTILam&sig=AHIEtbS3m0MD8zTAJ9m2SYprmFBr8lllaA

besides an interesting article on "how and from where" the SH problems are emanating from??

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/06/marine_superhornet_070617/

I like the APG-79 radar. It sets it apart from the others, especially given the challenge in producing a fully-digitized, solid state radar. But my optimism is tempered by the knowledge of software problems the radar experienced in 2007, including aircombat maneuvering modes that took multiple seconds to lock on. I don't know if they've been fully resolved, I suspect they are. But that only serves to demonstrate that a fully-capable AESA was more recent in the making.

i guess these must have been the initial hiccups that occur due to integration of any new system till they stabilise due to bugs removal as part of the software validation besides cooling issues. IMO there may not any issues now related to the radar.

Btw, isn't Selex offering a fully-functional AESA radar to UK for the Eurofighter? They might be up for offering it to us as well.

Selex IMO is still years away from delivering the AESA radar to the typhoon. as per this report 3 years!!!

The Royal Air Force could be test flying an active electronically scanned array radar on a Typhoon fighter within three years following a deal between the British Ministry of Defence and Selex Galileo to develop and build the key new sensor as part of a technology demonstrator program.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4499912

besides integration to operational means a couple of more years. 2015 at the least IMO.

NRJ answered the second part.

But all in all, an F-18 that is a train wreck of airframe problems, wrapped around a fairly decent avionics package, doesn't exactly catch my fancy.

i don't see the airframe problems the way you see it but i do agree it is less "agile" but suits very well in the striker role like no other. what it lacks in agility, it makes up with superior avionics even in A2A role.

 

[Rage]

can you link me to the Boston globe article 2007 if you can?

ppgj, view comment.

as to the "cracks" - most of these refer to FA-18 hornets (not the SH) which have passed their lifetime and this cuts across A, B, C and D versions of the Hornets.

http://air-attack.com/news/article/...hter-aircraft-to-be-inspected-for-cracks.html

http://air-attack.com/news/article/3430/Ten-FA-18-Hornets-Grounded-After-Hinge-Crack-Discovery.html

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4537356&c=AME&s=AIR

however one of the above reports "alludes" to the metal fatigue wrt SH too though no specifics are there.

I found the following:

Over the last few years, the navy has found that both their older F-18C Hornet fighters, and their newer F-18E "Super Hornet" are wearing out faster than expected. This was sort of expected with the F-18Cs, which entered service during the late 1970s and early 80s. These aircraft were expected 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 in service longer.

The F-18E entered service about a decade ago, and was supposed to last 6,000 flight hours. But 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. Again, unexpectedly high combat operations are the culprit. One specific reason for the problem was the larger than expected number of carrier landings carrying bombs. That's because so many missions flown over Iraq and Afghanistan did not require F-18Es to use their bombs or missiles.

The navy is modifying existing F-18Es 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 is costing more to fix than expected. Many aircraft appear beyond repair, and will have to be retired after 8,000 hours in the air.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/20100317.aspx

interesting element -

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Aging-Aircraft-Cracks-in-USAs-FA-18-fleet-05131/

it needs to be noted SH and most of the US legacy Hornets are part of the USN and the USMC. they operate in highly "corrosive" environment and go thro' "heavy" stress due to their high stress landing on limited runway. i guess even the arrestor wires which stop the aircrafts also "add" to the stress factor. IMO this is true for all naval fighters.

I think "heavy stress", "highly corrosive" and "limited runways" determine our environment.

also an interesting and a worthy read on SH fatigue test -

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...wTILam&sig=AHIEtbS3m0MD8zTAJ9m2SYprmFBr8lllaA

besides an interesting article on "how and from where" the SH problems are emanating from??

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/06/marine_superhornet_070617/

Both these were very interesting. And new to me. Thank you for linking.

i guess these must have been the initial hiccups that occur due to integration of any new system till they stabilise due to bugs removal as part of the software validation besides cooling issues. IMO there may not any issues now related to the radar.

I believe those were experienced after formal OPEVAL. But again, the challenge of making such a solid-state radar is so great, I'm likely to excuse these as not being significant.

Selex IMO is still years away from delivering the AESA radar to the typhoon. as per this report 3 years!!!

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4499912

besides integration to operational means a couple of more years. 2015 at the least IMO.

NRJ answered the second part.

That is a long while away. What intrigues me about the E-CAPTOR though, is that the radar feature an innovative "re-positioner", with two rotating joints so that the array can cover a much larger than the competition wFoR. But if that is their "scheduled" timeline, then it's no take.

i don't see the airframe problems the way you see it but i do agree it is less "agile" but suits very well in the striker role like no other. what it lacks in agility, it makes up with superior avionics even in A2A role.

I'm a little apprehensive of a fighter that's over a decade old that has been plagued by multiple kinds of airframe problems on multiple occasions. Now I know that during flight-testing, problems with turbulence under the wing so severe that it damaged weapons and other stores carried on the underwing pylons was remedied by a rearrangement of the pylons, that was directly responsible for the increased drag and reduced performance at high speeds. It is precisely because the airframe is so old that modifications to repair airframe problems like "wing mechanisms" faulting or "cracks" developing in "corrosive" environments pose a problem. That, in my mind, compromises the structural integrity of the plane from the outset. But that's just me.

 

[Rage]

That might be/is true. But we can not forget the fact that F18 is the most produced fighter among all. It has seen the actual warfield on the active duty to the larger extent than others. US forces ordered F18s & used it on regular basis on the purpose of actual work. The fighter has undergone stress during its active duty. No other fighter has that proven record for more than a decade.

Now if the problems with its systems are discovered, I'd think that its a good thing. You do not know how is the vehicle unless you drive it for yourself. And F18s have been used more than any other. :happy_7: No machinery is perfect. We use it, we understand the issues, we fix it. I mean we do not know what issues Gripen NG or Mig35 or any other might have unless we use it to the extent the fighter can not bear. Only Rafale & EF has some operational experience to some extent but nothing quite like SH IMO. I'd like to think that if SH has issues, its good that we know it & we can work on since we know something is there to be fixed. If one doesn't know the problem, how will he fix it?

Now speedy deliveries, proven platform are the advantages of SH to others. However, EUMA, CISMOA are still the major roadblocks IMO.

These are valid points. And you're right, it does bode better for us to know problems in advance, rather than to discover them later. But my assessment makes fewer excuses for the F/A-18 based on the fact that it is a decade-old, operational fighter. I suppose it is a matter of differing assessments. I won't berate the point.

If I'm not wrong Selex was rejected for Indian partnership of AESA development. UK has asked Selex to develop test prototype of fully-functional AESA.

Wow. Interesting. Can you hook me up with a link as to why India was rejected for AESA partnership. I'd think they'd want to hardsell their radar, given it is a paramount requirement.

On the other hand Saab has already awarded Selex-Galileo to integrate Swordfish AESA on Gripen NG. Maybe we can work with Selex on that but we never know MOD will do :angry_6:

I'm curious as to this development. I was under the impression the Raven ES-05 was being pitched for the Gripen 'IN'.

SH will probably make to the shortlist. Although Rafale will be giving tough fight to SH in final decision.

If it does, I'll hope that's where it stops. My final choice would be the Rafale. It is to me the fighter with the easiest mitig-able problems.

 

[nrj]

Wow. Interesting. Can you hook me up with a link as to why India was rejected for AESA partnership. I'd think they'd want to hardsell their radar, given it is a paramount requirement.

I think some confusion here. Actually DRDO rejected Selex. DRDO threw tender for co-development of Radars in early 2009. ELTA, SELEX, THALES, EADS showed great interests. But recetly it was understood that only Elta & EADS remains in the race after the elimination of Thales, Selex.

http://indiadefenceonline.com/2072/elta-eads-to-pitch-for-lca-radar/
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/israel-eu-in-contention-to-codevelop-radars-for-tejas/646059/0
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/07/report-elta-or-eads-to-help-build-tejas.html

I think the reason for which the Selex was rejected is because of the technical orientation of Selex AESA being similar to the area where DRDO is currently working for its own advanced radar. Selex might have suggested to go for Swashplate moving wide-angle AESA; While DRDO is presently working closely on S-band rotating Electronically Phased array radar (RESAR). There might have been collision of similar technologies which are still in nascent phase. So Selex was dropped.

I'm quite sure ELTA will won the tender to arm LCA with what we know Elta 2052 AESA. However, it remains to be seen that will DRDO be able to integrate this radar with later MRCA variants.

I'm curious as to this development. I was under the impression the Raven ES-05 was being pitched for the Gripen 'IN'.

Selex-Galileo is testing Raven 1000P on Gripen NG, which is nothing but advanced prototype of Raven ES-05. Enhancement testing of high resolution SAR imaginary for air-ground operations is what they are going through right now.

 

[ppgj]

ppgj, view comment.

thanks for linking me to the boston globe article. as always well prepared!! :happy_8:

however if you look at the link i provided - that article is thrashed. quoting the relevant part -

The Boston Globe article reported that failure of some parts could cause the aircraft's planned 6,000-flight-hour life to be limited to 3,000 hours. "That was probably one of the most egregious statements" in the article, he said.

The problem referred to in the article would have shortened the planes' lives, but it has been solved, Gaddis said.

"We found it early on" and a redesigned part already is being installed on new aircraft, he said, with a retrofit planned for earlier aircraft long before they reach any flight-hour limitations.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/06/marine_superhornet_070617/

I found the following:

Over the last few years, the navy has found that both their older F-18C Hornet fighters, and their newer F-18E "Super Hornet" are wearing out faster than expected. This was sort of expected with the F-18Cs, which entered service during the late 1970s and early 80s. These aircraft were expected 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 in service longer.

The F-18E entered service about a decade ago, and was supposed to last 6,000 flight hours. But 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. Again, unexpectedly high combat operations are the culprit. One specific reason for the problem was the larger than expected number of carrier landings carrying bombs. That's because so many missions flown over Iraq and Afghanistan did not require F-18Es to use their bombs or missiles.

The navy is modifying existing F-18Es 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 is costing more to fix than expected. Many aircraft appear beyond repair, and will have to be retired after 8,000 hours in the air.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/20100317.aspx

thanks for putting it.

strategypage is known for being speculative!!

have re quoted the part you posted and high lighted the relevant portion. as you can see the SH has been put to greater use due to the war and enforcement of "no fly zone" operations.

besides if you go thro' this article -

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/06/marine_superhornet_070617/

most of the accusations coming from the USMC/others have been rebutted/addressed.

I think "heavy stress", "highly corrosive" and "limited runways" determine our environment.

but the SH procurement for india relates to IAF and not the IN. :happy_2:

Both these were very interesting. And new to me. Thank you for linking.

you are welcome.

I believe those were experienced after formal OPEVAL. But again, the challenge of making such a solid-state radar is so great, I'm likely to excuse these as not being significant.

i agree with you.

That is a long while away. What intrigues me about the E-CAPTOR though, is that the radar feature an innovative "re-positioner", with two rotating joints so that the array can cover a much larger than the competition wFoR. But if that is their "scheduled" timeline, then it's no take.

agree.

I'm a little apprehensive of a fighter that's over a decade old that has been plagued by multiple kinds of airframe problems on multiple occasions. Now I know that during flight-testing, problems with turbulence under the wing so severe that it damaged weapons and other stores carried on the underwing pylons was remedied by a rearrangement of the pylons, that was directly responsible for the increased drag and reduced performance at high speeds. It is precisely because the airframe is so old that modifications to repair airframe problems like "wing mechanisms" faulting or "cracks" developing in "corrosive" environments pose a problem. That, in my mind, compromises the structural integrity of the plane from the outset. But that's just me.

well it is certainly not an old airframe vis a vis the rest of the a/c's in the MMRCA contest. it was inducted only in 1999!!

besides the allegations pertain mostly to the legacy hornets which are past their lifetime. even allegations about SH are buttressed in the link i gave and which is there in this post too.

i agree with you partly and which is why i also called it less "agile". but this is precisely why they are not used so much in A2A combat. once the USAF takes care of air superiority FA 18E/F enters the picture getting involved in SEAD missions.

a picture i painted for our own IAF meaning a great strike ability of the SH replacing the Mig 27s which have been falling out of the sky at regular intervals for some time now.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/

 

[StealthSniper]

One thing I am interested in, is the growler and maybe if we get the F-18, the growler can offer us to alot of technologies and maybe we can make our own version of the growler for our other fighter aircraft. Also, just like their is a special version of the F-16IN, what new technologies are offered for the F-18, that no other export customer will get, except India.

 

[youngindian]

Boeing Delivers 1st Super Hornet Featuring HAL Gun Bay Door


http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defe...s 1st Super Hornet Featuring HAL Gun Bay Door

 

[Rage]

I think some confusion here. Actually DRDO rejected Selex. DRDO threw tender for co-development of Radars in early 2009. ELTA, SELEX, THALES, EADS showed great interests. But recetly it was understood that only Elta & EADS remains in the race after the elimination of Thales, Selex.

http://indiadefenceonline.com/2072/elta-eads-to-pitch-for-lca-radar/
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/israel-eu-in-contention-to-codevelop-radars-for-tejas/646059/0
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/07/report-elta-or-eads-to-help-build-tejas.html

I think the reason for which the Selex was rejected is because of the technical orientation of Selex AESA being similar to the area where DRDO is currently working for its own advanced radar. Selex might have suggested to go for Swordfish moving wide-angle AESA; While DRDO is presently working closely on S-band rotating Electronically Phased array radar (RESAR). There might have been collision of similar technologies which are still in nascent phase. So Selex was dropped.

I'm quite sure ELTA will win the tender to arm LCA with what we know Elta 2052 AESA. However, it remains to be seen that will DRDO be able to integrate this radar with later MRCA variants.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearin' that up. Which of their three radars was Selex offering though- the Seaspray, Picosar or Vixen? Each of these uses a common 100mm x 15mm x 5mm TR module in different configurations and different quantities for the various radar ( 250 on the Seaspray: for small helicopters, 500 on the Vixen: for light fighter jets; and 20 on the Picosar: for UAV's and the like) which is why I think we could have got multi-platform experience by partnering with Selex.

Another reason why I would've thought Selex would have been a good choice is because its TR modules and configurations use gallium arsenide as a semiconductor, rather than gallium nitride. Manufacturing TR modules, especially for a contract that is supposed to run into more than 600, and cost upward of $3 billion, is very difficult and expensive. Only a handful of commercial foundaries (primarily US and Japanese) can manufacture GaN transistors today. It'll prove to be India's achilee's heel, unless they have some serious offsets for local production and some serious retooling for industry.

Selex-Galileo is testing Raven 1000P on Gripen NG, which is nothing but advanced prototype of Raven ES-05. Enhancement testing of high resolution SAR imaginary for air-ground operations is what they are going through right now.

Here's what I found:

http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-hardsells-new-aesa-radar-low-cost-for-mmrca

'Bit old, September 2009, but I haven't found any counter-claims since.