SHASH2K2
New Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 5,711
- Likes
- 730
I disagree with you . Even if MRCA was going to USA it wont be announced now. It will affect other presidential trips in coming months. so it will be announced in early 2011 .
MRCA News & Dicussions (IV)
- Thread starter bhramos
- Start date
- Status
thakur_ritesh
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,435
- Likes
- 1,733
the decision is not expected before middle of next year with considerable delays that could mean atleast a couple of more months to that. never was a decision expected during obama's visit!
vijay jagannathan
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2010
- Messages
- 178
- Likes
- 10
Savour this different cuppa tea--------
Anytime now, the Indian Air Force (IAF) should be submitting its report on the technical evaluations of six aircraft for its 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender, indicating its assessment and by extension, preferences, after which the Ministry of Defense (MoD) will open the commercial bids submitted by the six vendors and list them in terms of the best prices offered.
But in this contest, the IAF has to make a comparison of the performances of single-engine aircraft, the Gripen and the F-16, with twin-engine fighters, the MiG-35, F/A-18 Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. Speculative noises over the past year have indicated it to be entirely possible for all these aircraft to make the cut as far as the parameters or Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQRs) laid down by the IAF are concerned.
Indeed, the varied character of the six aircraft taking part in the competition, which also cleared the paper-evaluation of their respective technical abilities last year, indicates that possibly all six aircraft could match these parameters in different ways to, more or less, the same extent.
The IAF has also said over the past year, that no aircraft would get extra credit for exceeding the SQRs. From all accounts, the IAF has been comparing the aircraft with the parameters laid down in the SQRs and not with each other. In such a scenario, the IAF could end up having a difficult time distinctly marking their preferred aircraft from the six in the fray. Three possible scenarios could come up.
The IAF could indicate a preference for either only single-engine or twin-engine aircraft, but questions could be asked as to why the IAF made no prior indication of a preference for either type of aircraft. Or thirdly, the IAF could throw up a mix of both types, if not all the competitors, in its technical report. So if the IAF does clear both, single and twin-engine aircraft, in its report, the MoD could be faced with the task of finally comparing the technical merits of the contenders with respect to their cost.
How do you compare the cost and reliability of a single-engine aircraft with a twin-engine aircraft? It seems obvious that single-engine aircraft would be much cheaper to buy and maintain, especially in terms of life-cycle cost, and that the reliability of twin-engine aircraft would exceed those of single-engine aircraft.
And if the IAF gives no extra points for performance exceeding the ASQR parameters laid down, then a decision on selection could rest solely with the MoD judging the commercial bids, where single-engine fighters would have an edge in terms of pricing.
Or would they?
The Austrian decision on the purchase of fighter aircraft is an interesting study of how a unified measure of the cost of the two types of aircraft with respect to their performance can be quantified.
The Austrian Court of Auditors examined the award of a contract for the supply of 24 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft to the Österreichische Luftstreitkräfte (Austrian Air Force) in 2004, which had been competing with the Swedish Gripen for the order. The court looked at the process their Austrian Ministry of Defense used to arrive at a cost and utility analysis of the two aircraft on the basis of a mathematical model.
The court scanned the process their MoD used for gauging the operational capabilities of the two aircraft — what the report refers to as 'the military benefits of an aircraft' or what it means in a fight. Weightage was given to different criteria of performance (range, payload etc), which were tabulated and summed up out of a maximum cumulative weightage of 1000 points. The Eurofighter Typhoon scored a little higher in terms of the weightage given by the Austrian Air Force for performance with respect to their requirements.
The report says the auditors, evaluating the result of the Austrian Air Force and the MoD, found that weightage given to 35 performance criteria required adjustment, which resulted in a further shift of the cumulative weightage in favor of the Eurofighter Typhoon.
The relationship between the respective costs and the military benefits or operational performance of the two aircraft produced the cost benefit/utility analysis, which was a quantification of military benefits and what they cost. The cost benefit/utility analysis reflects the quantification of benefits with respect to their costs. The Austrian Air Force was looking for the maximum capability at the best price, or the 'best bidder'.
In case of payment on delivery or in ten equal half-yearly annual installments Gripen offered the better deal. In case payment were made in 18 equal half-yearly installments, the Eurofighter Typhoon offer was better.
But the unit price for the Eurofighter Typhoon wasn't necessarily lower than that of the Gripen. What the court validated was the judgment of the MoD that the offer for the Eurofighter Typhoon was more attractive, considering the payment model being offered for the performance criteria matched by the aircraft. While the Eurofighter Typhoon offer was higher than that of Gripen if payment were made on delivery or over ten half-yearly installments, the cost and utility analysis of the Eurofighter Typhoon offer was a little less than Gripen's quote, if payments were made in 18 half-yearly installments.
What's also interesting is that the offer made by the Eurofighter Typhoon consortium for 24 aircraft by payment on delivery wasn't all that much higher than the offer made by Gripen (the order was later reduced to 18, and then, 15 aircraft). This, in spite of the fact that the engine in a fighter is often considered to make up around one-third of the value of the aircraft.
But at the same time Jane's has reported a different scenario in the ongoing Romanian process for acquisition of 24 fighter aircraft, with Saab ready to offer 24 new Gripen aircraft at a cost of EUR 1 billion, against 24 second-hand Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft (and also, 24 second-hand F-16 aircraft) being offered at the same price.
It must be noted the costs considered by the Austrian Air Force and Ministry of Defense were not life-cycle costs, as India is going to adjudge. The costs are the offers made for the aircraft, in addition to weapons systems and other support systems. Nor does the report mention the performance criteria which were weighed in tabulating the cumulative military benefits of both aircraft. Each performance criteria may also be weighed differently and indeed, Indian requirements may well be very different.
But at the stage of consideration of the commercial bids, will the ministry also look at issues such as the opportunity cost in the event of a crash of one of these aircraft? "If a single-engine aircraft loses an engine, say in the event of a bird hit, the IAF loses the aircraft and possibly also the pilot. If a twin-engine aircraft loses an engine, the IAF loses an engine, which can be replaced," says the representative of another vendor in the contest. But single-engine fighter aircraft vendors claim that engines in current twin-engine aircraft have very few failure modes that allow an engine to run in case the other fails and that they are so closely fitted that an engine down due to bird hit or weapon strike would probably result in an explosion, causing the other to malfunction.
Most aircraft in the MMRCA competition are fairly recent developments and do not have an operational history lengthy enough to get an idea of their reliability in terms of the number of their engines.
The United States Air Force (USAF) figures tabulating engine-related Class A mishaps for single-engine and twin-engine aircraft tell an interesting story. Class A mishaps are those where the total cost of damage is $1 million or more, and/or involves destroyed aircraft, and/or fatal injury, and/or permanent total disability. The USAF Air Safety Center has tabulated charts up to March 31, 2010 and, in general, the rate of engine-related Class A mishaps is higher in single-engine combat aircraft than in twin-engine aircraft.
From 1972 to last December, the F-15 had chalked up 5,783,436 flight hours. In this time, 140 of these aircraft suffered Class A mishaps with 118 aircraft destroyed and 50 people killed, including 43 pilots. Since 1975 to December 2009, the F-16 had flown 9,217,670 hours, suffering 339 Class A mishaps, with 309 aircraft destroyed and 116 people killed, including 80 pilots.
The USAF Air Safety Center has put together statistics for engine-related Class A mishaps of F-16 aircraft running on four different engines and F-15 aircraft running on three different engines. Two engines are common to both aircraft. According to these statistics, the F-16 has suffered 70 engine-related Class A mishaps after 6,408,377 Engine Flight Hours running on the four different engines (not counting the record of the aircraft running on the F100-PW-200 engine), while the F-15 has suffered 31 engine-related Class A mishaps after 11,409,530 Engine Flight Hours on the three engines listed.
When comparing the reliability of both aircraft in terms of common engine usage, the F-16 experienced 23 engine-related Class A mishaps after 2,062,376 Engine Flight Hours on the F100-PW-220 engine since 1991. The F-15, powered by the same engines, suffered 9 engine-related Class A mishaps after 3,105,962 Engine Flight Hours, since1989.
The F-15, powered by the F100-PW-229 engine, suffered 4 engine-related Class A mishaps after 859,542 Engine Flight Hours, since 1997. The F-16, running the same engine, suffered zero engine-related Class A mishaps after 244,846 Engine Flight Hours till date.
Lockheed Martin dismisses the idea that these figures indicate single-engine aircraft to be less reliable than twin-engine. Its Director of Advanced Development Programs, Michael Griswold, points out that engines have improved over time and that even the next generation F-35 runs on a single engine and is safe enough to be envisaged for operations off aircraft carriers. He also thinks this kind of comparison between the F-16 and other aircraft isn't necessarily valid, as they have 'totally different missions' and 'different roles'.
But for the IAF, this comparison may well become relevant considering the variety of aircraft in the MMRCA contest
Anytime now, the Indian Air Force (IAF) should be submitting its report on the technical evaluations of six aircraft for its 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender, indicating its assessment and by extension, preferences, after which the Ministry of Defense (MoD) will open the commercial bids submitted by the six vendors and list them in terms of the best prices offered.
But in this contest, the IAF has to make a comparison of the performances of single-engine aircraft, the Gripen and the F-16, with twin-engine fighters, the MiG-35, F/A-18 Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. Speculative noises over the past year have indicated it to be entirely possible for all these aircraft to make the cut as far as the parameters or Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQRs) laid down by the IAF are concerned.
Indeed, the varied character of the six aircraft taking part in the competition, which also cleared the paper-evaluation of their respective technical abilities last year, indicates that possibly all six aircraft could match these parameters in different ways to, more or less, the same extent.
The IAF has also said over the past year, that no aircraft would get extra credit for exceeding the SQRs. From all accounts, the IAF has been comparing the aircraft with the parameters laid down in the SQRs and not with each other. In such a scenario, the IAF could end up having a difficult time distinctly marking their preferred aircraft from the six in the fray. Three possible scenarios could come up.
The IAF could indicate a preference for either only single-engine or twin-engine aircraft, but questions could be asked as to why the IAF made no prior indication of a preference for either type of aircraft. Or thirdly, the IAF could throw up a mix of both types, if not all the competitors, in its technical report. So if the IAF does clear both, single and twin-engine aircraft, in its report, the MoD could be faced with the task of finally comparing the technical merits of the contenders with respect to their cost.
How do you compare the cost and reliability of a single-engine aircraft with a twin-engine aircraft? It seems obvious that single-engine aircraft would be much cheaper to buy and maintain, especially in terms of life-cycle cost, and that the reliability of twin-engine aircraft would exceed those of single-engine aircraft.
And if the IAF gives no extra points for performance exceeding the ASQR parameters laid down, then a decision on selection could rest solely with the MoD judging the commercial bids, where single-engine fighters would have an edge in terms of pricing.
Or would they?
The Austrian decision on the purchase of fighter aircraft is an interesting study of how a unified measure of the cost of the two types of aircraft with respect to their performance can be quantified.
The Austrian Court of Auditors examined the award of a contract for the supply of 24 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft to the Österreichische Luftstreitkräfte (Austrian Air Force) in 2004, which had been competing with the Swedish Gripen for the order. The court looked at the process their Austrian Ministry of Defense used to arrive at a cost and utility analysis of the two aircraft on the basis of a mathematical model.
The court scanned the process their MoD used for gauging the operational capabilities of the two aircraft — what the report refers to as 'the military benefits of an aircraft' or what it means in a fight. Weightage was given to different criteria of performance (range, payload etc), which were tabulated and summed up out of a maximum cumulative weightage of 1000 points. The Eurofighter Typhoon scored a little higher in terms of the weightage given by the Austrian Air Force for performance with respect to their requirements.
The report says the auditors, evaluating the result of the Austrian Air Force and the MoD, found that weightage given to 35 performance criteria required adjustment, which resulted in a further shift of the cumulative weightage in favor of the Eurofighter Typhoon.
The relationship between the respective costs and the military benefits or operational performance of the two aircraft produced the cost benefit/utility analysis, which was a quantification of military benefits and what they cost. The cost benefit/utility analysis reflects the quantification of benefits with respect to their costs. The Austrian Air Force was looking for the maximum capability at the best price, or the 'best bidder'.
In case of payment on delivery or in ten equal half-yearly annual installments Gripen offered the better deal. In case payment were made in 18 equal half-yearly installments, the Eurofighter Typhoon offer was better.
But the unit price for the Eurofighter Typhoon wasn't necessarily lower than that of the Gripen. What the court validated was the judgment of the MoD that the offer for the Eurofighter Typhoon was more attractive, considering the payment model being offered for the performance criteria matched by the aircraft. While the Eurofighter Typhoon offer was higher than that of Gripen if payment were made on delivery or over ten half-yearly installments, the cost and utility analysis of the Eurofighter Typhoon offer was a little less than Gripen's quote, if payments were made in 18 half-yearly installments.
What's also interesting is that the offer made by the Eurofighter Typhoon consortium for 24 aircraft by payment on delivery wasn't all that much higher than the offer made by Gripen (the order was later reduced to 18, and then, 15 aircraft). This, in spite of the fact that the engine in a fighter is often considered to make up around one-third of the value of the aircraft.
But at the same time Jane's has reported a different scenario in the ongoing Romanian process for acquisition of 24 fighter aircraft, with Saab ready to offer 24 new Gripen aircraft at a cost of EUR 1 billion, against 24 second-hand Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft (and also, 24 second-hand F-16 aircraft) being offered at the same price.
It must be noted the costs considered by the Austrian Air Force and Ministry of Defense were not life-cycle costs, as India is going to adjudge. The costs are the offers made for the aircraft, in addition to weapons systems and other support systems. Nor does the report mention the performance criteria which were weighed in tabulating the cumulative military benefits of both aircraft. Each performance criteria may also be weighed differently and indeed, Indian requirements may well be very different.
But at the stage of consideration of the commercial bids, will the ministry also look at issues such as the opportunity cost in the event of a crash of one of these aircraft? "If a single-engine aircraft loses an engine, say in the event of a bird hit, the IAF loses the aircraft and possibly also the pilot. If a twin-engine aircraft loses an engine, the IAF loses an engine, which can be replaced," says the representative of another vendor in the contest. But single-engine fighter aircraft vendors claim that engines in current twin-engine aircraft have very few failure modes that allow an engine to run in case the other fails and that they are so closely fitted that an engine down due to bird hit or weapon strike would probably result in an explosion, causing the other to malfunction.
Most aircraft in the MMRCA competition are fairly recent developments and do not have an operational history lengthy enough to get an idea of their reliability in terms of the number of their engines.
The United States Air Force (USAF) figures tabulating engine-related Class A mishaps for single-engine and twin-engine aircraft tell an interesting story. Class A mishaps are those where the total cost of damage is $1 million or more, and/or involves destroyed aircraft, and/or fatal injury, and/or permanent total disability. The USAF Air Safety Center has tabulated charts up to March 31, 2010 and, in general, the rate of engine-related Class A mishaps is higher in single-engine combat aircraft than in twin-engine aircraft.
From 1972 to last December, the F-15 had chalked up 5,783,436 flight hours. In this time, 140 of these aircraft suffered Class A mishaps with 118 aircraft destroyed and 50 people killed, including 43 pilots. Since 1975 to December 2009, the F-16 had flown 9,217,670 hours, suffering 339 Class A mishaps, with 309 aircraft destroyed and 116 people killed, including 80 pilots.
The USAF Air Safety Center has put together statistics for engine-related Class A mishaps of F-16 aircraft running on four different engines and F-15 aircraft running on three different engines. Two engines are common to both aircraft. According to these statistics, the F-16 has suffered 70 engine-related Class A mishaps after 6,408,377 Engine Flight Hours running on the four different engines (not counting the record of the aircraft running on the F100-PW-200 engine), while the F-15 has suffered 31 engine-related Class A mishaps after 11,409,530 Engine Flight Hours on the three engines listed.
When comparing the reliability of both aircraft in terms of common engine usage, the F-16 experienced 23 engine-related Class A mishaps after 2,062,376 Engine Flight Hours on the F100-PW-220 engine since 1991. The F-15, powered by the same engines, suffered 9 engine-related Class A mishaps after 3,105,962 Engine Flight Hours, since1989.
The F-15, powered by the F100-PW-229 engine, suffered 4 engine-related Class A mishaps after 859,542 Engine Flight Hours, since 1997. The F-16, running the same engine, suffered zero engine-related Class A mishaps after 244,846 Engine Flight Hours till date.
Lockheed Martin dismisses the idea that these figures indicate single-engine aircraft to be less reliable than twin-engine. Its Director of Advanced Development Programs, Michael Griswold, points out that engines have improved over time and that even the next generation F-35 runs on a single engine and is safe enough to be envisaged for operations off aircraft carriers. He also thinks this kind of comparison between the F-16 and other aircraft isn't necessarily valid, as they have 'totally different missions' and 'different roles'.
But for the IAF, this comparison may well become relevant considering the variety of aircraft in the MMRCA contest
vijay jagannathan
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2010
- Messages
- 178
- Likes
- 10
I will be surprised if the visit of other presidents would have half of India sitiing up and watching. Come on guys. For all its faults a visit by the President of the United states of America does have a differnt proportion to it. I still stand by what I said. As far as the congress goes it would definitely have been a sweetner of an announcement. You mean none of the MoD guys or the PMO office do not know who has bagged the deal? In indian governance? You must be kidding me. I tell you the PMO chaprasi onwards will know. O kya bolte hein usko thaipoon ----arrrrre yaarr---- wo jo chaar chaar deson ne milke banaya hai. haan wohi havai jahaj. suna hai usi ko contract milne wala hai----
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,314
- Likes
- 149
The engine used in Gripen is of US made F414G.. Still US can block us from using against their will.. Let do not give any room for any kinda constraints.. We need a multi-role free bird which can target our enemies in no time....
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,314
- Likes
- 149
F-16 Out Of Reckoning?
In the midst of persistent recent rumours of frontrunners in India's medium multirole combat aircraft (M-MRCA) competition, an explosive new piece of buzz -- and an assertion in the latest issue of India's most widely read news magazine -- now suggest that the Lockheed-Martin F-16 is no longer in the reckoning for the $11-billion 126-fighter prize. And with the MiG-35 long out of the competition, it's now effectively a four-horse game being fought by the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Saab Gripen NG/IN.
First, the Indian Air Force has refused to comment officially on specific progress in the MMRCA competition, but an IAF officer familiar with developments at Air Force HQ has indicated to a select group of journalists, on condition of anonymity, that the Indian Air Force and Ministry of Defence specifically agree that there is no sense in purchasing a platform that the US is already supplying to Pakistan (notwithstanding the assertion that the variant on offer to India is far more advanced). This, especially when the F-16 has come to symbolise the irritation India nurses against the stubborn rhetoric India faces from the US when it registers its disquiet at billions of dollars worth of conventional weapons being supplied hand over fist to Pakistan.
Second, and more importantly, the latest issue of INDIA TODAY (Nov 15) appears to suggest that as well. The cover story, co-authored by senior editor Sandeep Unnithan, notes, "US supplies to Pakistan have effectively nixed the F-16s prospects at being selected as one of the two US contenders for the IAF's $12-billion fighter tender for its Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft."
I'm awaiting comments from Lockheed-Martin. Stay tuned. Do please note that the Indian Air Force and Ministry of Defence have not confirmed this information. Also note that there have been several rumours in the past pertaining to specific eliminations from the lucrative MMRCA competition (Lockheed has in fact commented in the past on specific rumours), and none of them have been verified one way or the other. The competition remains in progress, with the Ministry of Defence expected to make a single type selection in or around July 2011.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/
In the midst of persistent recent rumours of frontrunners in India's medium multirole combat aircraft (M-MRCA) competition, an explosive new piece of buzz -- and an assertion in the latest issue of India's most widely read news magazine -- now suggest that the Lockheed-Martin F-16 is no longer in the reckoning for the $11-billion 126-fighter prize. And with the MiG-35 long out of the competition, it's now effectively a four-horse game being fought by the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Saab Gripen NG/IN.
First, the Indian Air Force has refused to comment officially on specific progress in the MMRCA competition, but an IAF officer familiar with developments at Air Force HQ has indicated to a select group of journalists, on condition of anonymity, that the Indian Air Force and Ministry of Defence specifically agree that there is no sense in purchasing a platform that the US is already supplying to Pakistan (notwithstanding the assertion that the variant on offer to India is far more advanced). This, especially when the F-16 has come to symbolise the irritation India nurses against the stubborn rhetoric India faces from the US when it registers its disquiet at billions of dollars worth of conventional weapons being supplied hand over fist to Pakistan.
Second, and more importantly, the latest issue of INDIA TODAY (Nov 15) appears to suggest that as well. The cover story, co-authored by senior editor Sandeep Unnithan, notes, "US supplies to Pakistan have effectively nixed the F-16s prospects at being selected as one of the two US contenders for the IAF's $12-billion fighter tender for its Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft."
I'm awaiting comments from Lockheed-Martin. Stay tuned. Do please note that the Indian Air Force and Ministry of Defence have not confirmed this information. Also note that there have been several rumours in the past pertaining to specific eliminations from the lucrative MMRCA competition (Lockheed has in fact commented in the past on specific rumours), and none of them have been verified one way or the other. The competition remains in progress, with the Ministry of Defence expected to make a single type selection in or around July 2011.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
I don't know how long i have to wait for real NEWS..
Sometime i don't like these leaks..
Sometime i don't like these leaks..
nrj
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,658
- Likes
- 3,911
Me neither but seems like these leaks (?) are giving some people their daily bread.I don't know how long i have to wait for real NEWS..
Sometime i don't like these leaks..
vishal_lionheart
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2009
- Messages
- 246
- Likes
- 14
The F/A-18 Block III.
The future combats are Stealth v/s Non-stealth, result favor to Stealth
plugwater
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2009
- Messages
- 4,154
- Likes
- 1,082
Thats from a movie Stealth. Its not F/A-18 block III.
The F/A-18 Block III.
The future combats are Stealth v/s Non-stealth, result favor to Stealth
black eagle
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,237
- Likes
- 134
OH !!! Really!!! Where have you been man?? :emot15::emot100:
The F/A-18 Block III.
The future combats are Stealth v/s Non-stealth, result favor to Stealth
death.by.chocolate
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 300
- Likes
- 98
The picture you posted is the F/A-37 Talon from the movie stealth fighter.
This is what the F/A-18 E/F Block III will look like with an enclosed weapons pod to lower radar signature that can carry up to 2 AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and 2 JDAM 500 pound smart bombs, full spherical laser and missile warning systems, a new cockpit based on large touch-screen technology, improved F414 engines (EDE/EPE), and conformal fuel tanks mounted up top to boost range.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
- Messages
- 510
- Likes
- 10
Is the huge pod under the fuselage a internal weapons carrying pod? I think i saw a photo showing the pod as a internal weapons carrying pod, like a F-15 Silent Eagle, Boeing is planning hard in a new market category.
Here they are i think
http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/08/12/...ogias-avancadas-do-super-hornet-para-a-india/
Here they are i think
http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/08/12/...ogias-avancadas-do-super-hornet-para-a-india/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,001
It certainly is. This was announced at the Farnborough Airshow, 2010 by Shelley Lavender, Boeing's VP and General Mgr. of Global strike Systems. The plan is called "Super Hornet International Road Map; and is to feature "internal IRST, enclosed weapons pod, full spherical laser and missile warning systems, improved F414 EDE/PDE engines, conformal fuel tanks mounted up top to boost range" <as much as 10%, I'm hearing> and a "new cockpit based on large-touch-screen technology". The plan will replace the USN's current retrofit approach using a modified centerline fueltank strategy.Is the huge pod under the fuselage a internal weapons carrying pod? I think i saw a photo showing the pod as a internal weapons carrying pod, like a F-15 Silent Eagle, Boeing is planning hard in a new market category.
Here they are i think
http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/08/12/...ogias-avancadas-do-super-hornet-para-a-india/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 3,474
- Likes
- 1,062
UK closes in on $11bn fighter deal
The European-made Typhoon fighter is winning the fight for the $11.5bn (£7.1bn) contract to supply 126 fighters to the Indian Air Force in a deal worth $5 billion and 2,000 new jobs to Britain.
The Typhoon, manufactured by a joint venture between BAE, Italy's Alenia Aeronautica and the German-Spanish giant EADS
By Praveen Swami and Dean Nelson 10:00PM GMT 06 Nov 2010
Comments
The multi-role combat aircraft, manufactured by a joint venture between Britain's BAE Systems, Italy's Alenia Aeronautica and the German-Spanish giant EADS, has come top in the Indian Air Force's technical assessment of rival bids, beating the American F16 and F18s, the Russian MiG 35 and its closest rival, the French Dassault Rafale.
If the Typhoon clinches the deal, India would become the consortium's third-largest customer and an unofficial "fifth partner" in the project. Thousands of new jobs would also be created in India, including a new EADS avionics plant. "The Indians would be one of the biggest users of Typhoon, which would give them a vote at the table," one official said last week.
Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain are waging a joint diplomatic campaign to support the Typhoon bid, with the leaders of all four countries expected to raise the issue in meetings with India's prime minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, at next week's G20 meeting in Seoul. David Cameron is expected to lobby Dr Singh in a bilateral meeting at the summit.
A senior Indian official has told The Sunday Telegraph that its air force's technical findings have been forwarded to the defence ministry, where a final decision is expected to be made in the next few months.
"There are a number of cost and strategic considerations which still have to be looked at, but in purely technical terms, Eurofighter is ahead," the official said.
The disclosure is a significant boost for the Typhoon consortium, but it must now address Indian concerns that the Eurofighter is more expensive than its competitors in upfront costs. British, German, Spanish and Italian officials are confident however that it will be cheaper than its competitors over the lifetime of its deployment.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, head of the Royal Air Force, visited India last week for the Indradhanush joint RAF-Indian Air Force exercise in Kalaikunda, West Bengal, where Indian fighter pilots flew RAF Typhoons for the first time under the gaze of their own Air Chief Marshal PV Naik.
"Set aside initial development costs and Typhoon's through-life costs compare very well," said Sir Stephen.
The Typhoon's unique advantage, he said, is an integrated platform for its weapons, radar and intelligence- gathering systems. "It has this flexibility and adaptability at any one time," he said. Sir Stephen previously headed Britain's Typhoon development programme at the Ministry of Defence.
Indian officials have long said that Eurofighter had a good chance of winning the contract. Arif Shahid Khan, India's ambassador to Italy, said in January that the Eurofighter was "leading the race" in the trials, which were then under way.
Winning the contract would be a jobs boost not just for BAE Systems' Warton plant in Lancashire but also the Rolls-Royce factory in Bristol, where its EuroJet 200 engines are built. It would also benefit 300 small and medium enterprises throughout Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...114951/UK-closes-in-on-11bn-fighter-deal.html
The European-made Typhoon fighter is winning the fight for the $11.5bn (£7.1bn) contract to supply 126 fighters to the Indian Air Force in a deal worth $5 billion and 2,000 new jobs to Britain.
The Typhoon, manufactured by a joint venture between BAE, Italy's Alenia Aeronautica and the German-Spanish giant EADS
By Praveen Swami and Dean Nelson 10:00PM GMT 06 Nov 2010
Comments
The multi-role combat aircraft, manufactured by a joint venture between Britain's BAE Systems, Italy's Alenia Aeronautica and the German-Spanish giant EADS, has come top in the Indian Air Force's technical assessment of rival bids, beating the American F16 and F18s, the Russian MiG 35 and its closest rival, the French Dassault Rafale.
If the Typhoon clinches the deal, India would become the consortium's third-largest customer and an unofficial "fifth partner" in the project. Thousands of new jobs would also be created in India, including a new EADS avionics plant. "The Indians would be one of the biggest users of Typhoon, which would give them a vote at the table," one official said last week.
Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain are waging a joint diplomatic campaign to support the Typhoon bid, with the leaders of all four countries expected to raise the issue in meetings with India's prime minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, at next week's G20 meeting in Seoul. David Cameron is expected to lobby Dr Singh in a bilateral meeting at the summit.
A senior Indian official has told The Sunday Telegraph that its air force's technical findings have been forwarded to the defence ministry, where a final decision is expected to be made in the next few months.
"There are a number of cost and strategic considerations which still have to be looked at, but in purely technical terms, Eurofighter is ahead," the official said.
The disclosure is a significant boost for the Typhoon consortium, but it must now address Indian concerns that the Eurofighter is more expensive than its competitors in upfront costs. British, German, Spanish and Italian officials are confident however that it will be cheaper than its competitors over the lifetime of its deployment.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, head of the Royal Air Force, visited India last week for the Indradhanush joint RAF-Indian Air Force exercise in Kalaikunda, West Bengal, where Indian fighter pilots flew RAF Typhoons for the first time under the gaze of their own Air Chief Marshal PV Naik.
"Set aside initial development costs and Typhoon's through-life costs compare very well," said Sir Stephen.
The Typhoon's unique advantage, he said, is an integrated platform for its weapons, radar and intelligence- gathering systems. "It has this flexibility and adaptability at any one time," he said. Sir Stephen previously headed Britain's Typhoon development programme at the Ministry of Defence.
Indian officials have long said that Eurofighter had a good chance of winning the contract. Arif Shahid Khan, India's ambassador to Italy, said in January that the Eurofighter was "leading the race" in the trials, which were then under way.
Winning the contract would be a jobs boost not just for BAE Systems' Warton plant in Lancashire but also the Rolls-Royce factory in Bristol, where its EuroJet 200 engines are built. It would also benefit 300 small and medium enterprises throughout Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...114951/UK-closes-in-on-11bn-fighter-deal.html
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,314
- Likes
- 149
Air Force MRCA Deal - Eurofighter Typhoon Ahead on Technical Parameters
British newspaper The Telegraph quotes unnamed senior Indian government officials revealing that the Eurofighter Typhoon fighters lead the race to bag the USD 11 billion Indian Air Force Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) deal.
"There are a number of cost and strategic considerations which still have to be looked at, but in purely technical terms, Eurofighter is ahead"
-- The Telegraph quoting an unnamed senior Indian official
India Defence had earlier reported in September 2010 that Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale fighters had emerged as front-runners after field trials were conducted by the Air Force.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4737
British newspaper The Telegraph quotes unnamed senior Indian government officials revealing that the Eurofighter Typhoon fighters lead the race to bag the USD 11 billion Indian Air Force Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) deal.
"There are a number of cost and strategic considerations which still have to be looked at, but in purely technical terms, Eurofighter is ahead"
-- The Telegraph quoting an unnamed senior Indian official
India Defence had earlier reported in September 2010 that Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale fighters had emerged as front-runners after field trials were conducted by the Air Force.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4737
- Status
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MRCA news and dicussions Part III | Indian Air Force | 999 | |
|
Breaking news: MRCA winner announced | Indian Air Force | 13 | |
| S | MRCA News & Discussions (V) | Indian Air Force | 560 | |
|
|
MRCA news and discussion /feb-june 2009 | Indian Air Force | 632 |
