What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
The MRCA was supposed to replace the MIG-21 .. Another MIG at this time should be a NO-NO specially since we have FGFA in the pipeline with Russia. IMO Time factor should be important here. Mig 35 will surely come with huge delays.

At this point its almost sure that Mig-35, Gripen and F-16 are out. They are just going through the process now.

I am looking forward to F/A 18 joining IAF ( As the things stand today). Well i would have loved the RAFALE but seems like their campaign has received jolts during past few months and the Mirage upgrade issue could affect the decision. But I am not complaining if 126 F/A-18 are coming our way :cheesy:

My Personal Preference would be -
1. Rafale
2. F/A -18
3. EURO FIGHTER

Actually MOD could split orders now that they have decided not to upgrade the Mirage Jets. So potentially they are willing to go for 48 more planes. 126+48 = 174 in all.

100 Rafale + 54 F/A -18 would be Nice :smitten: ( Reduce 20 from 174)

1. It would be within the budget for MRCA+ Mirage Upgrades. ( $12 - $13 Billion)
2. Instead of being skeptical about the Americans always, why not try with a Decent order with them like 54 Aircrafts.

* I think we should be able to take care of the logistic challenges associated with it as a nation. so i am not thinking that way.

* 100 Rafale should still get us all goodies associated with it. TOT and everything.

* 54 F/A-18 may not come with lot of TOT but still must help getting first hand experience of a US Fighter, building trust and platform for future Deals. Just in case there are issues with spares and other things crop up with the Americans during crunch times, this number wont be too detrimental to our cause, But if everything goes well, who knows wot lies around the next corner. :cheers:


Buddy one of the objectives for purchasing MRCA is to avoid logistical nightmare due to the the different aircrafts we have..and you are recommending more headaches?? :what:
 
Buddy one of the objectives for purchasing MRCA is to avoid logistical nightmare due to the the different aircrafts we have..and you are recommending more headaches?? :what:

I Understand your point. But We need to try and absorb things then streamline. We need to take the extra pressure now.

Since our domestic output is nowhere and the infrastructure is just building up. That is how i see it. Take the burden, absorb the technology, take the knowledge, develop local industry then you can streamline into 2-3 kinds of aircraft hopefully mostly from indigenous production and 1-2 other country specific technology.

We already operate french aircraft's and Rafale should be an extension of that tradition. Adding F/A -18 should be a welcome change. Who knows tomorrow F-35 may be on offer ? not suggesting in its most potent form but you never know. I am pretty sure we can spend $2-3 billion more on associated infrastructure. Every single thing in India is a challenge. We maintain wide diversity of people, cultures, ideologies, industries, infrastructure .. so its not really impossible to manage one extra variety of Airplane..

And if the whole point of MRCA would have been to avoid logistical nightmare why involve the Gripen, Eurofighter, F-16, F/A-18 all of which would need associated logistics. Could have just gone for Mig or Rafale ? Any of those planes selected will anyhow need new infrastructure and logistics plus putting the Mig 21-related Infra obsolete. So my point is its a challenge but we need to accept the challenge. To me it makes good sense.

100 Rafale + 54 F/A-18 :smitten:
 
Yes, but not because the Rafale was inferior compared to other fighters in the competition, but because of political decisions. For India I see the same way, Rafale suits IAF at best, but politically the F18SH would be a bigger benefit.

Politically and offset conditions-wise every other aircraft would be preferable to the Rafale.

What? All other fighters in the competition are more maneuverable than the F18SH and especially the Eurocanards!

At what speed are they more maneuverable. The delta/swept-back wing configuration has a better performance and high speeds while a straighter wing configuration will perform better at a lower speed.

Cheaper in unit and ammo cost yes, but more expensive in maintenance and logistic

How do you figure that? That cheaper unit cost is not due to compromises made on logistics, but due simple economies of scale. The sheer number of SHs produced pulls down the unit cost.

and not necessarily better ammo (US was impressed by the precision of AASM, compared to JDAM during Red Flag and Meteor should be better compared to the actual Aim120).

'Impressed' is a pretty vague word. The AASM is far more expensive and their performance is .. lets say comparable to the JDAM(though almost untested). The current airforce inventory of the AASM is barely three figures compared the several hundred thousand in the US military(also thousands have been used in the field).

The huge and only redesigned F18 should have a better RCS than a new and with stealth in mind design of the Rafale? More than doubtful!

If you can call the MiG-35, a redesigned MiG-29A, then I suppose the analogy holds here too. The only reason they didn't change the F-18 designation, was to sell it as a low risk option to the US Congress.

Yes, stealth was a very important consideration in the design of the F-18E/F. The difference being that while Dassault's previous involvements in stealth projects was practically non-existent, Boeing co-produces the F-22, was a contender for the F-35, co-designed the B-2 Spirit. Also, while the contract was awarded to Boeing, the technology that went into it came from all segments. The US has been flying stealth aircraft since the 80s, and that says volumes about their technology vis-a-vis French or any other country's.

Not correct, the Superhornet has only a single foreign operator, that is Australia with 24 on order and a comparable EW suit like Growlers is now on offer for MKI too (search for Su 30 MKI Growler), so that is no point anymore.

Yes only a single foreign operator(as opposed to none for the Rafale), but over 400 units in service.

With respect to the Growler, its not merely a Superhornet with added EW pods and a software suite. Then entire aircraft is designed for EW, to replace the Prowler while the SH was designed to replace the F-14. While the SH gained its IOC in 2002, the Growler didn't enter service till 2008. So, converting an MKI into an EW warfare aircraft of the F-18G type will take dedicated and concerted effort. As for the EW suite being comparable, that's a matter of opinion, and IMHO it isn't likely to come close.

That will depend on how much more orders the USN will place for the F18SH, because it is clear that sooner or later it will be replaced by F35. Rafale instead will serve the French military at least till 2040, so I don't see a problem for upgrades there.

The F-35 wouldn't enter regular service for another couple of years and intended to replace the Hornet and operate along with the SH. An Indian order for the SH would allow it to comfortably operate till 2040.

Btw, when talking about arms twisting we should ask Japan, or Israel about experience with US.

Well I look at it this way. The F-16 and Mirage-2000 were roughly comparable aircraft.

The Mirage-2000 had 600 units produced and was operated by 9 countries.

The F-16 had 4400 units produced and was operated by 30 countries. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbc
US OK With Systems for Gripen?
In what is the clearest indication of the likely US attitude towards the supply of systems and technology to the Swedish Gripen, were it to win the Indian MMRCA (Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft) race, the US has agreed to the fitting of Royal Thai Air Force Gripen aircraft with its weapons systems. These include the AIM-9M and AIM-120 C-5 air-to-air rocket system, precision bombs and AGM-66 Maverick air-to-ground tactical missile.

A controversy over
whether the US would be willing to supply components and systems for the Gripen aircraft under its end use monitoring and technology transfer laws had apparently placed questions on the strength of the Swedish pitch earlier this year. Competitors in the race had questioned its ability to easily deliver parts and systems that were claimed to be substantially US-built.

But with the US now agreeing to supply systems to Thai Gripens, senior Indian officials think it would be difficult for the US to deny systems to any ‘Indian’ Gripens, after agreeing to supply them to Thailand. “They would find it difficult to say no to us, if they’re providing systems for the Thai. Especially after all the fuss we went through over the End Use Agreement,” says one senior official.

Saab for now has little to say, with Anne Lewis-Olsson, Communications Director, India restricting her comments to, “Saab is glad to see the Thai air force has selected US weapons apart from the Swedish RBS-15.”
defenitely a marketing pitch for the gripen....
the mrca is getting hot alright
 
Politically and offset conditions-wise every other aircraft would be preferable to the Rafale.
Why?
At what speed are they more maneuverable. The delta/swept-back wing configuration has a better performance and high speeds while a straighter wing configuration will perform better at a lower speed.
So for strike missions it might have good capabilities, but in close combat not the airframe will give him advantages, only the HMS and Aim 9 that PAFs F16 will have too.
Just search the net and you will find reports even of US F16 and F18 pilots that were impressed by Rafales performance. Greek pilots tested the Rafale compared to F18SH and with experience of their Mirage and F16 with the same conclusion.
How do you figure that? That cheaper unit cost is not due to compromises made on logistics, but due simple economies of scale. The sheer number of SHs produced pulls down the unit cost.
Not only that, the reason why Eurocanards are more expensive than the US fighters is the high Euro, compared to a very low Dollar. But in logistics for example IAF had to buy a complete new set of weapons, because the only weapon that is available and could be used of F18 might be some paveway bombs. Weapons for Rafale on the other side are already there via Mirage 2000 and Jags. So you have to add such costs to the unit cost of the F18 too.
'Impressed' is a pretty vague word. The AASM is far more expensive and their performance is .. lets say comparable to the JDAM(though almost untested). The current airforce inventory of the AASM is barely three figures compared the several hundred thousand in the US military(also thousands have been used in the field).
More expensive because of the same reasons you mentioned above for the F18! JDAM is produced in big numbers for a longer time, what reduces it's costs of course, AASM will be cheaper later too. Btw, "impressed" was the exact term that some articles used and if you think about, that JDAM has an CEP of around 10-13m, compared to 1-10m of AASM, I would say impressed is ok. To me that means that AASM has far more potential than the JDAM, especially when all types are developed.
If you can call the MiG-35, a redesigned MiG-29A, then I suppose the analogy holds here too. The only reason they didn't change the F-18 designation, was to sell it as a low risk option to the US Congress.
Exactly, that's why it's also called Super Fulcrum and why I doubt that it can compete in RCS with new designs like EF, or Rafale, just like the F18SH can't.
Yes, stealth was a very important consideration in the design of the F-18E/F. The difference being that while Dassault's previous involvements in stealth projects was practically non-existent, Boeing co-produces the F-22, was a contender for the F-35, co-designed the B-2 Spirit. Also, while the contract was awarded to Boeing, the technology that went into it came from all segments. The US has been flying stealth aircraft since the 80s, and that says volumes about their technology vis-a-vis French or any other country's.
And that's why no other country on the planet can develop RCS reduction, or stealth design? Please buddy, the F18SH was a bit redesigned to have less RCS, fighters like EF, or Rafale instead was designed from the start with RCS in mind.
Minimising the RCS has also been a design driver in order to make stealth tactics possible. Most of the stealth design features are classified but some of them are clearly visible such as the serrated patterns on the trailing edges of the wings and canards.

Optimized airframe
Yes only a single foreign operator(as opposed to none for the Rafale), but over 400 units in service.
France already ordered 180 and one of the potential orders that I mentioned is enough to have more foreign orders than F18SH, so that is really not a point for F18SH.
With respect to the Growler, its not merely a Superhornet with added EW pods and a software suite. Then entire aircraft is designed for EW, to replace the Prowler while the SH was designed to replace the F-14. While the SH gained its IOC in 2002, the Growler didn't enter service till 2008. So, converting an MKI into an EW warfare aircraft of the F-18G type will take dedicated and concerted effort. As for the EW suite being comparable, that's a matter of opinion, and IMHO it isn't likely to come close.
Given the fact that even Australia gets only a light version of the Growler without jammers, I would say a MKI with new EW pods including jammers will be better for us.
Well I look at it this way. The F-16 and Mirage-2000 were roughly comparable aircraft.

The Mirage-2000 had 600 units produced and was operated by 9 countries.

The F-16 had 4400 units produced and was operated by 30 countries. :)
And that says what? US weapon lobbies and Gov pressure worked very well in the past, especially in smaller countries. Just one more reason why I want an independent choice!
I can only quote French Admiral Edouard Guillaud once again:
Independence and autonomy always require investment. Even the French paid a price to be autonomous and not depend on supply from other countries in the military. We accept invest more, a little more, to master our destiny. And Brazil now has a chance to do the same: the economy is strong, political will, and seeks the means to earn respect and be respected. This is where the tool operates military - argued Guillaud.
I hope India is following the same way and with P8I, C130, C17 and most likely Apache and Chinook there will be enough new US arms for India.
 

Boeing has offered the Indian air force a more powerful new version of the General Electric F414 engine to bolster its bid to sell 126 F/A-18E/Fs for the medium multi-role combat aircraft programme.

Paul Oliver, Boeing's senior director for international business development, confirms the F414 enhanced performance engine (EPE) was submitted as part of Boeing's proposal to win the MMRCA contract.

Boeing first revealed plans for the Super Hornet engine upgrade last May, but declined at that time to confirm the EPE would be formally offered to the Indian air force.

The US Navy conceived the upgrade a few years ago as an enhanced durability engine, with new materials and designs to bolster its service life. Subsequently, Boeing and GE teamed up to add a 20% increase in thrust by improving the engine's hot section. Both the durability and thrust improvements will be included in the EPE package.

Boeing also is discussing the EPE upgrade with potential new Super Hornet customers, such as Brazil, and existing operators like the USN. The USN has yet to make even the enhanced durability part of the EPE upgrade a funded programme for the Super Hornet.

Boeing is competing for the MMRCA deal against rival bids by the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16IN, RSK MiG-35, Saab Gripen and Sukhoi Su-35.

Dubai 09: Boeing aims to win Indian deal with engine offer
 
51763d995334b0987546fc177c875297.jpg


Rafale armed with ASMP missile for nuclear strikes, wonder if they are on offer too and which other fighter would give such a capability?
 

Boeing has offered the Indian air force a more powerful new version of the General Electric F414 engine to bolster its bid to sell 126 F/A-18E/Fs for the medium multi-role combat aircraft programme.

Paul Oliver, Boeing's senior director for international business development, confirms the F414 enhanced performance engine (EPE) was submitted as part of Boeing's proposal to win the MMRCA contract.

Boeing first revealed plans for the Super Hornet engine upgrade last May, but declined at that time to confirm the EPE would be formally offered to the Indian air force.

The US Navy conceived the upgrade a few years ago as an enhanced durability engine, with new materials and designs to bolster its service life. Subsequently, Boeing and GE teamed up to add a 20% increase in thrust by improving the engine's hot section. Both the durability and thrust improvements will be included in the EPE package.

Boeing also is discussing the EPE upgrade with potential new Super Hornet customers, such as Brazil, and existing operators like the USN. The USN has yet to make even the enhanced durability part of the EPE upgrade a funded programme for the Super Hornet.

Boeing is competing for the MMRCA deal against rival bids by the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16IN, RSK MiG-35, Saab Gripen and Sukhoi Su-35.

Dubai 09: Boeing aims to win Indian deal with engine offer


SU35?

Why India wants SU 35, MKI is way better then SU 35. Any way in my understanding India doesn't need any of these 5 better to buy more MKI. or start its production line in India.
 
SU-35 IS NOT IN MRCA COMPETETION BUDDDY.... its being offered separately by russia .:yahoo:
 
Lockheed adds probe to F-16 to attract India
41ad0f240cbd2ffca9fc971b8e59ed46.jpg

Lockheed Martin is to add an all-new capability for the F-16 specifically to entice a massive order by the Indian air force.

Lockheed has designed and demonstrated a probe refuelling system that extends from the right conformal fuel tank of the F-16IN, a proposed variant of the Block 60 tailored for India's 126-aircraft medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) requirement.

The new probe-and-drogue refuelling capability was demonstrated to Indian pilots during flight trials performed in September in India, said Rick Groesch, Lockheed's regional vice-president for Middle East international business development.

It represents the first time Lockheed has offered a probe refuelling capability for a newly delivered F-16. The Indian air force does not operate an aerial refueller that employs a boom system, which is the standard for the F-16.

Although the probe attached to the conformal tank is being offered to India, Lockheed is also discussing the capability with multiple F-16 customers, Groesch said. The system can be added for any F-16 already designed to employ conformal fuel tanks, which includes Block 50/52s and Block 60s.

The additional capability will surely boost the F-16's standing in the hotly competitive MMRCA competition. Its rivals, including the Boeing F/A-18E/F, already come with a probe and drogue refuelling system.

After completing the flight trials in India last September, the Indian air force will start Phase 3 evaluations in January, Groesch said.The F-16 will be tested in the USA for weapons and systems, such as the Northrop Grumman APG-80 agile beam radar, that could not be shown in India. India is expected to select the MMRCA supplier by late 2010, but subsequent contract negotiations could last for years.
 
Last edited:

Compared to the other companies in running Dassault has been relatively complacent in its participation with the Indian industry.

Politically, France(and Sweden) will sell to anybody that can buy it without restrictions, and have a nasty habit of having second thoughts during conflicts. US and Russia are relatively safe options. Britain is the most influential member of the EADS consortium and has strong relations with India.

So for strike missions it might have good capabilities, but in close combat not the airframe will give him advantages, only the HMS and Aim 9 that PAFs F16 will have too.

I was talking about speeds during aerial engagements not the mission profiles of the aircrafts. Delta wings have both positive and negative features/characteristics. In any case the Superhornet's performance especially at low speeds is excellent.

Just search the net and you will find reports even of US F16 and F18 pilots that were impressed by Rafales performance. Greek pilots tested the Rafale compared to F18SH and with experience of their Mirage and F16 with the same conclusion.

They found the Rafale handles better. That's only one facet of the aircraft.

Not only that, the reason why Eurocanards are more expensive than the US fighters is the high Euro, compared to a very low Dollar.

Reasons apart, the F-18E/F is the more economical option.

But in logistics for example IAF had to buy a complete new set of weapons, because the only weapon that is available and could be used of F18 might be some paveway bombs. Weapons for Rafale on the other side are already there via Mirage 2000 and Jags. So you have to add such costs to the unit cost of the F18 too.

Getting access to the US munitions inventory would be a far bigger draw than being able to integrate MICAs and Exocets to the aircraft. In any case, the aircraft can be wired to accept most munitions if requested by the IAF

More expensive because of the same reasons you mentioned above for the F18!

But, more expensive nevertheless.

JDAM is produced in big numbers for a longer time, what reduces it's costs of course, AASM will be cheaper later too.

I doubt it. The French military is never going to get around to ordering even a fraction of what the US military has already ordered.

Btw, "impressed" was the exact term that some articles used and if you think about, that JDAM has an CEP of around 10-13m, compared to 1-10m of AASM, I would say impressed is ok. To me that means that AASM has far more potential than the JDAM, especially when all types are developed.

JDAMs with the DAMASK seeker(production started in 2007) have a CEP of 3m without GPS assistance. Also, the LJDAM can hit mobile units.

The JDAM deliveries started in 1997 as opposed to the AASM which started being delivered in 2007. Which only goes to illustrate how the US military in general has always been ahead of the curve.

Exactly, that's why it's also called Super Fulcrum and why I doubt that it can compete in RCS with new designs like EF, or Rafale, just like the F18SH can't.

My point was the Superhornet is NOT a redesigned Hornet. Except for the fuselage, the airframe shares very little with its predecessor.

And a low RCS was a major aim of the SH's development program. Inlet blockers, edge treatments, composites among others.

And that's why no other country on the planet can develop RCS reduction, or stealth design?

How many other AFs are flying stealth aircraft let alone retiring stealth aircraft?

I'm not saying that RCS reducing measures aren't there on the EF and Rafale. But, the idea that the Rafale is stealthier than an SH is flawed.

France already ordered 180 and one of the potential orders that I mentioned is enough to have more foreign orders than F18SH, so that is really not a point for F18SH. .

Well the only significant orders are likely to come from Brazil or India. In Brazil, Embraer has clearly stated a preference for the Gripen NG(giving it the opportunity to be more involved in the development) while the Rafale doesn't seem to have a better-than-average shot at the Indian MRCA contract.

In fact the recent negotiations for the Mirage-2000 upgrade, lead one to believe that Dassault either doesn't have high hopes of winning the contract or doesn't give a crap about being in the IAF's good books.

Given the fact that even Australia gets only a light version of the Growler without jammers, I would say a MKI with new EW pods including jammers will be better for us.

Australia didn't get only a light version, the RAAF ordered all its F-18E/Fs in a Growler-lite configuration.

And that says what? US weapon lobbies and Gov pressure worked very well in the past, especially in smaller countries. Just one more reason why I want an independent choice!

4400 vs 600 orders is all because of weapon lobbies and govt. pressure? The French make fine airplanes, but the Americans offer a better package.


BTW, I'd personally like the IAF to opt for the Eurofighter, not the SH or Rafale, but I don't think that's going to happen. With the delay that this contract has gone through, it would make better sense to go for the best one on offer. At least the marginal gain in potency will offset the more-than-probable delays in future IAF orders.
 
Aviation Week & Space Technology 03/19/2001

Stealth Engine Advances
Revealed in JSF Designs
DAVID A. FULGHUM/ORLANDO, FLA. and WASHINGTON

Airframers and engine makers improve classified low-observable propulsion technology for Joint Strike Fighter

The Joint Strike Fighter program still has secrets to give up. The edgy atmosphere of the sharpening competition is helping uncover some striking differences in the methods contractors have used to manipulate stealth technologies--in particular to eliminate radar reflections from air inlets and engines.

Once it became obvious that the competition would drag on at least another six months (until the new fiscal year), designers increasingly worried that details of their competition-sensitive technology would leak out. Their worries appear well founded. Aviation Week & Space Technology has uncovered considerable data about signature, sensor packages, weapons and weapons-bay designs and, now, innovations to engines and inlets.

Knowledge of JSF improvements also provides insight into the broader evolution of cheaper, reliable, low-maintenance stealth and critical low-observability improvements in other programs such as the Air Force's F-22 Raptor and Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

When Boeing revealed its full-scale JSF mockup at England's Farnborough air show last summer, most observers were shocked to see what appeared to be the engine face placed a few feet behind the opening of the air intake. One of the basic rules of stealth design is that you find a way to keep radar beams from striking the rotating parts of an engine. Engine faces traditionally produce large, sometimes amplified, and distinct radar reflections that can be analyzed to identify the engine and aircraft.

In a clever use of technology (a technique considered a proprietary secret by the two companies), Boeing and Pratt & Whitney worked together to add stealth to the inlet guide vanes to mask the fan blades behind them. The inlet vanes are variable and open to provide maximum air to the engine in vertical flight, but close to minimize radar reflections during flight at operational altitudes.

Techniques to hide engines from radar have evolved in the last 25 years. Engineers placed a grill at the front of the Lockheed F-117 inlet to keep radar waves out and bounce them away from the source (above).
By contrast, Lockheed Martin and McDonnell Douglas (before the latter company was eliminated from the competition) relied more on serpentine air ducts leading to the engine to avoid such reflections. The ducts coil horizontally and vertically to avoid a line-of-sight path for radar. Once into the ducts, most radar beams are directed onto surfaces made of, or coated with, radar absorbing materials (RAM). Radar specialists say that after a couple of bounces, there's virtually no radar energy left for a dangerous reflection.

The JSF competition is a good primer for how technology and tactics can be employed to keep radar from reflecting out of engine, exhaust and weapons bay cavities. The front of Boeing's JSF engine, for example, is only a few feet inside the air intake. To avoid radar reflections, the engine face has been hidden by special inlet guide vanes that have been treated with RAM and shaped to cause radar beams to make multiple bounces--including onto the air-duct walls. There, radio-frequency energy is trapped by RAM or bounced from interior surfaces, each time being greatly attenuated. One way or another, the radar energy becomes too weak to constitute a dangerous reflection.

"Radar blockers" or "stealth intake devices"have been developed for Boeing's F/A-18E/F and F-22 and are even being improved on the former aircraft. The difference is that the blocker is a separate device on Super Hornet, while it is an integral part of the engine, at least in the Boeing version of the JSF. The F-22 and Super Hornet use a combination of curved inlets and radar blocker technologies.

The first-generation SR-71 used huge inlet spikes to control radar reflections. The second-generation F-117 uses a more primitive grid device over the inlet as a radar blocker. A finer mesh screen was used on Northrop's Have Blue proposal, which would have choked air flow and limited top speed to about Mach 0.65. (AW&ST Feb. 10, 1992, p. 23). These earlier designs were abandoned in response to the demand for supersonic strike aircraft and cheaper, more robust stealth. Keeping radar beams out of the engine is a particular concern for aircraft with a single, large engine inlet.

More recently, McDonnell Douglas added fan-shaped blocker vanes in the inlet of the F/A-18E/F. In the latest implementation, the blocker is an integral part of the Boeing X-32 engine design. Tony Landis photos.
The F-117's inlet screens, when aligned with the rest of the aircraft's external faceting, help create uniformly conducting electrical surfaces that allow radar waves to flow around the stealth aircraft and exit from its aft-most point. Some stealth specialists worry that these signals, emitted to the rear of the aircraft, could provide the basis for a counter-stealth defense system.

The Boeing JSF's intake radar blocker is built as part of the face of the engine with a bullet-like centerpiece surrounded by angled, radiating vanes. In parallel, the U.S. has developed infrared and radar suppression devices for jet exhausts and these have been flying on stealth aircraft for a number of years. These two types of blockers are generally used in conjunction with one another and the latter has become increasingly sophisticated as researchers find better ways to deal with an environment of extreme exhaust heat.

"We've been using blockers in aircraft exhausts for many years," said a senior aerospace official. "It doesn't significantly affect the engine's airflow [which translates to power] through the exhaust, but [when used in an inlet, a blocker] has the potential to restrict airflow into the engine."

Some stealth specialists say the loss in engine efficiency when using a blocker would be limited to only a few percent, and may be offset by the greater efficiency of a single large engine inlet (Boeing's option) compared to two smaller inlets (Lockheed Martin's design). Others say the effects of a blocker inside an inlet are more pernicious.

"It's physically easier and more robust to build a long, serpentine duct and hide the [engine face], compared to the difficulties of putting in a [blocker] device," said a second stealth specialist with insight into the JSF program. "You've added something else that scatters [radar energy]. You also have to account for the demand on power and subsystems. For example, you have to deice the [blocker] element.

"[Total engine efficiency] depends on the design of the device, the duct, the lips and how the pressure recovery and bleed systems are operating," the second specialist said. "It's fair to say there will be a performance loss when there isn't a nice, shallow, smooth duct. Finally, having something out there that can be hit by a bird or runway debris is not good [for maintaining the stealth signature]."

Lockheed Martin's JSF design has room for the long, spiraling duct because the engine is located well aft in the aircraft. A shaft transfers power from the engine to a lift fan located just behind the cockpit to permit short takeoff and vertical landings (STOVL).

However, Boeing's JSF demonstrator is designed for direct thrust from the engine to provide its STOVL capability. The engineering demands of the system required the engine to be much farther forward in the fuselage, allowing only enough room to hide the upper half of the engine face. Instead, Boeing is using a radar blocker built into the engine's face. The Super Hornet design differs in that it combines slightly curved inlets with a blocking device ahead of and separate from the engine face.

ADVOCATES OF THE BOEING design say new technology makes the short inlet a better bet. "The issue is purely one of how much distance is involved in dealing with the [radar] energy," said an aerospace industry official with long experience in the JSF competition. "While the longer inlets are generally easier to model [and build], they consume a lot of internal volume in the aircraft and often produce aerodynamic or maintenance challenges."

Stealth specialists agree that the choice of longer serpentine ducts versus larger radar blockers is a tradeoff between stealth, cost and aerodynamic performance. In smaller aircraft, the serpentine ducts tend to integrate better "than a big, fat single inlet," said a Northrop Grumman official. But when a larger aircraft is involved, it sometimes becomes more efficient to rely on a larger blocker, he said. There is also the issue of price.

"Anytime you have a [large, complex inlet] front frame, it's more expensive from the aspect of construction and integration costs," the official said. "I know the front frame of the F/A-18 represents a significant development cost. Certainly the inlets on Pegasus [a new unmanned combat air vehicle demonstrator] are one of the most challenging aspects of the aircraft's integration."

It is known that the radar-blocking devices have helped reduce the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's radar cross section (RCS) to an unprecedented low for non-stealthy aircraft--around 0 dBsm., the equivalent of about a 3-ft.-dia. aluminum ball. That is far smaller than other aircraft that did not start out as stealth designs. By comparison, a human has an RCS of about -10 dBsm.; the JSF, designed from the start for low observability, is to have a stealth signature of -30 dBsm. (about the reflection from a golf ball); and the B-2/F-22 are pegged at -40 dBsm. (about the size of a marble).

Other low-observability initiatives also involve stealth blockers at the rear of the engine to redirect and absorb radar signals that make it into the exhaust cavity from behind the aircraft. Earlier efforts included putting cylindrical radar blockers in the path of the exhaust or creating dog-leg exhaust to avoid the cost of developing and integrating expensive radar blocking devices.

THE F-117, F-22, B-2 and now-canceled DarkStar unmanned aerial vehicles all employed a combination of radar and infrared suppressing technologies in their exhaust designs--including both reflecting and absorbing materials, a long-time Pentagon radar specialist said. In the past, a cylindrical blocking device was placed in the exhaust cavity, but scientists are looking at modifying engine exit cone supports or flow straighteners to duplicate the radar-dampening technology on the engine face. The problem with radar blockers in the exhaust is that they must either be cooled or, if allowed to heat up, they must not be visible from outside the aircraft. This is a problem that Lockheed Martin researchers say they have solved with the afterburning F-22.

Hiding hot elements is critical because newer anti-aircraft missile systems are relying more on infrared and optical sensors than radar to find their targets, according to Pentagon intelligence studies. Such sensor systems foil counter-defensive systems like anti-radiation missiles that home in on radar emissions. Optically guided anti-aircraft missiles may have been involved in the shooting down of an F-117 in Serbia during the 1999 Kosovo air campaign.

A hot, glowing mass of metal with direct line-of-sight to the outside of the aircraft would be an obvious target for such air defense weapons. Some stealth designs, such as the F-117, have a dogleg in the exhaust system that avoids the line-of-sight problem. But what the Pentagon wants are simple, inexpensive and rugged radar and infrared blockers that, along with RAM and reflective coatings, are easy to maintain in a very tough, hot-exhaust environment.

Yet another JSF stealth issue involves how long weapons bay doors are open. There are two options, according to Frank Statkus, Boeing vice president and program manager for JSF. Normally, it takes 1-3 sec. for the lower weapons bay door to open, extend a 5-in. spoiler to deflect the slipstream, fire an air-to-air missile [Amraam or AIM-9X] and close. An ejector punches the missile away from the aircraft to ensure a quick separation. That limits the time a radar receiver can detect a reflection from the open cavity.

For operations involving the use of air-to-ground weapons it takes 6-8 sec. Both doors open, a "swing arm" extends with the weapon and then it is launched. A tactic envisioned for the Boeing version of the aircraft--which has side-mounted weapons bays--is to shoot from the bay that is on the side opposite the enemy radar, thereby avoiding any momentary radar reflection when the bay is open. Weapons that must acquire a target before launch would require the doors to stay open longer and have line-of-sight to the target, but such weapons aren't initially planned for use from the JSF, Statkus said. Lockheed Martin offers weapons bays that open downward.

TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS USED to cut the radar reflectivity of Boeing F/A-18E/Fs--non-reflective pylons and RAM-coated weapons--also will be applied to "dirty" versions of the JSF that carry weapons externally.

With the distinct differences between the two JSF designs, Boeing and Lockheed Martin are offering the Pentagon a lot of clear-cut choices in STOVL systems, inlet designs, weapons bays positioning and sensor arrays, aerospace industry officials agree. It also may explain some of the Pentagon's predilection to keep the competition going far longer than anticipated."
 
Boeing to offer more powerful engines for F-18 to India

Boeing has offered the Indian air force a more powerful new version of the General Electric F414 engine to bolster its bid to sell 126 F/A-18E/Fs for the medium multi-role combat aircraft programme.

Paul Oliver, Boeing’s senior director for international business development, confirms the F414 enhanced performance engine (EPE) was submitted as part of Boeing’s proposal to win the MMRCA contract.

Boeing first revealed plans for the Super Hornet engine upgrade last May, but declined at that time to confirm the EPE would be formally offered to the Indian air force.

The US Navy conceived the upgrade a few years ago as an enhanced durability engine, with new materials and designs to bolster its service life. Subsequently, Boeing and GE teamed up to add a 20% increase in thrust by improving the engine’s hot section. Both the durability and thrust improvements will be included in the EPE package.

Boeing also is discussing the EPE upgrade with potential new Super Hornet customers, such as Brazil, and existing operators like the USN. The USN has yet to make even the enhanced durability part of the EPE upgrade a funded programme for the Super Hornet.

Boeing is competing for the MMRCA deal against rival bids by the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16IN, RSK MiG-35 and Saab Gripen:chilli:
http://idrw.org/?p=1723
 
F-18 Super Hornets to Get IRST
fecb90486ce347ff86516eeadf154b54.gif

The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block IIs are just beginning to enter service, with significantly improved AN/APG-79 AESA radars and other electronic upgrades. Recent years have seen another spreading improvement within global fighter fleets, however: Infa-Red Search & Track (IRST) systems that provide long range thermal imaging against air and ground targets. Most of these deployments have been on Russian (MiG-29 family, SU-30 family) and European (Eurofighter, Rafale) fighters, or special American exports (UAE’s F-16E/F Block 60s, F-15K/SG).

That absence puts American fighters behind an important curve. This IRST approach can defeat radar stealth in some instances, by focusing on engine exhaust or on the friction of the aircraft as it powers through the atmosphere. As F-14 pilots will recall, long range electro-optics also offer positive identification, conferring the ability to use a plane’s missiles to their full ranges, without creating friendly fire concerns. Best of all, IRST offers a passive way to locate and target enemy aircraft – one that won’t trigger radar warning receivers. When coupled with medium-range IR missiles like some Russian AA-10 variants, France’s MICA-IR, or even future versions of AMRAAM NCADE, an IRST system offers a fighter both an extra set of medium-range eyes, and a stealthy air-to-air combat weapon.

A program is beginning that would give American “teen series” fighters this capability, albeit in a somewhat unusual way…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom