LCA MK1A+ and future blocks subject to further approval from MOD.
IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi
- Thread starter Aashish
- Start date
- Status
Single engine vs twin engine is complete red herring. It hardly matters anymore with improved engines. F-35 engine produces more thrust than two EJ200s. 2nd, with increased reliability, single engine aircraft might actually be safer than twin engine aircraft due to maintenance hours and human error. 3rd, with BVR being more important nowadays, the increased mobility or agility from two engines is less important. Really only the navy has a valid argument for two engines.
Copied from who I consider pretty knowledgable about aircraft.
>
Myth number 7, a single engine is not safe for operation over the arctic or ocean.
Copied from who I consider pretty knowledgable about aircraft.
>
Myth number 7, a single engine is not safe for operation over the arctic or ocean.
This myth is based on the memories of older generations of aircraft, where engine failures were common and it was not unheard of, for a dozen or more aircraft to be lost annually. With the advent of computer aided engineering, and new materials science, engines have become significantly more reliable, to the point where in some cases, like with the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229, the doubling of human error when maintaining both engines in a twin engine fighter, has resulted in a greater number of Class A mishaps, which are mishaps that cost more than 1 million dollars, result in a fatality or permanent disabling injury to personnel.
Specifically, over the past 25 years, there have been 5 engine related Class A's for the F-15, and zero class A's for the F-16 using the same engine. When it comes to the F-22 and F-35, so far there have been 2 Class A mishaps for the F-22 since 2000 and 2, and one class A mishap for the F-35 which occurred last year.
Engine safety stats: Air Force Safety Center > Divisions > Aviation Safety Division > Aviation Statistics (see the bottom right for "Single Engine Aircraft" and "Twin Engine Aircraft".This single Class A was the result when a rotating titanium part of the engine, rubbed excessively against a polymide strip, designed to be worn in after a number of flights, in order to maintain a very small gap between engine blades and the engine casing, increasing the efficiency of the engine.
Official accident report: http://jamesdrewjournalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/F35-AIB-Final-Report-17-Mar-15.pdfThis problem is now well understood, with a set of maneuvers designed to carefully wear in the engine being applied now, and a manufacturing fix being introduced in the middle of the year.
Engine fix: http://www.janes.com/article/52097/...l-accident-report-on-2014-f-35-engine-failureIn addition to the improving reliability of engines, it is important to note as well that whereas older engines were prone to things such as fuel valve failures, and ignitor failures, the increased reliability of modern engines means that when they do fail, they tend to fail violently. What this means is that even if only one engine fails on a twin engine fighter, it is very likely that the event will also cause the destruction of the second engine, or the destruction of secondary systems that the other engine relies on.
heh, i obviously am biased and prefer india go for the F-16, but at the same time I know it's a complete political deal.
You can't even compare the relationship between Pak-US with Indo-US. The US cosied up with Pak to block the Soviets from getting a foothold in the subcontinent and later to help them in Afghanistan. With India, it was more of an economic cooperation, but the situation has changed when China openly engaged the US on almost all fronts.
Like some people believe, US is not supporting us to use our Army in case of a conflict, but as a distraction. They want us to keep China engaged in their Western front so that China doesn't bring to bear all their resources against the US and its allies over the Eastern/Southern borders. In exchange, they've promised us tech and weapons to take out the numerical superiority that China enjoys against us.
Yes, it will be ineludible, if we do go for a closer partnership. But the thing to remember is that US has made other countries sign the foundational agreements as those countries have requested US-assistance in case of conflict. Which means that the US has absolute control over their forces. As is evident by the NATO pact, their relationship with Japan, S.Korea etc.
But in our case, we don't expect them to provide anything other than logistical support. So there exists an opportunity for us to tweak the foundation agreements to make sure that we are at an equal standing with the US rather than be subordinate.
Because F/A-18s are more expensive and have almost no capability for future enhancements.
Meanwhile, there have been at least three class A mishaps on the F135 engine, fortunately there was no fatality. One two three.
And all the increased engine reliability is not going to make FOD any less dangerous. And that's where the redundancy of twin engines allows an aircraft to limp back home while on a single engine the pilot has to bail out. The cost of replacing one engine on a twin is always going to be cheaper than that of replacing an entire aircraft on a single. The "pretty knowledgeable" writer you quoted cited the USAF safety center aviation statistics page. There is one very, very important tidbit that they mention there, and that I'm going to quote.
1. "Engine-related" excludes mishaps caused by FOD, birdstrike, or failure of support systems external to the engine
(ex. fuel starvation)
So. They mention 0 engine-related failures on the F-16 during the last 25 years, but that conveniently obscures how many F-16 have been lost to FOD-induced engine failure. By excluding induced engine failures, they allow to present a single engine setup as more secure than it really is. So, myth number 7? Not busted yet!(ex. fuel starvation)
It's really not fair comparing mature and non mature platforms. F-16 had a rough childhood.
I think you must be very carefull about all these details. My coursemate and who was my crew in international long distance regatta in Seychelles is now director of these projects. I have somewhat better knowledge with me. he got VSM for Arihant this year.
We need to let LCA be what it was supposed to be, a relacement for Mig-21s with limited but enhanced weaponload for CAS. If we do that, we will have a very potent fighter for India. You guys are well aware of my opposition about so called multirole platforms. I am one of the guys who has flown the first ever multirole fighter of india called sea Harrier. M2K acquired the status later. You may have aircraft called multirole but pilots are not. some are very good in weapon delivery and some are very good in air combat. I was one rare example good in both. Even Israeli AF uses multirole F-16s but has pilots trained for specific jobs and each sqn tasked with specific role. So while the platform is same, the pilots have different specielisation who fly them for various roles.
The swingrole or multirole was not a criteria when ASQR for LCA were written, and now we are demanding a performance from it at par with Rafale.
The swingrole or multirole was not a criteria when ASQR for LCA were written, and now we are demanding a performance from it at par with Rafale.
I am not comparing anything, though.
I did mention that the F-35 has had at least three engine failures already. This was not a comparison. It was merely a refutation of the "engine tech is so much better nowadays that engines never fail anymore!" argument. If it were a comparison I would have compared it to engine failures on other aircraft, which I didn't.
Secondly, I did point out that the engine failure statistics of the USAF exclude engine failures that are induced by accidents such as a birdstrike or other form of foreign object damage. It turns out that a large part of the argument in favor of twin engine designs is that they are safer because they are better able to resist events such as bird strikes (induced failures), and that therefore quoting statistics that do not include induced engine failures do not actually address the point they pretend to refute. This was, again, not a comparison, as I did not compare anything to anything else, merely making a statement of fact on methodology.
First. Honestly you should go and read the link given. Check the tabs. Conclusions are quite opposite to what is said... please click on ncidents of both single and twin engines.... Single engines have about twice the rate misshap. i'd love to have the source to debunk btw. (oh and the amount of data is FAR from being sufficient to even think about statistics...)
Second, There were TWO fclass A mishaps on F-35 (he forgets the second fire). Which is probably quite normal considering the engine is in development.
Third, the argument is extremely flawed logic. "the increased reliability of modern engines means that when they do fail, they tend to fail violently. What this means is that even if only one engine fails on a twin engine fighter, it is very likely that the event will also cause the destruction of the second engine, or the destruction of secondary systems that the other engine relies on. " Do you see the flaw???
Finally, one should consider the event of actual combat operations. Risks are much higher with a single engine."
IDK where to put this since there isn't an American subsection like the old forum, but....
Israel declares IOC for first F-35 squadron outside USA.
Israel declares F-35s ready for operations
Israel declares IOC for first F-35 squadron outside USA.
Israel declares F-35s ready for operations
It
The only thing I see for a purchase of F16 is that the assembly line is no more busy, so it will costs india quite nothing to have it (and India can regret to not have made that just before the end of the Mirage 2000 line....)
It's dangerous for India to appear too clearly side by side with USA against China. India is a non align country. I think Modi will continue that way.
The only thing I see for a purchase of F16 is that the assembly line is no more busy, so it will costs india quite nothing to have it (and India can regret to not have made that just before the end of the Mirage 2000 line....)
@halloweene
News from France. I believe few hundred millions will go for a relevant PA2 study of present times..
The Navy defends the idea of a second aircraft carrier
AFP
04/12/2017 |
The Chief of Staff of the Navy, Admiral Christophe Prazuck, defended Monday "the ambition of two aircraft carriers" for France, which would ensure a "permanence to the sea", while the The next Military Programming Act (2019-2025) is under development.
"The ambition of two aircraft carriers, the permanence of an aircraft carrier (at sea, ndr), may be an ambition for our country," he said during a meeting with the Association of defense journalists.
"It is an incomparable military tool and it is a political tool, which allows to train our European partners," said the admiral, recalling that "the Charles de Gaulle went to strike Daech (Arabic acronym of the group Islamic State, ndr) three times, each time he was accompanied by a Belgian frigate, a German, British or Italian frigate ".
The "Charles de Gaulle", only French aircraft carrier, suffered since February in Toulon a vast renovation of 18 months, which will give a second life to this building for the next 20 years. Commissioned in 2001, it had already been immobilized for the first time in 2007.
According to Admiral Prazuck, a dozen naval air pilots will train on a US aircraft carrier in April-May, before a first trip to the sea of Charles de Gaulle "mid-year", which will allow the resumption of the training of the air carrier group. The Navy is counting on "a qualification of the set early 2019" before the return of the aircraft carrier in operation.
"Fifteen or twenty years before the withdrawal of the active service of the Charles de Gaulle, the question of how we will replace it today, with what aircraft, which combat drone?" Argued the head of state -Major Marine, evaluating the cost of studies for the renewal of the aircraft carrier to "a few hundred million" euros.
"The second question is: do we have the ambition to return to the situation we had until 1997, that is, to have an aircraft carrier permanence?" always with one at sea when the other is under renovation, he asked. Until that date, France had two aircraft carriers, the "Foch" and the "Clemenceau".
In the first half of 2018, the military programming law will allocate the resources allocated to the armies from 2019 to 2025 according to their missions. Its development gives rise to intense lobbying by the Navy, the Air Force and the Army in favor of their respective needs.
La Marine défend l'idée d'un second porte-avions
News from France. I believe few hundred millions will go for a relevant PA2 study of present times..
The Navy defends the idea of a second aircraft carrier
AFP
04/12/2017 |
The Chief of Staff of the Navy, Admiral Christophe Prazuck, defended Monday "the ambition of two aircraft carriers" for France, which would ensure a "permanence to the sea", while the The next Military Programming Act (2019-2025) is under development.
"The ambition of two aircraft carriers, the permanence of an aircraft carrier (at sea, ndr), may be an ambition for our country," he said during a meeting with the Association of defense journalists.
"It is an incomparable military tool and it is a political tool, which allows to train our European partners," said the admiral, recalling that "the Charles de Gaulle went to strike Daech (Arabic acronym of the group Islamic State, ndr) three times, each time he was accompanied by a Belgian frigate, a German, British or Italian frigate ".
The "Charles de Gaulle", only French aircraft carrier, suffered since February in Toulon a vast renovation of 18 months, which will give a second life to this building for the next 20 years. Commissioned in 2001, it had already been immobilized for the first time in 2007.
According to Admiral Prazuck, a dozen naval air pilots will train on a US aircraft carrier in April-May, before a first trip to the sea of Charles de Gaulle "mid-year", which will allow the resumption of the training of the air carrier group. The Navy is counting on "a qualification of the set early 2019" before the return of the aircraft carrier in operation.
"Fifteen or twenty years before the withdrawal of the active service of the Charles de Gaulle, the question of how we will replace it today, with what aircraft, which combat drone?" Argued the head of state -Major Marine, evaluating the cost of studies for the renewal of the aircraft carrier to "a few hundred million" euros.
"The second question is: do we have the ambition to return to the situation we had until 1997, that is, to have an aircraft carrier permanence?" always with one at sea when the other is under renovation, he asked. Until that date, France had two aircraft carriers, the "Foch" and the "Clemenceau".
In the first half of 2018, the military programming law will allocate the resources allocated to the armies from 2019 to 2025 according to their missions. Its development gives rise to intense lobbying by the Navy, the Air Force and the Army in favor of their respective needs.
La Marine défend l'idée d'un second porte-avions
What does non-alignment have to do with military purchases? We've been buying military equipment from the US since last decade. Why should this specific sale bother them so much? atleast more than usual?
Forming a military alliance, OTOH, is a different matter.
The F-16 in itself isn't that important or symbolic, but what follows is. It's pretty much a guarantee if F-16 goes through, F-35 will follow soon enough. Also more than likely the other two foundational agreements have to be signed as well if the F-16 deals goes through.
Also while India has been purchasing stuff from the USA for a decade most of it is support stuff and logistics. No front line stuff has been purchased with the exception of the Apache.
That's why i wrote that last line while replying to @Bon Plan
Funnily enough, if you go through my previous comments, I've written almost exactly what you have just mentioned above.
Last edited:
To your comment on F-35, i agree that the IAF is interested in the F-35. The govt meanwhile not so much (for now).
The priority for the present govt. is to make sure that we have the strategic capability to push back against a Chinese misadventure. This might be possible:
1) with diplomatic pressure using our allies on international matters at various forums including the UN
2) military strength with strong defensive posturing to discourage any infiltration /land grabbing in NEFA and along the northern frontier
For the above reasons we need the US support. An F-35 sale is not a prerequisite for such an alliance. Any military/economic deal for a significant amount is enough.
One option could be participation for an alternative to BRI by the Quad and some EU countries. Another could be a military deal for more P-8s, Chinooks, Apaches, C-130Js, Guardian, Avenger etc which combined would amount to a 30 or even 40 billion dollars!
Another reason to avoid committing to the F-35 is to make sure that the AMCA program isn't affected by its purchase.
Rafale fills that role. There wont be any other acquisition in twin engine category (4.x gen) apart from Rafale or MKI.
- Status