MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[Bon Plan]

Gripen E is the most overrated plane on the market.

It isn't cheap or light. They blatantly lie on their maintenance costs.

Let's think for a second. This is a plane that hasn't sold at all except Brazil that probably can't afford it. The Gripen probably would have lost anyways without the NSA scandal.

I think you are too harsh with it.
It's a pretty good successor to first gen F16 and M2000. With one sole engine it will be less costly than all the heavier one.

But no one can seriously compare it with EF, SH18, Rafale, Mig35...

@vstol Jockey @Picdelamirand-oil

The Super Hornet Block III will be equipped with 120KN engines and have CFTs with 13000 liters of fuel.

The range boost on the SH is as much as 1100Km with just the CFTs.

@vstol Jockey
Seeing the CFT.... Area rule ?

No article. I am the source.

I had already confirmed in the past that F-16 deal had been finalisd and now the combo deal to include F-35 is in progress.

Also, India has committed to sign all pending foundational agreements by this summer.

US has committed to make India a member of NSG this year.

All that is left now is the execution.

NSG plenary meeting starts today.

So MMRCA 2 and F16/F35 deal ? or only one of these two?

 

[randomradio]

Interesting. Not sure how much of an impact 1 squadron of MiG's would have though. Might make sense to shop around for used MiG's and Mirage 2000's from other countries that are retiring them. Would be a cost effective way to avoid a totally alarming drop in squadrons until planes like the Rafale and Tejas start arriving in big numbers.

There's Malaysia also.

 

[randomradio]

Advanced Shornet is our best bet. Affordable and capable and quickly deliverable. Might be able to get ToT on GE-414.

We can then replace FGFA with F-35. It's the simple geopolitical realities of our time.

PS: Block III is not getting the new engine.

Most of the new SHs are now flying with the new EDE engine. The EPE is a sister engine of the EDE program. The thrust has been boosted in exchange for service life.

We can replace SH or Rafale with the F-35, but not the FGFA. FGFA can only be replaced by the AMCA.

 

[randomradio]

even Rafale has CFTs and we are getting upgraded engines.

The Block III won't equal the Rafale. But the difference here is while the SH carries 13000L of CFT fuel, Rafale's CFTs are only capable of carrying 3000L.

 

[BadBoi]

@Abingdonboy, here is my template for comparison of aircraft. maybe you too can use this. I used the grading system based on most suitable to least suitable using a scale of five.
View attachment 2299
View attachment 2300
View attachment 2301

My plane called SMSA scores 149.5 on this table. And just like yours, as long as it stays on paper, it can beat any other plane thats flying.

 

[vstol Jockey]

My plane called SMSA scores 149.5 on this table. And just like yours, as long as it stays on paper, it can beat any other plane thats flying.

good for you. Mine is not even a paper plane. Its just a design.

 

[BadBoi]

Advanced Shornet is our best bet. Affordable and capable and quickly deliverable. Might be able to get ToT on GE-414.

We can then replace FGFA with F-35. It's the simple geopolitical realities of our time.

PS: Block III is not getting the new engine.

I feel the same. These are combat proven jets made by the most experienced companies. Its just that USA is not trust worthy. I am sure they'll do the same to India like what they did to Israel in relation to Lavi + other kinds of arm twisting.

 

[vstol Jockey]

@vstol Jockey
Seeing the CFT.... Area rule ?

that is not area ruling but the shape of CFTs has been modified to maintain effectiveness of large LERX. Original F-18SH without CFTs did not have this shape. This has also been done to increase the fuel volume of CFTs. Even F-16s have CFTs with similar profile.

The Block III won't equal the Rafale. But the difference here is while the SH carries 13000L of CFT fuel, Rafale's CFTs are only capable of carrying 3000L.

this figure of 13000l is grossly wrong. The article below shows the CFTs to carry just 3500lbs of fuel or 1590kgs.
US Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet
if you may recall, I had once posted that F-18SH and Rafale-M will need at least 20% more thrust to be able to go with full load from STOBAR carriers. It seems my prediction was very accurate as Boeing is now going to install 120KN thrust engines to F-18SH. If they really do so, F-18SH will become the front runner for IN needs.

 

[zinswinsin]

The F-18 is the master jack of all trades master of none.

Just the prototypical carrier plane.

 

[The enlightened]

Most of the new SHs are now flying with the new EDE engine. The EPE is a sister engine of the EDE program. The thrust has been boosted in exchange for service life.

We can replace SH or Rafale with the F-35, but not the FGFA. FGFA can only be replaced by the AMCA.

No and No.

FGFA is just Flanker++. While F-35 is optimized for strike and will be better suited for that role than A2A, FGFA can do neither and still costs a bomb. AMCA should indeed replace it but that will only be if DRDO can get their head out of their *censored*.

 

[The enlightened]

I feel the same. These are combat proven jets made by the most experienced companies. Its just that USA is not trust worthy. I am sure they'll do the same to India like what they did to Israel in relation to Lavi + other kinds of arm twisting.

In the Lavi case, they just happened to cut funding to a program completely dependant on them which was the logical thing to do (why would anyone fund a venture that only reduces one's own sales).

We can and must bear through the pain till we build up our own industries. Previous sanctions happened in a very different world which will never again exist as long as Chinois does.

For now, US provides us the best weapons with great VFM. BOEING also happens to provide good offsets.

 

[Bon Plan]

The Block III won't equal the Rafale. But the difference here is while the SH carries 13000L of CFT fuel, Rafale's CFTs are only capable of carrying 3000L.

???? There aren't 13000 L in the SH CFT. maybe 3000 l for the two.

EF CFT : 1000 liters each.
Rafale CFT : 1150 liters each

 

[randomradio]

that is not area ruling but the shape of CFTs has been modified to maintain effectiveness of large LERX. Original F-18SH without CFTs did not have this shape. This has also been done to increase the fuel volume of CFTs. Even F-16s have CFTs with similar profile.

this figure of 13000l is grossly wrong. The article below shows the CFTs to carry just 3500lbs of fuel or 1590kgs.
US Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet
if you may recall, I had once posted that F-18SH and Rafale-M will need at least 20% more thrust to be able to go with full load from STOBAR carriers. It seems my prediction was very accurate as Boeing is now going to install 120KN thrust engines to F-18SH. If they really do so, F-18SH will become the front runner for IN needs.

I dug a bit more. This link says 3500 gallons.
Boeing Pitches ‘Advanced Super Hornet’ For Future Threats
The prototype CFTs weighed 1,500 pounds; production fuel tanks would weigh 870 pounds and carry 3,500 gallons of fuel.

This link gives the dimensions.
Upgrade Of F/A-18 Fuel Tank Gains Ground
The CFTs sit atop the upper fuselage on either side of the central spine and run 24 ft. in length from the aft cockpit to the leading edge of each vertical tail. At 4.3 ft. wide at the broadest point, the CFTs hug the upper fuselage surface, rising to a maximum height of only 1.8 ft. just forward of the wing leading edge.

So the internal volume is big, but definitely not enough to carry 13000L.

4000L sounds right.

 

[Techy]

I dug a bit more. This link says 3500 gallons.
Boeing Pitches ‘Advanced Super Hornet’ For Future Threats
The prototype CFTs weighed 1,500 pounds; production fuel tanks would weigh 870 pounds and carry 3,500 gallons of fuel.

This link gives the dimensions.
Upgrade Of F/A-18 Fuel Tank Gains Ground
The CFTs sit atop the upper fuselage on either side of the central spine and run 24 ft. in length from the aft cockpit to the leading edge of each vertical tail. At 4.3 ft. wide at the broadest point, the CFTs hug the upper fuselage surface, rising to a maximum height of only 1.8 ft. just forward of the wing leading edge.

So the internal volume is big, but definitely not enough to carry 13000L.

4000L sounds right.

If official figure is indeed 3500 gallons then it converts to 13248L.

 

[randomradio]

If official figure is indeed 3500 gallons then it converts to 13248L.
View attachment 2313

I have posted the dimensions. If you calculate it, you get 5200L. That's the maximum it can hold if it was a cuboid. So it will in fact be much, much smaller.

 

[smestarz]

Why does not India suggest production line for C-17 ?
Americans wont be buying any, nor are they going to produce any further themselves, on other hand we need planes like C-17.
Also there wont be some "cutting edge" avinioncs or Radar deal with this?

If i am Boeing, why should i not try F15SE over F18SH?

 

[smestarz]

The US gallon is used in the United States and is equal to exactly 231 cubic inches or 3.785411784 liters. The Imperial gallon or UK gallon is used in the United Kingdom and is equal to approximately 277.42 cubic inches. Its exact value is defined as 4.54609 liters. One imperial gallon is approximately 1.2 US gallons.

If official figure is indeed 3500 gallons then it converts to 13248L.
View attachment 2313

 

[Bon Plan]

If official figure is indeed 3500 gallons then it converts to 13248L.
View attachment 2313

Maybe 13200 liters is : (internal tanks + CFT + max load of external tanks) of SH18 ?

In the Rafale case it's : 5900 + 2x1150 + 3x2000 = 16200 liters +/-
It's also possible to add two more 1200 l external tanks... but not operationnaly used (below a config with 2x2000L + 2 x 1200L and a buddy pod)

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Why does not India suggest production line for C-17 ?
Americans wont be buying any, nor are they going to produce any further themselves, on other hand we need planes like C-17.
Also there wont be some "cutting edge" avinioncs or Radar deal with this?

There surely is a requirement. The problem is, that there is still no AoN or even a official mention of such requirement or its number. And the number according to various people covering this field range from 20 to 50+. Personally i see that even after replacing dozen+ Il76s, we will still need a dozen more. That's some ~25 more aircrafts. Let's be optimistic and say nations like Australia, middle east, nato order upto 10 more. Its 35.

Now the problem is that the production line is closed and the tools and technicians are lost. Anything less than 50-60 won't be economically feasible. That's my take though...

 

[vstol Jockey]

Maybe 13200 liters is : (internal tanks + CFT + max load of external tanks) of SH18 ?

In the Rafale case it's : 5900 + 2x1150 + 3x2000 = 16200 liters +/-
It's also possible to add two more 1200 l external tanks... but not operationnaly used (below a config with 2x2000L + 2 x 1200L and a buddy pod)

View attachment 2316

when you post such data, you must also consider what the aircraft can lift in totality. Rafale in tanker role may be able to carry what you suggested. But Internal fuel within fuselage is normally not taken into account for tanker missions. The aircraft must also be able to return back to mother after discharging the fuel and that limits the range of Tanker itself.
During Vietnam war, USN used to launch an A-4 Skyhawk as tanker everytime a strike returned back to deck. And this A-4 tanker would circle around till all strike aircraft had landed back. In actual operations, it is very easy to go beyond the fuel required to do a mission if you get bounced by enemy fighters. returning to mother can be very difficult in such a situation. So USN always had an A-4 in tanker role up in air.