Chances for US fighters down in India MRCA as Lockheed fails to win US approval on tech consultation

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

Rufus 10/6/2009 1:09:10 PM

As usual your editorializing is a heck of a lot more humorous than insightful.

Keep it up kid, maybe soon you will confuse someone other than yourself.

Quote Reply

Phaid 10/6/2009 1:19:14 PM

Wow.

"This makes Indians to stay away from US fighter bids on MRCA competition since they just experienced the difficulty of obtaining necessary tech transfer approval from the US government. With prospects of US fighter selection unlikely, it is now a battle between Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen NG, and Mig-35."

Nice completely made-up story you wrote there.

Quote Reply

SlowMan 10/6/2009 2:43:31 PM

@ Phaid

> Nice completely made-up story you wrote there.

Is it not true that India failed to obtain a US approval on the fighter tech consultation contract, which is not particularly a high tech stuff(Just some consultation about navalizing a fighter)??? How would this make Indians feel comfortable about selecting a US fighter bid in currently ongoing MRCA competition?

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 10/6/2009 2:56:49 PM

I'm assuming that India wanted to buy the F-35C for use off their light carriers. The Super Hornet would be too heavy to operate without catapults. Since India isn't a member of the F-35 program, I can see why getting the necessary tech transfer fell through--though I wouldn't be surprised if Lockheed makes another attempt. Right now the F-35C is the best replacement for the Sea Harriers India operates.

It's a good article, SlowMan, but I have to ask if you read it. The Typhoon and Gripen would need heavy modification for use for carrier operations period, let alone on India's smaller carriers. The Rafale might be too big and too heavy (it was designed for catapult use as well). The MiG-29K is ideal if the F-35C isn't available.

If we're talking about the MRCA competition for a MiG-21/MiG-23/Jaguar replacement, then yes, all four of those aircraft are quite viable (as is the Super Hornet, which isn't mentioned in the article, because it's a Boeing product). But the article is on Naval LCA, which means something to operate from India's carriers. Matter of fact, the way the article's worded, it sounds very much like the Indians want to adapt their own LCA to operate from carriers.

Quote Reply

SlowMan 10/6/2009 3:19:30 PM

@ sentinel28a

> I'm assuming that India wanted to buy the F-35C for use off their light carriers.

No, India plans to field Naval Tejas(LCA) and Mig-29K(Which is also replacing Su-33 on the Russian carrier) on all three of its carriers.

> Matter of fact, the way the article's worded, it sounds very much like the Indians want to adapt their own LCA to operate from carriers.

It is pretty amazing how people fail to see correlations and implications from certain event. My comment wasn't about naval LCA, but the US government's unwillingness to approve transfer of what is not exactly a highly classified tech(How to navalize a land fighter for carrier operation). How are Indians supposed to feel confident about the proposed tech transfer that is supposed to come with purchase of American fighters when they can't even get a "simple" navalizing consultation contract approved by the US government?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/6/2009 3:29:05 PM

the article has holes all over it.

1) if its ITARs then there will be evidence from State Dept

2) if LM failed to get ITARs release then it's a commercial and internal decision (They've been spaectaculalry successful in being penalised for breaches of ITARs provisions in the past)

3) What genius on the assessment team thought that Shornet would be used from a STOBAR?

4) How can Rafale and Typhoon be used on a STOBAR when they're not engineered for it? You just can't add HD struts and change things. Its a re-engineering job. Now unless there are economies of scale in the sale, who is going to even contemplate re-rengineering the landing gear and front support structure of these jets when the volume would not be profitable

5) LCA has been a thorn in the Exchequers side, they've wanted to terminate the program for years as its become a sinkhole and has done very little except provide what is in effect a miniature mirage with capability equiv to the Singaporean scooters (but less delivery potential in warload). The only diff will be AESA. Anyone involved with indian mil procurement will point out any number of projects that have been delayed or buggered up due to the infighting between each of the services and DRDO. Lots of enthusiasm and claims, not alot of success

6) depending on the status of 1) or 2) then getting a stumpy JSF is going to be hard to achieve. ITARs rules. Considering that Boeing were indicating that they had no commercial difficulty with ToT, then the issue of achievability gets down to ITARs releases.

7) They want assistance on getting the front gear re-engineered and yet thats not an ITARs issue. In fact, the ones with the expertise on STOBAR engineering issues are the Russians, UK, and US. For conventional thrust its the russians. So they don't need US assistance for that kind of re-engineering if thats the real issue.

8) they've had engine probs with the LCA and ended up falling back to a US engine. The main issue is how realistic that combo is for STOBAR. The nose wheel engineering issue is smoke and mirrors.

there are holes all over that article

Quote Reply

SlowMan 10/6/2009 3:41:28 PM

Ha Ha Ha, I see Lockheed Martin ad in a defense news article about a Lockheed Martin failure...

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/6/2009 3:54:45 PM

Ha Ha Ha, I see Lockheed Martin ad in a defense news article about a Lockheed Martin failure...

gee, I guess they can't make F-22's that are worth using then.....

get a grip and grow up.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 10/6/2009 9:55:44 PM

If the issue is navalizing the LCA, then what the hell does Lockheed Martin have to do with it? The Tejas' landing gear needs to be stressed for carrier landings, the hook as well, and if they're going to use deck launching, they'd better make damn sure that the engine is powerful enough to keep the plane in the air. If they're going to use catapults, they need to add cat hooks and nose gear tow. That's a lot of development, but none of those are any great secret, and since LM doesn't even build carrier aircraft, I don't see why they need their help. Boeing would be a better choice, since they, you know, actually build stuff that flies from carriers.

Either way, SlowMan, you contradicted yourself. You said that the competition was down to the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, and MiG-35. The article talked about navalizing the Tejas. If the issue is MRCA, then LM being out doesn't effect Boeing or the Super Hornet, so the US isn't out of the bidding process. In fact, Lockheed didn't even have anything on the table, since India hasn't talked much about acquiring the F-35, and we're sure as hell not giving them the F-22. Late model F-16s would make sense in this case, since LM builds those. But again, that shouldn't affect the Super Hornet's chances.

Now if we're talking about an alternative to LCA, the Typhoon and Gripen are automatically out because they were never designed for carrier use.

Quote Reply

SlowMan 10/7/2009 10:07:44 AM

@ sentinel28a

> If the issue is navalizing the LCA, then what the hell does Lockheed Martin have to do with it?

Provide advice on airframe structural reinforcement, hook design and selection, upgraded engine selection, landing gear upgrade, etc. That was the scope of Lockheed Marting's consultation contract.

> If they're going to use catapults, they need to add cat hooks and nose gear tow.

All future Indian carriers are of STOBAR type. No catapult.

> since LM doesn't even build carrier aircraft, I don't see why they need their help.

Indians believed LM could help, and LM claimed it could help. LM being the world's leading fighter vender, why not?

> You said that the competition was down to the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, and MiG-35.

For India MRCA competition.

> The article talked about navalizing the Tejas.

For Tejas Navalization project. Two different projects.

> If the issue is MRCA, then LM being out doesn't effect Boeing or the Super Hornet

If LM can't get the US government clearance for its tech transfer/assistance, neither will Boeing.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT