Atlas FCA-1 Carver fighter project

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
762
So basically, to recap, the engine options looked at were...
In no particular order of preference:

-The SNECMA M53.
-The SNEMA M88.
-The RR Spey.
-An indigenous option.
-SMR-95

The M53 could have come through from France, via Israel through the Nammer. Possible spare parts through Taiwan, who operated the Mirage 2000 from 1992, and who formed a close triad in defence matters with South Africa and Israel.

The M88 was really only suitable for the twin engined Carver, due to thrust. Mention was made that there were negotiations with Yugoslavia, who were to use it on the Novi Avion. France was willing to turn a blind eye, as profits were excellent, and it had nothing to do with them once sold to Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavs wanted an eye watering sum to facilitate this, which might have put a brake on things. Still, needs must...

The Spey was in my opinion starting to show its age. Still, there was a developed 25 000lb thrust version that would have suited the single engine, with vanilla mk202's probably sufficient for the twin.

The SMR-95 was an engine developed from the RD-33, and flew in two versions: SMR-95A (Mirage F1 with 70 flights) and SMR-95B (Cheetah with 10 flights). It is worth noting that an engine for the Carver based on this would not have been a long as those fitted to the Mirage and Cheetah, which was lengthened for CG reasons.


An indigenous engine would have started with the work carried out on the ATAR upgrade programme. A predicted thrust increase of around 10% (5500-8000kg), but even with the new compressor, new turbine, new electronics, single crystal blades, and welded combustion chamber, the engine design was old.
However, the above comprehensive work on the ATAR indicates to me that this was part of a technological exercise toward a competency to design a new engine. I can see the ATAR plus being used as an interim engine, and then going toward the existing Mirage and Cheetah upgraded airframes.
I strongly suspect the realisation that a new engine had to be developed, probably indigenously unless a foreign engine fell into their lap, is why the year 2000 entry date was pushed back by 5 or 6 years and led to the Cheetah C.
Most of the other technologies for Carver were in place, or coming to fruition.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,656
Reaction score
6,857
Yes we are veering off topic. But I may open a thread in the alternate history section...
 

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
140
Reaction score
250
The SMR-95 was an engine developed from the RD-33, and flew in two versions: SMR-95A (Mirage F1 with 70 flights) and SMR-95B (Cheetah with 10 flights). It is worth noting that an engine for the Carver based on this would not have been a long as those fitted to the Mirage and Cheetah, which was lengthened for CG reasons.
Good summary Kaiserbill. On the SMR - there existed no A or B variants according to the lead engineer on the project. The Cheetah also completed a full flight test program. I know the Atar's in the Mirage 3 & F1 did have minor differences but not the SMR which used the same engine in both airframes.

Do you have any info on the sortened SMR for Carver? This is the first I hear of it... The RD-33 is actually a bit short for what it really needs to be to due to length constraints on the airframe if I don't have my facts wrong. Thus the extended SMR (which still was quite a bit shorter than the Atar) probably helped quite a bit. You will also notice its less smoky than RD-33's. The SMR F1 & a Mig 29 both flew at SAAF 75. Big difference in smoke produced.

Add to that I doubt the SAAF would have wanted two variants of the same engine in service seeing as Carver was going to overlap at least to a degree with a SMR equipped Cheetah/Mirage fleet. I already delved into the service life issue on the SAAF forum link you posted and how the change in maintenance philosophy would probably have prevented its induction, but as you said: if needs must... It was the best engine actually obtainable at the time if Carver had survived till the 2000's.
 
Last edited:

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
762
BM, I have no real information on whether the SMR-95 would/should be shorter for Carver, but I am using intuition.

The engine is a vital aspect of any jet fighter.... so much so, that one might say the fighter is designed around the engine.
Air intakes and trunking, aerodynamics, fuel loads/tankage, CG considerations..etc.
It is probably harder to refit a new type of engine into an existing airframe than designing the aircraft with the engine in mind. A perfect illustration is the Kfir J79 and Cheetah C ATAR 9K50. On paper, the J79 was the better engine, but I have seen it stated a few times that the 9K50 was a better match for the airframe, nullifying any paper advantages the J79 had.

If one reads the link above, one might see the work done on the Mirage/Cheetah wrt air intake requirements... and the comment about fuselage structures and trying to keep the CG similar for Cheetah/Mirage. This led to them lengthening the rear engine/afterburner section. A design newly developed with the engine in mind, such as the Carver, may not have to follow that route so severely.

I suspect a twin installation would also get away with a shorter engine installation.

I suspect the differences between SMR-95 A and B were very marginal, and may have had more to do with how the engine interacted/ was mounted due to the rear fuselage differences of the types mentioned.

I am simply surmising.
The ATAR 9K50 is almost 6 meters long, 40% longer (over 1.7 meters) and 50% heavier (a whopping 500kg) than the vanilla RD-33.
If CG limits for a different original engine wasn't a factor, you start seeing gains.

Edit: On this note, as shown earlier in the thread, the upgraded ATAR in South Africa didn't only have increased thrust as a goal, but also a weight reduction aim. The inference in the comments was that the thrust increase was sorted, but the weight reduction was not what was hoped for, at least while it was worked on.
 
Last edited:

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
140
Reaction score
250
Kaiser, I fully appreciate the importance of the engine in 4th gen aircraft. It partly why I believe Carver I didn't get to the prototype stage - there was an unwillingness to accept the Atar is the engine it will be. The structures guys probably had difficulty in making progress with Atar, M53, Spey all being candidates and all being very different. With Carver II we have even more engines on the table.

I can't say with any conclusive proof either that the Carver II SMR wouldn't be shorter but I do reason that they already had an engine befitting of a 4th gen aircraft in the base SMR-95 that was also compatible with other types in service.

If this all of course transpired SA would probably still be under an embargo - hence the local option. As soon as it became possible they went with the cheaper "off the shelf" option, so the last thing they would be doing under embargo where it was already difficult to procure components would be to complicate the spares pool with two different engine variants instead of a single variant standardised one across all airframe types in service.

Re the Cheetah & F1 - the engine was the same with both airframes from talking to the engineer, but the cold feathers where different (obviously). They however were part of the airframe and not the engine - they connected the the SMR's hot flaps so the engine inside wasn't required to be different, but the tailfeather cone was to match the airframe.
 

Thorn

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
20
Reaction score
24
The SMR-95 was an engine developed from the RD-33, and flew in two versions: SMR-95A (Mirage F1 with 70 flights) and SMR-95B (Cheetah with 10 flights). It is worth noting that an engine for the Carver based on this would not have been a long as those fitted to the Mirage and Cheetah, which was lengthened for CG reasons.
Good summary Kaiserbill. On the SMR - there existed no A or B variants according to the lead engineer on the project. The Cheetah also completed a full flight test program. I know the Atar's in the Mirage 3 & F1 did have minor differences but not the SMR which used the same engine in both airframes.

Do you have any info on the sortened SMR for Carver? This is the first I hear of it... The RD-33 is actually a bit short for what it really needs to be to due to length constraints on the airframe if I don't have my facts wrong. Thus the extended SMR (which still was quite a bit shorter than the Atar) probably helped quite a bit. You will also notice its less smoky than RD-33's. The SMR F1 & a Mig 29 both flew at SAAF 75. Big difference in smoke produced.

Add to that I doubt the SAAF would have wanted two variants of the same engine in service seeing as Carver was going to overlap at least to a degree with a SMR equipped Cheetah/Mirage fleet. I already delved into the service life issue on the SAAF forum link you posted and how the change in maintenance philosophy would probably have prevented its induction, but as you said: if needs must... It was the best engine actually obtainable at the time if Carver had survived till the 2000's.
Hi BLACK_MAMBA

I read somewhere, quite lang ago that they had COG problems with the shorter Russian T/fan on the F1.

What they did was to mount it forward in the space occupied by the Atar, and installed a pipe to carry the efflux out the rear.

Regards

Thorn
 

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
140
Reaction score
250
Hi BLACK_MAMBA

I read somewhere, quite lang ago that they had COG problems with the shorter Russian T/fan on the F1.

What they did was to mount it forward in the space occupied by the Atar, and installed a pipe to carry the efflux out the rear.

Regards

Thorn
I brought that exact question up with the lead engineer and to this day he is still perplexed how it came about. He suspects that factions in govt/upper echelons of the defence force started it once an 4th gen purchase was on the table instead of upgrading souped up 3rd gen aircraft. In my personal view the SMR upgrade in the F1 looks a little more elegant without the vertical tail overhanging the nozzle as on the Cheetah. Also a possible source for a poor performance rumour to start.

In the SMR they had an smaller engine of lighter weight so they could place the engine exactly where they wanted it in the airframe. The end result maintained the CoG range of the baseline Cheetah & F1 but in an lighter overall weight with more thrust available. The Cheetah especially benefitted from the upgrade even more so than the F1, although the F1 had a more extensive flight test program.

The SMR compressor is actually placed about 600mm further rearward compared to the Atar and still the engine is shorter in the airframe. The Atar is a big lump of engine!

The SMR also carried a Russian stigma as still the enemy in the SAAF which is further ground for not wanting it/starting poor performance rumours I guess. It also required a different maintenance philisophy compared to the Western types but for that I will refer you to the SAAF forum link Kaiser posted. That adds to the list of reasons I suspect why the SAAF didn't want it and actively tried killing it behind closed doors I would bet.
 

Thorn

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
20
Reaction score
24
Hi BLACK_MAMBA

I read somewhere, quite lang ago that they had COG problems with the shorter Russian T/fan on the F1.

What they did was to mount it forward in the space occupied by the Atar, and installed a pipe to carry the efflux out the rear.

Regards

Thorn
I brought that exact question up with the lead engineer and to this day he is still perplexed how it came about. He suspects that factions in govt/upper echelons of the defence force started it once an 4th gen purchase was on the table instead of upgrading souped up 3rd gen aircraft. In my personal view the SMR upgrade in the F1 looks a little more elegant without the vertical tail overhanging the nozzle as on the Cheetah. Also a possible source for a poor performance rumour to start.

In the SMR they had an smaller engine of lighter weight so they could place the engine exactly where they wanted it in the airframe. The end result maintained the CoG range of the baseline Cheetah & F1 but in an lighter overall weight with more thrust available. The Cheetah especially benefitted from the upgrade even more so than the F1, although the F1 had a more extensive flight test program.

The SMR compressor is actually placed about 600mm further rearward compared to the Atar and still the engine is shorter in the airframe. The Atar is a big lump of engine!

The SMR also carried a Russian stigma as still the enemy in the SAAF which is further ground for not wanting it/starting poor performance rumours I guess. It also required a different maintenance philisophy compared to the Western types but for that I will refer you to the SAAF forum link Kaiser posted. That adds to the list of reasons I suspect why the SAAF didn't want it and actively tried killing it behind closed doors I would bet.

Thanks BLACK_MAMBA

Regards

Thorn
 

Thorn

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
20
Reaction score
24
Hi Black_Mamba.

Just wanted to touch base with you to find out whether I have reacted to all your posts.

Regards

Thorn
 

Thorn

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
20
Reaction score
24
So basically, to recap, the engine options looked at were...
In no particular order of preference:

-The SNECMA M53.
-The SNEMA M88.
-The RR Spey.
-An indigenous option.
-SMR-95

The M53 could have come through from France, via Israel through the Nammer. Possible spare parts through Taiwan, who operated the Mirage 2000 from 1992, and who formed a close triad in defence matters with South Africa and Israel.

The M88 was really only suitable for the twin engined Carver, due to thrust. Mention was made that there were negotiations with Yugoslavia, who were to use it on the Novi Avion. France was willing to turn a blind eye, as profits were excellent, and it had nothing to do with them once sold to Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavs wanted an eye watering sum to facilitate this, which might have put a brake on things. Still, needs must...

The Spey was in my opinion starting to show its age. Still, there was a developed 25 000lb thrust version that would have suited the single engine, with vanilla mk202's probably sufficient for the twin.

The SMR-95 was an engine developed from the RD-33, and flew in two versions: SMR-95A (Mirage F1 with 70 flights) and SMR-95B (Cheetah with 10 flights). It is worth noting that an engine for the Carver based on this would not have been a long as those fitted to the Mirage and Cheetah, which was lengthened for CG reasons.


An indigenous engine would have started with the work carried out on the ATAR upgrade programme. A predicted thrust increase of around 10% (5500-8000kg), but even with the new compressor, new turbine, new electronics, single crystal blades, and welded combustion chamber, the engine design was old.
However, the above comprehensive work on the ATAR indicates to me that this was part of a technological exercise toward a competency to design a new engine. I can see the ATAR plus being used as an interim engine, and then going toward the existing Mirage and Cheetah upgraded airframes.
I strongly suspect the realisation that a new engine had to be developed, probably indigenously unless a foreign engine fell into their lap, is why the year 2000 entry date was pushed back by 5 or 6 years and led to the Cheetah C.
Most of the other technologies for Carver were in place, or coming to fruition.
Hi kaiserbill

Just wanted to touch base with you to find out whether I have reacted to all your posts.

Regards

Thorn
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,656
Reaction score
6,857
The Atar was first ran in 1948 and was a derivative of the BMW 003 / 018.
ATAR: Atelier Technique et Aéronautique de Rickenbach

It started at 1800 kg of thrust, then 4500 kg in the 101 variants; then 6000 to 7200 for the final Atar 9.
1800*4 = 7200 : so thrust was multiplied by four between 1948 and 1968: in twenty years. Not too bad for a WWII era turbojet !
First aircraft to get it in French service were Vautours and SMB-2s in 1957.
Last Atar aircraft to go were the Aéronavale SEM and AdA Mirage F1s... in June 2014.
Hell of a career: 57 years of service !

Problem was SNECMA had difficulty creating a viable successor to it: it lasted way too long. While it did an honorable job on the Mirage F1, including the Iraqis ones, it was essentially obsolete since 1970. The M53 and M88 finally finally solved that issue.

The Atars were serviced and repaired at a military facility called the AIAA in Floirac, near Bordeaux.
I got my logistics internship there in April-June 2014: at the exact time they were shutting down the Atar and ramping up the Rafale's M88.

Needless to say it was a quantum leap: imagine jumping from WWII legacy analog, electro-mechanical tech, right into the digital age. Even with the M53 as an intermediate step, that was one heck of a change.

Interestingly enough a Rafale M88-2 is comparable in thrust to a 9K50, in the 7000 kgp range. Only 1000 pounds of thrust, 7500 vs 7100.
But size and weight wise, there is a gulf: a M88 is merely 30% of an Atar.
Shame they couldn't put one in, say, Morocco's F1s: but as shown by South Africa with MiG-29 engines, CG would be a major issue.

A tribute to the Atar are the Iraqis F1s.
I mean, at times in 1986 the EQ-5s were loaded with
- an enormous 2200 L belly centerline tank
- two Exocet missiles
- Magic 1 for self-defense
- ECM pods
Which is already a rather enormous bombload, for the Mirage itself, and for a single-Atar aircraft with limited thrust.
And that, in a very hot climate further degrading Atar thrust: jet engines truly hate hot climates.
How did Iraqi pilots managed to get their Mirage off the ground, alway puzzle me. They certainly would have welcomed a M53 additional thrust. Yet they fought with Atar 9K50, and even killed a handful of Tomcats with that.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,656
Reaction score
6,857
All this, to say... Atar 9K50 factsheet (from the CAEA Bordeaux aviation museum webpage, via Google translate)


Length6589 mm

6589 mm is 6.59 meters: 21 ft. Pretty long for a turbojet. No surprise lighter and shorter turbojets / turbofans played havoc with Mirages CoG.

And 1582 kg: 3487 pounds.
 

Springtime

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
16
Reaction score
4
Sorry if this has been covered before but could the lack of information be because with the Carver being a Mirage F-1 Replacement CZ and AZ it was going to be Nuclear Capable at least pre 1989
 

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
140
Reaction score
250
Sorry if this has been covered before but could the lack of information be because with the Carver being a Mirage F-1 Replacement CZ and AZ it was going to be Nuclear Capable at least pre 1989
The F1's where never nuclear capable as far as I know. The Buccaneer was the designated carrier but Carver II would have taken over some roles so it is possible it would have carried the bomb.

However, that isn't the reason for all the secrecy. Such high level secrecy was applied to all projects as they usually involved clandestine exchanges of information. Even projects like Ovid carried such high levels despite being research projects. SA also doesn't have automatic declassification policies after a certain number of years so projects tend to sit even though the technology has long become obsolete. Clandestine involvement from other parties/govts that will reflect badly if revealed are another possible reason.
 
Last edited:

Mech

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
45
Reaction score
55
The Atar was first ran in 1948 and was a derivative of the BMW 003 / 018.
ATAR: Atelier Technique et Aéronautique de Rickenbach

It started at 1800 kg of thrust, then 4500 kg in the 101 variants; then 6000 to 7200 for the final Atar 9.
1800*4 = 7200 : so thrust was multiplied by four between 1948 and 1968: in twenty years. Not too bad for a WWII era turbojet !
First aircraft to get it in French service were Vautours and SMB-2s in 1957.
Last Atar aircraft to go were the Aéronavale SEM and AdA Mirage F1s... in June 2014.
Hell of a career: 57 years of service !

Problem was SNECMA had difficulty creating a viable successor to it: it lasted way too long. While it did an honorable job on the Mirage F1, including the Iraqis ones, it was essentially obsolete since 1970. The M53 and M88 finally finally solved that issue.

The Atars were serviced and repaired at a military facility called the AIAA in Floirac, near Bordeaux.
I got my logistics internship there in April-June 2014: at the exact time they were shutting down the Atar and ramping up the Rafale's M88.

Needless to say it was a quantum leap: imagine jumping from WWII legacy analog, electro-mechanical tech, right into the digital age. Even with the M53 as an intermediate step, that was one heck of a change.

Interestingly enough a Rafale M88-2 is comparable in thrust to a 9K50, in the 7000 kgp range. Only 1000 pounds of thrust, 7500 vs 7100.
But size and weight wise, there is a gulf: a M88 is merely 30% of an Atar.
Shame they couldn't put one in, say, Morocco's F1s: but as shown by South Africa with MiG-29 engines, CG would be a major issue.

A tribute to the Atar are the Iraqis F1s.
I mean, at times in 1986 the EQ-5s were loaded with
- an enormous 2200 L belly centerline tank
- two Exocet missiles
- Magic 1 for self-defense
- ECM pods
Which is already a rather enormous bombload, for the Mirage itself, and for a single-Atar aircraft with limited thrust.
And that, in a very hot climate further degrading Atar thrust: jet engines truly hate hot climates.
How did Iraqi pilots managed to get their Mirage off the ground, alway puzzle me. They certainly would have welcomed a M53 additional thrust. Yet they fought with Atar 9K50, and even killed a handful of Tomcats with that.
"ow did Iraqi pilots managed to get their Mirage off the ground, alway puzzle me."
Iraq had some seriously long runways.
 

Mech

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
45
Reaction score
55
Hi BLACK_MAMBA

I read somewhere, quite lang ago that they had COG problems with the shorter Russian T/fan on the F1.

What they did was to mount it forward in the space occupied by the Atar, and installed a pipe to carry the efflux out the rear.

Regards

Thorn
I brought that exact question up with the lead engineer and to this day he is still perplexed how it came about. He suspects that factions in govt/upper echelons of the defence force started it once an 4th gen purchase was on the table instead of upgrading souped up 3rd gen aircraft. In my personal view the SMR upgrade in the F1 looks a little more elegant without the vertical tail overhanging the nozzle as on the Cheetah. Also a possible source for a poor performance rumour to start.

In the SMR they had an smaller engine of lighter weight so they could place the engine exactly where they wanted it in the airframe. The end result maintained the CoG range of the baseline Cheetah & F1 but in an lighter overall weight with more thrust available. The Cheetah especially benefitted from the upgrade even more so than the F1, although the F1 had a more extensive flight test program.

The SMR compressor is actually placed about 600mm further rearward compared to the Atar and still the engine is shorter in the airframe. The Atar is a big lump of engine!

The SMR also carried a Russian stigma as still the enemy in the SAAF which is further ground for not wanting it/starting poor performance rumours I guess. It also required a different maintenance philisophy compared to the Western types but for that I will refer you to the SAAF forum link Kaiser posted. That adds to the list of reasons I suspect why the SAAF didn't want it and actively tried killing it behind closed doors I would bet.

Thanks BLACK_MAMBA

Regards

Thorn
I heard somewhere that the deal breaker for the SMR-95 was that the Russian company wanted to lock in the maintenance contract to the point where engines had to be shipped back to them for routine overhauls. Once you where financially committed to the powerplant, they had you over a barrel for future maintenance costs.
They have a reputation for doing this. Ask the Indians !
 

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
140
Reaction score
250
I heard somewhere that the deal breaker for the SMR-95 was that the Russian company wanted to lock in the maintenance contract to the point where engines had to be shipped back to them for routine overhauls. Once you where financially committed to the powerplant, they had you over a barrel for future maintenance costs.
They have a reputation for doing this. Ask the Indians !
While I have heard this rumour, it one of plenty around this project. See the rumour about the CoG problems on the Cheetah for example... Another rumour that has no substance. I won't call the Klimov rumour false, but it was clear many didn't want the russian engine so plenty negative rumours have come around the project.

The objective fact we know is that the defence budget started dropping rapidly with the onset of democracy lessing funds for local projects - one of the reasons Carver died. The possibility of buying a proper 4th gen fighter on the open market most likely also enticing the killing off the drive to re-engine the Cheetah and F1AZ fleets - ignoring its impact on the local aviation industry of course. Some of the other possible reasons for not wanting it has also been discussed on various threads on this site.
 

Springtime

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
16
Reaction score
4
Question sorry if this was already answered

was there any effort to try and sell the Carver as a Export Fighter after 1994 or a Updated version as a alternative to the JAS-39 to keep SA R&D and Airspace Manufacturing capabilities modern and capable
 

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
140
Reaction score
250
Question sorry if this was already answered

was there any effort to try and sell the Carver as a Export Fighter after 1994 or a Updated version as a alternative to the JAS-39 to keep SA R&D and Airspace Manufacturing capabilities modern and capable
Carver as a project was cancelled by 1991. Even if it still existed it would not have gotten success without a SAAF order.

Atlas and later the rebranded Denel already struggled and couldn't sell Rooivalk. Not to even speak of a paper project. Even the SMR upgrade offer attracted no buyers and it actually completed a flight test program.
 

Bladerunner

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 2, 2022
Messages
7
Reaction score
17
On another note, the first credible picture that materialized of the single engine version was the fiberglass presentation model, and it shows it carrying what appears to be the LRAAM ramjet missile. In the book "Those who had the power" it's length is said to be 5.38m, and the single engine Carver was 16.06m in length. I made a quick and rough drawing on the picture to estimate with proportional dimensions, and the 5.38m missile seems to check out. Wonder what the pylon might have looked like?


LRAAM Carver.PNG
 

Mech

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
45
Reaction score
55
I heard somewhere that the deal breaker for the SMR-95 was that the Russian company wanted to lock in the maintenance contract to the point where engines had to be shipped back to them for routine overhauls. Once you where financially committed to the powerplant, they had you over a barrel for future maintenance costs.
They have a reputation for doing this. Ask the Indians !
While I have heard this rumour, it one of plenty around this project. See the rumour about the CoG problems on the Cheetah for example... Another rumour that has no substance. I won't call the Klimov rumour false, but it was clear many didn't want the russian engine so plenty negative rumours have come around the project.

The objective fact we know is that the defence budget started dropping rapidly with the onset of democracy lessing funds for local projects - one of the reasons Carver died. The possibility of buying a proper 4th gen fighter on the open market most likely also enticing the killing off the drive to re-engine the Cheetah and F1AZ fleets - ignoring its impact on the local aviation industry of course. Some of the other possible reasons for not wanting it has also been discussed on various threads on this site.
Also easier for certain "squirrels" to hide their nuts in BVI bank accounts when you are buying foreign aircraft.
Local upgrades like Cheetah or Super F1 leave pesky paper trails for SARS to follow back "sales commissions" for hard working middlemen.
 
Last edited:

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
140
Reaction score
250
Also easier for certain "squirrels" to hide their nuts in BVI bank accounts when you are buying foreign aircraft.
Local upgrades like Cheetah or Super F1 leave pesky paper trails for SARS to follow back "sales commissions" for hard working middlemen.
Buying an off the shelf option is the cheaper of the two. In Gripen South Africa got a better aircraft far cheaper than Carver would have been. And a far more capable one than reengined Cheetah's and F1's! Those who made the decisions at least got that one correct looking purely at what aircraft would provide the best defense to SA airspace. SA also failed to implement the degree of industrialization initially planned for the Hawk and Gripen fleets which would have helped somewhat to maintain a local aviation industry. They initially planned to service the engines, avionics etc all in SA. A steady declining budget and mismanagement at Denel (Atlas's re branded successor) put pay to such aspirations.

I doubt "sales commissions" as you call it had such a big impact in deciding between local or off-the-shelf. The local option was always going to be more expensive for an aircraft of lower capability and the lower cost option is usually the one that gets Treasury's vote!
 

Bladerunner

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 2, 2022
Messages
7
Reaction score
17
Don't you guys ever wonder what the actual in service name would have been, except for referring to it as Carver as per the project name...? That means that the Cheetah C could have been the "Tunny C"...lol.
Seeing that all the cool indigenous animal names have been taken already, I thought I'd have a bit of fun. In line with mythology and mystery, Carver and Pegasus could supposedly fly, and both don't exist. So, here you go, with a bit of humor, I present to you "Pegasus".

FCA-1E Pegasus.PNG
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
762
Any aircraft manufactured in South Africa, whether licence produced or locally designed and manufactured, got an indigenous fauna name.

Rooivalk, Cheetah, Impala, Oryx, Bosbok, Kudu...etc.
This would not have changed.
This tradition goes back all the way to the 1930's to the local production of the Hawker Hartebeest.
It's not like South Africa is short of wildlife names.
What the name would have been is anybodies guess, but I suspect a big cat, or local raptor or eagle name, just as the Rooivalk was named after.
As the pinnacle of local development, like the Rooivalk, that would make sense.
 

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
140
Reaction score
250
Any aircraft manufactured in South Africa, whether licence produced or locally designed and manufactured, got an indigenous fauna name.

Rooivalk, Cheetah, Impala, Oryx, Bosbok, Kudu...etc.
This would not have changed.
This tradition goes back all the way to the 1930's to the local production of the Hawker Hartebeest.
It's not like South Africa is short of wildlife names.
What the name would have been is anybodies guess, but I suspect a big cat, or local raptor or eagle name, just as the Rooivalk was named after.
As the pinnacle of local development, like the Rooivalk, that would make sense.
I think Bladerunner was only making a joke Kaiser. Have a closer look at the markings...

That said - there are some exceptions. The Aermacchi AM.3C was never produced in SA but was named "Bosbok" (Bushbuck) in Service. Conversely the C-47's that were upgraded locally under Project Felstone all were renamed C47-TP Dakota with many informal names around "Dakota" like Turbo Dak etc. No local fauna name given unlike the Oryx programme built on upgraded Pyma's acquired clandestinely.

Also, Ovid kept its Project name initially. Admittedly it was only an technology demonstrator and was renamed ACE in the ADM phase, but it was called Ovid during Aerotek's testing. So there is some precedent that Carver could have possibly have stayed Carver, but there is a whole range of fauna it could have been named after so little use in speculating.
 

Similar threads

Top