Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 19 Apr 2014 11:45

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1755 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 ... 44  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2011 10:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5332
Shiv Ji, time and again, I have said that your post are dangerous for the health of my monitor. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2011 16:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 5821
Location: विकास भी, ईमान भी, गरीबों का सम्मान भी
shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:
MKI or any fighter radar is not the ideal for side sweeping large swathes of territory and keeping it under observation because it would need to point its nose. the side looking radar of proper platforms like E8 and Sentinel are what generates huge sweep areas and allows a racetrack path to keep it under constant watch. so using MKI is a non-starter,


How about this? :lol:
Image


Wouldn't the rays from the radar on the back of the A/C hit the radar in the front because of the angle at which it is place? :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2011 16:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35
Posts: 1148
Going by today's report linked on the BR page (can't open article) , IAF is planning on acquisition of 2 more AWACS of the IL based platform. So while all the talk is of a two front war and dealing with China and Pak , the acquisitions seem to suggest that from An AWACS PoV we will be able to deal with only 1 front at a time in a war scenario with 3 AWACS in the air and 2 on rotations, the remainder of the gap will be filled by our own AEW&C and ground based radars.

This appears to be good decision making by the IAF as we can't get carried away by the 2 front war talk and need to be somewhat realistic as well as ambitious concerning our in-house projects success probability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2011 16:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21683
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
krishnan wrote:
shiv wrote:

How about this? :lol:
Image


Wouldn't the rays from the radar on the back of the A/C hit the radar in the front because of the angle at which it is place? :P


We AWACS designers don't bother about irrelevant quibbles from inexpert non professionals like you :P
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2011 18:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 23360
Location: NowHere
MKI antenna looks bigger and much more capable. :) ... besides being a fighter, and having a larger awac radar, now it needs much much larger drop tanks for buddy refueling support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2011 02:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 246
Location: On the sofa.
[nitpick] Thats a mig-29. [/nitpick]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2011 02:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31
Posts: 986
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2011 09:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23
Posts: 5321
PratikDas wrote:


I hope nobody is presuming that it will be free of Trojans!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 12:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1232
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
Singha wrote:
MKI or any fighter radar is not the ideal for side sweeping large swathes of territory and keeping it under observation because it would need to point its nose. the side looking radar of proper platforms like E8 and Sentinel are what generates huge sweep areas and allows a racetrack path to keep it under constant watch. so using MKI is a non-starter, even if it had the sensitve SAR/GMTI modes which it probably does not. onboard power and endurance is also a concern - we know the MKI does not have enough power as is to run even the Irbis let alone the Irbis-E.....will need pwr system overhaul and more engine for that like Su35BM has. the side looking radar has a much bigger 'aperture' than fighter dishes and likely way more range.

coming to airborne control (more controllers) vs downlink to ground station, I agree that in Indic context where we are not looking to advance 1000km into enemy territory, ground based processing should be ok for us, if the fat wireless pipes are ok in bad weather (this is a must , the bw must not degrade beyond a point UNLIKE my tata sky dish that loses satellite in heavy rains and blacks out for a while until it regains) :((


Hmm, I am not so sure that it might not work. I always wondered why something like a KA 31 "oko" type cannot be configured for the MKI, would've been great for IN carrier borne AEW. The MKI has two inherent strengths - tremendous range/endurance (unlike the KA 31), and thanks to extra power + ceiling, the range should be a lot more. With the BARS covering the frontal arc, perhaps two underwing or one fuselage mounted radar might provide coverage for the remaining sectors.

Just a fantasy I s'pose. But this might be a more realistic option via sukhoi.org:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 12:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5332
If the basic airframe has flown, then the AEW version can be considered. Else no reason why the same concept cannot be implemented on the Rustom XXX or the global hawk.

Otherwise you are looking at the project being completed with Indian money onlee. With India being the sole user.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 12:31 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 30575
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
MKI to be carrier borne needs atleast a kuznetsov sized carrier and for effective payload a catapult not ski ramp. niether is there.
no news on sukhoi zond uav's after the models.... I dont know whats holding Rus back from large UAV work and the even the Mig SKAT ucav was a model only :(

maybe we can rope them in to speed up rustom HALE ? the AL55 engine could be suitable?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 12:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32
Posts: 166
Image

how about this for carriers?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 12:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1232
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
Well it need not be Sukhoi built, I was just throwing an idea around. UAVs certainly don't seem to be a Roosi strength, iirc, they are now buying Herons. Also, I don't think they consider UAV development that crucial, not yet. Their strategic forces carry more priority, followed by bread/butter stuff - subs/pakfa/SAMs.

Re. MKI being Vikad capable - don't think TWR is such an issue, the Su-33 is worse off iirc in this dept. Problem would be in stowing the a/c. And if needed, a few airframes could always be fitted with something more powerful (AL-31 FM3 for e.g.). Question - a lot os CV images show a/c on deck, couldn't a few MKI/AEW be anchored on deck to avoid stowage problems?

The osprey idea is interesting, I wonder if those massive propellers would make some difference to radar emissions?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 12:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 4311
Pranav wrote:
PratikDas wrote:


I hope nobody is presuming that it will be free of Trojans!


Yes, it will be full of trojans and you know better than the IAF. Congratulations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 13:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 4311
Pratyush wrote:
If the basic airframe has flown, then the AEW version can be considered. Else no reason why the same concept cannot be implemented on the Rustom XXX or the global hawk.

Otherwise you are looking at the project being completed with Indian money onlee. With India being the sole user.


The Russians have had serious control issues with even some of their basic UAV designs, let alone flying such advanced ones with heavy loads on top!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2011 03:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 246
Location: On the sofa.
Cain Marko wrote:
The osprey idea is interesting, I wonder if those massive propellers would make some difference to radar emissions?


Osprey does seem like a good idea for our STOBAR carriers.

The propellers are probably made of composites. Radar would mostly just pass through.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2011 22:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Nov 2009 08:25
Posts: 512
Karan M wrote:
Pranav wrote:
Karan M wrote:
I hope nobody is presuming that it will be free of Trojans!


Yes, it will be full of trojans and you know better than the IAF. Congratulations.


Its not like these things are unheard of.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1382116/China-finds-spy-bugs-in-Jiangs-Boeing-jet.html

Quote:
CHINA claims to have found almost 30 surveillance bugs, including one in the headboard of the presidential bed, on a Boeing 767 that had just been delivered from America to serve as President Jiang Zemin's official aircraft.
The aircraft has been sitting on a military airstrip north of Beijing, unused with much of its upholstery and many of its fittings ripped out, since October when Chinese test pilots detected a strange and unfamiliar whine emanating from its body.
A search of the twin-engined aircraft, which was manufactured and fitted out in America, yielded 27 devices, according to Chinese officials, hidden in its seats, lavatory and panelling.
Beijing believes that the bugs were planted by the Central Intelligence Agency while the aircraft was undergoing conversion work in San Antonio, Texas.
The CIA refused to respond to the report. Bill Harlow, the spy agency's spokesman, said: "We never comment on allegations like these, as a matter of policy." The White House used almost identical words, saying: "We never discuss these types of allegations."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2011 12:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32
Posts: 984
^^^ Now who can we trust? Nobody

It is naive to think IAF did not do the necessary checks on a military aircraft similar to what Chinese did on their airforce one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2011 14:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32
Posts: 984
hope this wasnt reported earlier..

Raytheon says India wants Airborne Radars


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2011 14:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 8124
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
Kailash wrote:
^^^ Now who can we trust? Nobody

It is naive to think IAF did not do the necessary checks on a military aircraft similar to what Chinese did on their airforce one.

One of my friends was mentioning about his acquaintances working in a DRDO lab at Hyderabad have their only job being poring through the code provided by the Israelis for various systems to search for backdoors and Trojans.

Am sure "debugging" teams from IB/MI/RAW/xxx do go through any newly imported equipment( esp planes etc) to check for physical bugs placed in the import.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2011 03:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 246
Location: On the sofa.
Kailash wrote:
hope this wasnt reported earlier..

Raytheon says India wants Airborne Radars


Please do not post articles/links from indiandefence.com . It is a paki owned site.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2011 19:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59
Posts: 627
Any News on the DRDO's EMB 145 AEW&C?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2011 21:56 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 29 Oct 2009 17:48
Posts: 81
Location: Kanyakubj Nagre
Kakarat wrote:
Any News on the DRDO's EMB 145 AEW&C?

:D Jee Huzoor Khuda ne Barkat ata farmai "Jasusi Tiyaara-a- Hindustan" Hazir hai
pese-e-khidmat hai http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/11/indias-prying-plane-set-to-fly-in.html
tarmak007 ke janib se, Sukriya bhaizaan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2011 23:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2403
Sweet !!! Hope CABS engineers are all well prepared to integrate and get going quickly. Wonder how/how much/when they tested the AAAU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 02:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 1867
Location: Lone Star State
^^^ TARMAK007 has started a AWACS Namakaran request! Request Jingos to suggest Ppropriate names, my vote for Garuda!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 03:22 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 13551
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
trust them to pick sanjay.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 03:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2403
Garuda sounds awesome, sanjaya(after the character in mahabharatha) could be added to the list too. I guess mods should start a new thread,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 04:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Posts: 1433
Location: GSLV++
Rahul M wrote:
trust them to pick sanjay.

Sanjay is great!

Doordarshan? :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 10:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 660
DRDO developed AEW&CS EMB-145 I to take air on December 7


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2011 13:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Aug 2006 22:14
Posts: 308
Location: Hidden Markov Model
Shrinivasan wrote:
^^^ TARMAK007 has started a AWACS Namakaran request! Request Jingos to suggest Ppropriate names, my vote for Garuda!!!


" MATALI " - Charioteer of Indra; the one who is bestowed with cognizance of all directions..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2011 13:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24
Posts: 1451
Shrinivasan wrote:
^^^ TARMAK007 has started a AWACS Namakaran request! Request Jingos to suggest Ppropriate names, my vote for Garuda!!!


Bali/Vali. Son of God Surya, able to grasp half of opponent's energy, only vincible to god/Rama himself with careful strategy. Garuda is a bit overkill, may be the big bird Phalcon deserves it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2011 15:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Aug 2006 22:14
Posts: 308
Location: Hidden Markov Model
kmkraoind wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:
^^^ TARMAK007 has started a AWACS Namakaran request! Request Jingos to suggest Ppropriate names, my vote for Garuda!!!


Garuda is a bit overkill, may be the big bird Phalcon deserves it.


IMHO, "Garuda" must be reserved for the offensive/strike a/c, maybe the FGFA should/would be named "Garuda"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2011 15:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Posts: 1022
Location: Land of the free
Cain Marko wrote:
Re. MKI being Vikad capable - don't think TWR is such an issue, the Su-33 is worse off iirc in this dept. Problem would be in stowing the a/c. And if needed, a few airframes could always be fitted with something more powerful (AL-31 FM3 for e.g.). Question - a lot os CV images show a/c on deck, couldn't a few MKI/AEW be anchored on deck to avoid stowage problems?


Though it is possible and often done in times of war, it has severe penalties too.
First, the added weight of the carrier, lessening the amount of fuel
(aviation fuel) available for the other a/c effectively having to put up similar sortie numbers as with the standard complement, added weapons for these planes, added man hours for the maintenance crew, added quarters for the additional men that will be needed etc.


Last edited by koti on 23 Nov 2011 15:37, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2011 15:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32
Posts: 166
Vithur ..... the who has the divine senses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2011 11:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Nov 2011 21:43
Posts: 484
Image

Peace Eagle from Turkey


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2011 15:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31
Posts: 134
i would prefer a real and a existing ones name than a mythological name with mystical powers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2011 17:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Posts: 798
Shivji's (not the BR one) Teesri Aankh 'Trayambakam' for the destruction of enemies (When opened).

Cheers....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2011 18:07 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 13551
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
PratikDas wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
trust them to pick sanjay.

Sanjay is great!

Doordarshan? :rotfl:

and the datalink would be called akashvani ? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2011 00:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 1867
Location: Lone Star State
Garuda is my first choice... another choice would be "Rajali" meaning "Royal Eagle", I also considered Jatayu and Sampati but dropped these... IAF names our birds after Indian Myths onlee...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2011 14:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1158
Rahul M wrote:
PratikDas wrote:
Doordarshan? :rotfl:

and the datalink would be called akashvani ? :lol:


No DOORDARSHAN !!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1755 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 ... 44  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group