Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 26 Oct 2014 04:18

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4000 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
Author Message
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 09:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12
Posts: 2461
vina wrote:
For eg, next time you go to a lake and take a boat ride, try crossing the wake of another boat at right angles. As you do, your boat will bob and weave and experience some crazy motions. Even if you travel in the wake of the boat ahead, you will experience funny motions that you wont in still water. The boat is stable by itself and the instabilities of the way are within limits of the stability of the boat design and it rides it out. What if the boat were artificially stabilized like the LCA is ?


on the road, riding behind the large truck improves mileage (and passing trucks creates turbulence); on the lake, jet skiers ride the wave (actually cross the wake around 90 deg) behind large boats for that extra oomph/jump...

I would imagine the biggest challenge for FCS is detecting the presence of wake. Is over correction the primary concern?

Would FCS detect the presence of wake and possibly not alter any of the critical flying parameters until the aircraft gets out of the wake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 10:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2511
Finally ADA's website updated that too on a sunday

LCA-Tejas has completed 1520 Test Flights successfully. (17-Jan-2011).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-192,PV3-255,LSP1-60,LSP2-160,PV5-22,LSP3-24,LSP4-25,LSP5-2)

LCA-Tejas has completed 1452 Test Flights successfully. (18-Oct-10).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-173,PV3-234,LSP1-60,LSP2-160,PV5-17,LSP3-16,LSP4-12)

So they are flying the lsp3/4/pv3/pv2, looks like the lsp5 as someone pointed out has build quality problems?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 11:31 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38449
So its the control system response considering the unstable nature of the lCA that is the concern/ However won't the turbulent air in the wake be small perturbations in the sub-sonic regime and hardly effective in supersonic regime due to Mach lines?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 12:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2155
Location: NullPointerException
Austin wrote:
SaiK wrote:
Now, why collaborate with them, when GTRE can on its own terms and project schedule complete a 100kN one. yay!


SaiK what makes you feel if GTRE cannot develop a decent flight qualified engine for Tejas Mk1 will develop a 100KN engine on its own that would match 414 if not exceed it ?

Tejas fate with GE engine was sealed when they decided to fly its prototype and production Mk1 with GE-404 variant and then it was quite easy to see why they would choose 414 over any thing out there , much like Gripen , Tejas in its current and new avtar will always be GE engine for production model.

Most likely then not , IAF will not waste its time to flight qualify a new engine like Kaveri for Tejas in production model ,as long as GE 414 is available to them , Kaveri would in all likelyhood will power AMCA in production model and perhaps in prototype if its available by then.


Well then the thing to find out at AI 2011 is if there is a plan to fly the Kaveri in one of the Tejas prototypes after Kaveri is deemed ready for testing in a single engined fighter? Say end of 2011?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 13:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4529
Location: Duke Nukem
ramana wrote:
So its the control system response considering the unstable nature of the lCA that is the concern/ However won't the turbulent air in the wake be small perturbations in the sub-sonic regime and hardly effective in supersonic regime due to Mach lines?


Well, to show a picture of how the wake of an aircraft looks like, I googled wing tip vortices in Google and hit images.. and you get this (used mozilla browser).

You can see how the vortex sheet is behind a plane with two pretty strong vortices shed from the wing tip , which behind large jets can have tornado like intensities . Large amount of nice pictures where it is very easily visible. So you if fly across a wake, you penetrate two near tornadoes swirling in opposite directions with a low pressure area in between.. That can toss you up and down, and if you encounter a vortex ring while flying alongside the plane and a wing encounters one, you can get into an roll kind of things.

True, unlike natural turbulence, it might not have random eddies and wakes and instabilities , and when the wake dies out into turbluent air, it probably does not have enough strenght to affect stability,but close in,it can be pretty dangerous. In commercial avaiation, they impose minimum vertical separations and distance between planes to avoid flying into the other planes wakes.

For supersonic wave, I guess it will be like crossing the wake of a boat, which sheds divergent waves..You will get pressure variations and peaks, but not like flying into one of those wing tip vortices I guess.


Last edited by vina on 30 Jan 2011 14:11, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 13:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11431
merlin wrote:
Well then the thing to find out at AI 2011 is if there is a plan to fly the Kaveri in one of the Tejas prototypes after Kaveri is deemed ready for testing in a single engined fighter? Say end of 2011?


Well the first thing would be to find out of Kaveri has met the thrust spec as laid down by DRDO , second would be to see if it is flight qualified to be mated with Tejas airframe did it put in enough hours on IL-76 to be flight qualified.

I am not certain if they would ever put a ballpark date on when it will be deemed ready for testing , when I met the Kaveri folks in AI 05 they told it would be ready in the next 2-3 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 14:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4529
Location: Duke Nukem
Austin wrote:
Snecma will not give us any TOT or any thing like that ( even with so called Deep TOT including SCB we got with AL-31FP we never made any gains that would help Kaveri in any way ) , what they will do is design and test and flight qualify the engine for Tejas Mk1/new Kaveri and then we end up paying royalty and import core stuff from them ( something if you would recollect IAF was not happy with GTRE-Snecma venture ) , I think this Snecma-GTRE venture will be like Brahmos venture where both sides design and get their stuff for Kaveri and then it would be labeled as new Kaveri.


I do think that the Snecma JV will be true design and manufacturing partnership. That only those who signed the contract will know how it is going to be done. In any case,even if Snecma doesn't ToT anything, but makes them all in India with it's prop technology, it will be fine. It is still far better than importing and assembling engines from CKD.

I doubt that the single crystal manufacturing tech was actually transferred via the SU-30 MKI deal. I would be very surprised if it happened. They probably final machine the blades from blocks supplied from Russia at best.

Quote:
Ejactly and hence no one in official circle is even talking of Kaveri ever powering a Mk2 or Mk3 Tejas or for that matter Tejas at all , they ( either the IAF or DRDO or both ) have raised the bar for the engine to an extent that nothing besides some latest and greatest from GE 414 series will be powering the LCA during its entire life time , like it did with Tejas with in Mk1 avatar.

Probably not worth the trouble of qualifying that plane with a new engine , especially if GE makes the engine in India /ToTs the bulk of GE414 to India for manufacturing, just like the AL-31 for the MKI. I do think the engine deal that got signed and which GE won over the EJ200 has those ToT and manufacturing provisions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 21:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Posts: 701
Location: Invention is evolution, explosion is destruction.
Cross posting form AeroIndia 11

chackojoseph wrote:


hain ji... :D :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


Quote:
Tejas Formation Flights during the Inaugural Day (09th Feb 2011 Fore Noon)

Tejas Flight displays every day,

During the Forenoon (1030-1100 hours) & During the Afternoon (1430 – 1500 hours)


some pents will be wet across LoC


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 21:21 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38449
Thanks Vina. Good you still know your aero and can guide us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 21:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25736
Location: NowHere
vina, last I heard was snecma saying about ECO core for Kaveri. Now how that qualifies for:
Quote:
true design and manufacturing partnership.
:?:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 21:35 
Online
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2991
chackojoseph wrote:


Quote:
v Indoor Exhibits at Hall – D

LCA ( light Combat Aircraft) Models of all variants + Mk-II IAF & Navy


People who are going there. Please get some pics of the Mk-II. Ask as many questions as you can.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 22:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Posts: 633
Location: Some where near Equator...
Model Tejas Mk.2 At Aero India

The DRDO's curtain-raiser statement for Aero India 2011 suggests that it will be displaying models of the air force and navy TEJAS Mk.2. There has been little clarity over the real design changes likely to be incorporated in the Mk.2, so to specifically mention the Mk.2 in its list of model displays suggests that there will be something to talk about. Will it have canard foreplanes? We do know that the aft fuselage will undergo changes to house the GE-F414 turbofan, but that's pretty much all we really know


Note - This is a unoffical image sent to Livefist from one of his "fan"

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 22:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26
Posts: 607
^^ LCA Navy already has LEVCONs. Why include canards?

I say why not DSI on LCA MK II :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 22:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
Sid wrote:
^^ LCA Navy already has LEVCONs. Why include canards?

I say why not DSI on LCA MK II :D

What improvement will that bring other than a small improvement in rcs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 22:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25736
Location: NowHere
Gripen NG ish!~ cool pic. We never gave canards more weight than moveable LERX earlier discussions. Interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 23:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4881
Since the Mk2 is still in the design phase, we have to keep in mind that the model to be displayed at AI could be visibly different from the eventual production model. My only wish is that they somehow manage to increase the payload and internal fuel capacity a little bit. Radical changes like canards are unnecessary. It could instead use movable LERX like the naval version.
The important thing is that the development time is shortened to the minimum possible. The IAF needed this aircraft yesterday. I just hope to see 15 squadrons of Tejas (Mk1 and 2) flying in IAF colors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 23:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25736
Location: NowHere
It is a good idea to increase internal fuel perhaps kevlar based fuel storage compartments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 23:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Posts: 7510
Pic is likely inaccurate fan-art. There is no change in the wing size whereas PS had already stated there would be an increase.

Nicer Square intake shapes would be really nice TFTA (not sure how they affect the a/c though).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 23:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4881
Marten wrote:
Pic is likely inaccurate fan-art. There is no change in the wing size whereas PS had already stated there would be an increase.

Nicer Square intake shapes would be really nice TFTA (not sure how they affect the a/c though).

Marten, the pic is fan art. Aroor says that on his blog.

Larger intakes is about the only thing that we can be sure of seeing in the Mk2. I don't expect to see rectangular intakes though. It would be too radical a change and one that probably is not worth all the trouble.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 23:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Posts: 2868
Location: gaganaviharin
nits wrote:


Why go for Canards when LERX is already being tested for Naval LCA? Also remember the quote that NLCA should have been designed and developed first?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 23:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Posts: 2868
Location: gaganaviharin
Prasad wrote:
So its like a stress test on steroids of the flight control systems essentially? I understand the very nature of the test is to put the plane(+software) through its paces. In such a case, how do they handle safety? As in, like AoA testing is done by gradually increasing the AoA each time and poring over how the plane has handled it before pushing it even more. Any idea how wake testing is done? Would be interesting to know. Thanks!


Put two or three plans in different formations in the wind tunnel and analyze the vortices. IMHO it is not just the flight control systems, but the structural integrity (three dimensional flexing and bending of wings/structures) that will be tested as well.

Also formation flights do not have to wait for full completion of the wake tests, I think it is more for mid-air refueling where there is a cyclone generated at the wingtips of those giant flying fuel tankers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 23:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26
Posts: 607
Gaur wrote:
Sid wrote:
^^ LCA Navy already has LEVCONs. Why include canards?

I say why not DSI on LCA MK II :D

What improvement will that bring other than a small improvement in rcs?


question should be, "if we can have it, why not"? Data generated from this change will benefit future projects, i.e. AMCA.

Following will be nice to have on MK II -

>IRST
>AESA
>Air-refueling probe
>Jammers like what we have on MKI wing tips.

Make it a complete air superiority fighter, instead of fighter/bomber which makes it jack of all trades, master of none.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 23:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2521
Marten wrote:
Pic is likely inaccurate fan-art. There is no change in the wing size whereas PS had already stated there would be an increase.

Nicer Square intake shapes would be really nice TFTA (not sure how they affect the a/c though).


All they need is a larger intake. You can get those without going for squarish intakes too, by increasing the intake diameter. So a boxy intake is not a necessity per se. That it would LOOK better (TFTA) is for sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011 23:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2521
disha wrote:
nits wrote:


Why go for Canards when LERX is already being tested for Naval LCA? Also remember the quote that NLCA should have been designed and developed first?


not LERX- but LEVCONS.

Anyway, this is not DRDO's pic, its fanart. We'll find out soon enough if they go for LEVCONs or canards (like what Ajai Shukla had said long ago and what AW&ST's Neelam Matthews said very recently).

whatever improves the STR the most, should be incorporated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 00:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1369
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
Gaur wrote:
Sid wrote:
^^ LCA Navy already has LEVCONs. Why include canards?

I say why not DSI on LCA MK II :D

What improvement will that bring other than a small improvement in rcs?


Weight loss perhaps since the splitter plate will be dumped? Not that I am advocating it - I'd just like to see them keep the empty weight @ 6500kg or below. That will surely go a long way in alleviating those TWR, STR issues imho! If they can increase internal fuel capacity plus add IFR capability, that would be another worthy goal. Fancy goals would include an IRST and perhaps conformal carriage of weapons plus AESA.

CM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 00:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Posts: 295
Location: The Netherlands
Wouldn't the canards make it very difficult for the pilot to get in the cockpit ? And they make the LCA look ugly too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 01:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Posts: 583
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Mk.2 plans from AI09...

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=619393#p619393

jingos... please ask for updates on this frnot :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 01:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25736
Location: NowHere
thanks k prasad for linking that here. the ear pleasing feature for future is this:
Quote:
- Inboard Signature reduction - weith composite structures, the RF energy may penetrate the skin, in which case, we need to reduce the signature of internal components as well.


waiting to hear for more!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 01:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Posts: 701
Location: Invention is evolution, explosion is destruction.
vina wrote:
Quote:
basic question...how would they perform a wake penetration test? I mean the aircraft needs to be subjected to different "wake" profiles right? how would they create the "wake"?


By flying an aircraft in front of course! How else? And then test whether you can enter from right behind, from top to bottom, diagonally, bottom to up, enter while turning, different altitude, speeds etc!


Just watching Top Jets movie .... there is 20 sec clip where a fighter flies in front of a commercial plane. Which causes the commercial plane going out of control. During watching this discussion came into my mind .... so post it here ... going back to my movie :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 06:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25736
Location: NowHere
Kartik wrote:
whatever improves the STR the most, should be incorporated.


any possibilities that it may look like this?
http://img103.exs.cx/img103/9742/windtu ... al12td.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 07:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Sep 2009 19:30
Posts: 553
Location: Ganga ki dharti.
SaiK wrote:
http://img103.exs.cx/img103/9742/windtunnelmodelnal12td.jpg



It looks like having a touch of Typhoon. 8) 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 07:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Posts: 7510
Since this thread might be locked soon, hope Aero India 2011 brings more joy and hope to the next version of this thread.

Kartik: I was trying to be facetious about the nature of posts that would advocate TFTA changes. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 08:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Posts: 633
Location: Some where near Equator...
Marten wrote:
Pic is likely inaccurate fan-art. There is no change in the wing size whereas PS had already stated there would be an increase.

Nicer Square intake shapes would be really nice TFTA (not sure how they affect the a/c though).


As i mentioned in my post; its an unofficial pic and send to arror by his fan...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 22:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Posts: 281
Location: Pune
Moving the landing gear in Grippen from under the fuselage to the wingroots freed up space to house 40% more internal fuel and the weapons station has increased from 8 to 10.

Can't this be attempted in LCA MK-II ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011 23:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2521
Cain Marko wrote:

Weight loss perhaps since the splitter plate will be dumped? Not that I am advocating it - I'd just like to see them keep the empty weight @ 6500kg or below. That will surely go a long way in alleviating those TWR, STR issues imho! If they can increase internal fuel capacity plus add IFR capability, that would be another worthy goal. Fancy goals would include an IRST and perhaps conformal carriage of weapons plus AESA.

CM.


CM, the Tejas Mk1 has fixed inlets that don't change shape as per the speed of the aircraft. So even if you eliminate the splitter plate and add a DSI bump instead, you won't really get a large weight saving. Conversely, if the DSI isn't designed well (being a first time effort and all that), there will be more issues of pressure recovery which may only hamper performance.

I hope that they keep the same number of pylons/hardpoints or at most add 2 wing-tip pylons and leave it at that instead of adding more payload capacity. Just concentrate on improving the performance and maybe relocate landing gear to include an additional fuel tank for more internal fuel if that is considered necessary by IAF.

The Tejas Mk2 doesn't have to lug around an advertised 7000 kg payload like SAAB claims for the Gripen NG. They can save weight on not needing that much strengthening of the airframe. They need to just concentrate on the performance improvements, AESA radar and possibly an IRST (if there is any space in the nose left at all to fit it). The more the scope is, the more the weight is, and the higher the likelihood that they'll not meet the IAF's specs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2011 12:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11105
Location: India
Here is Flight Intl/'s take on Tejas,pros and cons.Interesting analysis in comparison with "BRitons"!

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... rvice.html

Some quotes:

Quote:
Nayak's comments hint at the weight issues that plague the Mk I. The aircraft's official weight has yet to be published. Nayak says the Mk II will bring a complete reconfiguration of internal equipment to create a more agile aircraft. "The Mk II is only on the drawing board," he adds.

Despite its critics, who generally condemn Tejas as being behind schedule, overweight and inferior to similar light fighters produced elsewhere, the programme is arguably not so much about producing a world-beating light fighter aircraft, but building a foundation of learning for future projects. This suggests Tejas is just a single step on a decades-long journey to a globally competitive Indian defence aerospace industry.


Quote:
The milestones achieved in the past 12 months come after two decades of frustration and failure for the Tejas. The fighter's powerplant was originally supposed to be the Kaveri engine developed by the government-run Gas Turbine Research Establishment. As of 2009, the GTRE had spent Rs20 billion ($455 million) over the 20-year programme, only to produce an overweight engine unable to provide the 21,000-22,500lb thrust (93-100kN) required.


Quote:
SOBERING FACT

When presented with this idea, one critic likens it to "making a virtue out of a necessity". Another points to the sobering fact that, ultimately, combat aircraft are for fighting in wars. If the Tejas is, as many suspect, an inferior combat platform, the fact that the project has helped India's aircraft industry will be cold comfort to Tejas pilots.

One expert suggests that, in the event of war, the Indian air force would probably hold the Tejas back from high-threat situations and let aircraft such as the Sukhoi Su-30MKI, Sepecat Jaguar, Dassault Mirage, and the eventual winner of India's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contest, deal with high-intensity combat.

"Tejas is a prime example of the dispute between the guys in lab coats and guys in flight suits," says Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia, referring to the heavy government involvement in the project.

Nonetheless, India is determined to press on with development of its indigenous fighter industry. It has committed to 40 Tejas Mk Is, and is likely to buy 40 more, says Nayak. These first aircraft will all be powered by the F404, and will be followed by 80 F414-powered Mk IIs.



Quote:
HOW THE CRITICS SEE TEJAS

TEAL Group analyst Richard Aboulafia questions the viability of both the Tejas Mk I and Mk II. "Allowing for some residual face-saving, dreams of an indigenous engine are over," he says. "In fact, dreams of using a 19,000lb [85kN] engine have ended too, as speed and weight concerns became all to clear."

Aboulafia also questions how indigenous the aircraft really is, noting that the engine, radar, weapons and other key components are produced overseas. "This renders the national security/weapons autonomy rationale for the Tejas utterly false," he says.

An executive involved in India's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) competition is equally dubious. "If they had got the Tejas right, they wouldn't need to do the MMRCA," he says.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2011 12:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13228
Philip wrote:
H

Quote:
HOW THE CRITICS SEE TEJAS

TEAL Group analyst Richard Aboulafia questions the viability of both the Tejas Mk I and Mk II. "Allowing for some residual face-saving, dreams of an indigenous engine are over," he says. "In fact, dreams of using a 19,000lb [85kN] engine have ended too, as speed and weight concerns became all to clear."

Aboulafia also questions how indigenous the aircraft really is, noting that the engine, radar, weapons and other key components are produced overseas. "This renders the national security/weapons autonomy rationale for the Tejas utterly false," he says.

An executive involved in India's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) competition is equally dubious. "If they had got the Tejas right, they wouldn't need to do the MMRCA," he says.


This is totally crap analysis for a country which has been on sanctions for more than 40 years for tech


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2011 13:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11431
vina wrote:
I do think that the Snecma JV will be true design and manufacturing partnership. That only those who signed the contract will know how it is going to be done. In any case,even if Snecma doesn't ToT anything, but makes them all in India with it's prop technology, it will be fine. It is still far better than importing and assembling engines from CKD.


Yes perhaps the cost will end up being on the lower side rather then direct imports and that too from french who would ask for an arm and leg. { look at M2K upgrade cost :rotfl: }

Quote:
I doubt that the single crystal manufacturing tech was actually transferred via the SU-30 MKI deal. I would be very surprised if it happened. They probably final machine the blades from blocks supplied from Russia at best.


No , the TOT for SCB was confirmed earlier by Ashok Baweja ex HAL Chairman and even by Russian head , but these seems to not have helped much in our engine program.

That is the reason I doubt when they go to the town with TOT for every new deal we hear about , its probably a glorified name for Lic Production and some one paying more and some one asking more while the middle men makes more from both parties.

Quote:
Probably not worth the trouble of qualifying that plane with a new engine , especially if GE makes the engine in India /ToTs the bulk of GE414 to India for manufacturing, just like the AL-31 for the MKI. I do think the engine deal that got signed and which GE won over the EJ200 has those ToT and manufacturing provisions.


Which engine deal you mean for Mk2 ? its a small number to have any TOT or even lic manuf , 100engines would hardly justify that , even MKI engines goes into more than 700 odd engines to justify local production.

I think GE is still a better bet then Snecma for Engine deal , we have spent thousand hours testing GE engine on Tejas Mk1 and would be doing the same for Mk2 , so the platform/engine combination is well validated and there is the relationship that has been built over decade between GE/ADA ,GE certainly have big orders from India,US,Sweden to keep innovating on 414 , so it benefits and lowers the cost for all 3 parties.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2011 13:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09
Posts: 123
The fear is now very real and the "vested interest" lot is starting to panic. The phoren maal lobbies shrillness is directly proportional to the Tejas's progress.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2011 13:14 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33288
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
boo woo ha ha. good.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4000 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 96, 97, 98, 99, 100

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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