Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 29 Dec 2014 09:19

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4018 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 00:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
raghuk, do you know what is the status of LSP-7? Is there a possibility of it flying in the next couple of months. I am rather more interested in seeing the AF version get closer to induction quickly than the Naval version. The navy already made it clear that only the naval version of the MK2 will be inducted. The NP-1 and it's brothers will only be used for solving the technical challenges in developing a naval fighter so that the Mk2 naval version development would be smooth. In any case with 45 Mig-29Ks coming in, the navy is not going to be short of aircraft anytime soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 00:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
Badar wrote:

Vikki is covered by MiG-29K. IAC2 will require something better than nLCA. This leaves Viraat as the likeliest carrier whose primary armament would be nLCA. It is interesting to note that Fulcrum purchase is sufficient to cover both Vikki and Viraat needs.

I highly doubt the Viraat will ever host the NLCA or any other aircraft besides the Harrier. It is up for retirement as soon as the Vikramaditya is operationalized and what's left of the Harriers will serve till then.

The NLCA will most likely serve on the IAC1/2. It's smaller size may enable them to carry more aircraft. They might carry a mix of NLCAs and whatever other aircraft that the navy decides to buy, if it does. The NLCA can take care of fleet air defense while the larger aircraft can be used for anti-shipping and land attack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 00:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 410
nachiket wrote:
I highly doubt the Viraat will ever host the NLCA or any other aircraft besides the Harrier. It is up for retirement as soon as the Vikramaditya is operationalized and what's left of the Harriers will serve till then.

I meant Vikrant not Viraat. Corrected it above as well.

Quote:
The NLCA will most likely serve on the IAC1/2. It's smaller size may enable them to carry more aircraft. They might carry a mix of NLCAs and whatever other aircraft that the navy decides to buy, if it does. The NLCA can take care of fleet air defense while the larger aircraft can be used for anti-shipping and land attack

Yep, nLCA could be used to flesh out the numbers a bit. I am just not sure how much sense it would be to have air group of two different types in small numbers. I wonder if the tradeoff of a few addition wings against additional complexity is worthwhile.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 02:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2644
merlin wrote:
raghuk wrote:
weaponized trainer!


So this is completely new! There never was a PV-6 AFAIK.


There was. But it wasn't known that this would be another twin-seater that would be used for weaponisation trials of the twin seat trainer.

PS Subramanyam interview from F mag

Quote:
What is the current status of the LCA programme?
We have developed 2 technology demonstrators TD-1 and TD-2; we have the four prototypes PV-1, PV-2, PV-3 and PV-4. The Limited Series Production aircraft ranging from LSP-1 to LSP-4 are all flying. TD-1, TD-2 and PV-1 have now become outdated and are used for ground testing or testing of equipment that needs to be developed for the Tejas. All the aircraft from PV-2 onwards are participating in the flying test campaign. LSP-5 is currently the final ‘Standard of Preparation’ that we will deliver to the Indian Air Force (IAF) and this aircraft is expected to fly this month. LSP-6 and LSP-7 will follow and have been earmarked for the user evaluation by pilots belonging to the Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment (ASTE).

Both the IAF and the Indian Navy have committed some money for the Tejas Mk-2 which will be equipped with a higher performing engine. We now have a concurrent programme to develop the Tejas Mk-2 version for the IAF and the Indian Navy. The PV-5 which is a trainer version of the Tejas’ is flying and another aircraft PV-6 is expected to fly by the end of this year. The maiden flight of the Tejas Mk-2 is expected to take place in December 2014 and production will begin in December 2016.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 03:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11381
Location: India
It s going to be a very long time before the NLAC will serve aboard an IN carrier.In the "hot and high" environment and stringent launch and recovery systems of STOBAR carrier ops,the NLCA will need a more powerful engine than the IAF version,to be able to carry a useful load of ordnance with sufficient range and endurance as well. One cannot see an IOC date before 2017/18 at the earliest,if at all and there was one report which said "2020" would be the date of induction! We already have the MIG-29K in service (for sceptics) ahead of the arrival of the Gorky and totally a figure of about 50 on order to equip the Gorcky and IAC-1.Upgraded versons of these are bound to appear with the next lot,if the IN after operating them finds them fitting the bill.By 2020 also,the naval variant of the FGFA will hopefully also be available.At that time,who will want a 20 yr.old design in the form of the NLCA? Its delayed arrival hs and will accelerate its diluted relevance and as the years pass,increase its obsolescence.

The AURA programme,if envisioned to have a naval aspect also,similar to the USN's X-47B,will revolutionise IN carrier warfare if and when it arrives.many moons ago I mentioned that using the LCA's experience,we should develop a UCAV version out of it.One hopes that something similar is being done with the AURA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 03:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
Philip wrote:
It s going to be a very long time before the NLAC will serve aboard an IN carrier.In the "hot and high" environment and stringent launch and recovery systems of STOBAR carrier ops,the NLCA will need a more powerful engine than the IAF version,to be able to carry a useful load of ordnance with sufficient range and endurance as well.

Hot and High means High temperature an High Altitude. How can a carrier at sea level be at "high" altitude?

The runway is small obviously, but the Navy is going to induct the Mk2 version only. The F414 should provide adequate power to the Mk2 Naval version to enable it to undertake unassisted takeoffs from carriers, unless the Mk2 is significantly heavier than the Mk1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 07:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11393
Location: Revive Sanskrit
nachiket wrote:
Hot and High means High temperature an High Altitude. How can a carrier at sea level be at "high" altitude?


My, my. Picky .........................

The ramp is 'high' above a leveled sea. And, if you really want it 'high' then base it in the land of the fair: Russia. Surely you will agree that Russia is WAY above IO.

Anyways, ............................................

nLCA, no matter what even the CNS says, the IN cannot drop this ball. Granted statements have been rather misleading, but, like the other LCA this is going places. IMHO of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 10:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Posts: 841
Location: India
The difference between LCA and NLCA is something like the difference between civilian nuclear power reactors and submarine nuclear reactors. It is more complex and room for manoeuvre is less.

As regards power, it will use the engine used for LCA MKII and any shortage still will have to be compensated with a lower weapon load


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 10:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
raghuk wrote:
An MMR, stations wired for missiles and other weapons, EW suite, in all its like a twin seat LSP-4


Hi, Can you tell us something about LSP-6?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 11:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2155
Location: NullPointerException
Kartik wrote:
merlin wrote:

So this is completely new! There never was a PV-6 AFAIK.


There was. But it wasn't known that this would be another twin-seater that would be used for weaponisation trials of the twin seat trainer.

PS Subramanyam interview from F mag

Quote:
What is the current status of the LCA programme?
We have developed 2 technology demonstrators TD-1 and TD-2; we have the four prototypes PV-1, PV-2, PV-3 and PV-4. The Limited Series Production aircraft ranging from LSP-1 to LSP-4 are all flying. TD-1, TD-2 and PV-1 have now become outdated and are used for ground testing or testing of equipment that needs to be developed for the Tejas. All the aircraft from PV-2 onwards are participating in the flying test campaign. LSP-5 is currently the final ‘Standard of Preparation’ that we will deliver to the Indian Air Force (IAF) and this aircraft is expected to fly this month. LSP-6 and LSP-7 will follow and have been earmarked for the user evaluation by pilots belonging to the Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment (ASTE).

Both the IAF and the Indian Navy have committed some money for the Tejas Mk-2 which will be equipped with a higher performing engine. We now have a concurrent programme to develop the Tejas Mk-2 version for the IAF and the Indian Navy. The PV-5 which is a trainer version of the Tejas’ is flying and another aircraft PV-6 is expected to fly by the end of this year. The maiden flight of the Tejas Mk-2 is expected to take place in December 2014 and production will begin in December 2016.


Thanks! I missed that somehow.

ADA will have a nice set of aircraft to test technologies on once serial productions start for the IAF and Mk1 development is considered complete.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 11:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11381
Location: India
He!He! I enjoyed those missiles,I guess quite a few of us are at a "high" alt. indeed! Someone once asked me what weed I was puffing.

NR,Nachi,The "high" point of my post was the relative inferiority of the NLCA when compared with Chinese naval Flankers (which it will confront when operating in the Indo-China Sea) which have a service ceiling of supposedly 18,000m,as opposed to the LCA at 16,000m.The LCA in current form with its underpowered engine is going to be no match when confronted with a Flanker which outperforms it almost in every aspect .Taking of from a carrier STOBAR style puts added limitations to its performance.If the aircraft was available to be inducted within a couple of years ,it would be worthwhile given the fact that the carriers too are delayed in arrival.Looking at the new aircraft under development by our principal enemy,by the end of the decade,the IN I'm sure would want something far more potent than an NLCA.Even the MIG-29K by 2020 will need to have a more capable sister naval fighter,preferably of the stealth variety.

Having sunk in 900 crores into the project,the IN certainly wants its pound of flesh,but it may have to like the IAF,wait and wait and wait,until the NLCA is perfected. Looking at the amount of differences between the two variants,I am not that optimistic.It would require herculean task to accelerate dev. of the NLCA to meet a cut-off date/timelines after which its relevance reduces by the day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 12:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2536
Tech leap to future naval aircraft projects with LCA Navy on 'countdown' mode - tarmak update


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 12:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Posts: 4440
Location: Blue dot in a red sea
Philip saar,

I think Mao in the aero india lecture/talk said that it might be an underweight baby but its our baby, or something of that nature. Also, they believe that while the NLCA isn't what they want now, they're backing the program to get what they want in future. A medium weight bird, built from the ground up with IN involvement. Something of a N-MCA. That is their final target and the nlca is just a stepping stone. Very good thinking acc to me. So no point cribbing about lca vs flanker atm. Yes, its a problem and i'm sure they see it too. Do we have a choice?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 12:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Sep 2011 02:13
Posts: 267
@Philip: nice posts, but the LCA MK I is never going to be operational from a carrier, it is the MK II that would be in service. The NP I is a test vehicle and a trainer so it is just to verify the suitability of carrier operations and iron out issues. The more powerful GE F414 engines haven't arrived yet (as per my knowledge, I may be wrong), so the development of naval variant can't stop. The LCA MK II would be a capable aircraft (lets just hope there are no big delays) and would be an even match if not better than the Chinese types.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 13:06 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 01 Aug 2009 13:27
Posts: 71
Location: Hyderabad, India
Cain Marko wrote:
No lynching - it is a fair opinion, and I happen to agree with it.
[RANT ON]I can understand the IAF wanted something smallish as a MiG-21 replacement and so they went with the LCA "smallest/lightest" goal. But what constrains the Navy from going slightly bigger? I would hardly be surprised if this is just the start of their problems for NLCA. It is hard enough to build an LCA for the IAF, and now we want to do the same for naval ops, that too STOBAR ops! Effin' nuts - is it any wonder that almost every CV operating today has twin engined fighters barring the Shar? And no, please don't cite the JSF- they are having problems enough - not to mention it is being developed by those who have a century's worth of experience in making fighters, not to mention it operates with CATs. Twin engined a/c are good not only in terms of safety but also tend to provide greater thrust - a critical requirement for STOBAR ops. This bird is going to need some v.serious power and fuel fraction. Even if they get the F414, it is going to be damned tight - perhaps they will use the EPE? What will that mean in terms of intake redesign?

NO, imvho - the development for the NLCA should've been around a twin engined design - start testing out with two GE-404s or even RD33s, and later progress to Kaveris. Something stable and known. Use the experience gained via the Mig-29K development in which the IN was such an integral part.

I think the IN is just as much to blame as the ADA in this - it wasn't just the ADA that wanted "lightest/greatest" this time - the IN too seemed all for it knowing fully well that by pushing for a tiny single engined bird, you are completely bucking the trend. The CNS can complain all he wants, but perhaps he should have complained a LOT earlier.

Sorry if I come across as cynical about the LCA - don't have much confidence in this. It was/is hard enough to get a decently powered landbased LCA for the IAF, and now they keep the same constraints where power is even more critical. Let us see...[/RANT OFF]

All right Cain... i will take your bait...
1. LCA size for NLCA... there is no way that ADA could have designed a new airframe (larger size) for the NLCA.. there just was'nt enough design manpower to design a new a/c and test it in the time frame available. as you can see even the LCA has slipped schedule for so many years, who would have supported a new a/c design just for a small navy requirement.

2. The double engine requirement was essential earlier due to the low operational reliability of the jet engines of the day, the new engines like the current gen F404/414 are orders of magnitude more reliable than the older ones. as far as engine reliability goes, i am not sure if you are aware, the IN or the RN has never lost a sea harrier due to an engine failure over the sea till now. Yes losses were sustained due to other reasons, but not due to engine failures. The famous one on the beach was due to the pilots failure to adjust the nozzle position.

As far as the question of Rafale goes (not raised by you CM), this seems to repeat every now and then, the Rafale needs a catapult, which we don't have nor does France or Russia, the only country that has the catapult tech is the USA and they are not willing to share it. this was the biggest reason why we went with the Mig and the ski jump carriers. And yes, i know that the Vikrant had a Cat originally, this was used for much lighter a/c like the sea hawks and we never had the design for this in any case. Even the UK which originally pioneered the CAT tech has to buy one from the US now for the use with their carriers as they moved away from the F35B.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 13:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26
Posts: 616
suryag wrote:

Quote:
Sources say that in horizontal direction, the arrested shock recovery produces axial loads on aircraft structure of the tune of 4.5 g, calling for re-certification of all line replacement units (LRUs), components and associated systems of naval version to ensure fail safe operation repeatedly.


Quote:
. The testing and certification of unique design features for LCA Navy called for systematic plan of action to create new test facilities and deep study of certification philosophy.

Quote:
The ADA has designed and fabricated various types of simulators, including engineer-in-loop, real-time software development and maintenance. The shore-based test facility (SBTF) at Goa with ski-jump launch and arrested recovery similar to aircraft carrier is ready. The arrester hook test facility, LEVCON test rig and landing gear drop test rig are also developed in-house.


An excellent article. These snippets are proof that a lot of hard work went into making NLCA and that too in half the time India took to achieve IAF version of LCA.

That's why its important to research and increase India's tech capabilities. You cannot be a superpower by buying weapons from abroad.

This is the kind of reporting which is required. Just makes you feel proud of who we are :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 16:06 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 24 Jul 2008 15:24
Posts: 24
is this true?
http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/13042


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 16:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2536
yes and old news
http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/12/low-intensity-explosion-at-cabs.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2012 23:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1439
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
vcsekhar wrote:
All right Cain... i will take your bait...
1. LCA size for NLCA... there is no way that ADA could have designed a new airframe (larger size) for the NLCA.. there just was'nt enough design manpower to design a new a/c and test it in the time frame available. as you can see even the LCA has slipped schedule for so many years, who would have supported a new a/c design just for a small navy requirement.

2. The double engine requirement was essential earlier due to the low operational reliability of the jet engines of the day, the new engines like the current gen F404/414 are orders of magnitude more reliable than the older ones. as far as engine reliability goes, i am not sure if you are aware, the IN or the RN has never lost a sea harrier due to an engine failure over the sea till now. Yes losses were sustained due to other reasons, but not due to engine failures. The famous one on the beach was due to the pilots failure to adjust the nozzle position.

As far as the question of Rafale goes (not raised by you CM), this seems to repeat every now and then, the Rafale needs a catapult, which we don't have nor does France or Russia, the only country that has the catapult tech is the USA and they are not willing to share it. this was the biggest reason why we went with the Mig and the ski jump carriers. And yes, i know that the Vikrant had a Cat originally, this was used for much lighter a/c like the sea hawks and we never had the design for this in any case. Even the UK which originally pioneered the CAT tech has to buy one from the US now for the use with their carriers as they moved away from the F35B.


Not trying to bait anyone Sekhar. But I beg to differ:

1) Yes design from scratch will take longer - but then NLCA itself is not happening anytime super quickly. Actually this is precisely the point - the NLCA required/requires tremendous redesign, the sort of work that has been terribly underestimated if we are to go by previous reports. And I will be really surprised if they get anything before 2018. If you have to do so much work any way, the time frame becomes meaningless, might as well start afresh. Second, the IN lost the opportunity to be the prime movers on AMCA imho - in fact PS had stated that it would've been a lot better had they started out with the naval variant first instead of the AF variant for the LCA. Since $$s will be reqd. for both NLCA and AMCA, why not start with IN variant first here?

2) Irrespective of the solitary example of the SHAR, which is a STOVL bird anyway, the norm for fighters on board carriers is twin engine. Nobody is talking about reliability of engines perse; by itself this issue might have been largely mitigated, but in the context of naval ops it would always help to have two engines. Still further, there is a crucial need for high TWR on STOBAR carriers - and I don't see a single engined bird doing this unless you want to use WW II vintage a/c. Btw, many Shars have been lost to engine failure, if not during IN service, definitely with the RN. There is also the issue of bird strikes, where twin engines provide greater safety. I think NLCA problems are still to begin. Let us hope the F414 does the trick and that they can keep the weight down to manageable levels after reinforcing the frame.

3) Even though the last point was not directed at me, I'd like to point out that the Rafale was evaluated for STOBAR ops by the IN, and was not found wanting on technical reasons. Just too expensive iirc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 04:19 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 05 Aug 2008 14:19
Posts: 37
Location: du weldenwarden
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/226 ... ge-99.html

I did not realize this was still outstanding. I thought all these formalities were already over. I don't have a link to hand now, but I remember reading earlier that it was planned for the first set of engines to be available before end 2012 to enable integration into the airframe and therefore first flight of Mk2 by 2014. Eagerly waiting for confirmation that this remains the case. Can someone please confirm or has there already been news to the contrary that I missed? Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 06:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2536
My "realistic" wishlist for 2012

1. LSP7 flying by end of Feb
2. LSP8 flying by end of March
3. LSP7/8 having capabilities to fire radar guided R-73, LGBs, Counter measures, AoA of 24deg, fully integrated Auto pilot, day/night all weather capability, wake penetration issues resolved, HMS guided missile cuing, cannon firing, ability to withstand G forces of 8/-3
4. fully functional PV5 trainer
5. LSP 4/5 upgraded to LSP 7/8 capabilities - August
6. field a fleet of 4 LCAs in bangalore and full exercising of these birds by ASTE
7. Exercises between M2k and the ASTE LCAs
8. full integration of R-77 on an LSP aircraft by Dec
9. SP1-4 delivered by Dec
10. Two Airframes of MK2 completed. One ground tested with current 404IN20 by year end and the other awaiting the 414 on ground - since the FADEC and other engine controls are is going to be very similar this might be possible
11. Reduced radar signature for LSPs and SP
12. PV1 with EW suite integrated and demo'ed to the IAF at Gwalior
13. weight reduction exercise via subsystem weight reduction(those huge rugged PCBs can be replaced by newer ones) and newer LRUs and newer truss with lighter high strength alloys and lighter/stronger composite skin. Gurus does LCA have a metallic truss ?
14. Datalink/networked capabilities onLSP7/8 by year end
15. Installation of improved LCA simulators in ASTE for pilot training
16. Air-Air refuelling capability on LSP
17. Today's Kaveri integrated first flight of PV
18. Offer to vietnam to co-develop systems on MK2 and production line setup there on orders
19. Spin recovery chute integrated LSP6 first flight
20. NP1 first flight by february and making arrested landing at SBTF INS Hansa by year end
21 IAF chief Browne going ga-ga about the Tejas

If wishes were horses then I would ride !!sigh!!
Let us see how many in the above list are accomplished. Hope to see AI 2013 where LCA Tejas takes off and goes as vertical as possible


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 07:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31
Posts: 1753
adarshp wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/226444/india-finalises-contract-ge-99.html


From the above link:

Quote:
Two other important issues that were dealt with by the committee were, GE wanted India to sign the deal with one of its subsidiaries and not with it, citing various reasons and GE wanted India to agree to pay liabilities in case the IAF used aircraft powered by these engines to carry nuclear weapons and in case that crashed in Pakistan.

India was not keen on both the propositions. “...We had cleared the engine that was proposed by GE and not any of its subsidiaries for us to consider that.We wanted the company which responded to the RFP to be responsible,” a source from ADA said, adding that GE has been conviced to even drop the clause that requires us to pay liabilities.

The decision to finalise the contract, sources said, was taken in a meeting held on January 22 and that the MoD is waiting for an occassion to announce the same.

When the deal comes through, which sources said is very likely to be cleared by the CCS, GE would ship 18 engines that could be straight away used and the remaining will be manufactured by HAL as it gets versed with the required technology, besides, GE will also help India integrate the engine with the airframe of the LCA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 07:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1439
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
adarshp wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/226444/india-finalises-contract-ge-99.html

I did not realize this was still outstanding. I thought all these formalities were already over. I don't have a link to hand now, but I remember reading earlier that it was planned for the first set of engines to be available before end 2012 to enable integration into the airframe and therefore first flight of Mk2 by 2014. Eagerly waiting for confirmation that this remains the case. Can someone please confirm or has there already been news to the contrary that I missed? Thanks!


Interesting indeed. They were just sitting on it all this time - no wonder the poor Tejas has become late in coming aircraft! GE has some gall (no brainer then that the f-18/16 were ditched for the MRCA):

Quote:
Two other important issues that were dealt with by the committee were, GE wanted India to sign the deal with one of its subsidiaries and not with it, citing various reasons and GE wanted India to agree to pay liabilities in case the IAF used aircraft powered by these engines to carry nuclear weapons and in case that crashed in Pakistan.


I say abhi der nahi hui - ditch GE, aim for Snecma Kaveri (9 ton engines) on every batch after the initial 40 that are being powered by the IN20s. Trim the LCA a bit - and let the mk2 be without IFR (its range as it is, is rather good). :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 07:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2536
CM ji on one hand you crib about the wasted time and now you are asking for Snecma Kaveri to be made the mainstay for MK2 wouldnt that mean an additional delay ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 07:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11393
Location: Revive Sanskrit
GE engine nego took 15 months!!!!!

France expects the Rafale deal to take six months?

IF we ditch GE ................................

When are the 18 GE engines supposed to come?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 10:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11381
Location: India
Add the cost of cats as well,($800m) per carrier according to some UK estimates.Just for the record,whatever happened to the Vikrant's cats?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 11:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1439
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
suryag wrote:
CM ji on one hand you crib about the wasted time and now you are asking for Snecma Kaveri to be made the mainstay for MK2 wouldnt that mean an additional delay ?


Not if (and I know if it is a BIG if) they keep the LCA modest and slim - no better than a M2k-5 sensor/avionics wise, and without the ability to carry as much. Sort of Gripen A or just stick to Mk1 standards. MMR, Derby/Astra BVRAAM and R73/Python SRAAM with the Dash V kit.

What that means is that we can have a finalized version of the LCA by mid 2013 - use the initial 40 GE engines to power at least 1-2 sqds, and by the time these are brought online (2016-17?), get the Kaveri 9 ton version working with the help of Snecma (in a worst case scenario, if the kaveri with the Snecma core is not ready, use the M88.4). Yes, the bird probly won't be as capable as a 414 powered version, but it'll be good enough to be ordered in large numbers and form the inexpensive base for the IAF.

This might actually be a faster route considering that the currently planned mk2 version is hardly off the ground as yet, and will require pretty distinct structural changes to get it up and running - I think AM Rajkumar had mentioned making the mk2 entailed at least a 25% change from the mk1, and the bird would optimistically operational only by 2018-20.

With a smaller engine, pumping just about 90kN, the current LCA mk1 might not need as many changes and be ready faster. The aims should be modest - slightly lighter (~ 6000kg) and some increase in thrust over the IN20. Perhaps the IAF may have to compromise on some parameters such as payload, but this might work as a low end fighter that can be ordered in bulk.

IIRC, the F-404 was replaced by the M88 on the Rafale, so the French might have some experience and their consultancy could be used. But seriously, the US vendor's shenanigans do not inspire confidence. What if they decide on sanctioning the F414 in 2015, its a risk that cant be risked if the program has to be taken forward.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 11:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 410
Quote:
Cain Marko wrote:
GE wanted India to agree to pay liabilities in case the IAF used aircraft powered by these engines to carry nuclear weapons and in case that crashed in Pakistan.


I say abhi der nahi hui - ditch GE, aim for Snecma Kaveri (9 ton engines) on every batch after the initial 40 that are being powered by the IN20s. Trim the LCA a bit - and let the mk2 be without IFR (its range as it is, is rather good). :evil:

Defense business with US is rife with all this and more. Their defense trade is setup on a base of predatory legislation. India has to consider the US as the seller of last resort, approached only when all other alternatives have proved to be unpleasant or nonviable. There are plenty of other places in which to foster close relations with the US. Defense in not amongst them.

Quote:
me experience and their consultancy could be used. But seriously, the US vendor's shenanigans do not inspire confidence. What if they decide on sanctioning the F414 in 2015, its a risk that cant be risked if the program has to be taken forward.

Sanction is a drastic case. What about the routine change of rules that impact our development time lines. Remember the Shivalik case?


Last edited by Badar on 12 Feb 2012 11:58, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 11:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1439
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
^^ What I don't get is why they keep going to the US time after time, jhatka after chatka! That too for a program that so critical to self sufficiency. Its like the LCA decisionmakers have some serious victim mentality/addiction and can't get out of an abusive relationship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 12:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1439
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
suryag wrote:
My "realistic" wishlist for 2012
3. LSP7/8 having capabilities to fire radar guided R-73, LGBs, Counter measures, AoA of 24deg, fully integrated Auto pilot, day/night all weather capability, wake penetration issues resolved, HMS guided missile cuing, cannon firing, ability to withstand G forces of 8/-3


Not happening I think. iirc, LSP 7 is to be used for further envelope expansion so AoA of 24 deg+ will be achieved wonlee after bird is built!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 12:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
Cain Marko wrote:
Not happening I think. iirc, LSP 7 is to be used for further envelope expansion so AoA of 24 deg+ will be achieved wonlee after bird is built!

That is LSP-6.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 12:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2536
IIRC the current achieved AoA is 22deg. PS in an interview said they can open to 24deg with the current set of LSPs. LSP6 will be used to open it beyond 24deg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 12:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Posts: 464
Location: Troposphere
Cain Marko wrote:
suryag wrote:
My "realistic" wishlist for 2012
3. LSP7/8 having capabilities to fire radar guided R-73, LGBs, Counter measures, AoA of 24deg, fully integrated Auto pilot, day/night all weather capability, wake penetration issues resolved, HMS guided missile cuing, cannon firing, ability to withstand G forces of 8/-3

Not happening I think. iirc, LSP 7 is to be used for further envelope expansion so AoA of 24 deg+ will be achieved wonlee after bird is built!


LSP7/8 are meant for IAF pilots to fly and form doctrines before the Sp's arrive.

How exactly does a radar guide a IR missile ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 12:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1439
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
THanks Gurneesh and Nachiket, was under the impression that lsp 7 was set for flight envelope expansion. Btw, I thought LSP 6 was the trainer?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 12:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2536
Gurneesh ji - from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_homing

Quote:
Rather, the pilot or operator points the seeker at the target using radar, a helmet-mounted sight, an optical sight or possibly by pointing the nose of the aircraft or missile launcher directly at the target. Once the seeker sees and recognises the target, it indicates this to the operator who then typically "uncages" the seeker (which is allowed to follow the target).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 20:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Posts: 464
Location: Troposphere
^^^ Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2012 23:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 410
Gurneesh, For longer ranged missiles (like variants of Mica or R-27) the radar might be needed to setup a shot or to provide MCU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2012 02:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2536
I hope with the Gripen NG not making the cut it remains a prototype and fades away, Tejas MK2 should be marketed heavily for all f-16/mig21 replacements and mainly to Vietnam


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2012 06:13 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3115
Raghu,

I had a long pending question about the LCA. I would be very grateful if you or your ex-roommate could answer it. Obviously avoid replying if the answer is classified in any manner.

Observation:
While there is beautiful blending of the wing with the fuselage on the upper side, the lower side of the wing is completely at right angles to the body. The MK II models displayed at AI-11 did not show any lower-wing-body blending.

The advantages of the wing body blending with respect to lower drag and RCS is well known. Also the wing body blending should provide space for the main landing gear and hence free up more internal space.

Question:
Is the lower wing body blending being avoided in order to stick to timelines or is there some aerodynamic/structural reason(s)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2012 06:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23845
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Badar wrote:
Gurneesh, For longer ranged missiles (like variants of Mica or R-27) the radar might be needed to setup a shot or to provide MCU.


I think there are two types of missiles. - LOBL (Lock on before launch) and LOAL (Lock on after launch). Some do both, like Mica. The old K-13 had to have the MiG 21 pointed at the target and the missile head had to lock on before launch. Other missiles can have their seekers slaved to the HMS to lock on before launch. But some newer missiles have a lock on after launch capability where the missile is launched on the basis of target detection by some other entity, uses inertial guidance initially, and is given mid course updates/guidance but finally locks on to the target using IR (or something else) on its own for terminal guidance. A Vayu article listed which does which. This is a very informative keeper of an article.

http://www.vayuaerospace.in/images1/M-M ... ssiles.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4018 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 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