Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 26 May 2013 14:22

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 ... 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2012 21:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 17550
Location: NowHere
what you both have to understand is one can't stand separate to the other. one is required to support the other. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2012 22:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1071
prabhug wrote:
My feeling was IAF wanted a lot of missile types which can be seamlessly mounted on all it aircraft.The missile would be chosen during the mission.This would be the surprise package every indian plane is going to carry.I am waiting for the day where Indian plane would carry two pythons and two r77 and two meteor.Damn it will make all our enemy sh.t in pants.


It will also make IAF logistics team s%$t in their pants !!! I look forward to the day we have TWO AAMs, one a WVR short range IR and another a BVR active radar homing. One MICA with both would be really good

K


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2012 23:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 323
Kersi D wrote:

It will also make IAF logistics team s%$t in their pants !!! I look forward to the day we have TWO AAMs, one a WVR short range IR and another a BVR active radar homing. One MICA with both would be really good

K


I would say astra-MkI(50 km at certain altitude) should be made as mica, mean in both version one in IR and another in Radio seeker. Both of them should have dual-mode guidance.so that IR version can be used as BVR. and if needed its IR seeker can help in WVR range. It might overkill at WVR range.but might solve logistic issue.

MkII(>100KM) version should be a long range BVR like meteor or AMRAAM (C-D).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 03:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2568
Navy's Tejas fighter revs for take-off.

The Indian Navy has signalled strong support to the naval version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), even before the indigenous fighter makes its first flight next month. In New Delhi, on Wednesday, the defence ministry’s apex Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) sanctioned the building of eight Naval LCA aircraft by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

“The eight fighters will be a mix of single-seat fighters and twin-seat trainers. The money for these has also been allocated,” says a senior Ministry of Defence official who was at the DAC meeting.

The Rs 3,650 crore Naval LCA programme was sanctioned in March 2003. Two prototypes are almost complete, the first a twin-seat trainer and the second a single-seat fighter. The eight fighters sanctioned on Wednesday are “Limited Series Production” or LSP fighters. These will be used for flight-testing, a painstaking process that could last two years or more. Once flight-testing is completed, HAL will establish a full-scale production line.

The Naval LCA is a crucial cog in the navy’s expansion and, therefore, in India’s increasingly visible maritime strategy. It is designed to fly from an aircraft carrier, a floating airfield that can project Indian power across the oceans. India has already bought Russian MiG-29K medium fighters to equip the INS Vikramaditya (formerly the Gorshkov) an aircraft carrier acquired from Russia. But another two (and possibly three) indigenous Vikrant-class aircraft carriers being built at Cochin Shipyard Ltd will field the Naval LCA, along with a medium fighter.

With the first of these, INS Vikrant, at an advanced stage of construction in Kochi, the navy is keen that development of the Naval LCA proceeds alongside. Earlier this month, the normally soft-spoken navy chief, Admiral Nirmal Verma, publicly criticised the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA oversees the LCA programme) for placing the Naval LCA programme on the back burner, while focusing on the air force version of the Tejas.

The admiral’s words have goaded HAL into action. Business Standard has been told that the Naval LCA will take to the air in March, a landmark event for the navy.

“The Naval LCA will definitely fly in March. We are doing ground runs and starting low-speed taxi trials, in which the fighter rolls on the runway under its own power. Then we will do some high-speed taxi trials, in which the fighter will accelerate to take-off speed; but when its nose lifts off the ground, we will slow down without actually taking off. Only after that will the first flight actually take place,” says PV Deshmukh, HAL’s officiating CMD.

The Rs 10,397 crore air force Tejas project has obtained initial operational clearance (IOC), and will soon join the IAF’s fleet. But the Naval Tejas presents additional design challenges, such as being able to take off from an aircraft carrier’s ski-jump after accelerating for just 200 metres. Even more challenging are repeated carrier deck landings, in which a hook on the aircraft snags on an “arrestor cable” on the deck, forcing the aircraft to a standstill in just 90 metres. These landings, in which the fighter slams into the carrier deck at more than 7 metres per second, are often described as “controlled crashes.”

The navy and ADA will extensively test the Naval LCA on land before venturing onto an aircraft carrier at sea. A Shore-Based Test Facility (SBTF) has been created in Goa, which replicates the dimensions and conditions of a carrier deck, including the arrestor and gear that brings the aircraft to a quick halt; and the optical landing system that allows the pilot to “aim” his fighter at the arrestor wire spread out on the carrier deck. After extensive SBTF testing, the Naval LCA will face the crucial challenge of landing and taking off from an actual aircraft carrier.

The navy’s two prototypes and eight LSP fighters will be powered by General Electric GE F-404 engines. Meanwhile, ADA has selected the more advanced and powerful GE F-414 engine for the LCA Mark II. This engine will also power future Naval LCAs. With 15 per cent more thrust, the GE F-414 will be useful in taking off from an aircraft carrier deck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 03:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2231
again "next month" comes up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 06:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26
Posts: 480
suryag wrote:
again "next month" comes up


Tomorrow never dies my friend, but their promises do :oops:. Last time Ananth reported flight was just a few weeks off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 06:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 234
Location: On the sofa.
Vipul wrote:

“The Naval LCA will definitely fly in March. ......,” says PV Deshmukh, HAL’s officiating CMD.



I will believe it when I see it. Way too many deadlines passed for jingos. :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 10:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 1314
Vipul wrote:
Navy's Tejas fighter revs for take-off.

The Indian Navy has signalled strong support to the naval version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), even before the indigenous fighter makes its first flight next month. In New Delhi, on Wednesday, the defence ministry’s apex Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) sanctioned the building of eight Naval LCA aircraft by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

The eight fighters will be a mix of single-seat fighters and twin-seat trainers. The money for these has also been allocated,” says a senior Ministry of Defence official who was at the DAC meeting.

The Rs 3,650 crore Naval LCA programme was sanctioned in March 2003. Two prototypes are almost complete, the first a twin-seat trainer and the second a single-seat fighter. The eight fighters sanctioned on Wednesday are “Limited Series Production” or LSP fighters.

The navy’s two prototypes and eight LSP fighters will be powered by General Electric GE F-404 engines. Meanwhile, ADA has selected the more advanced and powerful GE F-414 engine for the LCA Mark II. This engine will also power future Naval LCAs. With 15 per cent more thrust, the GE F-414 will be useful in taking off from an aircraft carrier deck.



This shows LCA is giving a chance to ADA by ordering a few mark-1 itself. The only thing missing is the time period, as to when they will be delivered. Further I think that for Naval LCA mark-2 they should go with GE 414EPE engine of 120kn rather than 98kn engine of IAF Mark-2 as the timeline available for Naval LCA may be longer.

This brings confirmed LCA orders to :-

IAF Mark1 = 2TD+5PV+8LSP+20+20=55
IAF Mark2=2(?)
Naval Mark1=2+8=10
Naval Mark2=2(?)

Total=69, which is bigger than our Mirage 2000 fleet or Pakistan F-16 fleet


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 12:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 1454
Location: NullPointerException
I can't understand why they want a full battery of flight testing for the newly sanctioned Naval Tejas LSPs. If the future is the Mk 2 powered by a higher thrust 414s and Mk 2 will be different aerodynamically then why not build and test those?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 13:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 410
Kersi D wrote:
prabhug wrote:
I am waiting for the day where Indian plane would carry two pythons and two r77 and two meteor.
It will also make IAF logistics team s%$t in their pants !!! I look forward to the day we have TWO AAMs, one a WVR short range IR and another a BVR active radar homing. One MICA with both would be really good

One upping everybody else :D : I look forward to the day when we have a single multi-spectral seeker on all AAMs. ARH/PRH for closing in and an imaging multicolor IR/Optical seeker for the endgame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 13:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9192
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
any aircraft programme must have a huge amount of testing - safety is the most critical objective


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 13:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 234
Location: On the sofa.
That doesnt make much sense. Cant see why they would make 8 Mk.1 LSP when they will never land on a carrier. Perhaps its a typo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 13:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Posts: 943
Location: USA
vic wrote:
IAF Mark1 = 2TD+5PV+8LSP+20+20=55IAF Mark2=2(?)Naval Mark1=2+8=10Naval Mark2=2(?)Total=69, which is bigger than our Mirage 2000 fleet or Pakistan F-16 fleet

Correct.
And thats why IAF is so keen to get it right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 14:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6200
Nick_S wrote:
That doesnt make much sense. Cant see why they would make 8 Mk.1 LSP when they will never land on a carrier. Perhaps its a typo.


To gain knowledge and given our geography, land based fighters are very useful for fleet defense and knocking out of enemy surface targets. Right now the responsiblity of the IAF, these would allow IAF to use its assets for other priorities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 15:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9192
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
i can envisage air defense of andaman-nicobar chain given over to shore based naval aircraft, plus second layer of air defense around west coast, plus take over maritime strike from IAF, plus provide air cover for the fleet(s) from shore to extend the safe zone around our carriers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 15:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6200
Plus Air defence in the Arabian sea from bases in Gujarat, Mumbai area and leave IAF assets to tackle the Paf.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 16:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Posts: 6131
Location: All-forgiving now since "Katju hat on"
How about just training requirements? For 80 odd pilots, what would be the number required?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 17:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Posts: 943
Location: USA
Lalmohan wrote:
i can envisage air defense of andaman-nicobar chain given over to shore based naval aircraft, plus second layer of air defense around west coast, plus take over maritime strike from IAF, plus provide air cover for the fleet(s) from shore to extend the safe zone around our carriers

I don't see any advantage in NLCA taking the role IM Jaguar.
Is there?
Is there any buddy refueling system in the pipe for LCA/nLCA?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 17:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12
Posts: 1507
koti wrote:
I don't see any advantage in NLCA taking the role IM Jaguar.
Is there?


1. MiI
2. More capable in air defence role
3. More opportunities to fight the real battle :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 17:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 1454
Location: NullPointerException
Lalmohan wrote:
any aircraft programme must have a huge amount of testing - safety is the most critical objective


Thanks for stating the obvious :roll:

If NLCA Mk 1 is not the future for IN, why just build 8 LSP? If Mk 2 has different aerodynamics then you need to test the complete envelope anyway, why do the complete envelope testing for just 8 Mk 1 LSP? Just abandon that and go the full Mk 2 route for NLCA and concentrate all testing resources on that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 17:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31
Posts: 918
Re: 8 LSPs of NLCA, the answers can perhaps be found in the last few comments in this thread.

Structural changes (LERX,etc ) will require non-trivial changes to FCS. This in-turn may require it to be requalified for weapons mix.

- If NLCA is going to take over Jaguar-IM role then it will need to be qualified with all those armaments. I don't IAF is going to qualify it's aircraft for marine role in a hurry.
- If they intend to add specific radar modes over sea, then that needs to be qualified as well.
- Datalinks to surface assets and other air assets with IN.
- Someone mentioned buddy refueling pods.

Still, it is likely that Naval LSPs will not progress as slowly as IAF ones and could be in the hands of naval aviators to achieve FOC sooner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 17:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12
Posts: 1507
merlin wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:
any aircraft programme must have a huge amount of testing - safety is the most critical objective


Thanks for stating the obvious :roll:

If NLCA Mk 1 is not the future for IN, why just build 8 LSP? If Mk 2 has different aerodynamics then you need to test the complete envelope anyway, why do the complete envelope testing for just 8 Mk 1 LSP? Just abandon that and go the full Mk 2 route for NLCA and concentrate all testing resources on that.


as steve jobs said...if you look at a single dot in isolation, it wouldnt make any sense. It will make sense 10 years from now when all the dots/previous events are neatly connected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 23:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Posts: 851
By sanctioning 8 LSPs, the message to ADA from the MOD/IN might be: "we want to see incremental but rapid iterations. So, dont worry about not having the budget for sufficient LSPs". I dont foresee maritime, land based operations for NLCA LSPs. If they wanted that, why not just order LCA Mk1?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 23:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9192
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
perhaps MOD has been listening to yum bee yay lecchers and going in for rapid prototyping taknikis?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 23:42 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Posts: 97
Location: Parashurama Shristi
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 058605.cms

Quote:
India's first home-built carrier-borne combat jet may finally be powered by GE F414 engine that provides 90 kiloNewton thrust to meet the specifications for LCA-Navy


Thrust seems to be 90kn. wonder where they got that from ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 23:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 3831
^^90KN for the F414 sounds about right. What is the problem?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 23:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Posts: 426
Location: Troposphere
F414 is 98kN engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_F414

Also interesting to note:

Quote:
F414-EDE
The "Enhanced Durability Engine" or "EDE" variant, includes an improved high pressure turbine (HPT) and high pressure core (HPC). The HPT is redesigned to withstand slightly higher temperatures and includes aerodynamic changes. The HPC has been redesigned to 6 stages, down from 7. These changes were aimed at reducing SFC by 2% and three times greater component durability.


Quote:
F414-GE-INS6
India’s Aeronautical Development Agency selected the F414-GE-INS6 engine to power the Mk II version of the HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) for the Indian Air Force. The F414-GE-INS6 is the highest thrust F414 variant, and it includes a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) system. It will feature a six stage turbofan. The engine is to be delivered by 2013.


So INS6 could possibly be EDE if not EPE.


Last edited by Gurneesh on 28 Feb 2012 00:13, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 23:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Feb 2012 15:54
Posts: 223
Post deleted


Last edited by Ajay Sharma on 28 Feb 2012 00:19, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 00:08 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Posts: 97
Location: Parashurama Shristi
not a problem but there seems to be some contradiction on this. Rahul had mentioned 98KN in some thread, the same's on wiki aswell which rates INS6 to be the highest thrust version among 414 variant. somehow i remember reading a link which quotes a GE official claiming that INS6 would not be the highest thrust version of 98Kn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 00:15 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Posts: 97
Location: Parashurama Shristi
just curious to know the source, couldnt find an authentic source mention its thrust.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 00:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Posts: 426
Location: Troposphere
The basic F414-400 is 98kN. So, INS6 is at least 98kN. EDE has 15% improvement in thrust or increased lifespan at same thrust and reduced SFC (according to wiki), while EPE has 20 % improvement in thrust.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 00:20 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Posts: 97
Location: Parashurama Shristi
Gurneesh wrote:
The basic F414-400 is 98kN. So, INS6 is at least 98kN. EDE has 15% improvement in thrust or increased lifespan at same thrust and reduced SFC (according to wiki), while EPE has 20 % improvement in thrust.


quiet possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 03:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 234
Location: On the sofa.
GE414-INS6 has 98kN thrust as per ADA.


----

And that completes my 100th post. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 10:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 1314
Actually there is difference in the thrust of variants of same model also. For instance thrust of variuos versions of GE 404 may be 78 to 83kn while its wartime thrust my be say 83 to 88kn. Similary GE 414 may have max thrust of 94 to 98 kn with wartime thrust of say 98 to 104. So all the figures may be right :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 10:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2231
Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1785 Test Flights successfully. (24-Feb-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-214,PV3-331,LSP1-68,LSP2-199,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-45,LSP5-66)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1780 Test Flights successfully. (17-Feb-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-212,PV3-330,LSP1-68,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-45,LSP5-65)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 12:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32
Posts: 976
Prem Kumar wrote:
By sanctioning 8 LSPs, the message to ADA from the MOD/IN might be: "we want to see incremental but rapid iterations. So, dont worry about not having the budget for sufficient LSPs". I dont foresee maritime, land based operations for NLCA LSPs. If they wanted that, why not just order LCA Mk1?


Exactly. With money are material turning out to be are less of a problem, its only a question of human resources.

Engineers who build the LCA, test pilots who fly and provide crucial feeback, designers who incorporate iterative improvements etc. The next thing would be parallel testing by 3-4 aircrafts, qualifying different subsystems. People working in shifts could speed up things a bit.

If they have enough people (and more), a separate team could be put together for mating the K9 to an older Mk-1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 13:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2231
Okie regular ritualistic whine, we reached the end of another month without the two birds flying. Anyways keep whining hoping for their flight


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 15:57 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 31 Jan 2011 14:48
Posts: 6
Some of my renderings of Tejas. Hope you guys like them... :)

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 15:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 4044
Location: "There is no greater weapon than a prepared mind."
The last one is nice...but needs some changes...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 19:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1901
abhishekkaushal,
Nice artworks and its always good to have another 3D artist here. :)
However, if you would allow me to add a few points:
Your modelling is very good and rendering is adequate, but you need to do a lot more texture work before this looks photorealistic. At the bare minimum, you need to paint all the markings/graphics and then add a dirt layer. That will lead to a marked improvement in your artwork.
PS: Loved the mk2 model. :D


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 ... 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aditp, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher and 8 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