Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 29 Nov 2014 06:59

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 109  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 19:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 459
It said at the end of 2014 so we can safely assume, considering Track record, mid of 2015. After that, possibly by 2017 MkII will go for production that is well before the deadline given by GoI to DRDO for LCA.

Finger crossed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 19:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26379
Location: NowHere
if there is anything to believe the timeline projections, it has be something that is with production engineering after execution of couple of squadrons. before that, it is all guess and paper notes on schedules, just to please babooze plans.

of course the momentum is lost.. and it is a well known fact. i think, we should know that and look at the program not as a project management issue, but the project itself. heck, we did not care about project management and deadlines.. ever, so why bring in that. those discussions we had earlier on PM issues, shall remain for a long time to come. we have no process engineering happening, so expect that to continue.


Last edited by SaiK on 26 Nov 2012 19:27, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 19:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 672
I think it all depends how fast aircraft is rolled out and how fast aircraft starts doing taxi trials , 6 months delay in roll out and 6 months delay in first flight is respectable but hope they don't mess up and delay both by a year .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 20:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 517
nash wrote:
It said at the end of 2014 so we can safely assume, considering Track record, mid of 2015. After that, possibly by 2017 MkII will go for production that is well before the deadline given by GoI to DRDO for LCA.

Finger crossed.


Sir the issue is not with MK.2 aircraft structure/ framework or it flying [thanks to GE 414] , that is very much possible sometime in 2015/16 like the Chines are flying J 20/31.
But a cutting edge fighter aircraft is a combination of lot more.
The point is we did not take much time to move from ALH to LCH, since we had the building blocks available[indigenous/sourced], similarly from Agni 3 to Agni 5.
So if we want to think of AMCA or MK.2 with 5th gen tech , then we require some building blocks for it which can be adapted to our requirement and here comes the critical requirement of a quality AESA and reliable , high performance engine.
If we don;t have either then we may again land up in the same situation where we have a flying aircraft which may be GOOD, but would be compared to something like a JF 17 and not even a Gripen NG or for that matter an F-16 block 60/70 and i am not even counting the typhoons and rafales.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 20:23 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33779
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
and the problem is the zoo of eastern and western eqpt we use has its own issues
= EL2032 _+ desi maal => Rus wont play ball on R77, we are forced into Derby..and neither is US interested in letting anyone integrate the AIM20C7 into non-american radars barring the EF and Gripen.

= Astra mk1 is in "stealth mode", with no known IOC date or flight test reports, it may even have been quietly canned

unless we have a good fighter radar , a good BVR aam and a good IIR AAM, things will be tough.

everyone wants their pound of flesh and boxes us into corners.


Last edited by Singha on 26 Nov 2012 20:25, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 20:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1995
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
dhiraj wrote:
So if we want to think of AMCA or MK.2 with 5th gen tech , then we require some building blocks for it which can be adapted to our requirement and here comes the critical requirement of a quality AESA and reliable , high performance engine.


How much knowledge do you have about the AMCA programme ??? You think our designers have't thought about all these ??? According to you they are going in it blindly without having any building blocks ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 20:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 459
we have knowledge and experience of req. gathering, design and development of Fighter Aircraft like LCA, thanks to painful and hard-work of our scientists and technician.But we don't have any prior experience of testing and that too without taking much risk.That's why we are taking so much time to get clearance and make LCA operational.

Good thing is because of knowledge in other stages of product development we can move dedicated resource for MkII.

In product development you need to do many things simultaneously and have option and space for "what if?", and i hope DRDO have it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 517
Sagar G wrote:
How much knowledge do you have about the AMCA programme ??? You think our designers have't thought about all these ??? According to you they are going in it blindly without having any building blocks ???


Oh definitely not much information . I am only talking from the information available in the public domain/announcements/timelines set etc.
Like in my others posts i have always mentioned that if i stand corrected for any of my posts i will be the first to welcome it :)

What i only suggest is that with the kind of tech that is currently available i don;t see a cutting edge 5th gen AMCA in the near or mid term.

An advanced 5th gen AMCA or for that matter LCA Mk.2 with 5th gen tech requires at least a radar similar to AN/APG-81 , an engine which is at least as advanced as EJ 200 and avionics better than spectra.
Do we have them or can we realistically develop them in the next 10 year


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1621
I think Mk2 is only 0.5 meter longer and 0.2 taller with same wing span....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1995
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
dhiraj wrote:
Oh definitely not much information . I am only talking from the information available in the public domain/announcements/timelines set etc.

Like in my others posts i have always mentioned that if i stand corrected for any of my posts i will be the first to welcome it :)


So you are here to make predictions based on half baked knowledge for which you are ready to take claim "IF" they come true, OK got it.

dhiraj wrote:
What i only suggest is that with the kind of tech that is currently available i don;t see a cutting edge 5th gen AMCA in the near or mid term.


Now you confuse me, you say you don't have much information but still go on to claim that we won't be able to make a cutting edge AMCA. I see a contradiction here don't you ???

dhiraj wrote:
An advanced 5th gen AMCA or for that matter LCA Mk.2 with 5th gen tech requires at least a radar similar to AN/APG-81 , an engine which is at least as advanced as EJ 200 and avionics better than spectra.


Ok so lets say we buy all the three items that you have mentioned and hooray we will have a 5th gen fighter aircraft ???


dhiraj wrote:
Do we have them or can we realistically develop them in the next 10 year


If it gets developed in 11th year will it become obsolete ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31
Posts: 1170
suryag wrote:
the thing that i feared the most

flight test update

FRom
LCA-Tejas has completed 1941 Test Flights Successfully. (12-July-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-237,PV5-36,LSP3-75,LSP4-56,LSP5-105,LSP7-4,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 1944 Test Flights Successfully. (22-Nov-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-75,LSP4-56,LSP5-106,LSP7-5,NP1-4)


Perhaps an indication that they're abandoning LCA to go all-in on Mk.2?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1995
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
GeorgeWelch wrote:
Perhaps an indication that they're abandoning LCA to go all-in on Mk.2?


Perhaps the LCA Mk.1 development is complete and they are taking the next logical step.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26379
Location: NowHere
Katare wrote:
I think Mk2 is only 0.5 meter longer and 0.2 taller with same wing span....

quite a huge space when one consider just keeping it for extra fuel.. cause, F414 is a larger game plan for the IAF, and they want more power and quicker turns at higher Gs.

but then again, it all depends on who is sitting behind the drawing board. there is always another way to do it... the best option is always seen after a design takes shape.

let us see how the livefist guy reports [cause he seems to be the first person ever doing such exposure to public]


Last edited by SaiK on 26 Nov 2012 21:37, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:36 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3073
Katare wrote:
I think Mk2 is only 0.5 meter longer and 0.2 taller with same wing span....

That is what I know. Also the idrw article speaks of 1T extra payload on the pylons, I had not heard of that either (though it is entirely feasible).

GeorgeWelch wrote:
suryag wrote:
the thing that i feared the most

flight test update

FRom
LCA-Tejas has completed 1941 Test Flights Successfully. (12-July-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-237,PV5-36,LSP3-75,LSP4-56,LSP5-105,LSP7-4,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 1944 Test Flights Successfully. (22-Nov-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-75,LSP4-56,LSP5-106,LSP7-5,NP1-4)


Perhaps an indication that they're abandoning LCA to go all-in on Mk.2?

Or may be they had hit a roadblock, which they fixed and they are back to flying. Who knows ;-).

I don't think that they would abandon the Mk1. They have 40+ GE-404 engines to use. Mk-1 is very valuable, it is the stepping stone to success. They are ironing out so many things on this plane. All these lessons are important for the LCA MkII and AMCA. It is important to operationalize Mk-1 and further iron out the wrinkles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:36 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3073
SaiK wrote:
Katare wrote:
I think Mk2 is only 0.5 meter longer and 0.2 taller with same wing span....

quite a huge space when one consider just keeping it for extra fuel.. cause, F414 is a larger game plan for the IAF, and they want more power and quicker turns at higher Gs.

What does that mean?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26379
Location: NowHere
means, the extra space is mainly meant for extra fuel [in my..]

added later:

http://idp.justthe80.com/air-force-proj ... /tejas-mk2
pretty much I was thinking corroborating previous reports/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31
Posts: 1170
Sagar G wrote:
Perhaps the LCA Mk.1 development is complete


We know that's not true.

All weapons integration hasn't taken place if nothing else.


indranilroy wrote:
Or may be they had hit a roadblock


perhaps


indranilroy wrote:
which they fixed and they are back to flying


Or those last 3 flights were before the roadblock and it still hasn't been fixed.

indranilroy wrote:
I don't think that they would abandon the Mk1. They have 40+ GE-404 engines to use.


Sunk cost fallacy

indranilroy wrote:
Mk-1 is very valuable, it is the stepping stone to success. They are ironing out so many things on this plane. All these lessons are important for the LCA MkII and AMCA.


It WAS important (past tense)

indranilroy wrote:
It is important to operationalize Mk-1 and further iron out the wrinkles.


I am not so sure about that. They've done most of the hard/challenging stuff, what remains is the grunt work of certifying an endless combination of situations. If they see the LCA as a dead end, why continue to pour money and manpower into this final 'polishing' when it could be better spent on the Mk.2?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1995
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
GeorgeWelch wrote:
We know that's not true.

All weapons integration hasn't taken place if nothing else.


Maybe they have done it already and will announce shortly.

We are all in a guessing game till official announcement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 459
Regarding only 3 flight in last several months, i think there was article that said there would be no flight during monsoon.
And thats the reason IOC-II get delayed...

And i doubt that only bangalore flight get logged not trials at other places, just guessing


Last edited by nash on 26 Nov 2012 21:59, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 21:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2526
There is no question of abandoning the MK1. Consider the worst case where MK1 is not going to be commercialised even in such a case flying it more would give more data to analyse and improve upon the design and the avionics. IIRC there was a scoop which said the team was working on bringing up all LSPs to the same level of configuration to accelerate testing. May be they were working on this(that kind of a task would definitely take four months) but unless we have an official input all of us here are similar to commentators in kirket commeting on how Sachin should have driven a ball. Btw that livefist report was a combination of what IR ji posted on this very thread three-four days ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:03 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3073
@GeorgeWelch,

I am certainly outside the walls of ADA/HAL. So all my thoughts are my best guesses :-)

1. The reason why I say that they fixed the problems and are back to flying is because we see the updates being made only now (can't help the optimist in me ;-) ). Plus, I remember somebody posting a few days back that he saw a LCA flying (I am placing some faith on his plane-spotting capabilities).

2. Till the day LCA Mk 1 does not get FOC, it IS and not WAS a learning experience.

3. I don't know what you mean by only grunt work is left. Wouldn't they need to polish LCA Mk2? A lot of "polishing" on Mk1 will directly affect the "polishing" of Mk2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:10 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3073
SaiK wrote:
means, the extra space is mainly meant for extra fuel [in my..]

added later:

http://idp.justthe80.com/air-force-proj ... /tejas-mk2
pretty much I was thinking corroborating previous reports/

Saik sahab,

They did not increase the length to increase the volume. It is an effect and not the cause.

By the way Livefist was not the first to break the news. I spoke about the RFP 4 days back on this very thread ;-).

indranilroy wrote:
RFP out for parts of LCA MkII ... Due date is Dec 11 2012.
RFQ out for parts of LCA MKII ... Due date is Jan 22 2013.

They are planning to build the plane in 2013/14 (nothing new, just news about things proceeding according to timeline as of now)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31
Posts: 1170
indranilroy wrote:
1. The reason why I say that they fixed the problems and are back to flying is because we see the updates being made only now (can't help the optimist in me ;-) ). Plus, I remember somebody posting a few days back that he saw a LCA flying (I am placing some faith on his plane-spotting capabilities).


could be

indranilroy wrote:
2. Till the day LCA Mk 1 does not get FOC, it IS and not WAS a learning experience.

3. I don't know what you mean by only grunt work is left. Wouldn't they need to polish LCA Mk2? A lot of "polishing" on Mk1 will directly affect the "polishing" of Mk2.


Obviously there are still things to learn, but it could very well be that they are reaching the point of diminishing returns in terms of what could be applicable to a DIFFERENT plane (ie Mk.2).

If they have seen enough to know that overall design is sound, they could be down to minor aerodynamic issues that are only going to affect the Mk.1. The Mk.2 has a different shape and different aerodynamics, so the work will have to all be redone for it anyways.

Like you, I have no inside knowledge as to what's really going on, but it's not hard to imagine a situation where they decides that the diminishing returns on the value of what they're learning from further certification isn't worth the cost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 517
Sagar G wrote:
dhiraj wrote:
Oh definitely not much information . I am only talking from the information available in the public domain/announcements/timelines set etc.
Like in my others posts i have always mentioned that if i stand corrected for any of my posts i will be the first to welcome it
So you are here to make predictions based on half baked knowledge for which you are ready to take claim "IF" they come true, OK got it.
dhiraj wrote:
What i only suggest is that with the kind of tech that is currently available i don;t see a cutting edge 5th gen AMCA in the near or mid term.
Now you confuse me, you say you don't have much information but still go on to claim that we won't be able to make a cutting edge AMCA. I see a contradiction here don't you ???
dhiraj wrote:
An advanced 5th gen AMCA or for that matter LCA Mk.2 with 5th gen tech requires at least a radar similar to AN/APG-81 , an engine which is at least as advanced as EJ 200 and avionics better than spectra.
Ok so lets say we buy all the three items that you have mentioned and hooray we will have a 5th gen fighter aircraft ???
dhiraj wrote:
Do we have them or can we realistically develop them in the next 10 year
If it gets developed in 11th year will it become obsolete ???



Sir, at least i made an opinion on the open source information and the current stage of Mk.1 , but based on your response above i did not see any credible information which could help me understand the optimism that a lot of people are showing on the prospects of AMCA.
Can you share any information for the reason of this optimism so that i have a better understanding of the things.

BTW regarding AESA, Engine i did not mean buying them from abroad, that we are already doing , i suggested being self-sufficient in such tech to meet any of our requirements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3073
^^^ I understand what you say. But I don't think this is a case of diminishing returns. They would not have stopped flying the prototypes for small aero stuff. They have faith in the aerodynamics of the machine and hence they are adopting it to Mk2. Mk2 is nothing but the same plane which is elongated behind the cockpit to smoothen out the area curve at that point. It will also have some refinements which you can already see on LSP7 (APU intake and the extended wingbody blend). I think you will soon see that the pylons have much sharper leading edges.

As you can see that they are incorporating some of the refinements from Mk2 to Mk1. This fact and cancellation of Mk1 do not go together.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:26 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3073
dhiraj wrote:
BTW regarding AESA, Engine i did not mean buying them from abroad, that we are already doing , i suggested being self-sufficient in such tech to meet any of our requirements.

You started of questioning how cutting edge AMCA is going to be. Now you are changing the subject to how indigenous is it going to be. Stick to one point and then probably somebody can answer you.

P.S.

I will try to answer some of your concerns.

1. Like you, I don;t have faith in Kaveri making it into AMCA. But that is not going to hold AMCA back. We might get imported engines. So what? Till we get our engines, we can't put them in our planes. And at the moment, I am very gloomy on that respect.

2. However, the situation is very different on the radar front. I think you missed the interview by Dr. Saraswat. We have the AESA antenna from the CABS AEW&CS. They designed it in a modular way and of course they tested it. So a smaller antenna can be easily made from that. We already have the backend of the radar even in the MMR which is going on to the Mk1 today.

3. We need weapons integration. I have a feeling that weapons on the AMCA are going to be very similar as that on the PAKFA. Weapons carried internally have more requirements that weapons carried outside. They have to fit inside the bay and they have to eject out of the bay during different flight regimes. For example F-22 can eject a internal missiles even while doing a roll, but it cannot eject a missile while it is flying supersonic (which is detrimental to the range of WVR missiles). PAKFA is supposedly going to be able to overcome this limitation. These learning and the adapted missiles will be incorporated into the AMCA.

4. The odds of LCA fructifying were much worse than AMCA fructifying. LCA is a reality today. Just be a little patient, AMCA will also come through.


Last edited by indranilroy on 26 Nov 2012 22:36, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 517
GeorgeWelch wrote:
but it could very well be that they are reaching the point of diminishing returns in terms of what could be applicable to a DIFFERENT plane


Considering that as many have suggested regarding the limited knowledge in testing an aircraft, there is scope for further refinement / testing for
A2A and A2G missions and AoA using Mk.1 . The data gathered from these tests could be used as input for Mk.2 testing to gain time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:38 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3073
Actually, there is no point 'fighting' over this issue. We will come to know whether the prototypes are back to flying within a week or two. Unless Raghu K drops some pearls ;-).

And just in case that Raghu K decides to drop some, please speak about LSP-8 and NP-2. Both are due at year end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 517
indranilroy wrote:
You started of questioning how cutting edge AMCA is going to be. Now you are changing the subject to how indigenous is it going to be. Stick to one point and then probably somebody can answer you.


Sir , a couple of things :
1. it was mentioned that LCA Mk2 and AMCA will have 5th gen tech and the timeline mentioned where for Mk.2 around 2017 and for AMCA 2020-22 (if i am not wrong). Great. Now the question is what are the critical tech for a 5th gen. My understanding is AESA, Engine, Avionics, RAM etc.
2. Now to have complete independence on the product developed we need the AESA and Engine tech, right ? Either we get these tech as part of Rafale or PAK-Fa deal then fine or we need to develop the tech. No issues with either option until we have the tech which can be adapted/enhanced to meet our requirements for AMCA and future products


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1995
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
dhiraj wrote:
Sir, at least i made an opinion on the open source information and the current stage of Mk.1 , but based on your response above i did not see any credible information which could help me understand the optimism that a lot of people are showing on the prospects of AMCA.


Making an uninformed opinion is bound to be questioned so trying to hide behind the "right to make an opinion" is not going to help you especially when you put it in a public forum so either be prepared to defend it or don't post it. My response was based on your tall and high claims so that's why I asked my question in a way to evoke a response from you which would show me whether you have any knowledge about the issue or you are just posting for the sake of it and as I though unfortunately the reason is the latter one. I am no genius or have insider knowledge about the program but similarly like you I have gathered my knowledge about Indian aerospace industry by reading publicly available information. In case of AMCA the info is scarce and also misleading so that's why I don't go around giving verdict about a programme which I don't have proper knowledge about. What I know is that the best available minds are working behind the programme, they have created a technological base during the making of LCA which now they can use for further programmes as they wish to utilize. These two reasons are good enough for me to make me optimistic about AMCA. So till the design doesn't get fixed, till some official clarity or some authentic info from proper source doesn't come about AMCA, it would be only wise to be patient and watch how the programme shapes up instead of passing gratuitous remaks about it.


dhiraj wrote:
Can you share any information for the reason of this optimism so that i have a better understanding of the things.


Not about AMCA but definitely a peek into the tech base which will go into making the AMCA.

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2011/feb%202011%20.pdf


dhiraj wrote:
BTW regarding AESA, Engine i did not mean buying them from abroad, that we are already doing , i suggested being self-sufficient in such tech to meet any of our requirements.


There is nothing new that you have "suggested" so I don't know why you feel that people need to be "suggested" on what has to be done to make a 5th gen plane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26379
Location: NowHere
indranilroy.. okay thanks. I found your other news break too. btw, the link to HAL tender notice mostly deals with alloy plates and fuel valves. not sure, how you did you manage the chai-wala break dance against livefist guy? kudos btw.

checking out the pdf, i see the g ratings for the fuel valve max needed is 7.2. [pg 10/10-annexure1(techspec).pdf
--

sagar g, that is an awesome info on RCS data on LCA airframe. thanks for that doc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 23:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1995
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
indranilroy wrote:
2. However, the situation is very different on the radar front. I think you missed the interview by Dr. Saraswat. We have the AESA antenna from the CABS AEW&CS. They designed it in a modular way and of course they tested it. So a smaller antenna can be easily made from that.


The AEW&CS AESA is a C S band and isn't X band the one used in fighter aircraft AESA radar ??? IIRC Astra Microwave is involved with DRDO in developing the X band T/R modules.

indranilroy wrote:
We already have the backend of the radar even in the MMR which is going on to the Mk1 today.


We have the antenna and the backend is of Israeli origin, isn't it ???


Last edited by Sagar G on 26 Nov 2012 23:25, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 23:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1995
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
SaiK wrote:
sagar g, that is an awesome info on RCS data on LCA airframe. thanks for that doc.


Please no thanks saaar me nanha trainee mujahid onlee :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 23:14 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3073
dhiraj wrote:
indranilroy wrote:
You started of questioning how cutting edge AMCA is going to be. Now you are changing the subject to how indigenous is it going to be. Stick to one point and then probably somebody can answer you.


Sir , a couple of things :
1. it was mentioned that LCA Mk2 and AMCA will have 5th gen tech and the timeline mentioned where for Mk.2 around 2017 and for AMCA 2020-22 (if i am not wrong). Great. Now the question is what are the critical tech for a 5th gen. My understanding is AESA, Engine, Avionics, RAM etc.
2. Now to have complete independence on the product developed we need the AESA and Engine tech, right ? Either we get these tech as part of Rafale or PAK-Fa deal then fine or we need to develop the tech. No issues with either option until we have the tech which can be adapted/enhanced to meet our requirements for AMCA and future products

First and foremost: No 'sir', no 'ji' for me please :-)

I think you missed my post on the radar, engines and weapons. If you have a specific question of avionics, please do ask. I am pretty sure Karan M or some enlightened soul can give you more details.

We have been using RAM since Su-30s. LCAs have RAM coating as well. (I am not sure. But if my memory is serving me right, they are indigenously developed) LSP 6 is supposed to have an experimental RAM coating for lowering RCS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 23:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26379
Location: NowHere
http://thedefencejournal.blogspot.com/2 ... ility.html

I think the C-band is only for IFF and other things.

per the link, it is S-band.
Quote:
The S band (E-F band) active electronically scanned array radar should have a range of 250-375 km (155-230 miles) with 240 degrees of coverage. India will also supply the self protection system and communication systems and datalink.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 23:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1995
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
^^^ Thank you for the clarification saar but still will a S band AESA radar be converted into a fighter aircraft AESA radar ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 23:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 517
Sagar G wrote:
it would be only wise to be patient and watch how the programme shapes up instead of passing gratuitous remaks about it.


Sir , point taken, no issues. One does not need to take my post in a negative sense, one is free to counter my opinion with any facts which he may be aware of
Would love to see the Mk.2 and AMCA chasing down J 20/31 or for that matter F 35.
But with the technological base created so far as part of Mk.1 , I am still doubtful. Sorry can't help
Wishing you are right and we have Mk.2 inducted by 2018 and AMCA flying by 2022


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 23:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 672
i Think we should wait for that Iaf live firing exercise and there is also having Aero India next year we will be getting tonnes of information and may be even some pictures of bare air frame of Tejas mk-2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 23:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37
Posts: 174
when will we see Tejas inducted ..... maybe when the 4.5th generation is obsolete !!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 00:29 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3073
Sagar G wrote:
indranilroy wrote:
2. However, the situation is very different on the radar front. I think you missed the interview by Dr. Saraswat. We have the AESA antenna from the CABS AEW&CS. They designed it in a modular way and of course they tested it. So a smaller antenna can be easily made from that.


The AEW&CS AESA is a C S band and isn't X band the one used in fighter aircraft AESA radar ??? IIRC Astra Microwave is involved with DRDO in developing the X band T/R modules.

indranilroy wrote:
We already have the backend of the radar even in the MMR which is going on to the Mk1 today.


We have the antenna and the backend is of Israeli origin, isn't it ???

Thank you. I stand corrected on both grounds.

I got confused with what Dr. Saraswat had said. He actually said:
1. At LRDE, they have already built a 1/8th size X-band array. They are going to scale this 1/8th size array to the actual size of LCA's radar.
2. The Tr modules are made in India.


From 3:12 to 4:55.

Also I was wrong about the MMR radar presently on Mk1. You are right, the backend is from Israel and the rest is from us.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 109  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, Google Feedfetcher, Raja Bose, vmalik and 9 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