Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 25 Apr 2014 12:27

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4275 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 ... 107  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 12:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 9829
Location: India
More muck from the UPA-2!

http://newindianexpress.com/thesundayst ... 363163.ece

Quote:
CAG puts offset question to Defence Ministry

By N C Bipindra | ENS - NEW DELHI

Published: 02nd Dec 2012

Photos

The defence ministry, while admitting that DFI proposals do not qualify for offsets, noted that the same had been conveyed to Boeing. (FilePTI)
The defence ministry, while admitting that DFI proposals do not qualify for offsets, noted that the same had been conveyed to Boeing. (FilePTI)

Was Defence Minister AK Antony party to his ministry’s decision to waive rules in favour of US aerospace major Boeing to escape its obligation to plough back $1.74 billion as offset into the Indian defence and aerospace industry? India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has put the defence ministry on the mat over the $4.1-billion deal with Boeing to supply 10 C-17 Globemaster heavy lift cargo planes for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and eight P-8I Poseidon long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft for the Indian Navy. The defence offset policy mandates that a foreign vendor who wins any Indian defence contract worth over Rs 300 crore ($55 million) should plough back at least 30 per cent of the deal back into India.

On Boeing’s P-8I deal, the company had agreed to provide DFI worth $153.90 million (Rs 750 crore) in the form of safety, reliability and air-worthiness seminars; establishment of fire finder classrooms; transfer of metallurgy and hydraulic lab facilities; composite manufacturing assembly/tooling; mobile broadband; friction stir welding and aero structures tools and processes. CAG objected that these, too, don’t fall under the three offset rules. “The DFI proposals relating to safety, reliability and airworthiness seminars and establishment of fire finder class rooms were not valid offset as there was no value addition through the IOP. The remaining proposals relating to transfer of metallurgy/hydraulic lab facilities, composite manufacturing assembly/tooling were also a kind of direct import without any value addition through the IOP,” the CAG audit found.

The defence ministry, while admitting that these DFI proposals do not qualify for offsets, noted that the same had been conveyed to Boeing, which had not yet claimed offset credit so far. Defence companies are awarded points for executing their offset responsibilities. The CAG isn’t convinced. “The reply, however, does not reckon the fact that the elements of offset once included in the contract are liable to be claimed by the vendor. Moreover, even if a claim by the vendor is not admitted by the ministry, offset deficit of $153.90 million (Rs 750 crore) would still remain,” says the report.
Email 1
Print
A+ A A-
More from this section
Promises to keep and miles to go for the sleeping UPA
FEMA to tame foreign hand in NGO funding
Forged luck rules roost in God’s own lotteries
Kiran Kumar wears a crown of thorns
Ready for Yeddyurappa: The Prasanna story
Cornered Naveen counters with outreach programme
Comments(2)

It is very clear that for some strange reason the present government wants to grovel before the US. This again will go against the government in the coming Gujarat elections. It is equally clear that the CIA/Pentagon machinery has for many years used funding through some religious assemblies to further its own interests in India. The government of India and Sonia Gandhi in particular must make their stand on this issue clear.There must be a clear white paper trail of how funds of religious organisations throughout India receiving aid from abroad are being used. Equally important is for Modi to state his stand on the issue. Its high time we bring to an end funding from abroad once and for all with respect to religious organisations.They are sowing the seeds of divide and rule

Posted by Raj at 12/02/2012 10:50 Reply to this Report abuse

Well the deal must be scrapped if the rules were not followed This again goes to show that some sections of the defence industry are on the pay roll of the Pentagon To my mind Antony himself is honest and a true Indian who cannot be bought by the US But there are many in the defence ministry unfortunately who can I again stress that in addition to a certain amount of money being ploughed back into Indian Industry, transfer of technology is a must and there must be a clear time table for India to become completely self reliant in the Defence sector over the coming decade

Posted by Raj at 12/02/2012 11:36 Reply to this Report abuse


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 15:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1159
Prithwiraj wrote:
shiv wrote:

Must this reprter shiver so much in his dhoti that the minute he thinks China he says "nuclear armed". Why would nuclear armed fighters take off for an interception? The standards of defence reporting remain below par in India, although they have improved.


nuclear-enabled.. nuclear capable.. nuclear armed.. ... the most commonly overused sensationalism tactics of desi jurnos..


Now watch out for nuclear powered Chinese SU 27s.

I am ssshhhiiivveeerrriiinngggg.

Kersi


PS It is cold in Mumbai, 17.55534 Dec C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 16:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1159
Septimus P. wrote:
With the CBU-105 SFW deliveries to begin early next year, Jag Darin 3s will be the first to recieve these. Jag is about to become the dealiest ground pounder in our arsenal till offcourse the Raffy arrives. I think we need to order another 2500 CBUs asap.


I would not mind not another 100 odd Jaguars DARIN III, with Honeywell engines and CBU-105 and some mini/micro Brahmos and Crystal Maze and some additional bells-and-whistles. Base them at Jorhat, Dibrugarh, Hashimara and Bagdogra.

K


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 16:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04
Posts: 308
Location: New Delhi
Jaguar is now totally Pet product star of in house building. Need more than hundred as some of the old Frame is too old to update.

We should not look toward west where Jaguar is retiring from service not because they old but they want to keep the industry running with typhoon and fund flowing.
Just like the Private industry as their new products become old as soon as they left the counter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 19:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 8129
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
^^ IAF is getting some real amazing look at the cutting edge F-16 versions. The SAF F-16s Block-52 with CFTs look real mean:

Indo-Singapore Joint AF Training Ends
Image

Image

Image

Quote:
The eighth Indo-Singapore Joint Military Training (JMT) between Indian Air Force (IAF) and Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF), held annually at Air Force Station, Kalaikunda, West Bengal, concluded on Friday. The JMT earlier began on October 16.

The JMT held under a bilateral agreement signed between the two countries help both Air Forces gain greater understanding of each other's concept of operations. The first JMT was held in 2006.

IAF Su-30 MKI and MiG-27 aircraft participated together with RSAF F-16D Block 52+ Fighting Falcons during the six week, day-night joint drills. The RSAF detachment comprised 30 officers and 87 personnel. The RSAF Fighting Falcons have flown back to Singapore today in the morning, said Air Officer Commanding, Air Commodore R Radhish from Kalaikunda.


^^ How do i reduce the size of the 1st image to make it inline? :oops: :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 20:31 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 30688
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
F16 after block30 has been overloaded....more like a overgrown bomb truck and depending on amraams and pervasive awacs cover to down weak enemies.

Just a more modern bandar if you will....a2g oriented.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 20:29 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5657
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
A question to Hawai Maulanas and Talibs...

- in terms of air-combat performance in the 20k-30k feet (ASL) sub-set, how do Indian and PLAAF aircraft fare?

The reason I ask this is because today I bought a joy-stick and was playing Flight Simulator on Google Earth. I commenced flying from Hashimara and moved towards the Chumbi Valley area and thence, towards Tibetan mainland behind the same.

Now, the valley floor is at 14K-15K feet - I am assuming that any ground attack on targets in areas like this will have to commence from 25K-30K feet bracket. Similarly, contest for air-space will also happen in this range - or, even higher.

While AWACS and long range AAMs are a buzz-word these days - how will the fighters fare at this altitude? IAF fighters taking off from virtual sea-level and PLAAF taking from 10K+ feet airbases.

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 22:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24
Posts: 146
Location: Bangalore
@rohitvats, answering your questions one by one...

Quote:
While AWACS and long range AAMs are a buzz-word these days - how will the fighters fare at this altitude? IAF fighters taking off from virtual sea-level and PLAAF taking from 10K+ feet airbases.


Leh and other high-alt bases apart, the IAF has a definite advantage across the board at all its bases. Taking off from almost sea level both in the Gangetic and Brahmaputra basin, IAF fighters can do full-load take offs with very efficient runway length utilization. Even hot days are manageable because of the high density of the air.

The PLAAF on the other hand has a fight on its hands at bases above 8,000 ft. Aircraft will require a lot of runway to pull off loaded take offs, often will have to sacrifice weapon or fuel loads to make best use of available runways. Things will be especially bad between April to August with high day temperatures affecting the density of the air.

Quote:
- in terms of air-combat performance in the 20k-30k feet (ASL) sub-set, how do Indian and PLAAF aircraft fare?


Answering this from a pure air-to-air engagement perspective, 25,000 ft to 45,000 ft is kind of the sweet spot for long range air engagements for gen 4++ aircraft. Turbofan engines in today's A2A fighters are optimised for this altitude regime, this applies to both the IAF and the PLAAF. Launching missiles in this region offers good kinematic performance. (Gen 5 -- Raptor, PAK-FA etc are optimised for 55,000 ft plus offering its own advantages but that's beyond the scope of this question)

The biggest catch I see is the high floor of the plateau pushing engagements to the higher end of that band to allow for more space to pull up from evasive maneuvers. Pulling up at 15,000 ft is not the same as 5,000 ft. Also pilots would need to watch out for low-level flak and radar directed guns that are placed on the high floor. These guns are typically good till 6,000 ft, so if they are at 10,000 ft, you'd better not venture below 16,000 ft. (If you recall in one of Vivek Ahuja's scenarios a Su-30MKI gets hit by flak while pulling up over Manasarovar lake.) Also from what we saw in Kargil MANPADS work really well in the cold rarefied air, and they can engage upto 9,000 ft. These things will have to be factored into while planning air to air ops.

Quote:
Now, the valley floor is at 14K-15K feet - I am assuming that any ground attack on targets in areas like this will have to commence from 25K-30K feet bracket.


Definitely if you want to use LGBs you would look at dropping the bombs from 25,000 ft+. Here again bomb kits need to be calibrated for the higher altitude release and corresponding adjustments might also be need to made on aircraft avionics. But we have knowledge of this from Kargil. Operating at a higher altitude with a full bomb and fuel load will not matter for the aircraft if its engines are optimised for this regime. This is the reason why the Jags are getting new engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 22:50 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5657
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
@Anand - thanks for the effort. You've answered some of the question I had.

I guess, another advantage that India will have is that PLAAF will have to come over 12K-15K feet to cross the mountain line between India and Tibet - this should allow India to pick up targets from afar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 00:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24
Posts: 146
Location: Bangalore
@Rohitvats, in terms of radar coverage its nothing short of a disaster for us.

Terrestrial radars are practically useless especially in the north-east as they wont be able to see beyond the foothills.

As for airborne radars the McMahon line is a huge radar obstacle. The ridges are 15-18,000 ft plus on average. The ridges cast a huge shadow on the Tibetan side for airborne radars from India. The further away you are from the ridges, longer the shadow and you can't see aircraft hiding in that shadow. To see into the plateau we need to push up as close to ridges as possible and that is unwise. As a consequence we will suffer from very short reaction times for any attack. Especially advantageous for terrain hugging cruise missiles, who can pop up over the ridge where they will be identified and we will lose them again in the folds of the foothills.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 00:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1628
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
^^ To negate that issue the need of the hour is a good, mobile and cheap quick reaction anti air system.. May be something like the avenger, integrated into the early warning and detection network can be employed here to provide the solid bubble against low flying long range subsonic cruise missiles..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 00:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4685
Bala Vignesh wrote:
^^ To negate that issue the need of the hour is a good, mobile and cheap quick reaction anti air system.. May be something like the avenger, integrated into the early warning and detection network can be employed here to provide the solid bubble against low flying long range subsonic cruise missiles..

Didn't the IAF acquire the Spyder system to provide protection for air bases?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 03:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2407
To negate the issue of terrain we need to use aerostats and AWACS or probably satellite based monitoring.Something along the lines below


Iridium Satellites to Monitor Airliners


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 09:06 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45
Posts: 88
Work on Indo-Russian transport aircraft begins


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 09:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58
Posts: 783
IAF to shell out Rs 88 cr more for IL-76 overhaul
Quote:
For about two years, half of the IAF’s fleet of IL-76 strategic freighters remained grounded for want of overhaul and extension of the aircraft’s total technical life (TTL) because of delay on the part of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in finalising a multi-million dollar contract with a foreign firm.

Out of the 17 IL-76 aircraft procured by the IAF, nine remained grounded between December 2007 and September 2009. Besides, the IAF had to shell out an additional Rs 88 crore as the contract had to be renegotiated, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has pointed out in its latest report.

The IAF had inducted these aircraft between 1985 and 1989, with a TTL of 20 years. In November 2005, the MoD concluded a $28 million (Rs 128 crore) contract with a Russian firm for the overhaul and life extension of six IL-76.

In April 2007, MoD negotiated a $33 million (Rs 139 crore) contract for the overhaul and life extension of another nine aircraft. The price was valid till December 2007. In the meantime, the MoD received two representations from other firms alleging irregularities in the contract process. The MoD disposed off the matter in March 2008, by which time the validity of the contract had expired.

A fresh limited tendering process had to be initiated and though it was again the same Russian firm that bagged the contract, the new price as quoted as $41.77 million. The CAG observed that the price difference worked out to about Rs 57 crore. In addition, the IAF had to spend another Rs 30 crore to procure minimum essential spares to make the grounded aircraft fly worthy so that these could be positioned at the overhaul facilities overseas.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121204/nation.htm#12


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 20:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1933
vasu raya wrote:
during the incident where an IAF pilot refused to Yuvraj on a Mi-17 in bad weather conditions in the NE area, the question came up on the how the supposedly state-of the-art for all weather flying Merlins would fare, you said that the Merlin didn't need high-altitude performance since its for VVIPs only, in the recent Italian investigation on the Augusta-Westland sales the same issue came up, an initial requirement was for 6500m and after the single vendor situation was scaled down to 4500m(?), something the Merlin could manage, so whats really the motive? bad Specs or vested interests?


The main problem for the AW101 was the heaviness of the platform, not the engine ratings. Just to give you an idea where that 4500 figure probably came from, here's a first order power analysis of the AW-101 (at work so cannot spend more time on the analysis other than a first order simulation. Perhaps later I can add more details later once I get off from work).

The plot shows the decay of available power with altitude (red line) versus the power required for two different rate-of-climb (ROC) ratings (service and combat ceilings). Where the black line stays under the red, there is spare power available for the flight. Where the red dips below the black, you cannot fly. These numbers are rated for the empty weight of the machine plus some fuel and passengers (close to the MTOF).

Image

So it is indeed a specs issue. Why it was lowered could probably have to do with the fact that the specs could not be met by any vendor (speculating here; need to dig up my analysis on this from about a year back).

-Vivek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 21:35 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2698
Does anybody here know what is "Abhyas". It is being produced by ADE. What I could gather is that it is a Towed body target. A tender is out to build the fuselage. It is 2.385 meters long (exactly the same as Lakshya PTA).
Quote:
Abhyas fuselage consists of five sections namely Nose cone, Equipment bay, Fuel tank bay, Air intake bay and Tail cone. The material for nose cone and tail cone are made up of composite material (GFRP). The material of equipment bay, air intake bay and fuel tank are made up of aluminum alloy and alloy steel. Provisions are provided on fuselage for mounting of wing, vertical tail, horizontal tail, air intake and boosters. It also has the provision for providing ballast for weight and C.G. management.


I understand why it needs a booster. What I could not gather is why does a towed target need to have fuel (1 mtr out of the 2.385 mtrs is the fuel tank) and air intake?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 22:15 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2698
^^^ I got to know more about Abhyas through another tender.
click


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 22:25 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 15 Jun 2005 19:10
Posts: 21
this looks more like a cruise missile from the drawings in the tender document than a towed target body. If it is a towed target body, why should it have scooped air intakes and fuel tank?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 23:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2698
I had the same feeling when I first saw it.

But I don't think it is a cruise missile, there is no space for the wings, horizontal and vertical tail to retract, and they are quite big.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 01:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1933
It looks like a cruise missile perhaps because it's supposed to look like a cruise missile for training purposes. But its not a cruise missile because it doesn't have the performance for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 06:27 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2698
Okay,

Did some digging around and some maths. I was thrown off by Wikipedia. The length of Lakshya PTA is not 2385 mm. That is the length of the towed sub-targets it carries under its wingscarries (Thanks to B Harry). I did some back of the envelop calculations with the drawings that have been produced in the new tenders. The wing area is a fraction of Lakshya PTA's wing-area. Same goes for fuel carried.

But here are some interesting facts:
1. There are tenders out for a) design of the airframe, b) fabrication of the fuselage, and c) mounts for the boosters on the towed sub targets (this was not a feature on the present Lakshya)
2. the fuselage seems to be powered by an engine which is hosted inside the fuselage and has a maximum diameter of less than 185 mm. What can this engine be?


Last edited by indranilroy on 06 Dec 2012 08:40, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 06:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 3706
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
The name Abhyas seems to imply that this is sort of a learning aid, like a mini-lakshya maybe?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 06:33 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 15 Jun 2005 19:10
Posts: 21
I am confused onleee. Why should a towed target body have boosters and fuel tank. There is something fishy going on. As the name implies, towed bodies are towed by a mother ship(plane) like TTW Caneberras or Lakshyas. May be these towed target bodies will be released by the mother plane and having its own engine will mimic cruise missles....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 07:59 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 30688
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Yes that seems to be the idea. Or potentially a sead decoy that can be released ahead of the real strike to light radars up..but that would need folding wings for aircraft carriage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 09:29 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2698
Don't worry, they are going to have 20 of them fairly quickly (16 weeks from from signing of contract). So you will see them flying soon. I am really interested in the engine.

By the way (and Vivek ji you would be interested in knowing this), the engines powering Nirbhay is TRDD 50MT. Around 200 of them have been procured. All our reporters had got it wrong (most of them saying that it was the 36MT as reported by Neelam Matthews)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 09:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1933
The 50MT is in the same class as the 36MT from the thrust perspective. If google chacha is correct, we are looking at almost the same thrust engines (~450-500 kgf). I couldn't find any data on the 50MT other than the thrust to do a comparison. Do you have any per chance?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 10:00 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2698
No, I am having no luck either other than the thrust.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 10:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4294
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
Quote:
Terrestrial radars are practically useless especially in the north-east as they wont be able to see beyond the foothills.

That is why you should have the radars on the ridgelines.. Mounted high up on mountain tops in a few strategic locations and well defended and covering the most likely ingress routes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 11:22 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 30688
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
We do have a few . Shillong peak is one..mt.abu could be another. But the himalayas are around 400km wide from india to tibet so there is no golden location to see deep into tibet...there willbe issues...high flying awacs is the only way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 15:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 11047
Location: Beneath the pleasure dome of the great khan
wont radars on ridgelines be visible targets for even artillery?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 15:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6695
WHat you need then is a large no. of Radar emittors along lots of ridgelines, with lesser no of stations hidden mountains making sense of returned data.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 16:48 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 04 Oct 2011 15:17
Posts: 4
IAF's Doctrine : http://indianairforce.nic.in/pdf/Basic% ... 0Force.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 05:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43
Posts: 761
vivek_ahuja wrote:
The main problem for the AW101 was the heaviness of the platform, not the engine ratings. Just to give you an idea where that 4500 figure probably came from, here's a first order power analysis of the AW-101 (at work so cannot spend more time on the analysis other than a first order simulation. Perhaps later I can add more details later once I get off from work).

The plot shows the decay of available power with altitude (red line) versus the power required for two different rate-of-climb (ROC) ratings (service and combat ceilings). Where the black line stays under the red, there is spare power available for the flight. Where the red dips below the black, you cannot fly. These numbers are rated for the empty weight of the machine plus some fuel and passengers (close to the MTOF).

Image

So it is indeed a specs issue. Why it was lowered could probably have to do with the fact that the specs could not be met by any vendor (speculating here; need to dig up my analysis on this from about a year back).

-Vivek


Vivek A, thanks for the response and it was polite of you to move the conversation to the right thread. While the specs ruled out all contenders, the subsequent modification to the altitude ceiling req. left only the Merlins in the fray and thats suspect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 07:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21744
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
I doubt if it is possible to place, power up and maintain radars on Himalayan peaks.

Aerostats and AWACS 24x7 is the way to go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 08:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 9829
Location: India
AWST reports that the IAF is drastically reducing its FGFA acquisitions.No twin-seat aircraft because it believes that HAL cannot co-develop the same.The date of induction is 2020,with hopes that it will enter before that date.Avionics,etc. will be desi.No changes in the shape,design of the aircraft,identical to the Russian version.The AMCA design now resembles the F-22 more,but top priority is being given to the success of the FGFA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 09:16 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 30688
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
indeed with weapon systems increasingly becoming smarter and standoff, the 2 seat thing is on way out - neither raptor nor jsf even have 2 seat trainer models iirc.
50km range using folding wings and stealth shaping of weapons is becoming a new minimum benchmark.

tibet and SW quadrant of cheen are vast siberian style badlands with few if any infra of note. only planes with vast range and speed can dominate such regions like the mighty Foxhound both to intercept manned platforms and to intercept low flying cruise missiles quickly before they cause damage....we cannot compromise on range or stealth for two seater.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 20:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31
Posts: 325
anand_sankar wrote:
@rohitvats, answering your questions one by one...

Quote:
While AWACS and long range AAMs are a buzz-word these days - how will the fighters fare at this altitude? IAF fighters taking off from virtual sea-level and PLAAF taking from 10K+ feet airbases.


Leh and other high-alt bases apart, the IAF has a definite advantage across the board at all its bases. Taking off from almost sea level both in the Gangetic and Brahmaputra basin, IAF fighters can do full-load take offs with very efficient runway length utilization. Even hot days are manageable because of the high density of the air.

The PLAAF on the other hand has a fight on its hands at bases above 8,000 ft. Aircraft will require a lot of runway to pull off loaded take offs, often will have to sacrifice weapon or fuel loads to make best use of available runways. Things will be especially bad between April to August with high day temperatures affecting the density of the air.

Quote:
- in terms of air-combat performance in the 20k-30k feet (ASL) sub-set, how do Indian and PLAAF aircraft fare?


Answering this from a pure air-to-air engagement perspective, 25,000 ft to 45,000 ft is kind of the sweet spot for long range air engagements for gen 4++ aircraft. Turbofan engines in today's A2A fighters are optimised for this altitude regime, this applies to both the IAF and the PLAAF. Launching missiles in this region offers good kinematic performance. (Gen 5 -- Raptor, PAK-FA etc are optimised for 55,000 ft plus offering its own advantages but that's beyond the scope of this question)

The biggest catch I see is the high floor of the plateau pushing engagements to the higher end of that band to allow for more space to pull up from evasive maneuvers. Pulling up at 15,000 ft is not the same as 5,000 ft. Also pilots would need to watch out for low-level flak and radar directed guns that are placed on the high floor. These guns are typically good till 6,000 ft, so if they are at 10,000 ft, you'd better not venture below 16,000 ft. (If you recall in one of Vivek Ahuja's scenarios a Su-30MKI gets hit by flak while pulling up over Manasarovar lake.) Also from what we saw in Kargil MANPADS work really well in the cold rarefied air, and they can engage upto 9,000 ft. These things will have to be factored into while planning air to air ops.

Quote:
Now, the valley floor is at 14K-15K feet - I am assuming that any ground attack on targets in areas like this will have to commence from 25K-30K feet bracket.


Definitely if you want to use LGBs you would look at dropping the bombs from 25,000 ft+. Here again bomb kits need to be calibrated for the higher altitude release and corresponding adjustments might also be need to made on aircraft avionics. But we have knowledge of this from Kargil. Operating at a higher altitude with a full bomb and fuel load will not matter for the aircraft if its engines are optimised for this regime. This is the reason why the Jags are getting new engines.


After reading Vivek's scenarios this exactly what's going to happen. IAF's got the optimum performance edge and to cover their disadvantage there is every chance that Chinese might launch a cruise missile strike on these airbases even before they enter the air war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2012 07:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21744
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
shiv wrote:
chiru wrote:

single seat jags had IFR probes since the beginning



No.

When Jags were first ordered it was requested that the IFR probes be removed. Decades later when the IAF wanted them, the plumbing was still there and that was used. There is a story about that somewhere...

Correction, even the plumbing was removed
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19804
Quote:
Air Marshal Kumaria pointed out that in the late 1970s, for instance, the IAF actually sought removal of aerial refuelling plumbing from the Anglo-French Jaguar aircraft even though they were meant for a deep penetration strike role.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2012 08:52 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 27 Apr 2011 05:38
Posts: 56
Hi Shiv
Do you happen to know if this was because of weight/aerodynamics considerations? The two seater is pretty cramped, so an IFR probe would have had to be non retractable, which would then come with drag and weight limitations. That said, this is kind of a critical capability in a strike aircraft - certainly shows a bit of "lack of forward thinking" in the 70s to ask that it be taken out of an operational platform.

Thoughts appreciated.

Cheers
Aharam


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4275 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 ... 107  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, ssaravanan, Yahoo [Bot] and 18 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