Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 21 Dec 2014 00:09

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 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 109  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2012 22:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2026
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
Quote:
If he has to repeatedly throttle back, he will lose interest and look for alternatives. And that would be a tragedy for aeronautics in this country!


This is where the difference of thought lies between IN and the rest of our defence forces. IN is ready to get it's hand dirty i.e. involve itself in R&D or even wait so that things gets indigenized but IA and IAF are allowed to behave like spoilt brats who are ever ready to run to foreign arms dealer if there is a whiff of a problem in the program. Unless there doesn't come a hardheaded def min who won't give in to tantrums of IA or IAF and make them do the necessary to support indigenization both these services will keep on coming with excuses now and then to allow foreign arms import.

I bet behind the recent HTT-40 saga IAF "afsars" are involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2012 22:29 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
I understand your angst and I share it. But please do not insinuate without proof. The report clearly said it was a financial thought.

First of all, imagine a force having two kinds of BTT and then the second type is twice as expensive as the first. Even if an IAF afsar would have started it, there are strong reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2012 22:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2026
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
indranilroy wrote:
I understand your angst and I share it. But please do not insinuate without proof. The report clearly said it was a financial thought.

First of all, imagine a force having two kinds of BTT and then the second type is twice as expensive as the first. Even if an IAF afsar would have started it, there are strong reasons.


You are saying that as if this is the last time IAF is going to buy BTT. When these BTT's that IAF is buying gets obsolete then what ??? Do they expect HAL or any other Indian aviation giant that may exist at that time to magically come up with a BTT out of thin air ??? What bloody cost analysis you are talking about the costs can be brought down by increasing indigenous contents step by step and if I am guessing right most of the cost must be going into purchasing the engine which could well have been developed in India itself if the douche bags in mod had the vision back then to ask HAL/DRDO to start a programme to achieve that goal. But now since the morons can't accept there fault they come up with some 30-60 cr. analysis and blame HAL for a big price tag. Wah bhaiya kya logic hain !!!!

And what about HTT-35 was it also too costly that nobody showed any interest ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2012 23:49 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
I do not know who dropped the ball on HTT-35, do you? If yes, please speak up and I will listen. Otherwise don't bring it in to discuss the HTT-40.

Your logic is driven by passion rather than reason. Why should an Indian built BTT be twice as expensive?!!! Think about it, every part of the PC-7 is imported, then by your logic, why should it be half the price of the HTT-40?

You spoke about engines and hence I would discuss it. The PC-7 also uses a imported PT-6A engine. And no, India would not be able to make a much cheaper engine than the PT-6A, and of its caliber. If you don't believe me, please do some research. There is proper reason why it is the most successful engine in its class by a big margin.

By the way, these are not cutting edge planes. These are all-metal basic trainers where one of the most expensive parts is integration of several small parts. This is labour intensive and hence should be cheaper in India!!!

So why is the HTT-40 TWICE as expensive?
1. May be the R&D is that expensive. However, there is no research involved. It is more of a design and integration challenge. Hence you see HAL starting to make HTT-40 in just 2-3 years on conception. It is not possible to do the same for a fighter aircraft or a modern airlifter. And one would imagine that over 106 aircrafts, this cost could be amortized substantially. This is not likely that this drives the costs up by 2 times.
2. May be HAL overestimated the costs for everything, and will revise the costs. (Most likely) in my opinion.
3. HAL is obfuscating the costs of HTT-40 to cover for some other expenditure.
4. HAL is utterly inefficient. I put this to exhaust all the options. I don't believe this.

Pick your choice.


Last edited by indranilroy on 28 Dec 2012 23:56, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2012 23:51 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
And by the way, I have always been in favour of building the HTT-40. There is no other way than to bring up the aero industry without taking up smaller projects. Clearly, if our industry can't produce parts for a BTT, then it cannot produce parts for a AMCA, FGFA, MTA, NCA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 00:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2026
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
indranilroy wrote:
I do not know who dropped the ball on HTT-35, do you? If yes, please speak up and I will listen. Otherwise don't bring it in to discuss the HTT-40.


Exactly nobody except IAF/MoD know about wtf happened to HTT-35. It just vanished like magic and saying that it is not relevant to HTT-40 is wilful neglect of a project which would have completed the same set of requirements that PC-7 is going to do now, correct me if I'am wrong here.

indranilroy wrote:
Your logic is driven by passion rather than reason. Why should an Indian built BTT be twice as expensive?!!! The PC-7 also uses a imported PT-6A engine (And no India would not be able to make a much cheaper engine than the PT-6A, and of its caliber. If you don't believe me, please do some research). In fact think about it, every part of the PC-7 is imported, then by your logic, why should it be half the price of the HTT-40? These are not cutting edge planes. These are all-metal basic trainers where one of the most expensive parts is integration of several small parts which is labour intensive and hence should be cheaper in India!!!


Guilty as charged won't contest you here I have a passion for indigenization and get massive khujli whenever foreign arm is brought to suffice our military requirements. Swiss have been manufacturing the PC-7 for years now they have long back recovered there costs gone into developing the PC-7 so HAL coming up with a costlier BTT is nothing surprising but it doesn't mean that since HTT-40 is costly now it will remain so forever. It has been said umpteen times that costs can be brought down step by step by increasing local content gradually. PT-6A can be the best engine available for now but can you say with guarantee that it will be the same in two decades from now ??? If we keep sitting on our asses thinking that we will never be able to come up with an engine like this or that, then why do we even make an effort for indigenization in the aerospace sector ??? Doesn't an aircraft get's built around it's engine ??? If we refuse to make or even try to make something as important as that then we have already lost the race here.

indranilroy wrote:
So why is the HTT-40 TWICE as expensive?
1. May be the R&D is that expensive. However, there is no research involved. It is more of a design and integration challenge. Hence you see HAL starting to make HTT-40 in just 2-3 years on conception. It is not possible to do the same for a fighter aircraft or a modern airlifter. And one would imagine that over 106 aircrafts, this cost could be amortized substantially. This is not likely that this drives the costs up by 2 times.
2. May be HAL overestimated the costs for everything, and will revise the costs. (Most likely) in my opinion.
3. HAL is obfuscating the costs of HTT-40 to cover for some other expenditure.
4. HAL is utterly inefficient. I put this to exhaust all the options. I don't believe this.

Pick your choice.


Exactly no body knows how MoD or HAL came up with the 60 cr. tag. Till HAL clarifies we can indulge in guessing games only.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 01:25 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
You still did not provide any reason.

Let me answer your theory about "aircraft being built around the engine" theory. That is only the case when your engine development precedes the aircraft development. It is not the case in India. Hence you see HTT-35/40 being developed without the selection of the engine. The same goes for LCA, LUH, AMCA, NCA. You name it.

And oh! for coming up a PT-6A engine in 20 years, India should start developing it today. Do you see any such effort? So who is to blame, IAF?

Your khujli is in the right place. But you will have another khujli if IAF tells you that it is not operationally ready to defend India. So which khujli should it tend to?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 01:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2026
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
indranilroy wrote:
You still did not provide any reason.


Indigenization isn't a strong enough reason for you. OK how about creation of tech base for further military research. You haven't either answered what will IAF do when Pilatus becomes obsolete and again it has a trainer requirement ???

indranilroy wrote:
Let me answer your theory about "aircraft being built around the engine" theory. That is only the case when your engine development precedes the aircraft development. It is not the case in India. Hence you see HTT-35/40 being developed without the selection of the engine. The same goes for LCA, LUH, AMCA, NCA. You name it.


You mean to say LCA, LUH, AMCA all of them are being made without an engine being selected !!!! Would love to hear more on this from you, this the first time I am hearing such theory that an aircraft if being built without selecting an engine. Do give your reasoning on this.

indranilroy wrote:
And oh! for coming up a PT-6A engine in 20 years, India should start developing it today. Do you see any such effort? So who is to blame, IAF?


Didn't the IAF knew what is required to be done so as to create an aviation industry here ??? You mean to say the IAF is all oblivious of the situation in our country and has got no interest in indigenization ??? I am ready to accept such view but it must come directly from the mouth of IAF that it doesn't support indigenization or has any interest in it.

indranilroy wrote:
Your khujli is in the right place. But you will have another khujli if IAF tells you that it is not operationally ready to defend India. So which khujli should it tend to?


Wallah here come the Brahmastra "Operational Readiness". Hmmmm even after years and years of purchasing from TFTA lands why hasn't the IAF reached the operational readiness it desires ??? How many years of purchasing from TFTA's will make IAF operational ready ??? Without an indigenous aerospace industry wouldn't we always remain dependant upon TFTAs for our military requirements ??? Do these questions give you or IAF some specific kind of aaram or khujli ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 02:18 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
Sagar G wrote:
Indigenization isn't a strong enough reason for you. OK how about creation of tech base for further military research. You haven't either answered what will IAF do when Pilatus becomes obsolete and again it has a trainer requirement ???

IAF will require trainers to train its pilots. If HAL does not foresse those orders and get a plane ready in time, IAF will have to import again. I see no fault of IAF in this!
Sagar G wrote:
You mean to say LCA, LUH, AMCA all of them are being made without an engine being selected !!!! Would love to hear more on this from you, this the first time I am hearing such theory that an aircraft if being built without selecting an engine. Do give your reasoning on this.

LCA was being developed from 1980s. F404s only selected in 2003 and 2008, we selected the F414. what is the engine selected for AMCA. Clearly design studies are in advanced stages. For LUH, HAL and Turbomecca had broken down due to inexorbitant consultancy fees from Turbomecca. So HAL was planning to fit the twin-engine shakti itself on LUH in a different configuration. It was also in talks with other engine manufacturers for an engine. For AMCA, I have no clue of which engine they are going for. Clearly the engine has not been selected. Kaveri has to go quite some way before it gets fitted into the AMCA. NCA will float tenders for engines.
Sagar G wrote:
Didn't the IAF knew what is required to be done so as to create an aviation industry here ??? You mean to say the IAF is all oblivious of the situation in our country and has got no interest in indigenization ??? I am ready to accept such view but it must come directly from the mouth of IAF that it doesn't support indigenization or has any interest in it.

That is neither IAF's responsibility or job. IAF's only job is to defend the country. IAF can support Indian products, if they are ready in time. IAF can handhold the industry too, but you can't demand it of them.

Sagar G wrote:
Indranilroy wrote:
Your khujli is in the right place. But you will have another khujli if IAF tells you that it is not operationally ready to defend India. So which khujli should it tend to?

Wallah here come the Brahmastra "Operational Readiness". Hmmmm even after years and years of purchasing from TFTA lands why hasn't the IAF reached the operational readiness it desires ??? How many years of purchasing from TFTA's will make IAF operational ready ??? Without an indigenous aerospace industry wouldn't we always remain dependant upon TFTAs for our military requirements ??? Do these questions give you or IAF some specific kind of aaram or khujli ???

Please read the comments properly before penning down long rants. I did not say that IAF is not operationally ready. I said, you given all this bhashan on your khujli, but you will give another bhashan on another khujli of yours IF IAF said that it is not operationally ready.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 02:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26834
Location: NowHere
In many sense, it is cultural and political definition that the word indigenize deals with ONLY adopting to local culture and industrial needs what is obtained from outside the country. This does not mean do it everything from scratch. Even our culture is indigenizing western ways of living [it effects overall indic-system entropy {includes what we design, and how we use it}].

Product in use should fairly say where we stand.. and the main long term objective is "least foreign dependence" during war times.. which can also be argued that everything built from scratch would definitely stand but, there are cases where we would like to go slow on matters where the priority is the product and not the time aspects of getting there. (Kaveri for example.. IAF can't be waiting for ever).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 02:21 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
Sagar G

HAL today is pursuing development of HTT-40 against the clock for a quickly vaporizing order of 106 BTTs. Why did not it do so with the HTT-35, when it had the time on its hands. By 2000-2005 it would have had a first rate BTT. It would have had the order of all 181 trainers from IAF and may be many export orders. Why wouldn't you blame HAL for it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 02:23 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
This is continuing in the wrong thread. Please continue in the Indian Military Aviation thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 02:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2026
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
indranilroy wrote:
IAF will require trainers to train its pilots. If HAL does not foresse those orders and get a plane ready in time, IAF will have to import again. I see no fault of IAF in this!


HAL did not "foresee" this !!!! OK now I get why were you trying to downplay HTT-35 because talking about that won't help in your endeavour of painting IAF doodh ka dhula.

indranilroy wrote:
LCA was being developed from 1980s. F404s only selected in 2003 and 2008, we selected the F414. what is the engine selected for AMCA. Clearly design studies are in advanced stages. For LUH, HAL and Turbomecca had broken down due to inexorbitant consultancy fees from Turbomecca. So HAL was planning to fit the twin-engine shakti itself on LUH in a different configuration. It was also in talks with other engine manufacturers for an engine. For AMCA, I have no clue of which engine they are going for. Clearly the engine has not been selected. Kaveri has to go quite some way before it gets fitted into the AMCA. NCA will float tenders for engines.


Wallah another miracle now we are back to talking about engines from no engine is required to design an aircraft. LCA was being made around Kaveri but since Kaveri couldn't make it in time therefore an engine was selected which can be used to replace the Kaveri with minimal or no change to the design of the airframe. For AMCA DRDO is hoping that Kaveri will come alive by then if not then they have surely set there eyes on possible replacements.

indranilroy wrote:
That is neither IAF's responsibility or job. IAF's only job is to defend the country. IAF can support Indian products, if they are ready in time. IAF can handhold the industry too, but you can't demand it of them.


This statement of yours represents the thinking process that is prevalent both in IA and IAF (thank god IN is much much wiser) and is exactly the bane of indigenization in both these sectors. Whereas IN is creating landmarks after landmarks in defence indigenization the other two services are creating landmarks after landmarks in importing military stuff. This customer-kirana wala relationship that you paint here is not going to work if IA/IAF wants an indigenous defence industry. If both these services fail to see the benefits of indigenization then even God can't help India.

indranilroy wrote:
Please read the comments properly before penning down long rants. I did not say that IAF is not operationally ready. I said, you given all this bhashan on your khujli, but you will give another bhashan on another khujli of yours IF IAF said that it is not operationally ready.


Please read my reply's carefully before branding them as "rants". I did not infer from your post that IAF is not operationally ready there is already enough open info available about it to show in what pathetic state our defence preparedness is but my khujli is due to the fact that even after being arm twisted by foreign arms vendor year after year IAF sleeps peacefully knowing about it's shortcomings very well but at the same time refuses to co-operate with our scientists and engineers who can get rid of this problem in due time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 02:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2026
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
indranilroy wrote:
Sagar G

HAL today is pursuing development of HTT-40 against the clock for a quickly vaporizing order of 106 BTTs. Why did not it do so with the HTT-35, when it had the time on its hands. By 2000-2005 it would have had a first rate BTT. It would have had the order of all 181 trainers from IAF and may be many export orders. Why wouldn't you blame HAL for it?


:rotfl: You still don't get it HAL can't do shit without the approval of MoD or any PSU for that sake without the approval of there respective ministries. HTT-35 burial is the fault of IAF/MoD period.


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

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
No I don't get it. If MoD's nod is compulsory for action, then HTT-40 should have been shelved by now.


Last edited by indranilroy on 29 Dec 2012 03:27, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 03:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2026
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
indranilroy wrote:
No I t don't get it. If MoD's nod is compulsory for action. Then HTT-40 should have been shelved by now.


It is being by MoD, now connect the dots.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 03:36 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
And that is your speculation. While, you are entitled to your speculations, HAL's tenders for raw materials for HTT-40 says this.
Quote:
It is understood & agreed that the Govt. of India is not a party to this agreement and has no liabilities, obligations or rights hereunder. It is expressly understood & agreed that H.A.L. is an independent legal entity with power and authority to enter into contracts solely on its own behalf under the applicable laws of India and General Principles Contract Law.


We can discuss more if you can substantiate any of your speculations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 03:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2026
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
indranilroy wrote:
And that is your speculation. While, you are entitled to your speculations, HAL's tenders for raw materials for HTT-40 says this.
Quote:
It is understood & agreed that the Govt. of India is not a party to this agreement and has no liabilities, obligations or rights hereunder. It is expressly understood & agreed that H.A.L. is an independent legal entity with power and authority to enter into contracts solely on its own behalf under the applicable laws of India and General Principles Contract Law.


We can discuss more if you can substantiate any of your speculations.


My speculation is based upon a recent article only and if that article is right then we are making a blunder according to me. The section you quote is from IMMUNITY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOI) and is a bit hypocritical when in the very first line it says...

Quote:
HAL, a Navaratna Public Sector Undertaking under Government of India


So HAL as ordered by GOI is saving it's skin in case shit hits the ceiling but nonetheless if the recent article was only speculative then I am more than happy but if it isn't then as I said before this line of thinking will only spell doom for us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 05:15 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
Stopping HTT-40 production is a blunder. I have already said that. My objection has been at your baseless allegations.

Sagar G wrote:
I bet behind the recent HTT-40 saga IAF "afsars" are involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 13:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
indranilroy wrote:
And by the way, I have always been in favour of building the HTT-40. There is no other way than to bring up the aero industry without taking up smaller projects. Clearly, if our industry can't produce parts for a BTT, then it cannot produce parts for a AMCA, FGFA, MTA, NCA.


+1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 13:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Posts: 320
Location: NZL
Aditya_V wrote:
My quote was pun intended for the previous post regarding validation of the A to A role Tejas.


I understand and many Thanks Aditya for bearing with me and letting me quote you.

Jai Hind :-)


Last edited by Khalsa on 29 Dec 2012 14:00, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 13:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
indranilroy wrote:
Why should an Indian built BTT be twice as expensive?!!! Think about it, every part of the PC-7 is imported, then by your logic, why should it be half the price of the HTT-40?

You spoke about engines and hence I would discuss it. The PC-7 also uses a imported PT-6A engine. And no, India would not be able to make a much cheaper engine than the PT-6A, and of its caliber. If you don't believe me, please do some research. There is proper reason why it is the most successful engine in its class by a big margin.

By the way, these are not cutting edge planes. These are all-metal basic trainers where one of the most expensive parts is integration of several small parts. This is labour intensive and hence should be cheaper in India!!!

So why is the HTT-40 TWICE as expensive?
1. May be the R&D is that expensive. However, there is no research involved. It is more of a design and integration challenge. Hence you see HAL starting to make HTT-40 in just 2-3 years on conception. It is not possible to do the same for a fighter aircraft or a modern airlifter. And one would imagine that over 106 aircrafts, this cost could be amortized substantially. This is not likely that this drives the costs up by 2 times.
2. May be HAL overestimated the costs for everything, and will revise the costs. (Most likely) in my opinion.
3. HAL is obfuscating the costs of HTT-40 to cover for some other expenditure.
4. HAL is utterly inefficient. I put this to exhaust all the options. I don't believe this.

Pick your choice.


There are only 2 engines in the market for HTT application. Garrett and PT-6. HAL already does deep (true?) manufacture of Garrett. Cockpit can be borrowed from IJT. So HTT should be quick and cheap. HTT-40 will also assist in future variants of Rustom UCAV.

It seems HAL management intentionally want to kill HTT-40. Similar to something like they forgot about production line of LCA. Keep blaming the engines in IJT fiasco while the real issues lies in Controls. Don't even talk about Saras etc etc. Just parade assembled Su-30MKIs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 13:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2026
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
indranilroy wrote:
Stopping HTT-40 production is a blunder. I have already said that. My objection has been at your baseless allegations.

Sagar G wrote:
I bet behind the recent HTT-40 saga IAF "afsars" are involved.


IAF can do it's job here by coming in and expressing it's support for the programme but it was silent during the HTT-35 saga and still is silent about this as well so my conclusion about IAF isn't just a speculation. I am only joining the dots.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 21:53 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
Nobody can stop you. India is a free country :-).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 21:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
It is so strange how things posted over here get picked up by other blogs for instance the news on lsp-8 or the tender for mk2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2012 22:10 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
or Nirbhay ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2013 17:19 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 18 Feb 2011 17:05
Posts: 85
Found this on a LCA thread from Keypub forum. Apologies if already posted. strange that an LSP is parked alongwith harriers.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2013 18:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 8354
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
^^ This would have been during the Goa sea level trials...

IIRC, the R-73 was first fired in these trials?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2013 18:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 10162
Location: Kali blessing station No 5, Mleccha Defence Tower No 34, Harshavardhan Line - Western Sector
is there a difference between the port and starboard missiles on the LCA?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2013 18:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26834
Location: NowHere
I suppose, you don't mean affsar vs sepoy missiles on LCA. From a config point of view, I doubt the stores management would be in such an architect and not designed for such rank wise or missile caste system. Other than the capability in terms of weight and size and aerodynamic aspects, there should be nothing in the design to restrict what missile is on which pylon. JMT


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2013 19:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 10162
Location: Kali blessing station No 5, Mleccha Defence Tower No 34, Harshavardhan Line - Western Sector
i meant the photograph - the fin colours are different


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2013 20:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26834
Location: NowHere
okay, the vympel vs. rafael.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2013 20:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 7100
Would love Derby firing from LCA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2013 23:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26834
Location: NowHere
And Brimstone perhaps for now [test the SAR out], and later indigenized or a new nag.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 04:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 1963 Test Flights Successfully. (21-Dec-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-84,LSP4-56,LSP5-113,LSP7-8,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 1964 Test Flights Successfully. (02-Jan-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-84,LSP4-56,LSP5-113,LSP7-9,NP1-4)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 09:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
NAL 2011-2012 report

http://www.nal.res.in/pdf/ch1dir.pdf

Quote:
A simulation model of the fighter aircraft was developed incorporating the rigid body dynamics (airframe split into seven components), air data system and
flight control laws to clear LCA-Tejas for wake penetration. The flight model was embedded into the Engineer-in-Loop Simulator at NAL for pilots to practice the flight test profiles for wake penetration trials. The simulator was also used for evaluations of the auto-throttle mode, the Autopilot and high Angle-of-Attack studies; Fig.23 shows the Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS) incorporated in the visuals for LCA Navy variant simulation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 16:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2155
Location: NullPointerException
So simulations were done for wake penetration and its a go from a modelling perspective. What about actual tests?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 21:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 1964 Test Flights Successfully. (02-Jan-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-84,LSP4-56,LSP5-113,LSP7-9,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 1967 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Jan-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-85,LSP4-56,LSP5-114,LSP7-10,NP1-4)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2013 21:46 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34016
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
cousin's barbers part time maids phone repair guy was saying lsp8 trials in various hot / cold locations soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2013 22:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
Singhaji - How many times will they keep testing in hot/cold/not so hot/warm/temperate/equatorial conditions. But atleast good news is that it is on LSP8


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 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 109  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brad Goodman, Google Feedfetcher, rreddy and 17 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