'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Why aren't we ordering more Su-30 MKIs to top up the numbers in the twin-engine area.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Kakkaji already posted before me.
Do you see any interest from IAF in adding another squadron or two of MKI past the 272?
Do you see any interest from IAF in adding another squadron or two of MKI past the 272?
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Kakkaji wrote:Why aren't we ordering more Su-30 MKIs to top up the numbers in the twin-engine area.
Even Parrikar asked the same question when he was the DM. Su-30MKI could do the job of MMRCA and cost less to acquire.Cybaru wrote:Kakkaji already posted before me.
Do you see any interest from IAF in adding another squadron or two of MKI past the 272?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5393
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
^ either more MKI or a direct order of pakfa might be the way it will pan out
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
The Rafale's wingspan is 11 m while the Vikrant's lifts are 10 m wide.Cybaru wrote:Viv..
There are too many assumptions here. If the assumptions are correct you could be right.
But to assume that Rafale won't fit on the elevator by ballparking elevator size of vikrant by using google may be discounting something important.
Failure to Launch - Stratpost
The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.
Both Boeing and Dassault are apparently working on solutions to allow their aircraft to fit the lifts. Sources close to the programme said that Boeing is considering a system that would allow the Super Horner to sit canted on the lift, the tilt of the (folded) wings thereby resulting in a slightly shorter overall span measured parallel to the deck. With its fixed wings, the Rafale cannot offer such a solution, and Dassault is understood to be exploring a detachable wingtip, although this involves greater engineering and certification challenges.
There is simply no way the Kaveri can fly in the the LCA by 2019. Given that it needs to be redesigned with the new French core, the work's yet to begin, it'll be a job well done if they can get it into bench-testing within the next five years i.e. by 2022 (tall promises aside). The subsequent development, flight-testing (on a multi-engine platform) & integration will almost certainly go to 2030. Its an option for the AMCA maybe (I'm skeptical), definitely for the AURA, but it'll most certainly miss the Tejas' production window (~2026).If Kaveri flies in LCA by 2019 then the prospects of it being tested and available in the next few years after that increases quite substantially. Given that IMRH engine needs to be chosen and Safran can supply atleast 300+ (100 lca and 200 AMCA engines) cores which account for 40% of the cost of the engine is a lot of money left at the table if they don't help.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Shri Pythagoras says diagonal is 14 meters. Rafale wings will fit but not length IF the lifts are 10 meters squareViv S wrote: The Rafale's wingspan is 11 m while the Vikrant's lifts are 10 m wide.
But at 10 meters square the Vikrant cannot host any aircraft whatsoever other than:
Douglas A-4 Skyhawk
Hawker Seahawk
Breguet Alize
and a few other obsolete aircraft
or Tejas
No current flying aircraft. Not MiG 29. Not F-35.
I suspect that 10 meter figure. I mean even assuming that Indians are world class stupid - they can't be that stupid to design an entire aircraft carrier for obsolete airctaft and/or Tejas onlee
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5393
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Unlikely.... Probably will get pakfa mki aka fgfa and simultaneously upgrade su30 with pakfa tech. Note that both these programs have been delayed. My guess is that the latter is entirely dependent on the pakfas progress, which is not without developmental bumps as is to be expected. But in another couple of years we will likely see mki line bring reconfigured for fgfa and start of mki upgrade.Cybaru wrote:Kakkaji already posted before me.
Do you see any interest from IAF in adding another squadron or two of MKI past the 272?
If this doesn't happen for whatever reason only them can we see a few extra mki.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Huh?shiv wrote:Shri Pythagoras says diagonal is 14 meters. Rafale wings will fit but not length IF the lifts are 10 meters square
But at 10 meters square the Vikrant cannot host any aircraft whatsoever other than:
10 m x 14 m = 140 sq.m
Of course, area/length is not a concern since the aircraft can overhang the water. Problem is that the 11 m wide Rafale cannot fit on a 10 m wide lift. (The MiG-29K is about 8 m wide folded while the SH is 9.94 m.)
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
IAF IMHO feels it has enough Su-30 MKI and wants newer technology fighters with everything integrated by the OEM and hence the fighters come "off the shelf".srai wrote:Kakkaji wrote:Why aren't we ordering more Su-30 MKIs to top up the numbers in the twin-engine area.Even Parrikar asked the same question when he was the DM. Su-30MKI could do the job of MMRCA and cost less to acquire.Cybaru wrote:Kakkaji already posted before me.
Do you see any interest from IAF in adding another squadron or two of MKI past the 272?
IAF purchased Su-30 in 2001, and now its 2017 and still, we are adding fixes to the fighters plus needed Govt level intervention to have the Russians raise serviceability beyond file pushing. Added to this are the heavy costs of more frequent consumables usage, since IAF has not transitioned to any serious simulator heavy usage of Su-30 training, and relies on actual flight hours.
Having said that, buying some 2 more squadrons of the Su-30 makes ample sense, purely from the view of attrition replacements.
On a positive note, by 2019, we will finally have a proper multirole Su-30 fleet which is not just a striker, but also a proper multirole asset with defensive capability. The DR-118 and new DARE EW pod are crucial.
I also strongly encourage GOI to invest in a domestic AESA for the Su-30. It can offer some range increase over the existing Bars, but most importantly will have no moving parts and hence the HW reliability can be much higher, and also, it will be ours to fix and integrate new sensors with. Plus it will be compatible with the new Indian EW and RWR. The Super-30 as offered by the Russians IMHO, will end up being procured in part because the MOD will need to give some sops to the Russians if FGFA gets cancelled or trimmed and pushed out to a limited licensed buy, with limited TOT and local assembly.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Super 30 program progress on the Indian side
- We have seen DARE simulators with 2x large widescreen MFDs, presumably sourced from SAMTEL
- The MC setup, 1 Russian and 1 Indian will likely be changed to an IMA setup with new Indian MCs
- New Indian RWR/EW pod are anyhow in the works
What Russians can offer are a new radar, tweaks to the airframe (eg wet plumbing for wing tanks like the Su-35, which would mean FCS tweaks, interior system rearrangement), new engines. And if we go with their MC/MFD setup, sensor fusion like on the Su-35. Along with the new radar there will be new weapons (the 200km RVV-BD), new R77 variant, the new R73 follow on, Kh-28 missiles and so forth.
- We have seen DARE simulators with 2x large widescreen MFDs, presumably sourced from SAMTEL
- The MC setup, 1 Russian and 1 Indian will likely be changed to an IMA setup with new Indian MCs
- New Indian RWR/EW pod are anyhow in the works
What Russians can offer are a new radar, tweaks to the airframe (eg wet plumbing for wing tanks like the Su-35, which would mean FCS tweaks, interior system rearrangement), new engines. And if we go with their MC/MFD setup, sensor fusion like on the Su-35. Along with the new radar there will be new weapons (the 200km RVV-BD), new R77 variant, the new R73 follow on, Kh-28 missiles and so forth.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5393
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
^ not to mention the pakfa radar along with the l band array on the wing slats and the newer ols
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
With Astras now in pipeline, do we need R77s?Karan M wrote:Super 30 program progress on the Indian side
- We have seen DARE simulators with 2x large widescreen MFDs, presumably sourced from SAMTEL
- The MC setup, 1 Russian and 1 Indian will likely be changed to an IMA setup with new Indian MCs
- New Indian RWR/EW pod are anyhow in the works
What Russians can offer are a new radar, tweaks to the airframe (eg wet plumbing for wing tanks like the Su-35, which would mean FCS tweaks, interior system rearrangement), new engines. And if we go with their MC/MFD setup, sensor fusion like on the Su-35. Along with the new radar there will be new weapons (the 200km RVV-BD), new R77 variant, the new R73 follow on, Kh-28 missiles and so forth.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
US woos India into 100-year alliance against China
http://www.atimes.com/article/us-woos-i ... nce-china/
http://www.atimes.com/article/us-woos-i ... nce-china/
The US, meanwhile, is struggling to clinch the sale of its Predator Guardian UAVs and F-18 and F-16 fighter jets to India, while Delhi takes time to weigh its options. Again, Tillerson spoke effusively about the sale of hi-tech weapons, but never once mentioned co-production, as India does for certain weapons with Russia, leave alone any nod to ‘Make in India.’
Suffice to say, behind the high-flown American rhetoric about a bolstered strategic alliance with India, ‘America First’ very much remains the key template in Trump’s foreign policy approach.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Sighh I think we are going to have the F-16 rammed down our throats
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Well we are asking for it. I guess the government of India has not learnt lessons of past indian kingdoms.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Trojan War - Wooden HorsePratyush wrote:Well we are asking for it. I guess the government of India has not learnt lessons of past indian kingdoms.
'Beware of those who come bearing gifts'
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Planes can be placed diagonally on a square lift. So length of plane is the problem saar, length of plane. Not wingspan. Not area. Area is sq m . A square shape can be ten meters square not "squared". If the plane does not fit even diagonally on the lift it cannot be lowered into a hangar even if the plane can hang its tail out on the deck itself.Viv S wrote:Huh?shiv wrote:Shri Pythagoras says diagonal is 14 meters. Rafale wings will fit but not length IF the lifts are 10 meters square
But at 10 meters square the Vikrant cannot host any aircraft whatsoever other than:
10 m x 14 m = 140 sq.m
Of course, area/length is not a concern since the aircraft can overhang the water. Problem is that the 11 m wide Rafale cannot fit on a 10 m wide lift. (The MiG-29K is about 8 m wide folded while the SH is 9.94 m.)
Take a square (shape) for which each side is 10 meters long. Calculate the diagonal which is the longest dimension in a square. It is ~14 meters. So even if someone sits a plane diagonally on a square (shaped) lift whose sides are each 10 meters long - the only planes that can fit are obsolete. Modern planes are all too long even if their wings can be folded. Both Rafale and MiG 29 will not fit on a lift that is 10 meters wide by ten meters long (a 10 meter square, not 10 meters squared)
The area of the triangle that is formed by dividing a square diagonally is 70 sq m
I repeat that I would be unpleasantly surprised if someone proved that the Vikrant designers were so stupid as to create lifts that cannot accommodate any modern fighter other than NLCA
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Despite all the geopolitical pressure being put on the government, it has little effect on babudom who will keep pushing the SE file between various ministries until all the formalities are completed. Expect this process to take years before the first plane joins the IAF.srai wrote:Trojan War - Wooden HorsePratyush wrote:Well we are asking for it. I guess the government of India has not learnt lessons of past indian kingdoms.
'Beware of those who come bearing gifts'
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4056
- Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
I think this deal will get inch closer to finalization towards the end of next govt. Hopefully by then the production rates and performance of Tejas would have left little for this deal
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Maybe if it was a very narrow plane. For an aircraft like the Rafale? Afraid not.shiv wrote:Planes can be placed diagonally on a square lift.
^The different between the width of the dabba on the left and the dabba on the right is about 1%.
If the Rafale M can't fit straight up, it can't fit at an angle. The French are looking into detachable wingtips but those are hard-points on composite wings that also containing ESM/EO equipment - easier said than done.
And even if its done - the aircraft still barely fits. The IN crews on the lower deck will need to align it on the lift with little room to maneuvre, before sending it up where the crews on the flight deck will need to fit the wingtips right there in the open, and take them off when its being sent down. The IN is quite sure to nix the notion of running such a ridiculous circus for a routine activity.
Well.. welcome to the club of unpleasantly surprised BRFites.I repeat that I would be unpleasantly surprised if someone proved that the Vikrant designers were so stupid as to create lifts that cannot accommodate any modern fighter other than NLCA
We're all wondering how the hell it happened/was allowed to happen. How much of it was stupidity and how much was malfeasance (only modern fighter other than N-LCA that fits is the MiG-29K).
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
The other out-of-the-box thinking being proposed by Boeing, to fit their bird in the box, is by canting/tilting (not clear with or without external aids)
As you have rightly pointed out, i strongly suspect the navy guys will have rather strong feelings towards any such proposed gymnastics for a day in-day out activity.
Are widening of the lifts totally impossible at this stage? At least they are properly situated on the side of the carrier..
As you have rightly pointed out, i strongly suspect the navy guys will have rather strong feelings towards any such proposed gymnastics for a day in-day out activity.
Are widening of the lifts totally impossible at this stage? At least they are properly situated on the side of the carrier..
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
This is what I have been saying especially since length is more that wingspan. I was not referring to areaViv S wrote:
If the Rafale M can't fit straight up, it can't fit at an angle.
No No. I am not unpleasantly surprised.Viv S wrote: Well.. welcome to the club of unpleasantly surprised BRFites.
I am simply not surprised at all that BRFites are discussing pure fluff with no proof whatsoever that the lifts are ten meters square (that is a square of ten meters each side). That data point is nonsense. But it is likely to remain indisputable fact on BRF for endless pointless discussions. No surprises there.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
First off, its 10 m x 14 m, I don't know why you keep calling it "ten metres square". Wrt to 'no proof whatsoever' -shiv wrote:I am simply not surprised at all that BRFites are discussing pure fluff with no proof whatsoever that the lifts are ten meters square (that is a square of ten meters each side). That data point is nonsense. But it is likely to remain indisputable fact on BRF for endless pointless discussions. No surprises there.
We started out with a Google image that measures the lift cavity as under 11 m. That measurement is unlikely to be perfect but the aircraft requires another 2-3 metres for regular deck operations (lifts on the CdG are over 15 m wide).
Which was then confirmed with exactly dimensions by Angad Singh -
The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.
Both Boeing and Dassault are apparently working on solutions to allow their aircraft to fit the lifts. Sources close to the programme said that Boeing is considering a system that would allow the Super Horner to sit canted on the lift, the tilt of the (folded) wings thereby resulting in a slightly shorter overall span measured parallel to the deck. With its fixed wings, the Rafale cannot offer such a solution, and Dassault is understood to be exploring a detachable wingtip, although this involves greater engineering and certification challenges.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
How is a plane whose FOC is planned for 2025 to be ready in 2019?
Saab profit up; Gripen E jet project ahead of plan
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/saab-p ... 2017-10-24
Saab profit up; Gripen E jet project ahead of plan
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/saab-p ... 2017-10-24
Swedish defense and aerospace company Saab said Tuesday that development of its new Gripen E fighter jet was ahead of plan as the company reported a sharp rise in third-quarter earnings. The larger, upgraded version of the Gripen fighter is due for delivery in 2019 and first flew in June. Since then, the plane has logged more than 20 flights and last week flew supersonic for the first time, Saab Chief Executive Hakan Buskhe said in an interview. Both Sweden and Brazil have ordered new Gripens.
Work is also underway on additional test aircraft and the first production models, he said. The new Gripen is key to future Saab earnings. The Swedish company is trying to sell both that plane and older variants, the Gripen C and the two-seat Gripen D. Mr. Buskhe expressed optimism about sales prospects in the next year and a half. "The number of discussions that we have as we speak are at a record high," he said.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
At the rate how things move at a glacial pace in India, do not expect significant traction on SE deal anytime soon.
Trust but verify with Secretary
https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes. ... secretary/
Trust but verify with Secretary
https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes. ... secretary/
India will surely probe Tillerson on his commitment to hold the line on Pakistan. Washington wants the top three terrorists delivered — Siraj Haqqani, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Hafiz Saeed — all of whom live in Pakistan. But retiring them is not the end of the game. The secretary will, hopefully, have good answers for India.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Saab, Adani to hold Gripen suppliers meet in Delhi
https://www.stratpost.com/saab-adani-to ... -in-delhi/
https://www.stratpost.com/saab-adani-to ... -in-delhi/
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Huh? I don't see it that way. US needs Indian assistance in Afghanistan; what exactly are we asking from the US (that is of a strategic level)?Will wrote:Sighh I think we are going to have the F-16 rammed down our throats
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
The Tejas is far and away the best solution to the SE fighter. The F-35 is a much better plane overall but it is not on offer and Khan isnt just going to hand over such powerful kit to a country which hasn't traditionally been an ally. The fact that we haven't signed on to the alphabet soup agreements is another barrier to the sale of the F-35.
In the absence of both of these solutions, what I hope the IAF gets is the F-16, simply because it exists in its final version now. The Gripen will achieve FOC in 2025, which is too late. The IAF needs fighters yesterday, so getting the F-16V is the fastest solution, with whatever license manufacture/ "TOT"/workshare possible.
In the absence of both of these solutions, what I hope the IAF gets is the F-16, simply because it exists in its final version now. The Gripen will achieve FOC in 2025, which is too late. The IAF needs fighters yesterday, so getting the F-16V is the fastest solution, with whatever license manufacture/ "TOT"/workshare possible.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Not just that but even if we sign on the agreements will the US hand over their latest and best to us as even as we have the Russians visiting our bases for things like the FGFA (if we do go along with it) among other things. Will the US insist on having the F-35 in separate air bases with US personnel on station to prevent such occurences. I read these points mentioned by posters who appeared to be serving/retired US services personnel, on other forums.Chinmay wrote:The F-35 is a much better plane overall but it is not on offer and Khan isnt just going to hand over such powerful kit to a country which hasn't traditionally been an ally. The fact that we haven't signed on to the alphabet soup agreements is another barrier to the sale of the F-35.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
abusive posts not entertained on the forum
Last edited by Indranil on 25 Oct 2017 21:01, edited 2 times in total.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Has the US supported any of its betrayed allies like Saddam,the Shah,Noriega,Marcos, et al for even half a century?
If we swallow Tilly's "Willy", we as a nation would've lost our commonsense-to enter into a military alliance to wage war against China,dragged into it by the white man,
and risk a non- violent relationship with China by keeping strong independently, keeping the price of warring with India v.v.high.
In such an alliance,say a Sino-Japanese spat would drag in India who would have no stake in the issue.Oz are mere mercenaries,who've still not discarded their prison stripes!
If we swallow Tilly's "Willy", we as a nation would've lost our commonsense-to enter into a military alliance to wage war against China,dragged into it by the white man,
and risk a non- violent relationship with China by keeping strong independently, keeping the price of warring with India v.v.high.
In such an alliance,say a Sino-Japanese spat would drag in India who would have no stake in the issue.Oz are mere mercenaries,who've still not discarded their prison stripes!
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Ridiculous.
Atleast do the banning right.
Atleast do the banning right.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Nirav,
Banning is a simple process at BRF. I banned you and then had a change of heart. Since I am the poster you are having the problem with me, I should not moderate you. I have asked other moderators to take charge.
This means that this is your last chance.
Banning is a simple process at BRF. I banned you and then had a change of heart. Since I am the poster you are having the problem with me, I should not moderate you. I have asked other moderators to take charge.
This means that this is your last chance.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
poof - abusive post deletedIndranil wrote:Nirav,
Banning is a simple process at BRF. I banned you and then had a change of heart. Since I am the poster you are having the problem with me, I should not moderate you. I have asked other moderators to take charge.
This means that this is your last chance.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Can this clown be removed from this forum? Admins?nirav wrote:Edited Nirav's useless abuse
Bharat Rakshaks, lol.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Basically equivalent to the IOC-1 that was granted to the Tejas Mk1 in Jan 2011. FOC is a long way off for the Gripen E.Rakesh wrote:How is a plane whose FOC is planned for 2025 to be ready in 2019?
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
It will be funny if you go to a lawyer (or anybody) and say I don't want to go to an online forum, but I can't stop myself and they are not banning me.nirav wrote: Do I need to do this legally ?
...
I just want out.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
Indranil wrote:It will be funny if you go to a lawyer (or anybody) and say I don't want to go to an online forum, but I can't stop myself and they are not banning me.nirav wrote: Do I need to do this legally ?
...
I just want out.
Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter
yes, I'm the guy who expressed concern over hot exhaust directed in the general region of the tires and the possibility of it leading to tire degradation or tire burst. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. So what? Its not like you know anything that makes you worthwhile here on this forum, and your absence won't make a whit of a difference. Go to some other defence forum and s*** over it, BRF doesn't need you to stink it up.nirav wrote:Such retardation on display by the chums.
@indranil, if I do go to a lawyer, it will be for content and a deletion from database, not just a ban.
It's fine by me if that's how you guys want me to roll.
@kartik : aren't you the clown who said htt40 tyres will melt because of the exhaust?
You really are a clown. One of the biggest we've seen in a long while. You cannot stay away from this forum and ASK that you be banned so you don't regurgitate your bile.
Admins, please just ban this clown and let's move on. Not worth wasting any more time on him.