Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Mar 2010 06:20

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DpmQ93buTrM&co ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DpmQ93buTrM&co ... edded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Russian Military Exercise Live Fire

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 07 Mar 2010 09:20

I have a basic question... if we look at most Russian transport/civilian aircraft , their tail wings are high on the tail rudder...while most western planes have the tail wings lower..shall i say normal...whats the aerodynamic difference.... or why do the Russians use a diff design

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2010 12:06

sawant wrote:I have a basic question... if we look at most Russian transport/civilian aircraft , their tail wings are high on the tail rudder...while most western planes have the tail wings lower..shall i say normal...whats the aerodynamic difference.... or why do the Russians use a diff design

I am no guru but that has never prevented me from responding to questions whose answers I may not know..

First, where are the engines?

If they are under the wings then the blast of air from those engines can screw up the airflow over the tailplane, so the tailplane must be well above or below the level of the blast from the engines.

If your main wing is low, then the engines are hanging even lower - close to the ground. If your plane is operating from airstrips with a lot of loose dirt (maybe snow and ice?), then the lower your engine, the greater the chance of sucking debris into the engine

So the mainwing can be put higher up, above the fuselage to get your engines higher. But then you don't want that air blast on your tailplane, so you raise that higher.

The Russians have always tended to design their aircraft to operate from rough airstrips that may have dirt and grit on the surface and have tended to skew their design features to account for that - and that includes features like the ability to vary tyre pressures in flight (soft tyres to land on rough ground)

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 07 Mar 2010 12:53

Shiv da,

Your explanation makes very much sense. Thank you.

Your reasoning skills are exceptional. How much did you score in your last reasoning aptitude test? Just curious.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Mar 2010 12:57

Fwiw , this should suffice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-tail

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 07 Mar 2010 13:02

Rahul M wrote:venu, I don't know what you mean by saying that the chinese rockets don't leave smoke or don't have plume. could you post some video or picture to show us what you mean ?

what I found looks different...<snip>

I am talking about the LongMarch 4C rocket Rahul.

I wanted to include that pic from cdf but afraid of what bugging code they include in it, more than the copyright violation.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Mar 2010 13:04

upload it somewhere like imageshack and then post it here ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Mar 2010 13:17

Longmarch 4c series uses N2O4/UDMH as fuel for its first stage hence the characteristic plume without much smoke nothing unsual there .

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Mar 2010 13:24

ok, I found the youtube vid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPr__R_Pfbo

the first stage is probably UDMH and N2O4/RFNA liquid stage right ? that is not a particularly advanced or backward tech, just one of the solutions used today. it's more or less as Uprabhu said. rockets and long range missiles don't have any visibility/low smoke requirements and hence designers don't bother with those.

in our case, two missiles do have low smoke requirements and those are the nag and astra. check them out on youtube to see how smoky they are.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Mar 2010 13:42

Heptyl(UDMH) is extremely toxic the Russians at one time were facing stiff opposition with regards to launching their workhorse Proton class rockets from Kazakhstan as one of them had exploded in mid air spilling tonnes of UDMH and N2o4 in open (Iirc all but last stage of Proton are powered by N2o4 and UDMH combo ).

Come to think of it PSLV is a lot safer in that regards for its first stage uses HTPB while only the upper stage powered by Vikas engine uses the UDMH and N2o4 combo.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Mar 2010 13:47

the GSLV strap-ons use UDMH/N2O4 combo.

incidentally, ISRO site has a very beautifully done flash based student corner.

http://www.isro.org/scripts/gslv-flash.aspx check out the simulated launch in GSLV page.
http://www.isro.org/scripts/pslv-flash.aspx

yes, according to wiki UDMH is carcinogenic.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2010 17:07

Venu wrote:Shiv da,

Your explanation makes very much sense. Thank you.

Your reasoning skills are exceptional. How much did you score in your last reasoning aptitude test? Just curious.

Thanks Venu. There is nothing about reasoning skills that can't be corrected by decades of practice. Allow me to do any entrance exam 50 times over 50 years and I will pass all eventually.... Old codgers like me think they are clever and then prove that younger people are not clever by restricting the time allowed to learn and understand things. First you give a poor nervous young bloke only X seconds to do some "reasoning" and then say "Nyahahahaha - you're no good". But that is how we educate Indians.

My golf too is like that. Having said that I used to play a lot with model planes as a young lad..

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 07 Mar 2010 21:50

When the Mig-21 is brought up in the media, it is held up as an example of the AF/GOI incompetence in procuring newer planes. But on the other hand, I have read love poems to the same plane by AF pilots. Who is right?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 08 Mar 2010 00:28

Carl_T wrote:When the Mig-21 is brought up in the media, it is held up as an example of the AF/GOI incompetence in procuring newer planes. But on the other hand, I have read love poems to the same plane by AF pilots. Who is right?

The pilots period.

Its a beautifully designed aircraft but very unforgiving.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Mar 2010 00:58

carl, the mig-21 was the su-30MKI of its days, make no mistake about it. the fighters from the western block that were meant to be its competitor are all gone (F-104 starfighter and other century series birds) while it still is one of the most widely used fighters in the world, with a highly modified derivative version (JF-17) going into production only last year ?
the exploits of the mig-21 bison is well known.
it's another matter that its unforgiving as chetak says and unfortunately from late 80's and early 90's time murphy's law started applying to the aircraft with a vengeance.

> it's a single engined aircraft. keep that in mind for all the subsequent points.

> all aircraft from that generation had a much higher crash rate, that includes western designs. the tech hadn't matured enough by the time these aircrafts were designed which would lend to reliability standards that we see today.

> we had a much higher bird hit rate than other airforces because of callous civil authorities permitting setting up of abattoirs adjoining air bases. you can well understand what that means for a single engined fighter when a 10 kg vulture is sucked into the engine at 700kmph. it's only in the last 10-12 years that the situation has improved somewhat.

> with the retirement of the hunters and the lack of an AJT IAF had to train young pilots on the mig-21. it wasn't easy for rookie pilots. while coming in to land for example, the pilot can't see the ground right ahead due to the long fuselage, he has to look at the sides. it's unnerving for a trainee pilot.

> with the fall of the SU, spares condition was terrible and IAF had to buy spares from any odd place to keep the fleet in the air. spares bought from shady east european sources weren't always reliable but there was no alternative when 50% of your fleet is composed of this model.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Mar 2010 02:44

Carl_T wrote:When the Mig-21 is brought up in the media, it is held up as an example of the AF/GOI incompetence in procuring newer planes

The alleged incompetence is regarding procuring replacements for the old Mig-21 fleet. The incompetence is not regarding the procurement of Mig-21s themselves which happened years ago. The latter was one of the best procurement decisions ever taken considering the fact that the various versions of the Mig-21 have ably served as the backbone of the IAF for forty years.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 08 Mar 2010 08:16

While delta wings are critical to achieving high lift for supersonic flight, they also have a number of disadvantages for less high-performing aircraft. They require high landing and takeoff speeds and long takeoff and landing runs, are unstable at high angles of attack, and produce tremendous drag when "trimmed" to keep the plane level. Of these disadvantages, pilots and designers usually consider the high landing and takeoff speeds the most important because they make flying the plane dangerous.

Delta Wing

Mig 21 is a tailed delta.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 08 Mar 2010 10:48

Rahul M wrote:carl, the mig-21 was the su-30MKI of its days, make no mistake about it. the fighters from the western block that were meant to be its competitor are all gone (F-104 starfighter and other century series birds) while it still is one of the most widely used fighters in the world, with a highly modified derivative version (JF-17) going into production only last year ?
the exploits of the mig-21 bison is well known.
it's another matter that its unforgiving as chetak says and unfortunately from late 80's and early 90's time murphy's law started applying to the aircraft with a vengeance.

> it's a single engined aircraft. keep that in mind for all the subsequent points.

> all aircraft from that generation had a much higher crash rate, that includes western designs. the tech hadn't matured enough by the time these aircrafts were designed which would lend to reliability standards that we see today.

> we had a much higher bird hit rate than other airforces because of callous civil authorities permitting setting up of abattoirs adjoining air bases. you can well understand what that means for a single engined fighter when a 10 kg vulture is sucked into the engine at 700kmph. it's only in the last 10-12 years that the situation has improved somewhat.

> with the retirement of the hunters and the lack of an AJT IAF had to train young pilots on the mig-21. it wasn't easy for rookie pilots. while coming in to land for example, the pilot can't see the ground right ahead due to the long fuselage, he has to look at the sides. it's unnerving for a trainee pilot.

> with the fall of the SU, spares condition was terrible and IAF had to buy spares from any odd place to keep the fleet in the air. spares bought from shady east european sources weren't always reliable but there was no alternative when 50% of your fleet is composed of this model.

I see so it is a great plane, but it is aging and we've had problems with procuring parts.

So abbatoirs means slaughterhouses...What do you mean that those have been located near AF bases? That is on purpose??

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 08 Mar 2010 10:53

Carl_T wrote:
Rahul M wrote:..
> we had a much higher bird hit rate than other airforces because of callous civil authorities permitting setting up of abattoirs adjoining air bases. you can well understand what that means for a single engined fighter when a 10 kg vulture is sucked into the engine at 700kmph. it's only in the last 10-12 years that the situation has improved somewhat.
...........What do you mean that those have been located near AF bases? That is on purpose??

That civil authorities who give permission to people to set up such facilities should've used their brains and not given permission. I believe Indian airports also face similar issues with garbage dumps etc close to airports leading to greater possibilities of bird hits.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Mar 2010 11:30

Rahul M wrote:.......<SNIP>..with the retirement of the hunters and the lack of an AJT IAF had to train young pilots on the mig-21. it wasn't easy for rookie pilots. while coming in to land for example, the pilot can't see the ground right ahead due to the long fuselage, he has to look at the sides. it's unnerving for a trainee pilot.........<SNIP>

IIRC, another thing is the angle at which the aircraft approached and lands on the runway.....something to do again with the Delta Design...

I remember reading a quote from a Fighter Pilot, " Flying MiG-21 for undertrainee pilots in Stage III is like graduating from bicycle to Formula-1 car"....

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 08 Mar 2010 12:27

Notwithstanding, the manner in which the issues are juggled to indicate knowledgeable posts, the MiG 21 is simple. Delta Wing. F 104 was the same. An excellent aircraft but named widowmaker. Mig21 was called the coffinbox?

My post on delta wing is adequate to explain. This was also told to me by IAF fighter pilots of rank but then I thought it was worthwhile to search and get a link since that is the best proof!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Mar 2010 12:31

RayC wrote:Notwithstanding, the manner in which the issues are juggled to indicate knowledgeable posts, the MiG 21 is simple. Delta Wing. F 104 was the same.

I'm not sure what you mean by simple sir, but the F-104 is not a delta winged design.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 08 Mar 2010 12:51

Wing and fuselage
The wing design was radical. Most jet fighters of the period (and to this day) used a swept-wing or delta-wing planform. This allowed a reasonable balance between aerodynamic performance, lift, and internal space for fuel and equipment. Lockheed's tests, however, determined that the most efficient shape for high-speed, supersonic flight was a very small, straight, mid-mounted, trapezoidal wing. The wing was extremely thin, with a thickness-to-chord ratio of only 3.36%. Its aspect ratio was 2.45. The wing's leading edges were so thin (0.016 in / 0.41 mm) and so sharp that they presented a hazard to ground crews. The wings contained no fuel, necessitating the tanks and landing gear be contained in the fuselage.

The stabilator (horizontal tail surface) was mounted atop the fin to reduce inertial coupling. Because the vertical tailfin was only slightly shorter than the length of each wing and nearly as aerodynamically effective, it could act as a wing on rudder application (a phenomenon known as Dutch roll). To offset this effect the wings were canted downward, given 10° anhedral. The wings had both leading and trailing edge flaps. Later Starfighter marks incorporated a system that allowed the flaps to be extended during combat maneuvering, reducing turn radius and generally improving sustained turn rate.

The combination provided extremely low drag except at high angle of attack (alpha), at which point induced drag became very high. As a result the Starfighter had superb acceleration, rate of climb, and potential top speed, but its sustained turn performance was very poor, described by some as more like a milk truck than a fighter. It was sensitive to control input but extremely unforgiving of pilot error.

There were many criticisms of the design, many of them involving the downward-firing ejection seat. Because the F-104 had a t-tail with a high-mounted horizontal section the designers felt that the upward ejection seats of the Fifties would not be able to get the pilot clear in all flight modes. So the unhappy solution of a downward ejection seat was used. This meant that if a pilot had an emergency at low altitude he had to either ride the plane in or try to roll upside down and eject. Neither of these were satisfactory solutions, and Starfighter pilots were an especially tense lot during takeoffs and landings until later models switched to an improved, upward-firing ejection seat.

The small, highly-loaded wing resulted in an unacceptably high takeoff and landing speed, so a boundary layer control system (BLCS) of blown flaps was incorporated, bleeding engine air over the trailing edge flaps to improve their lift. The system was a boon to safe landings although it proved to be a maintenance problem in service, and landing without the BLCS could be harrowing.

The Starfighter's fuselage had a high fineness ratio, i.e., tapering sharply towards the nose, and small frontal area. The fuselage was tightly packed containing the radar, cockpit, cannon, all fuel, landing gear, and engine.

Several two-seat training versions of the Starfighter were produced. They were generally similar to the comparable single-seater but the additional cockpit required the deletion of the cannon and some internal fuel. Two-seaters are combat-capable and, despite a slightly larger vertical fin and increased weight, have similar performance to the single-seater.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 08 Mar 2010 14:27

Rahul M wrote:carl, the mig-21 was the su-30MKI of its days, make no mistake about it. the fighters from the western block that were meant to be its competitor are all gone (F-104 starfighter and other century series birds) while it still is one of the most widely used fighters in the world, with a highly modified derivative version (JF-17) going into production only last year ?
the exploits of the mig-21 bison is well known.
it's another matter that its unforgiving as chetak says and unfortunately from late 80's and early 90's time murphy's law started applying to the aircraft with a vengeance.

Rahul M ji,

The MiG 21 was a freak.

A sleek and beautiful racehorse that unexpectedly emerged from the stable that had hitherto held only draught horses.

If one follows the initial MiG jet fighter series, ie 13-15-17-19, the performance of each was largely predictable as compared to its predessor.

The 21 was a different kettle of fish. Its predicted and demonstrated performance was so far apart and it surprised its designers and enthralled the pilots.

The pilots who flew it always loved it. Too bad that it had such short legs. All in all, it was and still remains a mind blowing fighter.

Potent and deadly in the right hands.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 08 Mar 2010 15:08

Does the IA possess the logistical capabilities to launch A-1, A-2 and A-3 from FORTAN or Car Nicobar? What I'm asking is whether they have transported the road mobile launchers and assembly kits to the islands and are having them in near-ready condition? Are the roads worthy for use by the road mobiles with its heavy load?

If this is the case, is the recent news about construction of a new rail link from Port Blair to Dabolim got to do anything with the fact that a rail mobile launch module has also been transported there?

Checked on google earth and found that the median distance from FORTAN/Carnic to Sanya is around 1500 kms, the distance to Spratly is slightly lesser at about 1349 kms and Shenzen is about 1980 kms, the A-2 could do the job for us from FORTAN/Carnic.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Mar 2010 17:25

but chetak sahab, with a gap in the next gen (mig-23 which was more a hi-speed interceptor) the mig-29 changed the story yet again.

it's probably a recessive gene in migs !

btw, even the mig-15 was well respected wasn't it ? it's only that the derivatives couldn't provide a very big improvement ?

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 08 Mar 2010 17:54

Carl_T wrote:When the Mig-21 is brought up in the media, it is held up as an example of the AF/GOI incompetence in procuring newer planes. But on the other hand, I have read love poems to the same plane by AF pilots. Who is right?

After Red Flag youtube "Terry" made startling comments about MKIs and praised Mig-21s to no end. At that time (like every other Jingo) I felt like he is mocking IAF by praising an older aircraft and bitching about IAF's latest/greatest MKI. He mentioned that Mig-21 because of it's small size and active missile combo could prove quite leathal. Just talked to a Paanwalah and he confirmed what Fornoff was suggesting at that time. According to him Mig-21 is "Difficult to track" because it's RCS is low and it fluctuates when the aircraft maneuvers. He also mentioned Jag as a difficult target. When I inquired him about MKI, he said it's RCS is "HUGE".

Added Later : FWIW etc.

Cheers....

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 09 Mar 2010 00:10

Klaus wrote:
If this is the case, is the recent news about construction of a new rail link from Port Blair to Dabolim got to do anything with the fact that a rail mobile launch module has also been transported there?

Klaus ji,

That's some pretty potent stuff you have been smoking!

Check the India map again.

Port Blair is in the Andamans

Dabolim is in Goa.

There is some land, yes but also about 800 to 1000 kms of deep sea between the two points mentioned.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 09 Mar 2010 11:58

^^^ chetak ji, my bad. I meant to type Diglipur but in the heat of the moment ended up typing Dabolim instead.

Thanks for pointing out the Freudian slip!

Ashish J · Post by **Ashish J** » 12 Mar 2010 13:36

Hi everyone,,

Can anyone here confirm which Aircraft is on display at 'Aakash Officers Mess' near India Gate.
I guess its Mig 25...but not confirmed...

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 13 Mar 2010 23:12

Deleted

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 14 Mar 2010 00:59

Carl_T wrote:DELETED

No.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 14 Mar 2010 03:16

Ashish J wrote:Hi everyone,,

Can anyone here confirm which Aircraft is on display at 'Aakash Officers Mess' near India Gate.
I guess its Mig 25...but not confirmed...

MiG-23 BN

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 14 Mar 2010 08:43

Jagan wrote:
MiG-23 BN

My apologies about that. My intention wasn't to offend anyone, I was reading an article about it at the time, and was simply curious, that is why I decided to ask.

Ashish J · Post by **Ashish J** » 15 Mar 2010 11:17

Jagan wrote:
Ashish J wrote:Hi everyone,,

Can anyone here confirm which Aircraft is on display at 'Aakash Officers Mess' near India Gate.
I guess its Mig 25...but not confirmed...
MiG-23 BN

Thanks Mr. Carl

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2010 09:03

tejas wrote:Shiv garu, I was just being facetious. The RM again looks bumbling anywhere near a weapon. After all he is an attorney (not my favorite profession for many reasons) and I think is a very poor RM ( which says a lot considering the men we have had in that post ).

Could you please state reasons for this so that I can learn why you feel this way about the defence minister.?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 17 Mar 2010 09:15

Shiv saar, This is one of the reasons.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 17 Mar 2010 09:44

Hellow Shiv. I feel AK Antony is basically a yes man for Sonia and the Nehru dynasty , a family that India has been cursed with since independence and who unfortunately don't ever want to go away. India (despite the recent talk of an economic boom) is still a desperately poor country with a myriad of problems from defense to education ( or the lack therof especially at a primary level), to food/water security to foreign energy dependence.

Obviously, only defense is the purview of Mr. Antony. The country is currently hemmorhaging money on imports ( 70% of total requirements and nearly 100% of non-strategic high tech. requirements). In now his second term as RM has Mr. Antony done a single thing to attempt to reverse this miserable state of events? Has he put forth any real effort to end dependence on imports and its economic and national security cosequences? No competitive bid project worth over 100 crore ruppes has been awarded in 23 years! India cannot produce its own artillery a quarter century after the Bofors scandal. His MoS for defenseM Pallam Raju ( whom I used to respect) was recently quoted ( I believe it was in Force magazine) stating the OFB's were doing a fine job and that they "stood by the nation" in its time of need. No comment from Mr. Antony. I believe both he and Mr Raju are more concerned with keeping the parasitic unions at India's decrepid OFB's happy than building up a true high tech. MIC in India, which like everywhere else, is privatley held.

Although it may be unfair to lay decades of inertia/incompetece in defense production soley at the feet of Mr. Antony, the buck has to stop somewhere. The 26% limit on FDI in defense, the disallowal of technology transfer( which India sorely needs in private hands) to count toward offset liability only speaks of rigidity and frankly thick headedness of the GOI. Again I hear no positive noises from the RM. I feel his number one priority is to keep his lungi clean. If that means India lies naked before China ( as it currently is in the Northeast so be it.

Lastly I feel a defense minister should have a good knowledge of weapon systems. I don't believe the current RM does. As a physician my professional and personal interactions with attornys has been poor to say the least. I really believe they are useless. Sorry for the long and rambling response Shiv garu.Cheers.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2010 12:21

Tejas thank you for taking the trouble to explain your viewpoint

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Mar 2010 12:32

tejas wrote:
Lastly I feel a defense minister should have a good knowledge of weapon systems. I don't believe the current RM does. As a physician my professional and personal interactions with attornys has been poor to say the least. I really believe they are useless. Sorry for the long and rambling response Shiv garu.Cheers.

To drive a car casually as most of our RMs do, you do not need deep knowledge of mechanics.

They have advisors to help them out.

Did jagjivan ram have any knowledge of weapon systems or did mulayam singh?

The obsession with the clean dhothi will ultimately be antony's downfall. You cannot be be fixated on the dhothi and do justice to your job as well as was recently borne out by his silly orders to the Army chief during the sukhna scam.

He has caused immense damage to the Army as an institution because his short sighted views on some storm in a local teapot.

Democracy also means accommodating fairly low IQ types as well.