'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15488
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Karan M » 20 Oct 2017 06:26

I hope sense prevails. Su-30 can finally get its teeth together. Under Parrikar serviceability finally started hitting 60%+ levels.

In 2014-15, Bars final version was debugged and retrofits started.
A new RWR from DARE is under testing, the DR-118 with ground testing which began in 2017 and will be deployed thereafter (and hopefully fix the issues that existed with all the analog systems).
Then there are the local jammers to work with DR-118 and due by 2019.
Then there are the other systems in testing, HSLD with PGM kit, 100km ASB Glide, 100 Km SAAW, NGARM, plus the Astra. Also, the Litening G4 pods to additionally direct the above items.

Finally, we should have a Su-30 fleet with proper teeth. As and when the Super 30 comes, when it does, the IAF Su-30 fleet will still be very potent & finally live up to its potential.

India will be one of the few countries in the world with such a heavy and potent fighter fleet. 272 odd airframes of a Flanker class airframe are nothing to sneeze at. With 70% availability, thats 190 aircraft available at any time. With the range of munitions mentioned above plus AFNET and networking, we will really have a war winning fleet against the TSPAF alone. A chunk of the Su-30 fleet, plus upgraded Jags, MiG-29s and Tejas will be very capable to handle the TSPAF. The remaining Su-30s, Rafales, Mirage 2000s (on account of range) can be tasked for PLAAF centric operations.

Adding MRSAM, Akash1/1S/NG, S-400 to the mix plus other systems will finally mean the IAF has a broad spectrum of capabilities

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3137
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kakkaji » 20 Oct 2017 06:55

Why aren't we ordering more Su-30 MKIs to top up the numbers in the twin-engine area.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2195
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 20 Oct 2017 06:58

Kakkaji already posted before me.
Do you see any interest from IAF in adding another squadron or two of MKI past the 272?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 20 Oct 2017 07:48

Kakkaji wrote:Why aren't we ordering more Su-30 MKIs to top up the numbers in the twin-engine area.
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?

Even Parrikar asked the same question when he was the DM. Su-30MKI could do the job of MMRCA and cost less to acquire.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3193
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 20 Oct 2017 08:14

^ either more MKI or a direct order of pakfa might be the way it will pan out

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 20 Oct 2017 18:56

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.

The Rafale's wingspan is 11 m while the Vikrant's lifts are 10 m wide.

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.

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.

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).

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 20 Oct 2017 20:05

Viv S wrote:The Rafale's wingspan is 11 m while the Vikrant's lifts are 10 m wide.

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:
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

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3193
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 20 Oct 2017 20:34

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?


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.

If this doesn't happen for whatever reason only them can we see a few extra mki.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 20 Oct 2017 20:38

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:

Huh?

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.)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15488
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Karan M » 21 Oct 2017 03:00

srai wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:Why aren't we ordering more Su-30 MKIs to top up the numbers in the twin-engine area.
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?

Even Parrikar asked the same question when he was the DM. Su-30MKI could do the job of MMRCA and cost less to acquire.


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".
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.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15488
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Karan M » 21 Oct 2017 03:05

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.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3193
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 21 Oct 2017 04:11

^ not to mention the pakfa radar along with the l band array on the wing slats and the newer ols

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2284
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 21 Oct 2017 20:23

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.


With Astras now in pipeline, do we need R77s?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5619
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 22 Oct 2017 05:13

US woos India into 100-year alliance against China :lol:
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.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 611
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Will » 23 Oct 2017 19:29

Sighh I think we are going to have the F-16 rammed down our throats :(

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7828
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Pratyush » 23 Oct 2017 21:37

Well we are asking for it. I guess the government of India has not learnt lessons of past indian kingdoms.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 24 Oct 2017 04:10

Pratyush wrote:Well we are asking for it. I guess the government of India has not learnt lessons of past indian kingdoms.


Trojan War - Wooden Horse
'Beware of those who come bearing gifts'

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 24 Oct 2017 06:53

Viv S wrote:
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:

Huh?

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.)

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.

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

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5619
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 24 Oct 2017 07:50

srai wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Well we are asking for it. I guess the government of India has not learnt lessons of past indian kingdoms.

Trojan War - Wooden Horse
'Beware of those who come bearing gifts'

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.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1249
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ArjunPandit » 24 Oct 2017 09:49

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

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 24 Oct 2017 13:02

shiv wrote:Planes can be placed diagonally on a square lift.

Maybe if it was a very narrow plane. For an aircraft like the Rafale? Afraid not.

Image
^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.

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

Well.. welcome to the club of unpleasantly surprised BRFites.

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).

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_P » 24 Oct 2017 13:59

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..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 24 Oct 2017 17:21

Viv S wrote:
If the Rafale M can't fit straight up, it can't fit at an angle.

This is what I have been saying especially since length is more that wingspan. I was not referring to area

Viv S wrote:Well.. welcome to the club of unpleasantly surprised BRFites.

No No. I am not unpleasantly surprised.

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.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 24 Oct 2017 18:41

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.

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' -

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).

Image

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.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5619
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 25 Oct 2017 02:03

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

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.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5619
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 25 Oct 2017 02:12

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/

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.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5619
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 25 Oct 2017 08:19

Saab, Adani to hold Gripen suppliers meet in Delhi
https://www.stratpost.com/saab-adani-to ... -in-delhi/

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 906
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby yensoy » 25 Oct 2017 08:52

Will wrote:Sighh I think we are going to have the F-16 rammed down our throats :(


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)?

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 156
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Chinmay » 25 Oct 2017 09:23

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.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_P » 25 Oct 2017 11:13

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.


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.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 25 Oct 2017 11:14

abusive posts not entertained on the forum
Last edited by Indranil on 25 Oct 2017 21:01, edited 2 times in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 25 Oct 2017 20:02

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!

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 25 Oct 2017 21:11

Ridiculous.
Atleast do the banning right.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6811
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 25 Oct 2017 21:16

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.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 25 Oct 2017 21:22

Indranil 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.


poof - abusive post deleted

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3892
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kartik » 25 Oct 2017 23:13

nirav wrote:Edited Nirav's useless abuse

Bharat Rakshaks, lol. :mrgreen:


Can this clown be removed from this forum? Admins?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3892
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kartik » 25 Oct 2017 23:18

Rakesh wrote:How is a plane whose FOC is planned for 2025 to be ready in 2019?

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.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6811
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 25 Oct 2017 23:45

nirav wrote:Do I need to do this legally ?
...
I just want out.

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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 25 Oct 2017 23:48

poof

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3892
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kartik » 26 Oct 2017 00:03

Indranil wrote:
nirav wrote:Do I need to do this legally ?
...
I just want out.

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.

:rotfl: :rotfl:


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests