Indian Military Aviation

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 25 Apr 2010 00:13

Only in AB it is failing


Which is THE ONLY reason to look for a partner.

AND, ANY partner will look at ONLY the risk involved. And, I am fairly sure that India is not a very good risk partner at THIS point in time. Which means India will have to carry a greater share of the risk (either in terms of carrying more funding burden or less of the IP value or both).

So, in situations like SOKO the equation is more in balance than WRT India.

Which is why India will always gravitate towards Russia - which is willing to carry near equal amount of risk (as the PAK-FA deal suggests, even that is not true).

I STILL think India NEEDS to raise internal funding for R&D and manage it very, very well - as in no tolerance for ANY form of corruption (funds, nepotism, technical research (YES that is a problem in India)).

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 25 Apr 2010 00:41

Manish_Sharma wrote:I think due to LCA experience our agencies are fully capable of designing AMCA, the only area where they can be in trouble would be Radar, Avionics, RWR, IRST + Engine.
OTOH, those two are the strong points. systems in those fields developed for LCA are already in more than one IAF fighter.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby negi » 25 Apr 2010 00:44

Austin wrote:Any partner who has experience and ADA/IAF thinks its the best to go with should be fine , does not matter if its SAAB,Dassult ,EADS or LM.
If HAL is indeed contributing something meaningful to the PAKFA then we should be able to go all alone in case of the AMCA also given the amount of Indian funding in the PAKFA we should be able to get RU expertise as and when required . Imho engine should be shortlisted well in advance during the preliminary design phase so that we don't again waste time to mix and match things later. Work on Kaveri MKII can progress in parallel.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4662
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Manish_Sharma » 25 Apr 2010 00:53

Rahul M wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:I think due to LCA experience our agencies are fully capable of designing AMCA, the only area where they can be in trouble would be Radar, Avionics, RWR, IRST + Engine.
OTOH, those two are the strong points. systems in those fields developed for LCA are already in more than one IAF fighter.

Ooops! yes I forgot in Avionics and RWR LCA program helped su 30, mig 27 and maybe Jaguars also.
Is KALI also going to become reality by the time of AMCA?

Venu
BRFite
Posts: 158
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Location: rimbola..rimbola

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Venu » 25 Apr 2010 01:55

KALI is far from being used as a weapon. As of now, consider it only as a research project.

Even if its ready, what does it got to do with AMCA?

Just, in case if you are dreaming of incorporating KALI into AMCA, pls understand that emitting such high energy emmisions from stealth aircraft will offer no help but to blow the cover of the AMCA.

JMT

Venu
BRFite
Posts: 158
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Location: rimbola..rimbola

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Venu » 25 Apr 2010 02:10

Came across this video on youtube.

Surprised to know that a small company like Helicat has developed a complex technology of folding blades. Wonder why our HAL failed in developing them and incorporating it into Naval ALH. Lack of foldable blades is also among the reasons why Navy backed from ordering more number of N-ALH.

It should be easy to approach cash trapped small companies. Better for HAL to approach them, promise them of funds and supporting futther research, acquire some part of the company if possible and use that technology.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 25 Apr 2010 05:45

Venu wrote:Came across this video on youtube.

Surprised to know that a small company like Helicat has developed a complex technology of folding blades. Wonder why our HAL failed in developing them and incorporating it into Naval ALH. Lack of foldable blades is also among the reasons why Navy backed from ordering more number of N-ALH.

It should be easy to approach cash trapped small companies. Better for HAL to approach them, promise them of funds and supporting futther research, acquire some part of the company if possible and use that technology.



Someone correct me if I am wrong - but it's not as though HAL "could not develop" folding blades. The USP of the Dhruv - bearing less rotor and composite rotor blades did not have foldability built into the design at all. While the ALH was designed as a 5 ton class helicopter with useful payloads at altitude, crashworthiness, etc etc - it was never designed from the outset to fit into the cramped space of some ship. Perhaps the Navy was not involved in the design at all.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 25 Apr 2010 05:56

venu, there is nothing earth-shattering about a folding blade helo. dhruv OTOH was developed with hinge-less main rotor as one of its USP's, which is a more complex tech by any estimation. this reduces weight as also wear and tear bringing down overall maintenance costs.

lastly, what has that got to do with this thread ? :wink: please do not post OT stuff. use the international aerospace or misc discussions thread.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby negi » 25 Apr 2010 06:51

Rahul M wrote: dhruv OTOH was developed with hinge-less main rotor as one of its USP's, which is a more complex tech by any estimation.

Rahul just curious , more complex in what sense ?

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby arun » 25 Apr 2010 08:37

shiv wrote:
Venu wrote:Came across this video on youtube.

Surprised to know that a small company like Helicat has developed a complex technology of folding blades. Wonder why our HAL failed in developing them and incorporating it into Naval ALH. Lack of foldable blades is also among the reasons why Navy backed from ordering more number of N-ALH.

It should be easy to approach cash trapped small companies. Better for HAL to approach them, promise them of funds and supporting futther research, acquire some part of the company if possible and use that technology.



Someone correct me if I am wrong - but it's not as though HAL "could not develop" folding blades. The USP of the Dhruv - bearing less rotor and composite rotor blades did not have foldability built into the design at all. While the ALH was designed as a 5 ton class helicopter with useful payloads at altitude, crashworthiness, etc etc - it was never designed from the outset to fit into the cramped space of some ship. Perhaps the Navy was not involved in the design at all.


Perhaps this article dating back to 2008, by Col. (Retd) Ajai Shukla will help. Anyway I consider this article the best ever on the topic of the Indian Navy’s issues with having a shipboard Dhruv:

The Indian Navy’s Dhruv: falling between two stools

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 25 Apr 2010 08:50

negi wrote:
Rahul M wrote: dhruv OTOH was developed with hinge-less main rotor as one of its USP's, which is a more complex tech by any estimation.

Rahul just curious , more complex in what sense ?

materials. ability to simulate the various stresseson the main rotor at different configurations and design a rotor of composite material that can withstand it. hinges can undergo small movements to compensate for the stresses so this problem doesn't arise but that raises wear and tear.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 25 Apr 2010 09:21

I did some Googling on the subject of "hingeless" blades as on Dhruv and hinged rotor blades. - eg Chetak. Apparently, because a rotor blade moving forwards in the direction of flight has a greater relative velocity compared to the blade on the other side which is simultaneously moving backwards, the former generates more lift and will tend to roll the helicopter and make it uncontrollable.

This was solved by having hinges that allow the forward moving blade to "flap up" and hence "hinged rotor blades". But in helicopters such as the Dhruv there is no hinge but the blades are composites which bend and serve the same purpose as the hinges that allows flapping up. Hingeless construction is simpler, has fewer moving parts and the helicopter is more responsive.

But the presence of hinges, while adding to weight, complexity (and perhaps reliability issues) doubles up as an advantage where hinges can be used to fold the rotor blades.
Last edited by shiv on 25 Apr 2010 09:37, edited 1 time in total.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby negi » 25 Apr 2010 09:28

Thanks for the clarification , yeah it seems it leverages same technology which MBB of Germany developed for the Eurocopter.

Main rotor hubs of most of the choppers in the world (including Dhruv)

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html

Advances in Helicopter Rotor Technology
--Valentin Kloppel

Page 573 onwards deals with modern hingeless fiber elastomeric (FEL) bearing based main rotors and the ALH , it refers to ALH has Indo German project which I was unaware of.

sunilpatel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 27 Mar 2010 17:11

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sunilpatel » 25 Apr 2010 13:21

Manish_Sharma wrote:I think due to LCA experience our agencies are fully capable of designing AMCA, the only area where they can be in trouble would be Radar, Avionics, RWR, IRST + Engine. So better to join the radar program where some experienced company is beginning a new one for itself, like EADS working on GaN based AESA for EF. If we join now and work on it then use it for AMCA while for IRST russians are best then we can keep same one for AMCA as FGFA. And while designing we can take help of western comanies in making low weight landing gear to keep the weight down. Then for the radar also GTRE should tie up with west to produce world class engine in time for AMCA. Kaveri isn't so bad, is it? I mean dry thrust is 51kn that is more then m88. Only in AB it is failing + 100kg extra weight. I have a feeling that it may turn out to be Fighter Jet of the century.


then why dont we do JV for Design also??!!!!! only its left...

my point is that EVEN AFTER "joint develeping" PAK-FA, if we have to run for all these througout the world then why teh hell we are funding pak-fa...at least we will got some experience and know howz of IRST, RWR, Avionics( though we have fair amount of set up for it..aka...MKI..).. engine ( pak-fa engine is yet to finalize and at design stage) .. Radar (obviously)...

Regards,
Patel

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4662
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Manish_Sharma » 25 Apr 2010 14:52

then why dont we do JV for Design also??!!!!! only its left...

All I am saying is that we won't have capacity to produce GaN anytime soon. So what is wrong with going for that with European company. Just like people go for Martin Baker Ejection seat. As for IRST the russians are masters at it so we can have that from them. If Kaveri is having AB problem then why don't we go for correcting it with an experienced company.
Otherwise if we go for IRST, GaN, Ejection seat, Kaveri AB alone, and any of these are giving 10% less performance then foreign counterparts. You will see HUGE HEADLINES DENOUNCING THE WHOLE PROGRAM OF AMCA. I have been reading on LCA thread how we may have made the landing gear more heavier and stronger then needed because of lack of experience so if little consultancy fee is paid beforehand and designed correctly. It would be far better then opening a panic tender at later stage.

I think the main reason Shiv has also been making sounds against SC is the possiblity that in case AMCA is not able to do it then it may give IAF a chance to denounce it. So if it does SC hurray, if it doesn't THEN THAT SHOULD NOT BECOME THE BASIS OF DENOUNCING AMCA.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Indranil » 25 Apr 2010 20:25

shiv wrote:
nrshah wrote:While the advantage/disadvantage of super cruising is under debate, i agree with you that a lot of things are not crucial as they are made out to be by attractive brouchers and all... We need to analyse what we require and should work on them... Take example of Russies / French... French feels it does not need a 5th gen aircraft for next 2 decades and accordingly it is contended with rafale which is 4.5 gen... Similarly Russians with multilayered ADS opted for frontal stealth rather than overall and designed pak fa with increased emphasis to maneuverability as they thought it to be more appropriate. Even in AMCA, i hope iaf/drdo goes only for that much stealth which is required considering out threat for next 2/3 decades...trying to compete raptor/f35 might not be advisable


Absolutely.

Another thing I worry about is thrust vectoring. I have nothing against TV. After all we have a superlative TV aircraft in the MKI. But I don't think India should be furking around with TV until we have a slew of engines and a way to test them. Jigs, test beds the lot.

Otherwise we are going to be importing importing importing. And we will be neither here nor there. As we have been for 50 years.


Agreed with the importing part. But please dont downplay thrust vectoring so easily. When thrust vectoring was in its nascence, a lot of people wanted to know its effectiveness. After a lot of discussion, A German professor proved through enormous simulations that the odds of a thrust vectored plane against a similar plane without thrust vectoring are much higher. Cant remember the ratio of the top of my head. However that has been the last word on TVC till now.

A lot of research has gone into what TVC really does. It has been proven that a plane with TVC doesn't change direction faster as most of us believe. It however decreases the stalling speed in almost all orientations significantly and hence is a critical resource.

All of this was in a long article somebody had posted here some months back.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Indranil » 25 Apr 2010 20:51

Regarding supercruise. Supercruise is an effect of a better design. It is not the core design objective. If you would have a plane which has low drag in trans-sonic and supersonic flight, has high TWR, and a engine which can do it, it will supercruise! So if a plane can supercruise, it is like several milestones in its main aerodynamic/engine design have been achieved. Those milestones are from a different league(generation). It's a capability that you can use if you require to expedite reaching some location with meaningful fuel left.

It was pointed out that Pakistan can be crossed in twenty minutes by flying subsonic. Suppose, we had to send reinforcements to a group of fighters. By twenty minutes, the game would be over. Either our fighters will be returning home or (god forbid!) their fighters would be returning home! And this is the case if the reinforcement fighters were scrambled from very near the border! What if we have a two pronged war?

Supercruise aircraft do not have things slung on external pylons.

No sir! what abt all the 4.5 gen fighters which can supercruise?

Advantages of supercruise:
1. lesser IR signature
2. a more favorable fuel fraction, the proportion of the plane's overall mass which is devoted to fuel
3. expedites reaching a point of action
4. pilot fatigue is less
5. lets you stay supersonic for extended periods of time
6. leaves you with fuel left for meaningful combat

I am sure there would be much more. But even with this, is this a US-only wishlist! Doesnt seem so. Russians, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilians, Australians also seem to be gunning for them, leave aside the IAF. Can't see why all of them would be fools!

sunilpatel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 27 Mar 2010 17:11

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sunilpatel » 25 Apr 2010 21:37

^^^^
very well summarized..

Addition to this, you will be able to use max. range of your BVR missiles...
f-22 can use 120C better than f-15...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 25 Apr 2010 22:25

indranilroy wrote:Advantages of supercruise:
1. lesser IR signature
2. a more favorable fuel fraction, the proportion of the plane's overall mass which is devoted to fuel
3. expedites reaching a point of action
4. pilot fatigue is less
5. lets you stay supersonic for extended periods of time
6. leaves you with fuel left for meaningful combat

I am sure there would be much more. But even with this, is this a US-only wishlist! Doesnt seem so. Russians, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilians, Australians also seem to be gunning for them, leave aside the IAF. Can't see why all of them would be fools!


er Europeans, Japanese, Brazilians, Australians are not gunning for nuclear weapons. They are not fools as you say.

Are Indian pilots going to get fatigued after a 40 minute flight over Pakistan?

Are you going to send supercruising planes over china to attack Chinese cities in 6 hour flights? Why not do the job with missiles? Who is going to refuel that aircraft while it is supercruising over China?

Which 4.5 gen aircraft can supercruise carrying a full bomb load slung on external pylons? Remember even HF 24 could supercruise.

What is the IR signature of an aircraft whose skin is glowing at 120 deg C flying at mach 1.2 and standing out against a cold cold background sky? Do you think it is only engine exhausts that glow?

You don't need supercruise to "expedite reaching a point of action"

If a plane has to be well designed and supercruise is a consequence of good design rather than a design goal, why is supercruise being made out to be the goal to reach. Surely good design is the goal, not supercruise.

Sorry. No can do. If everyone else gets carried away by brochuritis and are willing to buy from the US, that is not the way forward for us. And do you think India can develop an in house supercruising aircraft with at least 70% India tech and have in it service in 20 years? I don't believe that.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Craig Alpert » 25 Apr 2010 22:56

Last edited by Rahul M on 25 Apr 2010 23:18, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: user warned for repeatedly posting large images inline even after numerous requests.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kersi D » 26 Apr 2010 00:16

Is super cruising something super-duper or something very state-of-fart ?

Concorde and TU 144 were flying in the 1960s onwards and they had super cruise and that too at Mach 2+

K

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19569
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2010 00:25

Craig Alpert wrote:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S9RGp4yEkoI/AAAAAAAAKPU/jKDWj596OCo/s1600/nmf1-719071.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 720628.JPG
Courtesy Livefist


Quite interesting, considering:

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... 45/381923/

and

http://www.indiasharesinvestment.com/ma ... australia/

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Craig Alpert » 26 Apr 2010 01:04

Image Image Image
RTA-70 Courtesy Livefist

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Indranil » 26 Apr 2010 04:21

shiv wrote:er Europeans, Japanese, Brazilians, Australians are not gunning for nuclear weapons. They are not fools as you say.


My statement was a sarcasm. I can't see any other tone in which it could have been read!

shiv wrote:Are Indian pilots going to get fatigued after a 40 minute flight over Pakistan?

Why are we only stuck on Pakistan! Why get into MRCA and stuff if that is what we had to tackle. The problem is if China and Pakistan field planes which can supercruise, would we like to field an inferior plane then?

shiv wrote:Are you going to send supercruising planes over china to attack Chinese cities in 6 hour flights? Why not do the job with missiles? Who is going to refuel that aircraft while it is supercruising over China?


Why have the airforce prepare for China then? No need to have strike fighters. Just have fighters in point defense role. I am really losing you here

shiv wrote:Which 4.5 gen aircraft can supercruise carrying a full bomb load slung on external pylons? Remember even HF 24 could supercruise.

None can. But some like the EF can with meaningful load!

shiv wrote:What is the IR signature of an aircraft whose skin is glowing at 120 deg C flying at mach 1.2 and standing out against a cold cold background sky? Do you think it is only engine exhausts that glow?


No sir, but it definitely one of the biggest. IR missiles do go after them. What else do they seek?

shiv wrote:You don't need supercruise to "expedite reaching a point of action"


No sir, I can fly with full afterburner all throughout, i.e. if the engine can take it non-stop! But when I reach there, it will be time for me turn around and leave for home.

shiv wrote:If a plane has to be well designed and supercruise is a consequence of good design rather than a design goal, why is supercruise being made out to be the goal to reach. Surely good design is the goal, not supercruise.


You missed the point altogether. Which ever designer's interview one reads, they never say that we built the plane to supercruise. They always say that the plane "should be able to" supercruise. That is an effect of alround good designing elsewhere and technological maturity of critical flight parts!

shiv wrote:And do you think India can develop an in house supercruising aircraft with at least 70% India tech and have in it service in 20 years? I don't believe that.


I don't know what is the "right" way forward for us". I have left them on the people who are in the right places. But surely I can see that once India has the right engine developed, there is no reason why our planes wouldn't supercruise. And what the hell, isnt AMCA supposed to supercruise?

Some very wise gent remarked here. Just put your points down, don't try to change people's opinion because it is futile. I have the sincerest respect for that poster. I wrote down what I know and thought was correct. I am not trying to spread bronchitis! Waise, it is not very gentle to remark about another posters nationalistic pride by saying that he has bronchitis for love of weapons from the US, without any basis.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2010 06:41

indranilroy wrote:Some very wise gent remarked here. Just put your points down, don't try to change people's opinion because it is futile. I have the sincerest respect for that poster. I wrote down what I know and thought was correct. I am not trying to spread bronchitis! Waise, it is not very gentle to remark about another posters nationalistic pride by saying that he has bronchitis for love of weapons from the US, without any basis.


Not bronchitis. Brochuritis. The act of being dazzled by glossy sales brochure that promises a lot and does not tell you how you will be a buyer of expensive equipment from the maker of the brochure for the next 40 years with no money or opportunity to escape his clutches.

You speak of designers saying "It's going to have supercruise". Do you recall that the best designers in the world from Europe and Russia were not using the word "supecruise" or even highlighting the ability to make a plane supercruise until just a few years ago. They had to start talking about that because the US led the way. The US led the way with technology that it already has and invented the word "supercruise" which has become such an attractive term that no designer can hold his job unless he can produce a supercruising aircraft. Other than Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, most aircraft companies need to make money by export. The US will sell supercruise to countries who will have no use for it like Slovakia, Japan and Saudi Arabia and other nations. Other non US aircraft companies will lose money, business and lose jobs unless they can do a copycat. So every designer is suddenly talking about "supercruise"

India has to decide whether we need supercruise so urgently that we are going to have yet another "collaboration" where we are dependent on some phoren company for another 40-50 years years while the phoren country can apply sanctions and hold India back at crucial junctures. Not only will they be taking money for 40 years, they will make sure that spares etc are not available during wars so that we cannot use their equipment effectively. The US talks supercruise because they already have the technology and want to sell finished products. Others talk supercrusie because they will lose out to the US in international sales. Where is India in this game? We will only pay money to the US or someone else.

Check the transcripts of the meeting on the future of air power conducted in India with people high up in the Air Force commands and other bigwigs. Supercruise is not stated as a vital requirement. What is needed are Satellites, UAVs, UACVs, sensors and PGMs and a strong indigenous base where 70% or more of what we have is produced at home. Only then can India even begin to talk of being a world power. Supercruise is yet another import item. And India is very much a second rate power and will remain there as long as we have to lust after something of marginal utility that causes dependence for half a century.

And I repeat, nobody has yet said anything that makes supercruise a vital necessity for the sorts of threats India faces. In fact shooting down supercruising aircraft is a more important technology for India to develop. considering that supercruising aircraft will be sold or gifted to India's adversaries in order to try and force India to buy and get caught up in another 50 year long game of phoren dependence. That is how the world works. And Indians have continuously been suckered into that.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2010 06:53

Kersi D wrote:Is super cruising something super-duper or something very state-of-fart ?

Concorde and TU 144 were flying in the 1960s onwards and they had super cruise and that too at Mach 2+

K


And Kersi I am sure you will remember the Boeing SST that was designed to compete with Concorde but was shot down mainly by US environmentalists who said it would be no good for the US because of overland noise. The US was sensible enough to understand that the two main markets for SST would be transatlantic and overland US. If overland US was not allowed SST would not survive. So they allowed Britain/France to take the miniscule transtlantic market and kept quiet about the technology until they built the B-1 and now "supercruise"

The US will not be using supercruise overland over the US. It will be to attack far away targets in faraway lands. But because they are spending money on it they will try and make up that money by selling to everyone, even thoe who don't need it, by saying everyone needs supercruise because we have supercruise and we are the US. We are the best, and if we have it you need it. As long as suckers fall for that, the US is sure to dominate the earth.

I don't care who else falls for that. What do we second rate Indians need to avoid dependence and subjugation for the next 50 years?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2010 07:06

sunilpatel wrote:
Addition to this, you will be able to use max. range of your BVR missiles...
f-22 can use 120C better than f-15...


Sir. Could you explain this to me please? I have several questions.

1) India does not have F-15, F-22 or AMRAAMs. So should we be importing them to achieve what you have stated

2) Assuming that an AMRAAM has a range of 100 km. Are you saying that an F-22 can hit a target at 120 km. Or are you saying that F 22 can hit at 100 km and F 15 can only hit at 90 km?

3) Surely when an AMRAAM is launched at a target that is 100 km away from the launching aircraft, the target will have to remain stationary for the missile to hit it. What if the target is speeding away on afterburner covering just 4-5 extra kilometers in a few seconds so the AMRAAM falls short by 4-5 km.

4) What if the target is seen 180 degrees behind the F 22 when the F-22 is cruising at 1.2 Mach away from the target. Will the F 22 be able to hit the target at 120 km? At 100 km. Or 80 km? Surely in this case an aircraft that is not supercruising will not increase the distance from the target as quickly as a supercruising aircraft. So when the target is 180 degree behind (or in the rear hemisphere) supercruisng is a disadvantage if teh target aircraft is also speeding away.

5) The US has had consistent problems with "blue on blue"/IFF issues.. In the case of a supercruising Indian interceptor during a war with Pakistan - there may be 50 aircraft in the air over Pakistan within BVR range. Some may be Indian aircraft, some may be Pakistani. How will an Indian F 22 pilot aiming his 120C know whether he is aiming at an Indian or a Packee at range 100 km?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2010 07:38

indranilroy wrote:Why are we only stuck on Pakistan! Why get into MRCA and stuff if that is what we had to tackle. The problem is if China and Pakistan field planes which can supercruise, would we like to field an inferior plane then?

shiv wrote:Are you going to send supercruising planes over china to attack Chinese cities in 6 hour flights? Why not do the job with missiles? Who is going to refuel that aircraft while it is supercruising over China?


Why have the airforce prepare for China then? No need to have strike fighters. Just have fighters in point defense role. I am really losing you here


Sorry I can't help it if you are losing me.

How do you believe that supercruising Indian aircraft over China will be refuelled? Anything valuable on China (other than targets over Tibet) are so far away that they will require IAF planes to be refuelled.

In fact Chinese planes taking off from mainland China to attack Indian targets, or to defend airspace over Tibet will find supercruise useful. We should be figuring out how to shoot down supercruising aircraft. When Chinese aircraft take off from Tibet, they will either have full load of fuel or a full load of weapons. Not both. And maybe not even both. Refuelling a Chinese aircraft over Tibet and then supercruising over India to attack Indian targets would be good for China. This is true for Pakistan as well. Supercruise over India, attack a faraway target and escape. There are thousands of Indian targets within supercruise distance of Pakistan and Tibet. We would need to shoot down both the refuellers and the attacking supercruisers. That technology would give us more control than supercruise which is less useful for us.

And how can a supercruising aircraft flying at Mach 1.2 be used for point defence? It is useless even for that.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Indranil » 26 Apr 2010 09:01

Shiv,

I feel both us are looking at the same thing but fighting on different aspects. What you are saying is please don't get collaboration just in the name of getting "super cruise" technology. I am completely with you on that! I am sure that you would like us to get a plane with a good engine and a less draggy body! We both want India to master that technology as soon as possible. I dont know whether you are averse to collaboration in those regards. As for me, I don't care. Just as the ACM said, "just get us the god damn plane as soon as you can".

What I am saying is that when we get there technology wise, we would be supercruising! A plane which glides through more efficiently and has a good engine pushing it, should supercruise! What will stop it.And supercruising does have its advantages! lets not just shoot it down as a US-tech! It is result of all round technological growth!

As far as shooting down a super cruising aircraft is concerned, I dont know how it is going to be different from shooting down a plane at supersonic speeds! For heat seaking missiles, get a better heat seeker. For others seekers, it doesn't matter. or does it?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby ShauryaT » 26 Apr 2010 09:37

Did we not hear a comment from an air force "chief" recently, that the IAF wants HAL to produce a first rate 4 gen aircraft. Do not get this focus on AMCA. Does not an extended version, with more MTOW capacity, of the LCA with twin engines have use for the IAF? Or are we happy with the imports only?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5274
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kartik » 26 Apr 2010 09:41

shiv wrote:The US will sell supercruise to countries who will have no use for it like Slovakia, Japan and Saudi Arabia and other nations. Other non US aircraft companies will lose money, business and lose jobs unless they can do a copycat. So every designer is suddenly talking about "supercruise"


I must humbly disagree with your statement above because you included the Japanese. The US are not offering any fighter that has supercruise to the Slovakians as far as I know.

the Japs have a very good reason to want supercruise. There are several mineral rich disputed islands with the Chinese and these islands are far from any nearby JASDF air bases but just 125-130 miles from the Chinese mainland. In the event of any hostilities, they (the Japanese Air Chief) stated that they need to fly fighters from Okinawa, the only base close by that can operate fighters, and that too is based hundreds of miles away and get to the scene asap without using up most of its fuel reserves in AB. the only way possible to do that is to have a supercruise ability with a decent air-to-air weapons payload and since the F-22 carries its air to air load internally it isn't as constrained in this regard in terms of drag.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2010 10:05

Kartik wrote:the Japs have a very good reason to want supercruise. There are several mineral rich disputed islands with the Chinese and these islands are far from any nearby JASDF air bases but just 125-130 miles from the Chinese mainland. In the event of any hostilities, they (the Japanese Air Chief) stated that they need to fly fighters from Okinawa, the only base close by that can operate fighters, and that too is based hundreds of miles away and get to the scene asap without using up most of its fuel reserves in AB. the only way possible to do that is to have a supercruise ability with a decent air-to-air weapons payload and since the F-22 carries its air to air load internally it isn't as constrained in this regard in terms of drag.


Fair enough. The Japanese want supercruise to cover long overwater distances to provide air defence over its Island territories near China. I will not comment on my view of how successfully they will actually be able to thwart Chinese designs on the Islands with long distance air defence cover- but clearly there is no parallel situation for India - neither in terms of air defence requirements (not even over the Andamans), nor in terms of technological/economic linkage with the US that make it cheaper for both the US and Japan if they choose a common platform. I believe that if the US had chosen a non supercruising platform as its next gen aircraft, the Japanese would still be customers and find some use to justify the purchase.
Last edited by shiv on 26 Apr 2010 10:07, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 26 Apr 2010 10:07

ShauryaT wrote:Did we not hear a comment from an air force "chief" recently, that the IAF wants HAL to produce a first rate 4 gen aircraft. Do not get this focus on AMCA. Does not an extended version, with more MTOW capacity, of the LCA with twin engines have use for the IAF? Or are we happy with the imports only?

the effort needed to make a 2engined variant of the same gen will be not that much lower than the AMCA. given that I think AMCA gives better ROI.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2010 10:14

Rahul M wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Did we not hear a comment from an air force "chief" recently, that the IAF wants HAL to produce a first rate 4 gen aircraft. Do not get this focus on AMCA. Does not an extended version, with more MTOW capacity, of the LCA with twin engines have use for the IAF? Or are we happy with the imports only?

the effort needed to make a 2engined variant of the same gen will be not that much lower than the AMCA. given that I think AMCA gives better ROI.


I have one big grouse about AMCA - or at least I will have one big grouse if it turns out that it cannot carry an external payload and carries only a piffling 4X500 kg bombs internally or some stupid internal payload like the Raptor that matches the MiG 21's warload. It should be able to carry a minimum of 6000 kg internally and externally.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 26 Apr 2010 10:55

I don't think they will make it w/o the option of external payloads. while stealthy internal weapons etc is useful in a handful of situations, plain old bombing with decent accuracy and turn around time of the aircraft would be more useful >90% of the time, stealth or no stealth. only thing on my wishlist for AMCA that hasn't been mentioned till now is a CFT.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2010 10:57

In some ways I feel deeply sorry for my nation. Just look at the way things have panned out.

More than 20 years ago, when the IAF was flying 2 and 3 gen aircraft, India planned to build a 4th gen aircraft. That 4th gen aircraft is not yet in service and because of gaps in preparedness India is placing a huge order for 4 or 4.5 gen aircraft (MRCA).

Now without even going through the motions of getting a fully ready 4th gen aircraft the Indian org (DRDO/HAL/GTRE) are now talking about 5th gen. And the shamelessness of it all comes out because this 5th gen is to be collaboration and phoren inputs onlee.

As the IAF chief says - can India not build on what it has developed so far and create a first class 4th gen aircraft rather than creating model-itis and brochuritis with talk of 5th gen for which DRDO, HAL and ADA just do not have the capabilty?

These are the same organizations who said they will build 4th gen 20 years ago when they did not have the capability. Now they want to build 5th gen. And they don't have the capability. What the fung is going on?

Screw 5 gen other than PAKFA and build a good 4.5 gen MCA in India.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Supercruise:- twice the advantage

Postby Rien » 26 Apr 2010 10:59

The simplest way to explain the advantage of supercruise is to use a close range example. Consider the 20 minute flight to Pakistan. It is 10 minutes with supercruise. If it takes 5 minutes to drop bombs/missiles, how many sorties can an aircraft fly with/out supercruise? By the way, supercruise is shortrange only - plane flying subsonic can fly further.

With:

In one hour: 2 missions, and be halfway to its third mission.

Without:

Only one mission!

Even if both airforces have the same number of aircraft, the side with supercruise has *twice* the fighting capability. In effect, supercruise doubles the number of aircraft to the side who has it. But in actual fact, the effect is much more than this. A SC aircraft has the range and speed advantage on a normal aircraft. It can fire its missile from 50% further away, killing its enemy before it is in range itself. And because it is faster it can run away from enemy missiles, giving the enemy very poor odds of killing the enemy plane.

Incidentally, India does have IRNSS, a satellite navigation system and plenty of ER-PGM, and the materials technology for high temperatures, including carbon composites. But it most certainly does not have anything resembling a modern turbine engine, but that is entirely the fault of GTRE. The lack of modern turbine technology is not something that can be addressed by rewriting requirements to state that a below average turbine is okay. It means you develop a modern turbine.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5426
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby niran » 26 Apr 2010 11:23

Super Cruise: == the ability to fly Supersonic without afterburner.
this ability is achievable only at certain heights, currently >> than 20,000 feet
lower than that no super cruise. any thing that fly at such height is visible
to any Cheena, Pacqui radars, whether super cruising or not, they will be ready
with nice reception, so Super Cruise to drop few Bombs will be unhygenic
Pilot/Air craft wise.

WRT Mijjile ranges, the range given e.g. 100 NM is the maximum distance
the mijjile will fly before it goes dunk,

there is a kill envelop which is mucho shorter than 100NM, and again this
is dependent on whether the foe plane is
- head on(flying towards you)
-side on
-tail on (flying away from you)
and these stats are for the situation when the foe is dumb will remain stationary
for your mijjiles to strike him, absolutely unlikely.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby nrshah » 26 Apr 2010 11:26

Rahul M wrote:he effort needed to make a 2engined variant of the same gen will be not that much lower than the AMCA. given that I think AMCA gives better ROI.


ShauryaT wrote:ar a comment from an air force "chief" recently, that the IAF wants HAL to produce a first rate 4 gen aircraft. Do not get this focus on AMCA. Does not an extended version, with more MTOW capacity, of the LCA with twin engines have use for the IAF? Or are we happy with the imports only?


No, It was more intended towards DRDO/HAL to make LCA operational in squadron entry first before going loud on 5th Gen AMCA...there is no proposal for twin engine LCA / Higher MTOW LCA, neither AMCA will be 4.5gen aircraft...

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4662
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Manish_Sharma » 26 Apr 2010 15:18

shiv wrote:We will only pay money to the US or someone else.
Check the transcripts of the meeting on the future of air power conducted in India with people high up in the Air Force commands and other bigwigs. Supercruise is not stated as a vital requirement. What is needed are Satellites, UAVs, UACVs, sensors and PGMs and a strong indigenous base where 70% or more of what we have is produced at home.


But Shiv I thought Supercruise is sideaffect of new technologies as lighter weight of Aircraft due to composites, lighter components, missiles and advancement in overall designs like lesser drag designs + new engines like Ej200, M88-3 & Kaveri[at least in dry thurst mode, being only 100kg extra in weight but producing 51 KN thurst.] So we won't be paying royality for a certain technology which will be attached to the Aircraft resulting in SC.

Secondly, even f-35 and f-22 have option of hanging armament outside, so definetly we yindoo baniyas are going to have it (I hope)!

Even regarding MRCA IAF has not asked for SC. Its only certain fanboys all over the forums making sounds "my gripen", "my EF" can supercruise is making it popular amongst jingoes. If you make a poll on these lines.
Put in priority how you want IAF fighters in next 20 years:
1. AESA radar.
2. Thurst Vectoring
3. Stealth
4. Having 2 best missiles ie. Python 5 + Meteor.
5. Best Datalink
6. Super Cruise

Probably this is how most BRfites are going to vote:
1. AESA radar
2. Having 2 best missiles ie. Python 5 + Meteor
3. Best Datalink
4. Stealth
5. Thurst Vectoring
6. Super Cruise


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 18 guests