Indian Military Aviation

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Feb 2011 01:58

ofcourse x,y,z have to be compatible (aerodynamically). I don't remember clearly but wasn't a study done by HW and also independently by IAF which said that the HW engines mated perfectly with the jags. Infact I remember reading news that the IAF favoured HW engines over RR engines.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 17 Feb 2011 07:16

'Indigenous Jet Trainer to get Initial Clearance by July'

..:: India Strategic ::..

'Indigenous Jet Trainer to get Initial Clearance by July'
Published: Februrary 2011

Bangalore. India's indigenous intermediate jet trainer (IJT) is all set to obtain its initial clearance for air force pilots to start operational flying on the aircraft by July this year, 14 Years after the government Sanctioned the Project, a top commander said Thursday.

The manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is "very sure" about Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) for the IJT by July, the Indian Air Force (IAF) chief, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik told reporters at the AeroIndia trade show at the Yelahanka air base here.

HAL began designing of the IJT in 1997 and suffered two mishaps in 2007 and 2009. The jet will now be ready for induction into the IAF in another two more years.

The IJT's two prototypes suffered minor crashes. The first took place in February 2007 when the Prototype-I suffered damage when its canopy flew off soon during take-off from Yelahanka. The aircraft veered to its right, bust a tyre, damaged both its wings and finally collapsed in a heap of rubble. Fortunately, the pilot escaped without injury.

The second accident happened in February 2009 when the Prototype-II landed on its belly during a routine sortie. The aircraft suffered structural damage to its undercarriage and a wing.

"After the minor incidents, the project picked up speed with the flight trials finally getting over. We want its spin capability to improve and HAL is sure it can do it in a month or two. So more or less, IJT is ready for IOC," the IAF deputy chief, Air Marshal R.K. Sharma, said.

The IJT is a stage-II trainer for rookie pilots before they graduate onto the Hawk advanced jet trainer (IJT), is a tandem seat, all metallic aircraft for general flying and training. It can also be used for formation flying, instrument and cloud flying, tactical flying, night flying and basic air-to-ground and air-to-air armament training.

With a maximum speed of 750 kmph, it has an altitude ceiling of 9 km. The maximum take-off weight at 5,100 kg, including 1,000 kg of armaments at five hard points. It can also carry drop tanks.

A conventional configuration aircraft incorporating manual flight controls, its cockpit is ergonomically designed, air conditioned and pressurised. It is equipped with lightweight ejection seats, with an avionics suite that introduces pilots to a cockpit environment of modern combat aircraft and cues for weapons delivery.

(IANS)
© India Strategic

vic · Post by **vic** » 17 Feb 2011 08:25

Having dealt with non-defense Govt contract, I can tell you that "new" does not mean new design it just means "newly produced" and it means that product should not be used or second hand (preferably & normally produced after contract signature). This term is used in "all contracts" as default unless the contract is for purchase of second hand or used products.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 17 Feb 2011 09:16

Question i had on IJT IOC still doesnt have an answer. Why do we need an IOC for IJT, if it has opened the whole of its flight envelope already then it can very well be an FOC. This apart I have to commend IAF in messing up the basic trainer procurement. I think the HAL would have delivered the basic trainer in 2-3 years given the better shape(production of in-house designed products like ijt/alh/lch) they get into as days pass.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2011 10:50

so finally in maybe 3 yrs we will have very modern basic turboprop trainer (deal being worked out), IJT and Hawk in place..with ground simulators too..the contribution of a good training system in producing quality pilots on a mass scale cannot be overemphasized. armed forces with emphasise of training and post good pilots as trainers always benefit in long term...as opposed to JG52/JG54/IJN type units packed full of aces whose loss exposes critical gaps in the normal units.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Feb 2011 11:43

Having seen the IJT fly at AI was an experience i will never forget , that bloody thing flies as good as any fighter jet and the turns and loops it made were very impressive and engine power that is available to it makes me believe it has a T/W ratio of more then 1.

For a moment i thought to myself was this a trainer or a fighter , I wonder if we could have a single seater armed version of IJT.

Amazing display by IJT , I would rate in fighter/trainer aero display at AI , IJT,Eurofighter,Tejas display were the best and was a treat to watch.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Feb 2011 15:01

suryag wrote:Question i had on IJT IOC still doesnt have an answer. Why do we need an IOC for IJT, if it has opened the whole of its flight envelope already then it can very well be an FOC. This apart I have to commend IAF in messing up the basic trainer procurement. I think the HAL would have delivered the basic trainer in 2-3 years given the better shape(production of in-house designed products like ijt/alh/lch) they get into as days pass.

/speculation alert
essential formalities. it's like asking why do I need to take a driver's license when I can already drive ? moreover, they probably need to demonstrate capability for some fixed amount of time in order to get CEMILAC certification.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Feb 2011 16:29

vic wrote:Having dealt with non-defense Govt contract, I can tell you that "new" does not mean new design it just means "newly produced" and it means that product should not be used or second hand (preferably & normally produced after contract signature). This term is used in "all contracts" as default unless the contract is for purchase of second hand or used products.

Here is a related news item from TOI
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cy ... candal.jpg

vic · Post by **vic** » 17 Feb 2011 17:14

shiv wrote:
vic wrote:Having dealt with non-defense Govt contract, I can tell you that "new" does not mean new design it just means "newly produced" and it means that product should not be used or second hand (preferably & normally produced after contract signature). This term is used in "all contracts" as default unless the contract is for purchase of second hand or used products.
Here is a related news item from TOI
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cy ... candal.jpg

Actually I was talking about jaguar re-engining programme

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Feb 2011 03:08

Effort To Arm Indian Stage-2 Trainer Begins

HAL has initiated a critical phase of the intermediate jet trainer (IJT) programme by calling for bids to weaponise the aircraft. After hurdles delayed the flight test programme last year, the Indian intermediate jet trainer HJT-36 Sitara is on course to obtain initial operational clearance (IOC) in June. Crucial spin recovery tests -- mandatory for the IOC checklist -- are scheduled to begin in the next two weeks. In the meantime, since the Sitara will be used for primary weapon training of pilots in gunnery, rocketry, bombing and weapon aiming, HAL has now invited bids to give the platform a 12.7-mm gun pod (with 200 round capacity) suitable for its in-board wing stations.
...
...

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 19 Feb 2011 05:13

shiv wrote:
vic wrote:Having dealt with non-defense Govt contract, I can tell you that "new" does not mean new design it just means "newly produced" and it means that product should not be used or second hand (preferably & normally produced after contract signature). This term is used in "all contracts" as default unless the contract is for purchase of second hand or used products.
Here is a related news item from TOI
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cy ... candal.jpg

The article is dated as 16 Feb 2001..

Now TOI cannot even get the date right.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 19 Feb 2011 06:15

shiv wrote: however the news item says the RFP is for a "new engine" and if the RR engine is not a new one, then it is out anyway. It cannot compete with Honeywell's offer. It is difficult to tell whether Rolls Royce is sabotaging the deal by quoting legalese - fearing that they will get eliminated

even the honeywell engine is not new,it is a very fact that all engines are upgrades of previous once,even for newly designed aircraft the engine is based on previous tech.

moreover this RFP is wrong allowing for multi vendor for engine upgrade,i know some people will not agree to this,rolls royce has right to offer their engine.

if rd33mk is fitted to mirage2000 upgrade which allows 460kg of weight reduction.while rd33mk has better SFC than m53
if russia says that al31 engines can be fitted on f15,f16 upgrades,
if GE says that f414 engines can be fitted on mig29 upgrade,
if ge f110 can be fitted on mig27,su27
and what if euro consortium says that ej2000 can be fitted on rafale

how would that be

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Feb 2011 06:40

suryag wrote:Question i had on IJT IOC still doesnt have an answer. Why do we need an IOC for IJT, if it has opened the whole of its flight envelope already then it can very well be an FOC. ...

IOC is typically used for acceptance by the IAF into its service. Only after which, the production agency HAL goes into a serial production mode for the aircraft type. This is because design configurations/optimization change quite a bit with the prototype vehicles during testing. Only once the prototype (or LSP) reaches IOC maturity (minimum capability stipulated in the ASR and CEMILAC certified) and is accepted by the IAF will HAL be able to standardize its production equipment and parts supplies.

FOC typically occurs after induction into the IAF. Apart from reaching the full ASR specifications, an operational squadron will also need to operate the new type and iron out a lot of the infrastructure needs and training of crews (pilots/maintenance). When FOC is declared, it means the IAF has achieved "combat-level" operational capability on the new type (i.e. it could go to war with it if required). It usually takes 2 to 3 years for this process after IOC.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 19 Feb 2011 08:31

Honeywell's solution appears to be "no brainer" if you believe their commercial......

Honeywell F125IN for IAF Jags

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Feb 2011 10:21

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/in ... -more.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Regional_Jet
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... A.jpg.html

NAL now seems to be developing two aircrafts. One is RTA a turboprop with 50-70-90 seater capacity and another is turbofan powered bigger aircraft which is 70-100 seater. To a layman like me the wingspan seems larger enough to accomodate a even longer fuselage, say for 130 seater. So I would say NCA is 80-100-120 seater turbofan powered passenger aircraft in the league of Embraer E-170-190 series. While RTA seems like ATR-70 series. The only issue is "timeline" and "funding"

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 20 Feb 2011 13:07

NAL plane to fly by June

http://www.icast.org.in/news/2011/feb11/feb12da.pdf

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 20 Feb 2011 13:08

Saras will fly again in December: NAL chief

http://www.icast.org.in/news/2011/feb11/feb10hb.pdf

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 20 Feb 2011 13:09

India's own 90-seat civil aircraft may fly by 2017: Upadhya

http://www.icast.org.in/news/2011/feb11/feb10ha.pdf

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Feb 2011 04:19

More news re. the MiG-29 upg (images too) thanks to Mack8 @ keypubs: From Fomin in TakeOff mag via Google translate:

February 4, 2011 at the airport Flight Research Institute named after MM Gromov in Zhukovsky near Moscow hosted the first flight of the head of the upgraded fighter Indian Air Force MiG-29UPG (tail number KBU3301). The flight lasted about an hour and passed without comment. The plane was piloted by the head of flight services - senior test pilot MiG Mikhail Belyaev.

Work on this program made the Russian Aircraft Corporation "MiG" under the contract signed March 7, 2008 and provides for a comprehensive modernization of the entire fleet of MiG-29, consisting currently in service with the Indian Air Force. A total revision will be subjected to 62 aircraft, including several double combat-capable MiG-29UB. As a result of modernization, they will have modern avionics and extensive range of weaponry. Moreover, thanks to refinements of airframe and power plant will increase considerably and service life and will be translated plane on condition maintenance. Fuel on board will increase by applying superimposed fuselage tank for the cockpit. Simultaneously, the aircraft doosnaschaetsya system in-flight refueling.

In general, the concept of modernization of India's MiG-29 corresponds to the adopted for the MiG-29SMT held from 2009 to the Air Forces of Russia and has successfully mastered the Russian military pilots. Simultaneously, the composition of airborne equipment and weapons provides a high level of commonality with shipborne fighter MiG-29K/KUB taken at the Naval Forces of India February 19, 2010 When building a complex avionics upgraded MiG-29UPG on the customer realized the integration of production systems in different countries (so-called "international board"). A similar experience has already been received and worked well when the Russian-Indian contract on the modernization of MiG-21UPG Bison, design and construction of the Su-30MKI and MiG-29K/KUB.

The basis of armament control system of the upgraded MiG-29UPG is a new "Zhuk-M2E with slot array design and production corporation Phazotron-NIIR and optical-location station OLS-UEM with a laser, thermal, and televisions in the development of Institute of Semiconductor Devices (similar radar and infrared detection system used on MiG-29K/KUB). Information-control field crew cabin is built on multi-color liquid crystal display. "International" segment includes avionics Helmet-mounted target designation system the French company Thales, inertial-satellite navigation system with French company Sagem, as well as the Indian station and Israeli electronic intelligence station interference (similar systems are used to MiG-29K/KUB).
The main armament of the upgraded MiG-29UPG - such as the MiG-29SMT and MiG-29K/KUB: Unlike mass-produced MiG-29, supplemented by a missile air-to-air medium-range missiles with active radar homing type of RVV-AE as well as high-precision hitting the ground and sea targets - missile general purpose X-29T with a TV seeker, anti-ship missiles Kh-31A active radar GSN, anti-radar missiles Kh-31P with passive CSG responsive bombs KAB-500Kr with a television and homing etc.

MiG-29 are in service with the Indian Air Force since 1987 in total in this country during the second half of the 80's to mid 90's. was delivered 80 such planes, including about 70 single MiG-29 (option and a dozen double MiG-29UB. Deliveries of the first batch of 44 fighters began in 1987, the second party (26 cars) set in 1989, a third (10 cars) - in 1994. MiG-29 are deployed in three squadrons Indian Air Force: December 1987 - 28 th and 47 th and from November 1989 - 223 th. According to the Indian website warbirds.in, at 11 Indian MiG-29 (including one MiG-29UB) were lost during the period from 1994 to 2008. in flight accidents (known at least four of the seven crashes and accidents). According to the weekly magazine "Flight International, the beginning of 2011 the Air Forces of India are 69 fighters of this type.

In accordance with the contract, the first six Indian MiG-29 (four single and two "Sparky") will be finalizing and testing in Russia, they came to this country from India in 2008, the remaining 56 aircraft will undergo upgrades directly to the customer site, on production capacity of 11 th Indian Air Force repair depot, using the supplied from Russia sets. As reported on Feb. 9 at the air show, Aero India 2011 in Bangalore, General Director - General Designer of RSK "MiG" Mikhail Pogosyan, after completion of testing in this year's first modernized MiG-29UPG will be refunded to the customer.

So there is heavy commonality with the MiG-29K of the IN as expected. Good to know that it is the OLS UEM (via MiG-35) that gets the nod, along with the THales-Samtel HMS. IFR as well. EW = Israeli/INdian.

http://www.take-off.ru/news/107-news-1- ... ddcomments

CM

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Feb 2011 00:13

I got to know of this article to Livefist, so I will give credit to Shiv Aroor for bringing it to the forefront.

Getting it wrong - again

I agree with the Gp. capt. Bewoor to the word. I have spoken about this before. How is it that people in the right places didn't see it coming, when a layman like me could see it coming? It fails me.

P.S. Can I get subscription to Vayu in any way, if I am outside of India?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Feb 2011 00:34

indranilroy wrote:I got to know of this article to Livefist, so I will give credit to Shiv Aroor for bringing it to the forefront.

Getting it wrong - again

I agree with the Gp. capt. Bewoor to the word. I have spoken about this before. How is it that people in the right places didn't see it coming, when a layman like me could see it coming? It fails me.

The author blames HAL and DRDO for most of the mess. He says that IAF has been supported Indian aviation companies and have given them sufficient time to mature. That's a whole lot of BS!!

The IAF had the AJT aircraft race out for nearly 20 years. Why is it that the IAF didn't put forward the basic trainer requirement as forcefully? Of all the aircrafts that IAF operates, only Kiran, ALH and Deepak today are indigenously designed and developed. The rest of the aircraft and helicopters, whether Mig-21, Jaguar, SU-30, Hawk, Chetak, Cheetah etc are all locally assembled or produced under license. Other aircrafts/copters like Mirage-2K, Mig-29s, Mi-70, Mi-28 etc were all procured from abroad.

So when the author says that HAL and DRDO have dropped the ball inspite of support from IAF, that is farthest from the truth. IAF failed to give priority to the basic trainers replacement.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Feb 2011 01:06

with all due respect to Gp Capt Bewoor, that article's basic premise doesn't stand up to scrutiny. that IAF doesn't have a basic trainer is everyone's fault but IAF's. the fact that IAF dismissed not one but two basic trainer projects from HAL (HTT-34 in 80's and HTT-35 in 90's)and pretended that a third one from the 2000's (HTT-40) did not exist is irrelevant to the debate, the author would have us believe. or the fact that IAF was soundly sleeping till the HPT-32 reached the end of their service life and never issued as much as a RFI till the whole fleet was grounded. any normal air force would have started actively looking for a replacement at least a decade ago, if not more.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Feb 2011 01:09

I don't care about the blame game! Surely, the IAF is to be blamed. MoD is to blame and so is HAL/DRDO too. There was requirement, a dire one which was not fulfilled. That's all I know. Besides, I don't think that the author only dwells on the HAL/DRDO. He shares the apathy. He puts it down right in he beginning

For some unusualreason, the HTT-34 was evaluated againstturbo trainers in the class of the Tucano/ Texan II, making it virtually impossibleto accept. Have we forgotten the dictumthat no man should do to others thatwhich is repugnant to himself? One friendsuggested that we should have evaluatedthe HTT-34 against the MiG-29 if we haddecided to reject it before the evaluation

I mean why isn't HAL to blame. If you can't sell a commodity which is in dire need, then there is something wrong with the ad/marketing guys too! And the HTT-34 was there. Even now HAL is only starting with the HTT-40. Trust me I find it quite difficult to understand why we need 5-6 years for building a basic trainer!

I sympathize with HAL/DRDO for doing a really thankless and brilliant job. But that doesn't mean that they are doing everything right!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Feb 2011 01:18

HAL/DRDO/Defense PSUs start any new project only against a proper request from the users. Designing and developing aircraft isn't an easy or inexpensive task. User input and requirements are required right from the beginning.

Why didn't IAF partner with NAL to develop a new basic trainer after NAL came out with Hansa? NAL and its partners already had some experience with Hansa, so a next step to develop IAF basic trainer would have been good investment, instead of going for Saras.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Feb 2011 01:46

indranil, that's the problem with being a govt PSU, you do something on your own initiative without services approval and the MOD will fall on you like a ton of bricks and chances are even the force for which you are developing the product will use the occasion to snipe on you. you saw how the karna project was treated.

HAL has a severe manpower crunch, given the number of programs it is involved in and our meagre annual output of engineers who can contribute to these projects this is not surprising. that's the primary reason why HTT-40 is expected to have a long gestation period. personally, I would rather have a pvt manufacturer do the development with HAL and then produce it by itself.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Feb 2011 02:13

I agree dada ... But here we are speaking of lack of foresight or just abject apathy towards it.

I mean really look at it ... we are speaking about a basic trainer airframe. When HAL/DRDO knows that they will be graded against Grob/Tucano/Texan, then why reinvent the wheel with "lightest and greatest" which might be better but won't be accepted. Marketing guys should say, our customer is IAF. Give them what it wants. Start with a suitable Lycoming/PW engine and build an airframe around it!

I mean is somebody trying to tell me that designing the airframe of the HTT-40 is going to take 2-3 years. Is that person serious? I am not drawing parallels here. But I go skydiving regularly. At that airport some enthusiasts build planes in their garage. They can fly inverted and et.al. They build it themselves! Out of interest I have been to their garages and had wonderful discussions and tightened some screws. It is not like building a fourth gen fighter!

Why are we trying to reinvent everything?! We are speaking of stripping down the IJT. A basic simple airframe which is flat spin certified! I can't understand if you say, it needs lots of work unless you want to make it that way. Take a PT6 or a M601 or a T53 and build a simple clean airframe around it. Use a wing similar to the IJT. Based on your wing design just design a simple elevator and based on the shape of the fuselage, design the rudder! How difficult is this (for a design house of HAL's stature) ... Please give it as a project to IISc and IIT professors if manpower is the problem ... Give them the specifications.

I get a feeling that HAL wan't to retain everything to be done in house. I hope they don't overdo themselves. The training and lives of pilots and our sovereignty is in their hands. It is a HUGE responsibility.

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Feb 2011 12:21

Govt Sector in India is inherently inefficient, incompetent & dishonest.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 22 Feb 2011 12:23

I can say the same thing about pvt sector.

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Feb 2011 13:10

HAL has come out with a "Global tender" to put a machine gun pod on IJT

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Feb 2011 13:17

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... arket.html

Separately, Embraer also confirms that a deal is being finalised with the Indian government to acquire nine more intelligence-gathering and target-towing platforms based on the ERJ-145. (ELINT-SIGNINT-COMINT platforms??)

The ERJ-145 AEW&C represents the second of a three-phase strategy for India’s airborne surveillance ambitions. Phase 1 involved development and testing of a rotodome antenna aboard two HS 728 prototypes, which both

(I thought that there was one crash) crashed.

In phase 2, CABS is developing a top-hat radar

(there is no hat) for the ERJ-145 with two side-panel arrays that can each scan between 130-150º, Christopher says.

In the third phase, the CABS will develop a triangle-shaped, phased array capable of searching 360º nearly simultaneously, says Vijay Kumar Saraswat, director of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). That system will match the capabilities that India has already acquired with a 360º-scanning Elta Systems phased-array. This is an interesting news, but what will be platform? Will Embraer develop one for DRDO?

Saraswat also noted that the DRDO and Embraer “is going to join hands” as his organisation pursues a broad range of new aerospace projects, which include a 90-100-seat regional airliner and medium combat aircraft that aims to introduce an indigenous fifth generation fighter by around 2020. Why would Embraer be interested in helping a competing aircraft and what help will they give in AMCA? Tooo much love makes me suspicious of the intentions

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 22 Feb 2011 21:00

The OBOGS will be tested in ground trials in Tejas after three months and will ultimately be integrated with it. The system will be customised for integration with Sukhoi-30, Jaguar, Mirage-2000 and MiG-29. “The IAF will definitely go for this system because it will cost less than the imported version,” Padaki said.

Surprising that the present Su-30's/ Mig 29's don't have OBOGS on'em? There was an article mentioned earlier that LCA MKII will have OBOGS on it, any info on why it wasn't on MK-I or was it not developed/tested in time to make it in MK-I?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Feb 2011 22:09

if brazil is serious about developing a domestic fighter program, they should join India in AMCA project...their manufacturing expertise and tie ins with global ecosystem via embraer is definitely far superior to HAL. the program could no doubt get speeded up if a common set of specifications were hashed out clearly. they could ofcourse hook into PAKFA project but the gains there in design phase for them will be minimal.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Feb 2011 05:38

The idea of designing 90-100 seater civilian aircraft,with Brazil, is great.

IF SAAB can be roped in for the AMCA would be a great.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Feb 2011 05:41

MTA should have been done with brazil as well. We are wasting time in the current scenario...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Feb 2011 08:34

Rao sahab, embraer already has all the 90-100 seater civilian jets it needs.
# Embraer 170 (80 passengers)
# Embraer 175 (88 passengers)
# Embraer 190 (110 passengers)
# Embraer 195 (122 passengers)

why would they co-operate with us on another in the same category ?

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 23 Feb 2011 10:44

Rahul M wrote:Rao sahab, embraer already has all the 90-100 seater civilian jets it needs.
# Embraer 170 (80 passengers)
# Embraer 175 (88 passengers)
# Embraer 190 (110 passengers)
# Embraer 195 (122 passengers)

why would they co-operate with us on another in the same category ?

I think it's not co-op but validate .. it's like , "okay u guys this jet will not crash and kill 6 scientists like saras or your earlier awac attempt" ..mentor perhaps

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Feb 2011 10:53

Craig Alpert wrote:
The OBOGS will be tested in ground trials in Tejas after three months and will ultimately be integrated with it. The system will be customised for integration with Sukhoi-30, Jaguar, Mirage-2000 and MiG-29. “The IAF will definitely go for this system because it will cost less than the imported version,” Padaki said.
Surprising that the present Su-30's/ Mig 29's don't have OBOGS on'em? There was an article mentioned earlier that LCA MKII will have OBOGS on it, any info on why it wasn't on MK-I or was it not developed/tested in time to make it in MK-I?

It was not ready then. it was delivered on August 2010.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Feb 2011 11:56

>> MTA should have been done with brazil as well. We are wasting time in the current scenario...

+1 to that. MTA would be in IAF colours by now had we seriously started in 2000. Embraer has a mtaish/C27 type design...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_KC-390

first flight in 2014 ..and its going to happen, unlike the MTA chimera.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Feb 2011 12:37

any idea what is the A/B thrust for Rolls Royce Adour 821 engine - which was being touted for the Jaguar engine
upgrade/replacement?? this question may be moot considering the RR has withdrawn from the contest but still...

i was searching for both RR Adour 821 and Honewell F125. while i got the specs for F125 i only could get RR Adour 811 specs.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/Adour_tcm92-6701.pdf

http://www.honeywellforjaguar.com/downl ... engine.pdf

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 23 Feb 2011 16:19

pragnya wrote:any idea what is the A/B thrust for Rolls Royce Adour 821 engine - which was being touted for the Jaguar engine
upgrade/replacement?? this question may be moot considering the RR has withdrawn from the contest but still...

i was searching for both RR Adour 821 and Honewell F125. while i got the specs for F125 i only could get RR Adour 811 specs.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/Adour_tcm92-6701.pdf

http://www.honeywellforjaguar.com/downl ... engine.pdf

A little detective work and calculation will get you the answer.
Honeywell say that their engine generates between 17% to 40%greater thrust.
Assuming the first figure applies to the dry thrust and the second to A/B thrust you could guess that the Adour 821 generates 5325 ft lbs dry and 7500 ft lbs with afterburner (approximately, allowing for Honeywell's knife in RR's back!)