Same being said by Saurav Jha9 flight trials of weaponised RPA vehicle #Lakshya have been carried out successfully with 20 m circular error probable. @akananth #DRDO
Alright, it seems that @DRDO_India has successfully weaponized the Lakshya pilotless target aircraft and trials have already been carried out with small PGMs.
Wat this means?Kartik wrote:IAF commits to buying 15 Saras Mk2 LTA
PT1N also has a 104-inch diameter propeller assembly to cater to second segment climb gradient requirements.
See image below. You can easily find many such easily on google.shiv wrote:Wat this means?Kartik wrote:IAF commits to buying 15 Saras Mk2 LTA
Sounds like some post take-off high altitude mountaintop clearing requirement. But wat it means?
Was just wondering - what weapon would be placed on the Lakshya. What sensors does it have for target designation? 20 meter CEP means at least a 25 kg bomb would meet the requirementZynda wrote:https://twitter.com/writetake/status/966577105201856512Same being said by Saurav Jha9 flight trials of weaponised RPA vehicle #Lakshya have been carried out successfully with 20 m circular error probable. @akananth #DRDO
https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/966376257293291522Alright, it seems that @DRDO_India has successfully weaponized the Lakshya pilotless target aircraft and trials have already been carried out with small PGMs.
Yes. For each of the requirement there would be a definition specifying all requirements on configuration in worst case. This would be coming from the certification agency such as FAA. All those velocities mentioned, and TO segments along with Landing roll, breaking distance available etc on given smallest airport its expected to operate, would each give one equation giving minimum needed wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio. In simple form it would be typically a line on W/S vs T/W plot for each equation. When you combine all the lines you would get a zone on that plot which tells you what minimum values of W/S and T/W are needed to satisfy all the requirements. This is often the very first or second step of aircraft design.shiv wrote:OK thanks - that image basically says that they want to achieve 2nd gradient where the plane can lift off with one engine inoperative and wheels retracted and reach 400 feet.
But I have never heard of Lakshya with sensors...so I was wondering about the targetingZynda wrote:Just speculating...perhaps Sat guided SDB kinda ordinance which weighs less than 100 Kg. Being Sat (GPS/IRNISS) guided, I think the launch platform does not need any pods or on-board radar to guide the munitions. The on board GPS chip mounted on the bomb should be able to guide itself to the target. The operator has to make sure that target is within the munition's kinetic range envelope. Of course, this means that largely onlee permanent static targets like bunkers etc., can be targeted.
Edit: DRDO SAAW weighs around 120 Kg.
MiG-21FL- Type 77K_Rohit wrote:Can someone help me understand the Mig 21 variant designations in Indian service (map Type 77, Type 96, etc. with M, MF, etc.) and which are retired now? I understand M, Bis, Bison, UM still in service with Ms going out next year?
Mig 21 FL
Mig 21 M
Mig 21 UM
Mig 21 MF
Mig 21 Bis
Mig 21 Bison
They are probably using commercial gps signal for now, so that's why it may be 20 meter cep. Good first steps. What are they launching? That has to be new and interesting.Zynda wrote:Just speculating...perhaps Sat guided SDB kinda ordinance which weighs less than 100 Kg. Being Sat (GPS/IRNISS) guided, I think the launch platform does not need any pods or on-board radar to guide the munitions. The on board GPS chip mounted on the bomb should be able to guide itself to the target. The operator has to make sure that target is within the munition's kinetic range envelope. Of course, this means that largely onlee permanent static targets like bunkers etc., can be targeted.
Edit: DRDO SAAW weighs around 120 Kg.
Thank you Kartik for providing the corresponding Type vis-à-vis the MiG-21 variant. This is great.Kartik wrote:MiG-21FL- Type 77
MiG-21M- Type 96
MiG-21U- Type 66
MiG-21UM- Type 68
MiG-21US- Type 69
MiG-21bis- Type 75
All MiG-21FLs are retired, there is now just 1 remaining MiG-21M squadron (No.35 Rapiers); there is likely just 1 remaining MiG-21bis squadrons (No. 26 Warriors) and 6 Bison squadrons (Nos.3,4,21,23, 32, 51). So, in all 8 remaining squadrons of MiG-21 types, with the number to reduce to 7 with the last MiG-21M squadron being number plated this year.
Now, IAF wants the F-35
In what would be a huge capability jump, the Indian Air Force is increasingly interested in procuring the American F-35 Lightning II for its depleting fighter fleet.
The IAF top brass is formally requesting a classified briefing by the F-35's prime builder, Lockheed Martin, on the capabilities of the sophisticated, fifth-generation fighter developed under the United States Joint Strike Fighter programme.
The US government has not formally offered the F-35 to India.
A classified briefing would require formal clearance from the US department of defence (the Pentagon) and the state department.
The grant of such a clearance would be an important first step towards permitting the sale of F-35s to India.
It is learnt the IAF wants to procure 126 of the variant called F-35A -- the air force version of the fighter that incorporates 'conventional take-off and landing'.
Another variant, the F-35B, incorporating 'short take-off and vertical landing', has been developed for the US Marine Corps.
A third version, developed for the US Navy, incorporates 'catapult assisted take-off but arrested recovery.'
The Indian Navy, which has never ruled out operating the F-35 off Indian aircraft carriers, received a briefing on the F-35 as far back as 2010, Lockheed Martin official Orville Prins told this correspondent.
However, at that stage, the F-35 was still grappling with serious development challenges.
The F-35's affordability is also attractive for New Delhi.
In contrast to the bare-bones price of $115 million for each Rafale fighter (with India-specific enhancements, spares, logistics and weapons all extra), the F-35A cost customers $94.6 million last February.
Lockheed Martin says it will reduce the cost to $80 million by 2020.
What kind of customizability are we're talking about? Typically, the IAF has required modification for two reasons. The first is to ensure compatibility with rest of the fleet; data-links, IFF, radios, weapons, etc. The second is to make up for deficiencies in the base platform; usually consisting of replacing Russian avionics with Israeli gear.Indranil wrote:I don't think IAF will dump the FGFA for F-35. One reason: customizability. For 100-odd planes LM is not going to customize weapons, systems etc.
Tests at the facility for the Department of Defense, other government agencies and private industry have included items such as large aircraft, tanks, missile launchers, shelters, engines, automobiles and tire manufacturers.The Climatic Laboratory has five testing chambers which include the Main Chamber; the Equipment Test Chamber; the Sun, Wind, Rain and Dust Chamber; the Salt Fog Chamber; and the Altitude Chamber.
The Main Chamber is the largest environmental chamber in the world. At approximately 252 feet wide, 260 feet deep and 70 feet high, tests have consisted of large items and systems for aircraft such as the B-2 Bomber and the C-5 Galaxy. The temperatures achieved in the chamber range between -65 degrees Fahrenheit to 165 degrees Fahrenheit with a simulation of all climatic conditions including heat, snow, rain, wind, sand and dust.
Because of the corrosive properties of salt fog test conditions, the Salt Fog Chamber was designed to provide an ambient test chamber that is away from other test chambers. The chamber has two steam-fed heat exchangers that create the temperature to perform the salt fog test.
The chamber is approximately 55 feet long, 16 feet wide and 16 feet high. The chamber doesn’t have refrigeration capability.
The Altitude Chamber can create pressure altitudes as high as 80,000 feet with a temperature capability of -80 degrees Fahrenheit to 140 degrees Fahrenheit. The chamber measures 13 by 9 feet and 6 feet high.
While there could be many reasons why the IAF does not consider, or the MOD does not pursue the F-35, addition of Indian weapons would likely not be a hurdle as long as they are compliant, and integration is funded. Even during its development stage, the program had developed and approved plans to take up partner weapons into the fold. Mature weapons that had completed their development were given priority in its SDD phase while those still in development were scheduled to be brought in as soon as they were ready. Once partner requests are met they will open this up to FMS requests and it is expected that a large number of Israeli weapons will then be allowed time for flight testing so that they can begin integration activities as per schedule and availability of test aircraft. There will be partner weapons that will be brought into the system even before some of the new US domestic weapons come aboard. Do note that the Integrated Test Force which supports testing will remain a dozen (or more) strong for at least the next decade.Indranil wrote:One reason: customizability. For 100-odd planes LM is not going to customize weapons, systems etc.
We will see.
You're welcome Rakesh. By the way, as mentioned in my post, there are inaccuracies on the BRF page for IAF units and squadrons. For instance, No.45 Squadron's location is given as Thanjavur, whereas it is to be based at Sulur, Coimbatore. Can someone update these with more recent info?Rakesh wrote:Thank you Kartik for providing the corresponding Type vis-à-vis the MiG-21 variant. This is great.Kartik wrote:MiG-21FL- Type 77
MiG-21M- Type 96
MiG-21U- Type 66
MiG-21UM- Type 68
MiG-21US- Type 69
MiG-21bis- Type 75
All MiG-21FLs are retired, there is now just 1 remaining MiG-21M squadron (No.35 Rapiers); there is likely just 1 remaining MiG-21bis squadrons (No. 26 Warriors) and 6 Bison squadrons (Nos.3,4,21,23, 32, 51). So, in all 8 remaining squadrons of MiG-21 types, with the number to reduce to 7 with the last MiG-21M squadron being number plated this year.
The F-13 variant was never built in India. So there will be no "type" designation. There were only very few of those anyway.Aditya_V wrote:What about the Ist variant of Mig 21 in IAF service Mig 21 F-13 variant?
A fools dream, i feel!!! But one can always wish it.Indranil wrote:I am hoping that out of this govt. rebutt of the SEF, IAF says: F.. this! No govt. is going to increase military spending to allow capital investments. Some govt. speak of chest, others about balls, but all they care for is one from of dole-out or the other.
Let's stick with what we have got some semblance of control over. Let's take LCA/AMCA/FGFA/Rafale to build up our fleet.
I'm taking the Rafale deal as a benchmark for the IAF's customization requirements. Most of what the IAF requested on the Rafale is doable for the F-35 (datalink, IFF etc.) and some of it would be redundant (Israeli weapons, HMDS).Indranil wrote:Viv,
Gone are the days when we would just integrate Israeli systems into MKIs. Today, there are replacing those Israeli systems with Indian ones.
Like I said, the Garuthma & SAAW shouldn't be a problem. We could either contract LM to do it or better still modify the weapons for UAI-compatibility which would make the integration simpler and open up significant export opportunities over the long-term. With regard to the others - the Nirbhay isn't doable (too large) while the Astra & NGARM should be quite feasible (not unlike the Derby & Meteor).Same goes armaments. There is an entire gamut of PG-munitions that they are testing on Su-30MKI and Jaguar currently, from 125 kgs to 1000 kgs, winged and non-winged. In most cases, the hit scores are at par with Israeli munition in stock with the IAF. What will it take to integrate a Brahmos-M with F-35? Nirbhay? NGARM? Astra? LFRJ-LRCM?
Maybe local maintenance, a joint MDF programming centre, ALIS databanks but for the most part the aircraft will remain a black box. The Americans would be able to access the elint/sigint collected by IAF units, though in turn IAF units would also be upgraded with sigint/elint collected by the US assets.How much autonomy have we to give up to join the juggernaut? Last time, we had to sign two agreements to get a radio!
Thanks! can always count on you for insights. So the Bisons have no Type no? And had no idea that we had 3 different U models in service.Kartik wrote:
MiG-21FL- Type 77
MiG-21M- Type 96
MiG-21U- Type 66
MiG-21UM- Type 68
MiG-21US- Type 69
MiG-21bis- Type 75
All MiG-21FLs are retired, there is now just 1 remaining MiG-21M squadron (No.35 Rapiers); there is likely just 1 remaining MiG-21bis squadrons (No. 26 Warriors) and 6 Bison squadrons (Nos.3,4,21,23, 32, 51). So, in all 8 remaining squadrons of MiG-21 types, with the number to reduce to 7 with the last MiG-21M squadron being number plated this year.
Check this Bharat Rakshak squadrons and units link, although it is outdated. Squadron Nos. 37 Black Panthers, 101 Falcons and 108 Hawkeyes have already been number plated. Sqn No. 15 Flying Lances is now equipped with Su-30MKI.
Singha wrote:I saw convert amca to single engine and fit the jsf f135 or the standby f136 ge engine which will both save ge aviation , ensure good txfer for tejas mk2 engine also i think n3 had suggested using f136 engine route or pay ge to build a mk2 f414 for our 300 plane buildout of twin engine amca which means 2000 engines over a 40 yr timeframe... embed our ppl learn from it
He who has the best engines rules the skies
Singha wrote:Well tje 414 mk2 would be with current 2 engine chassis
Only f136 route would need a total redesign not that anything is there beyond wind tunnel models
The massive blue afterburner cone of flame from the f136 would be worth the ticket price
Then we'd replace them with EJ-200s but a bigger concern would become the Tejas' 404s. Its not something the planners are particularly concerned about, as long as the mutual challenge from China persists.Vips wrote:GOI should give the highest priority in coming up with the Kaveri minus the chinks. Amount of money and resources should not be a constraint. Use saam, daam, dhandh bedh to achieve this. It is critcal as it is now clear that we will have to induct LCA (across all the versions) to service the number plated squadrons. What if Uncle Sam withholds the 414 to us under some pretext?
sad, but thats the corner we are in...South Korea is in more advanced stage as far as their dealings with GE is concerned for their F-X application. There is still some ambiguity with what their long term plans are for propulsion upgrades. Similarly, the largest operator of the F414, the USN, has a vested interest in Engine enhancements to support well over a thousand engines it has out there that will be in service well into the 2030s and beyond. Eventually, F414 enhancements will be funded by one of the interested parties...Singha wrote:could we fund a uae block60 f16 type project with GE to develop some growth margins into the 414 for some quick CYA as the AMCA inevitably ends up heavier than whatever unobtainium paper goals are set ?
the time to finalize on the engine and fund the necessary work is now, not 2028.
Four very different programs. The T-FX is going with the EJ-200, the Japanese program will use domestic engines, the Koreans are starting out with a 4.5 gen fighter and the AMCA is looking at the F414. There isn't a genuine 5th gen engine in the lot, and there's no apparent collaboration to fund one jointly.brar_w wrote:There are four medium sized 5th gen programs out there outside of the US. All four of them have narrowed down on a twin engine set up. There is likely a higher element of risk with performance and margins when you are reliant on one of the largest fighter engines with some of the highest TETs in the industry. Keeping it in the range it does likely future proofs the program and provides alternate suppliers in case the relationship with GE does not work as intended.
The Kaveri is an option for a future UCAV and perhaps a future LCA-AJT. Expecting the program to produce a 100 kN+ engine even with a new Safran core is optimistic to say the least.If the goal is to eventually put a Kaveri offshoot int hat space then a twin engine design makes even more sense.