Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

'Make in India' Single engined fighter

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2017 14:08

a large aircraft design and manufacturing bureau unlike a small startup cannot run on the back of a few superstar scientists/engg/pgm managers, so even a few aeging indic superstars from OEMs abroad doing r2i is not going to "fix" things. 80% of the engineers need to be at top notch level at various levels of seniority to ensure continuity as people age out. this is perhaps where isro, barc, aec has succeeded in keeping its pipeline going. even in medicine all our top notch surgeons pair up with atleast 1 padawan to jointly do operations until the old are ready to stand down.

old article by SR valluri - from 2001 - prophetic words

http://www.thehindu.com/2001/03/03/stories/05032524.htm

At the first meeting of the ADA general body in July 1984, presided over by the then Defence Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao, Mr. V. P. Singh, then Finance Minister, wanted to know the estimated cost of development of the LCA. I stated that if the first flight took place by 1991 as planned, the actual cash outflow would be Rs. 1,250 crores and that every year of delay would entail an additional expenditure of Rs. 150 crores to Rs. 175 crores. The cost over-run due to the ten-year delay is thus Rs. 175 crores a year so far. At least four years of this delay could be attributed to the decision of the then Scientific Adviser to ease out the late Raj Mahindra. His crime was that his wife was British and not an Italian. At that time, he was the only person with hands-on experience in the design of any jet aircraft. I informed Mr. Narasimha Rao that no serious harm would result if I leaft the position of DGADA, but if Mr. Mahindra was eased out, it would have serious repercussions. There was no other person down the line who had hands-on experience to take over the responsibility without loss of time. I estimate that the loss to the nation resulting from this unfortunate decision to be at least Rs. 700 crores. Errors in judgment at that level do not come cheap. While seeking Mahindra's resignation as desired by the Scientific Adviser, as a matter of principle, I too resigned.

...


Sanction of the LCA programme found the following facts. The HAL management had let the Design Bureau get gradually decimated over the years. Instead of having about 1000 engineers and designers typical of such institutions, it had only about 400, of which about 150 have to be written of. HAL did not have any corporate R&D worth speaking. It was comfortable with licensed production. What saved the situation was that due to the innumerable feasibility studies taken up over the years to respond to the multitude of ASR released over the years by the Air Force, the Design Bureau continued to keep abreast of the conceptual designs of advanced technology aircraft. We found this when we compared our studies with the proposals made by our foreign consultants.

What we did not have were the technologies to implement such ideas
. :(( For example, when I made a proposal to the HAL Board that an HF-24 aircraft should be converted into a fly-by-wire (FBW) flying platform, it was summarily rejected by the South Block representative. It was the lack of appreciation for forward technology development that separated the aircraft industry from the Space and the Atomic Energy Departments. We now know that after the May 1998 nuclear explosions the U.S. held us for ransom for the release of FBW technologies. The fact was that there was enough intrinsic capability in the country to develop such technologies. But time was not on our side, due to the ignorance of policy makers about the areas in which forward- looking R&D should be taken up in anticipation of future tasks such as the LCA. The LCA project paid a heavy price, by way of inordinate delays and escalating costs, for the lack of vision of policy-makers.
...
Finally a word about engines. No matter how good an aircraft designer is, he is helpless if he does not have a proper engine. It is the combination of the aircraft and a suitable engine that assures the performance of the aircraft.
...

We are a long way away from realising the full potential of the LCA. Nevertheless, the programme must go on to enable our aircraft and engine designers to learn what it means to build advance technology fighter aircraft and engines. Inspite of the delay, Dr. Kota Harinarayana has done a commendable job as the LCA Programme Director. It is a regrettable that the Government did not recognise his contribution in a tangible manner. It is to be noted that the development of a fighter aircraft with 10 to 15 independent systems operating perfectly and simultaneously is more complex than designing a Prithvi or Agni missile. It would appear that the Government needs to evolve rational policies to recognise significant contributions from scientists and technologists.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2017 14:11

^^ kind of supports my guess that by time Tejas work started, the Marut core team had all aged out and we were again flying blind.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 14 Jul 2017 14:17

Singha wrote:we need someone in aerospace production engg field to explain what exactly we lack vs the rest...people, tools, techology, food, morale, money .... its a mystery to me.


I am not Production Engg. but IMHO what we really lack is Aspiration at the National level. As a Nation we do not aspire to excel in the field of Aerospace. Without aspirations there are no mandates, directives from GOI. IF we have these, all other things you mentioned can be arranged for, gaps can be filled. Without it, whatever amount of ToT, screwdrivergiri we undertake we will always be looking out for solutions with every new generation of technology.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19459
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Austin » 14 Jul 2017 14:24

DR SR Valluri is a prophetic person some of what he said in 2001 is even valid today in 2017

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 14 Jul 2017 14:27

Singha wrote:^^ kind of supports my guess that by time Tejas work started, the Marut core team had all aged out and we were again flying blind.


You might like to read this:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 48124.html

suryag
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby suryag » 14 Jul 2017 14:37

Thanks JayS ji

See what i found in that article
Things appeared to be going fairly well for Mahindra and the LCA till May 28, 1985 when a calling attention motion by Congress(S) member Suresh Kalmadi came up in the Rajya Sabha. The same charges were repeated against Mahindra and the minister replied that they had been answered adequately by his predecessors. Three days later, Valluri claims, Arunachalam asked him to ease Mahindra out and the resignations followed.


So this saheb has been at work for a long time

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 14 Jul 2017 14:48

suryag wrote:Thanks JayS ji

See what i found in that article
Things appeared to be going fairly well for Mahindra and the LCA till May 28, 1985 when a calling attention motion by Congress(S) member Suresh Kalmadi came up in the Rajya Sabha. The same charges were repeated against Mahindra and the minister replied that they had been answered adequately by his predecessors. Three days later, Valluri claims, Arunachalam asked him to ease Mahindra out and the resignations followed.


So this saheb has been at work for a long time


I almost typed to highlight that but then deleted it thinking its not germane here. But yes Kalmadi seems to be a key dalla for long time for vested interests.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2017 15:18

directors of NAL ... trying to keep the tiny flame alive and defend the nation, with wolves , both paid and unpaid, always outside the door to sabotage things

Image

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8332
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jul 2017 17:15

Gnat-mki was out of date even in mid 90s.

The thinking behind the professor's argument is sound.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 15 Jul 2017 03:45, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4969
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 14 Jul 2017 17:34

UlanBatori wrote:A Mach 2 UCAV (no reason why a UCAV can't do that) at 40,000 feet carrying 4 AA missiles is a powerful deterrent, esp. if you have a 10:1 numbers advantage, and enough dispersal to deter sneak attack.

You cannot build a Mach 2 UCAV at a tenth of the cost of a normal fighter jet. Its an impossible fantasy, plain and simple.

The closest thing to a fighter sized drone in the world is the Global Hawk (7 tons empty) which goes for around $120 mil flyaway.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8332
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jul 2017 18:03

Deleted.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 15 Jul 2017 03:30, edited 2 times in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8332
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jul 2017 18:16

Also, the Production course in the EyeEyeTee (3 hours per week taught by Prof. Balaraman, with everyone snoozing off by 1.5 hrs so he would bring us all tea, sweet man, and then let us out 1/2 hr later) drilled 2 points home: 1) Program cost is driven by the person-hours invested, not the gold-plated toilets. 2) Unit cost is driven by lot size 3) Learning Curve is a beautiful thing. Look at why the Toyota car costs only what it costs (In India 2/3 of the cost is Dharma (Duty)). Without the above 3 lessons, each should cost about $200M, which is what an airplane costs.

Corollary is that without 500 units, a commercial aircraft program will go bust.
By keeping production down to 8 per year, HAL is killing the LCA as surely as by strangling someone with a rope: Per unit cost can be argued to be higher than that of an F-22. OK, please throw the stones saying It Is Not HAL's Fault, at least then we can define who should change.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8332
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jul 2017 18:23

3rd point: Look at Shri Brar's favored baby, the Eph-35. A marvel, no doubt. What percentage of its awesome capabilities will be used, you think? Of course, the day those capabilities are really needed, nothing else will suffice, but chances are that the US will not HAVE anything else for 99% of the rest of the missions. My take is that for 99% of missions, the F-35 is way, way, overqualified. BUT... the Services wanted ONE Joint etc etc. so there it is.

P.S. Today the most deadly Combat Pilot Aces are burger&fries munching beer-bellied video-game nutcases sitting in dark basements in Kansas or Oklahoma, hitting the "FIRE" button against entities 10,000 miles away, and going home to watch TV in total security. Worst Threat they encounter is drunk drivers on the road. Imagine the Air Force being run by such ppl! And this is with just Predators etc. Imagine the situation when real UCAVs take to the skies in aerial combat missions. So Real Combat Pilot Aces fear UCAVs far more than they fear death.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 15 Jul 2017 03:44, edited 2 times in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ldev » 14 Jul 2017 18:27

^^
UB is correct. India cannot out produce China in the conventional sense now, the gap is far too wide. So it has to re-think war. UCAVs at say $5 million a pop or even cheaper if possible, each carrying maybe 2 AAMs for the air defence role. Get rid of the on board radar and provide guidance from a series of radars like the Greenpine currently used for PAD/AAD interception. Greatly expand the use of AWACSs and space based surveillance for missile/air attacks which feed that data to the UCAVs. Get a fleet of 4000-5000 of them and keep 500 in the air at all times on the border. Use them just as platforms for launching AAMs.

Use more expensive UCAVs for the longer range strike function.

This does not mean that you do away with the manned fighter aircraft, but it greatly reduces the numbers needed for very specific missions.

From Wikipedia, what DARPA in the US is doing:

March 2013, DARPA began efforts to develop a fleet of small naval vessels capable of launching and retrieving combat drones without the need for large and expensive aircraft carriers.[81]

In November 2014, the Pentagon made an open request for ideas on how to build a flying aircraft carrier that can launch and retrieve drones using existing military aircraft such as the B-1, B-52 or C-130.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5956
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby vina » 14 Jul 2017 18:37

Singha wrote:For example, when I made a proposal to the HAL Board that an HF-24 aircraft should be converted into a fly-by-wire (FBW) flying platform, it was summarily rejected by the South Block representative. It was the lack of appreciation for forward technology development that separated the aircraft industry from the Space and the Atomic Energy Departments


I had asked this question MULTIPLE times on this forum on the IAF actually having done ANYTHING at all on these lines. Multiple times I have written that they could have put FBW and a composite wing on an Ajeet and we could have entered the LCA program with a FAR stronger industrial base. No answer. I asked , where was the IAF in demanding artificial stability for the plane that absolutely NEEDS it the most , i.e. the Mig 21 , that way , you could have saved a lot of pilots, and actually made the forward fuel tank useable, instead of a lump of liquid ballast!

No answers at all from all the former IAF folks and their apologists here. The IAF simply DOESN'T have the skills or capability to do ANYTHING other than going shopping in the international arms bazaar. They can't think of a doctrine, can't develop or implement one. All the "innovation" they can do is some random "scooter mechanic" level stuff of soldering stuff , loading some random bomb in a new pylon, and deploy weapons in tactically smart ways. But beyond that , nothing.

Dr S.R Valluri KNEW (he obviously will) what needed to be done and asked for it ,but hey no, the Defence Ministry Baboon had to shoot it down . The said Baboon obviously can't find his own ar*se with his own two hands (and probably a flashlight) and will declare it missing!

Valluri did his job (and very well and competently) , what was the IAF doing ? The least they could have done is kicked the Baboon in the Gonads. The entire project HF-24 -FBW & Composite wing would have cost very little (less than the cost of 2 airframes) and that wasn't coming out of their budgets anyways. So what gives ?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8332
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jul 2017 19:04

AoA! This brought vinaji out. Could u and other brave entities who know what goes on in desh pls kindly email ubatori at geepata, hain? Need ur input on something. Sitting in Mongolia one really does not have a clue on the ground realities, much as one can guess them.

Also, slightly OT: the GETET (Gas turbine something something) seemed like an impressive start, but would I be right in speculating that this is something that looks good because it is like what other countries are doing, it will train some researchers, build some research facilities, but then is there PULL from the customer to deliver something useful? Solve the real problems? My concern is that with no war to drive fire in the belly, this, like all b4 it, will degenerate into Papers in Preshteejious Internashunal Conpherenj, Jarnail Papers, Bromoshun phor brophejar to EyeEyeTea Senate and Deanship and Dilli Post and then.... nothing.

IOW, do you see them as capable of building a working prototype of say, an Ammonia-burning gas turbine to convert Biss 2 Urj? No insult intended: just speculating based on what I have seen coming out of MURIs (Multi-University Research Initiatives) that spent $10M each over 5 years, and other Basic Research Centers. Excellent long-term basic research, but only if there is someone in the Black World who reads and understands the papers, or hires the graduates to take their work forward.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 14 Jul 2017 19:18

UlanBatori wrote:Also, the Production course in the EyeEyeTee (3 hours per week taught by Prof. Balaraman, with everyone snoozing off by 1.5 hrs so he would bring us all tea, sweet man, and then let us out 1/2 hr later) drilled 2 points home: 1) Program cost is driven by the person-hours invested, not the gold-plated toilets. 2) Unit cost is driven by lot size 3) Learning Curve is a beautiful thing. Look at why the Toyota car costs only what it costs (In India 2/3 of the cost is Dharma (Duty)). Without the above 3 lessons, each should cost about $200M, which is what an airplane costs.

Corollary is that without 500 units, a commercial aircraft program will go bust.
By keeping production down to 8 per year, HAL is killing the LCA as surely as by strangling someone with a rope: Per unit cost can be argued to be higher than that of an F-22. OK, please throw the stones saying It Is Not HAL's Fault, at least then we can define who should change.


Its not HAL's fault, entirely..! There you go. :mrgreen: Not a stone, but a brick may be.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 14 Jul 2017 19:27

UlanBatori wrote:
You cannot build a Mach 2 UCAV
My Evil 6th Coujin thinks you are wrong, Viv. American systems are evolved through, well, the American system. Let us go back to the famous saying:
NASA developed a Pen That Could Write In Microgravity for their astronauts. $20M program. It had an Integrated MicroGravity Pump, Nozzle non-clogging ultrasonic vibrator, feedback controlled ink delivery tied to a MEMS pressure sensor, wireless BlueTooth Health Monitoring System, triple redundancy on the pump motor and control system, and a Launch/Re-entry Ink Spill Avoidance System (LauRISAS).

The Russians gave their cosmonauts 3 pencils.


What is the mission profile of a UCAV that depends high unit cost? Only the engine. The rest can be done by anyone who does one of those $20 Helicopter UAVs available on Amazon. Mach 2 does not need any special materials. All said and done, per unit cost of a UCAV to carry 2 missiles and maybe a gun, need not exceed that of a Sopwith Camel with an onboard laptop + cellphone with GPS sensor.

The whole point of the mass production approach is that System 1 need not have the Bells&Whistles. If you can afford only 100, then each must carry practically the same capability as an aircraft carrier, and US manufacturers (AND THE MILITARY!!!) try to ensure that their proposals do exactly that, to make more $$.

If you have 5000, then each need not have anywhere near that capability. Instead of having to carry 4 visual/IR mijjiles + 2 HARMs + chaff dispensers on each, you put 2 on each UCAV and send 4 of them instead of 1 human-carrying craft.


I had proposed our retiring MiG-21Bison be converted to Mach 2 drones, in the aircraft design dhaga. Agree, that if one does not want a TFTA all weather system working in every conceivable environment and scenario, we could have a simplified and relatively cheap system for specific mission profile and make them useful in limited way. Yes it won't be 1/10th of cost of fighter, may be 1/4th. My idea was to port FCS from LCA and auto-pilot from Ghatak project. We could infact reach to a level in a couple of decades that we could convert all our retiring fleet into drones. But of coarse such projects will never find favour in India.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4969
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 14 Jul 2017 19:40

UlanBatori wrote: My Evil 6th Coujin thinks you are wrong, Viv. American systems are evolved through, well, the American system.

Its the same American system that produced the F-16.

Let us go back to the famous saying:
NASA developed a Pen That Could Write In Microgravity for their astronauts. $20M program. It had an Integrated MicroGravity Pump, Nozzle non-clogging ultrasonic vibrator, feedback controlled ink delivery tied to a MEMS pressure sensor, wireless BlueTooth Health Monitoring System, triple redundancy on the pump motor and control system, and a Launch/Re-entry Ink Spill Avoidance System (LauRISAS).

The Russians gave their cosmonauts 3 pencils.

Urban legend. NASA used mechanical pencils in 60s.

What is the mission profile of a UCAV that depends high unit cost? Only the engine. The rest can be done by anyone who does one of those $20 Helicopter UAVs available on Amazon. Mach 2 does not need any special materials. All said and done, per unit cost of a UCAV to carry 2 missiles and maybe a gun, need not exceed that of a Sopwith Camel with an onboard laptop + cellphone with GPS sensor.

So you're proposing mating a high performance jet engine with a Amazon DIY type airframe?

- Who will cue these missiles in a radar-less aircraft?
- How will the aircraft fly without a FBW system?
- How will it be piloted without a high bandwidth SATCOM system? What if the satellites are targeted by ASAT weapons? What kind of A.I. will take over?
- Will the aircraft come without EW/ESM/MAWS systems?
- Will it be stealthy?If so, how will be achieved without an internal weapons bay? If not, how well will it do vs enemy fighters?

If you have 5000, then each need not have anywhere near that capability. Instead of having to carry 4 visual/IR mijjiles + 2 HARMs + chaff dispensers on each, you put 2 on each UCAV and send 4 of them instead of 1 human-carrying craft.

How will you cue the HARMs without an onboard ESM system capable of accurate geo-location? How will your chaff dispensers be engaged without RWR or MAWS?

5000 practically defenceless UCAV + 1000 enemy fighters x 10 BVR missiles x 0.5 pK = 1000 enemy fighters + large amount of debris

If you want your UCAV to be survivable as a fighter jet you're going to need systems that go into a fighter jet. Instead of looking at the F-35, I suggest you look at the very desi Tejas to avoid losing perspective. What does the Tejas carry that is so superfluous that it can be omitted from a UCAV that is to replace it?

Given that a PC-9 goes for $15 mil and a BAE Hawk for around $20 mil, it ought to be obvious why a vastly more sophisticated UCAV cannot be acquired for the kind of dirty cheap prices that you're hoping for.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8332
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jul 2017 20:20

Viv: Let me take each objection. Of course one depends on good old innovation to do better than my off-the-cuff answers.

1. Satellite/ASAT etc: For operations over our territory or neighboring territory, there is no need of satellite anything, beyond maybe a differential GPS to cross-check and calibrate. A large fleet of old Ambassador cars with dishes will do fine.

2. The same system that built the F-16.
True. It was first advertised as a "low-cost" single-seat, single-engine craft with lessons learned from the Vietnam War. Highly maneuverable too. The loser IIRC was the Northrop G-5, later to become G-20 exported to Taiwan. Cute aircraft, both. They were developed at a time when the aerospace industry was facing huge decline after Vietnam, but there was the good old SU to ensure that there would be a large market.

Hard-learned lessons went into this. In the late 60s/early 70s, the USAF was losing an average of 7 planes per day, 14 on some days, in raids over Hanoi/Haiphong. The SAM-only strategy lost big-time to inferior but maneuverable MiG-17s and MiG-19s that had machine guns. So the F-16 was a creature of Fire In The Belly. Not so the F-35. or the Gripen, or the Rafale (Ok, for them the Enemy was the Tornado).

Thousands of F-16s have been built; GD/LM are simply minting money with every new sale.

2. So you're proposing mating a high performance jet engine with a Amazon DIY type airframe?

er.. what is so "high-performance" about the jet engine? Small, yes, but there is no great need for "high-performance" because the T/W of the gizmo is quite nice due to absence of a pilot. Stall-resistant at high-Gs and high AOA will be needed, I suppose, and it shouldn't catch fire like the F-35 due to casing rubbing. These are the things one will learn from operating them.

3. - Who will cue these missiles in a radar-less aircraft?
Some form of radar is needed, sure. How do ALCMs or SLCMs do this? Why can't a UCAV do it?

4. - How will the aircraft fly without a FBW system?
What is "FBW"? There is no human to interact with. No "tactile feedback". It is fundamentally FBW, just like any rich kid's aeromodel. The only change is that the ground-based pilot cannot "see" the craft, so there will have to be 2-way comm of some sort. Are satellites needed for this? Why not a set of dishes on the mountainsides and valleys?
5. - How will it be piloted without a high bandwidth SATCOM system? What if the satellites are targeted by ASAT weapons? What kind of A.I. will take over?
See above. Dishes that are placed on mountainside, delivered by Ambassador Car. But AI, sure, is needed. That should be India's strength. Tens of thousands of DOOs delivering AI for these systems.
6. - Will the aircraft come without EW/ESM/MAWS systems?
Yes if those can be mass-produced cheaply, NO otherwise. May be cheaper to crank out 5 more than to put a EW/ESM/MAWS on each. You have named the sort of things that add weight and complexity to the high-cost manned fighters.
7. - Will it be stealthy?If so, how will be achieved without an internal weapons bay? If not, how well will it do vs enemy fighters?
No stealth. Neither the F-16 nor the Rafale nor the Su-30MKI for all their cost, offer "stealth". Besides, the Ambassador Network and a few on-board cameras can use multiple frequencies, no Stealth can defeat that. Would you risk your $60M WongWei-Thundaars against 10 yindoos $100K UCAVs? I wouldn't. You don't have 10 missiles to fire, so after 8 u r a sitting duck.
Alternative: A set of maybe 50 UAVs at different altitudes, with radar. Stealth does not work side-on, IIRC: there are angles where radar lights up a Stealth plane, it's just that you don't expect many planes to be flying there. Why can't a cheap UCAV talk to another UAV by cellphone, hain?
8. How will you cue the HARMs without an onboard ESM system capable of accurate geo-location? How will your chaff dispensers be engaged without RWR or MAWS? Because you can transmit video and your other assets provide accurate geo-location. Cruise missiles are able to do this, why not much more near-based UCAVs?
9. 5000 practically defenceless UCAV + 1000 enemy fighters x 10 BVR missiles x 0.5 pK = 1000 enemy fighters + large amount of debris.
If 1000 enemy fighter can get up into the sky at one shot, then best thing is "bend over, put ur head between ur legs, and kiss ur ass goodbye". When will India be able to field 1000 fighters at the present rate? At $80M a pop for imported fighters (or 8/yr HAL LCA prima donnas) how many can India buy? That translates to $80B.

But the reality is that India CAN field 1000 armed UCAVs with 1 missile each, long before anyone can field 200 fighters with 4 missiles each. And 800 missiles is simply not enough. 200 defenceless WongWeis can hit the Eject Button b4 they go the way of the original. You send the first 200, and they scramble 200 fighters. 30 minutes later the fighters are on the ground as your second wave of 300 comes over, and 100 get caught on the ground. 30 minutes later your next 200 go over and you have no air force left. The next 200 own the sky - and finish off your Armored Corps.
This is what India can expect if there is no move to UCAVs soon.

If you want your UCAV to be survivable as a fighter jet you're going to need systems that go into a fighter jet. Instead of looking at the F-35, I suggest you look at the very desi Tejas to avoid losing perspective. What does the Tejas carry that is so superfluous that it can be omitted from a UCAV that is to replace it?
If the cost is down to that of a missile, why should a UCAV be survivable? Missiles are used on 1-way soosai missions, the well-considered UCAV is just a missile-carrying missile. If you can produce another 1000 in short order, there is no reason why UCAV survivability is equated to national survivability. That does not work with manned craft.
Given that a PC-9 goes for $15 mil and a BAE Hawk for around $20 mil, it ought to be obvious why a vastly more sophisticated UCAV cannot be acquired for the kind of dirty cheap prices that you're hoping for.
But the point IS that our UCAVs need not be "vastly sophisticated" at all! Once you allow the LM/HAL/Dassault types to adorn it with all sorts of expensive jewelry, you have lost the game.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5956
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby vina » 14 Jul 2017 20:40

- How will the aircraft fly without a FBW system?

What % of ALL aircraft in the world flying today use this "FBW" ? Do you actually need a FBW for a plane to fly ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15709
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 14 Jul 2017 20:58

vina wrote:
- How will the aircraft fly without a FBW system?

What % of ALL aircraft in the world flying today use this "FBW" ? Do you actually need a FBW for a plane to fly ?


Forget external needs, the latest planes will field superior processors, broader bandwidths, more robust + responsive sensors, etc. Under such circumstances what alternative/s does one have?

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1209
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby schinnas » 14 Jul 2017 21:08

What the Mangol says is irrefutable.

The reason US is losing the war in Afghanistan is because it is using multi million dollar Tomahawk missiles to take our few expendable mujahid or even soosai mujahid who are available in very large quantities at just $5000 a pop.

If a cheap UCAV that can fire some sort of guided munition or missile can be made in very large numbers, it can overwhelm the enemy's air defence. What if the UCAV can cost less than a SAM used to take it out?

The possibilities are endless.

In the future a country that masters development of a range of drones and can produce them at scale with low cost will rule the future wars.

A component based design can allow for these UCAVs to swap different payload packages or even take over soosai roles.

In this area the cheen has an advantage even more than Massa, who cannot mass manufacture anything. It's time India wakes up.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15709
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 14 Jul 2017 21:14

So, essentially you need two "air forces" t deal with two distinct situations.




BTW, an F-22, over Syria, had a near-miss with a UAV!!!!!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 14 Jul 2017 21:14

schinnas wrote:The reason US is losing the war in Afghanistan is because it is using multi million dollar Tomahawk missiles to take our few expendable mujahid or even soosai mujahid who are available in very large quantities at just $5000 a pop.




From what I can look up, the US hasn't used the TLAM in Afghanistan since 2001. Could you share a link or two of it being used against a mujahid or two since the initial opening days of the 2001 campaign? In fact in Afghanistan and Iraq more sorties were flown by the low tech and ugly A-10 then the more expensive and capable F-15E (discounting the last few years). The lessons learnt from a low intensity benign environment combat is actually pushing the USAF to build up an inventory of 200-300 low cost aircraft for this purpose. Experimentation and wargaming with actual prototype systems is currently ongoing with the ACC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htTvJqpmdCg

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8332
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jul 2017 21:34

Brarji, thanks. Nails my argument to bring back the Sopwith Camel. It could land & takeoff on any cow pasture: an STOL fighter!!! t was low-detectable: radar would probably go right through the fabric skin. Put a few cellphones on it and voila! An F-37! Ok, supersonic cruise is optional.
BTW, an F-22, over Syria, had a near-miss with a UAV!!!!!
I

:rotfl: (I am glad for the pilot and his relatives). But this is the reality: the UAV could not see the F-22, though the F-22 could see it. Like the USN destroyer getting destroyed against a container ship.

When the GOAT (Global Offensive Against Terrors) started in 2001, the US was using SLCMs, JDAMs, F-16s, B-52s, and F/A-18s, and I guess some F-15s. Today the US is reviving A-10s, CIA -operated high-aspect ratio, slow planes, and Zeppelins Airships/Aerostats. Plus of course Predators. I hear that individual Operators of those have retired with several hundred confirmed "kills". :shock:

This is like realizing that bowling donkey-traps is much smarter in a T-20 than bowling fast yorkers and bouncers.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6521
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Prasad » 14 Jul 2017 21:57

What you're proposing oh mighty yak herder is a loitering missile no? For air delivered munition on some dumb goat$hagger. For air-air wouldn't you need something even the least bit intelligent to shoot at enemy aircraft. If we're going to put those against chipanda "stealth" fighters, say derivatives of its J-20 etc, and somewhere over the himalayas where we don't have adequate radar coverage to cue missiles, you would need onboard systems. Which would drive up the cost considerably. This is a bit like the mig-21 modified vs lca that Prof Das(?) proposed.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15709
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 14 Jul 2017 21:58

I think none of this has to with anything, except political correctness. That is easily identified in years gone by. But, one can see it even today - China!!! The day China follows political correctness they will start encountering massive failures - business, eco, def, etc.







So. To that point. The USAF, based on that one data point, where an F-22 had a near-miss with a UAV, has requested to unshackle itself from this PC war. USAF has requested permission to shoot down any UAV in the vicinity at the discretion of the pilot. :twisted: {Note: there is no commander in chief.}


I happen to think that is where the discussion should go - PC Wars. At the same time we can tweak the techs to do our best not to harm our brothers and sisters. As long as they sign on the dotted line - to ensure PC on both sides.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2152
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 14 Jul 2017 22:17

Viv S wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:A Mach 2 UCAV (no reason why a UCAV can't do that) at 40,000 feet carrying 4 AA missiles is a powerful deterrent, esp. if you have a 10:1 numbers advantage, and enough dispersal to deter sneak attack.

You cannot build a Mach 2 UCAV at a tenth of the cost of a normal fighter jet. Its an impossible fantasy, plain and simple.

The closest thing to a fighter sized drone in the world is the Global Hawk (7 tons empty) which goes for around $120 mil flyaway.


Viv S. There are UCAV options available which are extremely cheap(for US currently). When I say extremely cheap I mean almost cruise missile costs and mass productionable. The specs are also real good. Long range, limited stealth and high subsonic speed(almost mach 1).

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 833
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Mihir » 14 Jul 2017 22:32

Viv S wrote:
Let us go back to the famous saying:

Urban legend. NASA used mechanical pencils in 60s.


The non urban legend version is that Fisher invested something like $1 million of his own money into the R&D. The Soviets were so impressed with the Space Pen that they ordered ~100 for the own space program. Both NASA and the Soviets paid less than three dollars a pop for the final product.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2152
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 14 Jul 2017 22:34

UlanBatori wrote:
You cannot build a Mach 2 UCAV
My Evil 6th Coujin thinks you are wrong, Viv. American systems are evolved through, well, the American system. Let us go back to the famous saying:
NASA developed a Pen That Could Write In Microgravity for their astronauts. $20M program. It had an Integrated MicroGravity Pump, Nozzle non-clogging ultrasonic vibrator, feedback controlled ink delivery tied to a MEMS pressure sensor, wireless BlueTooth Health Monitoring System, triple redundancy on the pump motor and control system, and a Launch/Re-entry Ink Spill Avoidance System (LauRISAS).

The Russians gave their cosmonauts 3 pencils.


What is the mission profile of a UCAV that depends high unit cost? Only the engine. The rest can be done by anyone who does one of those $20 Helicopter UAVs available on Amazon. Mach 2 does not need any special materials. All said and done, per unit cost of a UCAV to carry 2 missiles and maybe a gun, need not exceed that of a Sopwith Camel with an onboard laptop + cellphone with GPS sensor.

The whole point of the mass production approach is that System 1 need not have the Bells&Whistles. If you can afford only 100, then each must carry practically the same capability as an aircraft carrier, and US manufacturers (AND THE MILITARY!!!) try to ensure that their proposals do exactly that, to make more $$.

If you have 5000, then each need not have anywhere near that capability. Instead of having to carry 4 visual/IR mijjiles + 2 HARMs + chaff dispensers on each, you put 2 on each UCAV and send 4 of them instead of 1 human-carrying craft.


UB, Very Aptly said. If you can make systems that are relatively much more expendable then why do you need stealth or supersonic/hypersonic capability.

The main problem according to me is the following. Military forces around the world have large amounts of inertia for various reasons(some are justified and most unjustified) and hence are unable to embrace technological progress at the same rate as the some of the civilians do. The truth is that RMA(revolution in military affairs) in the true sense has eluded the militaries around the world. Americans dont want this to happen as it will defeat their notions of superiority. But it is bound to happen.

Contrast this with civilian world. We are much ahead in utilizing technology. For eg I havent even switched on my laptop for more than one month now. Smartphone does most of the stuff for me including this post. For us legacy technology is exception and not the norm.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 14 Jul 2017 22:36

NASA has a history of it on their page -

During the first NASA missions the astronauts used pencils. For Project Gemini, for example, NASA ordered mechanical pencils in 1965 from Tycam Engineering Manufacturing, Inc., in Houston. The fixed price contract purchased 34 units at a total cost of $4,382.50, or $128.89 per unit. That created something of a controversy at the time, as many people believed it was a frivolous expense. NASA backtracked immediately and equipped the astronauts with less costly items.

During this time period, Paul C. Fisher of the Fisher Pen Co. designed a ballpoint pen that would operate better in the unique environment of space. His new pen, with a pressurized ink cartridge, functioned in a weightless environment, underwater, in other liquids, and in temperature extremes ranging from -50 F to +400 F.

Fisher developed his space pen with no NASA funding. The company reportedly invested about $1 million of its own funds in the effort then patented its product and cornered the market as a result.

Fisher offered the pens to NASA in 1965, but, because of the earlier controversy, the agency was hesitant in its approach. In 1967, after rigorous tests, NASA managers agreed to equip the Apollo astronauts with these pens. Media reports indicate that approximately 400 pens were purchased from Fisher at $6 per unit for Project Apollo.

The Soviet Union also purchased 100 of the Fisher pens, and 1,000 ink cartridges, in February 1969, for use on its Soyuz space flights. Previously, its cosmonauts had been using grease pencils to write in orbit.

Both American astronauts and Soviet/Russian cosmonauts have continued to use these pens.

Fisher continues to market his space pens as the writing instrument that went to the Moon and has spun off this effort into a separate corporation, the Fisher Space Pen Co.



https://history.nasa.gov/spacepen.html

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2005
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 14 Jul 2017 22:45

Sahibs,
For aerial engagements you need transonic and soopar sonic ability in the mijjiles pjyrring platform.

High speed necessitates more fuel for endurance for a patrol orbit..

Even if one comes up with such a platform cheaply, at present there is no way to guide twu BVR mijjiles from AWACS, necessitating a TFTA fcr onboard the cheap UAV.. even the guidance of wvr would necessitate TFTA takniki on the UAV driving up cost..

And lastly the command and control of the said UAV..

Current EW jammers have significant capability.
Cell phone signal jamming would be comparatively easier..

In brief, the proposed swarm is unworkable..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 14 Jul 2017 22:47

Unless there is a second F-22 incident I haven't read about, the recent one cited by the ACC boss was in the US with a commercial class 1 UAS that came very close to an F-22 as it was about to land. As far as swatting it down, the USAF can do it from the ground provided that it gets the appropriate authority. They have deployed such counter UAS systems even in Syria and Iraq.

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2017 22:49

order of ascending difficulty is

1. unarmed heron/predator/eitan drones
2. armed drones reaper/heronTP/wing loong/iranian
3. global hawk - bigger n more autonomous variant of #1
3.5 ELO recon ucav - Sentinel
4. strike UCAV (of the type USN is playing with now to support the JSF missions)

the holy grail is 5. the A2A UCAV

though no doubt black projects exist and it sounds sexy on paper, i have not heard of any pre-IOC public trials even. all the US/EU ucavs known in public domain are #4 type

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2152
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 14 Jul 2017 22:54

brar_w wrote:
schinnas wrote:The reason US is losing the war in Afghanistan is because it is using multi million dollar Tomahawk missiles to take our few expendable mujahid or even soosai mujahid who are available in very large quantities at just $5000 a pop.




From what I can look up, the US hasn't used the TLAM in Afghanistan since 2001. Could you share a link or two of it being used against a mujahid or two since the initial opening days of the 2001 campaign? In fact in Afghanistan and Iraq more sorties were flown by the low tech and ugly A-10 then the more expensive and capable F-15E (discounting the last few years). The lessons learnt from a low intensity benign environment combat is actually pushing the USAF to build up an inventory of 200-300 low cost aircraft for this purpose. Experimentation and wargaming with actual prototype systems is currently ongoing with the ACC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htTvJqpmdCg


And trust me nothing much will come out of it. The main priority of Military Industrial complex is not to win wars but to maximise profits.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35333
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby SaiK » 14 Jul 2017 22:54

RE: a2aucav, potentially you are scanning and tracking for stealth BVR air targets or dog fights?

it is a different ball game altogether for UCAV - a complete solution would be multi role LCA, remote piloted/ and near impossible area for deep-strike ops.

Also, we would go OT since these never "Made Outside of India" anyway! :D
Last edited by SaiK on 14 Jul 2017 22:59, edited 3 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 14 Jul 2017 22:55

Darshan, I don't see what that has to do with my post but... whatever.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2152
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 14 Jul 2017 23:01

brar_w wrote:Darshan, I don't see what that has to do with my post but... whatever.


Brar ji My apologies. Not a reply to you specifically. Just a statement.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 14 Jul 2017 23:03

Well either way, there is a 350+ aircraft/3+ million flight hour program that will fundamentally disagree with that notion.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Manish_Sharma and 38 guests