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.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2146
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 14 Jul 2017 23:20

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


So basically now Great US of A should be able to defeat Pakistan-Taliban combine in Afghanistan. That's great news.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 14 Jul 2017 23:29

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


So basically now Great US of A should be able to defeat Pakistan-Taliban combine in Afghanistan. That's great news.


That is a different matter. What the original post was getting at was that the US was using TLAMs at mujahids in Afghanistan hence on the wrong side of the cost equation. As i wrote, there is no documented evidence that I have come across of the weapon being used in that theater since 2001. Again, I could be very much mistaken in which case I requested that it be shared. Now the other notion was that somehow lower cost systems that are effective for the sort of low intensity conflicts would not be pushed through and instead highly expensive systems will. That as I said is not actually supported by facts. One could easily do a simple exercise..In Excel plot the number of manned fighter, ISR, and Bomber squadrons in the USAF active and reserve between 1995 and 2017 and compare that to its RPA strike and ISR squadrons over the same time-period. Regardless, as I have spoken to before the primary US RPA family has logged more than 4 Million accumulated flight hours, and averaged something like 45,000 hours of utilization a month by late last year.

What one may use as evidence for institutional support the amount of hard cash spent at acquiring and operating this RPA fleet but one at times fails to appreciate that as an institution a very large amount of money has been invested in making this concept work each and every day when it comes to creating, maintaining and supporting the communication nodes and the satellite constellation that makes them work. So yeah, as needs arose and technology advanced the USAF for a very long period of time spent a heck of a lot of money creating the infrastructure and back end required to support the largest large UAS force in the world that could deploy globally. Had they focused mainly on costly systems they would have focused on neglecting that track and investing in buying more F-15Es, F-15Cs, F-22As, B-2As etc etc etc
Last edited by brar_w on 14 Jul 2017 23:44, edited 2 times in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60156
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2017 23:31

brar_w wrote: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


persians must have used something like this to bring down the sentinel or bird of prey drone they captured. but how they glided it down to a intact landing is still not known in public domain.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 14 Jul 2017 23:33

Singha, There is no evidence of any of that happening that I have read. These systems mostly work against class I category drones. The 170 could have been brought down some other way or malfunctioned.
Last edited by brar_w on 14 Jul 2017 23:37, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 14 Jul 2017 23:37

UlanBatori wrote: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.

I was all ready to demonstrate why your under-equipped $30 mil drone fighter could be taken down by a $2 mil AAM since it lacked essentials like a proper radar, EW kit or MAWS and was piloted via a VHF link (?) that could be jammed.

And here you're telling me that a UCAV capable of air-to-air combat equipped with 6 missiles and "some form of radar" (what form?) and a small (low performance?) jet engine, capable of good "high-Gs and high AoA" can be had for $100,000 each!!

Seriously, the HTT-40 which will be the simplest aircraft in the IAF fleet, featuring nothing but a basic aluminium airframe, a turboprop engine and a small compartment for two individuals, is priced at $6 mil each (Rs 40 crore).

No disrespect intended but I think we can revisit this debate once you have sobered up. :wink:

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?

I'm afraid you're mistaken about that. X-band shaping is usually optimized for the frontal sector but isn't absent from the side. Multistatic radar system will improve detection but they do not 'nullify' LO characteristics of the platform.

Of course, given that your proposed drone is flying around with a cellphone and some kind of rudimentary radar (or no radar?), you can pretty much forget about detecting an LO aircraft.

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?

No they are not. The information picture is generated by the 'gold-plated' platforms like the F-35 that can loiter in hostile airspace as an ISR asset and funnel data to generate a unified picture of the battlespace. Cruise missiles are dumb devices that go where they are pointed.

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.

If you can put 5000 fighter drones into the sky at one shot, the enemy can put 1000 fighters into the sky at one shot.

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.

1 missile each? I thought it was 4 AAMs + 2 HARMs?

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.

A 'non-survivable' UCAV? Are you sure you're not describing a additional booster stage for a SAM?

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2146
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 14 Jul 2017 23:53

Viv S, You are living in past. Just wait till the next version of ISIS(or some other enterprising entity) emerges. They will show us what can be done and what not. Until then we can argue all we want. I do not have much hope in MIC and military procurement people

Warfare is not won by linear thinking. Why would I take pain to neutralize a stealth aircraft in sky if I can neutralize the airbase itself using a UAV swarm ?
Last edited by darshhan on 15 Jul 2017 00:02, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35332
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby SaiK » 14 Jul 2017 23:59

You are right in thinking UCAV is mainly now for ISIS/jihadist terror targets. I think this should be mission critical platform encompassing mountain warfare to bunker busters - mainly air-surface (in the medium to heavy category), and primarily a Gatlin gun should be a big start!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 15 Jul 2017 00:03

darshhan wrote:Warfare is not won by linear thinking. Why would I take pain to neutralize a stealth aircraft in sky if I can neutralize the airbase itself using a UAV swarm ?


This assumes that counter swarm and anti UAS options are not being fielded, researched or developed to defend from very such things and folks around the world are oblivious to such threats.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2146
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 15 Jul 2017 00:10

Laptops, smartphones, washing machines, automobiles, other electronic items and most of the other finished products etc have all become cheaper(adjusted for inflation) with much better performances. Then why is western military aircraft and other western military goods continuously becoming more and more expensive. Is it because of Military Industrial Complexs' insatiable greed along with collusion of military procurement guys?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 15 Jul 2017 00:11

SaiK wrote:You are right in thinking UCAV is mainly now for ISIS/jihadist terror targets. I think this should be mission critical platform encompassing mountain warfare to bunker busters - mainly air-surface (in the medium to heavy category), and primarily a Gatlin gun should be a big start!


There is a lot happening on the other side of the RPA world as well in terms of adding capability and survivability to the current systems to be more survivable and capable against a higher threat but also to develop systems that can fight against a near peer threat. The latter is more guarded but think of the enablers or what you will have to do in terms of anti-denial capabilities and you'll kind of guess the areas of investment.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2146
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 15 Jul 2017 00:17

brar_w wrote:
darshhan wrote:Warfare is not won by linear thinking. Why would I take pain to neutralize a stealth aircraft in sky if I can neutralize the airbase itself using a UAV swarm ?


This assumes that counter swarm and anti UAS options are not being fielded, researched or developed to defend from very such things and folks around the world are oblivious to such threats.


You yourself answered it. This is the future. Swarm vs counter swarm. While hardware will be important, software will be critical in determining the outcome. Essentially whose version of AI is better. The question is how relevant will F-35 type of aircraft in such scenarios? I mean if I have a fleet of 10000 cheap uav/ucavs, what is the point of gold plated aircraft like F-35 unless you have decided to do daan dakshina to MIC people.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 15 Jul 2017 00:21

Because capability is still required. There will be denial capability and threats out there where swarms will help out but will not be able to overcome. I can put a pretty strong protective fence around an air-base, scramble GPS, Jam Commercial and MILCOM frequencies from the ground and launch low cost munitions, and counter swarms plus zap these with Mircrowave and Directed Energy options if I want. All i need to be worried about is the sub $80K drones because anything more expensive brings in kinetic options to play. Will such very cheap class I UASs get me a mission kill, let alone a hard kill on an air base? No. And there are no $1 Million dollar UCAVs at the moment capable of high subsonic operations. There are R&D programs but they are reusable and looking at much higher cost for the vehicle and payload. To defeat some of the denial tactics and capabilities I've mentioned you need more sophisticated systems, communication nodes, redundancy, AI and survivability features.

darshhan wrote:Laptops, smartphones, washing machines, automobiles, other electronic items and most of the other finished products etc have all become cheaper(adjusted for inflation) with much better performances. Then why is western military aircraft and other western military goods continuously becoming more and more expensive. Is it because of Military Industrial Complexs' insatiable greed along with collusion of military procurement guys?


Set aside western aircraft. Taking your claim at face value, we should be looking forward to the AMCA showing up in 2030, with much better performance than the LCA MK1 but at a much lower cost based on the trend seen in laptops, and washing machines. Even earlier to that we should be looking at a much smaller bill for the PAKFA/FGFAs per unit than the Su-30s.
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Jul 2017 00:43, edited 6 times in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 15 Jul 2017 00:22

darshhan wrote:Viv S, You are living in past. Just wait till the next version of ISIS(or some other enterprising entity) emerges. They will show us what can be done and what not. Until then we can argue all we want. I do not have much hope in MIC and military procurement people

Will the next version of ISIS supplant China? Please make a very clear distinction between conventional military warfare and counter-insurgency.

If a ISIS-type threat is to be handled the best solution is a fleet of Reapers equipped with APKWS-modded Hydra 70s & Griffins, AC-130s to handled larger groups supported by JSTARS if there is a significant motorized enemy element. Cheap munitions, low tech platforms & persistent coverage.

I don't think I need to explain why this business, while all dandy in a permissive airspace, is a complete non-starter against a conventional enemy like Pakistan or China.

Warfare is not won by linear thinking. Why would I take pain to neutralize a stealth aircraft in sky if I can neutralize the airbase itself using a UAV swarm ?

Overloading enemy air defence is not a new idea. Nor is the proposal of using micro-drones (ask Brar for details about ongoing USAF projects) to create targeting problems for the enemy.

The counter to that is fairly unsophisticated as well - radar/EO guided AAA (Pantsir, Phalanx/Centurion, Sky Shield) for point defence at the airbase and an extended air defence zone to keep the mothership (eg. C-130) out of the micro-drone range.
Last edited by Viv S on 15 Jul 2017 00:40, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 15 Jul 2017 00:36

darshhan wrote:You yourself answered it. This is the future. Swarm vs counter swarm. While hardware will be important, software will be critical in determining the outcome. Essentially whose version of AI is better. The question is how relevant will F-35 type of aircraft in such scenarios? I mean if I have a fleet of 10000 cheap uav/ucavs, what is the point of gold plated aircraft like F-35 unless you have decided to do daan dakshina to MIC people.

Your 10,000 el-cheapo UCAVs aren't going to fly 1000 km to the enemy air base. They're going to be need to be deployed from a transport at a shorter range. That transport will need an air escort and a sanitized fly zone.

To control those drones, you'll need T/R hubs plugged into your C4I network. The enemy LO fighters, equipped with state-of-the-art ESM systems, will come for those hubs on Day 1. Meanwhile, mobile/concealed enemy assets will remain invisible to you because you don't have the fighter/recce assets capable of ingress into A2/AD covered airspace, your cheap drones lack the expensive sensors needed to generate an EM/O picture of the enemy & your (indefensible) satellites were taken down in the first hours of the war.

The future is warfare is information. You lose the information edge, and you've lost the war. That is the point of the F-35.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35332
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby SaiK » 15 Jul 2017 00:51

del
Last edited by SaiK on 15 Jul 2017 00:52, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35332
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby SaiK » 15 Jul 2017 00:52

brar_w wrote:
SaiK wrote:You are right in thinking UCAV is mainly now for ISIS/jihadist terror targets. I think this should be mission critical platform encompassing mountain warfare to bunker busters - mainly air-surface (in the medium to heavy category), and primarily a Gatlin gun should be a big start!


There is a lot happening on the other side of the RPA world as well in terms of adding capability and survivability to the current systems to be more survivable and capable against a higher threat but also to develop systems that can fight against a near peer threat. The latter is more guarded but think of the enablers or what you will have to do in terms of anti-denial capabilities and you'll kind of guess the areas of investment.


Both visual and deep sensors (optics, IR and radar) at 270* field of view should increase the capability aspects, as long as the virtual reality space is near-reality space replica of the remote control and ops platform. It can be really made tactile to sensor feedbacks from jet engine sounds, vibration sensors of various areas of wings and fuselage, etc. A lot more than reality I would say, as many times pilots will need weapons afsar to help out on these situational (platform + near by visuals) awareness as well. So I am seeing exciting problem space in engineering here. I am pretty positive massans are spearheading here, but a very complex area. Step by step, it can be conquered is my best guess. Engineering the models would pave a way to reality or a virtual reality that beats combat reality. safety-criticality gets extra space now, and we can take risk for complex missions as the death is virtual.

I think the remote platform is the key! jamless higher freq comms (including satcom) is extremely important and which will throw open any fighter variants to become a UCAV for that matter.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 15 Jul 2017 01:10

(1) UCAV swarm can go and attack a fixed, known target, no problem, just as a cruise missile can. I see no difference. It's just that the UCAV must launch the missile(s) and hope to return. All other arguments here are equally valid for or against the cruise missile. Would you agree that ONE cruise missile can be sent through Himalayan valleys and over ridges, staying fairly low altitude, to hit a fixed base? OK, I think yes. Then would u agree that TWO can be sent in a pair, hain? Tie the two together with a wing? Enable the two to be released from the wing for the final phase? Let the wing and its engine return? If so you have endorsed the UCAV. All this "HAS USAF DONE IT ALREADY, HAIN? " is just deer-in-the-headlights onlee.
(2) Pushing OT space here... Let's get to the AA function. I do not see what part of the present aerial engagement really requires a pilot, and an AI-based system cannot accomplish.

Also, I do **NOT** assume that the UCAV will have air superiority, just that we will have enough missiles in the air to wipe out any competing air force, though we lose 2/3 of our force in the process.

IMO what can be achieved is far better. The AI system will think 100 times as fast as any WongWei (no hotshot pilot likes to admit that. It won't black out at 8Gs or at 11Gs or brownout the g-suit at 6 Gs. In fact it does not NEED any g-suit or diapers. No oxygen system. No ejection seat. No cockpit canopy. It can PULL 11Gs because its Thrust/Weight ratio is a heck of a lot better than that of any manned fighter. Can one design this? Why not? Just change the max-G limit in your Excel sheet from 9 to 12.. and look how the flight envelope widens. :mrgreen: Anything is possible in computer graphics, as they say. I think present UCAV designs are waaaaaaaay overdesigned and are in fact intended to prove such things as Battle-Damage-Survival By Reconfigurable Geometry etc. Mine will be cheap enough. In fact my proposal is that these UCAVs be powered with the engines that are built under the Super Kaveri Test-To-Destruction Program, intended to improve the production line and process, not the engine itself. 2-mission MTBF. Not very high ceiling, not very high T/W or Overall Pressure Ratio, Turbine Inlet Temperature that eats half the lining in each mission. After each routine test flight the whole thing is taken apart to measure deterioration and learn how to improve. So my whole UCAV program is to put the development program to good use. By the end of that (5 to 8 years) producing 1000 engines per year will be child's play, quality will be super. India will have cracked the engine slavery. How about it?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 15 Jul 2017 01:13

A cruise missile, or two tied together can be shot down by a point defense weapon and depending upon the cost of the target being engaged by even cheaper means that go after it kinematically and/or go after its communication or guidance. A more sophisticated bomb carrying mule UCAV will no doubt work very well but it will not be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Think a few million dollars with a decent payload or around a 2-3 Million with an electronic payload with both being reusable.

Given western cost of production dynamics, currently anything cheaper than $50K is best engaged non kinematically (RF denial, Directed Energy, Conventional guns etc etc). Anything above that brings in the Proximity fuse laden stinger and other similar class weapons. The idea of inteligent, largely autonomous reusable, semi survivable UAV and UCAV swarms is to help degrade enemy air defenses so that your PGMs can take them out. You need to be capable enough, and survivable enough to challenge the discrimination abilities of the adversaries ADs but cheap enough to be produced in large quantities. Reusability helps here since it allows for a more sophisticated and expensive electronic payloads.

Image

http://www.darpa.mil/program/gremlins
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Jul 2017 01:29, edited 2 times in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 15 Jul 2017 01:26

No, no air force today can put 1000 fighters into the air in one area.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 15 Jul 2017 03:28, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 15 Jul 2017 01:27

Batori saab, no air force today can put 1000 cheap mach 2 UCAVs into the air in one area either..But where is the $100K cost for a mach 2 missile carrying UCAV coming from? Which engine will it carry? How much does it cost? Is there a jet engine out there in the $30-60K range that can get mach 2 speeds? Could you show me one? What sort of guidance will it have, how much will that cost? Any other survivability features, and if so at what cost etc etc etc.

There is no way to build a Mach 2 capable UCAV that carries a payload of even 1 missile and has a decent range to destroy airfields for $100K. Leave aside the ability to manuever, fly low profiles and network.
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Jul 2017 01:35, edited 3 times in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35332
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby SaiK » 15 Jul 2017 01:32

I think mainly pucca stealth and comms when it comes to returning back w.o getting shot! I guess low flying capability is important too for point-point missions. (excluding visual range firings in my thought/night missions only)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47275
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2017 01:35

vina wrote:
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 ?


Vina,

stop posting nonsense about IAF not having doctrine etc. They have one and its very valid war fighting doctrine.

So let not prejudice cloud your post.

will have to ban any one disparaging the forces.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47275
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2017 01:37

The Achilles heel of any plane program in India is engines and not enough money is invested in this complex multi-discipline program.
All the community could not make the govt invest money here despite repeated gaps.

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5803
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nachiket » 15 Jul 2017 01:41

There is no point blaming the IAF. If the baboons did not listen to Dr. Valluri and shot him down, what makes anyone believe they would have listened to the IAF?

This all comes down to what JayS said earlier about us not having any national aspirations about excelling in the aeronautical field. This has given rise to the culture of even attempts at innovation being shot down and never encouraged let alone funded.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 15 Jul 2017 01:41

Brarji, fab video!!!! I need to steal that for unrelated and unstateable reasons. The yaw instability of the gizmo w.r.t. the mothership is fascinating, despite the massive drag-generating X thing at the back! I think I know someone who has seen that recently in SeeEffDee and WT and have been scratching their heads.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 15 Jul 2017 03:27, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47275
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2017 01:46

UB why not have a' Design a turbo prop powered armed UAV' thread.

Use the Predator or Guardian drone specs as starters and have the members learn how it is done.

Use the P&W prop used for Saras as the power source.

I would like a turbofan but that is unobtaium.

use the Nirbhay guidance package as for N,G&C.

Weapons : bombs, missiles.
Surveillance version: El-Ops and radar mapping.
range 2000 nm

Would like Vina and You to be the guides here.

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5803
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nachiket » 15 Jul 2017 01:46

ramana wrote:The Achilles heel of any plane program in India is engines and not enough money is invested in this complex multi-discipline program.
All the community could not make the govt invest money here despite repeated gaps.

We can blame the HF-24 failure on the Brits refusing us engines. But they did not make us throw away whatever knowledge we had gained designing and building the HF-24. We did that ourselves.

In an alternate universe where Dr. Valluri's idea had been acted upon and a FBW system had been developed and tested on a Marut or Ajeet, we would still be deficient in engines, but the LCA development cycle would have been speeded up thanks to the institutional knowledge about FBW systems already available.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 15 Jul 2017 01:49

A TLAM class cruise missile comes in at around a couple of million (with a four digit production run) and is subsonic. What we want for this concept is a mach 2 capable TLAM with likely shorter range but the ability to carry an air field destruction missile... but at 5% its cost.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 15 Jul 2017 01:57

ramanaji, thx. My interest is very temporary, until I can send off what has been "comissioned" with Damocles Sword hanging.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 15 Jul 2017 03:25, edited 2 times in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 15 Jul 2017 02:01

Brarji,
Times have changed. So must thinking in Indian Defence, before there is another 1962.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 15 Jul 2017 03:23, edited 2 times in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5558
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 15 Jul 2017 02:10

vina wrote: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.

This is completely uncalled for, and not required. Please tone done.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 15 Jul 2017 02:26

UlanBatori wrote:There you answered my other question. So the moment my $100K UCAV launches 4 missiles over your airbase and takes out the precious F35, the war is over. And if a swarm of 100 comes over at low altitude, with aerodynamic and thrust-vectoring maneuvering, one IS going to get through.

And my frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads will make short work of your UCAVs even before they can launch their missiles.

Seriously though, an HTT-40 goes for $6 mil; it doesn't have any fancy gadgets or 'jewelry'. Meanwhile, a typical BVR missile - simple airframe, simple rocket engine, and (relatively) simple seeker costs $2 mil+. The Nirbhay missile, if and when it enters service, is expected to cost about $1.5-2 mil each (Rs 10 crore+). A jet-propelled UCAV is certainly not "less complex than a car" and one capable of air combat for $100,000 sounds like a bridge for sale.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 15 Jul 2017 02:42

You could build something for $100K with a piston engine. Perhaps a total gross weight in the 1000-2000 kg (with payload and everything including fuel) and a used piston engine for around 60-80K. But you ain't going to be putting any well defended hardened air base at risk. Definitly not something that is a true UCAV with a decent payload and a Mach 2 top speed.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3295
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 15 Jul 2017 02:53

@Viv S ^^^"The future is warfare is information. You lose the information edge, and you've lost the war. That is the point of the F-35."

The F-35 is Grond. The Hammer of the underworld. Its purpose like Grond's is to kick the door down on Day One to enable the Mumakils to follow through.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 15 Jul 2017 02:56

The concept of day-1 and day-10 is slowly evolving with the growth and proliferation of advanced IADS and future capability enabled by the proliferation and advances in the electronics industry. A high end IADS setup is designed to degrade gracefully and could possibly even be replenished and regenerate once you factor in non kinematic portions.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 15 Jul 2017 04:08


Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3465
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 16 Jul 2017 06:20

Defence Ministry to speed up fighter jets acquisition
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/eco ... 768706.ece

Single engine fighter competition and look at the picture shown :)

Image

But, according to sources, the Defence Ministry is in a “fix” as far as selecting the jets are concerned. This is because both SAAB and Lockheed Martin have sweetened their offers under the government’s ‘Make in India’ programme. “Gripen E may be more attractive price wise. But the selection should be done based on which aircraft gives us more strategic reach,” said Former Air Chief Marshal AY Tipnis.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3465
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 16 Jul 2017 06:33

Rakesh wrote:Point 11 - All the above requires serious infusion of cash. Increase the % of GDP in relation in defence and R&D in defence. Till then, the above is just vaporware...with the exception of Point 10 of which we have done PLENTY!

We are the masters of kanjoos - want the best, at the cheapest price, at the lowest investment possible. We want to wear Ralph Lauren chaddi, but will onlee invest in langoti. You get what you pay for.


Forces seek Rs 27 lakh crore over next 5 years for defence projects
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 613944.cms

In the 2017-18 defence budget, for instance, the Rs 1,72,774 crore revenue outlay by far outstrips the capital one of Rs 86,488 crore for new weapon systems and modernisation. Moreover, the Rs 2.74 lakh crore defence budget works out to just 1.56% of the projected GDP, the lowest such figure since the 1962 war with China.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3465
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 16 Jul 2017 07:20

SAAB JAS-39 Gripen: A Swedish Affair
http://tejasmrca.weebly.com/military-av ... ish-affair

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19427
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Austin » 16 Jul 2017 11:19

Rakesh wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Point 11 - All the above requires serious infusion of cash. Increase the % of GDP in relation in defence and R&D in defence. Till then, the above is just vaporware...with the exception of Point 10 of which we have done PLENTY!

We are the masters of kanjoos - want the best, at the cheapest price, at the lowest investment possible. We want to wear Ralph Lauren chaddi, but will onlee invest in langoti. You get what you pay for.


Forces seek Rs 27 lakh crore over next 5 years for defence projects
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 613944.cms

In the 2017-18 defence budget, for instance, the Rs 1,72,774 crore revenue outlay by far outstrips the capital one of Rs 86,488 crore for new weapon systems and modernisation. Moreover, the Rs 2.74 lakh crore defence budget works out to just 1.56% of the projected GDP, the lowest such figure since the 1962 war with China.


They should be provided such fund only if they agree what they purchase as part of Capital Exp 70 % by Value of that amount will be indiginous system Made by DRDO and Indian Pvt Org ( not assembled but Designed and Developed in India )

The remaining 30 % should be a JV venture between Indian and Foreign firm not outright import and re-labelling it via CKD/SKD

Else they will invest 30 % in Indian system and 70 % will be imported or branded as Made in India but just assembled and labelled here.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Manish_Sharma, marimuthu, Sushant and 34 guests