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

LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

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.
srin
BRFite
Posts: 1400
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srin » 19 Nov 2017 18:55

It is time for ADA to sell Tejas design to HAL (and any pvt company wanting to build it), and let HAL own up Mk1A and so on.
Forget the Mk2, and focus on twin engine MCA, which eventually can become AMCA.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35369
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby SaiK » 19 Nov 2017 21:26

“The specifications of Tejas are world class. If you are trying to compare the role of this (Tejas) with what is the role of a Gripen and role of F 16… they differ in their requirements. The requirements are defined for Tejas and we are meeting them. I really do not know how one can compare a Tejas with a Gripen saying they are of the same class,” he said

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 712720.cms


Dunno if such simple sentences can't be understood by anyone the aversion to LCA is purely political and unethical vendetta to prove to match with other SEFs.

Some big shot must give a blessing to Mk2 soon.

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 368
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby kshirin » 19 Nov 2017 21:35

arunsrinivasan wrote:
shiv wrote:
I have also seen that a few private universities are starting to do high-quality research, & have achieved some early success. In education we have moved from scarcity to excess & many private universities have realised that to survive in the future, they need to deliver quality & that is the only way to differentiate themselves. This competition is driving increase in quality at 'some' private universities. Also many of of the low-quality engg colleges & universities are shutting down. I know of one private University which is already doing world-class research in a few areas, & if this trend continues, we can expect a few world-class private universities in the next 10 - 20 years.

With these trends in the Govt & Private Universities, I expect over the next 10 - 20 years one can expect some (hopefully >10) world-class universities with strong research capabilities to emerge.



IMHO, and that of some high-tech Indian SMEs, some IITs are responsive to industry trends and requirements but others are very rigid, and will not budge from their preconceived notions on R & D programs. He feels that R & D funding would be better utilised if SMEs' R & D ventures are supported directly.

I am for supporting Universities, along the lines of the US model, but flexibility may be in order wrt the observations by high-tech SMEs, which are frequently left to cope with unreasonable bureaucracies and rules on their own.

Excellent video, Shiv, should be widely shared on social media as general public is not aware of plus points of Tejas. Also, I endorse the request that a point by point refutation/ comparison with the Gripen be posted on all social media and publications.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35369
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby SaiK » 19 Nov 2017 21:38

Rakesh wrote:...

The LCA Mk.2’s wings will be moved out board by about 350mm, increasing the space between fuselage and wings, thus optimising load transfer and allowing for an increase of fuel (700 kg) in the central fuselage....



Mmm.. 350mm !?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 19 Nov 2017 22:40

Second video:
A rebuttal of media reports dissing the Tejas in favour of the F-16/Gripen
https://youtu.be/IMG0M3VO_kc

nash
BRFite
Posts: 691
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby nash » 19 Nov 2017 23:24

Great Video Shiv ji, I can only hope that media peoples understand this much of data and insight.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Picklu » 19 Nov 2017 23:30

We are all dissing IAF for trying to ditch tejas in favour of foreign SEF while the NSA has asked for more Tejas ditching foreign SEF.

Q is which Tejas?

This is just speculation but it really pains to think IAF is lying.

So, what if the NSA has asked IAF for its rational not to order more MK1 IOC version itself to quickly fill the gap in squadron no and IAF's protest is against this particular version of Tejas?

Does that reconcile with the known facts?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2817
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 20 Nov 2017 00:19

^i think the mk1 is being compared to later block gripen and solah, which would explain the payload difference.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 20 Nov 2017 03:17

shiv wrote:Second video:
A rebuttal of media reports dissing the Tejas in favour of the F-16/Gripen
https://youtu.be/IMG0M3VO_kc

utkrisht! rumba solid!
shiv sir, why dont you write in a sustained manner on defence, you will do a much better job than most others :)
PS: The ease with which Tejas rolls is a delight to the two eyes..

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1790
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 20 Nov 2017 03:31

DRDO/HAL needs to grow some b4lls and fight back with facts and figures.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5095
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 20 Nov 2017 06:48

Vivek K wrote:DRDO/HAL needs to grow some b4lls and fight back with facts and figures.


Trust me when I say that they are sitting with a smug smile on their face. There are reasons.

The primary one being it makes "business sense" for HAL and ADA (DRDO as an organization don't have much stake in the programme) not to refute the "report".

Another one (I am guessing here) is that the report is actually a blessing. It is so ridiculous that it proves the opposite point onlee.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5872
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 20 Nov 2017 07:51

I agree that report does more bad than good to the single engine Make in India fighter than the Tejas. I REALLY hoping against hope that IAF did not make that presentation. If it did, it was an attempt to take the civilian babus/ministers for a ride and it will backfire badly.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5872
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 20 Nov 2017 07:56

I don't like the present HAL CMD either.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 20 Nov 2017 07:57

This is the problem - i.e. the "IAF" is a huge organization and it is possible that one or two vested interests are using the media to say some outrageous stuff. I suspect that the person/people who have said those things to the media imagined that if they used some jargon and some unverifiable facts - the public would be stupid enough to be dazzled and would all fall into the "Indian made is bad" bandwagon - a bandwagon that has more followers than is healthy for the country. I doubt if the "leakers" reckoned on a vastly more informed public.

That said - there will be a backlash. Expect another damning outrage against the Tejas in the coming months.

Would it be possible to rename this thread Tejas News & Disc or "LCA-Tejas... ... "

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5095
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 20 Nov 2017 08:01

Suvarna Raju Speaketh

Asked about questions being raised on the endurance, weaponisation and other key parameters of Tejas, Raju suggested that any comparison between Tejas and Gripen (Sweden) or F-16 (US) was unfair as Tejas was manufactured following a defined role and specific requirements of the IAF. “The specifications of Tejas are world class. If you are trying to compare the role of this (Tejas) with what is the role of a Gripen and role of F 16… they differ in their requirements. The requirements are defined for Tejas and we are meeting them. I really do not know how one can compare a Tejas with a Gripen saying they are of the same class,” he said.


Fits in with the notion that HAL goes with IAF's demand for 'different type' as Quid for the Quo of buying more Tejas. I think this response happened because the "report leak" went a bit over the top and caused a stir in the media.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 20 Nov 2017 08:19

Unless I am totally mistaken - the sequence of events went like this
    1, The Air Force actually only wanted a MiG 21 replacement
    2. When Tejas was delayed they wanted Mirage 2000
    3. The UPA govt dangled the MMRCA carrot and made the IAF donkeys
    4. India simply could not afford what the IAF really liked - because IMO Rafale is Gripen x 2
    5. IAF got consolation prize 36 Rafale
    6. Single engine fighter deal conceived partly as a way of setting up parallel aircraft prodn line in pvt sector. Air Force didn't choose it
    7. Killing the Tejas will make the single engine fighter deal pukka and urgent

The Air Force must take what it asked for - a Mig 21 replacement. If they want to move the goalpost and come up with rationalizations like "Large- medium-small" I wonder why this largemediumsmall concept was not conceived of before the MMRCA fly off and only AFTER?

Personally I see what i consider a lot of nonsense being shared as general wisdom.
I list two of them now
1. "Air forces like to divide their fighter fleets up into "large, medium and small" types". That's my left ball
2. "Most air forces like to operate just 2-3 varieties of aircraft." That is my right ball. This may be fine for Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium air force and nowadays even UK/France. But continent sized nations - like US, Russia, China and India who face multiple security issues over multiple geographic environments have huge fleets of more than 20 types. Typically. One or two, more or less is no big deal

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3684
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 20 Nov 2017 08:26

20-types?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 20 Nov 2017 08:30

srai wrote:20-types?

Please count. I have myself posted the count on BRF before. Remember that air forces are more than combat aircraft and every wing depends on other aircraft types.

I think it is an act of wearing blinkers when people forget that transports and helos and planes of different function and size categories operate together with combat aircraft - and the same body of pilots and same system, hangars, air bases, purchase depts, warehosues and technicians needs to feed and maintain the whole. We do operate more than 20 types. So does the US, Russia and China. Probably UK and France as well

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3684
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 20 Nov 2017 08:32

If we add all flying types, then pretty much most airforces will top 10 types. I thought the comparison was for fighter types (heavy-medium-light).

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 20 Nov 2017 08:40

srai wrote:If we add all flying types, then pretty much most airforces will top 10 types. I thought the comparison was for fighter types (heavy-medium-light).

No. My rant was about to separate bits of "gyan" that are being peddled. One about this smallmediumlarge, and the other about "need to reduce variety"

from here
viewtopic.php?p=2077751#p2077751

In 2017 we have (Ignoring Navy)
Jaguar
Mirage 2000
Su-30
MiG 21 + trainer (UTI)
MiG 27
MiG 29
An-32
IL 76, 78
Embraer
C-130
C-17
Do-228
Dhruv
LCH
Alouette 2
Alouette 3
Mi 8/Mi 17
Hawk
PC-7
Kiran
Tejas
HS-748
Assorted UAVs and Microlights
Probably a few more that I have forgotten...

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 958
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Manish_P » 20 Nov 2017 08:44

shiv wrote:Would it be possible to rename this thread Tejas News & Disc or "LCA-Tejas... ... "


+1. I would like to request the words be added too: LCA - Tejas 4+ Gen Multirole Combat Aircraft

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3684
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 20 Nov 2017 08:49

Since this topic was brought up, in the "medium fighter" category the IAF has (or will have) the following types over the next decade:
  • 60+ MiG-29
  • 50 Mirage-2000
  • 120+ Jaguar
  • 36 Rafale
  • 110 SEF MII

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1790
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 20 Nov 2017 09:22

Some minor edits to Hakeem ji's posts.

shiv wrote:Unless I am totally mistaken - the sequence of events went like this
    1, The Air Force actually only wanted a MiG 21 replacement
    2. When Tejas was delayed they wanted Mirage 2000 Post Kargil (1999) IAF was pleased with the abilities of the Mirages and since they had built up facilities for 150 aircraft, they looked into purchasing more.
    3. The UPA govt dangled the MMRCA carrot and made the IAF donkeys The French dangled the Rafale and also were charging 50 to 60 million per M2K upgrade (more than the cost of two Tejas for one upgraded 20 yr old M2k). Also 10 Qatari Mirages with newer airframes were available and IAF was in negotiations to buy them. Then the French shut down the M2K line to put more emphasis on the Rafale. IAF felt that transitioning to Rafales from M2Ks would be easy and their existing facilities could be used. IAF and MOD started the MMRCA Nautanki.
    4. India simply could not afford what the IAF really liked - because IMO Rafale is Gripen x 2 - IAF selected Rafale (a foregone conclusion because of IAF preferences, Geopolitics of the time) over the competitors unmindful of the cost.
    5. IAF got consolation prize 36 Rafale
    6. Single engine fighter deal conceived partly as a way of setting up parallel aircraft prodn line in pvt sector. Air Force didn't choose it
    7. Killing the Tejas will make the single engine fighter deal pukka and urgent

The Air Force must take what it asked for - a Mig 21 replacement. If they want to move the goalpost and come up with rationalizations like "Large- medium-small" I wonder why this largemediumsmall concept was not conceived of before the MMRCA fly off and only AFTER?

Personally I see what i consider a lot of nonsense being shared as general wisdom.
I list two of them now
1. "Air forces like to divide their fighter fleets up into "large, medium and small" types". That's my left ball
2. "Most air forces like to operate just 2-3 varieties of aircraft." That is my right ball. This may be fine for Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium air force and nowadays even UK/France. But continent sized nations - like US, Russia, China and India who face multiple security issues over multiple geographic environments have huge fleets of more than 20 types. Typically. One or two, more or less is no big deal
Last edited by Vivek K on 20 Nov 2017 09:36, edited 1 time in total.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1790
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 20 Nov 2017 09:23

Dileep wrote:
Vivek K wrote:DRDO/HAL needs to grow some b4lls and fight back with facts and figures.


Trust me when I say that they are sitting with a smug smile on their face. There are reasons.

The primary one being it makes "business sense" for HAL and ADA (DRDO as an organization don't have much stake in the programme) not to refute the "report".

Another one (I am guessing here) is that the report is actually a blessing. It is so ridiculous that it proves the opposite point onlee.

Dileep I don't feel confident in this presentation being a blessing. I hope you're right.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5095
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 20 Nov 2017 09:41

I will reiterate my call here. "IAF will buy as many Tejas as HAL can build over a big number of marks, blocks, upgrades and whatnot. The basic airframe/engine combination will not change".

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5872
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 20 Nov 2017 10:35

Dileep wrote:Fits in with the notion that HAL goes with IAF's demand for 'different type' as Quid for the Quo of buying more Tejas. I think this response happened because the "report leak" went a bit over the top and caused a stir in the media.

You have your finger on the pulse. We should try to show how LCA Mk1 == Gripen C/D and LCA Mk2 == Gripen E/F.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 20 Nov 2017 10:36

Dileep wrote:I will reiterate my call here. "IAF will buy as many Tejas as HAL can build over a big number of marks, blocks, upgrades and whatnot. The basic airframe/engine combination will not change".


Mk1A.

And any improvements to it.

More precisely, no Mk2. The unstated.

I agree.

And, that is not a bad deal *provided* the AMCA is supported to the hilt (by the IAF and the IN).

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5095
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 20 Nov 2017 11:20

It is too early to call on AamKa. Right now, the airframe/engine TD is sanctioned. It should be obvious that the current generation avionics (well proven) will be used for the TD, and the next generation will be developed meanwhile. I don't think there can be a "deal" for support of AamKa at this point of time.

However, we can safely consider that at least a group within IAF will support this effort. There are (present) senior officers who literally lived through the process, and enjoyed flying the result.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3496
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Neela » 20 Nov 2017 11:42

Doctor,
Are you willing to publish this article?

Can we take this discussion offline. PLease let me know which email address I should contact you on.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 20 Nov 2017 12:54

Using F16 manual for C/D version one can calculate very accurate mission data such as range and endurance for almost any mission profile. Can we define a set of 2-3 mission profiles..? Then we can calculate some hard numbers for all three jets to provide comparison.

I could not find any Gripen data. Does anyone have seen any credible Gripen (any version is good) Aero data..?? LCA data can be estimated to some degree based on various sources. But For gripen I cannot find any hard data so far. Indirect estimation are possible, but having actual data from flight for drag polar or L/D data is always good.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 20 Nov 2017 14:21

Neela wrote:Doctor,
Are you willing to publish this article?

Can we take this discussion offline. PLease let me know which email address I should contact you on.

Sure bennedose at h0tma!l


deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3623
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 20 Nov 2017 17:33

^ Your account is protected, meaning unless you accept the request to follow, we cannot see your tweets. Maybe, you can change the settings since you have linked here.

BTW, I have sent you a request to follow.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 20 Nov 2017 17:38

V.well put! The emphasis should be entitled somewhat on "how to kill a truly indigenous aircraft industry and remain a colonial slave".I've just said elsewhere that there was nothing in all our prev. deals where the acquisition of a firang bird and its offsets,if there were,were specifically tasked with assisting in ensuring transfer of tech for laying the foundation whatever,for an indigenous fighter/military aircraft industry.The offsets for the Rafale is merely the R cos.' assembling the Falcon biz jet using screwdrivers!
Last edited by Philip on 20 Nov 2017 17:41, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 20 Nov 2017 17:40

JayS wrote:Using F16 manual for C/D version one can calculate very accurate mission data such as range and endurance for almost any mission profile. Can we define a set of 2-3 mission profiles..? Then we can calculate some hard numbers for all three jets to provide comparison.

I could not find any Gripen data. Does anyone have seen any credible Gripen (any version is good) Aero data..?? LCA data can be estimated to some degree based on various sources. But For gripen I cannot find any hard data so far. Indirect estimation are possible, but having actual data from flight for drag polar or L/D data is always good.

What sort of data are you looking for? (Oh OK I just saw that last part of your post) I have earlier linked a site that mentions actual mission data records of the Gripen and I used charts from that site for my second video. The site makes some very interesting and pertinent observations. For example - in "surge" operations the Gripen needs 6 hours maintenance time after every 4 hours flying. To stay safe the "expected length" of an earlier combat sortie is used. That is, if the last sortie was 1.5 hours, the next one will be 1.5 hours too. Then the Gripen would have used up 3 of its allowed 4 hours before standing down. Since the third sortie also is expected to be 1.5 hours - it will exceed the 4 hour limit so the Gripen has to come off the line for 6 hours maintenance after just 2 sorties. This cannot go on for long. When the force settles down to "sustained" ops the take down time for Gripen for maintenance is 20 hours.

The site points out that 70% fleet availability would be the norm in wartime. (Remember the Su-30 had reached 70%? ) The charts also show that that vast majority of missions were less than 500 km and only a couple were listed as 800 km

The site also talks of how long it takes to arm a fighter and how much time is needed for pilot rest - so even if the plane has "hot refuelling" other factors come into play.

Here is the link. I believe it is essential reading for any jingo who speaks of combat aircraft
http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=3262

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 20 Nov 2017 17:46

Precisely why numbers DO matter! Pak equipped with hundreds of JF-17s can send them again and again into battle even if they have poor turnaround time. Thankfully we have the MKIs,almost 300 of them which will save our bacon in any future spat. Unfortunately the anti-Ru ,pro-Yanqui brigade have a Nelsonian blind spot to this fact.Someone also asked me how I knew that the IAF was happy with its upgraded MIG-29s.For one no complaints.Two,the very fact that we're lusting after 12 Malaysian AF 29s with just 2000 hrs. on the clock,wanting to upgrade them and pay for them by supplying them with Sukhoi spares,is indicative of two things.That we value the capabilities of the bird and that we have scarce money to throw around for aircraft in the budget....that is unless it has Yanqui snake-oil salesmen p*mping their aging beauties with an overdose of makeup!

PS: A third fact,that our Sukhoi spares are world class and that we've actually got some transfer of tech here,the ability to manufacture engines using 100% desi raw material (50 engines built/delivered out of 350 earlier).

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 20 Nov 2017 18:13

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote:Using F16 manual for C/D version one can calculate very accurate mission data such as range and endurance for almost any mission profile. Can we define a set of 2-3 mission profiles..? Then we can calculate some hard numbers for all three jets to provide comparison.

I could not find any Gripen data. Does anyone have seen any credible Gripen (any version is good) Aero data..?? LCA data can be estimated to some degree based on various sources. But For gripen I cannot find any hard data so far. Indirect estimation are possible, but having actual data from flight for drag polar or L/D data is always good.

What sort of data are you looking for? (Oh OK I just saw that last part of your post) I have earlier linked a site that mentions actual mission data records of the Gripen and I used charts from that site for my second video. The site makes some very interesting and pertinent observations. For example - in "surge" operations the Gripen needs 6 hours maintenance time after every 4 hours flying. To stay safe the "expected length" of an earlier combat sortie is used. That is, if the last sortie was 1.5 hours, the next one will be 1.5 hours too. Then the Gripen would have used up 3 of its allowed 4 hours before standing down. Since the third sortie also is expected to be 1.5 hours - it will exceed the 4 hour limit so the Gripen has to come off the line for 6 hours maintenance after just 2 sorties. This cannot go on for long. When the force settles down to "sustained" ops the take down time for Gripen for maintenance is 20 hours.

The site points out that 70% fleet availability would be the norm in wartime. (Remember the Su-30 had reached 70%? ) The charts also show that that vast majority of missions were less than 500 km and only a couple were listed as 800 km

The site also talks of how long it takes to arm a fighter and how much time is needed for pilot rest - so even if the plane has "hot refuelling" other factors come into play.

Here is the link. I believe it is essential reading for any jingo who speaks of combat aircraft
http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=3262


Saw the page, you shared on Twitter. Very good resource. A good remedy for Brochuritis if the patient has patience to read through... :lol:

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 549
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby nrshah » 20 Nov 2017 18:26

deejay wrote:^ Your account is protected, meaning unless you accept the request to follow, we cannot see your tweets. Maybe, you can change the settings since you have linked here.

BTW, I have sent you a request to follow.


Sir,
Changed the settings.
Check if they are visible now

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 20 Nov 2017 18:56

Philip wrote:Precisely why numbers DO matter! Pak equipped with hundreds of JF-17s can send them again and again into battle even if they have poor turnaround time..

That is the theory. In practice it does not work that way. You need to read that paper in some detail

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2566
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kashi » 20 Nov 2017 19:08

Philip wrote:Precisely why numbers DO matter! Pak equipped with hundreds of JF-17s can send them again and again into battle even if they have poor turnaround time.


And where will they find hundreds of daisy fresh pilots for this?

Unless you're talking of unmanned bandars of course.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashishvikas and 46 guests