Aero India 2009

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 12 Feb 2009 23:24

The Natasha contingent is sorely being missed this year!

Maybe there will be better representation during the weekend....

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 12 Feb 2009 23:32

Even the Garuds have tavors now?

Am hoping and praying to bump into some Garuds during the AI visit!!!

The guys with TAVORs are Army SF. They only have Special Forces Tabs on their arms. The Garuds have both the SF Tabs and the Garud Tabs. Also the Garuds are carrying AK-47s. Both Units are deployed.

Picture of the Garuds (Overall better Kit than the ARMY SF guys sans the Assault rifle )

pyogi · Post by **pyogi** » 12 Feb 2009 23:47

sum wrote:
kedar.karmarkar wrote:Album is updated with some Q-n-Ds - highlighting the pre-demo and post-demo routine on the ground - of the PACAF (Pacific Air Forces) Viper Demo Team.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... I09-Kedar/
Errrr...sorry to nitpick but is should be MiG-35 and not MiG-25.

Also, is there no Akash-Ganga team this time around?

Amazing pics though.

AkashGanga Team

The Akash Ganga Prartroopers gave the spectators a superb display of skill and precission para jumping
http://aeroindia.photoyogi.com/2009/02/ ... opers.html

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 12 Feb 2009 23:50

shiv wrote:MCA wind tunnel model

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 9.JPG.html

How come MCA now got those two vertical tails.

MCA was supposed to be a tailless delta design to make it a superb stealthy combat aircraft

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/ ... t/MCA.html
says..."The MCA will cost $2 billion to develop and will be a tailless delta design "

Looks we are slowly forgetting and killing our stealth objectives of LCA and now MCA too...

Why suddenly these changes are happenning ?

Regards,

krishna_j · Post by **krishna_j** » 13 Feb 2009 00:01

first impression to AI this time - it was a bit dull - less of everything - smaller size stalls , less videos and displays ,less flights and aerobatics ,less info dished out ,less of old BR jagan and gang and less crowds .Hopefully tempo will increase towards the end .

Luftwaffe Typhoons were parked too far away too be noticeable from the static displays and neither were the Hornets and Vipers noticeable unless they were flying.

Rosoboronexport stall which used to be one of the biggest was pretty listless - static models seem to have aged and so have the Natashas and one of their reps whined that the Israelis were stealing the thunder and (contracts) .

Apart from the Israeli and EADS pavillions which were quite exhaustive - the Indian stalls were pretty impressive and more professional and tried their best to field questions fired by the goras.

Spent time at the Rafale stall and heard anhalf hour lecture on how rafale scores over every contemporary aircraft and was amazed at the french attempt to remote sell w/o showcasing the bird - talk of french arrogance.

One silver lining was the BR stall -smart getup and in a prime location in Hall B compared to the other media stalls which were tucked away in obscurity away from the main hangars - plenty of goodies and books to be bought - including some excellent Indian Squadron prints.

Security was very non-intrusive - contrary to ticket instructions - bags were allowed along with cameras and Cells and Parking was allowed inside the Air Force station itself which was a pleasant surprise - on the whole facilities have improved but so has the entry price.

Look fwd to the Blr BR meet

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 13 Feb 2009 00:10

Sontu wrote:
shiv wrote:MCA wind tunnel model

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 9.JPG.html
How come MCA now got those two vertical tails.

MCA was supposed to be a tailless delta design to make it a superb stealthy combat aircraft

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/ ... t/MCA.html
says..."The MCA will cost $2 billion to develop and will be a tailless delta design "

Looks we are slowly forgetting and killing our stealth objectives of LCA and now MCA too...

Why suddenly these changes are happenning ?

Regards,

Have anyone ever made a tactical tail less delta aircraft yet?

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 13 Feb 2009 00:31

Have anyone ever made a tactical tail less delta aircraft yet?

I agree Katare saab...and hence I assume the ADA was aware of the Technical Challenges involved and still they took that challenge knowingly to make it a unique and potent platform of the FUTURE.

I believe that to defend our motherland we need that kind of unique and potent things which has edge over other's, not something very common thing....when I say that, I think of F-22- a unchallenged aircraft for the last 20 yrs and will be so for at least another 15-20 yrs. Even we started our LCA from the scratch...now ADA and other establishments have resources and more importantly knowledge, that is learnt thru LCA project..so if something has not been done by any one else till date...that should not deter us from doing.

Regards,

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 13 Feb 2009 01:01

Well this is how our MCA might look like when it will take to the skies, hopefully in AI '13.

I'm lovin it.....

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 13 Feb 2009 02:15

Sontu wrote:
shiv wrote:MCA wind tunnel model

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 9.JPG.html
How come MCA now got those two vertical tails.

MCA was supposed to be a tailless delta design to make it a superb stealthy combat aircraft

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/ ... t/MCA.html
says..."The MCA will cost $2 billion to develop and will be a tailless delta design "

Looks we are slowly forgetting and killing our stealth objectives of LCA and now MCA too...

Why suddenly these changes are happenning ?

Regards,

The tails here refers to the horizontal stabilizers, not the fin which is the vertical stabilizers. So the MCA is indeed tail-less as is the LCA.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 13 Feb 2009 02:59

The tails here refers to the horizontal stabilizers, not the fin which is the vertical stabilizers. So the MCA is indeed tail-less as is the LCA.

For sure MCA would get thurst vectoring nozles.and the vertical stabs will be for redundancy purpose.How about removing them and let the MCA go as like US `X' plane with no horizontal and vertical stabs"?

Just curious.....wot is the failure rate of vectoring nozles? in case we got rid of those verti stabs and go completely dependent on thrust vectoring?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 13 Feb 2009 03:18

HariC wrote:
HariC wrote:birather... where is the mohotormas of aero india albhum?
http://aeroindia09.blogspot.com/2009/02 ... nment.html

inshallah my prayers hab been anshwered

uh.....I know Kapil cannot compete with the motorhamas in either the looks or the leggyness department but can we have a pic or two of the B-R stall this time?

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 13 Feb 2009 03:48

jaladipc wrote:Quote:

The tails here refers to the horizontal stabilizers, not the fin which is the vertical stabilizers. So the MCA is indeed tail-less as is the LCA.

For sure MCA would get thurst vectoring nozles.and the vertical stabs will be for redundancy purpose.How about removing them and let the MCA go as like US `X' plane with no horizontal and vertical stabs"?

Just curious.....wot is the failure rate of vectoring nozles? in case we got rid of those verti stabs and go completely dependent on thrust vectoring?

Good thought. But the more complex you make it, the more time DRDO would take to accomplish the task. There are lot of complicated alternatives - like the set of control surfaces on a B2. Cris-cross flaps arranged and actuated in particular fashion to substitute for both tail and vertical stabilizers. That would lead to multiple points of failures. Trusting thrust vectoring alone would be lack of redundancy - also having the vertical stabilizers along with TVC would obviously add to the maneuverability.

I would have liked more angles to that model - shape of the intakes, whether or not we have space for internal weapons etc.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Feb 2009 06:26

Sontu wrote:
shiv wrote:MCA wind tunnel model

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 9.JPG.html
How come MCA now got those two vertical tails.

MCA was supposed to be a tailless delta design to make it a superb stealthy combat aircraft

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/ ... t/MCA.html
says..."The MCA will cost $2 billion to develop and will be a tailless delta design "

Looks we are slowly forgetting and killing our stealth objectives of LCA and now MCA too...

Why suddenly these changes are happenning ?

Regards,

The MCA model is only a concept and not a plane that is destined to become reality. It can have as many or as few tails as the model makers desire.

People will recall the picture of DRDO's hyperplane that I used to post every year from 1996 onwards.

Where's the hyperplane now? Expect the MCA to be similar.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Feb 2009 08:17

shiv wrote: The MCA model is only a concept and not a plane that is destined to become reality. It can have as many or as few tails as the model makers desire.

People will recall the picture of DRDO's hyperplane that I used to post every year from 1996 onwards.

Where's the hyperplane now? Expect the MCA to be similar.

I disagree Shiv. I spoke to a lady who works in ADA and she said that they were working on the MCA for a while, then the team was disbanded because of lack of interest from the IAF. Now, the IAF has expressed a renewed interest, so they're putting together a team once again.
this particular wind tunnel model might be one of a few concepts that went beyond drawing boards to an actual physical tunnel model to verify its flight characteristics. they're actually quite expensive to build, so they won't build them just for the heck of it, unless some studies accompanied it at NAL's wind tunnel.

sum · Post by **sum** » 13 Feb 2009 08:36

Hope that all the contenders have their aero-display on the weekend (when im going there

) and no part of the display is shelved for the weekend.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 13 Feb 2009 08:39

LiveFist Photos: From the HAL stable

LiveFist Photos: Foreign aircraft in IAF livery

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Feb 2009 08:44

sum, plz take a camera and get us some snaps of info boards.
puhleez ! very disappointed with BRFites performance this year !

kedar.karmarkar · Post by **kedar.karmarkar** » 13 Feb 2009 09:19

sum wrote:
kedar.karmarkar wrote:Album is updated with some Q-n-Ds - highlighting the pre-demo and post-demo routine on the ground - of the PACAF (Pacific Air Forces) Viper Demo Team.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... I09-Kedar/
Errrr...sorry to nitpick but is should be MiG-35 and not MiG-25.

Also, is there no Akash-Ganga team this time around?

Amazing pics though.

Thanks, Sum - The pics are mis-named

- though the captions look good

- by the time I realized the filenaming was already done - and shudnt the captions be highlighted and not the filenames. Just an enhancement request from my side

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 13 Feb 2009 09:51

AoA For your viewing pleasure!!

SARANG Acrobatics!

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VtEWmIXPSEs&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VtEWmIXPSEs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

REVERSE Flying

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V_wtRn4KtQY&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V_wtRn4KtQY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

nash · Post by **nash** » 13 Feb 2009 11:45

Any video of LCA ???

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 13 Feb 2009 12:02

LCH is more and more looking like the Comanche (except the retractable gear, internal weapon bay and tail rotor)

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Feb 2009 12:17

Shiv, any pics of LCA-MK II ??

vina · Post by **vina** » 13 Feb 2009 12:24

Do kids need tickets (I am talking less than 5 yr old) for the airshow and the display areas ? Anyone know where tix are still available ?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 13 Feb 2009 12:50

Photos: Model of DRDO's Medium Combat Aircraft - Shiv Aroor

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 13 Feb 2009 14:52

Raman wrote:
The tails here refers to the horizontal stabilizers, not the fin which is the vertical stabilizers. So the MCA is indeed tail-less as is the LCA.

Not according to the model or should we ignore that concept and go with the statement instead? The concept model looks high drag but if the horizontal stabilizers is used as large control surfaces TVC nozzels might not be needed so I am looking forward to more info.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 13 Feb 2009 15:18

OK, A bit of info on the MCA and FGFA from the MCA guy...

1. MCA not yet sanctioned... in fact, the model shown here is only one of the prelim concept design wind tunnel models.

2. When asked when it would be sanctioned, the person looked heaven-wards, and then said we'd have to ask the guy(s) on top - when asked how much on top, he said god knows.... so yeah,

3. the FGFA, for all the public announcements, is in limbo, esp with the prototype already done (which probably explains IAF's renewed interest in teh MCA). Apparently, the Indians wanted a clause stating that the MCA or its tech would not be sold to China.... the russians refused!!!

4. The finless delta and 3-axis TVC will be incorporated on our UCAV, which is planned to fly in 2015-16 timeline (per ADE director's presentation).... I guess the tech was too risky to implement right now... a good move I'd say.

Overall, I agree that the place was pretty dull... recession I guess. Flying displays too were a tad duller than expected. stalls lacked the usual excess of models and large scale thingys...

Got to fly the F-18 simulator, and did a landing, a gun kill and a missile kill.... a few observations:

1. They were freely allowing ppl to try, so do ask for a chance if possible.

2. The cockpir is pretty good, and the FOV for the front pilot is amazing. However, the Tejas cockpit is as good.

3. They have still kept a certain amount of backup mechanical instruments.

4. Took a look at the IRST view - quite amazing. However, since it was the first time, I cannot compare.

5. From the HUD display, I guess there were 400 cannon rounds.... had to pump off quite a few to hit the target - even with it in the circle - I gotta say, a gun kill is definitely far more exciting than any missile hit!!

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 13 Feb 2009 15:24

Met Kersiji, Kapil and Joey in the stall yesterday, apart from Doc and Simon and cupla other BRFites.... huge amt of attention the stall was getting, unfortunately, it was rarely that the ppl noticed the website link or even the name.

I guess next time, we should have pamphlets about BR itself..... promote the website more????

Anyway, Kersi-saar told me that some GTRE guy came to the stall, and was quite angry about the post, so in response, I need to point out that all that I have got was the information given out in the directors presentation - and is all thus open source. There were quite a few foreigners there, so I doubt that secrecy is the issue here. If the issue is badmouthing GTRE, I apologise, but I have definitely only tried to show the amount of work that GTRE has done and the difficulties they have faced!!!

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 13 Feb 2009 15:41

Any news on what the Chinese are doing here with their 10-men team?

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 13 Feb 2009 15:49

Rafale

I picked the Rafale stall ppl's brains for about 15 minutes... and was quite amazed at their answers.

Round 1:
When asked why they hadn't brought the rafale, the Guy #1 actually had the cheek to grin and point to their model..... then, when asked why not the real thing, his answer shocked me, and I quote exactly over here, "It was just too expensive to bring"!!! When asked how it was expensive, he talked about how it needed ground crew, transportation, etc etc etc, and they didn't think it was worth it!!! I did point out that their european neighbours obviously disagreed and had brought 4 Typhoons to the show... no reply. When he said not worth the effort, I asked him how 10.4 bn dollar deal was not worth the effort..... so Guy #1 quickly scrammed and pointed me to his senior, Guy#2...

Round 2:
The talk with guy #2 was a bit more civil, but his reason for the absence was even more flabbergasting.... "We had to optimize, since we are participating in many other tenders, and have sent our rafales there... so we had to choose which was the most sensible". At this point, I wanted to ask exactly which tenders they were participating in (the Morocco, Singaopre and Korea deals came to my tongue, which I wisely held back). Plus, I also wanted to ask how many of the other tenders were for 126 aircraft.

But i guess that like the 3 hr workday, 2 hr lunch and 2 hr siesta, this is also the french way of doin things - which is unfortunate, since I was hoping so much that Rafale would be chosen, which does look a little less likely now.

Round 3:
I continued to pick Guy#2's brain for another 20 minutes (the Russians kept intervening via their Mig-35 roar, which I happily pointed out - with the tongue in cheek hope that they wouldn't do the same to the French prospects).

Round 4:
In terms of ToT - unequivocal answer - 100% ToT, incl source codes, weapons, everything. This will include integration of our sensors and weapons as well. When asked how they were able to give 100%, he gave a glib smile and said that "coz thats the way we french do business".

Round 5:
The radar will be the new AESA radar as mentioned. THe Engine, they can integrate the Kaveri-2 (with Eco core) if we request it, which shouldn't be much issue, as long as the dimensions match. With the thrust also matching, it should be a good fit.

Round 6:
Offsets - They have already signed deals with some indian cos to supply components, and are looking for more partners.

Round 7:
Cost - this is the biggest problem, and the guy pretty much said that they would not be able to meet the budget given. He said that the technology was hi-tech and that the cost would be the high technology, ie, you will need to spend on technology. When asked how the otehrs were able to handle it, he said that they were all older airframes and would not be able to meet the demands. The rafale was the most modern, and would perfectly suit the IAF reqs, and would also reduce costs.

However, most competitors are saying that the costs may be not met.... will come to that later.

Round 8: vs the Typhoon
He said that the typhoon was just a souped up A2A fighter will a load of aerodynamic tweaking..... the Rafale, OTOH, is a complete fighter, and omnirole, and fits the role.

vina · Post by **vina** » 13 Feb 2009 15:55

k prasad wrote:Anyway, Kersi-saar told me that some GTRE guy came to the stall, and was quite angry about the post

You're kidding me. I would have never imagined that these govrmund types would pay scant attention to the stuff that gets written here on a variety of things from defense to the economics to nukkad to the "unmentionable anatomy" thread!.

Come on, I really don't think anyone takes the forum (the BRF site and all "official" stuff is different), but forums anywhere are just "rant boards", ain't they ?

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 13 Feb 2009 16:06

k prasad wrote:Rafale

I picked the Rafale stall ppl's brains for about 15 minutes... and was quite amazed at their answers.

Round 1:
When asked why they hadn't brought the rafale, the Guy #1 actually had the cheek to grin and point to their model..... then, when asked why not the real thing, his answer shocked me, and I quote exactly over here, "It was just too expensive to bring"!!! When asked how it was expensive, he talked about how it needed ground crew, transportation, etc etc etc, and they didn't think it was worth it!!! I did point out that their european neighbours obviously disagreed and had brought 4 Typhoons to the show... no reply. When he said not worth the effort, I asked him how 10.4 bn dollar deal was not worth the effort..... so Guy #1 quickly scrammed and pointed me to his senior, Guy#2...

Round 2:
The talk with guy #2 was a bit more civil, but his reason for the absence was even more flabbergasting.... "We had to optimize, since we are participating in many other tenders, and have sent our rafales there... so we had to choose which was the most sensible". At this point, I wanted to ask exactly which tenders they were participating in (the Morocco, Singaopre and Korea deals came to my tongue, which I wisely held back). Plus, I also wanted to ask how many of the other tenders were for 126 aircraft.

.

wonder would they suggest the same when they are supposed to bring 3 aircrafts for trials in april tis year and that too for month ...

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 13 Feb 2009 16:43

I really think that Indian government should move ahead an sanction atleast $3-5 billion for development cost of MCA. There should be a professional body comprising of eminent scientists from ISRO-DRDO who have worked for long in the field and possess significant knowledge on technology life-cycle development. This body should be entrusted with funding of the programme and keep an eye on the programme. All the participating companies as well as scientific organizations should compete for the funding and all the participating agencies should be given a deadline for completion of the programme and there should be future funding cuts as well as penalty(for private companies) or no promotion clause(for scientists working with government agencies) who fail to meet deadlines. All the bureaucratic hurdles on hiring the right individuals should be removed. No bar on anything. If needed there should be a convention which includes the eminent scientists from all the companies on discussing the capabilities and the areas where we will need outside expertise to work with us. I am sure we can collaborate with Israeli's on avionics. Another sticking issue of engines should be codeveloped if needed. Other than that, I am sure that we posses required knowhow on developing a decent fighter.

I think we need to develop a sense of patriotism amoung the brilliant mind and let them see what happens to a nation when we achieve a milestone which is visible in Chandrayaan - I. Similarly if we can develop a fighter which is comparable to Raptor or F-35, it will be a quantum leap in our patriotism, nation, sense of achievement and high regard for our scientific community. The only thing needed is to break the mould of age-old practice in establishment.

Believe me guys if people are given the money/reward similar to what they get in Private sector we can come up with whatever we want in a quarter of time period. There should be award for individuals at every step of breakthrough which is lacking in our current practice.

Go for MCA.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Feb 2009 18:08

it is costly to fly in a plane and support infra for airshow. nothing will get decided wrt MRCA in AI09. EF has a MNC backing , Rafale is alone.

they will fly 'em in when the trials are called for by IAF. nothing wrong with saving money in these times and doing only as much as needed.

sum · Post by **sum** » 13 Feb 2009 18:09

the FGFA, for all the public announcements, is in limbo, esp with the prototype already done (which probably explains IAF's renewed interest in teh MCA). Apparently, the Indians wanted a clause stating that the MCA or its tech would not be sold to China.... the russians refused!!!

WTF!!!!!

However, as expected of our "stratergic planning", we dozed off on the MCA when things were going hunky dory with the russkies but will now scramble like mad and sit on DRDOs head with unrealistic expectations/timelines to make up for lost time given the Russkies aint playing ball anymore...

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 13 Feb 2009 18:14

Airbus releases images of A-330 MRTT in IAF colours

Also follow this blog on Aero India news.

By Andrew Doyle
Airbus Military has released images of its A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) in Indian Air Force colours as the contest to supply the country with six additional tankers approaches a conclusion.

EADS subsidiary Airbus and Russia's United Aircraft (UAC) responded to a tanker request for proposals (RFP) in 2007 and industry sources say a selection is expected by the end of this year. UAC is offering a more advanced version of the Ilyushin Il-78 tanker, of which India already operates 12. Boeing was not immediately available to comment on whether it is offering its KC-767 to meet the requirement...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Feb 2009 18:15

myself and many others had predicted this long back.

after the MTA fiasco, only the most illogical would still pursue large projects with
Russia when there are other good options.

there is no doubt that with indian expertise and some help from israel, france, EADS
and americans we can get the airframe, weapons and avionics of a MCA in shape without
too much hassles. the engine will need to be a bideshi one and several options are on
table if the kaveri with eco core is not ready by then.

only a fool would actually pay to "join" a project the russians have already designed and
built for their own and chipanda needs and then beg and bug them for years to get even
the minimum customer support and "TOT"

we ought to drop the idea asap.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 13 Feb 2009 18:36

"Transport Combat Leader" Patch 'discovered' at Aero India

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 13 Feb 2009 18:37

Since we already delivered 2 seat specifications to the Russians and may have already part funded the project , it's best to stick with them on the FGFA , however in the long term , yes , a conscious decision to move away from them is necessary.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 13 Feb 2009 18:43

Does IAF operate 12 Il-78's? I was under the impression they only had 6. I hope IAf goes in for 8-12 A-330 MRTT. Its the best available.

For the MRTA IAF was never planning to use russian engines so why exactly do we need them? Get Lockheed or Europeans as consultants. Ofcourse if lockheed is willing C-130-30J could be license produced but with lots off strings.

PAk-Fa is a non starter as a JV. IT can only be MKIzed but it makes more sense to go for MCA. Ofcourse the engine is a big stumbling block.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 13 Feb 2009 18:50

BAE system’s Mantis makes international debut at Aero India 2009