Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 30 Jan 2011 15:25

I have another question.
Why cannot the Brahmos carry a nuclear warhead.
Is it maybe because it is heavier or ......
Please enlighten

bapatnikhil · Post by **bapatnikhil** » 31 Jan 2011 00:13

SPG protects PM and other VVIPs. But who protects other lower ranking ministers like ministers of state for education? Is that task done by Delhi Police or NSG? Also does President get protection from SPG or President's Bodyguards have that responsibility considering that they are an Army regiment?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2011 09:35

vasu_ray wrote: And about the wacko-aew, the tail plane can be made with RF transparent material like composites so that Transformers can be avoided while the aerodynamics of this configuration are validated in a wind tunnel model. Except for the sad accident, they could still revive the idli style AEW radome developed by CABS increasing the separation from the pilot.

All that you say is definitely possible. but I believe you are constantly skipping the stuff that is NOT possible.

The first is the range, endurance and time on station of the platform will be low because it is such a small one.

Secondly the MiG 29 is a plane designed for speed and agility. Neither supersonic speed nor agility are required for an AEW that is not going to be dogfighting over enemy territory. It is poor design to design an AEW radar into a supersonic agile fighter.

Third, the workload. if the pilot has no workload related to the radar then the pilot and his supersonic plarfiorm are not bneeded for the radar - and a UAV or Aerosta would be more appropriate. But a AEW gives plenty of work for 2 to 10 crew member depending on range, size capability and endurance.

That is why it is a wacko idea

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 31 Jan 2011 10:16

Sorry if posted before. Dogfight enthusiasts will like this one. Old video of aggresor F-16s V/s F-15s from Red Flag. Would love to see an MKI in a similar role!

Edit: Link Updated

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 31 Jan 2011 10:55

shiv wrote:Secondly the MiG 29 is a plane designed for speed and agility. Neither supersonic speed nor agility are required for an AEW that is not going to be dogfighting over enemy territory. It is poor design to design an AEW radar into a supersonic agile fighter.

Third, the workload. if the pilot has no workload related to the radar then the pilot and his supersonic plarfiorm are not bneeded for the radar - and a UAV or Aerosta would be more appropriate. But a AEW gives plenty of work for 2 to 10 crew member depending on range, size capability and endurance.

Shiv, lets look at it this way

Viraat has no aircraft based AEW cover, now come the Vikrant and IAC-1 which again may have the same limitation and the only heavy platform available is the Mig-29k so working backwards gives some inelegant solutions which is better than no solution to a niche problem.

An agile fighter sporting the AEW radar can go closer to the conflict zone than a transport based one which is why a pilot is still important. if I may add, on the high seas the skies are always not secured so standoff distances available to a conventional AWACS may not be possible. An agile fighter is more survivable and along with buddy refueling can get some long legs.

if they want to build a Naval UAV based AEW like in the next 5 years, that works too

Lets see some ship launched Blimp based AEW for anti-piracy roles then

atul.arvind · Post by **atul.arvind** » 31 Jan 2011 13:51

i dnt knw if this is the place to post this..but Has any1 noticed this republic day the Body Guards of PM and President openly carrying new Israeli Assault Rifiels.Never seen them doing this before.
Has the security concern required this or just showing off the new toy

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2011 15:15

vasu_ray wrote:
An agile fighter sporting the AEW radar can go closer to the conflict zone than a transport based one which is why a pilot is still important. if I may add, on the high seas the skies are always not secured so standoff distances available to a conventional AWACS may not be possible. An agile fighter is more survivable and along with buddy refueling can get some long legs.

Sir I am assuming you are not trolling me - which is possible. Please state that you are not trolling and making me repeatedly point out obvious and blatant flaws in your post and preceding ideas and I will take it seriously and put down my reply after you declare that you are being serious.

In the absence of such a declaration the matter is closed as far as I am concerned.

TIA

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 01 Feb 2011 18:13

After wondering whether to post this late or not, I finally give in to try an attempt

shiv wrote: How many aircraft would be appropriate for a wartime CAP to protect an air base

Here’s an overly simplistic static force balance with lot of generalization. For two front defence

There is no distinction of missiles as bvr/wvr , nor are dynamic effects of interactions taken into account which is the job of simulations. Offence is not shown here wherein enemy SAM’s will come into picture. Effect of missile intervention from both sides(both cruise and ballistic) is not taken into account here either. Some of the variables are subjectively estimated but that is what calculated guesses are.

Assuming a uniform force projection on every base
The average number of fighters per base is

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 01 Feb 2011 18:17

x-posted from China Military Watch thread

Singha wrote:from the rear aspect, the J20 seems to have about as much concern for LO as the Tejas Mk1..which is minimal. the Tejas being much smaller, no elevator fins, one vertical fin, no ventral fins, will actually have a smaller RCS from the rear aspect probably. with one engine (and smaller engine), its IR signature will be lower too. one fin vs six at the back has gotta count somewhere.

argubably if we change the nose in Mk2 to a "f22 look" (boat hull shape), put in a frameless canopy stolen from EADS, a frameless HUD stolen from EADS and change the undercarriage doors to serrated tooth edge, its frontal RCS wont be too bad vs J20 (only thing left will be splitter plate vs DSI)....atleast when not carrying any external weapons F18 and Pakfa are both working on stealthy weapons pylons for launching AAMs, if we can glue a couple of these on, atleast for A2A role it can be made semi-stealthy platform... without the gee whiz complexity and expenses of the "One True american certified God" (the raptor). the F-15SE fake CFT style weapons bay could also be glued on outside of the air intakes (if the MLG is moved outboard as on Gripen NG).

I think making it about as LO as the F-18EF in Tejas Mk2 version is quite achieveable with a bit of rework, at a very modest cost and timeline.

If the Tejas wing was made like SH into stealthy edge aligned type and few aam pylons were shifted above the wing, would it not achieve almost the same effect as hiding them inside the bays? The delta wings are long enough to not have any tips or behinds of aams above to protrude beyond the wing and be visible. Being in the shadow zone of the wing to the radar waves they would be almost invisible to ground based radar. Although waves might make it back due to reflections but the aams are not inside a cavity here, there is no surface them just the wing below them. Most radar waves should be deflected in other directions.
To the enemy plane seeing from opposite side, only the frontal rcs of aams(pointed small noses) will be visible which should be much smaller than facing the aams lengthwise. The fuselage can have flattened bottom and sides for more deflection than reflection.

The aams pylons above wing should just be able to carry equal to a first day of vvar equivalent in that position the rest, could be suspended from below the wing for subsequent days of vvar similar to how 5th gen fighters carry aams externally too. That would be a real Jugaad 4.99 gen stealthy plane

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 01 Feb 2011 18:31

Talking about the wake and separation wrt Tejas, here something from an incident between two F15s

“As a general rule that’s(separation between fighters in combat time) 500 feet” at 1:13 secs

F15 crash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWdpwkzK ... re=related

abhishekm · Post by **abhishekm** » 01 Feb 2011 19:17

bapatnikhil wrote:SPG protects PM and other VVIPs. But who protects other lower ranking ministers like ministers of state for education? Is that task done by Delhi Police or NSG? Also does President get protection from SPG or President's Bodyguards have that responsibility considering that they are an Army regiment?

The President's Bodyguard perform a ceremonial role and are not responsible for carrying out functions otherwise performed by the SPG vis-a-vis other dignitaries like the PM.

I think the level of security (Z, Z+, etc.) depends not just on the porfolio held by a politician but by the threat perception to the individual. For instance, Murli Manohar Joshi as the former minister for HRD was entitled to protection from Black Cat Commandos. I doubt if the present HRD minister has more than one personal security officer assigned to him. In such a case, I presume the bodyguard is provided by Delhi Police, as SPG has no mandate to protect cabinet ministers.

On a related note, has anyone noticed how Chidambaram's security has now been upgraded? Up until the middle of last year he walked around New Delhi with only one personal security officer. I've now seen him on TV surrounded by atleast 2 bodyguards with earpieces, et al.

bapatnikhil · Post by **bapatnikhil** » 02 Feb 2011 00:54

[quote="abhishekm"

On a related note, has anyone noticed how Chidambaram's security has now been upgraded? Up until the middle of last year he walked around New Delhi with only one personal security officer. I've now seen him on TV surrounded by atleast 2 bodyguards with earpieces, et al.[/quote]

I saw it but never noticed it till now! Maybe as he is Home Minister now, also one of the brightest minds in the center. I guess both Jihadists and Maoists want his head.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 07 Feb 2011 16:08

Would it be better if we make a 4th gen version with AMCA design first instead of MK2, with present materials and test all the aerodynamics and envelope in its testing phase? Later when the material for 5th gen is developed hardly any testing of aerodynamics would be left and issues sorted out. Besides a twin engine fighter would be a better suited as a testbed for our Kaveri as it is still new and reliability over time is figured out. Both engines would not develop any snags(if any) at exactly the same time.

This approach would help speed up testing phase, IOC, FOC of AMCA. Besides, the current thrust levels of Kaveri when packed together in double would be good enough atleast for the 4th gen equivalent. The job of the venture with Snecma would be to boost this to 95kN while we develop the 5th gen materials for this fighter to be reborn as AMCA.

Ashish J · Post by **Ashish J** » 07 Feb 2011 19:04

Guys,,
I have few high resolution pics from last year's defence expo held in New Delhi.
I know, its quite late(since its 1 year old),but is it possible for me to upload the same somewhere...??
I have some gud pics of Bheem,Akash, Pinaka etc.
Also some pics seemed to indicate artillery attempts made by L&T..
It would be gr8 is some one could help me:)
None of them are captioned though,,,

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 07 Feb 2011 22:25

^^
It is never too late to post pics. We jingos are always hungry for more (at least I always am).

You could upload these pics at image hosting sites like imageshack and photobucket (both are nice so anyone will do). You will first have to create an account there (simple procedure, just like creating an email account). Once logged in at the site, it is just the matter of selecting the photos and the site will automatically upload them. Then you can post the link here.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 07 Feb 2011 22:27

Arya Sumantra wrote:Would it be better if we make a 4th gen version with AMCA design first instead of MK2, with present materials and test all the aerodynamics and envelope in its testing phase? Later when the material for 5th gen is developed hardly any testing of aerodynamics would be left and issues sorted out. Besides a twin engine fighter would be a better suited as a testbed for our Kaveri as it is still new and reliability over time is figured out. Both engines would not develop any snags(if any) at exactly the same time.

This approach would help speed up testing phase, IOC, FOC of AMCA. Besides, the current thrust levels of Kaveri when packed together in double would be good enough atleast for the 4th gen equivalent. The job of the venture with Snecma would be to boost this to 95kN while we develop the 5th gen materials for this fighter to be reborn as AMCA.

Could you explain what does 4th gen version of AMCA mean?

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 08 Feb 2011 02:18

^^ Same design and same dimensions as AMCA but made of current materials though for the exterior and minus some of the wishlist gizmos sought in AMCA. Although some changes will result in weight changes nevertheless.
Just to test and validate aerodynamics and iron out issues and above all cut short the time needed for testing.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2011 02:23

^^^ The first prototype of the AMCA will not wait for the material or some of the internal stuff. It will be like PAKFA's first prototype.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 10 Feb 2011 15:31

Hi,

I was doing a side-by-side comparison of some attack choppers when came across these figures:-

Augusta Westland A129 LCH WZ-10
LENGTH ``````````12.28 m (40 ft 3 in)`````` 15.8 m (51ft 8in) ```````` 14.15 m
ROTOR DIAMETER ``````````11.90 m (39 ft 1 in)`````` 13.3 m (43 ft 6 in)```````` 13.0 m
HEIGHT ``````````````````3.35 m (11 ft 0 in)`````` 4.7 m (15 ft 4 in) 3.85 m
EMPTY WEIGHT````````````2,530 kg (5,575 lb)`````` 2550 kg (5621 lb)```````` 5,540 kg
MAX. TAKE OFF WEIGHT````4,600 kg (10,140 lb)```````````5,700 kg (12125 lb)````````````````8000 kg
POWER PLANT`````````` 2× 664 kW (890 shp) each````` 2× S, 900 kW (1200 hp) each```` 2× , 957 kw (1285 shp) each
Power/Mass 0.524````````````````````` 0.705````````` 0.345

Considering power/mass figures, how can WZ-10 have superior performance compared to A129?

MAXIMUM SPEED 278 km/h (148 knots, mph)```` 330 km/h (178 knots, 207 mph)```` 300+ km/h
CRUISE SPEED 229 km/h (135 knots, mph)``` 260 km/h (140 knots, 161 mph)```` 270+ km/h
FERRY RANGE 1,000 km (540 nm, 620 mi) ```` 800+ km
RANGE 510 km (275 nm, 320 mi)```` 700km (297 nm, 342 mi)
SERVICE CEILING 4,725 m (15,500 ft)````` 6500 m (21,300 ft)```````` 6,400 m
RATE OF CLIMB 10.2 m/s (2,025 ft/min) ````` 12 m/s (2362 ft/min)

Sorry for crappy formatting.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2011 02:18

Generally the rotor diameter and the ngine power determine the capabilites for a helicopter. Bigger rotor diameter provides more lift.

Also the rate of climb etc might be at different loading conditions? Dont know if its apple to apple or apple to orange comparison.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 11 Feb 2011 10:36

Difference between rotor diameters is not much either, nearly 1 m onlee. Figures on net, even manufacturer's websites are highly confusing. Augusta don't have a page for A129, only T129. HAL doesn't have anything about LCH. As for Chinese, no words. WZ-10 article on Wiki seems to be written by a CPC member.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 13 Feb 2011 12:51

Is there any research out there that looks at how much RCS reduction is obtained when plain edges all over an aircraft are replaced by serrated/sawtooth edges. For eg, MLG doors, Radar nosecone edges etc.

If we did that on the LCA MK2, how much reduction would we get? Of course it also brings into question how much time and effort would it require to be put in place.

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 13 Feb 2011 13:40

... I want to know why a twin-engined Mig 35 is always given a lesser price than other single engine planes in the MMRCA discussion....Given the fact that Russian planes are cheaper, they certainly cannot be so cheap so as to add an entire engine for so less...
Please enlighten

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 13 Feb 2011 17:27

Dhanyawaad Marten saar. I couldn't correct the formatting even in code tags

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 13 Feb 2011 17:39

Another pooch. Which torpedoes are carried by Indian Sea Kings ? A244 or Shyena (if it has indeed entered service) ?

jimmy_moh · Post by **jimmy_moh** » 13 Feb 2011 20:55

i do have a newbie doubt regarding anti tank missiles like nag or javeline...

these missiles have the the range of 4-5km... and for using this missiles tanks should be in a line of sight right...?
but considering its range how we can identify the target at 4-5 km and fire at them...?
and if we can identify the target at 4-5 km it can be possible in desert warfare right... in any other terrain targets will be blocked by trees/hills/buildings... etc . in these cases how we can effectively use this weapons...

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Feb 2011 23:52

If the target is in urban areas, the rooftops can be used to target the approaching the enemy.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Feb 2011 00:04

nag is fired from the NAMICA vehicle which carries an optronic mast for targeting.

you can see it between the missile pods with the lid closed.

javelin is a different category missile that also uses a handheld thermal sight for targeting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Ja ... aunch_Unit

non LOS targeting is being investigated at the moment and we are a few years away from seeing it in action. for example a NAMICA commander might see an enemy tank just around the corner from him through an image beamed to his screen from a friendly UAV flying overhead. he feeds the location of the tank, which he got from the UAV to the nag and fires it away. the missile flies straight does a 90 degree turn and smashes into the tank.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 14 Feb 2011 00:48

Image :--
http://tinyurl.com/LcaAeroIndia2011
1.What are those white color stripes on the LCA in the AeroIndia 2011 ?

2. Are the current warships equipped with Barak -1 be able to use Barak NG that is going to be inducted on 2017 ? Barak NG is almost double the size of Barak 1, so there would be a probable change in Launchers, but the question is that would the warships would be able to accommodate the longer launchers ?

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 15 Feb 2011 10:55

Can anyone tell me why twin engined Mig35 costs less than single engined Gripen and F16...I ve been directed to Newbie section by some intelligent soul...Can someone direct me to where I can find reasons for this..Thank you

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 15 Feb 2011 12:56

Perhaps this 35 Million is not inclusive of all the expenses.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 19 Feb 2011 01:04

Why is the radar antenna for F-35 not in placed at the tip of the nose cone like in all other fighters?

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Feb 2011 01:18

^ That's an air-data probe , they copied it from the Mig-21.

Just kidding don't know the exact reason as to why they have it off center for F-35, in case of the Mig-21 at least we know the cone itself moves hence they have it on the lip.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Feb 2011 01:47

Interestingly the J-20 has it off centre as well ... and at almost the same place

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Feb 2011 01:50

It might be as simple as a case of off center plumbing in the backend (real estate management and all that) . Btw it looks kind of big , the type you see usually on prototypes or TDs.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Feb 2011 05:58

When I first saw 'Vijeta' the first question which came to my mind was does every pilot have to know how to put his AC into a 'spin' and then recover from that ? More importantly are all fighter pilots in the IAF required to perfect the above exercise and does it apply to every AC type or only the 'jet trainers' ?

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 20 Feb 2011 10:08

There are parallel discussions on spins going on here and in the LCA thread. Found some interesting HUD videos of the F-16 and F-22.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qphv_3F4 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0XP-ULK2gM

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Feb 2011 10:11

^ I know, my question is specific to the IAF.

Shubham · Post by **Shubham** » 20 Feb 2011 12:34

Yes knowing how to recover from spin is a very important and in the very initial stages of training the trainee pilots are shown an entry into spin, either to left or right and the normal and the standby recovery procedure.

The importance of this is that during flying a pilot could make his ac go into spin by inadvertly giving pro-spin inputs and in case sufficient height is avaliable he should be knowing the procedure to safely recover the ac.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Feb 2011 13:15

negi wrote:When I first saw 'Vijeta' the first question which came to my mind was does every pilot have to know how to put his AC into a 'spin' and then recover from that ? More importantly are all fighter pilots in the IAF required to perfect the above exercise and does it apply to every AC type or only the 'jet trainers' ?

Negi here is a nice article by Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar who test flew the Hawk in the UK and the Alpha Jet in France for IAF evaluation. He speaks of the spin characteristics of both - very interesting account.

http://vayuaerospace.in/images1/Advanced_Jet.pdf

The IJT will also be put through spin tests so that pilots have to learn how to handle that and the feeling of disorientation it causes.