Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[Sanku]

When you have the facts on your side, thump the facts......

Now victor has put Tejas' capabilities equivalent to mig 21 without any facts & you have supported him saying "you can't compare 60s plane with 2013 plane" please provide the chart or parameters which show Tejas = Mig 21

This is fare request under "thumping the facts......" claim.

Kindly do not conflate two different statements in different posts to mean something else, they were made in different times at different points.

I cant defend what I have not said.

[Sanku]

1. Imagine what getting Tejas after LSP-8 means, something which you and the IAF has been calling for. Accepting ONLY a fully mutli-role plane, which is completely tested to the brims of its flight envelop.

But perhaps with common ownership, ADA and IAF could have settled for the first milestone at PV-5 standard (nothing wrong, remember Su-30 trainers that IAF inducted, no canard, no TVC). .

Err NO indranil ji.

LSP-8 is not something which is completely tested to the brims of the flight envelop. It is something which is tested to the basic operating parameters. At this point of time, only test pilots can fly the plane.

The "to the brims testing" would happen at ASTE and TACDE once IAF gets its hands on it.

Now the question remains, should IAF accept a watering down of original requirements? IAF has already done that once, when it agreed to go with Mk 1 as opposed to Mk 2. We can revisit all the statements once more if you don't believe me (actually I am sure everyone does, but is merely being defensive on the issue of LCA), but it is clear that Mk 2 is what was Mk 1 supposed to be.

How much more should the IAF water down its requirements? And to what purpose? No one has yet given a credible reason for IAF asking for a non operational aircraft's ?

There is a reason why IOC is IOC after all. Its not that all the world is daft and does not know what IOC stands for?

[Indranil]

Indranil, that image did not post but if you are referring to a cutaway, I know what you are saying. It still doesn't make sense to increase even the fuselage dia. First, the engine extends only about 1/3 the length of the fuselage from the back and the current fuselage "tube" is wide enough to fit the fattest part of the F414 (35") so the inlet should not cause any changes.

No Victor ji, the inlet has to be supported by ring like structural components. The 'fattest' part as you call need not. It will be a long discussion.

My level of understanding (as an enthusiast that has the time and inclination to dawdle on internet forums) causes me to be suspicious that there is something else going on, that IAF knows it and is a bit leery to put it mildly. MoD too. AMCA/Indo-Israel UAV etc being cancelled says volumes about the thinking.

There is nothing about cancellation of any AMCA or Indo-Israel MR/LRSAM project. Only one reporter has written about it. The less I speak about his and his source's knowledge, the better it is for his reputation.

Err NO indranil ji.

LSP-8 is not something which is completely tested to the brims of the flight envelop. It is something which is tested to the basic operating parameters.

No 'ji' please.

I would like to know what do you mean by basic operating parameters. Max AoA, Max Gs, A2G, A2A everything has been demonstrated.

At this point of time, only test pilots can fly the plane.

Correction. Only test pilots have flown the plane! This is exactly what Kartik and I have been suggesting should not have been the case.

How much more should the IAF water down its requirements? And to what purpose? No one has yet given a credible reason for IAF asking for a non operational aircraft's ?

There is a reason why IOC is IOC after all. Its not that all the world is daft and does not know what IOC stands for?

Nobody is asking IAF to water down the requirements. All we are saying is to keep a spiral development method leading to that requirement.

[Misraji]

^^^
Indranil Sir, for the record, its great to have you on board here.
A guy who knows the $hit and still resists the urge to flame.
#Respect.

--Ashish

[Victor]

the inlet has to be supported by ring like structural components. The 'fattest' part as you call need not. It will be a long discussion.

The F414 was purposely designed to replace the F404 in it's original footprint as was done with the Hornet -> Super Hornet. Here is the F414 with the LCA's F404 engine housing:

It looks to me like nothing needs to be changed to accomodate the F414 other than maybe the "ring-like" component having its internal diameter changed a little. The diameter of the fuselage doesn't look like it needs to be enlarged and certainly the wing structure has nothing to do with any of this.

Here is the engine "tube" as I called it in the F-16. The LCA will have to have something similar, even if not as modular, to facilitate easy service, overhaul, repair and upgrade. Engines will be inserted and extracted like popsicles.


This is why I get suspicious when I hear stuff that doesn't make sense. Nothing offered so far by you (very graciously and patiently, I agree) and others has changed my understanding that the new engine will need more fuel, hence the longer fuselage to store that fuel and (even slightly) bigger wing area to provide extra lift for all that extra weight. It is not that complicated.

[Indranil]

Victorji,

I am afraid, your reasoning is not correct. Those rings have more work than just keeping the engine inlet centered. And you can imagine they are manufactured to exacting standards to keep the weight low while providing sufficient structural strenth. You can't just shave off the internal diameter of the ring by 3 inches, without having other repercussions.

Also will the Mk2 be positively wider at the fuselage. Kartik's talk at AI'13 says it will. I trust him more than any journo out there. But will it ultimately end up as the TP told him, only time will tell.

By, the way 414 is more fuel efficient than 404. So for most operations when the engine will not be at full power, the 414 will be using less fuel than the 404 at that power. There are very few moments in the entire flight when the pilot would go for full AB, like maintaining very high STR, or high alltitude take off or landing. For those very short times the 414 would be sipping more fuel, but only just. Overall the 414, is supposed to be more efficient than the 404 during the total duration of the flight. So, the extra fuel is not for feeding the 414. The extra fuel is to increase range or to free up pylons according to the mission.

So don't worry so much.

@Misraji, thank you for your gracious comments. Please drop the sir .

[Mihir]

It looks to me like nothing needs to be changed to accomodate the F414 other than maybe the "ring-like" component having its internal diameter changed a little. The diameter of the fuselage doesn't look like it needs to be enlarged and certainly the wing structure has nothing to do with any of this.

The "ring-like component" is what transfers engine thrust to the airframe. If you enlarged it's internal diameter, you would have built yourself the world's first self-ejecting jet engine, one that comes out of the front of the airplane at that!

Ideally, you want the engine and airframe to fly at the same velocities. Weakening structural components willy-nilly makes that a tad difficult to achieve. I've been told that even a tiny difference is bad for pilot morale.

[Mihir]

The entire fuselage is "hanging" below the wing and a minor increase in fuselage dia should not affect the wing at all

Here is a photo of the Tejas. Does it look like the entire fuselage is hanging below the wing?

[ShauryaT]

A scathing verdict.

Zero for DRDO

The Indian Air Force has been clever over the years in a petty sort of way. Short-range or medium-range combat aircraft and so on are uniquely IAF nomenclature; no other Air Force has such categories. In the age of aerial tankers, describing warplanes by their radii of action is a distraction.

Forty years ago the IAF invented another category of warplanes — “deep penetration and strike aircraft”, which permitted the purchase of Jaguar. The IAF sees this sort of thing as a harmless ruse to serve its interest. The multiplicity of combat aircraft thus procured allows, the service believes, in a crisis to at least have some squadrons in its fleet not subject to sanctions or the spares-and-servicing tourniquet, which supplier countries in greater or lesser measure always apply, depending on their foreign policy goals and national interests of the moment, and which tool of manipulation is now legitimated by the recent Arms Trade Treaty.

This policy of buying aircraft from diverse sources was first articulated in a 2006 note from Air Headquarters (AHQ) to the ministry of defence (MoD), which stated that the requirement for a sub-30-ton fully loaded combat aircraft was being deliberately proposed to escape the Russian stranglehold, and avoid going in for more Sukhoi-30 MKIs or the upgraded variant the “Super” Sukhois. Thus, Rafale passed the spurious test, clocking in at 27 tons. Of course, the IAF-invented range-dictated categories serve another purpose. They confuse generalist civil servants in the MoD and convincing clueless politicians that there are big gaps in combat aircraft numbers which need filling.

In this game of “fool you, fool me”, where the IAF is being jerked around by supplier countries, the threat to national security stays unaddressed. IAF is principally to blame, of course. But the inability of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and other Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) units tasked with aircraft and on-board systems designs, and the sheer incompetence of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) are equally responsible.

[Mihir]

Some gems from that article:

In the age of aerial tankers, describing warplanes by their radii of action is a distraction

Right. Because we have enough tankers to serve all fighter squadrons and then some. What next? In the age of fuel bowsers, describing land vehicles by range is a distraction?

Had HAL maintained a database of all the items it has put together, the country by now would have had the built-up capability to manufacture the Tejas Mk-I and Mk-II on the run

A database? Like a bill of materials? Why does Karnad believe that HAL hasn't kept a "database" of what it manufactures? And in any case, how is something of that sort of any help in manufacturing the Tejas?

Other than in certain areas, such as in writing sophisticated software and devising complex algorithms to drive military systems, DRDO projects are mostly scams

So the Tejas is a scam, the Arjun is a scam, all those missiles that were painstakingly developed and put into service were scams. If writing sophisticated software is all that DRDO is good for, why not outsource to job to Infosys instead? We could even package it as another CBM for Pakistan, along with getting rid of the Prithvi missiles and disbanding the strike corps.

Someone like Karnad should know better than to spout nonsense like a rank amateur.

[Surya]

thanks mihir for tearing apart that rubbish


I have a feeling I know the source of such a para

So criminally negligent has HAL been that in all the years it assembled a variety of MiG-21s, MiG-27s, MiG-29s, and the Jaguar, and the power plants for each of these aircraft at its Koraput factory, it failed to maintain a database. In other words, for all the licence manufacturing it has done over the years, by failing to compile how every component in the aircraft and in the engines does what and how, it has learnt nothing. Had HAL maintained a database of all the items it has put together, the country by now would have had the built-up capability to manufacture the Tejas Mk-I and Mk-II on the run. But this defence public sector unit has reduced itself to an adjunct of supplier companies.

He slightly redeems himself at the end with his comments on Reliance

[Mihir]

It's funny - just a couple of weeks ago, he was going all ga-ga over the Tejas, going so far as to say

A viable alternative [to the MMRCA] is available in the Mark-II version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) — its design fits the bill of an MMRCA and it is already undergoing wind tunnel testing. Not only is its 4.5-generation avionics suite common with that of the MK-I, but at its heart lies a ready-to-use AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar developed in collaboration with Israel that is comparable to that on the Rafale, except that the Thales RBE2 AESA radar for the Rafale is to be fully developed with the monies deposited by India!

With the larger air intake and the slight upward curvature of its wingtip, Mk-II Tejas, experts believe, has a better angle of attack (in excess of 28 degrees) with heavier payload than what Rafale can manage. The larger, three-metre longer, version of the Mk-I LCA, able to carry a bigger weapon load (five tons for Mk-II to Rafale’s stated six tons, which will be lesser because the European ambient conditions it is built for don’t obtain here), and has similar range, about 600 kms, and can be inducted into service in less time than the Rafale will take to roll out of HAL lines. Further, with a cranked-arrow delta wing with canards, the Mk-II will be superior to the Rafale in manoeuvrability. The basic Tejas Mk-I is already entering Limited Series Production (LSP) as prelude to full production. It will not be difficult to speedily establish a separate development and production line for Mk-II. In fact, HAL has shown confidence to reject European offers of help to set up the Tejas production infrastructure.

Picking home-grown products will also permit the rationalisation of IAF’s force structure — ridding it of its inventory of aircraft so diverse it has created a logistics nightmare. The Mk-I Tejas, as planned, can fill the air defence role, and the Mk-II variant can more than adequately meet the medium-range interdiction and strike role of the MMRCA. Because Tejas Mk-I and Mk-II are locally built, there will be capacity for surge production to meet any spike in the demand for spares, freeing the IAF from the constraints imposed by foreign suppliers that have always affected its operations.

So what two weeks ago was a potentially better fighter than the Rafale is today nothing but a scam. The same HAL that brought the Tejas to the cusp of series production, and has even rejected European offers to help set up production infrastructure, is today derided as being "criminally negligent" and accused of being unable to even maintain a "database of all the items it has put together".

So which one is it? Karnad really needs to make up his mind before he goes off on another rant.

[Kartik]

It looks to me like nothing needs to be changed to accomodate the F414 other than maybe the "ring-like" component having its internal diameter changed a little. The diameter of the fuselage doesn't look like it needs to be enlarged and certainly the wing structure has nothing to do with any of this.

The "ring-like component" is what transfers engine thrust to the airframe. If you enlarged it's internal diameter, you would have built yourself the world's first self-ejecting jet engine, one that comes out of the front of the airplane at that!

Ideally, you want the engine and airframe to fly at the same velocities. Weakening structural components willy-nilly makes that a tad difficult to achieve. I've been told that even a tiny difference is bad for pilot morale.

Mihir, don't you know? Its all inconsequential, easy stuff. the ADA guys are just exaggerating the changes-typical incompetence.

[Kartik]

Had HAL maintained a database of all the items it has put together, the country by now would have had the built-up capability to manufacture the Tejas Mk-I and Mk-II on the run

A database? Like a bill of materials? Why does Karnad believe that HAL hasn't kept a "database" of what it manufactures? And in any case, how is something of that sort of any help in manufacturing the Tejas?

because, if you keep a database of all the items that are part of the licence assembly of a MiG-27, MiG-21, Su-30MKI, etc. you automatically gain design knowledge.

actually, all you gain is a list of what dimensions and what materials are used and to what tolerances. Nothing more than that. cannot see what his point really was. if I know what comprises a pump on a MiG-27, does that imply that I have gained the engineering acumen to design one from scratch? Not necessarily- but does it give me some insights into approaches that have been adopted to solve engineering issues? yes- it may. for instance, based on the operating environment that part had to work in, what material was used and what gauge of material. That's just an insight though. designers and stress analysts still need to do it all on their own.

So the Tejas is a scam, the Arjun is a scam, all those missiles that were painstakingly developed and put into service were scams. If writing sophisticated software is all that DRDO is good for, why not outsource to job to Infosys instead? We could even package it as another CBM for Pakistan, along with getting rid of the Prithvi missiles and disbanding the strike corps.

Someone like Karnad should know better than to spout nonsense like a rank amateur.

Its extremely demoralising for those working on those programs as well. We have far too many individuals who're looking to score self-goals in India. Every week, a new one emerges.

[member_20292]

It is wonderful to see how a few armchair generals can give fundas to people who have been doing this stuff for ages...

[Kartik]

It's funny - just a couple of weeks ago, he was going all ga-ga over the Tejas, going so far as to say

A viable alternative [to the MMRCA] is available in the Mark-II version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) — its design fits the bill of an MMRCA and it is already undergoing wind tunnel testing. Not only is its 4.5-generation avionics suite common with that of the MK-I, but at its heart lies a ready-to-use AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar developed in collaboration with Israel that is comparable to that on the Rafale, except that the Thales RBE2 AESA radar for the Rafale is to be fully developed with the monies deposited by India!

With the larger air intake and the slight upward curvature of its wingtip, Mk-II Tejas, experts believe, has a better angle of attack (in excess of 28 degrees) with heavier payload than what Rafale can manage. The larger, three-metre longer, version of the Mk-I LCA, able to carry a bigger weapon load (five tons for Mk-II to Rafale’s stated six tons, which will be lesser because the European ambient conditions it is built for don’t obtain here), and has similar range, about 600 kms, and can be inducted into service in less time than the Rafale will take to roll out of HAL lines. Further, with a cranked-arrow delta wing with canards, the Mk-II will be superior to the Rafale in manoeuvrability. The basic Tejas Mk-I is already entering Limited Series Production (LSP) as prelude to full production. It will not be difficult to speedily establish a separate development and production line for Mk-II. In fact, HAL has shown confidence to reject European offers of help to set up the Tejas production infrastructure.

Picking home-grown products will also permit the rationalisation of IAF’s force structure — ridding it of its inventory of aircraft so diverse it has created a logistics nightmare. The Mk-I Tejas, as planned, can fill the air defence role, and the Mk-II variant can more than adequately meet the medium-range interdiction and strike role of the MMRCA. Because Tejas Mk-I and Mk-II are locally built, there will be capacity for surge production to meet any spike in the demand for spares, freeing the IAF from the constraints imposed by foreign suppliers that have always affected its operations.

So what two weeks ago was a potentially better fighter than the Rafale is today nothing but a scam. The same HAL that brought the Tejas to the cusp of series production, and has even rejected European offers to help set up production infrastructure, is today derided as being "criminally negligent" and accused of being unable to even maintain a "database of all the items it has put together".

So which one is it? Karnad really needs to make up his mind before he goes off on another rant.

I don't know what Bharat Karnad was smoking when he wrote that article on the Mk2/Rafale/MRCA..half the info there seems wrong. And to think that in such a short while, he turns around and starts attacking the DRDO, HAL ,etc. after first offering them as the solution for the IAF's ills..weird to say the least.

[member_23657]

A viable alternative [to the MMRCA] is available in the Mark-II version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) — its design fits the bill of an MMRCA and it is already undergoing wind tunnel testing. Not only is its 4.5-generation avionics suite common with that of the MK-I, but at its heart lies a ready-to-use AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar developed in collaboration with Israel that is comparable to that on the Rafale, except that the Thales RBE2 AESA radar for the Rafale is to be fully developed with the monies deposited by India!

With the larger air intake and the slight upward curvature of its wingtip, Mk-II Tejas, experts believe, has a better angle of attack (in excess of 28 degrees) with heavier payload than what Rafale can manage. The larger, three-metre longer, version of the Mk-I LCA, able to carry a bigger weapon load (five tons for Mk-II to Rafale’s stated six tons, which will be lesser because the European ambient conditions it is built for don’t obtain here, and has similar range, about 600 kms, and can be inducted into service in less time than the Rafale will take to roll out of HAL lines. Further, with a cranked-arrow delta wing with canards, the Mk-II will be superior to the Rafale in manoeuvrability. The basic Tejas Mk-I is already entering Limited Series Production (LSP) as prelude to full production. It will not be difficult to speedily establish a separate development and production line for Mk-II. In fact, HAL has shown confidence to reject European offers of help to set up the Tejas production infrastructure.

Picking home-grown products will also permit the rationalisation of IAF’s force structure — ridding it of its inventory of aircraft so diverse it has created a logistics nightmare. The Mk-I Tejas, as planned, can fill the air defence role, and the Mk-II variant can more than adequately meet the medium-range interdiction and strike role of the MMRCA. Because Tejas Mk-I and Mk-II are locally built, there will be capacity for surge production to meet any spike in the demand for spares, freeing the IAF from the constraints imposed by foreign suppliers that have always affected its operations.

I don't know if Mr Karnad was in his senses when he wrote, what i call a "funny article"

avionics suite common with that of the MK-I

I don't know how much research has gone into this from Mr Karnad, But as far as I remember, there are upgraded avionics and mission computer with a health monitoring system along with the new AESA radar as the heart of MK-II's avionics.

but at its heart lies a ready-to-use AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar developed in collaboration with Israel that is comparable to that on the Rafale,except that the Thales RBE2 AESA radar for the Rafale is to be fully developed with the monies deposited by India!

I don't know when Thales or Elta&DRDO released the specs of their radar to him.. Radar specs are the top most secret of an Aircraft.

heavier payload than what Rafale can manage

now you got to be kidding me...

The larger, three-metre longer, version of the Mk-I LCA, able to carry a bigger weapon load (five tons for Mk-II to Rafale’s stated six tons, which will be lesser because the European ambient conditions it is built for don’t obtain here

MK-I is 13.2mts and MK-II is 13.7mts.. the difference is 0.5mts.. If you really don't get this then please go back to school.....

Further, with a cranked-arrow delta wing with canards, the Mk-II will be superior to the Rafale in manoeuvrability

Because the LCA is a small aircraft and the limited landing gear profile made to suit its short fuselage..., the wings were to be located higher to carry the payloads making it a bottom heavy aircraft.. do you know the limitations of this design Mr. karnad?? Rafale is a far more balanced aircraft with better maneuverability compared to LCA in its current MK-II profile.. if you change the profile then it is a new aircraft and not LCA anymore..

Though we have freedom of speech in our country, IMHO I think all these foreign sponsored journos and journos who pass on wrong information should be charged with treason and should be punished appropriately..

[Sanku]

I don't know what Bharat Karnad was smoking when he wrote that article on the Mk2/Rafale/MRCA..half the info there seems wrong. And to think that in such a short while, he turns around and starts attacking the DRDO, HAL ,etc. after first offering them as the solution for the IAF's ills..weird to say the least.

Bharat Karnad btw, has been doing this to Jingos for a while, from advocating TN tests to suggesting Prithvi's not be targeted at Pakistan.

--------------------------

In general -- and not to Kartik per se.

However the trend (recently) on BRF of deciding how much to like a person based on how closely his utterances aligned to currently popular ideology and taking a person for a hit or miss is bane of any content based discussion.

Agreeing or disagreeing with Bharat Karnad, is one thing, deciding to handle all his work because one or two parts do not align with what people would like to hear is not very interesting.

Of course there are people in 1 or 0 category, like Ajai Shukla in his latest avatar, but mostly, it would make sense to judge a writing on the merits of each article, and in fact each point.

[vic]

LCA is where Arjun was in 2005, Army pretended to adopt it while undermining it every step of the way. Hail!! CCCP- Corrupt Cowardly Congress Party. IAF cannot ignore LCA if their is political danda. Services are getting away asking for imports due to political blessing.

[eklavya]

IAF cannot ignore LCA if there is political danda.

IAF has ordered 40 LCA Mk 1. How many delivered?

[Misraji]

LCA is where Arjun was in 2005, Army pretended to adopt it while undermining it every step of the way. Hail!! CCCP- Corrupt Cowardly Congress Party. IAF cannot ignore LCA if their is political danda. Services are getting away asking for imports due to political blessing.

vlc, please post in-depth analysis with facts and figures in bulleted points or desist from painting organizations with broad strokes.
Your one-liners make a mockery of complex issues and completely derail the thread.
Since this is your general attitude in every thread, your post has been reported.

--Ashish

[Surya]

Sanku said

However the trend (recently) on BRF of deciding how much to like a person based on how closely his utterances aligned to currently popular ideology and taking a person for a hit or miss is bane of any content based discussion.

Agreeing or disagreeing with Bharat Karnad, is one thing, deciding to handle all his work because one or two parts do not align with what people would like to hear is not very interesting.

then followed by

Of course there are people in 1 or 0 category, like Ajai Shukla in his latest avatar, but mostly, it would make sense to judge a writing on the merits of each article, and in fact each point.

with no comments

[Mihir]

But Shukla is a Track-Two-Traitor™ bought and paid for by BoeingISILockheedAmanKiAsha LLC, ja? Karnad is, well, Karnad. Bas naam hi kafi hai

[Mihir]

actually, all you gain is a list of what dimensions and what materials are used and to what tolerances. Nothing more than that. cannot see what his point really was. if I know what comprises a pump on a MiG-27, does that imply that I have gained the engineering acumen to design one from scratch? Not necessarily- but does it give me some insights into approaches that have been adopted to solve engineering issues? yes- it may. for instance, based on the operating environment that part had to work in, what material was used and what gauge of material. That's just an insight though. designers and stress analysts still need to do it all on their own.

Exactly! I've worked on optimizing/reconfiguring complex mechanical and electrical systems that were built years ago. These systems were nowhere near as complex as aeroplanes, and we had all the design documents, change orders, operation and maintenance manuals, etc. available. Yet, it was a whirling son of a female canine to figure out what the thought process of the designers was and why they specified things the way they did. Like you said, all we got were a few insights into the approaches adopted. There have been times when we made a tiny change somewhere, it led to all sorts of problems with blinking red lights and shrill alarms going off everywhere, and we went, "Aha! That's why they did such and such, those cheeky fracking bastids!". It isn't very pleasant when that happened, but it was the only way we could actually understand why things were designed the way they were.

I can only imagine how difficult the same process would be in the case of fighter aircraft. To think that simply "studying" a Russian fighter would allow HAL/ADA to design one from scratch is laughable. For that to happen, you would need to have in place an aggressive reverse engineering program with all interested parties on board with the effort from the very beginning. The vision would have to come from the IAF, and they would need to permanently assign aircraft from the existing fleet to such a program. The Russians/French/British would be sure to raise a hue and cry over licensing, and the GoI would require the fortitude to stare them down and insulate HAL and ADA from the consequences. And then the engineers would actually have to do the legwork to reverse engineer those planes or at least try out new technologies on them. And lastly, everyone involved would have to be prepared to deal with frustration, failure, and cost and time overruns while the results trickled through.

But who has time for all that, eh? It's easier to ask HAL and ADA to work in a vacuum with everyone else just looking on with hands in their pockets waiting for a fighter to magically appear from some database. This post by vina needs to be made a sticky and quoted every time such geniuses come crawling out of the woodwork.

[Victor]

The "ring-like component" is what transfers engine thrust to the airframe. If you enlarged it's internal diameter, you would have built yourself the world's first self-ejecting jet engine,

Very cute but way off course. The engine is not mounted to the airframe via this "ring-like component" or even a series of rings as you appear to suggest. They don't transfer the engine thrust to the airframe and are not part of the load path. The engine is connected to the airframe by struts at a surprisingly few points and is designed to be swapped out in a matter of minutes by field mechanics. These struts connect the airframe to the engine's "static" structure (independent of fuel system, fans, compressors) that actually transfers the inertial and gyroscopic forces to the airframe. Most modern jet engines are like this, including the Kaveri.

The F414 uses newer materials including graphite composites to save weight but basically maintains the same proven structure and mounting arrangement as the F404 since it is pretty much the same size by design, being a low-risk upgrade of the 404. The F-18 also transitioned from 404 to 414 but ended up as essentially a new aircraft being 25% bigger and carrying 33% more fuel for exactly the same reasons that AM Rajkumar was suggesting. The LCA2's F414(INS6) is more powerful than the stock 414 in current Super Hornets.

[vina]

Guys, I told ya, this thread is effectively "Sankufied", by this Victor troll, who I think is either a Panda drone or a Paki form the def n dumb or key publishing forum where those kind of characters abound.

Mods, please put this Victor character out of his misery , or restrict his wisdom (whizz dumb?) to the armor thread which is already Sankufied and hopefully th other threads retain sanity.

For other folks here interested in engg, have you wondered how is that that the bamboo, which is one of the strongest and most efficient structures out there works? One part is that the bamboo skin is a multilayered composite, the other is the bamboo node, which like a bulkhead in a ship gives strength.

As an experiment , take a length of bamboo , knock out a few nodes from inside , keeping he shell intact and now try bend it and twist it like a bamboo with the nodes intact and see the difference. The aircraft fuselage (as also the ship hull) is like a bamboo shell, and the ring stiffeners (and bulkheads on ships and planes) are like the nodes. Now knock off the ring stiffeners by shaving 3 in off each like this worthy wants and you will have a Raakit Mard/ Mr Wang lacking stiffness to raise it and no amount of Tiger Pxnis soup or Vxagra will get it up!

[NRao]

One can use google, or misuse google or abuse google.

[arijitkm]

Kadet Defence Systems: India's first company to win defence deals for aerial targets

In March 2008, during the joint military exercise, Operation Brazen Chariots, in Rajasthan's Pokhran desert, radar-guided OSA-AK mid-range missiles blasted a Javelin 100NG aerial target into smithereens. That was a moment of validation for Avdesh Khaitan, who had abandoned his law practice with a family-owned firm the previous year to pursue his childhood hobby of aeromodelling.


If the targets made by his fledgling company hadn't performed well at the tests, his plan to build a business out of his childhood interest would have crashed in the desert. The targets performed just fine and two years later, Khaitan's Kadet Defence Systems became the first Indian company to win a defence ministry contract for aerial targets. Now, as the applications of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles are growing exponentially in the defence and aerospace sector, Khaitan is trying to build on his early success.

"The Air Force and Navy have announced plans to buy more than 500 aerial targets in the next three years. We are the only Indian company that has already supplied to the military and our products have been found to be reliable and cost-effective. So we have some basis to expect that we can win more business and grow rapidly," Khaitan said.

Aerial targets are a niche area within the large defence sector. To provide high-quality training for fighter pilots and anti-aircraft gunners and to test the effectiveness of radar and missile systems, the armed forces need aerial targets that can simulate incoming aircraft, missiles or remotely piloted vehicles. In order to closely simulate battle scenarios, these targets should be able to achieve speeds close to that of real missiles or fighter jets and should also be able to simulate jamming and evasive capabilities of such systems. India imported such targets and limited budgets used to mean limited training.

After the Pokhran nuclear tests in 1998, the US-imposed sanctions meant India had difficulty importing sophisticated aerial targets. Some low-tech alternatives were also in use. These included dropping an oil barrel attached to a parachute from an airplane or an older propellor-based airplane flying with a tethered sleeve.

In the late 1980s, Northrop's KD2R5 Shelduck target drone began to be used. India's Defence Research and Development Organization also developed an unmanned system called Lakshya, which also uses a tethered sleeve. But Lakshyas are relatively expensive to operate and needs additional resources for recovery of the mother vehicle.

Khaitan's company delivered the first batch of its JX2 (propellor-based) unmanned aerial targets in December last year. These can achieve speeds up to 0.2 Mach. Kadet's JX3 is a jet turbine powered UAV and can touch 0.5 Mach. He sources engines from Germany and builds the systems in his Kolkata factory. The expendable systems are cost effective, starting at Rs 1 lakh per unit for the JX2.

"The important thing for aerial targets is to be able to simulate enemy aircraft, incoming missiles or remotely operated vehicles. Kadet's systems are effective and the users seem to be happy with them. It is used to provide real-time training to our gunners. Otherwise such training is difficult and expensive," said Brigadier (retd) Arun Sahgal, director at the Forum for Strategic Initiative.

Khaitan wants to move to other UAV applications apart from aerial targets. It has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Aerospace Laboratory to jointly develop advanced UAVs. His team of 15 - mostly engineers - is also working on UAVs for applications such as surveillance, hyper spectral imagery (applications in agriculture, mines and minerals) and GIS (geographical information system) mapping.

With aerial target orders worth several hundred crores in the pipeline for India's armed forces, Khaitan has ambitious plans for his small firm.

[Mihir]

Most modern jet engines are like this, including the Kaveri.

Of course, saar! Very true, saar! I bow to thy superior knowledge. Yes, let's increase the internal diameter of "ring-like structures" all over. In fact, let's do away with them all together. Save on weight and put in some extra fuel. And with the F414 being of the same diameter as the F404, it should be very easy onlee. As it is, the "entire fuselage is hanging below the wing", which makes the job all the more easy.

The F-18 also transitioned from 404 to 414 but ended up as essentially a new aircraft being 25% bigger and carrying 33% more fuel for exactly the same reasons that AM Rajkumar was suggesting. The LCA2's F414(INS6) is more powerful than the stock 414 in current Super Hornets.

Dude, for the love of ooparwallah, please stop repeating that rubbish. Yes, the Super Bug is larger than the plain ol' Bug. But that is because it had to meet increased payload and range requirements. Remember, it was initially intended to be a replacement not for the F/A-18C/D, but the A-6 Intruder. McDonnell Douglas designed a larger airframe with greater wing area to enable it to carry a greater payload. That in turn necessitated an increase in engine thrust, which is why the F414 was chosen. The other objective was greater range. The fuel carrying capacity was increased so that the platform had greater range, and not just because the new engine consumed more fuel, as you suggest. They would have had to increase it even if they had persisted with the old F404 engines.

Now ask yourself this: If the F414 is essentially the same size as the F404, how is it that it delivers more thrust while being more fuel efficient and even consuming less fuel in certain flight regimes? Could it be (gasp!) that the airflow requirements of the newer engine have gone up? Is that why the Super Hornet has a wider fuselage and a larger intake than the Plain Ol' Hornet ? Could that (along with the greater diameter of the new engine) also be the reason the Tejas Mk.2 is meant to have a wider intake, and therefore, a wider fuselage, which pushes the wings out?

[Sanku]

Sanku said

However the trend (recently) on BRF of deciding how much to like a person based on how closely his utterances aligned to currently popular ideology and taking a person for a hit or miss is bane of any content based discussion.

Agreeing or disagreeing with Bharat Karnad, is one thing, deciding to handle all his work because one or two parts do not align with what people would like to hear is not very interesting.

then followed by

Of course there are people in 1 or 0 category, like Ajai Shukla in his latest avatar, but mostly, it would make sense to judge a writing on the merits of each article, and in fact each point.

with no comments

But obviously Surya, that was the whole point.

[Surya]

Sanku

I think you miss the whole point of you being the one making the whole point!!!

Now I sound like you !!!!

[Sanku]

Sanku

I think you miss the whole point of you being the one making the whole point!!!

Now I sound like you !!!!

Why would I be needed to be made aware of the point that I am the one making the point given that I am well aware that I am making that point?

Beat that.

[Victor]

Kadet Defence Systems: India's first company to win defence deals for aerial targets

Thanks for posting this. Excellent effort from this guy, a fellow aeromodeller! Some of his other products show a high level of originality. Nice to see him being supported by IAF and IN:

uav

target

surveillance

[Surya]

Why would I be needed to be made aware of the point that I am the one making the point given that I am well aware that I am making that point?

Beat that

.

Nah I surrender. Still have enough faculty left to not go down the Sanku warrenhole

[Misraji]

Nah I surrender. Still have enough faculty left to not go down the Sanku warrenhole

Surya-ji. You should be careful, what both I and you know as good natured ribbing is useful for any number of losers who prefer to use personal attacks by losers who cant debate on data.

--Ashish

[Indranil]

Excellent effort from this guy, a fellow aeromodeller! Some of his other products show a high level of originality. Nice to see him being supported by IAF and IN:

uav

target

surveillance

As much as I love his endeavor, I can't give him points for originality. Ofcourse, he doesn't claim it either. The Vigilant is actually a product of UTSL/UAVSI. The targt drone that you have published here is actually the MSAT 500NG also from UTSL.

But I am really waiting for what comes out of the NAL-Mou for the UAV based on Hansa.

[member_23455]

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... s-air-base

Didn't the PAF lose an F-16 to a wild boar in the 80s?

[Sanku]

Nah I surrender. Still have enough faculty left to not go down the Sanku warrenhole

Surya-ji. You should be careful, what both I and you know as good natured ribbing is useful for any number of losers who prefer to use personal attacks by losers who cant debate on data.

--Ashish

Yes Ashish ji, the above is a good example of that approach.

[Austin]

Nice info on HAL Do 228 with Glass Cockpit

Glass cockpit for Dornier 228

[Austin]

Pilot Training: HJT-36 , Pilatus
MiG-29UPG delivers