'Make in India' Single engined fighter

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 25 Aug 2017 19:35

IMO India should develop a co-production agreement with GE for the F-136 injin. The first 1000 can power the LCA fleet maybe with some fuselage mods.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 25 Aug 2017 19:42

Jokes apart it is a good idea. F136 is orphan and on Death bed. We should reconfigure AMCA and also launch LCA Mark3 equivalent of F35, both using F136.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Aug 2017 19:44

F136 is not on a death bed, it IS DEAD (killed in late 2011) with the stop work issued by the US DOD, disbanding of the partnership and the primary OEM having moved on to other R&D/S&T contracted investments (ADVENT, AETD & AETP).

Turning the AMCA into a twin engined aircraft with a combined thrust north of 350 kN?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Aug 2017 20:22

UlanBatori wrote:IMO India should develop a co-production agreement with GE for the F-136 injin. The first 1000 can power the LCA fleet maybe with some fuselage mods.

18 pylon Tejas :

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 25 Aug 2017 21:41

brar_w wrote:F136 is not on a death bed, it IS DEAD (killed in late 2011) with the stop work issued by the US DOD, disbanding of the partnership and the primary OEM having moved on to other R&D/S&T contracted investments (ADVENT, AETD & AETP). Turning the AMCA into a twin engined aircraft with a combined thrust north of 350 kN?

All excellent reasons to buy it. The technology is still there going a-begging. A similar thing happened to the Northrop G-20. beautiful airplane, I have a model on the wall. Sold to Taiwan air fauj.

Before the Pentagon terminated the program, six F136 development engines had accumulated more than 1,200 hr. of testing since early 2009.

Comparable to what India's 8 heroic GEF404 injins did in the LCA development phase, hain?

Twin-Spool, Augmented Turbofan; Length: 221 in (560 cm); Diameter: 48 in (120 cm); Compressor: Twin Spool/Counter Rotating/Axial Flow/Low Aspect Ratio; Combustors: Annular Combustor; Turbine: Axial Flow/Counter-Rotating; Maximum thrust: 40,000 lbf; 25,000 lbf without afterburner.
Fluorescent large GE sticker included free. Rolls Royce hood ornament extra upon request.

25000lbf is 111kN, hain? About 10 to 20% higher than present injun. MAY enable sustained Mach 1.5 supercruise. Or at full thrust, carry full weapon load plus a drop tank on raids to Kunming.
India could bring Rolls Royce and GE together for this deal.
Then again, it would be more fun to put out specs based on the GE Gen6 injun. Enables baboondoggles ((c) 2017) for the next 25 years until that becomes outdated.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Aug 2017 22:11

As a kid I used to draw fighter jets. When I grew up I realized they looked eerily similar to the F-20. The pencil thin fuselage with curves is beautiful indeed.

I have said this again and again and again.

1. Let LM, in conjunction with KAI or without, in conjunction with ADA or without, propose a KFX-E equivalent of the F-16. It is pretty low risk and can be accomplished in 3 years, or so. India will identify a private partner to produce 200 of these planes. I will shout my throat hoarse in support. Same thought as UB. It is a good practical and low-risk concept with no takers. We, and a vast majority of the world will require light and cheap 5-- gen aircraft. The middle and heavy weight fifth generations F-35s/AMCA/J-20s/F-22s/PAKFAs/KFX of the world won't come cheap. nor will they be cheap to maintain in numbers. Same light, medium, heavy disucssion.
2. Make AMCA the twin engine version based on the same engine, aka GE F-110 or PW F-100. It will also have scope for future growth. I don't know how much further the F404 can be stretched.

LM's offer right now is useless. It teaches us nothing new. We might as well save the money and get them imported directly from the current assembly line. It will be cheaper and faster.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 25 Aug 2017 22:26

F136 super technology and opportunity just lying there to be picked up. It would be wrong to miss this chance.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 25 Aug 2017 22:49

Thing to consider is what happens when cheen offers to buy the whole damn thing. How much will GE/RR protest their virtue?
Actually, cheen acqusition of that tech plus the F-35 (which they will soon get from the many foreign sales of that) would be the greatest boon to US aerospace industry and air force: sets off a nice arms race. Back to glory days of 1980s.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 25 Aug 2017 23:32

Problem is that after Rajiv Gandhi, we had no PM who is interested is large scale absorption of advanced technology. Worse, Modi has no technocrat like Pitroda, Kalam, Arunachalam in his close circle.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 26 Aug 2017 01:02

UlanBatori wrote:
Twin-Spool, Augmented Turbofan; Length: 221 in (560 cm); Diameter: 48 in (120 cm); Compressor: Twin Spool/Counter Rotating/Axial Flow/Low Aspect Ratio; Combustors: Annular Combustor; Turbine: Axial Flow/Counter-Rotating; Maximum thrust: 40,000 lbf; 25,000 lbf without afterburner.
Fluorescent large GE sticker included free. Rolls Royce hood ornament extra upon request.
25000lbf is 111kN, hain? About 10 to 20% higher than present injun. MAY enable sustained Mach 1.5 supercruise. Or at full thrust, carry full weapon load plus a drop tank on raids to Kunming.
India could bring Rolls Royce and GE together for this deal.
Then again, it would be more fun to put out specs based on the GE Gen6 injun. Enables baboondoggles ((c) 2017) for the next 25 years until that becomes outdated.

From Wikipedia

F 136:

Specifications

Data from[citation needed]
General characteristics

Type: Twin-Spool, Augmented Turbofan
Length: 221 in (560 cm)
Diameter: 48 in (120 cm)
Dry weight:

Components

Compressor: Twin Spool/Counter Rotating/Axial Flow/Low Aspect Ratio
Combustors: Annular Combustor
Turbine: Axial Flow/Counter-Rotating

Performance

Maximum thrust: 40,000 lbf; 25,000 lbf without afterburne

versus

Specifications (F404-GE-402)
General characteristics

Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)

Components

Compressor: Axial compressor with 3 fan and 7 compressor stages
Combustors: annular
Turbine: 1 low-pressure and 1 high-pressure stage

Performance

Maximum thrust:
11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) military thrust
17,700 lbf (78.7 kN) with afterburner
Overall pressure ratio: 26:1
Bypass ratio: 0.34:1
Specific fuel consumption:
Military thrust: 0.81 lb/(lbf·h) (82.6 kg/(kN·h))
Full afterburner: 1.74 lb/(lbf·h) (177.5 kg/(kN·h))
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 4.8:1 (dry), 7.8:1 (wet/afterburning) (76.0 N/kg)

UB ji F 136 is 13 inch more thicker diameter and 6 feet longer than F 404, would it take long time to redesign Tejas around such a thicker and longer engine?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Aug 2017 01:27

We should try to get it by all means, but going forward now that we have committed to the PAK-FA project as partners, we should work with Snecma to create an engine offering for it and AMCA. This is time to start on such a project. Time to completion 6-8 years from now. We can work on our own PAKFA with our own engine offering.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 26 Aug 2017 01:35

Good exercise in swift design iteration. LCA-M (for Mota). The added length (actually only 1.69m = 5.5 feet) is an issue, may require a longer landing gear strut. I don't know where the added diameter comes from - may only be the fan, in which case it could be downsized a bit. The big increase in length is a surprise: I wonder why that is needed at all. The core can't be that much longer, it must be the a/b duct. Brarji might speculate on that. Most of that may be a/b length?
Anyway, airframe designers need to get over the hangup on dimensions. Nothing magic about it. From Wikipurana:

The fan of the F414 is larger than that of the F404, but smaller than the fan for the F412.[3] The larger fan section increases airflow mass by 16% and is 5 inches (13 cm) longer. To keep the engine in the F404's footprint, the afterburner section was shortened by 4 in (10 cm) and the combustor shortened by 1 in (2.5 cm).

So u c that the 414 is already a downrated 412, just to match the 404.

Grow the aft fuselage a bit. Put a few more mijjiles around the front for area-ruling. The a/b may be again shortened a bit if needed. because there is plenty of thrust without it. Give it a TFTA landing gear. Now it becomes better suited to the ski-jump naval requirement as well.

OTOH, if the LCA can accommodate a tandem seat, surely it can accommodate a longer engine instead.

Anyway it might be a good time to develop a hard discussion here (given new participants/observers) on the whole engine development issue.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 26 Aug 2017 01:49

Picture is old and may be garbage but:

U c that most of that length is a/b. Might be possible to shorten by bringing in some combustion whizzes from the Eye-eye-tee: it's a matter of faster mixing etc.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 26 Aug 2017 01:58

The other thing to do is to change the fuselage so that the injun can be installed/removed from below rather than slid in the back end (don't know if that's already the case, but I think on F-15s the engine has to be put in from the back end. Remove the constraint that fuselage diameter cannot be less than fan casing etc diameter.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Aug 2017 02:51

^wouldn't fuselage structural strength be impacted by mounting engine from the bottom?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Aug 2017 07:51

This stupid deal was a direct result of one of MPs bad decisions. He decided that the Rafale was too expensive, Dassault obdurate and the previous one was fixed, so he bypassed the Rafale entirely and left another logistical mess for the IAF to handle on his way to Goa. High time we standardized on the LCA, Rafale, FGFA and AMCA and dropped this charade.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Aug 2017 08:25

UlanBatori wrote:The other thing to do is to change the fuselage so that the injun can be installed/removed from below rather than slid in the back end (don't know if that's already the case, but I think on F-15s the engine has to be put in from the back end. Remove the constraint that fuselage diameter cannot be less than fan casing etc diameter.

It is from the bottom on LCAs.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Aug 2017 11:26

The way forward for the LCA is through a bigger engine but at this point, it might be better to just go for the AMCA. Either powered by kaveri out 414.

An additional 100+ LCA should be bought asap though.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 26 Aug 2017 17:32

Faithfuls, the GE f414 info says that only 99 have been ordered by HAL. That seems to put a firm upper limit on $ of LCAs, hain? Unless Kaveri-snecma powers a lot more?
Indranilji, bottom-access seems to alleviate the diameter problem. Length is still an issue for combustion ppl to shorten the afterburner. I have noo idea what a "radial augmentor" is (GE F136 jargon).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Aug 2017 17:57

The 99 Engines have never been ordered. Their were talks to order 99 but the order was never completed.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 26 Aug 2017 18:02

I think we should give up the hangup of developing the smallest fighter or to develop a fighter smaller than PAKFA. We should consider PAKFA as a stop gap arrangement and develop a Single Engined and a twin Engined aircraft in the category of F-35 and F-22 using F136 as the base engine.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 26 Aug 2017 18:30

No stealth-ftealth for me. I want a bomb truck TejasM (Mota) , powered by f136 :

Just a little correction in shape of wings and canopy (exactly as Tejas Mk 1) . 18 pylons with multiple racks dropping Garuthma, Spice and Sudarshan bombs raining on haji peer pass , skardu & northern Dharamsala.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Aug 2017 18:34

Guys, this is SE thread. Kindly continue discussions of Tejas and F-136 engines in the Tejas thread.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 26 Aug 2017 18:59

F136 is IDEAL for SEF, hain? Being FutureWare? Unless SEF must wait for '6-G injin' which is vaporware now? Otherwise MaIN SEF has the same engine problem as LCA unless of course it just GIN (Glue In India) 100% india-genius glue with 99.9999% imported parts like F-16 BS-70-minus (no modern engine promised with F16)

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 26 Aug 2017 19:14

Indranil wrote:...
LM's offer right now is useless. It teaches us nothing new. We might as well save the money and get them imported directly from the current assembly line. It will be cheaper and faster.

The LM offer was in response to MII. They would be delighted to export new build F-16s from the US and they would be cheaper. But that's not what Modi ^&Co want. They want to show defense spending creates jobs in India.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 26 Aug 2017 19:33

@Viv S: Yeah I know, that's why wet dreams (unobtainable objects) remain...wet.

One thing we should all be clear on in the MII scenario is that the primary objective (from GoI's POV) is the number of Indian jobs NOT ToT. We seem to be conflating the two.

You are right on FACO=Maintenance opportunities. I said this many moons ago in the JSF-Turkey thread. If GoI ordered a substantial number of F35s on a FACO basis, India would be sitting pretty on servicing F35s even the USN ones. Thinks gaskets, seals---wear items. Phenomenal margins.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Aug 2017 22:27

Cosmo_R wrote:
Indranil wrote:...
LM's offer right now is useless. It teaches us nothing new. We might as well save the money and get them imported directly from the current assembly line. It will be cheaper and faster.
The LM offer was in response to MII. They would be delighted to export new build F-16s from the US and they would be cheaper. But that's not what Modi ^&Co want. They want to show defense spending creates jobs in India.

Politically, that might make sense. Technologically or economically or strategically (expediency) wise it doesn't.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Aug 2017 22:34

UlanBatori wrote:Faithfuls, the GE f414 info says that only 99 have been ordered by HAL. That seems to put a firm upper limit on $ of LCAs, hain? Unless Kaveri-snecma powers a lot more?
Indranilji, bottom-access seems to alleviate the diameter problem. Length is still an issue for combustion ppl to shorten the afterburner. I have noo idea what a "radial augmentor" is (GE F136 jargon).

That order was never placed. and what have I done to deserve a "ji"?

I like the idea of Tejas-M. But IMVVHO, F136 is a bit too mota. They would have to redo the fuselage and enlarge the wings. That's new plane altogether. But these days airframes come cheap (3 years of design + first build + 3-4 years of envelop expansion). The systems are the big deal.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Aug 2017 22:36

You can influence what a foreign OEM or Government offers by framing specific requirements that mandate a certain level of strategic contribution towards an end goal. The South Koreans did that with their F-35 purchase, and while they did not get access to each and every strategic technology they demanded towards their KF-X program they did get plenty of stuff and assistance. As Cosmo points out the SEF seems to be focused on manufacturing and not TOT as was the case with the MMRCA. I would think linking the SEF with efforts currently being pursued under DTTI makes more sense as UBji also points out vis-a-vis engine technology and partnerships. The way it is structured there is significant duplication of capability being purchased when one looks at the Rafale, the LCA and the Su-30 that the IAF already operates or has on order.

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Aug 2017 23:22

^ Again that is a very bookish point good in theory but will not work practically, Americans work with every country differently they worked with Iran back when their interests aligned Iran even had the tomcats in service to say oh Soko KF-x program benefited with American help and so can ours is very very cursory reading of things . SoKo is an American poodle so is Japan these countries literally toe the American line in every sphere so they will always get a kind of treatment from POTUS which India cannot unless we too bend the knee had it not been for TSP's uncontrolled hate for India which caused them to literally become a PITA for even the Americans they the military aid to TSP would have continued at a pre-Pressler era level.

I personally do not think we should talk about any 5th or 6th generation technology that is like people who do not know how to make a simple application talk about deploying a state of the art application employing containerized microservices ha sounds cool and ppt material but it won't happen. Good part about science and technology is if someone is stuck at solving a 'problem' no amount of shortcuts can help him 'circumvent' that problem unless 'importing' is considered an acceptable solution even if someone helps someone solve a problem it does not necessarily mean that one has 'understood' the problem (that is what ToTs do they are like cheat codes will help you for an 'exam' but if question changes the next time one will get stuck again) . I for one refuse to believe that we can get to any 5th or 5+++ Gen AC along with a F-136 class engine without solving the issues with Kaveri and the Tejas . People who cannot finish what they start will never finish anything else which they plan to start.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Aug 2017 23:26

That is the whole point. SEF, and actually investing in a duplicate capability should provide some strategic benefit and if not, it should be set aside. Buy more Rafale's or simply involve private industry in the LCA assembly process. But there is no need to pursue DTTI and MII SEF acquisition strategy independent of each other when buying capability that already exists in the current IAF setup.

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Aug 2017 23:51

When it comes to any military platform the fundamental thing to keep in mind imho is one should build as per one's capabilities and not as per one's dreams ; latter are good for science projects so yes I would love to have lot of Skunk Work type labs working on whatever is the latest in a given field ; however nations that have won wars in recent times among many other things have done one thing very well they built their weapons around their strengths and weaknesses they were able to design, develop and field weapons even within the 4 year old window of the WW-II . Here we are looking at latest and greatest from a country that has been making AC since day and age when none in India had even seen an AC leave alone touched it; from my personal knowledge of building products probably 100 times simpler than an AC I can say we are setting ourselves for a failure because it is good to aim that high when you are doing scientific research because learning is invaluable , data gathered is invaluable however when the objective is to build a war machine then one has to work within timelines ; in my limited knowledge research and timelines do not go well together . I am sure if the team that worked on the Tejas is told to redo the thing again they will make a much better and capable fighter in probably half the time however we won't ask them to do that (that would be H&D loss , no ?) instead we will ask them now we want a F-22 like fighter and then the team will obviously embark upon a 3-5 year journey of discovery , material research and god knows what ; forces cannot wait and won't wait so they will import and then when we will finally make a 5th Gen fighter services will be reluctant to induct for reasons we have been always hearing i.e. logistics, manufacturing problems (because remember we never solved that problem with the Tejas we wanted to start a new science project) etc etc.

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Aug 2017 00:47

negi wrote:When it comes to any military platform the fundamental thing to keep in mind imho is one should build as per one's capabilities and not as per one's dreams ; latter are good for science projects so yes I would love to have lot of Skunk Work type labs working on whatever is the latest in a given field ; however nations that have won wars in recent times among many other things have done one thing very well they built their weapons around their strengths and weaknesses they were able to design, develop and field weapons even within the 4 year old window of the WW-II . Here we are looking at latest and greatest from a country that has been making AC since day and age when none in India had even seen an AC leave alone touched it; from my personal knowledge of building products probably 100 times simpler than an AC I can say we are setting ourselves for a failure because it is good to aim that high when you are doing scientific research because learning is invaluable , data gathered is invaluable however when the objective is to build a war machine then one has to work within timelines ; in my limited knowledge research and timelines do not go well together . I am sure if the team that worked on the Tejas is told to redo the thing again they will make a much better and capable fighter in probably half the time however we won't ask them to do that (that would be H&D loss , no ?) instead we will ask them now we want a F-22 like fighter and then the team will obviously embark upon a 3-5 year journey of discovery , material research and god knows what ; forces cannot wait and won't wait so they will import and then when we will finally make a 5th Gen fighter services will be reluctant to induct for reasons we have been always hearing i.e. logistics, manufacturing problems (because remember we never solved that problem with the Tejas we wanted to start a new science project) etc etc.

but what if your armed forces build doctrines around the capabilities that are simply not present in India? Unlike the Navy that has a ground up on the R&D in India, the air force and Army are still not there, yet

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Aug 2017 00:47

and hence the Air Force wants more Rafales and Army would need more T90s!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Aug 2017 05:04

Indranil wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:
.....
Politically, that might make sense. Technologically or economically or strategically (expediency) wise it doesn't.

Yes. But Indian politics is always about winning the next election. It's a 24x7x365 preoccupation at the expense of accountability and governance for which there is little time. There is zero time for strategic thinking economic or military. It's all populist.

Those are the constraints within which we must frame our security policies. Ain't easy and no guarantees that we will make the right choice ...in time.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Aug 2017 05:46

brar_w wrote:That is the whole point. SEF, and actually investing in a duplicate capability should provide some strategic benefit and if not, it should be set aside. Buy more Rafale's or simply involve private industry in the LCA assembly process. But there is no need to pursue DTTI and MII SEF acquisition strategy independent of each other when buying capability that already exists in the current IAF setup.

Exactly. Right now each stakeholder (IAF/moD/PMO/GoI) seems to be backing different outcomes from narrow vantages.

samirdiw · Post by **samirdiw** » 27 Aug 2017 05:51

negi wrote:When it comes to any military platform the fundamental thing to keep in mind imho is one should build as per one's capabilities and not as per one's dreams ; latter are good for science projects so yes I would love to have lot of Skunk Work type labs working on whatever is the latest in a given field ; however nations that have won wars in recent times among many other things have done one thing very well they built their weapons around their strengths and weaknesses they were able to design, develop and field weapons even within the 4 year old window of the WW-II . Here we are looking at latest and greatest from a country that has been making AC since day and age when none in India had even seen an AC leave alone touched it; from my personal knowledge of building products probably 100 times simpler than an AC I can say we are setting ourselves for a failure because it is good to aim that high when you are doing scientific research because learning is invaluable , data gathered is invaluable however when the objective is to build a war machine then one has to work within timelines ; in my limited knowledge research and timelines do not go well together . I am sure if the team that worked on the Tejas is told to redo the thing again they will make a much better and capable fighter in probably half the time, however, we won't ask them to do that (that would be H&D loss , no ?) instead we will ask them now we want a F-22 like fighter and then the team will obviously embark upon a 3-5 year journey of discovery , material research and god knows what ; forces cannot wait and won't wait so they will import and then when we will finally make a 5th Gen fighter services will be reluctant to induct for reasons we have been always hearing i.e. logistics, manufacturing problems (because remember we never solved that problem with the Tejas we wanted to start a new science project) etc etc.

well said. I think its time we have a full fledged defense self-sufficiency doctrine and the forces work around that.

For army every weaponry and subsystem other than those used by special forces to be made in India (from design onwards).

For air force other than the highest level aircraft and A-A missiles to counter the latest in the adversary everything to be made in India.

For Navy everything other than the missiles defending the boats (and maybe submarines) to be made in India.

The Indian companies can employ retired foreign scientists and managers if needed where gaps in know how exists.

We also perhaps need a separate Defense procurement and production ministry with the Defense ministry to focus on war fighting. The defense forces can give their requirement capability wise with a range and timeline and the Defense P&P ministry can provide them the necessary weaponry within that range which military will have to accept. The new ministry can also employ experts and retired personal as a committee which will also reduce any chance of defense forces tie up with the brokers. With no financial gains, the forces will not be that averse to Indian stuff anymore. We can then be a truly self reliant nation.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 27 Aug 2017 06:29

Ppl: What would u say if UBCNews reported that:
a) 36-plane Rafale deal was signed because HAL etc said flat-out to NaMo that if there was ToT, they could still not handle the technology needed to build Rafales in India.
b) Reason for F-16 line shifting to India has nothing to do with F-16 but with ToT for something completely different (maybe snow-boards for Siachen, as a diversionary example)
c) The original reason for the LCA program was phrased as "India agrees not develop ICBM because of MTCR, and as consolation US agrees to jointly develop an LCA with India" (it is true that this was the way that it was reported in those days). Now think what has happened since, and you may guess the rest of what I am not saying. BTW, in those days the line was that Agni was a conventional battlefield missile, the Surya was the fusion-bum ICBM. We don't hear much about Surya any more, wonder why.
So all these deep theses about philosophy re: MRCA, SEF etc, are perhaps unrelated to reality.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Aug 2017 10:09

UlanBatori wrote:Ppl: What would u say if UBCNews reported that:
a) 36-plane Rafale deal was signed because HAL etc said flat-out to NaMo that if there was ToT, they could still not handle the technology needed to build Rafales in India.
b) Reason for F-16 line shifting to India has nothing to do with F-16 but with ToT for something completely different (maybe snow-boards for Siachen, as a diversionary example)
c) The original reason for the LCA program was phrased as "India agrees not develop ICBM because of MTCR, and as consolation US agrees to jointly develop an LCA with India" (it is true that this was the way that it was reported in those days). Now think what has happened since, and you may guess the rest of what I am not saying. BTW, in those days the line was that Agni was a conventional battlefield missile, the Surya was the fusion-bum ICBM. We don't hear much about Surya any more, wonder why.
So all these deep theses about philosophy re: MRCA, SEF etc, are perhaps unrelated to reality.

A. Not surprising, such noises had come forth earlier that Hal supposedly couldn't handle Katrina.

B. Emals or 414? This is NRaos line of thought iirc

C. No thermonewkiller bum?

What Saar, Mongolian test is not so tuff phor aam Abdul on peearef. Bator needs to make spicier chana wonlee.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 27 Aug 2017 17:38

Well.. EZ to answer, no comment on correctness (anyway no confirmation. 4 all v no, answers may have been put out to see where they surface).