LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby UlanBatori » 25 Nov 2017 01:08

Supercruise (M1.1)
Really?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 25 Nov 2017 01:13

viveks wrote:Cant believe the IAF said that about the LCA. "Mig-21 better than LCA". What? And the aircraft testers compare and claim it to be better than the Mirage 2000. That must have made the faces of the aircraft makers red! :D :D


Rhetorical responses should not be taken seriously. I don't think that press folks understood that and printed verbatim.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 25 Nov 2017 01:32

UlanBatori wrote:
Supercruise (M1.1)
Really?


I know. I saw somewhere else >M1.2 for Gripen for SC. We have to give it to the swedes. They make everyone else look like a piece of sh!t compared to Gripen with their marketing.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 25 Nov 2017 01:32

JayS wrote:
shiv wrote:Could be that the news provider has the qualification BS, MS and PhD - Bullshit, More of Same and Piled Higher and deeper

What makes us believe "news" the minute we read it?



:rotfl: :rotfl:

No need to believe any news. One can be agnostic while enjoying the tamasha at the same time. All due to lack of any official info or transparency from GOI. Add to that shitty procurement process, and we have a fertile environment for all sort of misinformation and hypotheses. (In fact one can even argue authenticity of even an official press release, if one does not trust the office really :wink: .) Even some good hints can easily get lost in the noise. And clueless jingos are ready to cling on to any bit of info coming their way that suits their opinions (conformational biases), out of sheer frustration of lack of any credible info. Some simply want something to chew on so it doesn't really matter if its true or not until its good for some "passionate" discussions or to drive related points home. :wink:

That apart, I always thought when MP used to say we will have one SE and one TE fighters under MII, I always thought he meant by Naval requirement of TE fighter. That may not be correct assumption. It is "possible" that he was referring to IAF all the while. This is really the first time I have seen anyone mentioning TE fighter for IAF (Or I have seen it some time ago and do not remember it at all).


Saurav Jha had twitted it a while ago.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SJha1618/status/874246623127195649
Saurav Jha
@SJha1618
This @makeinindia single engine fighter competition is a waste of time & resources when IAF intends to float another 2-engine tender anyway.
10:46 PM · Jun 12, 2017

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 25 Nov 2017 01:34

^^ Well I missed it then. Thanks for the info.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 25 Nov 2017 01:35

Karan M wrote:So the IAF wants a parallel twin and single engine program? Where do they think the funds will come from?

Check the post above. Saurav Jha had twitted it a few months ago.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 25 Nov 2017 01:52

This is really getting bizarre. The MOD really takes a fair chunk of blame for not procceeding with either the Rafale or just starting a single unified process. The IAF also needs to be made aware, officially, that the budget is in fact limited as versus this whole fracas.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 25 Nov 2017 02:01

shiv wrote:
nam wrote:Sounds like IAF cannot forget M2K and Rafale. They want Rafale.

Could be that the news provider has the qualification BS, MS and PhD - Bullshit, More of Same and Piled Higher and deeper

What makes us believe "news" the minute we read it?



https://theprint.in/author/manu-pubby/
Manu Pubby

Image

68 POSTS

Manu Pubby is Deputy Editor at ThePrint. He writes on national security, defence affairs, terrorism and overall strategic environment. He is also a known investigative journalist. Manu has reported extensively on Jammu & Kashmir and the North-East. He has also reported on terrorism from Afghanistan, covered the 2011 revolution in Egypt and the 2012 transfer of power in Maldives. He is twice recipient of the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism, and has also been awarded the KC Kulish International Award for Investigative Journalism and the Press Council of India National Award for Investigative Journalism. Manu studied Journalism at Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. He can be reached at: manu.pubby@theprint.in Follow him on Twitter: @manupubby

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby UlanBatori » 25 Nov 2017 02:55

JayS wrote:
UlanBatori wrote: Really?


I know. I saw somewhere else >M1.2 for Gripen for SC. We have to give it to the swedes. They make everyone else look like a piece of sh!t compared to Gripen with their marketing.


That's awesome. Like, "let's make the strongest shock drag possible without going any faster". :rotfl:

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kakkaji » 25 Nov 2017 02:55

Parrikar had said that the IAF needs to procure both single and twin engine fighters. For the last 40 years we have had the Mig-21 fill the single engine role, and the Jaguar fill the twin-engine role. Their roles were not interchangeable. Both were (relatively) low-priced, (eventually) locally-produced, and were the workhorses of the IAF.

The two roles can in future arguably be filled by the LCA and the MKI. But, for some reason, the IAF does not want to bulk up on the LCA or buy any more MKIs. They are looking for western fighters in the single and twin engine roles, with a Make in India twist.

If they mix the single and twin engine requirement in one competition, then it will become another MMRCA farce. No way can a Gripen and a Rafale are comparable in cost and capability.

I think the new twist about 'specifying the capability instead of number of engines' is to let in the SEF competition aircraft like Mig-35 that, though having twin engines, are more comparable in capability to Gripen and F-16, than the Rafale and F-18.

I think the Indian militery procurement process, in trying to be the purest of the pure, has tied itself in such knots, that nothing can be procured in less than a decade's time, by which time it becomes obsolete and the exercise starts all over again. :roll:

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 25 Nov 2017 03:17

We need to make the shift from swEdes to swAdes

SiddharthS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 04 Sep 2017 15:45

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby SiddharthS » 25 Nov 2017 03:27

samirdiw wrote:
SiddharthS wrote:


Can't say I agree with this method of development though. It could lead to the product developer just creating some junk and the forces being forced to buy them.

Instead, let DRDO/ADA/HAL layout whatever features each block will have, get preapproved orders, and as long as those criteria are met then they have the pre-approval to manufacture without much red tape. This way DRDO is on the hook to meet their own roadmap while at the same time IAF cannot hold them back guessing how many orders they are to get. Thus efficiency from both sides.


Two ways to tackle that:
- DRDO/ADA/HAL/ should work with the best of their abilities .
- And to ensure that robust project management practices can be applied.

 And if the product of the best of the DRDO/ADA/HAL/ abilities turns out to be a 'junk' ,we should productionize the 'junk' and keep on polishing it until it radiates. Of course there is certain threshold for a 'junk', for a fighter aircraft it would be to have safe flight.

Pre-specifying features would invite delays and subsequently open up the gap in squadron numbers.

 IMO DRDO does not lack the will but the means to fund the projects. Take for example Kaveri, despite the puny little funds, no testbed and no infrastructure they managed to build one of the most cutting edge technology, it's a miracle in itself. Just imagine what they would have achieved had they given three billion dollars and the testbed.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gagan » 25 Nov 2017 03:33

Some journalists are pure Lifafa
Some are writing what MoD babus or IAF officers (posted in the MoD/retired officers based in Delhi) are telling them.
These journos are also in touch with DRDO program heads most likely and getting snippets from some informants in DRDO

I really like that analogy someone posted about the Kshatriya and the Shudra.
In the previous socialist setup, these Forces vs DRDO vs Import lobby games were legend. Can't be allowed to continue unfettered now
The system is a little Leakey, because these guys are using the media to get one up on the other, in their little turf wars

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 25 Nov 2017 03:34

ArjunPandit wrote:We need to make the shift from swEdes to swAdes



Well said.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 25 Nov 2017 03:45

I am sure many BRFites would be knowing, but AKM/Tarmak is running a campaign on FB DNKT: Do not kill Tejas. we bharat-rakshas can contribute to if we feel like tejas should not be killed.
*************************************************************************
A friend of mine (who introduced BRF to me) shared the following on FB the following
Just to put some no.s in perspective:
2G Scam: ~$10 Bn (Less than half of wiki figures)
Coal Scam: ~$10 Bn (Less than half of wiki figures)
CWG Scam: ~$5 Bn (Almost half of Wiki figures)
Total Value: ~$25 Bn
In this $25 Bn India could have afforded
1. At least 108 rafales (Current deal $8-9 Bn, taking a simple 3 times that, although very simplistic assumption), could have possibly got a ToT of AESA radar, sensor fusion and probably the most capable air force in entire Asia
or 2. At least 700 Tejas (Unit cost of 30Mn, Guestimating $4Bn for spares,weapons, avionics), which would have started high paying jobs for two generations and created a Military aviation industrial capabilities, not to speak of an air force undefeatable by any threats in next 40 years
or 3. At least 2500 Agni 3 Missiles (5 Mn unit cost+5 set up costs of TELAR and CnC set ups).
or 4. At least 5000 Brahmos missiles(Unit cost of ~3 Mn, assuming recent blocks cost even more)
or 5. 1 Nimitz class carrier (If one is available for sale 5 Bn per unit, 10 Billion for aircraft and 5 Bn for 5 year's operating costs and 5 billion for 5 billion for other support)
or 6. At least 50 Kilo class submarines (if they can be built)
or 7. At least 16 Akula submarines (if they can be built)
or 8. 3000 M777 Artillery guns
Points to note:
->I have nearly halved the numerator and kept the denominator highest possible (based on public info and my limited wisdom)
-> Now DOUBLE THIS NO and realize that today India would have been in the leagues of military superpowers, had this money been allocated to the capital expenditure of our forces
**************************************
While his no.s may be off, the idea is how much of our nation has been harmed by previous govt. That money was from our hard work and deserves to go to us or our future generations and now that money is gonna warm the bums of RG

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3470
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby kit » 25 Nov 2017 04:00

ArjunPandit wrote:I am sure many BRFites would be knowing, but AKM/Tarmak is running a campaign on FB DNKT: Do not kill Tejas. we bharat-rakshas can contribute to if we feel like tejas should not be killed.
*************************************************************************
A friend of mine (who introduced BRF to me) shared the following on FB the following
Just to put some no.s in perspective:
2G Scam: ~$10 Bn (Less than half of wiki figures)
Coal Scam: ~$10 Bn (Less than half of wiki figures)
CWG Scam: ~$5 Bn (Almost half of Wiki figures)
Total Value: ~$25 Bn
In this $25 Bn India could have afforded
1. At least 108 rafales (Current deal $8-9 Bn, taking a simple 3 times that, although very simplistic assumption), could have possibly got a ToT of AESA radar, sensor fusion and probably the most capable air force in entire Asia
or 2. At least 700 Tejas (Unit cost of 30Mn, Guestimating $4Bn for spares,weapons, avionics), which would have started high paying jobs for two generations and created a Military aviation industrial capabilities, not to speak of an air force undefeatable by any threats in next 40 years
or 3. At least 2500 Agni 3 Missiles (5 Mn unit cost+5 set up costs of TELAR and CnC set ups).
or 4. At least 5000 Brahmos missiles(Unit cost of ~3 Mn, assuming recent blocks cost even more)
or 5. 1 Nimitz class carrier (If one is available for sale 5 Bn per unit, 10 Billion for aircraft and 5 Bn for 5 year's operating costs and 5 billion for 5 billion for other support)
or 6. At least 50 Kilo class submarines (if they can be built)
or 7. At least 16 Akula submarines (if they can be built)
or 8. 3000 M777 Artillery guns
Points to note:
->I have nearly halved the numerator and kept the denominator highest possible (based on public info and my limited wisdom)
-> Now DOUBLE THIS NO and realize that today India would have been in the leagues of military superpowers, had this money been allocated to the capital expenditure of our forces
**************************************
While his no.s may be off, the idea is how much of our nation has been harmed by previous govt. That money was from our hard work and deserves to go to us or our future generations and now that money is gonna warm the bums of RG


Capex needs to go up but man power demands are high .. solutions like automation robotics are there ..but OT

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3859
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Nov 2017 05:43

UlanBatori wrote:
Supercruise (M1.1)
Really?

FWIW, even the Gripen C has claimed to have achieved super cruise. I recall reading some AWST article that stated that the NG prototype sustained it with a minimal load and after using AB to break the sound barrier.

There was another report that suggested that the operational bird could do it with better loads. ..

Dunno how truer or useful such achieved are anyway. Speaking of which the LM folks are not too be outdone in this department. Weren't threre articles during the mrca race that the f16in being offered to India would be able to Supercruise?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby UlanBatori » 25 Nov 2017 06:51

Hello experts:
No one in their right mind "supercruises" (supersonic cruise without afterburner) at Mach 1.1. The drag coefficient is extreme, and the handling will be terrible. It will be anything but "cruising" anyway. Such a spec is either the vendors putting in absolute garbage to show how silly the customer is (unlikely), or the DDM writing nonsense. If the plane can only REACH Mach 1.1, it would be left far behind by a MiG-21.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 25 Nov 2017 07:38

UB, there is no space for logic and physics on brochures. There is less dung in all of Ulan Bator then in such brochures.

The Gripen cannot cross the mach barrier without reheat. But once it does, it can supposedly maintain 1.1-1.2M at high altitude. Never mind, the efficiency of flight so close to 1M. Because, on the brochure, you don't quote your range and endurance from that flight regime.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 25 Nov 2017 08:29

Another point being missed by a lot of the brochure claimers in DDM is the warload. The JSF flies clean, with its limited payload (whatever it is, within - all 4 AAMs). So the drag is minimized. Same applies for the F-22 and the PAK-FA, even the J-20 if it can supercruise (doubtful).

The issue is whether the Gripen can even carry a reasonable warload (say 4 AAMs) and then maintain the same kind of performance, which will guzzle up fuel.

All those fancy huge radius of actions are mentioned clearly with a heavy loadout of external fuel tanks. None of those will permit these sustained 1Mach plus performances.

Which then means the existing so called supercruise will be on tactical fuel ie internal fuel only, so exactly how many minutes is that anyhow? The Gripen does not carry as much fuel as the heavier fighters do, internally. So the entire tactical premise of being able to supercruise is a joke.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 25 Nov 2017 08:35

One of the most hilarious bits of (mis) information in that Gripen brochure is the Gripen team claiming wideband RCS reduction.

Ok - and then sorta implying the JSF has spot (i.e. narrowband RCS reduction). Seriously?

What happens to that wideband RCS reduction, if a bunch of AAMs with all angled control surfaces and bombs and tanks are hanging off the airframe????

Are they even serious?

I dont think the Dutch or whosoever buys their plane is not going to fall for that trick right.

The JSF - whose band optimization may not be optimal but surely it has more in terms of RAM and other features apart from basic X/S/C and perhaps some L band optimization too.. flies clean if it has too.

The Rafale, the EF, the Gripen don't. Also, the twin engined fighters have larged power envelope to power a full blown AESA, energy hungry avionics PLUS a powerful jamming suite.

In that again, logic dictates, a Spectra equipped Rafale will likely outperform a Gripen NG.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 25 Nov 2017 09:19

Kakkaji wrote:Parrikar had said that the IAF needs to procure both single and twin engine fighters. For the last 40 years we have had the Mig-21 fill the single engine role, and the Jaguar fill the twin-engine role. Their roles were not interchangeable. Both were (relatively) low-priced, (eventually) locally-produced, and were the workhorses of the IAF.

The two roles can in future arguably be filled by the LCA and the MKI. But, for some reason, the IAF does not want to bulk up on the LCA or buy any more MKIs. They are looking for western fighters in the single and twin engine roles, with a Make in India twist.

If they mix the single and twin engine requirement in one competition, then it will become another MMRCA farce. No way can a Gripen and a Rafale are comparable in cost and capability.

I think the new twist about 'specifying the capability instead of number of engines' is to let in the SEF competition aircraft like Mig-35 that, though having twin engines, are more comparable in capability to Gripen and F-16, than the Rafale and F-18.

I think the Indian militery procurement process, in trying to be the purest of the pure, has tied itself in such knots, that nothing can be procured in less than a decade's time, by which time it becomes obsolete and the exercise starts all over again. :roll:


Parrikar had asked why not more MKI instead of the MMRCA. From capability pov, they can do "medium" and more and cheaper to induct and operationalize as the infrastructure is there and local production is going on. One of his priority was to increase the servicibility rates of the MKI fleet to 70% from the low 50%. That itself would be equivalent of additional squadrons in terms of quantities available for missions.

For single-engine, he got the funding approved for HAL to increase LCA production capacity to 16/year and also got the next lot of 83 LCA Mk1A acquisition process rolling.

He wasn't the one that approved acquisition of 36 Rafales or the MII SE. Those were outside his control.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 25 Nov 2017 09:58

srai wrote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/SJha1618/status/874246623127195649
Saurav Jha
@SJha1618
This @makeinindia single engine fighter competition is a waste of time & resources when IAF intends to float another 2-engine tender anyway.
10:46 PM · Jun 12, 2017

One needs to take all defence reporting with a pinch of salt. More recently there was a Tweet that said that "Tejas "may" take part in highway landings.

Defence reporters have compulsions that go beyond informing people of bland verifiable fact.

The IAF cannot simply "float tenders" for even toilet bowls without clearance from the defence ministry. But MSM can float trial balloons and spread bollocks at the drop of a hat

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srin » 25 Nov 2017 10:05

srai wrote:



Saurav Jha had twitted it a while ago.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SJha1618/status/874246623127195649
Saurav Jha
@SJha1618
This @makeinindia single engine fighter competition is a waste of time & resources when IAF intends to float another 2-engine tender anyway.
10:46 PM · Jun 12, 2017


How does number of engines matter? Doesn't the single engine F-16 have more MTOW than the old Mig 29 ?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 25 Nov 2017 10:11

MTOW means nothing in isolation. The MTOW of C-17 is the highest in IAF! So what?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7391
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 25 Nov 2017 12:21

deejay wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:Response to your last question: Is that why we want to go from a airforce whose primary workhorse was the single engined, cheap to operate but excellent within its own limitations MIG-21, expensive multirole twin engine war planes that try to be the jack of all trades and end up being costly while elephants?

...


The primary reason you need an Air Force is because you have threats. Have an Air Force which can handle your threats and deliver on your political objectives.

Air Forces do not exist primarily to support MIC. They should support MIC while existing but I still think the first priority is threat detterence.

On this point, it's chicken & egg. They both need the other to protect the country in the long term. So slighting and putting the other down isn't in your self interest. But we have many who lack that awareness in our system.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3859
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Nov 2017 12:25

In the long-term, yes. But what about short term?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 25 Nov 2017 12:29

Prasad wrote:
deejay wrote:
The primary reason you need an Air Force is because you have threats. Have an Air Force which can handle your threats and deliver on your political objectives.

Air Forces do not exist primarily to support MIC. They should support MIC while existing but I still think the first priority is threat detterence.

On this point, it's chicken & egg. They both need the other to protect the country in the long term. So slighting and putting the other down isn't in your self interest. But we have many who lack that awareness in our system.


Hardly a chicken and egg if you know that in the present path of acquisitions we will go down to 25 sqns and below. Anyways, I have written to the Chief. I don't think National Security from a policy perspective is IAFs lookout. Military should be happy with what it has. His statements like we are ready for 2 front war and then saying we are under equipped do not make sense. Either the first is true or the second. IAF should stop pushing for weapon systems / brand but only bring forward equipment required and for what purpose. The rest should not have any IAF involvement. It is not IAFs job to convince MoD high and mighty or beg and plead infront of them.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 25 Nov 2017 13:00

Look very closely. What all do you see?

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Austin » 25 Nov 2017 13:04

Too dark to make out , 250 kg weapon/multirack weaoin on outer pylon and strain gauges on inner ones , something on centerline drop tanks ?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3859
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Nov 2017 13:14

what Austin said and a CFT?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 25 Nov 2017 13:19

This is the first operational IAF variant with the centerline loaded (there is one previous picture but it is not from a flight test).
There are multirack pylons alright, but not the kind you are speaking of. Those outer racks are camera pods which are looking towards the midboard and inboard pylons. Those pylons are vacated which mean this was a drop test. There is an LDP. And the picture is not from Bangalore airport. What else?

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 250
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby arvin » 25 Nov 2017 13:44

Pitot tube on radome??

nash
BRFite
Posts: 842
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby nash » 25 Nov 2017 14:41

arvin wrote:Pitot tube on radome??

is that IFR? I believe it is

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 25 Nov 2017 15:15

Thats pitot tube alright.

Apart from camera pods (one can make out cameras also there), EFT on centerline and something under right intake where one would expect LDP, but it looks bigger than I expected LDP would be. Difficult to see what it it. Quite dark and low quality in that region. Definitely drop test. All 4 mid and inboard pylons were loaded may be.

PS- just checked FB. So its LSP7. I cant see shit other that this. Someones chappals/shoes are there it seems near the ladder, a man walking by and a tractor. But we are obviously not talking about this stuff right..?

PPS: Looking at the pylons the inboard ones where carring EFTs it seems.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3882
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby chola » 25 Nov 2017 15:38

Nice shot with dramatic lighting but what is special? Am I supposed to notice something my mango brain is not?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 25 Nov 2017 16:24

Indranil wrote:Look very closely. What all do ]

You mean apart from my friend Abdul walking under the port wing? The new pylons (low drag?) ?
WTF is that to the left of the centerline tank. A GSh gun pod?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 25 Nov 2017 17:08

Cain Marko wrote:In the long-term, yes. But what about short term?

The long-term begins here and now :) India needs to invest in the LCA, AMCA and AURA.

There are many ways to address the current shortfall. Get more LCA Mk.1, Su-30 MKI and Rafale while also looking into refurbished MiG-29 and Mirage-2000.

Acquiring this new so called SE MII and TE MII is a long game. The decision will be in the hand of future governments and nothing happens quickly or with certainty. You want short-term then go with what you already have and order more of them.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3097
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 25 Nov 2017 17:56

Short term solution to IAF problems is staring in our face - More SU30MKI (it is currently the most numerous type, we have some kind of ToT, we have some IP, and unless they are not as good as reported, they are the most capable). With the extra lot we can further get more ToT at least for two things -the ability to maintain fully on our own (means to manufacture in India whatever is needed to maintain availability over 85%) and ability to mix/match new things on our own (a new BVR, a new EW pod) - some part of the source code.
If we had 400 MKIs (we need only 130 more to reach that number), 200 on each front will give us air dominance on both fronts, just by themselves. Then we have Jags, Migs, Mirages....While we work the long term. And 130 of them can start coming from next year when HAL completes producing last of SU30MKI. We can make this faster, with giving 20-50 manufactured from Russia and 110-80 being manufactured here.

SiddharthS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 04 Sep 2017 15:45

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby SiddharthS » 25 Nov 2017 18:53

There is some unclarity about the threats India faces. India does not have an existintial threat (barring the AI explosion), nuclear weopans have parried that. So it's not going to fight the war of existence but the war of dominance. And to fight the war of dominance you need two things: economic muscle and MIC.
 - Economic muscle to tilt the littoral states of India and China in India's favor, use economic leverage to induce politicians and sway the public opinion in India's favor and against China.

 - MIC is the crucial part of this war, More important than economic muscle. These littoral states must be armed with Indian weapons to increase their dependancy and to keep their foreign policy aligned with Indian interest. It would ensure that china would not get its way with its surrounding countries and would keep China busy in its neighbourhood.

That's what China is doing, it is keeping surrounding Indian area warm by giving its military hardware to Thailand, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Dijabouti and many other states to keep their foreign policy aligned with that of Chinas'.

If India keeps on importing weapons for the so called "short term" need, keeps on postponing the formation of MIC, the so called "two front" war is going to bleed into a multi front insecurity.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests