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.
Agree- E/F is already there and export unnecessary distraction. Competition in sense of competition in skies, not actual export.
Was thinking more like if MK2 where to be given stealth shaping and radar absorbent materials (without internal weapons bay). Just building on Ghatak lead in work happening at IIT K and posts on different thread on radar absorbent skins developed by DRDO.
Firstly, either ADA or MoD, why can't they make that scale model of Tejas, which is being handed over to US Air Force Chief, available to general public? I would pay decent money to own a scale model and put it on my work desk and play with it when I am bored
Both Airbus & Boeing have scale models which can be purchased through their websites.
More firm orders needed. Capacity and participation will increase accordingly. User can't expect production to be 24/year when their order is only for 20 units (even with squadron shortages at hand orders are in piecemeal quantities).
Indranil wrote:You can tell us your hunch, and I can relieve you of your anxiety .
I missed that post completely sir. My hunch was initially that Mk2 will not be pursued (that is my biggest fear)
Or it could be that gun & therefore FOC 'as defined earlier' will require more time, and the with or without FoC the orders will be given
1. Vibration turns A/C off
2. Gun is fine - but only 30 mm shells available for 23 mm gun
3. OFB has closed the gun line and is now manufacturing epaulettes for CRPF
4. DRDO has made a working laser
5. SPJ will take the place of gun and gun will be mounted on a pod elsewhere
6. Pilots will be given holsters to carry a gun
If Lockheed or Boeing invested just a small portion of their great fortune into the LCA's development - even to market the 2 seat trainer version globally, that would provide a huge boost to the program.
Outsource some of the part production to those companies and they will surely figure out ways of adding value to the program given their vast capabilities.
Neshant wrote:If Lockheed or Boeing invested just a small portion of their great fortune into the LCA's development - even to market the 2 seat trainer version globally, that would provide a huge boost to the program.
Outsource some of the part production to those companies and they will surely figure out ways of adding value to the program given their vast capabilities.
1. Vibration turns A/C off
2. Gun is fine - but only 30 mm shells available for 23 mm gun
3. OFB has closed the gun line and is now manufacturing epaulettes for CRPF
4. DRDO has made a working laser
5. SPJ will take the place of gun and gun will be mounted on a pod elsewhere
6. Pilots will be given holsters to carry a gun
In lighter vein:
7. IAF cannot agree on caliber of the weapon.
8. Gun line is okay but ammo is no longer available
9. IAF wants the gun to fire a missile?
On a more serious note;
IAF having a rethink on the gun or want a different gun?
Likewise for conventional submarines.
The US does not produce any conventional subs but has an array of technologies which could equip a conventional sub.
Involve them in the design & development of conventional subs from the ground up and they will not only buy a few but find export markets for it.
There is no way they can keep up with China producing enormously expensive nuclear attack subs to counter much lower cost conventional and even midget subs that China is/will deploy in vast numbers.
Even India is now developing midget subs as a cheaper option to defend the near shore region to free up expensive full sized conventional and even more expensive nuclear subs to patrol more distant areas.
Neshant wrote:If Lockheed or Boeing invested just a small portion of their great fortune into the LCA's development - even to market the 2 seat trainer version globally, that would provide a huge boost to the program.
Outsource some of the part production to those companies and they will surely figure out ways of adding value to the program given their vast capabilities.
there are some amreki aviation production resources already in India.
Why did they not bid for any such work??
they want the whole pie and very specifically their own amreki pie to be unquestioningly bought by the natives.
all this question weshtion drama is giving them a head ache.
With the LCH replacing the imported AFCS (which was in use since the time the prototypes were flying) with a indigenous one and plans get certification in parallel in about 2 years, the Tejas FCS and entire set of sub systems can be used on Gripen-NG airframe and reduce the timeline from 2027 (since the aerodynamics testing phase will be behind) for the FOC of a Tejas 'Mk2 standard' aircraft the IAF wants. The Tejas FCS has flown in F-16 earlier with great success. Initially airframes can be sourced from the Brazil/Swedish production lines allowing flight tests for the IOC/FOC effort using sub systems developed for Tejas. Thats your SEF with the import-by-value metric staying on par with Tejas Mk1.
The above is like the Chinese approach who buy a Squadron strength of the Su-35 and copy them to a J-something aircraft without any ToT. Most of the sub systems on the J-series are locally sourced and the J-aircraft exported. we would be doing this by being part of the global chain and being cost competitive.
We parallely take the HAL approach of building even the NG airframe from raw material stage using composites, and IAF will have no issues with HAL assembly lines clocking 32 nos a year on the Mk2 standard.
Brazil sourced airframes could be balanced with export of Dhruvs, sort of second innings for HAL.
srai saab, IAF is willing to place additional orders on the Mk2 standard is common knowledge, whichever strategy gets you there first, not in 2027 though which is a decade away from now which seems to be the current plan according to the above linked article. Let ADA focus on AMCA.
Vasu Raya to which countries do the Chinese export the flanker derivatives.To my knowledge it is none. It is only the F-7 and JF-17. Only the Mig 21 iterations.
1. Vibration turns A/C off
2. Gun is fine - but only 30 mm shells available for 23 mm gun
3. OFB has closed the gun line and is now manufacturing epaulettes for CRPF
4. DRDO has made a working laser
5. SPJ will take the place of gun and gun will be mounted on a pod elsewhere
6. Pilots will be given holsters to carry a gun
In lighter vein:
7. IAF cannot agree on caliber of the weapon.
8. Gun line is okay but ammo is no longer available
9. IAF wants the gun to fire a missile?
On a more serious note;
IAF having a rethink on the gun or want a different gun?
to add :
10. differences over price of guns & bullets.
12. Gun is stuck in the 5th step of the 11-step procurement process.
13. Bullets RFI are being prepared and will start the procurement process once the Gun clears the 11-steps and is finally acquired.
re this gun thing.... are you guys serious about half of the stuff written up above.
I thought the gun was done thing and some minor smoke ingestion stuff was being sorted out
NRao wrote:In the picture here is that a LCA patch that the Genral is sporting? Any chance such patches are available to the public?
LCA models are available online. Cannot provide a link as I think commercial links are banned on this forum. Patches for LCA, not yet, but for various SU 30 squadrons are freely available to anyone on the same sites.
Khalsa wrote:re this gun thing.... are you guys serious about half of the stuff written up above.
I thought the gun was done thing and some minor smoke ingestion stuff was being sorted out
Blame Indranil for saying the real problem does not lie in the *** or the ***** but in the ***, *****, or possibly **** and he has invited us to contact our own chaiwalas to guess.
one of those periods when mods are letting people have fun, people are not just contacting chaiwallas but dopewalas, how come someone did not bring up the bazooka on pilot, remember this was talked many years back (when i used to lurk)
All of you are wrong. There was a synchronization problem in shooting through the propellers. So they have decided to mount the gun backwards. There are many advantages of this. This will prevent aircrafts from lining up at the rear in close combat and also aid in acceleration whenever required.
Indranil wrote:All of you are wrong. There was a synchronization problem in shooting through the propellers. So they have decided to mount the gun backwards. There are many advantages of this. This will prevent aircrafts from lining up at the rear in close combat and also aid in acceleration whenever required.
i read this post with utmost seriousness to realize....