Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Mar 2009 17:32

aditya, check these :
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... &Itemid=26

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... f-Btn.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... -Armd.html

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 03 Mar 2009 00:33

k prasad wrote: I'm sorry if it offended you Aditya, but actually, that point wasn't addressed to you... I had just seen the past few pages, and was quite peeved at some of the questions to which the answer would have been the first google result. Sorry if the friendly fire hit you as well... Collateral damage i guess... my bad.

No offense intended, no offense taken

And thanks for the well researched posts on other threads!

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 03 Mar 2009 00:37

Rahul M wrote:aditya, check these :

Thanks Rahul.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Mar 2009 11:06

How to disagree with a forum member (posted in response to a flamewar in the LCA thread)
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 03 Mar 2009 12:31

Rahul M wrote:aditya, check these :
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... &Itemid=26

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... f-Btn.html

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... -Armd.html

Thanks Rahul. I had the very same query as Aditya and trust me GOOGLING only confused me (non military background) further untill I went through the above links.

Cheers....

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 03 Mar 2009 13:12

Sri Lanka Cricketers attacked by Paki Terrorists

"... resembles mumbai attacks... " Paki Punjab Province Police Chief

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Mar 2009 16:21

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 214216.cms

Singapore defence chief to hold talks on expanding military ties

Singapore, in turn, will pay for access to Indian military training facilities and even keep some of its military equipment here on a permanent basis now.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 04 Mar 2009 10:49

I have always wondered one thing when it came to transfer of technology. So when they say total tot does that mean we can produce as much as we want because we have all the necessary screwdriver and metal alloy info ? If only some numbers are to be produced how would the exporting country ensure that this is adhered to. Do they do something like "You can produce everything in the a/c except for the joystick which only we can make". Also has someone seen tot docs and can someone comment on the nature of technical content. I have read a number of posts which state that tot doesnt guarantee anything more than nuts and bolts and we cant really gain anything. It is very difficult for me to believe because out of my industrial experience i can say that a trained eye can spot how a competitor has designed things and can make sense even if there are no design docs that state the rationale behind every dimension.

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 04 Mar 2009 13:21

personal uneducated humble opinion onlee,

is it me or is the following really happening.

i see a resurgent indian military / aerospace agencies showing more confidence and more successes.

this can be riding on the success of chandrayan moon mission, progress on LCA, success of missile initercepts, failure, acceptance, remedy, and success of brahmos block II, akash missile trial successes, good show at aero india 09, good show at red flag, AMAZING show in front of the world media during mumbai attacks,

such confidence giving events are givinig renewed empetus to new and emerging programs like MCA, GSLV mark II (or III?), manned moon mission, keel laying of the aircraft carrier, and many high and low profile projects.

i have never before seen such confidence and zeal in indian projects, it is a good thing, i was a pessimist before, but now an optimist about india's defence and aerospace capabilities

vikassh · Post by **vikassh** » 04 Mar 2009 14:55

A question for gurus..
I saw pictures of a PAF Mi 17 in today's TOI and HT (Delhi editions) in the context of yesterday's attack on Sri Lankan players.
There is some thing unusual about the helicopter in the picture. It has some sort of protusion in the front which looks like some sort of radar.

I have never seen this in Indian Mi 17s. What is it? Or is it some optical illusion which I am unable to differentiate?

How many Mi 17 pakistan has?

sum · Post by **sum** » 04 Mar 2009 19:35

There is some thing unusual about the helicopter in the picture. It has some sort of protusion in the front which looks like some sort of radar.

I have never seen this in Indian Mi 17s. What is it? Or is it some optical illusion which I am unable to differentiate?

Even i noticed the "protrusion" and wanted to ask about it...

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 04 Mar 2009 20:08

I have not seen the pic. However there are Mi-8 variants which have an onboard radar. It is the Mi-8MTV1 and 2. Did the protrusion look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mi-17 ... P0694).jpg

ChandraS · Post by **ChandraS** » 04 Mar 2009 20:29

Looks something like this

vikassh · Post by **vikassh** » 04 Mar 2009 20:55

here is the image for more clarity

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ss ... _plot.html

vikassh · Post by **vikassh** » 04 Mar 2009 20:58

ChandraS wrote:Looks something like this

Thanks Chandra

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 04 Mar 2009 21:44

Its the Mi-17 V5/V7 'dolphin nose' version made by the Kazan helicopter plant. Its used by the Chinese too. Still dont know whats in the nose though.

jonboede · Post by **jonboede** » 04 Mar 2009 22:58

I was asked to move this post here...

Am looking for someone who can tell me where these parts go on a MiG-23.

Am slowly attaching things to the aircraft as it goes back together.

The writeup is at http://blog.cwam.org/2009/03/mig-mystery.html

Cheers,
Jon

PS. I have to add something. When I came to BR, I was expecting something like an Indian version of www.warbirdinformationexchange.org but with people who had experience with Soviet Stuff. That's not really the way it's turning out. To be clear, the Cold War Air Museum has returned over 40 aircraft, dug out of former Soviet bases in Eastern Europe, in various states of disrepair -- to flying condition. I now have 1,800+ hours flying museum aircraft with no (major -- knock on wood) problems so far. While this is the museum's first MiG-23, there are seven flying MiG-23s in the US (six do government contracts and are not listed in the FAA database as having airworthiness certificates) so, while rare, this has been done before, multiple times. Someone from India wrote a comment on the blog, "What a useless activity!" -- not to me, I'm going to fly this thing, and having all the parts in the right place is reasonably important IMHO.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Mar 2009 23:06

someone advised this and I do think it is the best one so far.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 99#p626899

jonboede · Post by **jonboede** » 04 Mar 2009 23:28

Alas, trying to interact with MiG, Zvezda, Aero Vodochody, Sukhoi or other really large outfits is generally pointless. I know, I've tried.

If you are talking about a US$100m purchase of aircraft, you have their full attention. If you are talking about some miscellaneous parts off an old plane -- good luck.

Usually progress is made by finding some helpful soul who fondly recalls working on this stuff and enjoys seeing it brought back to life. I'm in contact with some of the maintainers from CONSTANT PEG, but their memories are 30+ years old. I also know some mechanics in Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, etc. who are fantastic to work with in person but whose email skills are a bit limited and whose English is almost as bad as my Russian (which is downright awful).

So I was thinking that at BR I might find some folks who: a) speak English fluently, b) know MiGs. It's an unusual combination!

Jon

Chellaram · Post by **Chellaram** » 05 Mar 2009 00:06

^good luck on your project jon!

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 05 Mar 2009 10:37

^
^
I think the right place to get some help would be at
http://www.warbirdsofindia.com/

One of BR mods runs that site and is quite knowledgeable of aircrafts in indian service.
They have forum too and you have a better chance of finding answers to your queries there.
http://www.warbirds.in/forum/

And Best of Luck in your endeavour.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Mar 2009 14:15

shameekg wrote:Its the Mi-17 V5/V7 'dolphin nose' version made by the Kazan helicopter plant. Its used by the Chinese too. Still dont know whats in the nose though.

Weather RADAR most likely

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 06 Mar 2009 11:23

Take it FWIW but the latest AFM had a little nitpic about the paki mi-17 and mentioned that western radars have found their way on the mi17s dolhpin nose....didnt say what type weather radars, etc,....

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 06 Mar 2009 19:31

Iam looking at this pic of INS shivalik and was wondering whats the radar on top of the bridge called. The radar is partially hidden by a person in white and another in blue. I dont mean the OREKH but the one which looks like a dish antenna. Is it the EL/M-2221 STGR.
thanks in advance
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... ivalik.JPG

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 08 Mar 2009 16:05

This is from livefist. Why do they have a garden umbrella along side the missile. To have chai paani and sun bath.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/03/ba ... ested.html

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 08 Mar 2009 20:48

andy B wrote:Take it FWIW but the latest AFM had a little nitpic about the paki mi-17 and mentioned that western radars have found their way on the mi17s dolhpin nose....didnt say what type weather radars, etc,....

http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Mil_Mi-13

Mi-8MTV-5 – redesigned airframe with new nose (with weather radar), doors on both sides and optional ramp. Export name: Mi-17-V5. Built in Kazan.

jobatra · Post by **jobatra** » 10 Mar 2009 01:29

what are the advantages of a kinetic kill missile like the THAAD as opposed to proximity-fused explosive charges? at first glance, it seems like the kill radius would be reduced for a purely kinetic-kill missile.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 10 Mar 2009 06:51

XPosting from India Mil Aviation thread for all those who want to know abt Migs in IAF service:

http://ifile.it/kwt5v69/mig_article_2_afm.rar

http://ifile.it/vig1cpn/mig_artilcle_1_ ... tional.rar

Pingale · Post by **Pingale** » 12 Mar 2009 09:08

I have a question for gurus here:

This TOI news report (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/vide ... 252786.cms), about a TA jawan deserting to LeT, says that his TA unit was attached to 8 RR deployed in Kashmir. Isnt TA supposed to be equivalent to Army Reserve and is deployed only at war time?

Also, RR is supposed to contain IA regulars right?

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 13 Mar 2009 05:21

Another question to the esteemed garus here

How effective is an ABM system against a MIRV?
I mean at what stage will a missile with a MIRV warhead be intercepted

Apologies if this has been discussed before.....just point me to the right direction

Gracias!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2009 20:35

Cross post from LCA thread

rakall wrote:
Drevin wrote:It is said in many articles that it had been a while since a plane (saras) with a pusher-propeller configuration had been made. Is there some basic complexity involved that isn't there in other configurations? Infact pusher-propeller setup never got popular. I feel two normal jet engines would have been much more apt for powering saras. Would have looked far more professional.

.

Saras is for short-haul flights - hence cannot climb to higher altitudes.. jet engines are efficient at higher altitudes & high subsonic mach numbers -- which is not the flight envelop that Saras would fly.. Hence the choice of the prop which is more effieicnt at med-altitude flights..

further remember that Saras is designed to operate from under-prepared runways.. with the pusher-prop there is no issue of foreign body ingestion...

And that design choice is extremely professioNAL.

In addition to what rakall says the design philosophy of the Saras was to have "clean wings. In "clean wings" you do not have any engines attached to the wings and the airflow complications that causes.

But if you don't attach engines to wings - you have to put them somewhere. Those engines (if more than one in number) should ideally be as close to the centerline a possible - so that loss of one engine causes the least problems of yaw. Also the exhaust gases and propeller wash should not be blasting on to the tailplane or other lift surfaces. That dictates the positioning of the engines in the Saras. I am not an aviation professional. I am merely an enthusiast who reads.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 13 Mar 2009 21:05

Shiv sir, please calm down .. I want to clarify.

I didnt mean to show negative light on saras's design of clean main wing. I think you went off-track there. You also went offtrack with some of the other stuff but thats ok since you have a good sense of humor.

However rakallji got it right, I have not been a fan of the choice of engineIts just that in such a modern age of flight the pusher prop seems a bit outdated.

As pointed out, I understand that proper technical reasons went into the final choice such as flight regime, short haul

etc ... I guess I have this image of a dassault falcon jet and its reliability

in mind. In that context it looks more professional. Thats all. Note: Falcon has a clean wing too.

My final assessment:
My post has been taken out of context and dissected also out of context which is not fair.

Besides I'm not a newbie to BR so plz stop the brain washing with me

... After 2.5 years in BR i wouldn't suddenly start flaming right .... Hope you guys can cut me some slack.

jmt

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Mar 2009 23:08

Drevin - the problem is your choice of the word 'professional' - which is inappropriate for what you are trying to convey. There is nothing wrong with a pusher prop design per se. Actually its a lot more efficient than a puller prop in terms of the wash over the fuselage and wing interference effects. the problem with pushers was usually related to longitudinal stability, structural strength and balance, and finally ground clearance during takeoff - the tail 'dips' remember

btw - why do motor boats and ships have pusher props?

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 13 Mar 2009 23:52

deleted.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 14 Mar 2009 00:03

Russian Air Force withdraws 90 faulty MiG-29

munda · Post by **munda** » 14 Mar 2009 00:39

I've only recently started following the weapons procurement related news of our country. I came across numerous news that talks about lobbying corruption etc. How on earth this could happen with regards to national security? If this is even small amount true, it should be biggest embarrasment for India.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Mar 2009 01:23

[quote="Drevin"]I don't understand the confusion. The real "context" was that push-propeller went out of fashion after ww2. Lately push-propeller has seen a resurgence in UAV's (Unmanned). Its still not a popular choice for manned commercial planes.

Pushers are still in "fashion"

One of the more successful pushers, the Piaggio Avanti P-180 was tested and built in the early eighties.

Many are currently flying as more than 150 have been built.

I agree that its not a popular choice for commercial use.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Mar 2009 01:27

The twin pusher configuration is unusual and complicated. Clean wings are not the be all and end all of aircraft design, there are many tradeoffs.
No particular benefit accrues in operating Indian conditions, where presumably the bulk of the Saras market exists, for a pusher design. Such a choice is debatable, but a bit late in the day

A large number of tail strikes on commercial aircraft in India continue to occur despite frequent correctional training and countless simulator hours.

A tail strike on a pusher may not be so forgiving as the damaged metal blades will set up vibrations apart from other control issues.

The rear mounting of the engines in the Saras necessitated the wings to be mounted more aft than usual due to cg issues.

The absence of some sort of canard horizontal surface on the Saras like those on the other pushers is noteworthy. This is a non judgmental statement.

Not much open source inputs on the spin and stall characteristics of the Saras. We have to wait for these to become available.

Quoting wiki and other open sources

Some of the other twin pushers like the Piaggio P-180 Avanti ( over 150 built) , Beechcraft Starship (Only fifty-three Starships were ever built) and the single pusher Jetcruzer all featured a canard like horrizontal stabilizer mounted in the nose area.

Its canard design, with the lifting surface aft of the horizontal stabilizer. As configured, the Starship cannot be stalled - the forward surface stalls before the main lifting surface, which allows the nose to drop and more-normal flight to resume.

Other notable Jetcruzer 500 design features include its canard configuration (which allows the main wing to be positioned further aft than normal, so the wing spars do not intrude into the cabin), lack of flaps (reducing pilot work load and manufacturing costs and saving weight), and optional EFIS avionics. Like the 450 the 500 will be certificated as spin resistant. Specific problems with the aircraft's noise, high stall speed, and center of gravity were not overcome before all work on it was suspended in 2002. Nearly 20 years of work had still not resulted in a marketable aircraft.

The Avanti's twin counter-rotating turboprops engines are placed on a mid-fuselage, high aspect ratio wing, located behind the cabin. The design utilizes both a T-tail and a pair of small, fixed anhedral canards that lack control surfaces. The arrangement of the wing surfaces allows all three to provide lift, as opposed to a conventional configuration, where the horizontal stabilizer creates a downward force to counteract the nose-down moment that a conventional main wing generates.
The uninterrupted aerodynamic curve shape from nose to tail gives decreased drag and improved laminar flow for efficient and high-performance flight characteristics. The aircraft has three separated lifting surfaces which give stability. It also has two-thirds of the conventional surface area, which also makes a major contribution to reduced drag and increased fuel efficiency.

The forward wing provides additional lift to push the nose of the fuselage upwards rather than using a conventional aerodynamic configuration which forces the tail down. The T-tail provides stability.

Noteworthy again, all these designs used the PT6A series engines.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 14 Mar 2009 02:03

munda wrote:I've only recently started following the weapons procurement related news of our country. I came across numerous news that talks about lobbying corruption etc. How on earth this could happen with regards to national security? If this is even small amount true, it should be biggest embarrasment for India.

Read up on defense procurement in other countries as well. Considering the huge amounts of money involved in each defense deal, and the tendency of countries to try and get the best for national security, there is bound to be a level of corruption everywhere. I am not supporting corruption. But why should corruption be an embarrasment only for India and only in terms of defense spending? There is corruption in other areas too.

munda · Post by **munda** » 14 Mar 2009 03:28

shameekg wrote:
munda wrote:I've only recently started following the weapons procurement related news of our country. I came across numerous news that talks about lobbying corruption etc. How on earth this could happen with regards to national security? If this is even small amount true, it should be biggest embarrasment for India.
Read up on defense procurement in other countries as well. Considering the huge amounts of money involved in each defense deal, and the tendency of countries to try and get the best for national security, there is bound to be a level of corruption everywhere. I am not supporting corruption. But why should corruption be an embarrasment only for India and only in terms of defense spending? There is corruption in other areas too.

I agree, but we've a colonial baggage on our shoulders. When will we learn? this is the case even with Indian Railways, they say that they made 90K crore profit and we're buying metro rail coaches for Mumbai metro from China. What kind of profit and development is this? We need to invest in R&D, IR is running railways for last 60 years and they did not absolutely innovate anything.