Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 12 Sep 2009 17:56

govardhanks wrote: I have some material i cannot say that whether it is adequate or not. I did't think about new thread if there are several contributors then it can be done.
I now am posting in Aircraft and armour sir. I think we to have to see for any contibutors to topic and then proceed sir.
Thanks

"Military tech of world war II thread"
Moderators i have few doubts -
1. Is it ok if the thread contains majority of posts by me.

2. It takes lot of time to collect info and to divide which tech may be useful for reverse engineering. So , i will be posting 1-3 threads a day or even less.

3. I said not to post many images since it destroys the look and discussion but it was not a strict textbook mandatory

(which it has become now

).
4. I said not to discuss war in fear of tit for tat posts. but it is the way discussion goes. (again fallowing it like textbook

.)
5. And i dont want the thread to be really really history thread which it may become

.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Sep 2009 19:14

1. that is the worst kind of thread there is. it means people aren't interested in that thread.
you want to voluntarily make your thread an unpopular one ? strange !

more importantly, how will you do that ? mods are certainly not going to ask postors not to post there.

2. useful for reverse engineering ? 65 years old techs useful for reverse engn ?
ok.
btw, who will 'decide' which are useful for reverse engn and which are not ?

3.most serious threads look that way. due to BW AND copyright issues we can't have every thread as an album.
if people want to simply ogle at WW2 images there are many websites on the net who will do a much better job. we would rather avoid it.

4.not sure of the point.

5.-do-

@ nitin, in strat forum.

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 12 Sep 2009 19:47

Rahul M wrote:1. that is the worst kind of thread there is. it means people aren't interested in that thread.
you want to voluntarily make your thread an unpopular one ? strange !
more importantly, how will you do that ? mods are certainly not going to ask postors not to post there.
2. useful for reverse engineering ? 65 years old techs useful for reverse engn ?
ok.
btw, who will 'decide' which are useful for reverse engn and which are not ?
3.most serious threads look that way. due to BW AND copyright issues we can't have every thread as an album.
if people want to simply ogle at WW2 images there are many websites on the net who will do a much better job. we would rather avoid it.
4.not sure of the point.
5.-do-

Sir just to defend myself didt mean to argue with you:

1. I cannot put film stars posters to make it interesting, Within a span of 3 days it has more then 900 views

i dont think it is not interested. I am not going to put all posts myself but, just wanted to ask if majority of them, if you see the page many are mine, no discussions as such so far. I am not at all asking people to not post there. Anyone can post there sir.

2. Sir you have become so serious here

, reverse engineering was just a option sir for discussion, the same 65yrs old stealth a/c tech now is used sir

. And no one in this forum are going to reverse engineer any thing there but tech can be opted by someone who study BR forums page may be an engineer might do it that may be new idea for him. We have engineers institutes but we dont have war experience sir we have to learn a lot from WWII.

3. Ok sir i too agree with you, will post links of images.

4. Its ok sir.

5. Ok sir.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Sep 2009 21:02

govardhan, no sir please.

just that some of your ideas struck me as a little ummm strange, nothing more.

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 13 Sep 2009 14:21

Thanks Rahul..

Ravishankar · Post by **Ravishankar** » 15 Sep 2009 12:42

Hope somebody answers this "Does mig 27 have an HMS?"

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Sep 2009 14:51

ravi, don't think so.
have a look.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/01/da ... grade.html

off the top of my head, in IAF only the mki and bison have HMS at the moment.
and the fulcrum of course.

Ravishankar · Post by **Ravishankar** » 15 Sep 2009 17:35

Rahul, a friend of mine just got a dream tour of a base (as his cousin is a mig pilot) and he told him abt an HMS for Mig 27. I wish I could share the photos of his tour...... rather I wish I was there instead of him

In fact even I thought that my friend was wrong abt this info but he insists that he has also seen one on his visit. I guess this was a upgraded Mig 27....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Sep 2009 18:26

are you sure it was not a HUD that your friend confused for HMS ? HMS is not something that you 'see' unless you positively identify the particular model mounted on a helmet.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 16 Sep 2009 00:37

What are the effects of low bypass ratio for a turbofan engine like Kaveri?
High fuel consumption comes to mind.
Does it also increase the IR signature of the exhaust?
What are the other degrading effects?

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 16 Sep 2009 04:12

nutty news reports from the nutty nation are better discussed in its own thread for an analysis of paki psyche and media.
it is not newsworthy enough to warrant a discussion here.

more so when the news item is extremely tasteless (but that is typical of pakis. and people wonder why they are not given any respect here !

there is NO standard low enough where the paki will not go to in order to smear India and Indians)

for those who are interested in real news rather than malicious news, the images of the said contingent on patrol in full battle gear on the LOC is available both on the net and some thread on BRF(I forget which).

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 16 Sep 2009 06:38

^^

he recruitment should not be made publicly but RAW’s help should be sought as RAW was having a huge network of prostitutes in different cities of India. The Daily Mail’s investigations reveal that RAW completed the assignment successfully and provided a batch of some 300, semi educated prostitutes to the General Raj Kumar committee after proper medical checkup of every individual.

^^

I don't know about R&AW but this is surely one ISI planting with "Christina Palmer" just a fake name.
Consider 'her' previous outbursts
RAW's camps in Dharamshala against China

RAW’s Special Operations Division’s Chief, Chotta Rajan was given the command. Rajan is actually commanding similar camps in Afghanistan since 2001 but was given the additional duty of managing the Dharamshala camp as well.

This is pure ISI line. Everyone knows ISI hates Chotta Rajan. In other articles, 'she' has praised ISI no end. Consider this
Dog disrupts IPL launching ceremony Indian media set to blame ISI
Now why would this 'item' find its way into any n/w paper of the world?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Sep 2009 06:53

^^
paki media regularly publishes 'news reports' and 'opinion pieces' attributed to fake Indian and western authors. even the largest media houses are not exempt of this practice.

such items don't deserve to be discussed as news.

Ravishankar · Post by **Ravishankar** » 16 Sep 2009 09:46

Rahul M wrote:are you sure it was not a HUD that your friend confused for HMS ? HMS is not something that you 'see' unless you positively identify the particular model mounted on a helmet.

Rahul, that’s exactly what I thought when he spoke about an HMS but the photos that he got from the trip had detailed photos of the cockpit (since that lucky guy was sitting in it) and he identified the HUD and said he was specifically shown a helmet and was told that the pilot can see the targets through the helmet mounted sighting, that’s the very reason I bought this up here as most of you ppl in this forum know a lot more these things that what I do

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 16 Sep 2009 13:41

I read in a blog that India wants to move to Funtional Command structure vs the Geographic Command. I read a wiki article about this but cannot understand how FC is better than GC. Can any of our more knowledgeable members shed some light in a simple manner or pass a link where I can get more info.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 16 Sep 2009 21:04

can some learned member please explain me as to what is the use of a gear box in a Jet Engine for fighter jets??

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 16 Sep 2009 22:28

rajsunder wrote:can some learned member please explain me as to what is the use of a gear box in a Jet Engine for fighter jets??

Ohho that is simple Raj Sunder!

1st gear for starting.
2nd gear for steep incline.
3rd gear for less steep incline and speeding up.
4th gear for flat surface and full speed.
5th gear for reversing only.

You should enroll in some driving school to learn these fundamentals.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 17 Sep 2009 10:46

AmitR wrote:
rajsunder wrote:can some learned member please explain me as to what is the use of a gear box in a Jet Engine for fighter jets??
Ohho that is simple Raj Sunder!

1st gear for starting.
2nd gear for steep incline.
3rd gear for less steep incline and speeding up.
4th gear for flat surface and full speed.
5th gear for reversing only.

You should enroll in some driving school to learn these fundamentals.

come on Amit, help this angutha chap out

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Sep 2009 10:58

^^^
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/05/ ... ts-nerves/

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 17 Sep 2009 22:53

Rahul M wrote:^^^
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/05/ ... ts-nerves/

thanks

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 21 Sep 2009 11:45

Rahul M wrote:govardhan, no sir please.
just that some of your ideas struck me as a little ummm strange, nothing more.

Rahul jii
I will come back soon for discussing the thread i created.
I am now applying for P.hd will tell details when i get it... recently i qualified for one of the entrance exams.

pankaj · Post by **pankaj** » 22 Sep 2009 18:29

S-400 Triumf is capable of intercepting and destroying airborne targets at a distance of up to 400 kilometers (250 miles), and can simultaneously engage up to six targets.

If placed near border at couple of locations, will it ensure that Paki AWACS don’t enter its range, thus making them ineffective for guiding PAF attack inside India?

For Gurus to answer…

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 22 Sep 2009 20:07

pankaj wrote:S-400 Triumf is capable of intercepting and destroying airborne targets at a distance of up to 400 kilometers (250 miles), and can simultaneously engage up to six targets.

If placed near border at couple of locations, will it ensure that Paki AWACS don’t enter its range, thus making them ineffective for guiding PAF attack inside India?

For Gurus to answer…

Not a Guru...but taking a shot...
AFAIK we do have some S-300 PMU2 batteries which IIRC have a range of 200+ kms...This should be enough to counter the porki AWACS whcih is not exactly an AWACS but a AEW a/c.

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 22 Sep 2009 23:57

nikhil_p wrote: AFAIK we do have some S-300 PMU2 batteries which IIRC have a range of 200+ kms...This should be enough to counter the porki AWACS whcih is not exactly an AWACS but a AEW a/c.

but majority of those pieces are kept around N & S Blocks.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Sep 2009 02:31

Will some guru please explain what is meant by the SAM system's ability to engage 4 or 6 targets at one time?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 23 Sep 2009 04:55

^^^ AFAIK that means that the SAM systems Radar (Search, Track, Engage) is able to guide track 4 to 6 targets simultaneously and is able to guide similar or more amount of missiles to engage these at any given time. The amount of missiles guided may be/can be different I guess in cases where 2 or 3 missiles are targetted towards one target. This would again come back to the Radar's ability to handle the amount of missiles vs number of targets ityadi.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 23 Sep 2009 05:07

A very good video about modern Russian tanks with some great vids of T-90. Has english subs, very informative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zgXsQOPSu4

(sorry if already posted)

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Sep 2009 05:44

mortar and cannon launched guided weapons also includes KRANSPOOL,SANTIMETER,SAMLCHAK,various anti tank missiles
http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/land_for ... _48-52.pdf

http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/land_for ... _53-56.pdf

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 23 Sep 2009 21:11

A basic question on radar and stealth.

would having Transmitter and receiver at different locations of having a single Transmitter and multiple receivers at different locations be enough to beat stealth ??

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Sep 2009 21:15

yes, bi-static radars are considered to be the answer.

Amit Singh · Post by **Amit Singh** » 26 Sep 2009 02:23

Why was the Chandrayaan-II thread locked? Can the mod who locked that thread give me the reason for doing so?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 26 Sep 2009 14:53

probably to prevent the proliferation of new threads.

you can post it in the space thread.

Satish_B · Post by **Satish_B** » 26 Sep 2009 20:04

Dear Mods

I do not mean to encroach upon your prerogative, however as a long time lurker I am really put off by the amount of trash being posted by some of the newbies in the forum, especially in the MRCA thread. I feel that the mods are being too gentle allowing newbies to turn the thread into a fanboi thread unlike the more serious discourse until even a couple of weeks back.

People are going around strutting their "Harward" degrees and what not in the thread, apart from posts bordering on trading personal insults. Request your intervention please before these folks turn this forum into a low-brow clone of some of the un-mentionable forums on the internet.

Perhaps you could restrict some of these chaps to posting on the Newbie thread until they can graduate to posting on more serious threads.

Regards
Satish

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 26 Sep 2009 22:45

^^ Though I am relatively a newbie myself, I have to agree with Satish. MRCA thread was always the wild wild west of BR, but recently LCA thread seems to be going in the same direction.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Sep 2009 23:05

MRCA thread is more of a necessary evil (these are my personal opinions so take it FWIW) now, there's no way we can't have a MRCA thread.

unfortunately the lack of concrete info for a looooong time means that personal opinions, judgements and plain fantasy (not facts or balanced analysis) rule the thread for the most part, spiced up by the occasional rhetoric and hyperventilation.
all this in spite of some(both old and new) who try to have an informative discussion.

anyway, the point I'm making is that the MRCA thread is a little under-moderated due to the particular circumstances surrounding the deal. that situation would remain for sometime I'm afraid till we have a clearer understanding.

that said, if anyone feels posts in that thread is going beyond acceptable "trashy levels" (including but not limited to personal attacks, extreme OT posts etc) don't hesitate to use this button and bring it to our attention.
thanks for the co-operation.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 27 Sep 2009 00:08

Forgive my ignorance, but why is Russia developing Su-34 and Su-35BM simultaneously? I mean, Su-35 seems to be a very capable strike fighter in itself with large payload and good range. Yes, Su-34 has greater payload capacity but I do not get the reason for developing two fighters, which to my dehati eye, seem to be of very similar capabilities.
The only reason I can guess is that Su-34 has much greater advantage in strike role but has limitations in maneuverability? Hence the need for Su-35BM? Is it so or is there some other reason?

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 27 Sep 2009 02:23

one is a dedicated bomber ( or a fighter-bomber if u say) and the other is supposed to be a fighter ( although it can also drop bombs as & when required).

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 27 Sep 2009 03:16

Parijat Gaur wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but why is Russia developing Su-34 and Su-35BM simultaneously? I mean, Su-35 seems to be a very capable strike fighter in itself with large payload and good range. Yes, Su-34 has greater payload capacity but I do not get the reason for developing two fighters, which to my dehati eye, seem to be of very similar capabilities.
The only reason I can guess is that Su-34 has much greater advantage in strike role but has limitations in maneuverability? Hence the need for Su-35BM? Is it so or is there some other reason?

Bob V wrote:one is a dedicated bomber ( or a fighter-bomber if u say) and the other is supposed to be a fighter ( although it can also drop bombs as & when required).

Su-34 is a dedicated bomber? Sure, but coming from Sukhoi family, I would assume it to be highly agile too. My question's purpose was to know if my assumption is correct or not. Because if Su-34 is an agile a/c, then fit it with Saturn 117S, and IMHO the development cost of Su-35 would be hard to justify.

George J · Post by **George J** » 27 Sep 2009 04:10

Parijat Gaur wrote:........why is Russia developing Su-34 and Su-35BM simultaneously? I mean, Su-35 seems to be a very capable strike fighter in itself with large payload and good range. ............

The Su-34 is a cold war product and Su-35BM is free market product. The Su-34 was/is designed and produced to replace the Su-24 (which incidentally also has a side by side seating configuration....this is done to reduce duplication of certain instrumentation). Just like the Su-27PU (which became the Su-30), the soviets chopped up another series produced Su-27UB (added elements like the Canards from Su-27K...which becomes the carrier borne Su-33 and land based Su-35) and made the Su-27IB out of it. The Su-27IB was later re-designated as Su-34.

After the fall of the Soviet Union its every man/design house/production house for himself/themselves. So RSK Mig or MAPO made the Migs but Sukhoi OKB designed the Sukhois but the single seater Su-27 were made by KNAAPO (Komsomolsk-upon-Amur Aircraft Production Association), -27UB and Su-30K are made by IAPO (Irkutsk Aircraft Production Association) and Su-34 is made by NAPO (Novosibirsk Aircraft Production Association). Engines are designed by NPO Saturn but they are made by UMPO (Ufa Motor production association) for IAPO and MPP Salyut for KNAAPO. Then there are two radar mfg. Phazotron NIIR who make the Zhuk and Thikhomirov NIIP who make the Zaslon/Bars.

Thanks to MBA types there is now product differentiation and market segmentation. Sukhoi OKB in cooperation with IAPO and NPO Saturn in cooperation with UMPO with NIIP come up with a custom designed platform that "looks" like the Su-30 and it called the Su-30MK....which is MKI, MKM and MKA (the Indian Line) and Su-30 for Vietnam (?). The same Sukhoi OKB in cooperation with KNAAPO, MPP Salyut, NIIR come up with the Su-30MK....which is the MKK, MK2 and the MKV (the Chinese Line), Su-33 and Su-35. NPO Saturn + UMPO makes the first production TVC called the AL-31FP for the MKI. MPP Salyut without Saturn's blessing (or so they say) develop something called AL-31FN and sell it to China for their J-10. Both companies make the baseline AL-31F. Now they are developing the -31FM1 for the Su-27SM.

Now after the MKI was inducted the world realized that the MKI just happen to "look" like a Su-30 but its a completely different beast. IAPO now has a "superior" Su-30MK compared to Su-30MK offered by KNAAPO. That's where the Su-35BM comes in. It's basically KNAAPO evolution of Su-27SM > Irbis PESA + AL-41F1A (117S) TVC - canards = Su-35BM.

And sometime in 2000 Sukhoi + Mig + all production companies + others were merged into one outfit called Sukhoi AVPK. The Su-35 is primarily meant for domestic upgrades. I am not sure if PLAAF will see anything that sophisticated given their penchant to copy.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 27 Sep 2009 04:29

^^ Thanks. And is Su-34 supposed to be an agile aircraft?