Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
In the MRCA competition, there seems to be a range of aircraft that don't seem to equivalent... why are single engine planes like the F-16 and Gripen competing against twin engine planes like F-18/Mig-35/Eurofighter?
If we are looking for twin engine fighters, why not procure more MKIs?
If we are looking for twin engine fighters, why not procure more MKIs?
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
You have clubbed the Mig-35 with the wrong crowd. Even though its a twin engined aircraft its size and payload is a lot less than the MKI and is comparable to the single engined F-16.Carl_T wrote:In the MRCA competition, there seems to be a range of aircraft that don't seem to equivalent... why are single engine planes like the F-16 and Gripen competing against twin engine planes like F-18/Mig-35/Eurofighter?
If we are looking for twin engine fighters, why not procure more MKIs?
But the other three twin engined aircraft are comparable in range and payload to the MKI. IAF wasn't looking for these at the beginning. The original request was for the Mirage-2000-5. When the MoD wanted a multi vendor tender the original choices were Mig-29ovt, Mirage -2000-5 and Gripen. Because of Indo-US bonhomie the F-16 got included. So then Boeing decided to jump in with the SH. Dassault got tired of keeping the Mirage assembly lines open for us and decided to field the Rafale instead. EADS not to be left behind offered the tiffy. The whole competition changed at this point. IAF started looking at this as a way to get its hands on some sophisticated technology (like AESA radars) which was currently unavailable to it.
Hope this clarifies your doubt.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Thank you, I do now notice that the MKI is a lot bigger than all the aircraft in the competition, however it does seem to be similarly priced as well.nachiket wrote:You have clubbed the Mig-35 with the wrong crowd. Even though its a twin engined aircraft its size and payload is a lot less than the MKI and is comparable to the single engined F-16.Carl_T wrote:In the MRCA competition, there seems to be a range of aircraft that don't seem to equivalent... why are single engine planes like the F-16 and Gripen competing against twin engine planes like F-18/Mig-35/Eurofighter?
If we are looking for twin engine fighters, why not procure more MKIs?
But the other three twin engined aircraft are comparable in range and payload to the MKI. IAF wasn't looking for these at the beginning. The original request was for the Mirage-2000-5. When the MoD wanted a multi vendor tender the original choices were Mig-29ovt, Mirage -2000-5 and Gripen. Because of Indo-US bonhomie the F-16 got included. So then Boeing decided to jump in with the SH. Dassault got tired of keeping the Mirage assembly lines open for us and decided to field the Rafale instead. EADS not to be left behind offered the tiffy. The whole competition changed at this point. IAF started looking at this as a way to get its hands on some sophisticated technology (like AESA radars) which was currently unavailable to it.
Hope this clarifies your doubt.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
I'm not sure exactly, but from my reading of WoP, it appears that given their importance, and how dangerous accidental arming or release would be, nuke payloads have some extra requirements, in terms of extra arming and safety protocols, signals only given through very high voltage signals (there was a discussion on capacitors in WoP for this reason), and the like.shiv wrote:As long as any payload is in a container of the right size and weight and can be fixed to a pylon on the LCA - it will be able to carry nukes, flowers, cowdung, milk or anything that one may choose to send. The plane itself has no specific preference for what is inside the container carrying the payload.durgesh wrote:Can LCA carry nukes ?
Whether the LCA can be used for fuzing and toss bombing of nuke payload is not information that has been discussed in public as far as I know.
I'm not sure if these requirements will be present on a normal aircraft weapons interface, which is probably why we've heard talk of TSP and gang adapting their fighters for the role.
Can some guru answer these please.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
what are they wearing on their helmets.
the device on the rifles are some targetting practice unit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India ... rifles.jpg
the device on the rifles are some targetting practice unit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India ... rifles.jpg
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
^^^ Those beads on ze helmets basically collect shots that are fired at the person wearing it by others. the device on the rifle fires those shots (laser) and then those beads collect them. IIRC its from one of em exercises with Khan forces.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
eh ? how come ? driver's head is clearly ahead of the turret. which part of the turret will do you think will be able to come to such a position ?jamwal wrote:Sorry, I meant driver, not gunner in my original post.
Rahul jee, going by picture you posted, driver's head definitely will be crushed if the turret rotates. But it's not a likely scenario in combat as other members suggested
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 07#p811407
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Can somebody please explain why does JAS Gripen (C/D Version) carry more weapons payload of upto 6000kg than LCA Tejas Mk1 which can carry just 4000kg of weapons payload. I am wondering how does the older version of Gripen carry more 50% more payload despite the LCA Tejas being lighter than it but yet having a slightly more powerful engine (85 kN thrust General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan) while the JAS Gripen (C/D Version) has 80 kN thrust Volvo Aero RM12 which is the same version of engine the LCA Tejas Mk1 has?
Thanks in advance!
Thanks in advance!
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Indian Army's artillery procurement plan suggests requirement of self propelled, towed, and ultra light.
Why doesn't the truck mounted (self propelled wheeled) artillery piece replace the towed variant altogether? What is the advantage of towed artillery over self propelled (wheeled) artillery?
TIA
Why doesn't the truck mounted (self propelled wheeled) artillery piece replace the towed variant altogether? What is the advantage of towed artillery over self propelled (wheeled) artillery?
TIA
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
The key advantage of self-propelled over towed artillery is that it can be brought into action much faster. Before the towed artillery can be used, it has to stop, unlimber and set up the guns. To move position, the guns must be limbered up again and brought — usually towed — to the new location. By comparison self-propelled artillery can stop at a chosen location and begin firing almost immediately, then quickly move on to a new position. This ability is very useful in a mobile conflict and particularly on the advance.
Conversely, towed artillery was and remains cheaper to build and maintain. It is also lighter and can be taken to places that self-propelled guns cannot reach, so despite the advantages of the self-propelled artillery, towed guns remain in the arsenals of many modern armies.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
The other thing AFAIK is that with weapon locating radars an artillery piece has to fire just one shell and the enemy radar will pinpoint it and a volley of retaliatory fire can destroy your artillery piece unless you scoot pronto.krishnan wrote: stop at a chosen location and begin firing almost immediately, then quickly move on to a new position. This ability is very useful in a mobile conflict and particularly on the advance.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Brig Chittaranjan Sawant would call it 'Daago aur Bhaago' in describing the Bofors during republic day parade coverage on DD.shiv wrote:....The other thing AFAIK is that with weapon locating radars an artillery piece has to fire just one shell and the enemy radar will pinpoint it and a volley of retaliatory fire can destroy your artillery piece unless you scoot pronto.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 348
- Joined: 21 Jan 2010 19:24
- Location: Pandora
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Shiv, thanks for clarifying this. We've read in many places that the Paki F-16s cannot carry nukes due to limitations in the plane.shiv wrote:As long as any payload is in a container of the right size and weight and can be fixed to a pylon on the LCA - it will be able to carry nukes, flowers, cowdung, milk or anything that one may choose to send. The plane itself has no specific preference for what is inside the container carrying the payload.durgesh wrote:Can LCA carry nukes ?
Whether the LCA can be used for fuzing and toss bombing of nuke payload is not information that has been discussed in public as far as I know.
My question is : if the F-16 can carry a regular 2000lb bomb, what prevents the Pakis from placing a nuke inside the casing of a regular 2000lb bomb, and setting a fuze based on time or impact or GPS location or altitude, or any other criteria - all built into the bomb? As far as the plane is concerned, it is dropping a standard iron bomb.
Nukes may well have much more security features under responsible usage, and the F16 may prevent those from triggering the fuze, but what if the Paki military losing a major war, just want a bomb that explodes the second time it crosses 2000 ft altitude, as long as the second time is at least 30 minutes after the first time? Is this too simplistic a picture?
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Anyone know what this is about?
[youtube]R4Hski-QnfE&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]R4Hski-QnfE&feature=related[/youtube]
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Brig Chittaranjan Sawant from the Army Education Corps?Brig Chittaranjan Sawant would call it 'Daago aur Bhaago' in describing the Bofors during republic day parade coverage on DD.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2585
- Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
- Location: Mansarovar
- Contact:
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Why does IAF insist so much on twin seater fighters? What are the advantages and disadvantages over a single seater ?
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Have a question for experts: Given that the PAK-FA/FGFA has flown and is known to have a very short take-off distance (300-400 m), it may be suitable for carrier based operations in its naval based avatar. However, my question is how would a "stealthy" fighter be useful when based off a non-stealthy a/c carrier?
AFAIK, stealth ships do exist. Hence i once again come to the question, will there be any real benefit by having stealthy naval carrier based fighters?
This is also part of the dilemna facing the USN with the "Sea Raptor" project, so answers will be welcome.
AFAIK, stealth ships do exist. Hence i once again come to the question, will there be any real benefit by having stealthy naval carrier based fighters?
This is also part of the dilemna facing the USN with the "Sea Raptor" project, so answers will be welcome.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
please check some of the latest pages of the Su30 dhaga to get some basic insight on this topique.durgesh wrote:Why does IAF insist so much on twin seater fighters? What are the advantages and disadvantages over a single seater ?
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Can you really make a ship stealth against submarine?Klaus wrote:Have a question for experts: Given that the PAK-FA/FGFA has flown and is known to have a very short take-off distance (300-400 m), it may be suitable for carrier based operations in its naval based avatar. However, my question is how would a "stealthy" fighter be useful when based off a non-stealthy a/c carrier?
AFAIK, stealth ships do exist. Hence i once again come to the question, will there be any real benefit by having stealthy naval carrier based fighters?
This is also part of the dilemna facing the USN with the "Sea Raptor" project, so answers will be welcome.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
krishnan wrote:Can you really make a ship stealth against submarine?Klaus wrote:Have a question for experts: Given that the PAK-FA/FGFA has flown and is known to have a very short take-off distance (300-400 m), it may be suitable for carrier based operations in its naval based avatar. However, my question is how would a "stealthy" fighter be useful when based off a non-stealthy a/c carrier?
AFAIK, stealth ships do exist. Hence i once again come to the question, will there be any real benefit by having stealthy naval carrier based fighters?
This is also part of the dilemna facing the USN with the "Sea Raptor" project, so answers will be welcome.
A normal ship can be heard underwater by unaided ear in a submarine many many kilometers away.
If one listens carefully, it is even possible to distinguish between different types as well as make out individual ships from their hull and prop noises.
Underwater stealth for surface ships may be far away by current technology.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
STEALTH SHIPS, SUBMARINES AND AIRCRAFT
by G. V. Joshi
Stealth technology makes ships, boats, vehicles, aircraft or missiles nearly invisible to enemy radar or other electronic detection.
U. S. Navy scientists are developing stealth submarines that have artificial muscles in place of propellers.
The Indian Navy is likely to induct two ‘stealth’ ships in the next three to four months. At present, the ships are undergoing extensive sea trials in Russia. Around 500 Indian officers and sailors have been in Russia for the last several months training on the two ships. On being inducted, the two Talwar class frigate ships, INS Talwar and INS Trishul, will add more punch to the Navy’s capabilities. They will be the first Indian warships to avoid easy detection by enemy forces, equipped with sophisticated weapon systems, including eight vertical missile launch cells.......
Stealth
by G. V. Joshi
Stealth technology makes ships, boats, vehicles, aircraft or missiles nearly invisible to enemy radar or other electronic detection.
U. S. Navy scientists are developing stealth submarines that have artificial muscles in place of propellers.
The Indian Navy is likely to induct two ‘stealth’ ships in the next three to four months. At present, the ships are undergoing extensive sea trials in Russia. Around 500 Indian officers and sailors have been in Russia for the last several months training on the two ships. On being inducted, the two Talwar class frigate ships, INS Talwar and INS Trishul, will add more punch to the Navy’s capabilities. They will be the first Indian warships to avoid easy detection by enemy forces, equipped with sophisticated weapon systems, including eight vertical missile launch cells.......
Stealth
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
One noobie question.
Why isn't any one installing (or atleast workinging towards) a micro CIWS system on aircrafts something as seen in the below pic on the car?
This makes a very good anti A-A missile system.
BTW, this pic is of the Ians Fleming James bond's car from the movie 'Die Another Day'. I am big fan this gentleman.
My manager just saw me looking this pic. Poor fellow is thinking I still has fetish towards toys, not know what I am thinking.
Why isn't any one installing (or atleast workinging towards) a micro CIWS system on aircrafts something as seen in the below pic on the car?
This makes a very good anti A-A missile system.
BTW, this pic is of the Ians Fleming James bond's car from the movie 'Die Another Day'. I am big fan this gentleman.
My manager just saw me looking this pic. Poor fellow is thinking I still has fetish towards toys, not know what I am thinking.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Newbie question:
DRDO says that the Akash missile is better than the Patriot because unlike the Patriot, which coasts for most distance, the Akash's engine is "on" throughout the flight. However, given the relative ranges (Akash = 30 km and Patriot = 160km), the Patriot may also have its engine "on" for atleast 30 km. It shall coast the rest of the distance. How is the Akash then, better than the Patriot?
Since the Akash has comparable dimensions, weight and comparable propulsion technology to the Patriot, the Akash could also increase its range by coasting. Why did DRDO not build that capability in the missile, given that no extra propulsion is required and probably only additional fins and some more coding in the s/w / additional avionics would be required? Hopefully range shall be increased in the next version if we develop it
DRDO says that the Akash missile is better than the Patriot because unlike the Patriot, which coasts for most distance, the Akash's engine is "on" throughout the flight. However, given the relative ranges (Akash = 30 km and Patriot = 160km), the Patriot may also have its engine "on" for atleast 30 km. It shall coast the rest of the distance. How is the Akash then, better than the Patriot?
Since the Akash has comparable dimensions, weight and comparable propulsion technology to the Patriot, the Akash could also increase its range by coasting. Why did DRDO not build that capability in the missile, given that no extra propulsion is required and probably only additional fins and some more coding in the s/w / additional avionics would be required? Hopefully range shall be increased in the next version if we develop it
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
How small is micro?Venu wrote:One noobie question.
Why isn't any one installing (or atleast workinging towards) a micro CIWS system on aircrafts something as seen in the below pic on the car?
A Phalanx CIWS weighs 6 tons and fires 50 shells per second (3000 rpm)
Even if you reduce that to 1000 kg for an aircraft, you still have to fire at least 20 mm shells - any smaller and they will be useless. Assuming 100 grams per shell and 30 seconds ammunition - that adds 150 kg.
To aim the cannon in any direction it would have to be mounted on a turret - making the aircraft look like a WW2 bomber - with all the penalty for drag and weight. That is why the task was given to James Bond onlee.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
^^
shiv saar , did you get the answer to your query regarding laser collision avoidance systems for helicopters? I had sent you a link describing the ' Hellas ' system, sometime ago.
shiv saar , did you get the answer to your query regarding laser collision avoidance systems for helicopters? I had sent you a link describing the ' Hellas ' system, sometime ago.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
They haven't gotten out of the habit of peddling snake oil even today. Khandhani business hai.Mayuresh wrote:Newbie question:
DRDO says that the Akash missile is better than the Patriot because unlike the Patriot, which coasts for most distance, the Akash's engine is "on" throughout the flight. However, given the relative ranges (Akash = 30 km and Patriot = 160km), the Patriot may also have its engine "on" for atleast 30 km. It shall coast the rest of the distance. How is the Akash then, better than the Patriot?
Since the Akash has comparable dimensions, weight and comparable propulsion technology to the Patriot, the Akash could also increase its range by coasting. Why did DRDO not build that capability in the missile, given that no extra propulsion is required and probably only additional fins and some more coding in the s/w / additional avionics would be required? Hopefully range shall be increased in the next version if we develop it
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
I guess the missiles now have to be better in terms of kill rate by virtue of actually hitting the target by countering the counter measures to the counter measures(...)..Akash then may have a better accuracy. May I also add that akash may not have been tested as much as the patriot which has been around for quite some time. Regardless, IAF is going ahead to procure close to a 1000 missiles in their inventory..so that says they musta liked em...chetak wrote:They haven't gotten out of the habit of peddling snake oil even today. Khandhani business hai.Mayuresh wrote:Newbie question:
DRDO says that the Akash missile is better than the Patriot because unlike the Patriot, which coasts for most distance, the Akash's engine is "on" throughout the flight. However, given the relative ranges (Akash = 30 km and Patriot = 160km), the Patriot may also have its engine "on" for atleast 30 km. It shall coast the rest of the distance. How is the Akash then, better than the Patriot?
Since the Akash has comparable dimensions, weight and comparable propulsion technology to the Patriot, the Akash could also increase its range by coasting. Why did DRDO not build that capability in the missile, given that no extra propulsion is required and probably only additional fins and some more coding in the s/w / additional avionics would be required? Hopefully range shall be increased in the next version if we develop it
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
where did you get that bit ?Mayuresh wrote:DRDO says .......
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
^^
http://www.drdo.gov.in/dpi/prahlada_interview.html
http://www.drdo.gov.in/dpi/prahlada_interview.html
That way, DRDO scientists consider Akash superior to the US Patriot.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
I did thxBob V wrote:^^
shiv saar , did you get the answer to your query regarding laser collision avoidance systems for helicopters? I had sent you a link describing the ' Hellas ' system, sometime ago.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Is there anything that the PLA, PLAN and the PLAAF possess today that they do not make domestically and do not have the ability to mass produce with only domestic resources - even critical systems?
If the answer is what I think it is, does the Indian method of acquiring best of breed for a Technology Edge have a lasting benefit?
If the answer is what I think it is, does the Indian method of acquiring best of breed for a Technology Edge have a lasting benefit?
-
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 01 Sep 2009 00:13
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Lately, we have been getting news of transfer of single crystal blades from Eurojet.
If yes, are we bound in any way wherein this technology can be used ONLY for the manufacture of the particular item (the EJ200 in this case). Or can we use this know-how acquired (and further modify/develop) in our own domestic projects without any restrictions that may also include possible overseas sale of a domestically developed product utilizing this technology.
TIA.
Does this imply that after transfer of this tech. we will be completely able to manufacture the required thingy from scratch on our own?Eurojet management today confirmed that if required they are willing to transfer single crystal turbine blade technology.
source
If yes, are we bound in any way wherein this technology can be used ONLY for the manufacture of the particular item (the EJ200 in this case). Or can we use this know-how acquired (and further modify/develop) in our own domestic projects without any restrictions that may also include possible overseas sale of a domestically developed product utilizing this technology.
TIA.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
^^
One can only guess about this since no deal has been made.
But you will be interested to know that Russia has already provided us with Single Crystal Tech via Su-30MKI serial production. Yet, our problems persist. So the issue is not so simple.
This topic has already been discussed extensively on BR.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=1200
Start looking from this page.
One can only guess about this since no deal has been made.
But you will be interested to know that Russia has already provided us with Single Crystal Tech via Su-30MKI serial production. Yet, our problems persist. So the issue is not so simple.
This topic has already been discussed extensively on BR.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=1200
Start looking from this page.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Well to the first part I can say that Russia and US are the only two with an ACTIVE system. Rest all including India are still developing the tech and unless the weapon is inducted in the armed forces we cannot officially claim we have it. Although I dont think China has actually inducted the ABM but just tested it much like India,rather, DRDO did last year.Bhushan wrote:Recently China conducted a Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) test ON 11th January 2010. Some media reports say that China is the second or third country to posses this ABM technology after USA and Russia. I was just wondering how true this was because it is well known open fact that Israel and India already have proved to possess this technology along with the other two countries mentioned before. So that should make China as the fifth country to possess and test this technology?
I just wanted to know if its correct that China is second or third country to posses this ABM technology? Or its a case of mistaken reporting? If China indeed happens to be second or third country to posses this ABM technology could some body please enlighten me as to how the Chinese ABM system is different than the Indian ABM system?
Thanks in advance!
All ABM have similar basic mechanism of tracking,homing and destroying the enemy missile. The difference is the altitude at which they intercept, Endo or exo.
Hope that helps.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
I suspect this is one of the S-400 or derivative system that china uses rather than a de novo design.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
Ok, Its now my turn.
Lets take MRCA for eg, the contract worth is some $10+ billion and includes TOT and other crap.According to the deal,the OEM has to supply the intimal lot while the rest will be made by HAL. How does the contract work?
We are paying $10 billion to OEM and it includes 30-50% offset and again HAL makes the birds using TOT and domestic raw materials to some extent.
I didnt get it ,how the money is shared.Who is paying for the expences incurred by HAL in making the aircraft?
If it is OEM, then its a big robbery,since made is india cost very less and the amount offloaded to OEM is high.
Can some one put all the economics in a cleargel perspective so that my tiny little brain can try to understand
Lets take MRCA for eg, the contract worth is some $10+ billion and includes TOT and other crap.According to the deal,the OEM has to supply the intimal lot while the rest will be made by HAL. How does the contract work?
We are paying $10 billion to OEM and it includes 30-50% offset and again HAL makes the birds using TOT and domestic raw materials to some extent.
I didnt get it ,how the money is shared.Who is paying for the expences incurred by HAL in making the aircraft?
If it is OEM, then its a big robbery,since made is india cost very less and the amount offloaded to OEM is high.
Can some one put all the economics in a cleargel perspective so that my tiny little brain can try to understand
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
With 2 SSN's as part of an IN CBG (Vikramaditya and 2 destroyers, all of them conventional), will the SSN be able to take operational command of the CBG (Mig 29's in particular) assuming they are on a strike operation far away from home shores.nachiket wrote:Why would an SSBN be part of a CBG? Did you mean SSN? AFAIK SSBNs are lone wolves and operate silently and alone to avoid detection.Klaus wrote: Another question i have is with regard to a CBG. At this point we do not have a N-powered a/c carrier, so if SSBN's are part of this CBG and an eventuality (such as a temporary shutdown of power or a fire in the engine room of the carrier) takes place, will the Mig-29's be able to take orders from the lead SSBN, i.e. will the SSBN be able to take operational command of the CBG till the carrier is back to a 100%? I understand that this was one of the factors which led to the conversion of 4 Ohio class subs to a SSGN role.
P.S: I'm assuming the Gorky will be the carrier here with its Mig-29K's, assume the CBG is on a strike operation.
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
even if I ignore the fact that ships don't control anything, the officers on them do, how (and why ?) will a SSN take command of a CBG ?
Re: Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous
^^^ Sir, I am just presenting a hypothetical scenario wherein the CBG is on an operation far from home shores (no shores based assistance available) and the carrier has to be temporarily shutdown due to issues with the powerplant, in this case will the SSN be able to take charge of the CBG till the carrier is back to full function or will this task be assigned to one of the destroyers instead?
We are just discussing contingencies in case of technical snags, nothing else!
We are just discussing contingencies in case of technical snags, nothing else!