Indian Military Aviation

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.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10086
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sum » 21 Apr 2010 08:49

Contenders include the Embraer EMB-312 Tucano, EADS PZL-130 Orlik, Grob G120, Hawker Beechcraft T-6, Pilatus PC-7A, Korea’s KT-1 and Daher-Socata TB30 — with the last three having the same basic platform and engine. Once a decision is made, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) will float a bid for the design of 104 aircraft.

Sad day that we have to start importing even basic trainers when we are looking forward to MCAs etc...

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby merlin » 21 Apr 2010 10:54

shiv wrote:
indranilroy wrote:But they are not the top gun kind of guys who do acts of bravado. In fact for each flight they have a strict flight manual which they strictly adhere to, they would not start a roll a sec early, nor would they exceed set speed for the flight.



Absolutely true and some BRFites may recall a BRF Aero India meet where there was a joke about this. We had invited the pilot of a particular aircraft and he joked about how the test pilot flying the same aircraft for the display did nothing exciting and in fact did a chukker around the whole of Karnataka just to turn around before returning after each fly-by/display in front of the audience. No names will be mentioned.


Yes, both pilots were there and a study in contrast. The regular pilot with a *lot* of hours on that type was pretty flamboyant. The test pilot in contrast was very soft spoken and cool, almost laid back.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 21 Apr 2010 16:39

shiv wrote:
Viv S wrote:I wish GTRE would start working on an indigenous engine to power the IJT. Unlike the Kaveri which is to replace the F404, the technical requirements for the IJT's engine were probably more modest with the order size still being substantial.


Someone has mentioned (in some thread maybe this one) the idea that an IIT dept should be given teh job of designing an aircraft. I think this engine idea should go to at least two separate university depts and not the GTRE.


For what it is worth, there was a Prof at Bombay IIT that proposed to modify the MiG-21 instead of building the LCA - this was back in early 80s or could be late 70s. !!!!!!!!!!!!

The base was there. IMVVVHO the GoI squandered it away because of lack of vision and of ocurse total lack of management 9which exists today too).

"Research" is actually a form of play. The best researchers are funded for doing what they love with no penalty for not reaching a pre-set goal. I am not sure the GTRE qualifies as such an establishment. As an audited govt dept they have to have pre set goals, timelines etc and they fail all round.

Note that in aero-engine development - mistakes you make also count as learning. Having many centers making different mistakes adds to the body of knowledge.


GTRE by itself does not have to conduct research. They could have either multiple institutions that support this effort of even one or two GTRE related institutions that perform this function. Whatever the case instead of gassing around India should get it moving. Once it is there it is only a matter of reorganizing to give it the proper shape.

However, this was actually started by someone related to the LCA (in aircraft design, etc, not engines) (Shiv, no points for guessing). There was a problem that arose that diluted the "research". (I do not want to post the cause - it would not contribute to the discussion or the situation.)

In addition we need an engine test bed aircraft of our own. Recall the Fairchild Packet with a dorsally mounted jet engine? India has some experience (now crashed) of a dorsally mounted radar idli on an Avro 748. Why not take a proven engine - such as the one used in Kirans, mount it dorsally on an Avro and develop a test bed aircraft?


"Why not ..........".

Because there is no reason to do anything. Mush has gone, so no more Kargils. The US has intervened and we do not need to anything to control our own region. Fear of Jihadis actually attacking the plush areas or businesses owned by .............

Point being there is no reason, therefore no vision, therefore inactivity. Doing nothing has it's own flaws, but it is the best option for Netas.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kersi D » 21 Apr 2010 20:02

shukla wrote:
Craig Alpert wrote:Sitara PT-I off to Jaislamer for hot weather trials, AL-55I engine to undergo rigorous test


Yes they better be "rigorously" tested.. to avoid any more disasters or casualties.. We cant afford to loose any more of our valued pilots to coz of damnned planes..


Often IAF deputes some of its pilots on deputation to HAL, as text pilots.
HAL has some test pilots who are essentially ex IAF. I think late Wg Cdr K Suresh was one, Shiv to confirm.

K

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 21 Apr 2010 20:10

Kersi D wrote:Often IAF deputes some of its pilots on deputation to HAL, as text pilots.
HAL has some test pilots who are essentially ex IAF. I think late Wg Cdr K Suresh was one, Shiv to confirm.

K


Suresh was not a test pilot - but Baldev, Rakesh Sharma (now retd) and everyone else is ex- IAF. Others are on temporary attachment. One such person has actually posted here in the days before LCA took to the shies - it was Misra I think

Incidentally I saw a Mirage with IFR probe taking off from HAL today. Don't see that too often round these parts. This was preceded by a very low and very loud Jag takeoff that temporarily stopped a Golf tournament (for 10 seconds or so :) ) IAF/HAL were not against me today. :lol:

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kersi D » 21 Apr 2010 20:18

shiv wrote:
indranilroy wrote:But they are not the top gun kind of guys who do acts of bravado. In fact for each flight they have a strict flight manual which they strictly adhere to, they would not start a roll a sec early, nor would they exceed set speed for the flight.


Absolutely true and some BRFites may recall a BRF Aero India meet where there was a joke about this. We had invited the pilot of a particular aircraft and he joked about how the test pilot flying the same aircraft for the display did nothing exciting and in fact did a chukker around the whole of Karnataka just to turn around before returning after each fly-by/display in front of the audience. No names will be mentioned.



Was it the same BR Meet when we had a super wonderful discussions regarding the failure of hydraulic systems ? I think this article is on BR Archives. The pilot got some Vayu Sena award for bringing back a disbaled Jaguar.

It was A Mother of All Meets. Chief of IAF Eastern Command was one of our guests.

K

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kersi D » 21 Apr 2010 20:20

shiv wrote:
Kersi D wrote:Often IAF deputes some of its pilots on deputation to HAL, as text pilots.
HAL has some test pilots who are essentially ex IAF. I think late Wg Cdr K Suresh was one, Shiv to confirm.

K


Suresh was not a test pilot - but Baldev, Rakesh Sharma (now retd) and everyone else is ex- IAF. Others are on temporary attachment. One such person has actually posted here in the days before LCA took to the shies - it was Misra I think

Incidentally I saw a Mirage with IFR probe taking off from HAL today. Don't see that too often round these parts. This was preceded by a very low and very loud Jag takeoff that temporarily stopped a Golf tournament (for 10 seconds or so :) ) IAF/HAL were not against me today. :lol:


I was not sure about the status of late Wg Cdr K Suresh. But I believe that he was quite a maverick !!

K

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Juggi G » 22 Apr 2010 06:39

India Develops Requirements For AMCA :P
AVIATION WEEK
India Develops Requirements For AMCA
Apr 21, 2010

By Neelam Mathews
NEW DELHI

India’s Aeronautical Development Agency is evaluating Indian air force requirements for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

The weight of the AMCA will not exceed 25 tons. The twin-engine configured aircraft will have a higher thrust being in the bigger weight category than the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

The Defense Research & Development Organization (DRDO) had announced earlier this year that the AMCA program would be launched in 2010. While unofficially work has started on the design, according to an official, the AMCA will be officially announced in 6-8 months. “There is nothing official about it… It is currently not a sanctioned project from the government. We are looking at the technical requirements submitted by the Indian air force,” the official told Aerospace DAILY.

The AMCA was earlier called the Medium Combat Aircraft. This [AMCA] is very different from the design of the MCA,” an official says.

The Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) that India is currently evaluating bids for is a 4.5-generation aircraft, an official says. “None of the contenders fall in the stealth configuration, which is the most important consideration for the AMCA.”

India hopes to develop Stealth Technologies Indigenously. “We are looking at stealth features even for the LCA,” the official says. “We believe it can be developed here.”

Not having chosen an engine as yet, it is likely that the Kaveri Mk-2 engine presently being developed by Snecma and Gas Turbine Research Establishment will be used for the AMCA.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6999
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Anujan » 22 Apr 2010 06:47

^^^

We should have a no-holds-barred requirement for advanced engine and advanced radar for this plane and base all of our planning that they will be available on time. :P

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 22 Apr 2010 06:56

Suswagatham.

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Juggi G » 22 Apr 2010 07:02


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 22 Apr 2010 07:17



If only they had woken up in 2005!!!

At least it is moving. Hopefully in the right direction.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8187
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Indranil » 22 Apr 2010 07:45

NRao wrote:


If only they had woken up in 2005!!!

At least it is moving. Hopefully in the right direction.


AT LAST! Big sigh of relief!

I really feel that unfortunately we don't fund our universities enough for them to come up with prototype on their own, but WHAT THE HELL ARE HAL and NAL doing? NAL (for example) already has HANSA which is trainer. I don't intend to say that HANSA and the HPT-40 or the basic trainers being looked into for induction are the same, but atleast the basic things should be close!

I hope HAL doesn't spend a lot of time to get to the production of the HPT-40!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8187
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Indranil » 22 Apr 2010 08:45

I dont understand why we loose out on our own market. Cash strapped NAL missed out on such a BIG Order! As somebody pointed out, I wish they had seen it in 2005. And if they had seen it, not stayed dormant for so long now!

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 22 Apr 2010 08:52

indranilroy wrote:I dont understand why we loose out on our own market. Cash strapped NAL missed out on such a BIG Order! As somebody pointed out, I wish they had seen it in 2005. And if they had seen it, not stayed dormant for so long now!



Foretelling a future market is one thing. But a quick response to an un-anticipated market demand would be an indicator of a mature industry. Let's see..

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8187
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Indranil » 22 Apr 2010 10:12

shiv wrote:
indranilroy wrote:I dont understand why we loose out on our own market. Cash strapped NAL missed out on such a BIG Order! As somebody pointed out, I wish they had seen it in 2005. And if they had seen it, not stayed dormant for so long now!



Foretelling a future market is one thing. But a quick response to an un-anticipated market demand would be an indicator of a mature industry. Let's see..


Surely ... but did this "new" market really need a crystal bowl to crack ... I doubt it!

David Siegel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 07:40

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby David Siegel » 22 Apr 2010 10:13

Juggi G wrote:India Develops Requirements For AMCA :P
AVIATION WEEK


Some more info..
IAF issues ASR for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA )
http://idrw.org/?p=1385

Indian Air Force has issued Air Staff Requirements for the Countries Next Generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) which will be designed and build in India .

Requirements laid down by Air force is

1 ) AMCA will not exceed 25 tons weight .

2 ) Twin engine powered aircraft with higher thrust.

3) AESA Radar

4) Semi – Stealth is not an option , IAF wants it to be fully Stealthy aircraft with low RCS .

5 ) Redesign in its currently proposed air frame design to make it more stealthier

6 ) More of Locally developed technology and less imported technology (Radars,Engines,Avionics)

Aircraft will be completely different then what earlier DRDO and ADE had put forward which was earlier known as Medium combat aircraft (MCA ) with Semi-stealth features , Government of India has not officially sanctioned the project but the ASR issued to DRDO will be studied and then Government will be approached for the funding .

DRDO will approach government in next six to seven months and by 2011 project funding will start with its first flight to be made by 2016-17 period and induction into air force by 2025 . DRDO is confident in developing most of the avionics for the AMCA in house ,while the Engine most probably will be Kaveri-2 which will be a joint venture between India and France , Sources close to idrw.org had indicated that contracts between India and France on development of Kaveri-2 was not signed due to requirements of the engine was not put forward by the air force .

Engine requirements should be 90kn in thrust ,Its almost sure that the first aircraft will not be powered by the Kaveri-2 since it will take more then 5 years to develop this engine for the aircraft and will only power the later developed prototype , mostly likely new engine which will power Tejas MK-2 either Ej-200 or Ge’s F414 will power initial aircraft . DRDO is currently planning three Prototypes of AMCA which will carry out initial test flights .

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 22 Apr 2010 17:49

This idrw article (as usual) is lacking. This article is repacked (and thankfully not cut-paste).

There was an article (Hindu/ToI I do not recall) where the then CAS had (openly) stated that the very first requirement from the IAF was that EVERYTHING be "Made in India". He specifically had stated that he did not want - say - collaboration with Israel on the radar unit or ....... on the engine, etc, etc, etc.

Besides, I really do not like the Kaveri-II taking that long to mature.

Also the 90 Kn figure was meant for the LCA Mk-II. Are they thinking that it will suffice for a AMCA? Whatever, it is hard to believe that HAL/GTRE/Whoever is STILL, in 2010, waiting for events to happen to design an engine. There NEEDS to be some amount of predictive or anticipatory thinking. Start with 105Kn, they will come out with new material, designs, thinking, etc. 90% will fail and the remaining 10% will result in 90+Kn and a better engine.

Dunno. IMVVVVHO, unless the mentality changes, I am very afraid it will be more of the same. And, I hope and pray I am totally wrong.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Bala Vignesh » 22 Apr 2010 18:26

A total of 180 KN thrust for a 25 Ton aircraft.. Its going to be badly underpowered... wonder why IAF wants it like this when aircrafts that are significantly less heavier than them have more thrust...

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17024
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 22 Apr 2010 18:32

Bala Vignesh wrote:A total of 180 KN thrust for a 25 Ton aircraft.. Its going to be badly underpowered... wonder why IAF wants it like this when aircrafts that are significantly less heavier than them have more thrust...

it will end up with a higher thrust than 90kN from day one.

even otherwise, how is it badly underpowered ? doesn't look like that to me.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shukla » 22 Apr 2010 18:39

Thales to modernise avionics on Indian Air Force MiG-29s

European aerospace giant Thales has been chosen to modernise avionics on the Indian Air Force (IAF) fleet of MiG-29 multi-role fighters to enable interoperability with Western military aircraft so as to avoid friendly fire, it was announced Thursday. The jet’s manufacturer, Russian Aircraft Corporation, MiG (RSK-MiG), has chosen Thales to provide the Combined Interrogator Transponder (CIT) and Cryptographic National Secure Mode (NSM) as part of the MiG-29’s retrofit to enhance their capabilities and increase their service life, a Thales statement said.


Thales will also supply the IAF’s MiG-29 fighters with the TOTEM 3000 latest generation Inertial Navigation and Global Positioning System. In addition, Thales is also equipping the Indian Navy’s newly acquired MiG-29KUB aircraft with the Topsight E helmet-mounted sight/display (HMS/D), for which it successfully completed integration phase with the aircraft in November 2009.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shukla » 22 Apr 2010 19:27

MOD in official press release admits delay in supply of AJT's to IAF

Delivery of 42 (Hawk-AJT) aircraft was scheduled from 2007-2008 to 2010 – 2011 in a phased manner. Three aircraft were to be built from semi-knocked down (SKD) kits, three from completely knocked down (CKD) kits and 36 from raw material phase. The CKD and SKD kits were assembled on schedule. When production in raw material phase was taken up, it was found that the equipment supplied by the OEM had various shortcomings. The assembly jigs that were supplied did not meet the requirements, there was mismatch in the kits/components supplied, there were defects in major assemblies like the wing spar etc. These problems took time to overcome and hence affected the production schedule at HAL.


This is so embarrassing..

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=60728

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby nrshah » 22 Apr 2010 19:40

it will end up with a higher thrust than 90kN from day one.


How will it happen? They are not considering any other engine nor have any back up plan...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 22 Apr 2010 19:46

nrshah wrote:
it will end up with a higher thrust than 90kN from day one.


How will it happen? They are not considering any other engine nor have any back up plan...


THAT is the point. They should make it happen.

One of the problemS, as I see it, is that they (engine div) keep waiting for someone to "tell" them what to do. All I am saying is that they NEED to have "some" amount of self-motivated efforts.

Outside of "considering any other engine nor have any back up plan", they SHOULD make efforts. Else we will be where we are in another 15 years. Depend on France. Depend on Russia. Depend.

May be the solution is to wait for this "generation" to move out? Dunno.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 22 Apr 2010 19:50

shukla wrote:When production in raw material phase was taken up, it was found that the equipment supplied by the OEM had various shortcomings. The assembly jigs that were supplied did not meet the requirements, there was mismatch in the kits/components supplied, there were defects in major assemblies like the wing spar etc.

This is so embarrassing..

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=60728



Embarrassing to whom? Who is the OEM?

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby nrshah » 22 Apr 2010 19:56

NRao wrote:
THAT is the point. They should make it happen.

One of the problemS, as I see it, is that they (engine div) keep waiting for someone to "tell" them what to do. All I am saying is that they NEED to have "some" amount of self-motivated efforts.

Outside of "considering any other engine nor have any back up plan", they SHOULD make efforts. Else we will be where we are in another 15 years. Depend on France. Depend on Russia. Depend.

May be the solution is to wait for this "generation" to move out? Dunno.


This is the crux of the problem and very well summarized...Something needs to be done to make it happen but unfortunately no one is doing anything as of now except hatching on French deal...Probably GTRE is facing a bofors like phobia and it is afraid of doing anything new on its own. I hope they look at CRDE which continued to do something on Arjun in spite of IA capping them to 124 units....

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby geeth » 22 Apr 2010 20:00

>>>Embarrassing to whom? Who is the OEM?

Embarrassing to Yindia..who else do you think??? How can you expect Yindians to point a finger at the Gora master, without feeling embarrassed?

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shukla » 22 Apr 2010 20:14

shiv wrote:Embarrassing to whom? Who is the OEM?


Pity that loopholes still exist in our contract systems for such scenarios to arise..

Whats worse is that not too long after, compensation was sought from BAE and then a fresh contract was reissued, and rightly so, rather than a follow on order.. but whats baffling is an RFI was sent out to BAE again... a BAE spokesman was quoted recently being optimistic of further sales..

Even if the perception in the Indian air force that its model of the Hawk may not be suitable for the fighters that the service hopes to buy in the coming decade, why go back to BAE at all, especially if thats the treatment meted out??

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 22 Apr 2010 20:29

I get the feeling that we don't have all the necessary information. We are missing something.

As an aside, I personally scoff at the word "embarrassing". A person who is shamed is supposed to be embarrassed. An embarrassed person is one who is wrong and knows he is wrong, and feels embarrassed and might correct himself. A shameless person, or a person who has no reason to feel ashamed does not feel embarrassed.

Either Indians are shameless, or they are not guilty. There is nothing in between - so the question of embarrassment does not arise. It is a worthless word in the context of defence import/manufacture in India. Indians spend too much time feeling embarrassed or believing that other Indians should be embarrassed.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Vivek K » 22 Apr 2010 20:54

The seller and the person that wrote the contract need to be ashamed. If this was China, the person that wrote the contract would have at lest been imprisoned for life.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Victor » 22 Apr 2010 21:15

Something needs to change fast. This is not a problem with "India" or "Indians"--we have some of the world's most innovative and efficient industrial companies. I fail to understand why we still have centralized black holes like HAL or GTRE that have had to answer to no one for over six decades. If we now have to send out RFIs for basic trainer engines, we will be better off farming out the airframes to private companies. At least they are accountable and our pilots will get a trainer in time. In the meantime, HAL can continue blissfully to design the next spaceship and GTRE the next photon engine.

If GTRE cannot produce a suitable turboprop engine for a basic trainer, they should not feel shame in reverse engineering the one that powers the HS 748 which we have been making for decades. It will make a perfect engine for a Tucano-like basic trainer.

Another idiocy we need to shed is this fetish with the word "light". What is light about the LCA or LCH and why do we take such pride in making light weapons?

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Katare » 22 Apr 2010 21:25

It's not embarrassing; in large projects involving this kind of transfer of technology and production of complex products, major issues and delays are norms not exceptions. When you add govts and PSUs to the mix its almost certain this is going to happen. better to plan to compensate for these delays in planning stage itself than to crib about 'em later.

If you don't want delays make sure you have simpler contract no need for screwdriver tech transfer for everything armed forces buy.....

sunny y
BRFite
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 14:47

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sunny y » 22 Apr 2010 22:07

Saras probe is out....

Human error, faulty design behind Saras crash: probe

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/bus ... ras-crash-
probe_100352229.html

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 22 Apr 2010 22:16

Another idiocy we need to shed is this fetish with the word "light". What is light about the LCA or LCH and why do we take such pride in making light weapons?

light and cheap are words I hate too. shows the apologetic nature of the indian mind
even when making a weapon of war. neither should they use advanced/medium/heavy
words. these are oxymorons and meaningless.

Neeraj Bagga
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 24 Sep 2009 20:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Neeraj Bagga » 22 Apr 2010 22:22

Is 25 Ton MTOW?
Bala Vignesh wrote:A total of 180 KN thrust for a 25 Ton aircraft.. Its going to be badly underpowered... wonder why IAF wants it like this when aircrafts that are significantly less heavier than them have more thrust...


Am I missing something? MTOW of F-18 is 23.5 Ton. It is powered by 2 F404. Each produces 48.9 kN (Dry Thrust) and 79.2 kN (Afterburner) thrust. With a total of 160 (say) kN. And its TWR is 0.95. I know it is not the greatest.

I am thinking how would 180 kN for a 25 ton be badly underpowered? I don't know what is the formula to derive the TWR. Gurus? Is the TWR calculated based on Dry Thrust or Afterburner thrust?

Neeraj Bagga
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 24 Sep 2009 20:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Neeraj Bagga » 22 Apr 2010 22:23

Rahul M wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:A total of 180 KN thrust for a 25 Ton aircraft.. Its going to be badly underpowered... wonder why IAF wants it like this when aircrafts that are significantly less heavier than them have more thrust...

it will end up with a higher thrust than 90kN from day one.

even otherwise, how is it badly underpowered ? doesn't look like that to me.


Should have read this post first.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5323
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kartik » 23 Apr 2010 00:19

NRao wrote:This idrw article (as usual) is lacking. This article is repacked (and thankfully not cut-paste).


yeah I don't know why they pick up articles from other sites and then basically re-word them and publish it..

There was an article (Hindu/ToI I do not recall) where the then CAS had (openly) stated that the very first requirement from the IAF was that EVERYTHING be "Made in India". He specifically had stated that he did not want - say - collaboration with Israel on the radar unit or ....... on the engine, etc, etc, etc.


I don't understand what teh IAF wants. if the DRDO/ADA/HAL needs foreign collaboration for some part its better to go that way than to seek to develop everything in India itself..I mean the IAF wants to bloody well import the entire MRCA and they're all of a sudden champions of indigenisation when it comes to the MCA ? why the hell are they importing the PAK-FA then if they're so bloody concerned about whether or not collaboration with a foreign entity happens..

To me it just reeks of bad attitude on the part of the IAF or else they're rigging it up from the start to fail.

They don't want a science projct where R&D keeps going on for 2 decades without being able to operationalise it. But they also don't want DRDO to shorten the development period by seeking external help and integrating already available parts/products either ? So if DRDO fails because every part has to be developed in India and built to world class specs (otherwise of course the IAF won't touch it) then everyone will blame them anyway; and if they seek collaboration, then the IAF will roll its eyes and say "vaise bhi andar ka sab maal import kiya hua hain"..as if the MRCA or PAK-FA are one bit Indigenous. :roll:

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Jagan » 23 Apr 2010 00:58

Kartik wrote:yeah I don't know why they pick up articles from other sites and then basically re-word them and publish it..


its all about eyeballs and ad revenues. :P

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8187
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Indranil » 23 Apr 2010 01:41

Rahul M wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:A total of 180 KN thrust for a 25 Ton aircraft.. Its going to be badly underpowered... wonder why IAF wants it like this when aircrafts that are significantly less heavier than them have more thrust...

it will end up with a higher thrust than 90kN from day one.

even otherwise, how is it badly underpowered ? doesn't look like that to me.


Though not badly underpowered, but it will be on the lower side for fifth-generation planes, won't it?

Plane --------- MTOW (in tons) ----- Combined thrust (with full afternurner)
PAK-FA ------------ 37 ------------------------ 314 KN (might go upto 350 KN)
F-22 ---------------38 ------------------------ 312 KN
F-35 --------------31.8 ----------------------- 191 KN (seems underpowered compared to the others!)
AMCA --------------25 -------------------------180 KN (at par with EF, if not lower)
Last edited by Indranil on 23 Apr 2010 01:45, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5323
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kartik » 23 Apr 2010 01:43

Jagan wrote:
Kartik wrote:yeah I don't know why they pick up articles from other sites and then basically re-word them and publish it..


its all about eyeballs and ad revenues. :P


yes might well be so..but some of their writing is amateurish to be very polite.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests