Indian Military Aviation

palash_kol · Post by **palash_kol** » 05 May 2010 16:32

shukla wrote:MOD press release..

Procurement of Transport Aircraft
Six C-130J – 30 transport aircraft and twelve Dornier aircraft have been procured from the US Government and M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited respectively for the Indian Air Force during the last three years.

Ten Dornier aircraft have been inducted so far and the remaining two are expected to be inducted during 2010-11. The six C-13-J aircraft will be inducted by 2011-12.
This is press release...still they mistake in writing the actual name...its not C-13-J..rather its C-130J...

Anyways...It will definitely enhance India's power to this region..

palash_kol · Post by **palash_kol** » 05 May 2010 16:58

shiv wrote:
tsriram wrote:2-bit countries like the Czech rep has an entry and we don't have one of our own? Or that the engines are all but PW or RR mostly?
It's the engines.

Anyone can design an aircraft, but the engines in that list originate from only 2 countries - the US and Britain. OK Pratt & Whitney Canada is involved by that is a branch of P&W USA. Allison is a US company acquired by Rolls Royce (Britain) and Lycoming is US.

Only 4 countries in the world (or so) are holding the balls of the entire world because they know how to make good engines. And depending on the circumstances they laugh all the way to the bank or laugh all the way to the high table.

Thats absolutely true...shiv bhaiya....

One question here: Do we have any powerfull piston engine like P&W of US??

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 May 2010 17:20

Singha wrote: we are sucking our thumbs on gas turbines while pvt sector like M&M and telco have gone out and resolved the
issue atleast for diesel engines upto 500hp. given time and some foreign consultancy they can make IFV engines
of say 750-1000hp but 1500hp ultra modern tank engine will take more time unless lavish funds are thrown in
to attract relevant people.

I have talked with a number of NRIs who work for the likes of Ford, GM and Cat, and ALL of them have stated the issue with the design/produce large tank engine in India is economics, and not technical know how.

For sure there are plenty of Indians in the US (and perhaps in other nations) that are closely involved in the design of such engines.

I know one NRI who is leading edge WRT electric motors of all sorts. Plenty of patents (back when we were in India) and has been providing solutions to leading vendors in the aero and auto arenas for decades. Babudom, in this case, prevented knowledge transfer to India.

As far the thumb sucking, the early reports (as far back as 80-90s) suggested bad management and slack (I may even go as far as to call it irresponsible) R&D.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 May 2010 20:25

And also undertaking mfg of tank engines also needs support from the buyer. As far as we can tell from Arjun saga, the Armoured Corps is not interested in Indian products. Yes Kirloskar and Tata and even BEML can make the engine but will buy it on an Indian tank? After the engine is made they will change the specs as if they have no stake in its development. And a whole lot of money will be down the drain.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 May 2010 20:26

shiv wrote:OK folks here's something for y'all. As you know the IAF's basic trainer aircraft has been grounded, and the IAF is now looking at several choices of basic trainer Here is a list of contenders from the latest VAYU magazine.

Ten aircraft models. Ten countries. Does anyone notice anything about the list?

Aircraft name: Pilatus PC 21
Country of Origin: Switzerland
Engine: Pratt & Whitney PT6

Aircraft name: EADS/PZL 130TC III Orlik
Country of Origin:Poland
Engine: Pratt & Whitney PT6

Aircraft name: Wong Bee
Country of Origin:S Korea
Engine: Pratt & Whitney PT6

Aircraft name: Grob
Country of Origin: Germany
Engine: Rolls Royce Allison

Aircraft name: Alenia Aeronautic SF 200
Country of Origin: Italy
Engine: Rolls Royce Model 50 turboprop

Aircraft name: PAC CT/4
Country of Origin: New Zealand
Engine: Lycoming

Aircraft name: Tucano
Country of Origin: Brazil
Engine: Pratt & Whitney PT6

Aircraft name: Fuji T-7
Country of Origin: Japan
Engine: Allison turboprop

Aircraft name: Hawker Beechcraft T-6 Texan II
Country of Origin: USA
Engine: Pratt & Whitney PT6

Aircraft name: Zlin
Country of Origin: Czech Republic
Engine: Lycoming

that while we Indians can crib and crib about our desi aircraft having foreign engines (as if its something unique to us) it seems that all the other nations have no issues simply getting Canadian (P&W), US (Lycoming) and British (RR) engines for their aircraft.

OTOH, it shows that there are certain design houses from the developed nations that traditionally built engines and only they have been able to continue investing in the R&D required to stay ahead of the curve.

saip · Post by **saip** » 05 May 2010 20:39

I thought Pratt & Whitney is american too.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2010 21:05

but none of the other nations face a issue with sanctions. all are nato or munna or hold the worlds black money. so this sanction-proof consideration doesnt even enter their thought process. when germany needed a engine for KEPD350 they just reached out and purchased from Williams Intl.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2010 21:40

Kartik wrote: that while we Indians can crib and crib about our desi aircraft having foreign engines (as if its something unique to us) it seems that all the other nations have no issues simply getting Canadian (P&W), US (Lycoming) and British (RR) engines for their aircraft.

OTOH, it shows that there are certain design houses from the developed nations that traditionally built engines and only they have been able to continue investing in the R&D required to stay ahead of the curve.

Engines is "cutting edge" technology and there is a direct correlation between engine producing nations and world power.

Aircraft are designed around engines. All the other nations who have "no issues" does not mean that no issues exist for India. The issues that other nations have or do not have are totally irrelevant to the issues that India faces because of its fundamental engineering and research disability. India developed the HF 24 without an engine and it died. The LCA survives because we have "no issues" with a GE F 404/414. The only problem arises if a supplier nation has issues with India. Not the other way around.

Forget fighters. We need one engine for a civilian aircraft. This is one area where we are really far behind with no hope of catching up in the foreseeable future. That means that when it comes to the crunch, engines become a political tool that can be used against India.

When we are on the jingostic topic of world domination and defeating all enemies, it pays to recall that we will have no air force without engines. I believe too many Indians take this too lightly and build castles in the air that can come crashing down.

Am I cribbing? If telling the truth is cribbing, then I am cribbing. Tough shit. Better to swallow the truth early and get past the caterwauls of denial.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 May 2010 21:45

It is one thing to get an engine from outside India today, and totally another thing to get an engine in say 2020/25.

I would like to think that there is enough demand within India - military and civilian - to support an effort like this for ages.

Well, India knows what outsourcing is about. Will India insource something like this?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2010 21:59

NRao wrote:
I would like to think that there is enough demand within India - military and civilian - to support an effort like this for ages.

I think there has to be fervor for an engine, That fervor needs to have government, private and industry support. We need to put the money down to get that engine and fly a plane on that engine.

The other thing notable about the list I have posted is that many of the ten trainer aircraft from ten countries use a variant of the same engine. Basically if you can develop one class of successful engine it can be modified and used for several different aircraft. I believe that taking the attitude "So what? Let us import" is fine in a "Lets all root for world trade and create a global village" sort of way. As long as we accept our position in that global village there should be "no issues".

But in the real world, technological clout counts. And India does not count.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 05 May 2010 22:49

shiv wrote: ...
When we are on the jingostic topic of world domination and defeating all enemies, it pays to recall that we will have no air force without engines. I believe too many Indians take this too lightly and build castles in the air that can come crashing down.

Am I cribbing? If telling the truth is cribbing, then I am cribbing. Tough shit. Better to swallow the truth early and get past the caterwauls of denial.

It relieves me to see this opinion being voiced by you. While I confess to not having earned enough credibility on this forum yet, I have voiced similar opinions in the past only to be shot down with the "R&Dh" rona dhona label by someone who takes pride in owning a fictitious trademark to it and the "backside burning" label by others. Then there was the comment how India has a limited budget and how Indians must spend "every last paisa" judiciously, as if I presumed India to be the money tree. Any attempts to fight such labels get shot down by moderators as being off topic. Then the conversation dies, the fervour you seek has a still birth, and the problem remains. BR is like this onlee.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 06 May 2010 12:16

Engine research in india has been driven by results or end applications.

GTRE has been designing gas turbines for power plants, kaveri etc. Everytime the onus is on application, customer requirements and delivery schedules - the scietific learning itself is just a necessary hurdle to cross. IMHO, this has to change - we have enough funds to conduct research for research sake - and not for application sake. World over, science precedes engineering!!

If we cant do basic science, we need to get technology - buy tech companies, buy technicians/NRIs, use diplomacy, use partnerships, arm-twist, steal, kidnap - whatever it takes. A scientific experiment can have a proper closure and allow iterative improvements instead of worrying about delivery timelines. The advantage is we will have a tangible (although low performing) engine, a lot of learning and experience, and a resource pool/infrastructure which can utilized for further enhancements.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 06 May 2010 12:17

My Take on it
Why can't we bring together some investors and designers to make a engine.May not be combat aircraft engine but a trainers engine or least a UAV engine).Looks like investors are in search of designers and designers in search of investors. i don't think investing 500 - 1000 crores investment for a private company is not a big deal(Even a IPL team can do it).Looks like indians want to invest only if they are very sure about the returns.Instead of cribbing for the rustom UAV, why can't they invest in such things.What would be difficulties in doing it ? Am i missing something obvious here ?

Cheers

Prabhu.G

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 06 May 2010 14:15

IAF’s C-130 Aircraft Trials Soon
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

IAF’s C-130 Aircraft Trials Soon
Vijay Mohan
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 5

The first of the six C-130J Super Hercules tactical transport aircraft for the Indian Air Force is expected to begin flight trials in a few weeks. All six airframes are on the manufacturing rigs at their American manufacturer Lockheed Martin’s facilities.

A spokesperson for Lockheed, in response to a query, stated that the first aircraft is expected to be ready for its maiden test flight by mid-summer. All six aircrafts, he added, would be fully assembled by Spring 2011, with the first aircraft scheduled to be delivered to the IAF in December this year, he added.

The aircraft and others following it, according to sources, would undergo further test flights and familiarisation operations in the Indian environment, before being formally commissioned into service early next year. It would be after about five decades that the IAF would be inducting a US military aircraft. The IAF has been operating American Boeing 737s for some time, but these have no military role and are dedicated solely for VVIP transport. The IAF has operated US B-24 bombers and Dakota and Packet transport aircraft for a few years after independence and at present the mainstay of its transport fleet has been of the Soviet origin.

The vastly improved “C-130 J-30” version of the C-130 features a Stretched Fuselage to accommodate more troops and cargo than the earlier versions of the four-engined turboprop that date back to 1957. The IAF Versions have a Maximum Payload of about 24 Tonne, almost Four Times that of the AN-32 Tactical Transporter and could accommodate 128 combat Troops, 92 Paratroopers or 97 Medical Litters.

Configured for special mission roles, C-130J has been equipped with an infrared detection set that would enable precision low-level flying, airdrops and landing in blackout conditions. The armed forces had first displayed their low-level airdrop capability during Exercise Brazen Chariots in Pokhran two years ago. The C-130s would primarily support airlift and para-drop of the Army’s special forces.

A new digital avionics architecture and propulsion system and dual mission computers that automate many functions, thereby reducing aircrew compliment, self-protection systems to ensure aircraft survivability in hostile air defence environments and air-to-air receiver refueling capability for extended range operations are prominent features of the “J”.

The C-130s has been expected to be based at the Hindon Air Force Station adjacent to Delhi, where a new squadron for this type would be raised. Initially, the Lockheed would train the IAF aircrew and ground technicians posted to the new outfit.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2010 15:13

Kailash wrote:Engine research in india has been driven by results or end applications.

GTRE has been designing gas turbines for power plants, kaveri etc. Everytime the onus is on application, customer requirements and delivery schedules - the scietific learning itself is just a necessary hurdle to cross. IMHO, this has to change - we have enough funds to conduct research for research sake - and not for application sake. World over, science precedes engineering!!

Agreed I sometimes wonder, why not, for the sake of research set a goal of developing an engine for the Jaguar? Not because it is needed, but because we already have a proven airframe to test the engine on.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 06 May 2010 15:21

Kailash wrote:Engine research in india has been driven by results or end applications.

Can someone tell
why a country like sweden which rolled out series of successful military aircraft dint go for a indigenous engine?
why Israel didn't venture into engine manufacturing,even after successful in many other military fronts?
why Japan which had successfully manufactured 100's of car engines didnt venture into this?(ww2 sanctions?)
why SOKO didnt venture into Engine Manufacturing?
why the chinese were not able to develop their own successful engines(incl copy cats)?

Engine Manufacturing is the most difficult one,and many didn't want to waste money,time and effort in this.

And we should stop worrying now about sanctions,we are not the 90's India,the world needs us more than we need the world.even if there are sanctions we will wriggle out from it,we shouldn't try to manufacture every nut and bolt in the world, in fear of future sanctions.
IMHO

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 May 2010 19:35

Mrinal, thanks for your empathizing words. I hope and wish we could see in our lifetime the self sufficiency bar hitting the 100% mark.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2010 19:56

narayana wrote: And we should stop worrying now about sanctions,we are not the 90's India,the world needs us more than we need the world.even if there are sanctions we will wriggle out from it,we shouldn't try to manufacture every nut and bolt in the world, in fear of future sanctions.
IMHO

Not just sanctions. Technology. If we are looking ahead we must look at being tech leaders. That will not come from a cop out or by declaring sour grapes. I am talking about military-industrial complex. Not just imported military and global village requiring singing of Kumbaya at crucial crunch times. Let us supply others with engines so that they can say what you said.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 06 May 2010 19:58

narayana wrote:
Kailash wrote:Engine research in india has been driven by results or end applications.
Can someone tell
why a country like sweden which rolled out series of successful military aircraft dint go for a indigenous engine?
why Israel didn't venture into engine manufacturing,even after successful in many other military fronts?
why Japan which had successfully manufactured 100's of car engines didnt venture into this?(ww2 sanctions?)
why SOKO didnt venture into Engine Manufacturing?
why the chinese were not able to develop their own successful engines(incl copy cats)?

Engine Manufacturing is the most difficult one,and many didn't want to waste money,time and effort in this.

And we should stop worrying now about sanctions,we are not the 90's India,the world needs us more than we need the world.even if there are sanctions we will wriggle out from it,we shouldn't try to manufacture every nut and bolt in the world, in fear of future sanctions.
IMHO

The Europeans and the Japanese dont need to bother about engine development. They have uncle sam to fall back on. Not the same case with India. We are prone to sanctions. Yes engine development is a hard one. Ask the Chinese. We shouldnt give up on R&D in engines. We need to be self sufficient.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 May 2010 21:19

The following reference was made about AMCA at the National Convention on ‘The Frontiers of Aeronautical Technologies and 61st AGM’ organised by the Aeronautical Society of India (AeSI) in Bangalore. { snippets via Force }

The LCA programme is now progressing at a fast pace and mention was made of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). The technologies essential for the AMCA will be related to low-observability, supersonic speed, and thrust vectoring, extensive use of composites, integrated flight propulsion control, modular avionics and phased array radar. Twin engines rated to almost 100 KN and later an upgrade to 125 KN. It has to possess stealth features and internal weapon bay.

Praveen · Post by **Praveen** » 06 May 2010 21:21

narayana wrote:
Kailash wrote:Engine research in india has been driven by results or end applications.
Can someone tell
why a country like sweden which rolled out series of successful military aircraft dint go for a indigenous engine?
why Israel didn't venture into engine manufacturing,even after successful in many other military fronts?
why Japan which had successfully manufactured 100's of car engines didnt venture into this?(ww2 sanctions?)
why SOKO didnt venture into Engine Manufacturing?
why the chinese were not able to develop their own successful engines(incl copy cats)?

Engine Manufacturing is the most difficult one,and many didn't want to waste money,time and effort in this.

And we should stop worrying now about sanctions,we are not the 90's India,the world needs us more than we need the world.even if there are sanctions we will wriggle out from it,we shouldn't try to manufacture every nut and bolt in the world, in fear of future sanctions.
IMHO

OT: BTW you can build your own jet engine by following the steps at How To Build Your Very Own Jet Engine
video

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 May 2010 21:25

Well some one can pass that youtube video to GTRE

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2010 21:41

Austin wrote:Well some one can pass that youtube video to GTRE

Austin you know thats a low blow. GTRE has done a lot of work on turbo jet engines. Its the turbo fan that needs more work : time and money.
Try to find out how much they were allocated to develop the Kaveri and how much for similar engines and what infra structure was already there for those similar engines.

You cant hope to make badam halwa with peanuts, nay peanut shells.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 May 2010 22:26

Ramana the issue is they misled every one till the last moment , if they knew they couldnt develop turbofan Kaveri they could have gone for external expertise much earlier in the program like they are planning to do it now.

But they spent ~ 3,000 crore in two decades and they do not have an engine for Tejas , but never mind they have something that can power small naval ships.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 06 May 2010 22:32

Sitara Completes Hot Weather Trials

India’s new Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) has successfully completed its hot weather trials at Jaisalmer.
...
...
IJT is said to have met all the technical and system performance specifications during the hot weather trials. “The environmental system air-conditioning inside the cockpit, environmental control systems, and factors for pilot comforts were checked. Representatives from the Indian Air Force’s Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE) also participated in the trials,” a source says.
...
...
During the Jaisalmer trials, the aircraft were flown at an ambient surface temperature of 44 C. A total of 13 flights were flown and various functional parameters of the aircraft were tested and monitored, including cockpit ambient conditions, avionics, oil and hydraulic systems, aircraft performance, instrumentation and engine bay temperatures.

“These parameters were compared against the trials conducted at Bangalore as well as the technical specifications and air staff requirements laid down by the IAF,” a source added.

Now IJT is set to begin its spin program, after which the aircraft will be ready for its initial operating capability phase late this year.
...
...
IJT will cost an estimated $10 million each, making it the best-priced aircraft in its segment, sources say.
...
...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 May 2010 22:45

IAF’s C-130 Aircraft Trials Soon http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=12852
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Have to hand it to the Americans for the timeliness. Even the P8i-s seem to be on schedule. No cost escalations, nothing. Just a clean deal and timely supply! It is such a refreshing change from atleast a 3-4 years of delay in almost all defense acquisitions!

The C-130s has been expected to be based at the Hindon Air Force Station adjacent to Delhi, where a new squadron for this type would be raised

Will squadron have just six aircrafts?

Brings me to another question, the C-130j s have other competitors, is in the same tonnage as the MTA, is not particularly cheap, was bought through the FMS and has the same strings attached as the C-17s. How come the C-17 decision is being left right and center? I will X-post this at the C-17 thread!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 May 2010 01:09

Austin wrote:Ramana the issue is they misled every one till the last moment , if they knew they couldnt develop turbofan Kaveri they could have gone for external expertise much earlier in the program like they are planning to do it now.

But they spent ~ 3,000 crore in two decades and they do not have an engine for Tejas , but never mind they have something that can power small naval ships.

The important question is how does the Kaveri (in current form) compare to the Ge-F404 since that is the level of performance they were hoping to achieve. We know it can't be used on the LCA as it is, since the IAF wants more thrust than even the F404 can provide. But how close did they get to the F404 in performance since that was the design goal.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 May 2010 02:51

Austin wrote:Ramana the issue is they misled every one till the last moment , if they knew they couldnt develop turbofan Kaveri they could have gone for external expertise much earlier in the program like they are planning to do it now.

But they spent ~ 3,000 crore in two decades and they do not have an engine for Tejas , but never mind they have something that can power small naval ships.

there is little doubt that GTRE has let down the whole LCA program but one should just keep in mind that they were entrusted with the most complicated part of the aircraft. But I agree that the galling part is that they seem to have consistently under-estimated the sheer amount of time, money, expertise, effort and complications that would be required for a turbofan development program, which is why they gave assurances that they consistently couldn't meet. Eventually they were left out as the Tejas program progressed.

But you will also appreciate that Rs 3000 crores is absolutely nothing compared to what Western companies that build turbofans have spent on their development programs. And their timelines if looked at, also show that even with experience and expertise, a modern turbofan takes ages to be ready for service...but if people are going to crib about Rs 3000 crores compared to a turbofan that did well in its high altitude tests recently, then I think its unrealistic of them to even expect India to have a turbofan of its own. It just cannot happen unless you throw massive amounts of money and get the brightest minds from the other engine companies to work for GTRE or reverse engineer an existing design like the Chinese are busy doing (and they've not succeeded fully as yet, despite their best efforts).

And it's not like they haven't been able to build anything. But, from the point of view of the future, the GTRE Snecma Kaveri-M88 hybrid, will be crucial. If it is allowed to wither away, India can kiss goodbye to an indigenous or even partly indigenous engine for the next 30 years. It has to be used as the basis for a new turbofan or a modification and needs consistent funding. And keep an eye out for the Kaveri being tested soon as was being claimed. They better meet their deadlines now, their credibility is at an all time low and going around giving dates and not meeting them is not going to help..the report by A K Antony to Parliament stated that the Kaveri project was expected to be completed by Dec 2010..I wonder what that means. a few thousand hours is not at all enough to establish reliability of a modern turbofan. requires several thousands of hours of testing before a single engined fighter can be flown with it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 May 2010 07:15

Even if we get away from the blame game of GTE or someone else we find that there was a fatal flaw in the LCA+Kaveri idea that was pointed out right at the beginning. It was the very same flaw that we had with HF-24 and HJE 2500. Only worse.

You don't test an new aircraft with an unproven engine. You need a proven engine. You don't test an unproven engine on an untested aircraft. You need a proven aircraft. But there is a deeper flaw in the Kaveri+LCA idea. LCA is single engined. You do not test an unproven engine in a single engined aircraft. You can, but it is better to test in in a multi-engine test bed to prove its reliability and then mount it on a proven airframe.

That is why I was saying, at least now, at least for the sake of research- pour money into the development of an engine for the Jaguar. get the engine working and try it out on an Indian test bed aircraft. Buy an Il 76 for that or use an Avro. Then mount it as one of the engines on a Jag. Send money on a huge research establishment and employ ex-IAF people on fat attractive salaries. Do it NOW when there is no urgent need for it. In 10-15 years we may just have our engine.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 May 2010 09:10

Brando has asked some questions on AEW&C Thread. I think some of them concern this Mil Aviation thread too. If some Maestroes can visit and have a look.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 07 May 2010 14:00

It just cannot happen unless you throw massive amounts of money and get the brightest minds from the other engine companies to work for GTRE or reverse engineer an existing design like the Chinese are busy doing (and they've not succeeded fully as yet, despite their best efforts).

What is stopping us from choosing either option - investing men and material or reverse engineer?

srs · Post by **srs** » 07 May 2010 15:43

Indian scientist develops technology to prevent mid-air collisions‎
link http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 901062.cms

Dr Radhakant Padhi, a 37-year-old scientist from Bangalore’s Indian Institute of Science (IISc), has developed a technology that can prevent mid-air collisions of both manned and unmanned UAVs. Infact, he has received a funding of $80,000 from the Air Force Research Lab, US, to develop collision avoidance algorithms for UAVs.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 07 May 2010 17:13

^^^

Infact, he has received a funding of $80,000 from the Air Force Research Lab, US, to develop collision avoidance algorithms for UAVs.

But what attracted global attention, particularly from the US, was when he sent in a white paper elaborating how this technology could be used to prevent mid-air collisions, and more global offers poured in.

Oh God, These AmirKhan guys have already got their eyes on him....I hope he doesn't get carried away by their fancy cheques

Dr Padhi successfully completed a Rs 15 lakh-project for the South Korean University to design advanced control technology for a challenging super-sonic air-breathing engine through a local company in Bangalore.

Is it allowed for a scientist working in a government establishment to work independently as he did in case of Americans & S. Koreans ?

Dr Padhi who started work on the algorithm while doing his ME in aerospace at the IISc, in 1996, honed it to perfection while working on advanced missile technology at the Research Centre Imarat, DRDO. He later developed an advanced version — the MPSP algorithm — while working on one of the missile guidance problems in 2005. Dr Padhi, currently works as an associate professor at the department of aerospace engineering at IISc. This technology can be deployed to avoid mid-air collisions of commercial aircrafts as well.

Back home, the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), will be conducting field trials to create a defence shield over Indian airspace which can intercept and destroy any incoming ballistic missile using Dr Padhi’s technology.

One of the applications of this technology is in increasing the range of air-to-air missile. India’s long-range missile, Agni III, is capable of hitting targets 3,500 km away, “and the new technology can boost it to hit the target accurately, even if it deviates from its path”, said a senior DRDO scientist who did not wish to be quoted.

“We are using this technology in our air-to-air missile programmes, which is going to be tested very soon, as it is helping us to almost double the range of the missile,” the DRDO scientist added.

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 07 May 2010 18:33

Since when UAVs became "manned"?
Since when AIII became Air to Air?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 May 2010 18:40

Is it allowed for a scientist working in a government establishment to work independently as he did in case of Americans & S. Koreans ?

most certainly. there are many foreign funded research projects in India.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 07 May 2010 18:55

Since when UAVs became "manned"?

Sometimes manned reconnaissance aircrafts are labeled as UAV's like USAF MC-12...

Since when AIII became Air to Air?

The article doesn't label A-III as Air to Air...
The article says

One of the applications of this technology is in increasing the range of air-to-air missile. India’s long-range missile, Agni III, is capable of hitting targets 3,500 km away, “and the new technology can boost it to hit the target accurately, even if it deviates from its path”[In case of Agni-3, This technology will be used to increase it's accuracy], said a senior DRDO scientist who did not wish to be quoted.

“We are using this technology in our air-to-air missile programmes, which is going to be tested very soon, as it is helping us to almost double the range of the missile,” the DRDO scientist added.[ In case of air to air, it will help in increasing the range]

Thanks

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 07 May 2010 19:13

The article says that it will help in almost double the range of our air to air missile. I wouldn't be wrong if I assumed that he was talking about Astra.

Does it mean that Astra will now have a range of 160 KM. ??

God please make this true

Thanks

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 May 2010 19:59

sunny y wrote: Does it mean that Astra will now have a range of 160 KM. ??

God please make this true

Thanks

Don't forget that a missile with a maximum range of 160 km is likely to have a very low probability of actually a hitting a target at that range. No manufacturer will ever admit that because it is as good as saying "Don't buy this missile". But if you have a maneuvering target at 80 km and the target is fast and able to do some fancy evasive maneuvers - a missile with a 160 km max range is more likely to have the puff left in it to reach that 80km target than missile with say a range of 100 km.

Software being able to improve range only means that the original algorithm is making the missile do unnecessary things which the new algorithm is eliminating.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 08 May 2010 02:45

shiv wrote:
sunny y wrote: Does it mean that Astra will now have a range of 160 KM. ??

God please make this true

Thanks
Don't forget that a missile with a maximum range of 160 km is likely to have a very low probability of actually a hitting a target at that range. No manufacturer will ever admit that because it is as good as saying "Don't buy this missile". But if you have a maneuvering target at 80 km and the target is fast and able to do some fancy evasive maneuvers - a missile with a 160 km max range is more likely to have the puff left in it to reach that 80km target than missile with say a range of 100 km.

Software being able to improve range only means that the original algorithm is making the missile do unnecessary things which the new algorithm is eliminating.

Well, the buyer of the 160 km range missile then should have the wherewithal to understand that point that you're not supposed to fire a 160 km range missile at a target that is 160 km away. But one can't make a blanket statement that at the extreme ranges the missile would not hit its target. There is a good chance it would hit it (if it has good sensor, guidance and flight control logic). But if aggressive evasive maneuvers are taken by the target aircraft along with decoy dispensing and ECM(jamming), the missile may very well run out of propellant from having to maneuver too much in a chase and not be successful.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 08 May 2010 03:01

nukavarapu wrote:Well beats me completely about how an algorithm can increase the range of Air-To-Air missile . Its something that has gone way beyond innovation. My standing ovation to this soul.

They are probably talking about "lofted profile" where instead of flying straight to the target, it goes up a bit so it can extend range on the downward glide.