Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

[shiv]

2) F 22 can fly without one wing - bullshit

Actually, it may not be a wrong statement. With modern a/cs incorporating fbw and fuselage providing significant lift, it may not be a totally fantastic scenario.
Eg: Isreali F-15 flying with one wing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveSc8Lp0ZE
Look at the pics towards the end of the video. Its pretty amazing.

Thank you for making my point saar. This is how Anreeki myths get built up. The F 15 flies on 1 wing and people say "F 22 can also fly on one wing because of blablabla"

saar everyone on BRF has probably seen photos of the F 15 that flew on one wing. But no F 22 has yet flown with one wing. Until that happens nobody can assert that it has happened. I think you have not been following this debate, because I have already pointed out in an earlier post the fact that an F 15 is known to have flown with one wing. Not the F 22.

If ground fire shot down an F 117 over Bosnia a Paki may claim that he shot it down. The F 22 claim is similar.

[shiv]

Agreed. Propoganda like what was mentioned above, can be dismissed easily when it outrageous and not based on facts - may be not that easy for every BRFite, but certainly for the chiefs of research houses and armed forces in India.

saar this is the problem with getting old. One spends one's younger days thinking that the younger generation will grow out of their tendency to believe fairy tales. But the same guys grow old and become senior armed forces people, chiefs of research houses, bureaucrats and technocrats and never change. The more things change the more they stay the same.

I will have to see change in front if my eyes before I start believing that Indians can stand up supporting their own spine without finding it necessary to blindly believe in God and America.

[Gaur]

Shiv Sir,
I did not mean to imply that just because F-15 flew with one wing once does not mean that F-22 can do the same. What I meant to say that this scenario is not totally fantastic and there exists some possibility that some of modern a/cs with fbw and lift generating fuselages may be able to do the same on rare occasions. As I doubt that any a/c (including F-22) was designed keeping ability to fly with one wing in mind, this is all just speculation and if any other a/c will be able to repeat the same feat in the future, it will be just co-incidence and not an intended design feature (as was the case with F-15) . Just MHO.
Also, you are right in guessing that I have not been following this debate. This is the reason that I provided the link to the F-15 vid as I did not know whether you knew of the incident or not.

[shiv]

Kartik, the cone intake (as in Mig-21 or half cones in Mirage 2000) uses shock waves to slow down the flow to subsonic flow and not by increasing/decreasing throat area.

The MiG 21 cone actually has 2 angles - with the less acutely angled part of the cone (broader truncated cone) just inside the intake lip. The cone actually moves forward in supersonic flight so that the shockwave spills out.

This is corroborated here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet_cone

[shiv]

Shiv Sir,
I did not mean to imply that just because F-15 flew with one wing once does not mean that F-22 can do the same. What I meant to say that this scenario is not totally fantastic and there exists some possibility that some of modern a/cs with fbw and lift generating fuselages may be able to do the same on rare occasions. As I doubt that any a/c (including F-22) was designed keeping ability to fly with one wing in mind, this is all just speculation and if any other a/c will be able to repeat the same feat in the future, it will be just co-incidence and not an intended design feature (as was the case with F-15) . Just MHO.
Also, you are right in guessing that I have not been following this debate. This is the reason that I provided the link to the F-15 vid as I did not know whether you knew of the incident or not.

Yes you have not been following the debate and are repeating the things that have already been said.

How come nobody starts a story that LCA can fly with one wing? First the self confidence in things Indian is absent, although Indians have "self confidence" in American things.

I can already see the number of people who will come up with objections to an idea that the LCA can fly on one wing. But not a single objection has come against the idea that the F 22 can fly on one wing. And this is despite the fact that neither the LCA nor the f 22 have actually flown with one wing.

This is the power of God America.

###LCA - this is a marker that I am placing on this post so that I can find it in a few months time when someone comes to this forum and starts insisting that the LCA cannot ly on one wing because of blahblahblah.

[neerajb]

Kartik, the cone intake (as in Mig-21 or half cones in Mirage 2000) uses shock waves to slow down the flow to subsonic flow and not by increasing/decreasing throat area.

The MiG 21 cone actually has 2 angles - with the less acutely angled part of the cone (broader truncated cone) just inside the intake lip. The cone actually moves forward in supersonic flight so that the shockwave spills out.

This is corroborated here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet_cone

It's hard to comprehend what you are trying to say. I got the two step cone in Mig-21 but why spill out the shock wave when it is doing us a favour here. F-15 too uses shock waves produced by it's variable inlet (and has no cone to alter the throat area) and even the movable upper lip plate moves a little distance only.

Some supersonic inlets, like the one at the upper right, use a central cone to shock the flow down to subsonic speeds. Other inlets, like the one shown at the lower left, use flat hinged plates to generate the compression shocks, with the resulting inlet geometry having a rectangular cross section. This variable geometry inlet is used on the F-14 and F-15 fighter aircraft.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/inlet.html

Cheers....

[Indranil]

Shiv, I think you have put a statement of mine from the PAK-FA discussion board here without the whole context. The point being discussed there was very very different. We were discussing the wake of the wing (for some other discussion), which is defined by it's shape and the amount of lift it required to produce. I had quoted what I had read and discussed with aviation experts. What I had written there was "because of the lift generated by the body, the wing aerofoil is much thinner". It is a matter of fact, that the lift produced by one wing and the body of the raptor can support its weight if you are fast enough. It doesn't mean it is designed to do that. And sir you wouldn't find it on any brochure either. You changed a lift (characteristic) discussion into a capability discussion and beat it down to death.

Let me turn the tables on you. With all due respect, who will prove to you that a F-22 can fly on 1 wing?!!! Not even the USAF would expect its pilot to get it back on one wing. Where are you putting your expectations and where are you setting the expectations of people who follow your advice!

Yes there are jingoes who are taken up by propaganda. There are jingoes who are just biased against a US product and cant see anything good about it. And then there are people in between, who want to collaborate with the US, if it is good for India. Please make your statements in reply to guys who pray to the US god. But please don't make a general statement against people who have said a good thing about a US product! If their statements don't have proof, ask for proof na! Why do you make a statement like I believe it only when a F-22 flies on a single wing?!! I can prove to you mathematically that the lift generated by 1 wing and the body of the F-22 can keep it afloat at 250 knots or more. In fact you wouldn't find it very difficult to prove it yourself.

If you take a statement of somebody's and beat it to death, aren't you inciting the poster to retaliate. And yet in this case, you stand on much weaker grounds! JMT

[shiv]

You changed a lift (characteristic) discussion into a capability discussion and beat it down to death.
<snip>
If you take a statement of somebody's and beat it to death, aren't you inciting the poster to retaliate. And yet in this case, you stand on much weaker grounds! JMT

Yes. I took a lift characteristic description, converted it into a capability discussion and beat it down to death. I did not use your name because I did not want to pick up an argument, but since you ask, let me point out that it is known (very well known) that an F-15 has flown back using one wing and body lift alone after its starboard wing was blown off.

If you knew about this, I am not sure why you chose the F 22 as an example and not the F-15.? Recall that you have yourself said

who will prove to you that a F-22 can fly on 1 wing?

You have used an example that cannot be proven when there is already a proven example to talk about.

Now I assume that you did not know about the F15 having flown on one wing. If you really did not know about the F 15 incident, may I ask what made you choose the F-22 as an example to quote? What tilted the favor for you to pull out the name F 22 rather than say F 117, B 2 or Tornado, or Rafale or LCA or Su 27? Surely an "all wing" plane such as the F 117 or B 2 are the best examples of body lift? So what ws it that made the F 22 an example?

I believe that this is exactly the sort of thing that inadvertently adds to the aura of American capability - an aura that is much worshipped around the world, not least by Indians. I am certain that it was not your intention to add to this aura. But you did.

[shiv]

It's hard to comprehend what you are trying to say. I got the two step cone in Mig-21 but why spill out the shock wave when it is doing us a favour here. F-15 too uses shock waves produced by it's variable inlet (and has no cone to alter the throat area) and even the movable upper lip plate moves a little distance only.

Sorry. I have no idea. I only recall being told that the diverging shock wave from the cone gets narrower as the plane goes faster and if it enters the intake you have supersonic air entering the intake. My understanding of this could be wrong - but the MiG 21 does have that dual cone and I was told that it does move forward in supersonic flight. Perhaps you have an explanation?

[Indranil]

Now I assume that you did not know about the F15 having flown on one wing. If you really did not know about the F 15 incident, may I ask what made you choose the F-22 as an example to quote?

Except that I knew about it. In fact I had watched the whole episode when it came on TV! If you read some of my posts, I have given dogfight scenarios of the six day war from different episodes of the same serial!

I gave an example for the F-22 because we were discussing why the tailplane of the F-22, F-35 and now the PakFa are inline with wings and how does the wake of the wings not affect the performance of the elevators.

I had said that I would discuss, it with some professors and friends in my university and get back. It so happens that those professors spoke to guys who were part of the design group of the F-22. Hence the reference to the F-22.

If you want me to prove that the lift generated by a single wing and the body at some speed, I can do that too. But it will end up in unnecessary details. Just an intuition would be that the plane's empty weight it around 20T, the lift provided by the wings at 150 knots is 28T. The body supplies about 35% additional lift provided by the wings and the TWR for the F-22 is 1.26. That is the lift characteristics of the F-22 at 150 knots.

Will F-22 be able to fly on one wing. Nobody included me said that!

[shiv]

Will F-22 be able to fly on one wing. Nobody included me said that![/b]

Thanks for stating it yourself. I am sure that if you calculate the lift characteristics of a whole lot of aircraft it will be possible to say how much wing can be chopped off before it starts falling to he ground.

The F 22 is undoubtedly a capable aircraft and a whole lot of myths are being built around it. And I am seeing those myths being ported to the F 35 because of their shared concepts. And that myth sharing is gradually veering around to "requirement" for the F 35 in various air forces - with a few people saying the IAF should buy it.

Now let me repeat what I said. Most young people who have not got into positions of influence tend to blame older people for bad decisions and somehow believe that the "younger generation" will do better. In my observation this is wrong. The old people carried myths and irrational beliefs with them when they were young. They used that knowledge to make their decisions when they reached positions of influence and those decisions turned out to be bad. The younger generation too are beginning to carry around their own sets of myths but without influence they believe they will do a better job. I am only cautioning people that GIGO can occur. Just like the older generation were told by their parents before independence that the UK was the best thing in the world, we have a younger Indian generation who have been taught to believe hat the US is the best there is. If we curse Nehru and other older gen brown sahibs today for being too sympathetic to the British empire we are grooming a new generation that will eat out of America's hands. And this is the way it starts - a blind belief in the greatness of the empire/civilization that one admires. Mark my words.

I believe that we need to check every praiseworthy claim for truth value/propaganda value lest we make the same silly mistakes that the older generations made.

[Indranil]

^^^ AGreed. I have often fought for the same ideals. Many people of my generation have told me that their parents didn't know whats best for them and I go ... hmmmm

As far as I am with you on this, I believe that we shouldn't just shun and rubbish US things because they are from US. Likewise we shouldn't pray to them, likewise we shouldn't abhor them. That would be the other extreme, which can't be good either. AS you rightly said, don't just follow them. But we can always take lessons. I mean intellectuals are intellectuals from wherever they come. They choose certain technology because there will be reason. Please validate and use, because in my IMHO that is most beneficial to India.

I choose to validate things on merit and not on origin. End of my speech .

[Pratik_S]

Now let me repeat what I said. Most young people who have not got into positions of influence tend to blame older people for bad decisions and somehow believe that the "younger generation" will do better. In my observation this is wrong. The old people carried myths and irrational beliefs with them when they were young. They used that knowledge to make their decisions when they reached positions of influence and those decisions turned out to be bad. The younger generation too are beginning to carry around their own sets of myths but without influence they believe they will do a better job. I am only cautioning people that GIGO can occur. Just like the older generation were told by their parents before independence that the UK was the best thing in the world, we have a younger Indian generation who have been taught to believe hat the US is the best there is. If we curse Nehru and other older gen brown sahibs today for being too sympathetic to the British empire we are grooming a new generation that will eat out of America's hands. And this is the way it starts - a blind belief in the greatness of the empire/civilization that one admires. Mark my words.

I believe that we need to check every praiseworthy claim for truth value/propaganda value lest we make the same silly mistakes that the older generations made.

I certainly don't understand what you are talking about. Forget about that I don't know what "younger generation" you are referring to ? Is it the ones who are in their late 20s and 30s or like me the ones who are in college getting eduction. What you are saying may be right for the ones who are in their 30's and I am saying "may be". We have Profs who are in their 30s who are certainly influenced great deal by American Propaganda, many of them what too much Discovery channel too . But let me assure you that people of my age thing nothing like them. Yes we respect the US of A and its might, we respect some of its culture any yes we certainly like to copy a thing or two from them. But at the same time we know what we have to do, you can certainly take a look in the trends, more India students now prefer to take jobs in the country itself. IAF got record number of applications from people of my age to become pilots (300 of them have started training, which is so far the largest batch ever),etc. We certainly know that India is not the most powerful country in the world but it destined to be. However may a time we are disappointed by the current state of affairs and that the reason why we say that we can do better, it not that we don't respect the old or their way, we just want to make our in-road in quickest and the most easiest possible manner and which is the best way to do that. Thats right, criticize your predecessor and everybody takes note of you, make him the villain and grab his place. Thats what Obama did, right ?

As for Nehru, he did commit lot of mistake post independence with Pak, China and what not. Thats what happens when a politician concentrates on getting fame in global stage rather than doing what is good for his country.

[Ganesh_S]

Now let me repeat what I said. Most young people who have not got into positions of influence tend to blame older people for bad decisions and somehow believe that the "younger generation" will do better. In my observation this is wrong. The old people carried myths and irrational beliefs with them when they were young. They used that knowledge to make their decisions when they reached positions of influence and those decisions turned out to be bad. The younger generation too are beginning to carry around their own sets of myths but without influence they believe they will do a better job. I am only cautioning people that GIGO can occur. Just like the older generation were told by their parents before independence that the UK was the best thing in the world, we have a younger Indian generation who have been taught to believe hat the US is the best there is. If we curse Nehru and other older gen brown sahibs today for being too sympathetic to the British empire we are grooming a new generation that will eat out of America's hands. And this is the way it starts - a blind belief in the greatness of the empire/civilization that one admires. Mark my words.

I believe that we need to check every praiseworthy claim for truth value/propaganda value lest we make the same silly mistakes that the older generations made.

very true often decisions claimed to be based upon rationalism turns out to be the myth of rationality where stereotyping does play a significant role. interestingly the point of argument in the f22 flying on a single wing case in my opinion would be weather it would be combat worthy on one wing. if not it may not be wise to risk the pilots life flying on one wing tryin to save a plane to be scrapped. in other words the pilot would be better off ejecting. if the f 15 case has to be beleived it may have been the design that enabled the f 15 to fly on one wing rather than the quality of the build where the f 15 mid air breakup incident report suggests else. if flying on one wing was the objective i am sure the Russians or French would have a competitive design

[Shameek]

interestingly the point of argument in the f22 flying on a single wing case in my opinion would be weather it would be combat worthy on one wing. if not it may not be wise to risk the pilots life flying on one wing tryin to save a plane to be scrapped. in other words the pilot would be better off ejecting.

What if the wing broke just after you had bombed a location. Its generally not a good idea to eject over a place you just bombed. Most pilots will try their level best to get over friendly territory first. Of course this depends on whether the plane is flyable at all.

[Indranil]

very true often decisions claimed to be based upon rationalism turns out to be the myth of rationality where stereotyping does play a significant role. interestingly the point of argument in the f22 flying on a single wing case in my opinion would be weather it would be combat worthy on one wing. if not it may not be wise to risk the pilots life flying on one wing tryin to save a plane to be scrapped. in other words the pilot would be better off ejecting. if the f 15 case has to be beleived it may have been the design that enabled the f 15 to fly on one wing rather than the quality of the build where the f 15 mid air breakup incident report suggests else. if flying on one wing was the objective i am sure the Russians or French would have a competitive design

What are you talking of? Dude, nobody is foolish enough of designing a plane to fly on one wing! Please do read the context of the discussion! The designers of F-15 DID NOT design the plane to fly on one wing. Even they were amazed that it could! Me, Kartik, Igorr and some people were discussing the shape, orientation and placement of wings and tailplanes. We were discussing different downwashes. In that respect the lift has an effect on the downwash of a wing. We were discussing the lift generated by the wings, and how thick those wings are!!! an F-22s wings don't need to generate that much lift as a conventional plane, as it's body provides a lot of lift. That was the discussion!!!! Nobody said F-22 is fail-safe against a clipped wing!!!

And FYI most pilots loose their careers after an ejection. And many their lives. So ejection is not always the safest option, if a pilot can get his plane back, he tries to. It's not because the airforce wants to save the plane. It is because the force wants to save the pilot! You can see many videos. For example, a very prevalent video is that a F-16 hit by a bird. The pilot repeatedly tries to restart the engine and ejects only after, numerous attempts fail.

What the fighter pilot achieved on the F-15 was phenomenal. I don't think he did it as an act of bravado. It is the culmination of lots of nerves, an awesome FBW, and a lot of luck and skill.

As we are speaking of the F-15 incident. Does anybody know what might have prompted the pilot to go for the afterburner in a spiraling nose dive?

[Ganesh_S]

interestingly the point of argument in the f22 flying on a single wing case in my opinion would be weather it would be combat worthy on one wing. if not it may not be wise to risk the pilots life flying on one wing tryin to save a plane to be scrapped. in other words the pilot would be better off ejecting.

What if the wing broke just after you had bombed a location. Its generally not a good idea to eject over a place you just bombed. Most pilots will try their level best to get over friendly territory first. Of course this depends on whether the plane is flyable at all.

yes shameek you are right, in this case it would be interesting to know if there would be any fuel loss in case the wing breaks.

[Rahul M]

>> What the fighter pilot achieved on the F-15 was phenomenal. I don't think he did it as an act of bravado. It is the culmination of lots of nerves, an awesome FBW, and a lot of luck and skill.

actually he wasn't aware of it till he landed. I posted a video of that incident in multimedia thread sometime back. btw, a couple of years back a to-scale F-18 was sent up in the air, one of its wings was blown up in a controlled explosion and they tried to get it land safely. it did.

[shiv]

What the fighter pilot achieved on the F-15 was phenomenal. I don't think he did it as an act of bravado. It is the culmination of lots of nerves, an awesome FBW, and a lot of luck and skill.

Do you have a reliable cite that it was FBW? Earlier version F 15 were not FBW. Was this one FBW? I believe the 1983 incident of the F-15 flying on one wing had manual controls and was not FBW. The first "Fly By Wire" aircraft to enter service was the F 16 which had appeared only two years earlier I think.

[Ganesh_S]

very true often decisions claimed to be based upon rationalism turns out to be the myth of rationality where stereotyping does play a significant role. interestingly the point of argument in the f22 flying on a single wing case in my opinion would be weather it would be combat worthy on one wing. if not it may not be wise to risk the pilots life flying on one wing tryin to save a plane to be scrapped. in other words the pilot would be better off ejecting. if the f 15 case has to be beleived it may have been the design that enabled the f 15 to fly on one wing rather than the quality of the build where the f 15 mid air breakup incident report suggests else. if flying on one wing was the objective i am sure the Russians or French would have a competitive design

What are you talking of? Dude, nobody is foolish enough of designing a plane to fly on one wing! Please do read the context of the discussion! The designers of F-15 DID NOT design the plane to fly on one wing. Even they were amazed that it could! Me, Kartik, Igorr and some people were discussing the shape, orientation and placement of wings and tailplanes. We were discussing different downwashes. In that respect the lift has an effect on the downwash of a wing. We were discussing the lift generated by the wings, and how thick those wings are!!! an F-22s wings don't need to generate that much lift as a conventional plane, as it's body provides a lot of lift. That was the discussion!!!! Nobody said F-22 is fail-safe against a clipped wing!!!

And FYI most pilots loose their careers after an ejection. And many their lives. So ejection is not always the safest option, if a pilot can get his plane back, he tries to. It's not because the airforce wants to save the plane. It is because the force wants to save the pilot! You can see many videos. For example, a very prevalent video is that a F-16 hit by a bird. The pilot repeatedly tries to restart the engine and ejects only after, numerous attempts fail.

What the fighter pilot achieved on the F-15 was phenomenal. I don't think he did it as an act of bravado. It is the culmination of lots of nerves, an awesome FBW, and a lot of luck and skill.

As we are speaking of the F-15 incident. Does anybody know what might have prompted the pilot to go for the afterburner in a spiraling nose dive?

sorry if you found my post offensive but i was curious to point the argument from a best and worst case scenario perspective in case a wing breaks..it certainly wasnt meant to be in your context..my apologies and thanks for enlightening though i feel a bird strike and wing loss would be two different issues to deal with

[vardhank]

Question: how different (in terms of flight characteristics) would a one-seat version and a two-seat version of the same fighter be? Case in point the F-18E and F-18F? I believe there's a difference in control surfaces (and of course weight), so would they fly very differently?

In a similar vein, how different (again flight characteristics) are the F-15 Eagle and the Strike Eagle, given that they have different roles but are largely the same airframe?

[vardhank]

Oh, and another: in a fighter, is the WSO normally a qualified pilot as well?

[Anantz]

I am not a guru.. but AFAIK a WSO is not a pilot. He is just that, a WSO, and does not normally have wings. And in most cases, for dedicated two seat attack fighters, the rear cockpit have their control sticks removed to be replaced by weapons controls. Atleast it is the case with F-18F as per comments by gurus on BR before!

[Tanaji]

I am not a guru.. but AFAIK a WSO is not a pilot. He is just that, a WSO, and does not normally have wings. And in most cases, for dedicated two seat attack fighters, the rear cockpit have their control sticks removed to be replaced by weapons controls. Atleast it is the case with F-18F as per comments by gurus on BR before!

For the Su30 in IAF, the WSO has wings as well

[Rahul M]

vardhank, you might want to check the very first question that was asked in this thread.

[Shameek]

I believe the Strike Eagle actually retains the flight controls for the WSO.

[atreya]

Question: how different (in terms of flight characteristics) would a one-seat version and a two-seat version of the same fighter be? Case in point the F-18E and F-18F? I believe there's a difference in control surfaces (and of course weight), so would they fly very differently?

In a similar vein, how different (again flight characteristics) are the F-15 Eagle and the Strike Eagle, given that they have different roles but are largely the same airframe?

There are two kinds of two-seat versions. One, which requires a WSO and doesn't require flight controls in the rear (as someone said above). The second kind of two seater is the training version, which, obviously, has all flight controls in the rear. Gurus may provide the details.

I have another question related to this. What is the difference between WSO and RIO? They both operate in the rear seat of a two seater combat aircraft. If an aircraft has an RIO, then who operates the weapon systems? What designations are used in IAF for these roles?

[Narendra]

I had heard from an old MLI officer that the famous Black Watch who fought alongside Marathas gave their red hackle to them. It was later decided by the AHQ that instead of wearing THE Red, the MLI should be given a combination of green (to signify Light Infantry) with the red of the Black Watch on the top. Like the Black Watch, Maratha LI is the only regiment which wore their red-and-green even in war. Can any reader of this forum give any reference or describe the event during which that association of MLI and the Black Watch occurred? Thanks.

[vardhank]

@ Rahul - Thanks! Doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule, then.

There are two kinds of two-seat versions. One, which requires a WSO and doesn't require flight controls in the rear (as someone said above). The second kind of two seater is the training version, which, obviously, has all flight controls in the rear.

No, I wasn't referring to trainer variants, eg the LCA trainer, which aren't designed for combat. I'm talking about combat-worthy one- and two-seater variants of the same fighter, which I would imagine have different roles. I would imagine, for example, that the F-18E is used more in an A2A role, while the F-18F (two-seater) is used more in an A2G role, and not only for training. (Am pulling these roles out of my Musharraf btw - if I'm wrong, do put u the actual roles).

What I'm looking for here is an analysis of flight characteristics and differences. For example, in turning the 'not a pound for air-to-ground' Eagle into the Strike Eagle, MCD-D/Boeing added an extra seat, conformal tanks and I expect revised electronics. So, I'm trying to figure out exactly how different the Strike Eagle would be to fly.

This is partly to do with the MMRCA deal as well - AFAIK we've asked for a certain number of single-seater variants and some two-seater. In what roles are we likely to use them, and if there isn't a significant difference, why not go straight for the two-seater option that the IAF seems to prefer?

[Jagan]

I am not a guru.. but AFAIK a WSO is not a pilot. He is just that, a WSO, and does not normally have wings. And in most cases, for dedicated two seat attack fighters, the rear cockpit have their control sticks removed to be replaced by weapons controls. Atleast it is the case with F-18F as per comments by gurus on BR before!

For the Su30 in IAF, the WSO has wings as well

We have seen some half wing navvies in the past posted as WSOs. Not sure if the practice continues today

[rohitvats]

We have seen some half wing navvies in the past posted as WSOs. Not sure if the practice continues today

I second that.

[Vril]

hello to all members

few questions (and rants) to learned maulanas on MKI and tejas

1. Is all the manouvering done by MKI actually of any use in real combat or is it more for the show?

2. Can MRCA be MKIsed assuming Mig-35 does not win ?

3. Where can I find video of Tejas doing some fancy manouvers? It seems all available videos show some basic manouvering only. shouldnt there be more PR from HAL?

thanks for your patience.

[chetak]

Check this out.

Quite different from todays suicide bombers and "freedom" fighters.


http://www.snopes.com/military/charliebrown.asp

Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton, England . His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was
damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.

After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Stigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he 'had never seen a plane in such a bad state'. The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.

Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.

Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England . He then saluted Charlie Brown
and turned away, back to Europe . When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the
sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remains of his crew told all at their briefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.

More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew.

[atreya]

There are a number of such honourable fellows during war. I read a book called "Fighter Pilot" by Paul Richey, regarding the Battle of Britain. In one instance, a Luftwaffe bomber pilot's whole crew was killed and the plane was damaged too, while Hurricane fighters were strafing it. The pilot left his controls, swung the nose gun and damaged a fighter before taking back the control. He heroically flied the plane, but finally had to bail out. He was captured, but the pilots of the squadron somehow got him released for a few hours and hosted him at their airfield, drinking to his bravery!

[shiv]

1. Is all the manouvering done by MKI actually of any use in real combat or is it more for the show?

According to the Russians it is. According to the Americans it isn't. The SDREs are not saying anything

2. Can MRCA be MKIsed assuming Mig-35 does not win ?

I am certain anything will be MKIsed

3. Where can I find video of Tejas doing some fancy manouvers? It seems all available videos show some basic manouvering only. shouldnt there be more PR from HAL?

I suspect that I have put up the most comprehensive set of Tejas display videos on YouTube taken from 3 Aero Indias and more.

What is has shown is all that it is capable of so far. Nothing more has been done to my knowledge. No Kulbit. No Tailslide. No J manoever, no Cobra. No nothing.

But I'll say this much for the Tejas display - if you look at videos of all the aircraft other than Su 30, MiG 29/35, F-22 - the Tejas isn't doing too badly. Not as spectacular, but better than what I have seen of the J-10

[Venkarl]

India expanding military nuclear site: US think tank

Saw this in BRF news section..I want to know if there is any discussion going on this subject.

TIA
Venkat

[kash]

What is the Engine that is being used on the LCA as of now??

[Rahul M]

jet engine I think.

[anirban_aim]

What is the Engine that is being used on the LCA as of now??

F404-GE-IN20

For very basics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

http://www.lca-tejas.org/

Welcome to BRF. But try to read up a bit before posting. There is a separate thread for LCA tejas on BRF. You can get more info there than all the web put together.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=3&t=5058

[Rahul M]

anirban, it's best not to spoonfeed.