Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 14 Jul 2010 08:48

Carl_T wrote:Now in a world of stealth planes, if radars cannot pick out enemy planes, how will BVR missiles operate?

Carl, radars will evolve and adapt to face stealth, also electro-optics advancement will be even greater as can be seen from the pirate sensor on the ef to the spectra on the rafale the ever present ol series on the russian fighters....

Also let us not forget for all the most vaunted advantages of stealth that the big gorilla likes to brag about in front of nanhas, stealth aircraft have never until now faced an adversary that has any proper level of C4I/C3I infrastructure combined with formidable fighters, radars and missiles to boot. Hell even then the darn cockroach was shot down over Serbia using obsolete Sa3 goa sams. Agreed that has been one of the only losses of the F117 or any stealth ac until now but then again they havent faced that many conflicts too at least that would be the deduction from open sources.

The core issue with stealth is that while stealth is a great thing to have on your side the counter measures for stealth are a lot cheaper to come up with. Stealth in itself requires massive investment and the aircraft becomes a maintainer's nightmare onlee well atleast to a certain extent.

Think of this, the Big gorilla says yup the F22 has the signature of a golf ball on a radar screen and radar will simply ignore it as it wont be big enough...wokay in due time I suspect radars will evolve with better antennas, massive processing ability ityadi which means that the radar looking at the airspace in which raptor will go hmmm why is this golf ball flying at 600 knots or more? what happens then hain?

Also in future conflicts I would imagine even before the famed raptor goes in to clear the airspace the first ones to enter will be CMs, ucavs, ityadi which will try and deliver a strike to the bases, sams, and radars ityadi and then will be followed by raptors...

Also stealth does not mean the aircraft is completely invisible it means that the distance at which the opposing fighter will detect it decreases by a margin...this again however would depend on how sophisticated the radar array of the other fighter is combined with what other passive means of surveillance is the other guys using.

Aerial warfare and surveillance is constant evolution, advancements and its counter advancements are always at each other's necks.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 14 Jul 2010 12:44

andy B wrote:
Carl_T wrote:Now in a world of stealth planes, if radars cannot pick out enemy planes, how will BVR missiles operate?
Carl, radars will evolve and adapt to face stealth, also electro-optics advancement will be even greater as can be seen from the pirate sensor on the ef to the spectra on the rafale the ever present ol series on the russian fighters....

Also let us not forget for all the most vaunted advantages of stealth that the big gorilla likes to brag about in front of nanhas, stealth aircraft have never until now faced an adversary that has any proper level of C4I/C3I infrastructure combined with formidable fighters, radars and missiles to boot. Hell even then the darn cockroach was shot down over Serbia using obsolete Sa3 goa sams. Agreed that has been one of the only losses of the F117 or any stealth ac until now but then again they havent faced that many conflicts too at least that would be the deduction from open sources.

The core issue with stealth is that while stealth is a great thing to have on your side the counter measures for stealth are a lot cheaper to come up with. Stealth in itself requires massive investment and the aircraft becomes a maintainer's nightmare onlee well atleast to a certain extent.

Good points, so basically the big advantage that stealth is projected as will probably be diminished and countered...if not too expensive to implement in the first place. So what do you think of the F35 option for the IN?

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 14 Jul 2010 18:04

nirav wrote:I wanted some information on the role of Simulators used for training in the air force ...

Are the Simulators used for getting acquainted to the Aircraft type/systems and BFM or weapons employment too is covered ?

Any pointers/links would be appreciated..

Can anyone help me with this ?

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 14 Jul 2010 20:39

Read this guys!

CBI wants To Black List 6 Defence Firms :
http://REMOVED/mysteriousmarks.htm

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jul 2010 20:52

Kanan wrote:Read this guys!

CBI wants To Black List 6 Defence Firms :
http://REMOVED/mysteriousmarks.htm

What an idiotic website.

On another page I see:

"Facing an MKI in war is worse than facing Bruce Lee in a fistfight"

- Secret Archives, MSS-China

and

"Pakistanis flee from the Mirage-2000 like pigs from a tiger!"

-CIA Top Secret Archives

" The only punishment worse than a dementor's kiss is flying an Indian MiG-21."

-Albus Dumbledore in 'Harry potter and the Flying Coffins'.

The site has two members:
Kannan (site owner)
and
krishna tej varma

Kanan are you the site owner? If you are please don't use BRF to promote trash.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 14 Jul 2010 21:09

shiv saar,

No,no the news and not the website!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Jul 2010 21:10

Kanan wrote:Read this guys!

CBI wants To Black List 6 Defence Firms :
[url]http://REMOVED%20/mysteriousmarks.htm[/url]

please spare us this garbage. if you post this again you get warned(and banned)

news from a website like that is garbage as well. DO NOT post it on BR.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 14 Jul 2010 21:28

please spare us this garbage. if you post this again you get warned(and banned)

news from a website like that is garbage as well. DO NOT post it on BR.

Hmm.........

This Might clear the air!

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/cbi-a ... irms-36141

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Jul 2010 21:37

good. understand the fact that unreliable sources are not to be quoted even if they publish correct news (duly copied from other places) once in a while.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 14 Jul 2010 23:29

nirav wrote:
nirav wrote:I wanted some information on the role of Simulators used for training in the air force ...

Are the Simulators used for getting acquainted to the Aircraft type/systems and BFM or weapons employment too is covered ?

Any pointers/links would be appreciated..
Can anyone help me with this ?

Yes simulators are used for getting acquainted to the Aircraft as well as weapons deployment...

Good old Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_sim ... in_service

Full Mission Simulator (FMS) - used by the military to denote a simulator capable of training all aspects of an operational mission in the aircraft concerned.

pksingh_iitk · Post by **pksingh_iitk** » 15 Jul 2010 18:51

Hi,
I am studying the market for temporary structures requirement for the defence.

I wanted to understand the market size for these products. These structures are essentiallly large tents which can be used for semi permanent uses such as
1: Storage warehouses
2: Aircraft hangars,
3: All other temporary and semi permanent "shelter"structures like parking bays, temporary housing, large halls for messing facilities etc.

An example of these structures can be found on this site:
http://www.veldemangroup.com/eng/getpage.asp?i=708
As such defence procurement data for such products is really unobtainable.

Any pointers on would be very helpful:
1: any further applications for such products...i.e. rapid deployment command centers??
2: pointers for overall market size - annually (I am trying to figure out the sq ft requirement per annum)

/////////////////////
I did try to make an assessment from the defence expenditure side but all i was able to reach to was:
the revenue expenditure->revenue works-> (for each of the defence wings)
expenditure->revenue works-> (for each of the defence wings)

For tents the itme would be a part of stores expenditure ( just a guess, not sure)
for more permanent applications like aircraft hangar (it could figure in the revenue works side)

However a further breakup was not possible and hence I was stumped at this point
/////////////////////////
another approach would be to make an approximation from the requierment perspective...i.e. strength of the forces - aproximate personnel in forwards positions etc etc...but again no figures for those approximations :-(
////////////////////////

Any help on the approximations would be a great help.

Regards
Paritosh

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 18 Jul 2010 10:46

http://www.timesnow.tv/Pak-apologises-f ... 349806.cms

How and why it went unnoticed by Western Air Command?

Pak apologises for airspace violation
18 Jul 2010, 0922 hrs IST
Twelve hours after blatant violation of the Indian airspace, sources have told TIMES NOW that Pakistan has admitted to the violation and issued an apology to India.

The apology comes after a Pakistani plane entered the Indian airspace near Jammu's RS Pura area at around 9:15am on Saturday.

The aircraft flew in from Sialkot area in Pakistan and moved towards an Indian Observation Tower. The plane was spotted by a Jawan on Sentry post no: 5.

The area where the violation took place falls under the Western Air Command.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 18 Jul 2010 21:19

How and why it went unnoticed by Western Air Command?

Thnx to Gr8 RADARs?

Hmmm..........May be yes!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Jul 2010 22:20

how on earth do you know WAC hadn't detected it ? did they send you a memo ?
that a jawan saw it does not imply that WAC didn't.

kanan, quit the sms posting already if you want to stay here, you are one warning away from a ban.

Vinu · Post by **Vinu** » 18 Jul 2010 23:55

chaanakya wrote:http://www.timesnow.tv/Pak-apologises-f ... 349806.cms

How and why it went unnoticed by Western Air Command?

Pak apologises for airspace violation

Did ever TSP apologise for an airspace violation?
Is it the first violation after The 'atlantique incident'?

"Foreign ministers meet - the sensation around it - then now airspace violation - Apology..?? "
Strategic Gurus may throw more lights on this. - Thank you.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 19 Jul 2010 19:23

India to provide aircraft, choppers to Seychelles

GK Pillai's PSOs weapons upgraded

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Jul 2010 20:03

Nice paper on BVR air combat clears a lot of stuff for us enthusiasts around the whole concept .

Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-To-Air Combat (©Adams Center Virginia Military Institute.)

So the longest range kill confirmed by Unkil's forces in GW-II was at 16.5nm .Goes to show reliable IFF is a major factor when it comes to BVR engagements.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 19 Jul 2010 21:51

Vinu wrote:Did ever TSP apologise for an airspace violation?
Is it the first violation after The 'atlantique incident'?

This is not the first. There are a number of incidents that come up now and then. We accuse them and they accuse us back.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 20 Jul 2010 01:38

Why the LCA has perforated ventral airbrakes ?
And even the holes are not equidistant from each other...

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 20 Jul 2010 01:40

Would appreciate some help here

Avinandan wrote:Newbie questions :
1 ) ADA went for 3 hardpoints under each wing instead of 2 under wing hard points + 1 wingtip rail (like Gripen).
Is it because Wingtip rail technology is comparatively difficult to create or it is because the Wing load area was sufficient to accomodate 3 pylons under each wing and hence there was no requirement to add Wingtip rails?

2) Are Wingtip rails interchangeable between light, medium, heavy fighters ?

3 ) How much does extra weight does a Light Fighter (aka F5 Tiger, Mig 21, LCA , Gripen etc) has to bear if Wingtip rails are added ?

4) Would LCA Mk II would have Wing Tip Rails ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Jul 2010 05:29

Check the Tejas wingtip . Not sure if one has any real estate available to install a 'wing tip rail' . Btw why do you need one as long as it can haul up the required payload as per the user requirements ?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 7.jpg.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2010 06:08

Avinandan wrote:Why the LCA has perforated ventral airbrakes ?
And even the holes are not equidistant from each other...

Those airbrakes are not ventral. Ventral means on the belly.

The holes are probably cooling vents or intakes for something that is underneath the area where he airbrakes are situated - so that is good use of space under the airbrake that would otherwise just go waste.

The gaps between the two sets of holes are symmetrical and correspond to the hinges and attachment of the actuators to open and close the airbrakes

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 20 Jul 2010 07:09

negi wrote:Check the Tejas wingtip . Not sure if one has any real estate available to install a 'wing tip rail' . Btw why do you need one as long as it can haul up the required payload as per the user requirements ?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 7.jpg.html

negimullah moi simple brain thinks could it be that they need a longer rail in order to ensure it can not only take close range heat seekers but also take active radar bvr missiles too. IIRC on ze solah in the start onlee used to sport sidewinders but then yumraams started appearing too on block 30/40 and beyond these rails were definitely longer and probably were strengthened to carry more load of the yumraams...?

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Jul 2010 07:18

^ Boss LCA wing has already been re-designed in order to meet IAF's requirement with regards to ability to carry the 'archer' on the outer most pylons. Now I don't know the load bearing capacity of the new setup but given the amount of stuff which has already been added to the airframe it is anyone's guess as to how much more weight can those outer wing pylons carry over and above 105kg(archer's weight).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2010 07:21

200 kg IIRC.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 20 Jul 2010 07:22

^^^ Hmmm interesting onlee...it would be nice to know if this new strengthened pylon can take the apu 170 which is used for carrying the adder....then again I am 400% happy if the bandar finds that out the hard way AOA

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 20 Jul 2010 07:22

Rahul M wrote:200 kg IIRC.

Hmmm in that case it should be able to take the Astra if not the adder?

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Jul 2010 07:28

Rahul M wrote:200 kg IIRC.

I assume 105kg for the archer and obviously the weapon's rail itself would have its own weight.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2010 07:33

yes, I believe 200kg includes weight of the rail too.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 20 Jul 2010 08:59

shiv wrote:The holes are probably cooling vents or intakes for something that is underneath the area where he airbrakes are situated - so that is good use of space under the airbrake that would otherwise just go waste.

The gaps between the two sets of holes are symmetrical and correspond to the hinges and attachment of the actuators to open and close the airbrakes

Shiv saar, i'm no aeronautical engineer, but I remember reading somewhere that the holes are in order to reduce the amount of 'buffeting' caused by the brakes interrupting the airflow around the fuselage or wings depending on the airbrake location. Also their symmetry and location is based on specific drag calculations that are required of it.

Will try and find a source for this.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 20 Jul 2010 09:16

Here's one study on air brakes. Straight out of WW 2.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/rep ... m/2614.pdf

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2010 14:47

Shameek wrote:
Shiv saar, i'm no aeronautical engineer, but I remember reading somewhere that the holes are in order to reduce the amount of 'buffeting' caused by the brakes interrupting the airflow around the fuselage or wings depending on the airbrake location. Also their symmetry and location is based on specific drag calculations that are required of it.

Will try and find a source for this.

OK - like the hole in a parachute. This is a likely explanation. But note that there are no holes exactly corresponding to where the hinges are attached.

Karmasura · Post by **Karmasura** » 21 Jul 2010 09:39

Folks, don't where this goes so asking it here. Forgive the utter newbieness, but how does a member know if his post has been replied to?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 22 Jul 2010 07:00

^^^ well saar I normally email RahulM as he is usually very helpful with these sort of matters....

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 22 Jul 2010 08:47

When countries like US and Rus maintain more than one attack helicopter type - mi28/ka-50 and apache/ah-1z are they meant for different roles?

Also, have we tried to get the Tu-144? I wonder if it would work as a "gunship" to load with BVR/ Cruise Missiles.

Aditya Watts · Post by **Aditya Watts** » 22 Jul 2010 15:40

Carl_T wrote: Also, have we tried to get the Tu-144? I wonder if it would work as a "gunship" to load with BVR/ Cruise Missiles.

Are you really referring to the 'Concordski' like in the pic below? Or, do you mean Tu-22m?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 22 Jul 2010 21:58

Oh, I meant the Tu-160

sunny_B · Post by **sunny_B** » 23 Jul 2010 02:36

Hello every one this is sunny here. This is my first post in this forum.

munna · Post by **munna** » 23 Jul 2010 04:40

sunny_B wrote:Hello every one this is sunny here. This is my first post in this forum.

Welcome saar!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jul 2010 11:40

I was surfing for the gliders pic as I have flown this during my NCC days. Surprisingly, its found in Malaysia too. I did not know which thread to put this into. Rohini and Setburgs used to be in NCC then.

rohini Glider in Malasia