I have never seen in any country such stupid question being asked.shiv wrote:Please watch this 30 second video which says why we need the Tejas over imports. For those who may have forgotten one vital issue
https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/794001016031244288
This clueless IAF guy is the main reason for the RFI and the eventual Arjun-ization of the LCA.Austin wrote: “I’m sure whoever gives the best deal will win. All the aircraft are very capable,” said Indian Air Force commander ACM Arup Raha.
“It will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag,” he continued.
Austin wrote:We can only hope that this new tender takes eternity to move to RFI stage with Inertial set at MOD while Tejas gets the lead time to be built in numbers
I have a problem with the news item by Neelam Mathews.Austin wrote: “I’m sure whoever gives the best deal will win. All the aircraft are very capable,” said Indian Air Force commander ACM Arup Raha.
“It will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag,” he continued.
I read those comment from Arup Raha before I think he said that on Occasion of Airforce Day Interviewshiv wrote:I have a problem with the news item by Neelam Mathews.Austin wrote: “I’m sure whoever gives the best deal will win. All the aircraft are very capable,” said Indian Air Force commander ACM Arup Raha.
“It will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag,” he continued.
It is a report with no mention of an interview or press conference. The reported has simply quoted Arup Raha with no real evidence that he said that. I have seen reporters lying or simply quoting out of context in the past.
When we are looking for some information people tend to believe what confirms their gut feeling - which is called confirmation bias. I think it is unfair to curse a serving officer on the basis of a news report by one Neelam Mathews. I have seen and heard more of Arup Raha than Neelam Mathews.
The air chief indicated that a new Make in India fighter production line could come up soon, based on “unsolicited offers” from Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Saab for building their fighters in India --- respectively the F-16 Block 70, F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Gripen E. These offers are conditional on the IAF buying and operating the fighter in question.
“This is very much on the table and I’m sure whoever gives the best deal [will win]. All the aircraft are very capable, so it will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag. It’s on the table; nothing is decided as yet.”
Said Raha: “This will not be just licensed manufacture. It will be proper transfer of technology. Also, India will become a hub for manufacturing, as well as maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) for other air forces in the region.
That is possible , I just wonder why Parrikar is even entertaining this new MMRCA deal every thing is happening under his watch and under Modi .Pratyush wrote:Austin wrote:We can only hope that this new tender takes eternity to move to RFI stage with Inertial set at MOD while Tejas gets the lead time to be built in numbers
You are being wildly optimistic, no orders for LCA beyond the original 40 will be issued till the rfi is finalized. Once done the argument will be that we are getting this new wonder jet. What is the need for LCA.
Austin wrote:That is possible , I just wonder why Parrikar is even entertaining this new MMRCA deal every thing is happening under his watch and under Modi .Pratyush wrote:
You are being wildly optimistic, no orders for LCA beyond the original 40 will be issued till the rfi is finalized. Once done the argument will be that we are getting this new wonder jet. What is the need for LCA.
He professes indiginisation at every opportunity and is more than happy to oblige to IAF demands for a new Single Engine Fighter when they have just ordered 36 Rafale and the ink has not even dried on that deal.
He can say to IAF to use Tejas and work with Indian Industry to build better model and work with private company if HAL is not delivering the numbers in needed time.
Eventually every thing stops at the top and Parrikar can easily cancel the RFI and let IAF work with Industry to meet its need via Tejas.
Very simple hai ji, just invest HALF of money which you are going to spend on F-16 OR Gripen on making new production lines for Tejas. F-16 OR Gripen will be quite costly compared to Tejas.Amoghvarsha wrote: And how do we make up numbers till the Tejas comes up,if it actually comes up.
Tejas MK1 isnt a potent fighter.It cant even get a IOC.Its way way away from being a potent fighter.May be the one with 2052 radars and F414 engines will be the one.tejas warrior wrote:Very simple hai ji, just invest HALF of money which you are going to spend on F-16 OR Gripen on making new production lines for Tejas. F-16 OR Gripen will be quite costly compared to Tejas.Amoghvarsha wrote: And how do we make up numbers till the Tejas comes up,if it actually comes up.
And Tejas has arrived already. First squadron of Light Combat Aircraft Tejas inducted into IAF in July.
Tejas Mk1 itself is potent fighter, just induct them in numbers.
MK1-A, Mk2 & MK3 can be ordered when they are ready.
Amoghvarsha wrote:
Tejas MK1 isnt a potent fighter.It cant even get a IOC.Its way way away from being a potent fighter...
I don't count what I write. Although the little ticker tells me its been 4432 posts thus far.shiv wrote:Everything you writeViv S wrote: What stuff?
Yes, he who has spent his entire life around air-warfare is a clueless idiot. While you, who maybe spends about 1% of his time doing time-pass on BRF, closest you would've got to a fighter a/c is touch one in an airshow, are a bloody genius. Brilliant!Neshant wrote:This clueless IAF guy is the main reason for the RFI and the eventual Arjun-ization of the LCA. Whether he understands the destruction to domestic aerospace endeavors he is about to bring is debatable.
I find among such folk, it is customary for them to start babbling about "transfer of technology" as if handing over bags of money to foreign aircraft producers transfers anything worth the enormous cost to India.
There was no debate or discussion of the RFI before he announced it. Its not clear whether any strategic planning for the buildup of domestic aerospace capabilities is being done prior to unleashing these idiots with the nation's credit card on an expensive shopping spree.
Amoghvarsha wrote:
Tejas MK1 isnt a potent fighter.It cant even get a IOC.Its way way away from being a potent fighter...
Not just the moment, it's been 70 years.nirav wrote:Desh could really use a committee to investigate/analyse and offer a well charted path into defence manufacturing and offer a road map for the next 50 years.
Needs to be headed by Vikram Sarabhai/Homi Bhabha/ APJ Abdul Kalam equivalents of 2016.
For the moment we are just fire fighting on a need basis with no stated clear goal in sight.
Not just 15 years. The M2K line was to be set up to counter the PAFs F-16s in the early 1980sPaul wrote:..
So what Modiji has done is turned to clock back 15 years and is going for the same objective again but with F16 this time as M2k line is shut down.
Very simple!
. Then FSU told us "you buy our MiG 29s yes? " and we lost the ability to set up a manufacturing capabilityWhat? Didn't we set up the manufacturing for Jaguar?Cosmo_R wrote: ....and we lost the ability to set up a manufacturing capability
.. If we'd taken the M2K in the 1980s, by now we'd had 300 a/c in various blocks with latest evolution fitted with 2052s and GE 414s and parallel development of the LCA.
OT, but BCCI is probably the only world beating institution and 800lb gorilla dominating its category that the country has ever produced, and our judges and Shashank Manohar are intent on sabotaging and cutting it down in power.nirav wrote:^quite right.
What we have instead is a committee to "fix" BCCI.
MOST pressing need of the country!
What is the reason why we have not learned anything from the Adour engine manufacturing and modified the design to build smaller engines for entry level aircraft or UAVs etc? Is it that we are goody two shoes folk who shy away from the idea of copying IPR, or is it because of the disconnect between HAL and GTRE/DRDO.RohitAM wrote:Indeed we did set up manufacturing for the Jaguar, and that's allowing us to be able to upgrade and modify it in any way we want - but we never seemed to have transferred those skills to successive generations.
Rohit time was when we gave token respect to serving men because this was an Indian Defence Website and military discussion forum. No more. No one gives a flying fork. It's called liberalism, freedom of expression.rohitvats wrote: Yes, he who has spent his entire life around air-warfare is a clueless idiot. While you, who maybe spends about 1% of his time doing time-pass on BRF, closest you would've got to a fighter a/c is touch one in an airshow, are a bloody genius. Brilliant!
The demise of the Marut was hastened by the Jaguar acquisition. History repeats. India looses. Future generations should call us idiots, if this one manages to repeat these mistakes of history.RohitAM wrote:Indeed we did set up manufacturing for the Jaguar, and that's allowing us to be able to upgrade and modify it in any way we want - but we never seemed to have transferred those skills to successive generations. The M2K was a more modern aircraft at the time, with a newer manufacturing line, as well as being a fairly capable multi-role fighter which would've truly given us a fairly solid industrial learning base. However, that didn't happen, and combined with the demise of the Marut, the acquisition of the MiG-29's, and the perennial short-sightedness of the MoD/MoF Babus and the IAF, we are stuck with trying to buy another Western single-engined fighter. We should be happy that the Russians don't make single-engined fighters (MiG had proposed one years ago, but it had been shot down by the Kremlin), otherwise they'd take this contract too after sweet-talking all and sundry in the bureaucracy and the IAF.
Thanks, but I know why they drop them. My question was to point out what the limitations of the drop tanks are.brar_w wrote:That's what they do if they hit into an air combat scenario. The first things that go are bags, and any weapons that are not required such as potential A2G weapons. G Limits do not come into the picture if one lets go of these bags.It is a matter of g limits in certain scenarios. Unless you want to jettison the drop tanks - but why would you want to jettison them?
Most airplanes themselves won't survive being hit by 30mm rounds, but yes the CFTs placement means that the odds of a round hitting a fuel tank and going up in flames are higher. But just how many fighters have, to date, been shot down in air to air combat? Ack ack will likely take down a CFT or non-CFT equipped fighter, unless you're talking about a jet designed to be able to take a pounding, such as the Frogfoot.EFT's won't survive contact with the enemy. Whether fending off SAM's, or entering into air combat they are the first to be let go off. There needs to be a damn good reason not to do it, particularly if you are fighting from home.
The CFTs are not one large fuel tank. They are actually 4 separate sectional fuel tanks with just a fairing on top that gives them the look of one long contiguous tank. So they're contained in a smaller space and not sloshing about the entire length of the CFTs.JayS wrote:Even I do not buy this marketing pitch that with CFTs its fully 9G capable. It seems very unlikely to me as well. May be when CFT are fully empty, but not with fuel in them. Because then they will have to strength the wings to take more G forces that the additional fuel weight adds, or the manoeuvre would take a significant life debit on the parts thereby reducing the life of airframe. Also lets not forget about sloshing in those tanks. With some amount of fuel in the tanks it would be sloshing like crazy while manoeuvring making CG management a nightmare unless there are compartments in the CFTs and fuel management system to take care of it separately.shiv wrote: Maybe this is my imagination..
Most here are well aware, but the point is that you can get rid of these limitations under many instances (many not all) whereas whatever drawbacks exist for CFT's, stay with you until you RTB.My question was to point out what the limitations of the drop tanks are.
"How many fighters have been shot down in air combat?" I think you misunderstood my point. My point was that they will be long gone if an aircraft decides to engage another and such won't have any affect on how an engagement goes down.Most airplanes themselves won't survive being hit by 30mm rounds, but yes the CFTs placement means that the odds of a round hitting a fuel tank and going up in flames are higher. But just how many fighters have, to date, been shot down in air to air combat? Ack ack will likely take down a CFT or non-CFT equipped fighter, unless you're talking about a jet designed to be able to take a pounding, such as the Frogfoot.
This Abhay Paranjpe seems like an out and out marketing fellow..keeps repeating the same "exclusive, exclusive" stuff over and over but doesn't go into any real details.Amoghvarsha wrote:http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/ ... Defence%29
LM executive claimed that USAF will fly F 16s for more than 30 years.
The way I see it, its a trade off, but one where the CFTs have most if not everything going in their favour, versus drop tanks. Regarding performance limits, I hope someone can find some authoritative source on this.brar_w wrote:Most here are well aware, but the point is that you can get rid of these limitations under many instances (many not all) whereas whatever drawbacks exist for CFT's, stay with you until you RTB.My question was to point out what the limitations of the drop tanks are.
They have chosen to unify all future sensor upgrade programs into the SABR despite Raytheon's concurrent development of the RACR. The AN/APG-80 is all but dead as far as further development unless the UAE pours in a ton of money.So now we know for sure, they're offering the APG-83 SABR and not the APG-80 from the Block 60.
You don't need to. Its common sense. An aircraft without EFT's will weight 400+ kg less than an aircraft with empty CFT's. Do you really need someone to provide a source stating that the same aircraft will suffer a performance penalty with 400 kg of extra dead weight?I hope someone can find some authoritative source on this.
You can't integrate a true existing IRST sensor on the F-16 nose (where the IFTS sits) without modifications. The looked at it as part of the F-16 design cycle and it required changes that they had planned for the U variant. The block 60 could not accommodate Lockheed's smaller IRST sensor without a design change and lots of flight testing so they planned a workaround with the IFTS which is an A2G FLIR sensor adapted/modified to provde A2A and navigation modes.Going by what this Abhay Paranjpe mentioned, it looks like the F-16V configuration, which first flew last October. But that lacks IRST like on the Block 60, so a podded IRST system
Don't CFTs have baffles and flapper valves to minimise sloshing? If sloshing is an issue with CFTs, then it should be an issue with all fuel tanks.Kartik wrote:Again, if a layman can sit on his chair and think about sloshing, do you not think that the designers and test crew won't think of such scenarios? 3 dozen sorties that were done to qualify the CFTs were obviously done to check the fuel system functioning, the manevuer limits, monitor loads on the airframe, etc.
OK so sloshing is out of equation. But you totally missed "unless" in my statement.Kartik wrote:The CFTs are not one large fuel tank. They are actually 4 separate sectional fuel tanks with just a fairing on top that gives them the look of one long contiguous tank. So they're contained in a smaller space and not sloshing about the entire length of the CFTs.JayS wrote:
Even I do not buy this marketing pitch that with CFTs its fully 9G capable. It seems very unlikely to me as well. May be when CFT are fully empty, but not with fuel in them. Because then they will have to strength the wings to take more G forces that the additional fuel weight adds, or the manoeuvre would take a significant life debit on the parts thereby reducing the life of airframe. Also lets not forget about sloshing in those tanks. With some amount of fuel in the tanks it would be sloshing like crazy while manoeuvring making CG management a nightmare unless there are compartments in the CFTs and fuel management system to take care of it separately.
Again, if a layman can sit on his chair and think about sloshing, do you not think that the designers and test crew won't think of such scenarios? 3 dozen sorties that were done to qualify the CFTs were obviously done to check the fuel system functioning, the manevuer limits, monitor loads on the airframe, etc.
And if this test pilot's statement is marketing pitch, I must say, it leaves you open to the same criticism each time a Tejas TP says something good about it.
The fact that people who are experts say absurd things while trying to Arjun domestic products is evidence of either incompetence or dishonesty. If he wants to make public comments then he has to face public scrutiny & criticism. If military service is sole criteria then all Jairnails are always correct on all issues including Gen Kaul of 1962 victory fame. Tyagi was also correct on Augusta. Who was the Pilates and anti HTT-40 expert?shiv wrote:Rohit time was when we gave token respect to serving men because this was an Indian Defence Website and military discussion forum. No more. No one gives a flying fork. It's called liberalism, freedom of expression.rohitvats wrote: Yes, he who has spent his entire life around air-warfare is a clueless idiot. While you, who maybe spends about 1% of his time doing time-pass on BRF, closest you would've got to a fighter a/c is touch one in an airshow, are a bloody genius. Brilliant!
