mattIs this a gap filler because after paying so much money to develop Brahmos and paying so much money to buy P-8I why the heck would you not insist on integrating both together?
It seems like a waste!
You have an Aircraft for anti surface warfare, and you develop an anti surface missile arguably one of the best in the world but you do not integrate the two! Instead you pay up for Harpoon II?
mattThat artical cant be authentic, some of the things mentionied atleast in comercial sense you would not associate with someone with work experience… I am not just talking about Aerospace work experience i am talking about work experience full stop!
Surpised that your suppliers dont care about you because you have just bought the MOQ? D’oh! i am sorry but that is not just a western thing but a world wild India inclusive comercial thing!
Also I am intrigued by the comment ” An exotic alloy called Ti-64 is used for the low pressure compressor …”
Just reads of some college student has written it…
“Among the commercial titanium alloys, the Ti-6Al-4V alloy is the most extensively employed titanium alloy “
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-66321998000400002
I was going to put my own two pennies into it but thought as other sources are prefered id put those in..
Why were they trying to develop 90Ti 6Al 4V, I dont get it.. one of the largest modern suppliers of Titanium and Titanium alloys is VSMPO which is Russian! Are they saying that they sacrificed timescales so that someone could write a PHD on developing an Alloy that could have been bought from the Soviet Union?
And what are they on about the Blisk for? it isnt the only way to get compressor blades and it isnt really something that would stop you making a gas turbine if you did not have it! You can always develope MMC’s but that is a parrallel activity which can be done once your engine is in service as per the date you signed up to deliver it to!
mattIndia Responds to China Navy
Cant really see how this is a respond, this is what the IN has been trying to do for years it is going along with the strategy and with the numbers it had said years ago it needed.
A response would be for India to:
mattMMRCA BUZZ: What Makes The IAF Nervous About The Americans
Interesting artical but to be honest, the later paragraph where the writer describes the feeling in a section of the IAF that the only way it can keep up with cutting edge is to go US is of interest. I am sure the artical is probably accurate however its the perception of those IAF officers which is wrong or short termed.
If i take an analogy of employment it is tantamount to taking a position where you are promised so much and much more beyond but the employer finds you to be useful (in fact very useful) at a certain level. To keep you on he will always point at the carrot and say look at all the potential whilst at the same time finding some menial excuse not to give you the carrot or a chance to take it.
On the other hand if you take the EU as the opposite end where the opportunities are still there but not to the same extent (i.e. you can still be a COO or some such thing someday but the company is a bit smaller) where you may not meet the big wig in the company but the immediate boss does not mind enabling you and allowing you to grow so that you have a chance to grab at the carrot at some point.
I would have to say that the EU probably in balance has a lot it can offer India.. India now needs to make the brave choice and go with the EU… Going with the Americans and saying that the Americans seem to offer some form of golden egg is a week cop out.
I would say there is no reason for India to avoid EU. If the EU programs do not go for stealth it is not because they can not do it, it is because for them it makes no financial sense. Its engineers and companies are more than capable and knowledge to produce such technologies does exist.
The EU does have some of the largest defense companies in the world and no one could call them second rate to anyone else.
Per pound the Typhooon and Rafale are on par with most of the high tech aircraft the US does NOT offer to India. Yes they do not have some of the fifth gen features however again thats a matter of choice. Once India has the base enabling technology, understanding or process it would not be that difficult for it to get those things if it feels it has a budget and need for them. On the other hand (US) you will always be shown a golden egg which will be surrounded by light gates and encased in bullit proof glass.
It would be interesting to find out what has happened to the trenton, and also what happens with the P-8I in IN service… I wonder if the US wants India to provide a flight plan of where the aircraft will be used still and ask it for permission on where the IN can use its P-8’s.
Ok using spell check and being lazy about is a bad idea! artical = artificial?? what! lol anyways sorry all.
mattCouldn’t you just use a mixture/swarm or harpy and some other UAV to knock out radars and phalanx guns etc?
mattI was being silly the range and payload are probably as quoted and limited by hard ware its probably the penalty you have to pay to brag a supersonic speed.
Also range must be related to how much it zig zags too.
mattBrahmos range is classified as following.
Lo-Lo – 120Km
Hi-Lo – 290 KmEven the Yakhont that Russians advertised some time back had the same specs.
Ofcourse we do not know the real range say in Hi-Hi trajectory or a combination of trajectory that is optimised for more range in a low threat but time critical hits.
Russia is a signatory to MTCR hence any JV will have MTCR limitations imposed.
Intrigued as I have just looked at the definition on mtcr technology annex and it says payloads of “least 500kg” and range of 300km.
So either the brahmos range is understated or its payload both or the media is mis informed as to actually why the brahmos is limited to 300kg and 290km
mattInstead of taking the two year delay can they not just ask for the local companies to start making subs and just buy additional “future” subs from outside?
mattThe range limit is hard locked by the software on board of brahmos , much like Club missile.
The Russian Club part of Iskander-K system has range of ~ 450 km compared to export version of ~ 280 km.
Yikes last post was barely legible. Thanks for reply. Does that mean brahmos has a range of 450km? Also when this is done via the JV why limit the range
mattOk, I am confused why is the range of Brahmos limited to 290km when it only carries a warhead of 300 kg? It can’t be mtcr can it? Is it a limit it the design? I.e. how quickly fuel is being used up etc?
Corrected for lots of typos
mattYou can have a very good 3rd view. That lca is a good development tool which although did not meet its final aims put down strong roots. Best thing would be to consign it as long term r&d project and while that is still being developed move on to MCA. Carry on with LCA as development aid only. But this should have been done a few years ago and a lot of post on this forum then were of the same line.
Can’t compare A 400M with LCA best to use gripen or eurofighter or Rafael.
A lot of people will now list the lofty aim of the LCA and list large composite % but all that really does not hold water if you treat LCA as, unfortunately, the ADA/DRDO labeled it which is the mainstay or dirt mover or foundation of the future IAF fleet.I.e. a desperately needed real world project with real world requirements and deadlines and goals which were not met.
As a science project its a different thing it is great.
But this is all hindsight. And hindsight would say that maybe a traditional airframe with the goal of increasing composite parts may have been better on time and stop the need of the MMRCA.
Most of us hear would work on a £35/hr rates on project (not what we get paid unfortunately but what projects would charge overhead etc) I wonder what it is in India now consider that most of the cost of a R&D project will be labour (unless you go on shopping spree then paint the parts as Indian.). Think of what could be done for £6-£7 billion funds in India.
Did some digging for 50,000 rs per month salary your looking at 3-4 pounds an hour times that by 3 will give you rough overheads. Now assume you are setting up a greejfield site and that you only have 4 billion pounds left. Even at that with a hourly booking rate 12 £/hr how many hours would you fund a team of 400? Enough for forty years? Or a team if 800 for twenty?
mattCouldn’t the part where the MOD give feedback to the company about the level of TOT or technology have been done in parallel? Save a bit of time? Not a lot has changed I’m last few months has it?
mattThat is correct but in absense of info in public domain, very difficult to discuss and understand. Also all/most of the engines are made with the aim to upgrade thrust by upto 15% in medium term and 25-35% in long term. Kaveri has only given 65kn instead to design goal of 80kn. GTRE has given up on the present design of Kaveri. It would mean that the design potential should have been upto 90-95kn but the extra heavy engine at best will give only 65kn which is long way short. In addition if LCA is heavier by 2 tons & requires tweaks to intakes, wings, lower fuselage apart from imported radar then one really needs to step back and find out the causes/reasons/extent of failure
If you are making something flat rated, ie it achieves the min requirements to achieve the required performance at all conditions unless you are doing something very complicated the simplest way to go about it is have a very large performance band. I.e if you need 80 make sure the engine can deliver least 110kn or some such value then limit your out put to the 80.
IF they are only getting 65 then any claim about achievements of flat rated engines is false.
mattRoyal Navy may need to borrow US fighter jets
Britain could be forced to “borrow” American warplanes for its new aircraft carriers as the Armed Forces’ core capabilities are eroded by budget cuts.
By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 6:33AM BST 25 Aug 2010
Navy chiefs are considering retiring Britain’s 45 Harrier jump jets ahead of schedule Photo: PA The country could also turn to America for surveillance aircraft if plans to buy new RAF spy planes are scrapped.
Furthermore, the Navy may lose its ability to put troops ashore in an amphibious assault.
Related Articles
Royal Navy underfunding has left it ‘inadequate’ for vital tasks, report finds
Proposed cuts to the Navy will weaken our ability to shape EU defence policy
‘Battle Royal’ as Forces chiefs clash over cuts
Reducing our Armed Forces will leave Britain dangerously reliant on our allies
Big guns don’t win today’s wars
Royal Navy aircraft carriers ‘£1 billion over budget’The prospect of relying on allies for military hardware has emerged from talks about the extent of the defence cuts.
Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, has said that, instead of “salami-slicing”, where pain is shared equally across the department, the cuts must be allocated strategically.
Defence sources have suggested this will result in the Forces giving up entire capabilities, like aerial surveillance and amphibious landing.
Britain would have to rely on allies until the defence budget recovered, when these operations could be resumed.
The cuts could also have serious implications for the Navy’s two new aircraft carriers, which will cost £5 billion and are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016.
Defence sources said at least one of the carriers was almost certain to be completed, but questions hang over the second.
If the second carrier is built, it could be adapted to carry helicopters instead of jets. A more radical option would see the second carrier shared with another country, most likely France.
The Treasury is understood to be budgeting for the cost of the carriers as empty hulls, and balking at the additional cost of planes to fly from them. A military source said: “The Treasury seems to think it’s quite normal to budget for aircraft carriers with no aircraft to carry. It’s rather bizarre.”
To ensure both carriers are built, Navy chiefs are considering making several sacrifices. These include retiring Britain’s 45 Harrier jump jets ahead of schedule.
The Harriers, operated by both the Navy’s Fleet Air Arm and the RAF, are due to retire in 2018 and be replaced with new Joint Strike Fighters. But the jets could be retired earlier, saving more than £1 billion. That in turn could mean that the first carrier enters service in 2014 with no British aircraft to carry.
This would lead to the possibility of using borrowed US Marine Corps aircraft.
To help fund the carriers, Navy chiefs are also likely to give up the service’s amphibious task force of landing ships and commandos.
“It comes down to a choice between carrier strike capability and amphibious landing, and they’re not going to give up the carriers,” said one Whitehall source.
That would attract controversy because the amphibious task force was the heart of the operation that liberated the Falkland Islands in 1982.
As The Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, the Navy could also sacrifice operational control of the Royal Marines to the Army.
mattIt must be noted that inspite of cabinet clearance IAF has not placed orders for next batch of 20 LCA and has been dragging its feet since March 2006. The point is how overweight is LCA? As soon as we say 2 tons, lot of people jump on us! If LCA is 2 tons heavy then there is loong way to go. Further how much work is required for intakes, lower fuselage, wings, upper fuselage for Mark-2? etc. The design for LCA Mark-2 has not been revealed which might mean a bumpy road ahead and ADA is asking for orders for 40 more LCA Mark-1 itself while IAF does not even want to give the order for next 20. So I wait and wonder, what gives?
Apart from blame the IAF or the sanctions back in 1998 no one can give a good enough answer on this forum at least. I would question the structure itself and would be wondering if the manufacturing readiness and understanding is as far as has been touted.
Keep in mind my very early post about the Ether and what was heard in it..
NAL has a patent to make carbon fibres from Pitch, if the people in the know about the “domain” along with the experts who question the managers and wanna stick thermocouples all over the place know what they are talking about they should realise that the carbon/graphite/epoxy used on the LCA is probably not made in India currently. Also couple that with the CAG report on the ALH having a lot of raw material from external sources.
IF the LCA has gone overweight keep in mind that NO structure suddenly goes up in weight by 1500Kgs because the customer wants additional electronic or software tweaks…
Sign In
