mattAnyway, if this is really such a problem, I’d suggest that LM canopy experts visit Mikoyan design bureau and ask their Russian colleagues, how did they managed to solve >M2 canopy integrity.
Do you have the figures to compare the Russian Canopies to the canopy on the F-22? Do you know the level of absorbance and type of absorbance for the two aircraft?
Also i do not think the LM make the canopy.
Canopy
The F-22’s canopy is approximately 140 inches long, 45 inches wide, 27 inches tall, and weighs approximately 360 pounds. It is a rotate/translate design, which means that it comes down, slides forward, and locks in place with pins. It is a much more complex piece of equipment than it would appear to be.
The F-22 canopy’s transparency (made by Sierracin) features the largest piece of monolithic polycarbonate material being formed today. It has no canopy bow and offers the pilot superior optics (Zone 1 quality) throughout (not just in the area near the HUD) and it offers the requisite stealth features.
The canopy is resistant to chemical/biological and environmental agents, and has been successfully tested to withstand the impact of a four-pound bird at 350 knots. It also protects the pilot from lightning strikes.
The 3/4″ polycarbonate transparency is actually made of two 3/8″ thick sheets that are heated and fusion bonded (the sheets actually meld to become a single-piece article) and then drape forged. The F-16’s canopy, for comparison, is made up of laminated sheets. A laminated canopy generally offers better birdstrike protection, and because of the lower altitude where the F-16 operates, this is an advantage. However, lamination also adds weight as well as reduced optics.
There is no chance of a post-ejection canopy-seat-pilot collision as the canopy (with frame) weighs slightly more on one side than the other. When the canopy is jettisoned, the weight differential is enough to make it slice nearly ninety degrees to the right as it clears the aircraft.
In testing so far, the cockpit canopy has fallen far short of its service life requirement according to DOT&E.
mattThe point is that if you get some good contacts and bypass the entrance exams and stuff. For lateral hires, the process is often considerably simplified. They look at tangible work experience.
So dont let that stop you.
I am aware of foreign nationals – let alone NRIs working in several MNCs in India in the past. So if the company is supportive, there is nothing to stop you. The paperwork can also be managed.
As far as DRDO goes, they too are hiring NRIs and the research environment varies according to the people in charge. For the record, there are some excellent labs where some good work is being done, and people working there are happy (I have had opportunity to speak to people in several South based labs) & they do hire NRIs but the thing to remember is that remuneration will not match what the private sector offers but nor will there be the stresses of abusive fire you for nothing stuff that might happen in the pvt sector.
Lol if i was that concerned about renumeration i would have been an accountant or IT guy.
Fair point about the contacts, they have been offered does not seem right thought. I would like to earn the position i land up in and if i am too thick to be a level 1 or 2 scientist in India then so be it! lol.
mattAgreed. From all I red about F22, all points to RAM skin to be the weakest link in structural chain.
Why would the structural material be a weak link? I have not read aerodynamics since graduation almost ten years ago now…
Are you thinking of limiting speed due to rain errosion effects? Would make sense for Coating RAM.
Dont see why RAM would cause a particular issue, it would be easy to integrate something similar to a D’Alenbert grid within the laminate without compromising the structural integritty by that much.
matthmm lol cant be that dead.. see below
Pentagon Contract Announcements
(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued October 29, 2009)
Lockheed Martin Corp., of Fort Worth, Texas was awarded a $474,200,000 contract which will provide for the issuance of full production of four F-22 Lot 10 air vehicles, alternate mission equipment, production engineering support and work in process through Aug. 11, 2009 for 16 shipsets of raw material aircraft fuselage titanium.
478 AESG/PK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (FA8611-09-C-2900,P00007).
mattWhy dont you try and explore something with groups such as the TATAs et al? They plan to get into aerostructures in a big way, and being part of a group like that shields you from the more cut throat aspects of business.
TATA does sound inviting, but heres the irony I cant work for them as i am a NRI! lol. Plus i am rubbish with the entrance exams, i cant remember the difference between body centred cubic and hexagomal close pack etc etc totally rubbish in theory. I would be put in as a peon. lol.
I think the current environment (within the big institutes DRDO etc) in India for research is.. hmm well lets just say i have heard from experienced ex staffers that it is not the best place for research.
lots of yes sirs, you go first sir.. as we say in guju chaplasee. apperently the first thing they do is rip out any individuality/blue sky ideas and bury it 6ft deep. Lots of yes sir no sir three bags full sir to the correct people and fill out the correct paper work and your set for life.
matt[QUOTE=JP Vieira;1481309][QUOTE=matt;1481228]This is the type of technology which wont be transferred during any TOT with any governments.
What kind of technology transfer is known in the PAK-FA’s india segment?
Depends on what India and Russia come up with with regards to manufacturing technology for the PAK FA.
I do not see that either India or Russia have the budget to under go their own version of the Composite Affordability Initiative carried out for the F-22 structures (one reason why the F-22 cost so damn much! lots spend on research on structure). We have to remember here that originally the F-22 was supposed to be numerous and a lot of development was done to have a high rate production set up (relative terms here, high rate for aero nothing like high rate for automotive)
However the Russians and Indians don’t need to there is enough open literature to glimpse which way the US went to produce parts for the F-22. all open source!
As to what is transferred that will depend on how they do the moulding etc. for the structures, you will have to excuse me here my discipline is composites, electronics and AESA blah blah bore me, If the PAKFA consortium or FGFA goes towards RTM etc. then India can have all the fun in learning how to produce 3D woven/stitched structures and also how to inject them. From this alone there is a lot that India can learn. tooling/injection strategies etc. etc..
If they go for a tradition pre preg structures, India could either work on ATL and AFP technologies or take the less risk averse approach and do things the old fashioned way by using lots of hands in gloves on pre pregs. This would results in higher production cost but initial capex would be low.
If they want to use things like Z pins etc. they could try and find alternative suppliers but most of the IP would be in the US.
Hence I never knock any partnership even if the design has already been completed. Drawing a assembly in CATIA is one thing, its another thing all together to actually make it and make it at rate in a production environment.
Or they could ignore composites and go straight to metals! haha which is not my discipline either lol
mattTo be honest I was looking on with glee when i read this, never a better time to move back to India and start a Composite structures RD centre of my own! ERm apart from the fact that i would not survive in Indias cut throat business world
mattHence the reason why the MOD is going after UCAVs and UAVs in a serious way. Those guys arent completely daft you know!
Any way that is why i suggested using turbo props for low intensity stuff and making more use of the Apaches the UK has.
you do not need a 5th gen monster to perform CAS or COIN.
mattMatt is right, i was talking about uses in which composites were not widely used, dealing with compression, under compression it should not fracture, but deform.
When dealing with tension is reported the fractures issue as matt pointed out, supposedly due issues with the resin, and how it stick on the fibers, but the fibers are actually very strong under tensive loads
But supposedly continuous fibers should have solved the problem, although i don’t know if it could help the resin resistence
What is a Z pin BTW?
Z pin = simply put is a extruted or polutruded carbon fibre that is inserted through the thickness of the laminate prior to curing. Fracture toughness is increased by an order of magnitude in modes 1 through to 3.
F/A-18EF uses these and other novel material to get the structure it has, structurally the SH is a advanced aircraft. Just a shame about the rest. Anyway Aztex produce the pins if they do not make enough profit on them they could stop making them.
This is the type of technology which wont be transfered during any TOT with any governments.
https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2667/1/MSc%20Thesis.pdf
mattOh no the UK will have 200 of the worlds best and most sophisticated fighter aircraft for the next 30 years.. and with it possibly Swarms of UCAVs that would be controlled by the F-35 or the EFA.
Thats still 200 more advanced near 5 gen or 5 gen aircraft than most countries around the globe!
Seriously most of the fights the RAF is going to get it self into in the next decade is going to be peace missions etc etc and for that yes it needs numbers but most of the normal rolls could be covered by UAV’s or UCAVs or cheaper turbo props.
Long live the NEW RAF.
i like that! 🙂 ..
mattThe thread seems to be lasting some time considering that the MOD has been open about the fact that it needs to cut down on fighters and buy in more UCAVs and UAVs to compensate.
I dont think it is the death of the RAF it is just transforming itself once again to survive given the circumstances.
As with any professional force.
mattSo in laymen’s terms…..they are brittle?
Brittle relative to what?
depends on which composites you mention, and having low compression strength is not the same as being brittle especially when it comes to composites, it is normally the opposite way around.
But through thickness direction is a weak point (fracture toughness) and many aircraft structures have to be beafed up and heavier than anticipated because the through thickness strength is very low (even though the in plane strength may be 50% above required for a damage tolerant design). One of the reasons why the SH has such extensive use of through thickness reinforcement (Z pins). One has to wonder what would happen to the SH if Aztex or Albany decide that Z pins are not producing enough profit.
Soviet Union historically has had a lot of experience in composites, Antonov is one such company that springs to mind.
The Russians also have a good selection of ARAMID fibres as well. But resin and carbon fibre development has happened more in Europe /America or Japan, and currently now in China.
mattDefence Procurement Procedure Amended to Encourage Indigenous Defence industry
(Source: Press Information Bureau India; issued October 29, 2009)
Encouragement to the indigenous Defence Industry to play a major role in meeting the needs of the Armed Forces, ensuring transparency and accountability in all procurement cases and liberalizing offset provisions to enable vendors to fulfill their obligations are some of the highlights of the amended Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP), which were issued here today. These amendments are incorporated to the existing DPP – 2008 and will take effect from November 01, 2009.
A new category of “Buy and Make (Indian)”
Under the existing procedure, if an item is categorized as ‘Buy and Make’, a production agency is identified by the government for transfer of technology. The process requires negotiations by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) with the foreign Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). Negotiations are carried out both for the “Buy” component as well as the “ToT” component. Past experience has shown that this has not helped in building up higher technical capabilities. The technology transfer has been essentially transfer of engineering skills for production of some of the non critical components. The critical items are invariably obtained from the foreign OEM. This method has also not encouraged formation of Joint Ventures (JVs) or alliances for co-production with Indian companies.
The amendment in DPP-2008 introduces a new category named, ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’ to overcome the above situation. If a project is selected by the Defence Acquisition Council to be categorized as ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’, Indian firms, both public and private, will play a lead role in negotiating and obtaining technology and co-production arrangements with the foreign OEMs. As such, the RFP will be issued to the Indian firms and not to the foreign OEM.
Indian firms identified to have requisite technical and financial capabilities would be required to submit project proposals indicating detailed roadmap for development and production of the items over its life cycle. They will also be required to spell out the proposed production arrangement with the foreign OEM along with the content of the T0T. The product so manufactured and supplied by the Indian company must have 50% indigenous content.
The approach under this category is more akin to ‘Make’ procedure; albeit, the development and production would not be through indigenous R&D but through transfer of technology from the foreign OEM. This change in DPP-08 would enable pro-active participation of Indian industry in manufacturing defence products through co-production arrangements, such as JV, with foreign manufacturers and through transfer of technology.
Sharing information with private industry
A major impediment in the growth of defence industry in the country has been lack of information with the domestic industry on defence requirements. Such information has generally been treated as classified. Consequently, the indigenous industry is unable to plan R&D technology, upgradation or joint collaboration with associated foreign industries. Under Amendment 2009 to the DPP-2008, a public version of the Long Term Perspective Plan of the Armed Forces outlining technology perspective and capability roadmap covering a period of 15 years will be widely publicized and made available on MoD website. Further, to facilitate active participation of domestic industry in acquisition planning, representatives of companies and Industry Associations will be invited for presentations and consultations in procurement meetings before decisions on the source of procurement are taken.
Role of Independent Monitors in Integrity Pact
An ‘Integrity Pact’ is presently required to be signed between government and the vendors for all procurement schemes over Rs. 100 crores. This is a binding agreement between the government department and bidders for specific contracts in which the government promises that it will not accept bribes during the procurement process and bidders promise that they will not offer bribes. The existing provision provides for appointment of Independent Monitors (IM) in consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission. The role of Independent Monitors was, however, very limited and undefined.
The Amendment-09 defines and enlarges the role of IMs to enable them to scrutinize complaints with regards to violation of Integrity Pact. The amendment explicitly authorizes IMs to peruse the relevant Office records in connection with the complaints sent to them by the buyer. This amendment will enhance probity and public accountability.
Improvement in formulation of SQRs
The bedrock of a successful acquisition process is clearly identifiable and well researched Service Quantitative Requirements (SQRs). With that objective in view, following amendments have been made:
— The requirement of issue of Request for Information (RFI) is being made mandatory for all procurement cases. This not only provides advance information to the industry about the procurement but also helps SHQ to formulate SQRs based on readily available technology in the world.
— SQRs must clearly express the user’s requirements in terms of essential capabilities which are transformed into minimum verifiable functional characteristics of the equipment being proposed for procurement.
— Tabulated data of capability vis-à-vis functional characteristics and SQR vis-à-vis technical parameters of available equipment will be appended to all proposals being placed before the Defence Acquisition Council / Defence Procurement Board. In this way, all agencies involved in the procurement process will be aware of the type of equipment being sought.
Modification in Offset guidelines
It is felt that there should be greater leverage allowed to vendors in determining the manner of performing their offset obligations. The primary concern of MoD is that the vendor should be held to account for performing offset obligations undertaken by him.
Once this is ensured, our primary concern is met. To liberalize the offset provisions, it has been decided that the vendor may be permitted to change offset partner if such change would enable the vendor to fulfill offset obligation. However, no change would be allowed in respect of the offset components or its value after the offset contract is signed.
In ‘Option Clause’ cases, the terms of contract remains the same as given in the original contract. As such, if no offset is included in the main contract, it is not contractually possible to load the offset obligations. Under the Amendment-2009 to the DPP, offsets will not be applicable in ‘Option Clause’ cases where the same was not envisaged in the original contract.
-ends
mattI am not really hung up the idea of having the crop duster per say; its more the concept of having a lower cost/hour aircraft that the airforce could have a lot more of for CAS and letting the fast jets do what they were intended for.
It would keep the fast jet fleet useable for a lot longer althought admittedly we would still fly them for the designed cycle life.
But this would not happen, because the RAF is just as much about good marketing as practical choice.
And UCAV’s are more easily marketable.
mattThe RAF and NATO might be out of Iraw and afghanistan before the first Sqn. would be ready for battle. And then, what are they good for. The next conflict might have advanced enemy fighters and SAMs and a real threat from air defence systems, which would make those fighting crop dusters sitting ducks.
Dont use them in a high tech environment, sure these would not be as fast as fast jets but they would be faster than an average helicopter.
Nothing and i mean nothing can replace the A-10C but the RAF does not have any such aircraft, i would presume most of the army’s CAS is by way of the apaches etc..
Also what would be the cost of these aircraft? 1 million pounds at most? Well thats the cost of the missile that is fired by the British Apaches so that they can use their cannons.
if these cant be used park them, but when they can be used use them and save the RAF a lot of money in terms of fuel costs etc and also save on the life of the fast jets.
Sign In
