Are flat nozzles the only way to reduce IR signature ? Shouldn’t a 3D TVC nozzle using petals like ones below be able to distribute the exhaust plume in 3 distinct planes compared to a flat nozzle’s action of spreading it in only one plane ?

Why are u so against Privatization ?

Privatisation is a wrong word, what is needed are reforms. While you are at the contention that organisational reforms can be achieved only via change of ownership, what I am trying to put across is that change of ownership will not bring about a ground of change unless the policies governing the sector are corrected.

The inherent problem with PSU is that its only as good as the government in centre. Private industry is driven by profit motive and not affected by an an inefficient government.

Its a myth that PSUs are not profit oriented. Yes, they lack the ruthlessness and have their own inertia but most of them run in black. Personally i am in favor of government dissolving several defence related manufacturing units and developing/recruiting vendors that can innovate, but the core development/design/procurement of every project should be managed by a government agency so that ultimately the complete project is audited thoroughly by CAG or any other competent government appointed auditors.

Rubbish. Thats because they are marginalized and defensive PSU are given preferential treatment.

Privatizing existing psus means whatever expertise can be retained as well. L&T M&M Tatas etc can do it. Teer has made points that its not easy to build expertise from scratch. By selling the PSUs to Private players we are just changing the management and basically keeping all the expertise.

People needs motivation to work hard and not everyone does it out of patriotism, in a private company people who contribute can be given bonuses and rewards and promotions etc, its more lucrative in a PSU everything has to be done as per service rules and protocol.

:diablo:

I have worked in a PSU in the past (a good one which actually competes with private players, pays well and a stringent performance linked bonus system that actually works). The PSU’s are only as good as the policies which the ministry makes them work under. Defence PSU’s are easier to fix, a few years of organisational reform and cash inflow can fix them easily; its the research organisations that need a little more help, as its the research work that takes maximum hits from attrition.

and what exactly does the F/A-XX have to do with Pak-Fa?

The images often used to show Pak-Fa S-ducts were ripped off from boeings presentation.

How about more Su-35’s and upgrades for the older ones once they are done receiving them ?

Here is a concept art by a guy named parijat gaur at militaryphotos on how fgfa/pak-fa might look in IAF colours. The shade he used is a wee bit light IMO.

Why do i get the feeling that the engines are slightly angled towards outside ? or is it just an optical illusion.

If you had even bothered to read, you will note that that Rao’s earlier quoted thrust from 2008 is actually higher than that quoted in 2009. That is not an incremental increase in thrust, it is a decrease.

In regards to your sources, the first is a mere brochure that is nearly a decade old. Those are paper claims that have admittedly not been realized. Your second source from 2010 is a long damning indictment of the Kaveri engine development process which if you had actually bothered to read it made absolutely no mention of any actual achieved thrust.

So my points remain standing and unchallenged. The Kaveri engine is overweight compared to original specifications. The thrust delivered again did not match desired specifications. Demonstrated thrust to weight ratio is betweeen 5-6:1. K10 “redesign” to achieve higher thrust requires French input and is essentially an M-88 hybrid to achieve desired performance.

The CAG report does more justice to the Kaveri project than your vitriol laced diatribe. Decade old brochure? Now since you love to quote Ajai Shukla’s article which does not mention any source as de facto state of the program in 2009, corroborate it with DRDO scientists quote in 2008 and chose to draw your own conclusions without searching for official quotes and press statements then its your choice. Check this out for your love of “statements by GTRE scientists”
PS : Its from Aug 17th 2011.

“Nine prototypes of Kaveri engine and four prototypes of Kaveri Core (Kabini) engines have been developed with over 2,000 hours of testing…the engine is proven with almost 80 kilonewtons (kN) of thrust now, which is enough for our UCAVs (Tejas requires 90 kN),” said an official.