Nick_76Thats Funny. :rolleyes: There was an incident during New Years eve here in Mumbai. It was a case of harrassment & molesting of 2 girls/women by a group of almost 50 drunkards. The young couple had come to amchi mumbai to have a good New year and Indian’s really showed what worth their “Adhithi Devo Bhava” really is..
And what the 3rd rate politician Bal Thackery said was “maharashtrain’s can’t do that and all the people had to be non-maharashtraian’s”…. yeah really, they can’t be Maharashtraians :diablo:. I think people like you belong to the above category, because they don’t have the guts to face the truth and only knows to put the blame on someone else and branding them rather than cleansing the dirt and correcting themselves. Your rants like the above will be ignored from now on.
Ok, so you are Blackcat, and you remain as lucid and logical as ever.
I mean comparing somebody who asked you to shorten your habit of posting fifteen times again and again, to a bunch of molesters. Messed up spelling & syntax. Definitely blackcat.
“Welcome back”. 😀
btw, you can just chek your own long post, maybe you can shorten it next time beofore calling others post a long.
You post the same stuff 15-20 times. And I am the third person to ask you to cool down. Dont get hysterical over some friendly suggestion. 😮
Nick_76Sevmash hiked their workers salary
The workers should thank the population of India for their contributions. I mean, what else is the Gorshkov money going for, but such wonderful stuff at Sevmash.
Nick_76So basically, what the contract covers is wast. India have had to face many difficulties in the 90s and almost the full remedial was included in the Gorshkov contract. But cost-esclation related thing somehow get ignored. Hopefully we won’t repeat it next time.
So what the Gorshkov contract have are –
1) shore deployment objects outfitting,
2) ship repair base in different Indian cities,
3) development of repair documentation,
4) training of crew and technical specialists,
5) guarantee and post-guarantee maintenance and spare parts delivery within 20 years of ship operation
Dude, all the above are just words. The Gorshkov guys have a habit of reneging on their contracts & renegotiating them. So what if the contract says “x” for now. Tomorrow, if the yard screws up again, they will offer “x-10” and ask for more $$$ to get back to x, with a take it or leave it attitude. And the IN will be forced to do so.
Even if the nonsense from posters like Victor are taken,
Victors opinion is as valid as yours. Ergo what you write is also “nonsense”. Stick to the facts.
As for the rest, see Point 1, above. Theres no guarantee that the Russians will stick to their word on the Gorshkov if their past behaviour on this project is any indicator.
“We underestimated the spares burn for the Gorshkov, oooooops, please give us more money”. :rolleyes:
Nick_76I stand corrected………….and by the way I rarely use the silly thumbs up or down sign. (do a search if you like of my posts) Maybe you are the one rushing to post????:rolleyes:
Do follow your own advice and look at your own posts Scoot. Most of them have either :rolleyes: or the hands down.
And no, I didnt rush to post. I merely replied to yours.
Nick_76hiya
it coudl be possible its true, considering mig playing round with al-31 powered mig-27s for india?
MiG Man, that proposal is unlikely to ever see the light of implementation. IAF has for now, committed to upgrade of only 40 MiG27s from HAL, without OEM intervention. And the MRCA & LCA are intended to replace the remaining 4 Sq.
Nick_76man too much blab blah blah and nothing concrete.
how can there be anything concrete mig-23mld, we dont have you. :(:(
you are a divine personality, mig-23 mld, we are but sand!!
Your main disagrement with me is you think because i say the LCA is not as agile as the J-10, and this irritates you claiming there are many unkown variables and therefore there is a posibility the LCA is even more agile or as agile as the J-10.
how can i even claim this mig-23 mld. everyone here knows you know everything about aerospace and the j-10. i mean, you post about the j-10 and so many chinese posters rush to post, telling you how “great you are”. surely, someone as talented as you doesnt need me to say anything?
Since your reasoning claims, i disregard those unkown variables, you asume there is not concrete proof the LCA is less agile.
All your evidence against me are personal attacks, not a single and i say a single aerodynamic example, niether evidence in sustained turn rates or instantaneous turn rates.
oh mig-23 mld, me/i attack you? pls point out where i have done so!! nowhere have i do so.
you have already informed me i am nationalistic, i am not as intelligent as you, as smart as you, how could i even rebut you? i dont even know how to copy paste web pages from the internet to match you? how can i point out trivia such as the IAF’s ASRs about STR, ITR and the fact that the J-10 doesnt have any public ones released either. in fact, if i point these out, I will fall in your so enlightened eyes. it will devastate me, that mig-23 mld thought so. please mig-23 mld, say it aint so. :(:(:(
Do you bring an article where NASA says, yes tailess wings make more agile aircraft because this and that? no you do not present any evidence not a sigle one, you only evidence is a [B]hope the LCA could be more agile or at least as agile becasue you asume i might not know some facts, however you do not present any example or studies that show tailess wings are better than tailed or canards, so you only go to a typical nationalistic speech talking about the great Indian scientist or personal attacks of have you ever work in this or that, but no evidence in studies or proof in aerodynamic research
oh mig-23 mld, how would i ever match you in presenting evidence. all i have are subscription papers from aero conferences, and alternate day meets with people in the industry, how can they match up with you, and your internet research?? :(:(
you are truly one of a kind, who makes me feel so small.
whenever real world figures are presented, they are “nationalistic”.so obviously you are right, and the world is wrong.
about nationalistic speech, here i am talking about how primitive indian scientists are, they have to spend days and nights analysing flosolver data but still need more work to come to tentative results. how stupid of them. using a supercomputer, developed expressly for the purpose. didnt they know websites on the internet had all the answers?!?!?
of course they are not as smart as you!! in fact, hard work and perseverence matters nothing. it is all luck.
either you are mig-23 mld or you are not. its just bad luck, india and china didnt have mig-23 mld born on their shores, how sad are these countries. the PM of india and the chinese committee on state security cry everynight thinking of their bad luck, thinking how mig-23 mld didnt help them develop fighter planes overnight. the stupid indians forgot to put canards on their plane, the bad chinese went and copied russia and israel. :(:(
all because mig-23 mld didnt teach them how to use the internet and what nasa research said. how sad is life?? :(:(
all my tax money going waste because mig-23 mld, who knows everything wasnt born here.
So far nick_76 you have prefered ignorance because your pride is bigger and you prefer ignorance becasue you can not accept the facts studies say canards and tailplanes are better than tailess design in terms of AoA handling and trimming.
very true mig-23. how correct you are. you are a truly superior person mig 23 mld, you must be so smart and so successful. how could i even put my pride against yours. :(:(
Since the LCA is a tailess design and Indian you think it most be the best jet not because of science but because of nationality.
oooooooooooooooooooh, now LCA is tailless so its the best jet!! and i must think that because i am indian!!
wow mig-23 mld, you are so smart and a telepath now.
can lca beat the f-22 mig-23 mld? can it outmaneuver and defeat it??
oh wait,….can it do the ultimate…defeat the ultimate jet, designed in a crucible in olympus itself?
the mig23? please tell me mig-23 mld, i am fainting, waiting for your statements.
Nick_76And now some news:
Guess who got their breaks working on the LCA project, when it was deemed useless for a developing country?
HCL works on multiple Indian projects, to build up competence.
And today it is an EADS Tier 1 supplier, out of more than 2000 worldwide.
Go LCA. 😎
Nick_76The structural tests on the AAAU using both the single and dual pylon options are yet to be done. Both options appear to be acceptable from an aero POV but structural validation needs to be done to select the overall better option.
Victor, it could be done another way, choose the better aero option, and then go with it, if it passes the structural tests. Its not only cheaper, you save time, and ont have to modify the aircraft for the tests, twice. Remember, the first is coming in 2010-11, and they have till 2012 to demonstrate it to the IAF.
My take is they’ll select one of the two and only go back to the other, if the first doesnt work.
Nick_76yeah yeah no aerodynamics, only a long speech, yeah yeah only engineers know better yeah yeah yeah.
What aerodynamics? ever seen a flow separation test? ever provided hardware for a purpose built aerodynamics application with seven different parameters to play with? boss, you are just whistling in the dark. i have seen the field, and it isnt a joke. you are just gassing and gassing and gassing and hoping that nobody can see through your non stop fibs and copy and paste.
second, did you know that a lot of what you copied and pasted is also uncertain? yes, uncertain. in fact, the real aero data for several conditions including your favourite copy paste “vortex” is available to a handful of oem’s worldwide and it requires govt to govt talks to get assistance on those, unless you have a decades worth of time to conduct blowdowns. and you can only do a few blowdowns per month unless you have superhumans who can analyse the results overnight. shootman, you have absolutely no idea of the real world, do you?
So i can see your basis are speculation but no basis upon aerodynamic only the gods know better.
who says they are Gods? talk about some silly belief system you have going here. in my field, if these chaps come, i can teach them. in theirs, they teach me. its an esoteric, research intensive, long timeline field which doesnt appeal to everyone. which is why i didnt do aeroengineering. but it is very similar to my field in that basic calculations reliant upon theory often flop in reality. we simply cannot model enough real world variables. there are over 967 items that have to be catalogued for a single flow separation test. that requires a computer run of many hours, in fact left overnight and through the day. to analyse the results takes a team of 12, 7*8 manhours, to come out with a basic dashboard. which then means the actual aero team has to figure out what worked and what didnt. i mean, you really have no clue of the expertise some companies have and others are working towards. for you fellows, its all internet magic. three webpages and you are an automatic expert. boss, if things were that simple..
In fact buddy i have seen the F-2, F-15, F-16, F-14, F-18, T-2, T-4 and the magnificent Tornado.
on the internet, sure. i am sure you are reknowned, why keymags should have a section for you. and star49. you would give us so much knowledge that our primitive brains would explode.
And at least i post articles published by NASA no speculation, you are posting your opinions without any base upon NASA or reknown french institutes, but you only post your opinions without any real aerodynamic base.
do you even realise how illogical you are? ever heard of an “appeal to authority” – look it up in wiki, you’ll understand.
nasa, and the french are human and belong to the USA and france respectively. they release generic data which is good for the basics, after that is where the money sink begins, and where only doggedness matters. you obviously have no idea of how research is conducted and how abso-expletive-lutely painful it is. companies have gone bankrupt on the basis of just one LRU, and an aircraft is several thousand LRUs. I cannot help but be amused at your confidence on Ctrl+C and paste, when my peers are putting day and night in figuring out what you call “basic”. they should surely hire you, since they are so primitive and third world, like you say. you were obviously from a superior stock and you already know everything on the internet, you will teach them all. please help us mig-23 MLD, we need you. how sad are we, that we dont have you?? windtunnels dont matter, structural tests dont matter, mig-23mld you are so great and we dont have your expertise, you read the NASA pages and you know everything about aerodynamics, in fact you even know how to post pictures. we are sp lost without you. please please please help us. :(:(:(
Nick_76I am not eager to fight, niether jumping into conclusions but i really dislike when people guess and do not support their point with valid arguments.
what drivel you write, and with such confidence. when other posters are saying you dont have actual evidence since you dont have real test data, you speculate, and then you accuse them of speculating and abuse them as being nationalists and what not. really really weird behaviour.
The if, perhaps, maybe at least has to be supported by some valid base, not the unknown wonderful expeculation of the aliens or Gods know better than us without a valid theory that`s what you are doing, its obvious your statement is not supported upon specific aerodynamic principles if not you would had quoted them.
what specific aerodynamic principles have you explored? copy pasting stuff from different websites is not nobel level work, unlike what you believe.
The only thing you are doing is trying to live in the mystery of the gods ( in this case aerodynamists who know better than us) without even trying to know why an aircraft has an specific aerodynamic shape.
what a useless and utterly irrelevant remark. i work with people from different walks of life and meet folks like this every day. if i show them this thread, they will give up in ten second of what you are trying to say with your ridiculous font sizes, colored posts and rambling statements. all i said was experimental data is essential before making conclusions. the gripen team never expected their fighter would perform as well as it did. indian navy designers surprised their russian peers when their hulls outperformed their russian counterparts in kp’s. experimental data validates assumptions. you keep copy pasting so much stuff. how much have you worked with in real life?
It`s like trying to say integral calculus is an untouchable matter leave it to the Gods who are vastly superior than us and who are only authorized to emmit statements without doing a minimal attempt to read and understand calculus ( and this is a typical third world mentality, and not offense since i am from a third world country).
your nonsensical abuse really has no limits. it is obvious you have zero real world engineering experience to point out something practical as a third world mentality. i really dont care which backwater you live in to have such an inferiority complex and to project it on others, but any engineer who works in aviation would always tell you that he estimates, and that execution will bring out the real status. i have seen project plans from folks with 30 years in the domain go screwed up because of unseen variables, and aviation remains a challenge. if you werent so egotistical and attacking other posters, you would understand that india actually runs a supercomputer at NAL to even simulate flows for partial solutions. an engineer got the national r and d award last year for extending navier stokes and here you are bragging about your own lack of knowledge and passing it off as something great. on top of it, you abuse people who tell you that real world testing is essential to come to valid conclusions as being from the third world. absolutely disgusting behaviour.
My statements do not come from nationalistic feelings, but by simple basic aerodynamic reasonings based upon what i have read.
your statements come from your ridiculous ego which has ruined thread after thread on chinese aviation and now i guess its the lca’s turn. after that you will be berating the swedes for their gripen, and the french for their rafale. wonderful.
not only do you apparently lack the professional qualifications to make an assessment, i can also reasonably state that you are definitely not working in an engineering field where one does this for a living where anyone worth their salt is very conservative about making categorical statements.
let alone city copy paste as facts.
Your statemenst and his come from the mystery of the gods without even a small attempt to base your statements upon basic and known principles of aerodynamics.
ridiculous. i told you that we have no way to judge the ultimate LCA performance at, or even the J-10s with certainty since critical parameters will not be released. all one can have is speculation. instead, you respond with more bombast and copy and paste.
I can tell you by simple aerodynamic principles that the J-10 up to my knowledge and understanding is better than the LCA in agility, and i can see it by the fact Europe, Russia and the US do not build and manufacture tailess fighter aircraft without thrust vectoring, and the only tailess aircraft known to flown operationaly is the B-2 in the US.
France built the tailess Mirage 2000 (which has strakes) and was replaced by the vastly superior canarded Rafale
your simple aero principles are apparently unknown to professionals who spend millions of dollars every year in wind tunnel blowdowns and supercomputer runs to determine even basic things such as carriage separation. but here you know it all. all that matters for both the LCA and J-10 is that they meet what their respective AFs demand of them in performance, not what some self assigned expert from who knows where thinks of basic principles.
on second thoughts i will print out this thread and circulate it so some folks have a good laugh, both at the thought that webpages printed off the net can tell everyone about an aircraft and its performance, and that you know everything.
You are really speculating and worst than me, at least my speculations are based upon several NASA or other aerodynamic papers, yours and his only upon a desire to leave the LCA as better than the J-10 however no aerodynamic principles are used to justify such reasoning.
more nonsense. so now you are a telepath. i for one explicitly said that the j-10 may turn out superior in some criteria, time will tell. you otoh are the one ranting and raving about some fighters you are unlikely to see even in real life. all said and done, keep doing so, and good luck to you.
Nick_76this thread has effectively been ruined once MiG-23 started posting here 🙂 have fun arguing against a dead end street guys. On the upside, you are treated to a bunch of nice pictures.
Big surprise that! Yesterday it was the copied J-10, today its the canardless LCA, tomorrow it will be…insert “” choice of the week….
Nick_76For all we know they already evaluated the above option and rejected it. The article does mention explicitly that Embraer has been working on it for the past 3 years, and from the Indian side, it would have been NAL and ADA for the aero config. with CABs as the coordinator.
The DRDO Mag article on the AEW&C shown at the Singapore air show, also contains the same picture you posted first with the single piece support for the AEW&C.
Nick_76Given that two different designs are shown at the display, how can you be sure which design has been finalized and which one embiar will or will not support? Any source available that states that the solid support design has been finalized by India? I havnt seen one yet.
I dont know for sure, and none of us will until the first pictures of the testbed surface 3-4 years from now. But the picture Victor posted is not only the same as a model, but also in the CABS brochure with an exploded view of the AESA Tx/Rx module, which also has a very well developed view of the other items on the AEW&C, etc. Seems quite reasonable.
I have no disagreement with the above. Design choices are indeed a compromise. My point was, that given that 3 different companies from 3 different continent have arrived at the same solution ie the usage of struts for the smaller planes. Id be surprised if india doesnt use struts. Ofcourse, they may well decide to use a solid support and compromise on something else. But lets wait and see.
Yeah, but late starters have a fundamental advantage, they can evaluate what others did and take a slightly different tack from the early adopters. The MESA for eg is not the typical AWACS one has come to expect from the USA. And I am sure if SAAB were to develop another one it might be quite different from the current SAAB series which are after all iterative improvements of a 80-90s’ design.
Nick_76Well….proves Mig-23MLD right then doesnt it! 🙂
Not really, read what Ajai Shukla wrote – there is no consensus yet on it.
Designers are split about whether it will add anything of value.
The A-LCA I mentioned earlier also had various “improvements”- TVC, small canard like strakes, Mirage 2000 style, more control surfaces on the forward portion of the wing.
Some of them might never come about.
TVC for instance may add too much weight and be deemed operationally ineffective on the LCA unless it carries a heavier thrust engine which can stand the parasitic TVC loss & more fuel to compensate for the extra weight (higher thrust profile).
These changes are planned for the second batch of aircraft, and as of yet that means ~4-5 years to design iterative improvements. As I said, 2015 is when these planes will appear.
Nick_76Are you sure Embraer has approved the solid support configuration?? I was not aware of that. Got a source?
Not what I said, I restate it below:
If we read the above article, it says the deal has been signed now, after some three years of work by Embraer on the IAF specific configuration. Three years back they signed an EOI, expression of interest, and from then on, they have been working to show that the EMB-145 can handle the design – whether it be any kind of support, what it means is that Embraer will certify it.
Similarly, it would be naive to assume that there is no redundancy built in and the only way it can be built in is by using a solid support. Saab, Embrair and Y-8 have not reported any such problems or issues with struts.
How do you know there is redundancy? Modern aircraft are extremely mission optimised and the travails of operating costs (which is why its an EMB-145 not A 320!) means that you overengineer certain systems and hope for the best.
You mean there is “Redundancy”, if an engine on a single engine fighter fails? Any special backup propulsion system? Nope.
You mean there is “redundancy” if the AEWACs plummets to the ground at a low alt- any ejection seats? Sometimes, you take what you get and live with it.
If this is not being naive, what is. Like I said – if the AWACS tomorrow has struts, even then my objections still stand. I’d have preferred a solid structure. Coming to problems with struts- how do we know they werent reported or rectified or caused some limitations? These kind of news arent exactly tomtommed, given they can kill a programs exports and financially doom it. Sometimes, a crash occurs and the reason has to be evaluated and publically stated. Other times, there is no public pressure or reason to do so.
Recently, didnt a balance beam AWACs crash in China? Who knews what was the exact cause? Some reports speak of antiicing systems failing, others said an engine failure, who exactly knows what caused it?
My point is design choices are made for a variety of reasons, and it is incorrect to assume that just because a choice was made it doesnt have any cons whatsoever. My preference for the above system – solid one, is clear, despite its cons, more weight, more drag, impact on endurance. The IAF may well disagree and go for a strut system, despite its cons. They may feel the risks are manageable. But I still prefer conservative engineering. Besides, the Block 2 AWACS the DRDO is planning after this one is intended to go on a heavier platform, which will mean a much heavier array and a MESA style support structure. Best they get used to that kind of arrangement now itself.
Iterative improvements IMO trump greenfield ones, especially in high risk systems development.
Sign In
