Nick_76But in over a decade of service, there has never been a problem with one of the struts, AFAIK. When you look at them, they don’t look thin.
True, but that doesnt mean, there wont be an issue in the future either. I am just wary of the struts personally because it appears an arrangement which cant afford to fail. Call it a belief in overengineering if you must but its a bit worrisome. I’d rather prefer a centralised pylon arrangement as on most other AWACs instead if the solid isnt suitable as well.
Also, a “solid” support wouldn’t be. It would almost certainly have a skin over internal frame members of some kind.
True, it would most probably be like the above, or if it is meant to carry avionics within it, it would probably be more of an integral piece with machined in spaces rather than am assembled frame, unless the latter can take the weight. I am thinking the latter.
Nick_76As i said, im no aeronautical expert. But a solid surface would be more susceptible to searing forces i would think. And thanks for pointing out that the E-2 (which is again a small size plane) also uses struts. As far as the rodome goes, it would only effect pitch movement which can be compensated by other control surfaces.
I think you need to be clearer, shearing forces would apply to all surfaces, and if an aircraft takes a bank, to the large radome as well. If an E-2 can hoist a huge radome, with large pylons, if the Sovs could make that weird contraption of theirs with the AWACS radome on the rudder, a simple solid mount for a medium sized array is no biggie. From back of the envelope calculations, the MESA/Wedgetail array is substantially heavier and larger than that on the Embraer as well.
In the case of Wedgetail, it is a much larger plane and with larger wings. SO better able to handle the roll forces.
What are these “roll forces” and how much would they affect an aircraft with the thrust available to the Embraer and the typical mission profile flown by it?
Its not going to roll & dive & swoop, max its going to do is make a gentle bank at the end of each straight pattern & come back. The Array is also not mounted substantially above the fuselage that it disbalances the aircraft. The jet has also been cleared by Embraer for the present config, which means wind tunnel tests and flow modelling.
Im not sure if we know what the built in redundancy is. But it would be a safe bet to assume it is there.
How can you have redundancy on the basis of faith. That large array would find it very hard if not impossible to be there on the basis of one pylon alone.
In the end, it is a trade off between weight and endurance. In the case of india, they may well have traded off endurance and opted for the solid connector. But given that both struts and the solid connector were diplayed at the show, i dont think they have finalized on an arrangement as yet. Lets see what they finalize on.
As I said before, its all about pros and cons.
Struts- lower drag, possibly- hence marginal effect on range, & weight- again, endurance. Both can be mitigated with IFR.
Solid support – more internal space to hold power assemblies & connectors for the antenna array, to avoid transmission losses. More operational effectiveness in maximising the space available within the airframe by putting more reliable, rugged LRUs outside the airframe.
Nick_76Interesting article by Ajai shukla,
So not only new engines for the 1st 40 being the IN-20, but now new auxillary intakes as well.
Any comments on what the difference may be during full afterburner on the IN-20? Stands now at 85kn. Its speculation, but im curious to know if any increase may be possible?
Can’t now wait for LSP – 3, to be equipped with the MMR radar from Elta.
The LCA was designed for the Kaveri from day 1; even the F2J3 was an interim powerplant. Unfortunately, the delay via sanctions ate up a full 3-4 years and took away the time needed to certify the aircraft and on top of it redesign the latter to accomodate a second powerplant.
Even if the GE-414 is more powerful, once bitten twice shy. It makes little sense to go American once more.
I would rather take the EJ, join up for a derivative program, develop the Kaveri in parallel for other HAL programs- IJT, UCAVs etc.
And even replace the Moog actuators over time, with an Indian system or one codeveloped with European specialists, FinnMecc had subsidiaries working in the field.
Unfortunately, the kind of long term vision and funding that the above requires is missing in the Indian MOD and IAF.
Nick_76The reason i meantion windshear is that Y-8, embrair and Saab are all similar size planes. All are smaller then wedgetail (which does use a solid support). Wedgetail being a larger plane can deal with the shear forces. The smaller planes may have trouble.
As far as cabling and connectors go, there have been no issues for saab, embrair or Y-8 to indicate why struts should not be used.
For the india rotor plane lost, that was a case of lack of experiance is designing the disc based systems. Hopefully, they will would have learnt from that and take that into account in this new design.
Again, where is this belief that windshear is the key factor coming from? The Naval E-2 has thick struts on its fuselage holding up a large radome, and it can manage, and even naval landings to boot, where shear would be a bigger issue. If the Wedgetail is larger plane, its array and the solid support are also much larger, so it doesnt get a free pass on account of its size!
Also, look at the flight profile of a typical AEW&C- it doesnt fly some fancy maneuvers- the flight profile is a straightforward racetrack or a figure 8, to maximise flight time over a given sector. Rapid turns etc arent taken.
Light planes carry thin struts because of weight issues for the most part. A solid support, machined out of an integral block of aluminium for eg, wont be cheap, nor will it be light. But it has excellent structural strength.
In the case of the Indian AEW&C crash, it had little to do with the inexperience of the Indian team, but everything to do with the platform and metal issues. Fatigue prediction is an extremely tricky issue, and the loss of a bracket tore the radome off. They went for limited options to cart that radar around on account of cost, took the risks and paid the price. Alternatively, it could have worked out and India would have a basic but very functional AEW&C system, with a range of easily over a 100 odd km against a small fighter sized target and able to track some 50-70 targets. Which is what the TD aircraft itself showed. It was an invaluable project for gaining airborne radar experience, from the TWT development, to RDP design and software verification. Plus the filtering for the hybrid INS system.
As far as Saab, Embraer etc using thin struts – sure they are, nobody said it doesnt work. But like I said, 4 connection points, and if one fails, it will be catastrophic. A larger support, a solid one will have many more connection points and even if a couple fail, the radar wont tear off and crash the plane.
Nick_76Perhaps. And perhaps not.
Im no expert in plane design but it seems to me that this arrangement would make the plane more susceptible to wind shear. The struts offer less resistance. Which is perhaps why china, sweden and brazil use them. Will need to wait and see.
IMO, its not windshear which determines whether struts are used, or for that matter if you look at heavier AWACS, each of their arrangements shows much larger struts supporting the larger radome & hence more susceptible to shear than a smaller strut as on a Erieye etc.
Its weight, which cause struts to be used. The above arrangement being all one piece is heavier. But IMO, its being done because it allows power supply units for the AESA array to be bundled closer to the antenna itself reducing losses.
And its also likely to be a more rugged arrangement than the thin struts. The R-99 pic above says it all, the massive array is balanced on those thin struts, even if designed to take the load, they make me, for one, queasy. Especially if the AEW&C has to undertake a rapid maneuver, for eg.
Plus the struts carry power supply cables, processing cables back and forth.
The first DRDO AEW&C was lost because a single bracket on one of the struts/pylons came loose, while it was on its landing approach. The radome tore loose, and hit the rudder, and the aircraft crashed. A single piece support is likely to have many more bolted fixtures, rather than just 4 struts balancing the entire array.
Plus the struts carry power supply cables, processing cables back and forth, they are not solid & dedicated to structural strength alone. A strip like the above can be much rugged, and yet have channels for wiring, cables, power supply kit.
The DRDO AEW&C might still go for struts, but I’d prefer the one piece arrangement.
Nick_76Should look similar to the R-99, Erieye variant of the EMB145.
Couple more to get an idea of the scale, the EMB-145 is definitely not as small as most pics make it out to be. Should be able to accomodate the avionics, plus a crew of 14.
Civvie EMB 145 can take 3 crew + 50 people.
WIKI – Source
Nick_76Preliminary graphic of the AEW&C.
Very interesting pic.
Source?
Note the AWACS Antenna support – its a much better arrangement than struts IMO.
The aircraft looks good – not a professional yardstick I admit, but then joining Embraer, the original OEM in the program is a good move. It will make integration that much easier.
From the FI article above, its evident that a lot of redesign has already taken place from the Embraer side, to accomodate the IAF specs. And only when they showed it could be done, a firm order has been placed for 3 aircraft.
Wonder if its possible to accomodate the second crew of avionics specialists, plus backup pilots. If I read the article correctly, they are talking of 5 workstations + 7 seats, and probably a gantry and a toilet?
Makes sense then to have the larger external fairings, to move a large chunk of the electronics outside, especially the H/W for the ESM/CSM and radar, while keeping the core items inside, plus processing, which need regular access by crew & support.
Nick_76Good points regadring its use in trainers. But i think another option could be to look towards the MCA and see if they can plan it right starting now. And this time around, they should aim for a joint venture with a foreign partner and aim for an engine to be ready in say 10 years that can be used in MCA.
Also, i believe it would be better to now spend most of the effort on the MCA and focus on that. The LCA full spec version is now being planned to be ready around 2025. Around that time, it would be better to start inducting the MCA instead of focusing on the LCA MK3. LCA is draining all the effort and MCA isnt getting enough attention as far as i can tell.
There is no LCA Mk3, as of yet. Its just a possible development plan by AM Rajkumar about a conservative development spiral of the LCA program.
There will, rather, be LCA Mk1’s and Mk2’s, or rather Block 1’s and 2’s.
By 2012, the aim is to get the LCA certified with the Ge404IN20, and with two squadrons. Approx 40 aircraft. Plus the 8 LSP. Add another year because of minor delays etc to be conservative. Say 2013. Starting next year, the new engine has to be developed. By 2012. Again, add another year – 2013, the LCA will require another 2-3 years for certification. By 2016 is when the LCA Mk2 will get certified. In between, to keep the production lines running, the IAF will nonetheless order another squadron (20 aircraft’s worth). By 2016, there will be around 3 squadrons of LCA’s with Ge404 IN20/GE F2J3 operational. The last might even be remanufactured to the Ge404 IN20. And 8 LSP for the IAF, which will be used as attrition reserves (LSP 5 onwards, since they will be operational standard). LSP 1-4 will take up the test flying, new engine testing, new avionics testing. The PV’s, bar the trainer/two seaters will in all probability be either retired or moved to static jigs & fixtures by then.
From 2016 onwards, you will have the definitive 2nd version of the LCA. Will the IAF order only 3 squadrons of the type? I dont think so – IMO, it will be at least a couple of squadrons more. Because by then, the MRCA program would have just been entering service, with 1-2 Squadrons, and as the MiG-27s start retiring, plus the older types, the IAF wont necessarily ignore a working, functional production line, of a type they would have invested for & now have a decent idea of its capabilities.
ADA itself has plans for LCA variants before the MCA is launched. One is the SLIFT: Supersonic Lead in fighter trainer, and the other is the LCA-A, or the LCA Agile, with further airframe modifications. Among the things planned for the latter, were more advanced avionics & a higher thrust engine. Looks like the way things turned out, the LCA-A aims are being realised in a matter of speaking.
Nick_76Now why am i being dragged into this??
What i said, and i do stand by my statement, was that folks should refrain from personal insults. That is in accordance with the forum rules we all signed up to. I do believe we can all improve and i also do believe SOC deleted all personal insults. Which was a job well done in my opinion. Any extrapolation beyond that is uncalled for.
I think this has gone far enough. Lets get back to discussing planes and refrain from disparaging remarks. This is a unique place where ideas can be discussed in a healthy atmosphere. Lets keep it that way.
Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds doesnt go down too well, anyplace & anytime Kaduna. Similarly, generic spiel intended for “everyone” about insults and what not, when one of your chaps has been trolling for a long time and you guys have been silently watching isnt very subtle either. If you had taken a honest stand today, it would have been to your credit. Unfortunately, you didnt. No matter,no biggie, its always better to know what the reality is instead of having unreasonable expectations.
Nick_76Vikas, it will be an even finer job when we do unto you as you do unto others, nothing personal intended.
When we visit the PAF thread etc and provoke, troll etc using nice acronyms like the Jihadi Fighter -17 and Mushaf Mir the bluffmaster – I do hope you retain your sense of “fair play” and post that entire spiel which you just did. I was having my cuppa right now and it went flying across the keyboard seeing the virtuous post of yours. Ouchie!
Its amusing to also watch how the chips fly at the end of the day, all said and done, you lot should have actually called Buraidiah to heel, but instead Kaduna & your post says it all. And that dear boy, has not gone unnoticed nor will it go unremembered. Not much difference between several of you, sad to say – despite my earlier belief otherwise.
And about the mods being volunteers & all that – the noise from the hoover cleaner is visible even here. No need to suck up & so badly at that. All said & done you accept a job, you do what it takes to get the job done. SOC admitted the same and that he messed up but at least he had an excuse, an awful one about the system tying his hands about dealing with trolls, but still something. Your statements otoh..shoot…one could get diabetes..
You can now act smug & play goody goody all you want, but like I said, if the above rules apply equitably then trolling is all too easy.
Say hello to our new Acronyms – the Jihadi Fartfighter- 17 and Musharraf the [insert funniest imagery about goats, donkeys etc], etc. Keep smiling.
Acronyms are ok, insulting non board members = Ok. So everything goes. And unnatural fixation on one topic? Ok. And in case one from the moderation team reads the above and decides to get hoity. Gentlemen, please be aware of sarcasm.
Nick_76Last time I looked this was a discussion forum. If you don’t think US ABM sytems in Europe and how the TOPOL-M actually works have nothing to do with Russian Missiles then I am glad you are not a moderator.
Let me be even clearer, over the past few pages, I gave up trying to see which of you was correct, who was going to win, etc. Each time this thread bumps up, I think it might have got some new russian missile news, but instead its got Ali vs Frazier, round XXXXXXX going on. Besides, I’d say I am more interested in short news & clarifications, rather than long specialised debates on an esoteric topic, with political overtones. If you start a thread dedicated to that, it might be easier to follow and even understand. Here, its like a mixture of things and detracts both from the flow of this thread & your posts dont fit in. And yes, I am not a moderator nor did I claim to be one. My two cents, anna’s and you can have the last word. Good day.
Nick_76This was what I was searching:
1- 18 GHz, covers pretty much all the relevant surveillance & fire control bands.
IEEE bands..(Wiki)
L band 1 to 2 GHz Long wave
S band 2 to 4 GHz Short wave
C band 4 to 8 GHz Compromise between S and X
X band 8 to 12 GHz
Ku band 12 to 18 GHz
Pit, BEL (production agency for radars/ ESM) recently started up an ESM facility capable of testing systems which have 0.5 deg DF accuracy
Most airborne systems I have seen including Thales ones (for export) are 3-5 deg RMS.
Nick_76So, insulting others is ok so long as the person you’re insulting isn’t on the forum? That is the level of “equity” from the forum rules to be expected? If Bush can be called an idiot for his opinions, forum members are immune from that type of criticism because they’re forum members? And you’re saying that you’re not out to censor opinions?
If insulting someone is to be verboten, why not have that as an across the board policy?
BTW, if I insult a member’s mother, what makes it a personal insult to the member? The familial connection is only incidental, I was criticizing the mother.
All this tells me is that attempts to play by the rules are dumb, and meant to be disrespected.
Fighters etc can be called whatever names. Ok, JF-17 is the Jihadi Farter-17.
Personalities not on the board can be insulted. From now on, I call the King of Saudi Arabia, a Grade A !@@$ – he isnt on the board, BAe doesnt run keymags, everythings fine.
One can go on the PAF thread (please see where it is, because no Indian has gone and messed around there, or on the PLAAF thread) and repeatedly provoke the Pakistani members with malafide intent – “JF-17 is Jihadi Fighter-17”.
“Jihadi Fighter-17 is not made in Pakistan, ha ha” and add smilies.
One can add pictures of Musharraf, some PAF type as well and make snide remarks.
Its all kosher. Its all ok.
After all, we are playing within the rules, arent we?
But mind you, you can call everyone from Gandhi to GW Bush a !@@$$ (insert favourite expletive – they aint on the forum, so ok!), repeatedly, to incite a response and get a fight going.
Seriously? Is this even for real? What this means is that the forum goes for a toss, and all it becomes is a full hands free for all.
Insults are the least of it.
I mean, are we adults or what? How much time does it take to realise a members intent – if somebody is only interested in ONE topic and ONLY makes combative posts on THAT topic, is that member even worthwhile to the forum?
Anyways, moderation teams call – I am out for now, and I better thinking about finding better uses for my time than wasting it like this, on the equitable forum and for such good rewards.
Nick_76“Member A” may only have an interest in certain topics. There is no evidence to show that “Member A” is a former member, either, I have looked. Also in case you lot aren’t aware, I don’t live in Europe. So if you send me a PM and expect a response or action in 5 minutes, you may or may not get it, depending on my schedule at the time. Buraidah’s post appeared around 5AM Saturday over here. I got onto the web later that evening, probably around 12 hours later or so.
What kind of explanation is that? Member A obviously has an interest in certain topics. Only one topic in fact, the LCA and India. And he spares no bones in making sure he can derail the same and make inflammatory remarks against both. What else is a troll? Or is a troll supposed to be a general specialist who has to flame on many topics and not one?
No evidence to show Member A is a former member?
Ok, say that he is not the former member and you cant do anything otherwise. Fine. Thats your call & I can understand it. But why was Member A banned for being the same troll Member B is being now? The fixation with the LCA, bigoted abuse against Indians, constant combative behaviour, same syntax, even to the typos.
Can A be banned, while Doppelganger B comes back later, behaves the same way, again and again and gets a free pass?
Second, about responses etc:
Surely, the least you could have done is PM’ed me or edited BOTH our posts with a clarification about the standards and why the moderation team failed to respond. Are you the only moderator? Does the report post function go only to you? Dont you realise how illogical your position is SOC? You were in the military, and have a professional career, does one shoot first before asking? You have had ample time after coming back to the board to examine the PM’s, if you havent you should have. If you didnt, somebody else should have.
Why wasnt I given a reply? What exactly is the point of a report post function, if all it is meant for is to be ignored?
I report a post. The forum response is apathetic. The moderation team does not reply. There are NO clear mentions of who and what will respond, if ever.
Buradiahs snide post remains, despite his constant trolling behaviour, and we are supposed not to respond?
Ok fine, you were in the US, what made the other moderators not respond, even with a cursory – we are looking into this?
What is the point of letting a troll post remain, if not for the fact that it too can attrack rebuttals?
Yes, we all are working professionals – bar the Buraidiahs etc- we all have limits on our time. But that is exactly the point, why should we come to a forum and see a thread where we invest our time in, be attacked by trolls and then be treated on the same level as they, when we respond?
And that too, taking care not to call them “Fools, nutcases” and what not?
Again, why should a serious contributor remain on this forum? What do they get out of it, if they are the same == to a troll?
You’re right, which is why we are finding a way to fix it. But let me ask you this. If someone misinterprets factual information in a way that leads them to draw a conclusion favorable to their own point of view, and you refer to them with: “You sir, are the wart”, are you not also violating the exact same rules you expect that person to follow?
Again, please check the facts. Go back and read his post. He called me a fool and a nutcase, and I replied with you are a wart on the forum, and that too in a manner so as to not call him names directly, and it is stated that I insulted him, well boo hoo, is little tiddles the troll so delicate that he doesnt deserve even a mild slap on the wrist for calling other members names and trolling?
He begins his post with a troll, posts a picture of a respected avionics specialist with a deliberate intent to mock him based on his looks – which should be obvious given his posting behaviour and earlier standards. And we are supposed to let that slide? Did I or did I not bring similar behaviour to the attention of the moderation team earlier?
First, you recognise that he is and has been trolling, and that too repeatedly on one topic, without even the cursory attempt by him to cover his tracks, then he responds to a humorous jibe with direct name calling & I cant even respond.
And you are “searching for a way to fix this” ? How long will the moderation team search? In the meantime, I receive an infraction for pointing out a troll is…well a troll?
You ask us to be like Abhimanyu and respond to a post which is based on clear outright lies again and again, fine – have you seen Abhimanyus comments in the previous page? Even he admits that he was replying to a post made with “malafide intent” because Buraidiahs aim was clearly not to exchange opinions but flame. He simply refuses to acknowledge any data and responds with mocking, abusive comments.
Lastly, a forum exists as a place for debate and to learn. Not to visit and see your topic of interest (whether it be F-4 Phantoms, the Indian Air Force, the Type 45 or whatever) be turned into a nonstop slag match. And the moderators dont exercise their options judiciously even when they could.
How many times has Buraidiahs attempts to flame been brought to y’alls attention, and nothing has been done? What more can one do? Clearly, moderation or whatever intent the same was supposed to have has failed.
My infraction tells me everything I need to know, that simply put, this system is severely flawed and not equitable. And given the manner in which this entire affair has been handled, despite my umpteen attempts to play by the rules by contacting the moderation team, it has been pointless.
Nick_763. Punish both people. This was the most equitable solution given the offenses and the current system in place.
This is equitable? Member A only trolls. Member B approaches the moderation team, reports the post, nothing happens and finally responds and you censure both?
At any rate nothing will probably satisfy everyone, so I went right by the book, which is what I try to do regardless. People argue that they don’t like what was done, people argue if nothing is done…hell, people even become agitated and argue when I bother to post!
C’mon, this is a cop out. As a moderator you do have you do have the right to make an informed choice given each members past posting habits. If you choose not to exercise it, and still censure both members, then it is a mistake. If I were to post repeatedly on the JF-17 calling it Junk Fart-17 or Jihadi Fighter -17 or similar epithets, pick fights with Pakistanis because they are Pakistani, and ONLY post on this topic while ignoring all others, what am I but a troll? How much more evidence does one need?
Right now, the current system, is clearly flawed.
Sign In
