KarnaAppears the other way around mate. Their latest processors, techniques appear ok, but they dont have AESA antennas yet.
KarnaThere is one thing that makes me wonder, why do I get the impression that India is always jumping on certain aviation programms, that everybody has taken on years before them.
I mean Grippen and LCA are comparable if you look at the capabilites and LCA will be the last 4th generation fighter to reach IOC. (not counting chinese planes)Then there is the small 14 seat turboprop pusher. Which is aimed at a pratically no longer existing nice in the world market.
And now yet another 100 seat airliner. We have Embraer, Airbus, Boeing, SU and Tu already in or about to join the market. On the other hand a jet powered 30-45 seats regional airliner with high wings optimized for rough field conditions, could really find buyers. I mean even the very unlucky Do-328 Jet is still finding customers.
And so I will find the turn back to the LCA. The question that I´m really asking me is : Is Indias domestic market big enough to justify all those programms which show are more or less complete disregard for the international market. Although I give the LCA a limited chance of eport orders.
Plz forgive me that I went off-topic. And I no way I want to bash the indian programms again.
Sea Hawk, the LCA is about making an industry capable of standing on its own apart from delivering a plane. Sweden has been making its fighters since WW2 and iirc even prior to that.
For India to make a Gripen equivalent- with Indian industries supplying all units- thats the ultimate plan anyhow- is = program success.
Once that industry is developed it can then concentrate on exports. Take a look at Israel. None can deny that the Lavi program kickstarted Israels aerospace industry and moved it to a much higher level.
Today India can cooperate with Russia for a PAK-FA and contribute to the program. We couldnt do that without the LCA.
KarnaAn interesting resume. French EPNER-trained?
Nope. ASTE. IAF test pilots have gone abroad for cross training but the ASTE trains its own test pilots now. Prior to its establishment, we had our guys trained in France and Britain.
Of course, testing it is their job and marketing is a secondary. Any test pilot will tell you that about his current project.
Hardly. That pretty much shows how erroneous your assumptions are re: context of the LCA and how the test program is run in India.
This is not the US etc where you have powerful aerospace concerns seeking to market their product and hence “pushing” for favourable reviews via pilots/ test crew.
In India- the IAF knows its the intended customer and holds *all* the leverage. They simply wont accept the bird till it crosses all the T’s and dots all the i’s.
The praise given to the LCA was on the lines of “well they did it” not “oh wow look at this wonderful bird”.
IOW, the conversation was as much about how many hurdles the LCA was expected to meet and how the ASTE team was planning to meet them.
Secondly- these chaps were deputed to the LCA from the IAF. Their job is *not* to sell the LCA to the IAF. Their job is to ensure that the LCA meets the standards demanded by the IAF. And they have all the powers requisite to ensure the same- ie demand what they need re: performance.
It is designed to, and it will surely be able to fulfill at least a significant part o that requirement. I’ll swallow it when it has passed IAF acceptance trials though. And ease of maintenance is fine, unless you drop a screwdriver on the composites of course.
It is not merely a case of composites vs this or that. Its more of the entire architecture of the LCA, built as it is around Line Replaceable Units and “plug and play” (as misleading as that term can be) avionics. The manufacturing tolerances have also been shown to be extremely precise thanks to HAL and ADA’s investment in virtual prototyping and extensive CNC machining. Furthermore the LCA design calls for its reliability to meet the standards established by the Mirage 2000 at a minimum- which particular a/c’s record stands at 90% ++ serviceability throughout its IAF service.
What you seem to ignore- is the increase in combat capability offered by the above. The IAF recognises that the LCA will bring about a quantum jump in its combat ability- they will have many more a/c on the flightline than ever before- equivalent to the best they can buy- namely the Dash V Mirage, at a fraction of the cost. Furthermore the tooling and logistics can be easily sourced from within India and they can make HAL/ ADA jump through the hoop to deliver.
Furthermore, the Squadrons they emply will be multirole and the IAF knows the same. Given the above- the LCA is recognised as a worthwhile investment by those who are to employ it.
Well, i assume ASTE doesn’t have a bunch of full-time fast jet test pilots in service, so they come from the IAF. Nothing spectaculair about that.
Wrong again. ASTE has temporary pilots deputed from the IAF for short durations and who can take on different programs. The step taken by the IAF in deputing highly trained crew and infrastructure to the LCA is significantly different. Note that these are *not* HAL test crew doing the testing, deputed from the IAF. They are IAF, drawn from in service folk and combat personnel and deputed to the ASTE, expressly for the LCA. The IAF recognises the importance of having an experienced pool of their best cadre to drive the LCA development process and they have committed to the same.
So they’ll have to crash two prototypes? And exactly in what way is the ‘present flight test process similar to the Gripens’ – unless you care to explain how and why, you have just launched a perfectly unspectaculair red herring.
Apparently reading between the lines is not one of your strong points. 😎 The Gripen comparison is directly wrt the timeframe for the test flight process and complete certification. This with regards to the repeated confusion in this thread about the LCA flight test duration etc.
Since when does the prototype LCA has it’s ECS fitted? It hasn’t. Neither has it been tested aboard the LCA. :rolleyes:
So you really dont know much about the LCA. The ECS has been flying with the TD’s itself. The experience has been so good that elements of the ECS have been included in both the Jag and MiG 27 upgrades.
And btw, flying in Indian conditions without an ECS …is simply..untenable.
So i’ve been told some sixty times now. Again, i will be humbly concurring by the time a radar and other operational avionics are fitted and tested on an LCA.
The fact that the actual systems are already flying on most frontline a/c of the IAF proves that these units are mature without doubt. Furthermore, these units were not selected just because they were LCA derived but after a competitive performance evaluation vis a vis similar units supplied by Thales and IAI.
Operational avionics systems such as the display processors, mission computers, rwr’s and a host of other LRU’s- both avionics and others- are already part of IAF a/c *today*.
As far as the radar is concerned- it has been flying from last year on the HACK and the IAF’s certification agency has already cleared it for LCA integration. And its individual subsystem components have already been proven via other programs- the SV2000 for the Navy and the Vetrivale for the MKI.
Dyslexia is rampant in this thread. I never ‘concluded’ that the LCA is unupgradable, i was only doubting it.
And it’s recommendable you base your data on preliminary talks with developers and customers, which is definately a good thing. Problem is that this data is still preliminary.
You “doubted” that the LCA was upgradeable. I just pointed out that your “doubts” were incorrect . And that the LCA and ADA have already worked on and released an upgrade path for the LCA blocks.
Now you may do all the semantic nitpicking you wish- thats your prerogative. Whether they be “doubts”/ “conclusions”/ whathaveyou- they were wrong.
As far as “preliminary” data is concerned- I’d afraid the word of aircrew with thousands of flight hours in fighters under their belt counts over that of a observer who has no facts to back up his “doubts”/”conclusions”/etc. Your comment about the above being “preliminary” is also incorrect. All these details have been released quite some time before with the IAF’s permission. And work on follow on variants has begun quite some time before. You can look towards the OAC and the Optronic DASS/IRST – if you wish. Both are intended for Block 2 LCA and significant work has already been done. The latter is being codeveloped with IAI whereas the former is on its own rig in Bangalore, with the coding being certified. These are but two of the LRU’s. Work is already going on dozens more, since their first blocks are already developed and verified.
KarnaSelective reading again, Sameer? I have always stated that i think the LCA is of immense importance to the Indian aviation industry. I have big doubts however that the aircraft, when it is eventually entering operational service, was worth the overstretched development process.
Your doubts are your own- you are welcome to them. Those doubts- fyi- are not shared by the Indian Air Force at present.
I have had the priviledge to speak to those who have flown the LCA *and* the Mirage 2000, F16, Rafale and the MiG29- among other a/c. They consider the LCA extremely relevant. It can replace the entire MiG series in the IAF inventory and is designed to offer a multirole ability, as well as ease of maintenance- contributing to much higher sortie and serviceability rates. The latter having a definite impact on the IAF’s overall combat ability. The LCA iow will comprise the the “body” of the IAF and is recognised as such by planners. Now that it has entered the flight test process, the IAF has committed itself by detaching pilots, engineers and test crew and forming a dedicated LCA team at ASTE.
The present flight test process is similar to the Gripens.
As to what it has *already* brought to the table- here are a few things to consider. The prototype LCA is already recognised as having the best ECS in the IAF fleet- better than even the Mirage 2000. Thats but an example.
Your other comments about there being no space for further upgrades etc are equally erroneous. The LCA team is already replacing the avionics blocks- with more integrated and smaller ones. The entire Mission computer- dual system, display processors and other items have been replaced with dual powerpc based Open Architecture computers- much more compact, current with state of the art worldwide and far more powerful. Similarly, other units in the DASS and avionics are scheduled to be replaced with integrated items- an approach as first shown on the JSF, as compared to the federated systems of today.
I will post more data time permitting. Net- your conclusions about the LCA being “unupgradeable” whether it be airframe or avionics are erroneous. I base *my* data having talked to both the end user and developer.
There are tons of data about what the LCA has done for *todays* IAF.
That might be interesting- even given blitherers like Yahoo who cant stand anything and everytHing Indian. 😀
KarnaAnother sensless news item. Capability to develope Indigenously 737. Is it 737-200 in
2010 or 737-700 in 2010. In either case it does not make sense.
Also only 40 aircraft LCA order expectation not firm commitment this late in program.http://www.deccan.com/City/CityNews.asp#Te…ice%20in%202009
Tejas LCA to be inducted into service in 2009
Hyderabad, July 31: The ‘desi’ Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas, will get operational clearance in 2007 and will be inducted into service in 2009. In all, 250 test flights of the aircraft have been conducted successfully. A naval variant of the aircraft would also be ready by 2007, disclosed V K Aatre, scientific adviser to the Defence Minister.
Aatre said the Centre had okayed the ‘Astra’ project for the development of a beyond visual range surface-to-surface long distance missile. The feasibility study of the Airborne Early Warning and Control System would be completed by the year-end, he added. “It would take six to seven years to develop,” he said.
The fly-by-wire Kaveri engine, for use in the Light Combat Aircraft, would also be ready in two to three years, he said. Aatre said that the aeronautical industry in the country had matured. Several projects were under way and a whole range of technologies were being developed. “We have no dearth of funds or talent,” he said. “Aerospace and avionics will play an important role in the coming years.”
The country now possessed several simulators including pilot-in-the-loop, hardware online, computer simulator, Ajeet and Kiran training aircraft simulator and Light Combat Aircraft simulator. The unmanned aerial vehicle has proved its mettle, he added. Kota Harinarayana, former Project Director of Light Combat Aircraft, who is at present Vice Chancellor of Hyderabad University, said that the government was expecting the Indian Air Force to purchase 40 aircraft. “The Light Combat Aircraft is a good machine, costs much less than its variant abroad and has withstood both technological tests and critics.”
Similarly, the Indian Airlines had given a letter of intent for six 14-seater Saras aircraft, he said. Harinarayana said that India was capable of producing 100-seater Boeing 737 level aircraft. “The aviation industry has come of age,” he said. “We have the technology and skill to take up various projects. We can indigenously develop a Boeing 737 level aircraft in five to six years time.”
To a question, Harinarayana said that Hyderabad, which housed several aerospace-related units, could become an international aerospace hub with the setting up of the international airport at Shamshabad.
KarnaI´m saying, that depending of service entry and full IOC, the IAF might be not that happy with the LCA. I mean given a production run over 15 years, the last LCA might join the IAF in 2025 or later. During that time being able to match an F-16A or FC-1 won´t cur it anymore. J-10 is the unknown horse in that game. We don´t know enough about it to come to sensible judgement about that plane.
I am afraid your views dont hold with the brass. Reason being that the LCA is to be inducted in blocks- each modernised over the prior version.
The upgrades include AESA, higher thrust powerplants and conformal over the body tanks.
I’ll address Arthurs specious reasoning later.
Karna>>>>Facinating, albiet perplexing. What drives the need for interoperatibility between Samyukta, Tempest and Sangraha? Or in other words what criteria would an airborne, shipborne and vehicle borne ESM and Jammer have to satisfy to be considered interoperable?
And I havent the faintest idea how this tactical EW gear is relevant to India’s NFU doctrine or how it would help prevent the entry of “special” warheads into India that Kalam was alleged to have talked about.
Pressed for time- so let me be quick. Kalam was referring to the need for interoperability- in other words- -the Navy should be able to access the IAF’s ESM ability as and when required, and the Army’s EOB could glean info from trhe Navy and so on. A composite info n/w. His vision of “jointness” I guess.
The rest I can speculate at- but Id rather not.
KarnaUh you can argue that the egg came before the chicken or that the chicken came later.
The facts speak for themselves.
Thanks TO the LCA- we developed an IJT double quick.
Over 100 of the 170 LRUs needed for the IJT come directly from the LCA.
And you need to *check* your math.
If the HAL says 4000 CRore for 40 aircraft order that refers to the *total* cost for the 40 LSP. You can spin and quibble but unless you have * better *data – thats that.
And other nations may do things differently. They have different objectives. We *did* it our way per our needs.
The LCA approach is referred to as a consortium Approach- it builds strengths in ALL related fields.
Making individual subsystems *does not* translate into making an aircraft. However making an a/c and developing systems allows you to do BOTH.
And the fact is that it has succeeded. You can pursue a million independent projects or one overarching one.
You claimed that there are NO spinoffs. Your assertion was wrong.
LCA does not have the range, payload, hardpoints ,nose size to be classified as capable aircraft. The most it can do is point defence interception.
ROTFLMAO. 😀 😀
It does not have breast implants either, nor is it blonde …
Any more asinine logic?
The range, payload and all parameters translate into a capable multi role combat aircraft. And unlike yer boys- we even have IFR.
And I suggest you look at a cutaway of the a/c before spouting gibberish.
And last but not least- heres a recap for your express satisfaction.
ADA vis Harry,
Flight Control – Digital quadruplex redundant architecture employing a core computer with Intel 80960MC 32 bit RISC microprocessor.
Cockpit environment – 3x 5×5 inch and 2x 3×3 MFDs/SSDUs, displays for comm. and nav., HOTAS and VTAS (voice), HUD with UFCP, centralised warning, mission planning and retreival unit, FCP for emergency flight control, HMS (Elbit’s JHMCS tech), digital video recording.
Core avionics features – Sensor fusion with Power PC/VME 64 core avionics computer, digital weapons systems management with front end weapons management computer (32 bit,single chip,dual redundant arch), digital pylon interface boxes. 5x MiL-STD-1553B avionics and weapons databuses with fibre optic databus in development.
Comm and Nav. – RCI Ring lase gyro based INS with GPS/GLONASS correction. Comm system in V/UHF with Frequency hopping, Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum technology and Secrecy. High speed multi-point air-to-air air-to-ground datalink.
Self-protection – Tarang HADF Mk.II 4th gen RHAWS, Internal solid state software intensive jammer with the ability to capture unknown emissions for later exploitation and analysis and internal CMDS. The system can also cue the pilot to initiate additional evasive maneuvers while working in automatic conjunction with ECM/CMDS action.
Sensors – MMR Radar (Harrys note :By spec, this seems better than the Zhuk-M but both of them are not phased arrays like the RBE-2) DSP and Radar computer.
Elta Litening-II LDP.
IRST in development. (Already tested)
Structure – Highest % of composites in any fighter aircraft, upto 45% in the PV. This allows for reduced RCS(to an extent), extremely light weight and increased fuel capacity. Wings and fuselage employ cocured cobonding.
Misc – Carbon brakes, digital brake management, FADEC, digital environment and fuel control/management.(single LRU)
Upgradability – Open architecture, modular avionics, software reusability, 500000 lines of modular software code, 500 LRUs and electrostatic sheilding for the same.
Wake me up when your blokes even do a thousandth of the above. :p
KarnaOf course just because the article may have bias, it doesn’t mean the information is false. But while I was attempting to verify the information in the sources, as you pointed out, the article is a bit old, so none of the weblinks work. Can you point me to the working ones?
I forget what PLA’s original contention was (something on lack of indigenization probably), but for such a wide-ranging quote as the following
I think I would need more sources besides 1 reference from a defenceindia website, which may or may not be providing skewed information.
cheers.
The US sanctions on India are well known. And restrictive. And common knowledge.
There are a bunch of references- LM even impounded the Indian designed and manufactured DFCC when sanctions were imposed.
And one more thing- the IAF/IN both officially acknowledge BR and release data via BR -re pics etc. So whether you chaps like them or not re J10 , the fact is that the Indian defence establishment thinks they are credible.
Also BR goes to great lengths to make sure that all data is open source and attributed to impeccable and neutral observers. Ask Harry- in the past- his articles have been delayed on grounds of admins deeming substantial and unique info.
KarnaThat’s a bit of a biased article, considering it’s written/published by bharat rakshak and references sources from the same. As I know many BRers have a hard time believing that the J-10 is more than a photoshopped myth, it would be like answering that question with an article written by a PDF/CMFer quoting PDF/CMF sources. I think we need several independent sources from non-SE Asian sources to get a more objective idea of the situation.
Uh given that many in CMF make racist comments on India and that CDF in the past has had juvenile a$$hats running down everything India, till Col cracked down- does that make everything on CDF main page automatically suspect?
Every bit of information in the above excerpt can be verified independently- if you have the time and energy to do so.
Prove it with facts- not just saying “bias” and then justifying the bias.
That is more on the likes of senor H177/Yahoo 25’s arguements in the past et al- the LCA is Indian hence hindu, hence mismanaged, hence Infidel hence automatically suspect etcetc.
Not that you are in their category by any standard whatsoever- but your arguements appear to be shaped the same way.
The fact is that the LCA is overwhelmingly catalogued- thanks to Parliamentary oversight and Accounting committees. The US GAO doesnt even come close in many respects. Only in recent days has the level of detail gone down apparently per AF requests.
I dont care about what BR thinks of the J10- you have a problem with that, take it up with them- you have every right to- but a lot of the cynicism would disappear if the PLAAF et al were more forthcoming with information and if Chinese posters didnt keep coming on BR and posting stuff like “J10 great LCA sucks”.
I dont think anyone on BR actually believes that the J10 does NOT exist.
That PS thing is more of a defence mechanism to rile the CMF’ers who use the forum to launch attacks.
Uh and I’ll need more objective articles from non Chinese sources or anything related to them for believing the J10 etc. Equal-equal. And equally silly. Lets ignore what the Chinese say about the J10 and what the Indians think of the LCA, but hey lets ask the Martians or some “guru” sitting in Janes with no first hand sources whatsoever or interest in some “third world projects”.
Karnathanks for saving my Article otherwise this my second one being deleted?
So how you came at $22M figure or it is just another assumption? That $160M in today dollars can easily become $500M alone. LCA has been too long in development that it is difficult to calculate its actual per unit cost let alone system cost.
Regarding benefit to Indian industry. I don’t see any. Even UPG upgrade is
Russian. For MKI $3.3B licensing fees. Now don’t tell me that basic trainer is spinoff of LCA project. It is like saying K-8 is spin off from FC-1/J-10 project. The engine for the trainer is still Russian.
FC-1 is not an R&D project. It is the use of existing technologies and outsourcing to produce jet with minimum price.
The IJT is a spin off of the LCA. Whether you choose to believe it or not. Most of the LRU’s are LCA based and the HAL design team drew upon the LCA experience to churn out the design w/in a short time.
Yawn. Your other claims of lack of spin offs are the usual BS with denial of reality.
We are upgrading the jags and Migs with LCA derived technology and the experience that comes from airframe and avionics. The upgrade was conducted by ARDC and DARE. The LCA experience helped us with the integration of third party products as well.
Ask Harry for the details.
And btw- the Upg has the LCA derived Tarang RWR and Tempest SPJ.
Even Defence Journal of Pak admits that the Vetrivale is in the MKI.
Unlike your boys though- no Indian notes that makes the MKI entirely Indian. But nor can the LCA spin off be denied.
The project cost is easily determined by going through official sources- we have plenty in India.
And this is the source of the 22 million- I am not in the habit of assuming things unlike a certain “banned but reappears- SD10/H177/Farrukh Zaheen/ etcetc”
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040517/edit.htm#7
HAL targets outsourcing
Expects Rs 4,000 cr order for LCA
by Sridhar K. Chari
HAL Chairman N.R. Mohanty
WITH the first flight of the first Nasik-produced Sukhoi-30 MKI expected by the end of this year, the LCA programme proceeding apace with 214 flights to date, export sales of the Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) and Dornier DO 228, and with several upgrade programmes on hand, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) Chairman N.R. Mohanty feels that HAL’s credibility with the Indian Air Force (IAF) and other global aero-companies is at an all-time high. Excerpts from an interview:
Q: What is HAL doing to mitigate the attrition level of the MiG 21?
Quite a lot now. As you know, the IAF flies three variants, the FL, the M, and the Bis. The COFAA (Committee on Fighter Aircraft Accidents) report had indicated that 40 per cent of such accidents were due to technical defects, 40 per cent due to pilot error, and 20 per cent bird hits. We concentrated on the technical area. Wherever there has been any dilution of standards, I have been simply ruthless. Two senior managers were actually terminated. Even the IAF has tightened things quite a bit. And now of course, the Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) deal for the Hawk 100 has been signed.
Q: There were reports that HAL had left out some crucial calculations regarding the tooling in the Hawk deal, and consequently, India had to end up paying more?
A bogey, coming from the UK. Not true at all. Just like last year’s bogey about us using “spurious” spare parts on the MiGs.
Q: What is the status of cooperation with the Russians on building a new “fifth-generation fighter?”
The Russians are keen on doing something to rival the Joint Strike Fighter/F-22 Raptor. And we are someone whom they have identified as a primary partner. It involves a lot of money though. It is also a question of evolving something that suits both of us. They have already started making presentations to the Indian Air Force in this regard.
Q: The LCA prototypes/technology demonstrators have completed more than 200 flights. The IAF is looking at an interim purchase of a fleet of single-seat fighters. How is the programme holding up?
It is actually a pleasure to see the ADA (Aeronautical Development Agency) and HAL teams working as one towards making the LCA a success. Earlier team-work problems were largely due to personality clashes. It is a very homogenous effort now. 214 flights have been completed, and Prototype Vehicle -2 (PV2) should take off soon. We are just waiting for the actuators (devices which move the control surfaces) from Moog, which should come shortly. Work on the Limited Series Production of eight aircraft has already begun. And there is the expectation of a Rs 4000 crore order for 40 LCA, including eight trainer versions. As for the interim purchase, various options are currently being considered. Nothing has been decided.
Q: How do you think Indian aviation is positioned to take advantage of the high precision, stand-off range and real time, “sensor-to-shooter-to-commander” links that are revolutionising military technology?
The key is to develop a good synergy between DRDO labs, academic institutions, and industry, both public sector and private. We will not be able to take on everything and do it ourselves. We have to explore co-productions, joint ventures, as we are already doing. The ancillary private industry, especially in electronics is coming up very well. We have outsourcing capacity, and as on March 31, we have seen more than 862 firms with orders worth Rs 98 crore just for last year – and that is without material cost included. In the current year, we have targeted Rs 200 crore of outsourcing.
Q: The Saras 14-seater Light Transport Aircraft (LTA) being developed by the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), with HAL involvement, appears to be getting delayed. Can you give us an update? And is there a market niche for such an aircraft?
High speed taxi trials are already going on (at the HAL airport). We should see the first flight by the end of May. And there is definitely a market for the aircraft. But I would like to see more support for it from our civil aviation industry. More than Rs 70 crore is coming from CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research), and we have pitched in with quite a bit, for the wings, the landing gear, and three other work packages which HAL is responsible for. More support will make a big difference to the programme.
Q: There is a plan for a replacement for the HPT-32 basic flight trainer for the IAF…
Yes, the project proposal has been finalised, and it should get approved soon. The HPT-32 is a piston-engined trainer, and what we are planning is a turbo-prop, with tandem seating. The IAF training command (headquartered in Bangalore) has already approved it, and we should see clearance from Air Headquarters soo
____________________________________________________
Thanks to Sridhar. BTW, this interview gives a current number for the price of the LCA for the IAF. Rs. 100 crore per bird, translates to about 22 million dollars (approx.).
And as regards FC1 not being R&D project- yeah I know exactly what it is.
Glad to know that even you have no illusions- for now.
Heres the Vetrivale for you.
KarnaSometimes, they can. This could well be happening now, although i wonder how many distinctive design issues they have killed with this weight-scraping. An issue like this cost Fokker millions of guilders, when someone suddenly proposed a ‘weight savings’ measure in the F100. Unfortunately, the weight saved eventually proved to be a pretty important piece of weight.
And sometimes, they can’t. Think XFV-12, think V-22, think F3H (or anything else J40-powered), think TF30 engine, think Sgt. York/DIVADS… Sorry to put a downer on your blind faith.
If you look at the way things are written down in the article/press release (WOULD IT BE TOO MUCH FOR YOU GUYS TO ACTUALLY PUT A VERIFIABLE SOURCE/LINK WITH ANYTHING YOU COPY & PASTE HERE? SHEESH…. :rolleyes: ), it seems at least some capabilities have been sacrificed, or at least put in jeopardy: “The change would not affect any of the weapons that the aircraft initially is required to carry, Burbage said.”. Emphasis mine, and i am wondering what future weapons now no longer will be able to fit inside the weapons bay. Especially considering the weapon bay dimensions have been made for a certain reason (you are not going to put a too large door in an airframe just for laughs).
Also, these mods still not bring the yet unflown aircraft up to it’s specifications:”“My view is that we’re getting to closure on what the configuration ought to be,” Enewold said.“
I am afraid my faith is hardly blind. Thats an assumption on your part- which is perfectly understandable given the lack of detail in my post.
I am aware of their failures- tell me which nation doesnt have them.
And at the same time- which other nation, can field a F22 or a JSF in a few years time?
India and Russia will probably go with their PAK-FA. The US could do it alone with dozens of subcontractors spread out w/in the US.
Sure they are a superpower and a trillion $ economy and thats what drives their aerospace industy. But that industry is what it is. At the top of the hill .
Karnakarna,
Why call it Information Warfare (thereby insinuating delightful possibilities) when the role the Dorniers play has been covered for decades under the prosaic Electronic Support Measures nomenclature?
Information warfare is commonly understood to be a step beyond electronic warfare (i.e. you manipulate and use to your advantage the *content* and not just the medium of transmission itself).
They called it IW because they felt it was suitable for the role. Or do I need to look through the nomenclature the US uses and changes every now and then? Its contingent upon the watchers to be cogniscant of what the Navy can and cannot do- instead of despairing that the Navy promised them something which they cant do. As you admit- whether ESM or not- the term IW can cover the Dorniers role in the IN and thats that.
If I sound harsh- thats not my intention- what I do refer to is that we tend to get overexcited perhaps and then make errors of judgement. If the IAF refers to the MKI as an air dominance fighter- does that automatically make it equal to the other “air dominance fighter”- the F22? I think not. Context is important.( The CAS on one occasion faced a journalist who sternly queried him on why the MKI was not better than the F22. ) In the local context, the Dorniers are certainly IW and far better than what the Chinese or the PA can field. And in the local arena the MKI is certainly an ADF.
I would be very grateful if you could amplify on that. I am unaware of any capability analogous to “online hacking” that the Dorniers possess.
I am afraid you read more into my words than I meant- my apologies. To repeat- what they meant was EW, rather ESM not “online hacking”.
This kind of talk by the navy is akin to putting the carriage before the horse. Talk of NCW when there is inadequate and deficient sensor coverage is – well you tell me what that is.
I am afraid that you will see this in every service ROUND the world. The Navy has to begin work on something today so that its ready by when it wants it. This stuff wont appear magically a decade from now. DRDO and WEESE worked on the bus architecture- which everyone is going rah rah over *now* from the mid 90’s. At that time- why’d the Navy and DRDO-NPOL-BEL bother with the above? Heck at that time- our fleet strength was going to shambles, we didnt have any proper acq plan charted out. etc.
Sensor coverage will be remedied, but nor can we ignore the impact of concepts like NCW and hope to buy them off the shelf when it suits us.
Talk like this is exactly what torpedoes any credibility they have on this issue.
Either they have a VERY loose defination of NCW (akin to IW on Dorniers) or they are simply .
Their credibility is theirs alone. To be frank- you and I can only parse what they say and hope to glean information. And as far as nomenclature is concerned they have every right to befuddle us and send us wailing in despair- the same that the Yanks have or the French have etc.
And no- the IA is working towards its own land warrior program. The money is there, Indian industry- BEL/ECIL/Pvt sector/DRDO has matured with a range of abilities and they realise the importance of infantry. Kargi sparked off a modernisation- this is merely the next phase.
And yes, the Army is working on its own BMS akin to the US IVIS / French Finders-to make its appearance on the Arjun/T90S and perhaps the CI Ajeyas- if they can afford it.
What are those?
He is referring to Kalams appeal to network the Samyukta, Tempest and Sangraha projects to drive interoperability between the services.
KarnaLooking at the text it can be only one person. Harry. It was not locked to cool down. Read the message that was written just before it was blocked. I know you have edited to make it look different. There was no temp action but sudden death. And about the rest… : “You are just repeating yourself and prolonging the bickering. If you have serious intentions to discuss, make coherent points without emotional bickering, fingerpointing or trolling, for which action will be taken.”
Please. Don’t put words in my mouth. Emotional bickering, fingerpointing, trolling? You are reported for being disrespectful to posters. As I said. As a mod you should behave. If you can not do that then return to an usual poster. I have read a lot of your posts in BRF and they are not the best PR for you. Cheers.
Disrespectful to posters? Give me a break. Perhaps we should complain against your behaviour. If you have a problem with Harry – ask him upfront, like I did with Google and expect a reply. Instead of sneaking behind his back and doing your usual thang.
Do look at how Phrozenflame and VikasRehman post when it comes to Indian topics. They are more often than not, the epitome of civility. Unlike your posts which drip with thinly disguised sarcasm and jealousy. All padded up with standard disclaimers so as to skirt the forum roles.
And then your attempt to be Chinese by taking a Chinese moniker, whilst you are Pakistani . Man o man that is one convoluted persona to hoist around.
Given that we hear so much from you about how big bad India only imports technologies etc and is arrogant etc..why dont we start a thread about Pakistans contribution to the FC1 project? After all- your unstated comments are on the lines of “equal- equal” all the time and that both nations are on par at aerospace and all things there are.
Given your indepth knowledge of aviation- :rolleyes: – I expect to see detailed replies from you.
About how Pakistan intends to equip its FC1’s with its own RWR’s and Radars etc.
If its sauce for the gander it should be sauce for the goose.
And no posting under other nicks and attacks on the hindu religion etc to distract the topic, as is usual.
And no catty one liners on “but but but this is the LCA”…I am calling you out.
I and Harry know reams about the LCA because we are interested in IT and have no desire to reinforce our pride by running down any other nations achievements per se.
Lets see whether YOU have any true knowledge instead of making obnoxious and sneering remarks.
KarnaArming The Dangerous
Rahul Chandran
Eight years of R&D in aircraft technologies finally paid off when a slim, fighter jet took to the skies. But even better, spin-off technologies from the development of the world’s lightest combat aircraft are poised to fund further research in defense.
EIGHT YEARS OF R&D IN AIRCRAFT technologies finally paid off when a slim, fighter jet took to the skies. But even better, spin-off technologies from the development of the world’s lightest combat aircraft are poised to fund further research in defense.
The Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), India’s first fully indigenous and the world’s smallest combat aircraft. The machine graduated from a mere concept to a flying machine on January 4, 2002. When Wing Commander Rajiv Kothiyal, a test pilot of
the Indian Air Force taxied and took off, pundits lauded the flight as “sheer poetry in motion.”
But, overshadowed by the euphoria over the first flight of the LCA, a revolution is quietly brewing. Some time in 2000, the Defense Research Development Organization, an umbrella organization that consists of 51 laboratories, decided to license spin off technologies—corollaries to the actual task of building the world’s smallest combat aircraft. As a first step, the CAD software—Autolay—developed by scientists at the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the nodal agency for the LCA, was earmarked for licensing.
ADA announced that its flagship software product, Autolay, would be licensed to commercial aircraft maker Airbus Industrie for $3.2 million for use in its new commercial super jumbo project: A 380.
The contract was the culmination of a long-drawn and extensive benchmarking by Airbus Industrie to select composites software for the A380 project. The contract marked a first of sorts. At a time when governments around the world were being forced to cut down on defense expenditure, India was having its own defense R&D expenditure being subsidized by the sale of spin-off technologies.
The contract was the culmination of a long-drawn and extensive benchmarking by Airbus Industrie to select composites software for the A380 project. The contract marked a first of sorts. At a time when governments around the world were being forced to cut down on defense expenditure, India was having its own defense R&D expenditure being subsidized by the sale of spin-off technologies.
The Airbus contract was sourced through the marketing expertise of U.S.-based CAD/CAM major Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC). Says Air Marshall (retd.) Philip Rajkumar (PVSM), director of the ADA, “While our R&D expertise is second to none, we had no marketing muscle. It made sense to approach a company with proven competencies in this field.”
Interestingly, ADA subsequently handed over Autolay along with the associated Intellectual Property rights to Infosys Technologies for an unspecified royalty. Infosys is mandated with further developing the software, enhancing its features to interface with other related tools and programs, and increasing applicability in related areas.
Autolay was no flash in the pan either. After the success with Autolay, ADA now plans to put another software tool christened “Prana” on the block. ADA hopes proceeds from Prana will drive another wave of development, thus ensuring the sustainability of a huge enterprise.
Autolay is an integrated automated software system for the design and development of 3-D laminated composite components. To make the aircraft lighter, LCA uses (as high as 45 percent) composite materials extensively in its airframe. In addition to their light weight, composite materials are also amenable to tailoring their mechanical properties, thereby providing better performance capabilities. However, the processes of the design and development of laminated composite components is radically different from those used in conventional metal structures. It required a new range of multidisciplinary knowledge and computational techniques.
Autolay was designed to address these composite design and development requirements. The software automates the creation of engineering data required to drive the end-to-end design and manufacturing simulation of laminated composite components. Depending on component design complexity and the extent of automation in the fabrication process, reduction of cycle times of up to 70% can be realized routinely by the use of this software. In realistic terms, this would result in a reduction of a minimum of 6 to 8 months in the design and development cycle time of typical aircraft projects. Apart from aerospace, the software can also be effectively used in the shipbuilding, automotive, recreational, and sports goods industries.
Patchwork Artists.
etc from this link.
http://www.siliconindia.com/magazine/StoryNext.asp?aid=QOI766674637&pid=4&page=2
Sign In
