dark light

Boom

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 877 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion V #2364061
    Boom
    Participant

    I think India deserves a permanent UNSC seat regardless. An up and comming major player. But what does it have to do with the over diversified fighter fleet of IAF?
    Dont get me wrong though. I love the US-EUR-Rus mix of IAF. Probbably the most interesting AF in the world. And as an aviation ethusiast I would hate to se it “rationalised”. But still.. cant help to think it cant possibly be very cost effective?
    Seeing FGFA, Rafale and Su-30MKI flying in one single strike package would be rather orgasmic though..

    for starters I’m willing to bet that if there is a buy of dedicated nuke strikers it will come from within the types IAF operates, not outside it. even if controlled by SFC it will be operated and maintained by IAF. just like right now nuclear delivery systems are controlled by SFC but operated by their respective forces.

    of course it is not very cost effective to operate half a dozen fighter types but I doubt IAF is too bothered with it. they have been doing this for half a century now and that as a much smaller force and aneamic domestic industrial capacity. must be used to dealing with half a dozen types quite well now.
    there is also the problem with grounding of a type in case of accidents and in India’s case stoppages in foreign supply as well. unless IAF sources all its needs from domestic manufacturers I don’t see them going below 3 aircraft types in the future.

    in reply to: Indian Air Force – News And Discussion #14 #2365148
    Boom
    Participant

    Are you seriously trying to say that you read it in my post ? if so, where ?

    in reply to: Indian Air Force – News And Discussion #14 #2365174
    Boom
    Participant

    Wrong, when we had practical missions in mind. A hi-hi-hi mission with two Atoll will give you an AR of 400 km and above. Even than you have to use half burner during take-off only and stay in the subsonic range through the whole mission.
    A thumbrule about mission time of a MiG-21bis are ~35 min at low level, ~45 min at medium level and up to 1 hour high up. 😎

    which is plain wrong unfortunately. you do know different mig-21 versions have different fuel capacities don’t you ?

    in hi-hi-hi profile range will be much higher and that is with PGMs like KAB-500 (2 of them). who on earth uses atolls in 2010 ? :rolleyes:
    welcome to the 21st century, time to discard your 70’s knowledge of mig-21 ? 😉

    in reply to: Indian Air Force – News And Discussion #14 #2365385
    Boom
    Participant

    With some weaponsload the practical mission radius is no more than 200 km. In general we agree about point defence, when based close to a battle field.

    400 km and above.

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion V #2365581
    Boom
    Participant

    of course a permanent one with veto and all. but I don’t think it is imminent by any means. and the question of payback to US is very premature when the ‘pay’ hasn’t taken place yet.

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion V #2365600
    Boom
    Participant

    ‘supports’ is still early days. let it first happen. US anyway knows that PRC will oppose any such move tooth and nail.

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion V #2365721
    Boom
    Participant

    it comes from sandeep unnithan, which means it carries more weight than vanilla rumour mongering.

    in reply to: Indian Air Force – News And Discussion #14 #2366020
    Boom
    Participant

    I’m pretty sure PSS mentioned the weight reduction of a few hundred kg’s. the LG is not from his comments but speculation on my part.

    p.s. here it is,
    from the latest interview.

    In the Mk-2 version of Tejas, we expect to see weight savings of around 300 to 500Kg which will come from weight optimisation in the aircraft structures alone.

    please understand that AM Rajkumar is no longer directly involved with LCA and his comments about wing redesign were more in line of general observations.

    on cost :
    LCA Mk1 : 26 mn
    NLCA Mk1 : 32 mn IIRC
    MK2 should be about 30 mn and certainly not more than 35, given the larger production run to absorb fixed costs.

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion V #2366031
    Boom
    Participant

    simple rule of thumb, do not believe anything that is not a direct quote from an official about whatever you are reading about. then form your own opinion about it.
    opinion pieces, analyses all mean zilch. there are only a handful of defence journalists (from any country) who can be depended upon to give accurate info 90% of the time(at most) and that is as good as we can get from media on this field.

    in reply to: Indian Air Force – News And Discussion #14 #2366048
    Boom
    Participant

    well, I agree with your views. but I’m not in charge and the people who are do not seem to care too much about exports. that said, the best time to hardsell the LCA is 3-4 years from now when the bird is flying in IAF colours in some numbers. if they can do that succesfully it would be possible to achieve quite a bit of advantage in terms of economics of scale. advantage that would also serve the IAF.

    in reply to: CVF for India?? #2021130
    Boom
    Participant

    it is being built in blocks. from early 2009.

    Out of a total of 874 modular blocks that will constitute the carrier in its final form, 423 blocks are ready, and lie stacked in the open yards at the shipyard, waiting to be lowered into the building dock. The remaining 451 blocks will be completed by the end of this year.

    http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/03/little-more-on-iac.html

    Maybe you should concern yourself less with personal issues pertaining to why I post. Suffice to say, I posted.

    may be if you didn’t bring your personal likes and dislikes to a public forum you wouldn’t have to read comments about your ‘personal issues’. I empathise with your condition but posting about it in a military forum is not the best way to get rid of said issues.

    in reply to: CVF for India?? #2021166
    Boom
    Participant

    I’ve no idea what you mean by that. considering your antipathy towards all things Indian I’m intrigued why you keep coming back to this thread.

    in reply to: CVF for India?? #2021190
    Boom
    Participant

    naval PAKFA was indeed mentioned by a sukhoi boffin in an interview couple of months back. I think it is very likely IN would wait to get a clear idea what its next gen fighter is going to be before finalising the design of IAC-2.

    in reply to: Indian Air Force – News And Discussion #14 #2366177
    Boom
    Participant

    the most important takeaway from that interview for me is the estimate for time needed for flight testing. that’s what AM Rajkumar was closely involved in (validation of LCA CLAW) and that’s where his estimates are going to be closest to the mark. 2 to 2.5 years to complete flight testing is pretty good.

    for one I do not think there is going to be any widening of wing and enlargement of wing area, LCA already has one of the lowest wing loading for fighters around the world, it does not need more wing area.
    for Mk2
    a) intakes are going to be enlarged and hence re-designed

    b) there might be some adjustments of the wing and fuselage but nothing hugely drastic that will lead to any significant weight increase
    let’s keep in mind that the LCA is already undergoing a weight reduction exercise which is expected to shave off 300-400 kg from its current weight of 6500 kg. even if Mk2 adds some weight in fuselage it will still be around the weight it is today. the only significant weight increase I can think of is the AESA radar with its cooling mechanism. even that would be a increase of hundred odd kg’s at most. upgrading avionics is not going to add any significant amounts of weight because the Mk1 itself already carries all the classes of electronics Mk2 will.

    c) the landing gear has always been mentioned as one of main points of weight increase. it’s possible we will see a re-designed one for Mk2. when the original was designed India had no experience of trying to design one and some opine that the jaguar LG was used as the basis which was not good enough in the long run.

    d) I don’t quite understand how the Mk2 is being projected as underpowered, it will weigh 6700-6800 kg at most and be powered by an engine generating 100 kN of thrust. that’s a big improvement over 6500 kg and 82 kN of thrust.

    e) IMVVHO AM Rajkumar’s timeline is ultra conservative and even then he mentions 2018 to be the year when MK2 gets inducted into IAF, not 2020 as you guys are saying. 😉 2020 is the date for FOC which is a different thing. to put things in perspective, the Su-30k was inducted in IAF in 1997. it was 1999 (or late ’98) before it was declared fully operational.

    f) IMHO the following is a likely timeline
    roll out by 2013
    first flight by 2013-14
    IOC by 2015-16
    In the meantime we might expect another squadron of Mk1 for IAF.

    Deino, I don’t think anyone realistically expected LCA to become an export success, given IAF’s yawning gap in fighter numbers and HAL’s annual production rate. but mark my words, it will serve the Indian military in significant numbers. do not forget there are numbers to be produced for the navy as well. 😉

    in reply to: CVF for India?? #2021203
    Boom
    Participant

    it’s ok man, mistakes happen.

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 877 total)