RayRAnybody have a picture of LRTR?
RayRTandem seating allows better situational awareness..as both the pilots can look down both sides.Individually also seating along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft makes manouevring easier because you have better position sense of your aircraft in space.
But side by side seating allows better communication among the pilots .Both are aware of each others actions.In tandem seating if something happens to one of the pilots and he cannot be raised then you cannot know what happened.The same could happen if the intercom radio takes a dump.
RayRRayRNot having the source codes for systems of the JSF would mean that the US will always have to be kept in the loop whenever the other partner nations change anything about the aircraft be it tweaking with the system ,integration of weapons , pods etc or upgrading.Based on the degree of freedom originally programmed into the system it could even go upto prevention of loading specific mission profiles.But that would be unlikely(or not ?).
There should not be problems with maintenance but in any serious glitches again everyone will have to run to US for rectification.And to me the major problem it seems is that the US will always have the knowledge about the capability of the aircraft in any role or any configuration.And ofcourse it may deny addition of any capability if it wants.
As for bugs in the system , having source codes means it could be screened for bugs but what the bugs can or cannot do that I have no idea..
RayRThat would seem to be the best case for maximum IR detection.
😉 my query was not only for the 150 km figure..
RayRPIRATE was described as “F-16 radar like performance” which would be the average and comply with ~80 km range quote. The 150 km figure is certainly a “in best conditions” range.
..with the target flying away from it?
RayRIs th grounding of HPT-32 permanent?
Hopefully not!From the report it seems they are grounded for the moment pending a court of inquiry.
btw this from the report is pure bull..
Given this scenario, a desperate IAF is even toying with the idea of introducing flying lessons for cadets at the Air Force Academy (AFA) near Hyderabad on the jet engine Kiran intermediate trainer.
RayRI can live with it.
Given how full HAL’s orderbook is, I’d rather they concentrate on what they already have, which are the”
IJT
LCA
ALH-WSI
LCH
LUH
MRTA
FGFA..and not to mention the Su-30MKI Phase4 (from local material), the MMRCA & the upgrades- namely the Jaguar Darin-3 and perhaps, the MiG-27 continued. Then theres the production of improved Lakshya variants, the NAL Saras and HALs UAV programs & plans ..and other prospective programs, MRH etc.
I mean, quite frankly, this is what happens when you underfund defence for decades, your planning is p*ss poor at MOD/IAF level (wasnt a proposal to replace the HPT first made a decade back) & things pile up to the maximum extent and you are left with far too much work and far too less time…
I’d rather what they have on the plate gets delivered with minimum cost and time overruns, than building some basic trainer for which we developed the capability a while ago, but if which we take up now, diverts resources from more important programs!!
I am not asking HAL to start a basic trainer project now!My angst is against the very sad(or maddening?) state of affairs that compels us to buy even such things as the basic turboprop tainer which is at the lower end of the spectrum and really a very “basic” requirement for any airforce.Its been 25 years since HPT 32 entered service!What were they thinking..that it would carry on indefinitely!!!By this time they should have had a new bird atleast in the advanced stage of development!
Here we have the HPT 32 entering service 25 yrs back(around 1984) and then we have that HTT 35 in 1994 (which I had posted earlier here and here) and after it literally vanished of the screens theres not a thing to suggest that anybody was too worried about it![Hell the IAF had not showed interest to the HTT 34 even]
And now we have to buy that too , designate it HTT 40 or something and licence produce it,when we could have had our very own homegrown bird developed from scratch if somebody (IAF anyone??)had even batted an eyelid in that direction!! I dont blame HAL!After all they are good at licence producing stuff!!
HAving said that , now though, HAL really have their hands full.Its imperative that they deliver on those first!
RayRIAF gets MoD’s nod to acquire a basic trainer
Ravi Sharma
BANGALORE: The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has given the Indian Air Force (IAF), whose training fleet is presently in a squeeze, the go ahead to acquire, ‘off the shelf,’ 75 basic trainer aircraft.The Ministry’s decision comes in response to an urgent call from the IAF for an ab initio trainer, who, after the grounding of their Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) designed and manufactured Hindustan Piston Trainer-32 (HPT-32) last August, were left without this class of an aircraft to train flight cadets.
Official sources confirmed that the IAF will shortly send out a request for proposal (RFP) to a number of basic turbo prop aircraft manufacturers including Embraer (for their Tucano), Pilatus (PC-21), Raytheon (T-6 Texan), Finmeccanica (M-311), Grob Aircraft (G-120TP) and Korea Aerospace Industries (KT-1) in an effort to choose an appropriate trainer.
The grounding of the 125-strong HPT-32 fleet has meant that the IAF will perforce have to fast track the trainer’s selection process.
However, the selection process is expected to take a year, as the IAF must go through the tender process.
Given this scenario, a desperate IAF is even toying with the idea of introducing flying lessons for cadets at the Air Force Academy (AFA) near Hyderabad on the jet engine Kiran intermediate trainer.
But the HPT-32 still remains grounded with the Court of Inquiry that went into the reasons for the July 31 crash which killed two IAF instructs, finding that the trainer’s engine ran dry.
The HPT-32 has been plagued with engine cuts, a phenomena when the engine suddenly switches of in mid air. Ninety such incidents and 11 deaths have been reported since the trainer became operational in 1984.
Gawd now we are buying basic trainers even..:mad:
RayRIs that the original idea :dev2:
Rationalization. :p
RayR‘Dhruvs Best In Their Class, No Question Of Returning Them’ – Ecuador’s Defence Minister
While providing testimony to an Assembly Committee on International Affairs analysing the Dhruv helicopter crash of October 27, Ecuador’s Defence Minister Javier Ponce yesterday called the Dhruv the best choice for the country’s air force, and ruled out returning the remaining helicopters to India as a consequence of the accident.
“There is no reason to return the machines. There was a very clear decision that this was the best choice and the best offer. The helicopters will be back to full operational status after Accident Investigation Board delivers its report on November 26,” he said.
RayRDue to misjudgment of altitude of the flight, the on-board engine was switched off through ground command which made the on-board thrust developed to go to zero,” said the official Nov. 17 DRDO news release.
Lol! who misjudged?Altimeter dysfunction?
RayRReally interesting videos, wont the smoke trails give the game away a bit?
Again out of my field of knowledge so its more of a question than a statement.
In the scenario that a pilot sees a smoke trail of a sam , the pilot is already in deep $hit.First of all even when the aircraft is nowhere near the sam battery (I mean the launchers) , its still within the detection range of the sam radar and the RWR is going beep beep.Now even if the mission profile demands the flight to go nearer to the sam , the pilot becomes all the more aware of his position when the radar begins to track him.And then the only thought is to deploy whatever munitions need to be deployed (eg agm, arm, bombs) and get the hell out of there.Normally the mission profile would not need the aircraft to go so near a sam site unless it is already neutralised/suppressed.And in cases where the sam is launched, even though the pilot may see the launch smoke plume or the smoke trail of the sam , the pilot is already too near and it is usually just too late.However exceptions can occur and it will depend on the ECM(inaqequate in a multiple sam environment) the piloting skills and luck.In other words flying at a distance where you can see the smoke trail of a sam is just asking to be shot down.
RayRUseful against drug runners and the like …but for a relatively organised opposition , with the abundance of manpads everywhere makes flying these kind of interesting for the pilots.Its armoured , got countermeasures but that cannot be the substitute for speed.
Max can be used as a light attack cum observation aircraft but not serious CAS type duties.Armed jet trainers are better.
JMT
RayRThe above is inaccurate. As per this interview of HAL chief, Mr. Nayak, admitted that there will be little difference between the Indian FGFA and Russian PAK-FA. He was responding to a question about Sukhoi’s chief saying that other than minor software differences, the Russian PAK-FA and Indian FGFA will be identical.
Well I think you are wrong.the difference will not be huge but there will be certain significant differences.Most notably in avionics and materials.The Indian version will have Indian and western components integrated to it in the least case scenario and at max will have certain structural changes.This report here says clearly
“Though the Indian FGFA will be based upon the single-seater Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA being currently developed by Russia, it will be built to IAF specifications. IAF, for instance, is also keen on a twin-seater version of the FGFA. “
In this report Alexander Zelin says..[http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416099555&page=50%5D
“Zelin also mentioned of a two seat version of the T-50 which he tentatively named the T-50 UB (Uchebno-Boevoy, or combat trainer)He explains that ths modification will be developed jointly with India , which joined PAKFA program in 2007,when it was velieved that Sukhoi and Hindusthan Aeronautics Ltd. will develop a fift generation fighter for the indian airforec on a parity basis.
In this report
“”The Indian FGFA is significantly different from the Rusisan aircraft because a second pilot means the addition of another dimension, development of wings and control surfaces,” said Ashok Baweja, chairman of the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which is developing the aircraft alongwith Russia’s Sukhoi design bureau.
Speaking to mediapersons at the eighth Indo-Russian Inter-Governmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation (IRIGC), Baweja said that both sides had moved closer towards identifying the key areas of participation in the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft Programme (FGFA) for which both countries had signed a joint agreement in 2007. India would bring into play its expertise in composites, lightweight high-strength materials that significantly bring down the weight of an aeronautical platform.”
India has not yet formally entered the project, and has not yet funded a single nut-bolt in the PAK-FA, that will make it’s debut flight a few months from now.
I dont think so.Please note that reportedly India joined the program in 2007 but the final technical agreements are being signed now..which means that probably Indian side advanced some funds for the PAKFA program to go on in 2007 with the detailed agreements being left pending.
Please note that “Productionizing some components” amounts to licence production, and NOT workshare.
But in HAL’s new lexicon, licence production is called Joint Venture. This amounts to clear lying on it’s part.
Yes some of them does amount to licensed production but as I see it some of it will indeed be workshare/codevelopment
All HAL will do is pay a fee to Sukhoi to licence produce the same in India; however, on paper it will be called a “joint venture”, instead of licence production.
No visible Indian scientific input, though the Indian side insists that it is a “joint venture”.
Not visible to you maybe.But the Indian variant single seater , two seater ,naval variant will have some Indian scientific input at the very least.Anycase the twoseater and naval variants seems to be Indian prerogative as it is.
Sign In
