star49i found this about F-5BR. F-5 uses downscale Grifo-F versus Grifo M3 on Mirage III. and wvr and bvr advantage of one or the other is moot point. once an aircraft is in no escape zone of 4 or 5 the generation missile. slight advantage in maneverability will not save it. the better aircraft is the one with better high altitude performance and can carry heavier and longer range standoff weopons other wise short and medium range sams are in abundance.
also it is not the capability but the cost of that capability also important.
Mirage and Mig-21 are more suitable than Phantom and J-8 for most airforces budgets.
star49http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/j…53512005623.asp
HAL finds no takers for LCA
By Madhuprasad DH News Service, Bangalore:
More than four-and-a-half years after its first flight, India’s prestigious aeronautical project the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), has stumbled on a roadblock. As of now, there are no takers for the indigenous aircraft.
The Indian Air Force (IAF), the only projected customer at present, has not placed an order for even a single aircraft so far with the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) – the production house.
The IAF chief, during the Aero India 2005, claimed that the IAF would place orders for 40 aircraft but there have not been any concrete developments on this front. HAL, on the other hand, has launched the Limited Series Production (LSP) of the LCA.
Production is supposed to commence in 2006-07 to be completed by 2007-08.
Till now, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has forked out the money for the LSP, but once the IAF places a firm order, it would have to earmark funds from its own budget and therefore remains hesitant to do so.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has shown its commitment to the project through the approval for the manufacture of eight LSP aircraft, in addition to the prototypes sanctioned earlier.
Even then the project will become meaningful only when the air force actually places a firm order.
Test flights
According to informed sources, at least 200 successful flights are necessary to declare the end of the LCA’s Technology Demonstration (TD) phase. It has now completed over 300 flights.
Another 1,100 flights are required to obtain the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC), probably by 2010. Obviously, urgent steps are needed to ensure the successful completion of the project.
Even though LCA prototypes, referred to as the TD-1 and TD-2, flew with an indigenous Head Up Display (HUD) and the HAL’s integrated communications system (both claimed to be superior to imported equipment) many of the 40 odd systems, originally expected to be procured from the US, are still under development. This has resulted in further delay. Given that both the HAL and the IAF procure a large quantity of systems and components to meet their requirements, this needs to be done for the LCA project too. Especially engines, radar, electronic warfare and smart weapon systems, besides flight control actuators. If the IOC is not obtained by 2010, the IAF is quite likely to lose interest in the LCA project.
Additions
As of now, the IAF has ensured an adequate fighter aircraft inventory with the acquisition of the Sukhoi-30 MKI and the license production arrangement with HAL to manufacture the aircraft.
Also some Mirage 2000s, with upgraded avionics suite and armament, are also likely to be acquired soon.
Essentially the IAF is gearing itself up to cope with perceived delays over the induction of the LCA into squadron service
star49Who cares…. Grifo XXX sucks!
& they have been installed 30 yr old platforms. Wat use could they old expired mirages, with short range radars have?
so what radar u suggest for these Mirages? short range kopyo or overweight Zhuk (with even shorter MTBF) or pricey French radars which defeat the purpose of upgrade. about airframe life it depends on use of aircraft. libyan didnot use that much for long time. and French aircraft lasts longer than Russian by wide margin.
star49space based radar.
Russia’s Fazotron-NIIR developing new radars
PARIS. June 20 (Interfax-AVN) – Russia’s Fazotron-NIIR corporation is developing several new types of airborne radars.
“We are developing a radar to equip small-size spacecraft at order of certain Russian firms. It is a very promising field of activity that is only starting to develop,” Anatoly Kanashchenkov, the corporation’s director general and designer general, told a news conference at Paris Air Show 2005 that finished on Sunday.
The corporation is also developing space-based radar for China in cooperation with some of its partners, he said.
star49actually you should read the discussion first, it was star49 who said grifo-m is similar to grifo-7 and as i said 35 km detection range for girfo-m was its look down detection range.
similar does not mean that they are of same size or capabilities. I didnot state that Grifo-7 and Grifo-M are equal. just read that Aw&st report.
star49I’d think they train on those at the OCU level when their aircraft type has been assigned. You’d want a good AJT though in order to prepare 4th-generation airframe pilots.
I think they call all those 4th generation fighters as 3rd generation.
star49Star49
sigh were does it actually say grifo-m is as capable as apg-68??? all it talks about is Grifo-F being as capable as apg-68 even thou the 2nd link you posted suggested there were problems with grifo-f and says its better than apg-66 (but doesnt say were it could be superior tracks or greater avail modes fyi). Unless you have proof to refute mavaustin’s link or my info from finmecca IMO grifo-m’s detection range is around 54 km because thats what most of sources have run into have said .
so Grifo-7 (350mm) and Grifo-M has the same range :rolleyes: use some logic.
star49star49
apparently you have no idea what you are talking about….. RC400 is not the only radar that PAF would need in order to use a BVR missile. and question to you, why in the hell PAF doesnt need a BVR, would you care to explain.
i said mica as bvr not bvr. upgrading with expensive mica will defeat the purpose of upgrade.
star49this just confirm what i stated for a year now.
http://www.hindu.com/2005/06/20/stories/2005062003841400.htm
DRDO looking for global technical partner to develop Kaveri engine
Ravi Sharma
Decision seen as admission that Gas Turbine Research Establishment cannot develop the engine on its own
BANGALORE: The Defence Research and Development Organisation, whose Gas Turbine Research Establishment is developing the Kaveri engine that will power India’s Light Combat Aircraft, is actively considering taking on board a global technical partner who will help co-develop the engine.
A high-power committee — comprising the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister (who is also the Director-General, DRDO); the Chief Controller (Research and Development), DRDO; and the Director, GTRE, among others — has deliberated the proposal, official sources told The Hindu.
DRDO’s reasoning is that a global partner with a proven record in combat aircraft engine development will help accelerate the GTRE’s long-delayed Kaveri engine programme that started in the late 1980s. According to officials DRDO and GTRE officials, the global tie-up will certainly be “for the betterment and good of the project.”
However, the move has surprised many since the DRDO in the past has repeatedly refused to involve outside agencies to help the GTRE accelerate the development of the engine. It had preferred to leave it to the GTRE, even if it meant not being able to develop the engine in time. Military experts view the decision to now take the global route as admission that the GTRE cannot develop the engine on its own.
Mounting costs
The GTRE has spent Rs. 1,300 crores on the Kaveri engine project. The Cabinet Committee on Security last December revised the estimate for its future development to Rs. 2,800 crores. But the engine is still not ready for high-altitude flight tests, scheduled to be performed in Russia aboard a Tupolev-16 aircraft. It is also miles away from completing the 8,000 hours of testing necessary to complete the engine development phase.
While most military aviation experts are in favour of the GTRE taking a partner since this is undoubtedly the only way forward for the engine programme, they are critical of the delay in taking the decision. They feel there is no harm in signing an agreement with any one of the handful of companies worldwide — Rolls-Royce (Great Britain), Snecma Moteurs (France), CFM International (United States), General Electric (GE, United States) or Pratt and Whitney (United States), NPO “Saturn” and MMPP Salut (the last two from Russia) — that posses the technology to develop combat aircraft engines, just as long they are equal partners in the funding and development and sharing the risks/benefits involved.
Snecma shows interest
The GTRE has been in touch with almost all the global players but the collaborations so far have been restricted to only a review of the Kaveri engine and suggestions. Sources told The Hindu that Snecma had recently written to the Defence Ministry indicating its willingness for a possible tie-up with the GTRE, which will include a risk-sharing, joint development/production relationship on the Kaveri or any other engine that can be developed afresh for the LCA. But Snecma has asked that it be allowed to send a fact-finding team to assess the capability available at the GTRE. It also wanted a production house such as the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to be part of the collaboration.
Indications are that HAL will be keen on such a collaboration since it will not only give their engine division a substantial amount of work, but also a toe-hold in the aircraft engine developing and manufacturing industry which has so far been the preserve of the United States, Great Britain, France and Russia. Chinese fighter-aircraft engines are more a product of reverse engineering. There have been serious slippages in the development schedules of the twin spool, low bypass ratio turbo fan of the Kaveri engine, causing it to be out of synch with the rest of the LCA programme (which itself is behind schedule).
According to a report tabled in Parliament by the Standing Committee on Defence in April, the Kaveri engine will be installed on the LCA only by 2012 (the LCA is expected to enter squadron service in 2007) and that too at a revised cost of Rs. 2,839 crores, almost eight times the 1989 initial projected development cost of Rs. 382 crores. Noting the delay in trials and tests of the development of the country’s first aero-engine, the report said there were still question marks over the completion of the engine and its financial viability in comparison to other fighter engines in the world market.
Senior GTRE scientists attribute the delay to the integration of 16,000 components, as in the case of the Kaveri engine, in the propulsion system, the most complex part of a fighter aircraft. “When the GTRE hasn’t even developed a high-powered diesel engine, how can you expect us to deliver overnight?”
But scientists admit that if the engine was not produced by 2006, it would result in serious questions being asked over the continuation of the programme itself. The engine is at present undergoing endurance phase tests.
The two LCA technical demonstrators and lone prototype are now powered by GE F404 F2J3 engines. With the Aeronautical Development Agency being asked by the Indian Air Force to make 40 aircraft, India has had to order an additional 57 GE-404 IN20 engines, deliveries of which at the earliest could take a year.
star49wow such a diverse array of weapons… too diverse…
Logistically India should stick with less type of weaponary to reduce future logistics problem. Just look at the different types of fighters they operate and add F-16, F-18 to that list…Not that the proposed systems are bad buys but they are not compatable with the russian equipement that india currently posses. ex S-300PMU and PAC-3 are not the least compatable.
I dont think India has operational S-300PMU.
and do u seriously believe it is India choice to buy US weopons?. The basic point is that with all the money and employment that India gains from US corporation. US gov will allow it to spend that dollars on Russian or French weopons?
star49pictures of aircraft with weopons hanging or infront is not conclusive evidence that missile is integrated with that aircraft. PAF doesnot need mica for bvrs otherwise u would be seeing RC400 upgrading current mirages instead of Grifos.
star49What are you the new avatar of the Oracle? The MKI was never meant to have the Indian HUD. The Indian HUD is under development for the LCA PV-2 (according to the an article published by the mod of this very forum). What makes you think make all the funky sensor inputs (radar/IRST/ECM/RWR/Stores) work? Indian RC and MC. You dont think that good enough?
The El-Op Su 967 has 28x ? FOV compared to the VEH-3022 holographic HUD (on the Rafale) which has 30×22 FOV. I couldnt even find anything on the VEH 3000…anyone have links it? Or about the VEM 130/VE 130 HUD?
what makes u think that these exists at first place
if such basic information is inaccurate for long time just like thrust.
star49I’d agree with Dubya. India’s Air Force purchases are pretty screwed up. How many different combat aircraft types does it operate?
The USAF has F/A-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, A-10s, B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s. That’s 8 basic combat types.
Indian AF has Jaguars, Mirage 2000s, MiG-21s, Mig-23s/Mig-27s , MiG-29s, Su-30s. That’s 6 maybe 7 basic combat types.
Their wasting a lot of money on a lot of different type that an air force of their nature doesn’t really need.
US has some standardization in weopons and engines across fighter. In IAF case just look at diverse weopon and equipment suppliers from Russia, France, Israel, SA etc
star49Military Expenditure as a Percent of GDP as per http://www.cia.gov
India : 2.5%
USA : 3.3%
China : 4.3%
Pakistan : 4.9%In the 1950s India had leaders like Nehru and Gandhi who refused to buy arms saying that it was a wasteful expenditure. Guess what happenend? When China occupied Tibet and India refused to go along they attacked India in 1961 and virually walked in unopposed since the Indian Army was not capable of defending its territory.
nice data to post but also post how much each country is borrowing to finance the budget that reflect the true picture of economy. u cannot spend today and pay in later years.
star49Its interesting from Flankerman page that Cheetah manage to draw BVR combat with fulcrums/flankers. handling MIG-21 will not be problem in bvr combat with only 50km range radar.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/flanker_combat.html
even though the Cheetah features a good fire control radar. Its acquisition range is just 8-10 km shorter than that of the MiG-29, with its lock-on range being 5-8 km shorter, depending on the altitude. The radar features a stable lock-on. Our radars was virtually unable to jam it, even though we did or best to do so with our more powerful radars.”
Sign In
