Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 20 of 35 FirstFirst ... 1016171819202122232430 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 600 of 1023

Thread: Indian Air Force - News And Discussion #14

  1. #571
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,285
    Not at all. We've established that the presence of a transport fleet points to a desire for being able to operate beyond your own borders - how do you then get tanks into such a (potentially land-locked) theatre? In the end, bulk supplies may account for a larger percentage of the total airlift volume, but that definitely doesn't make the requirement to move AFVs disappear.

  2. #572
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    397
    Sigh. No one said it does. It is just very rarely used. Can you actually comprehend what I am saying?
    Last edited by Grey Area; 11th October 2010 at 17:26.

  3. #573
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,285
    I do. 'Rarely' is not at all the same thing as 'never' and regardless of whether this is done rarely or not, why build an aircraft with the weight capability to carry heavy AFVs but at the same time give it a hold cross section which is too small? It's a solution looking for a problem: nations which do not need to haul AFVs will not want to move 60 tons very often, and in the cases where they do (disaster relief, Afghanistan) a converted airliner (Airbus MRTT) performs the task more economically.

    The bottom line remains: combining a payload of more than 40 tons with a hold cross section of less than 4m by 4m makes no sense in a modern military airlifter. By designing it like that, Ilyushin immediately limits the Il-476 to a niche role - while the Il-76 was spot on for its day, times have simply moved on since.
    Last edited by Trident; 11th October 2010 at 15:46.

  4. #574
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrows View Post
    Trident

    Hardly anyone who actually ordered C-17s use them for transporting tanks.

    Even within India it would be more efficient to just use the extensive rail network.
    Not if the chicken neck in the NE is cut..India desperately need heavy airlift in that theater.

  5. #575
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    397
    If it is, then the chances are there will be enemy fighters around. Or even if some C-17s did get through, would 5-8 tanks make a difference!?
    Will the airfields be secure?
    What about SAMs?

    Better to use them for paratroopers. See my point?
    Last edited by Grey Area; 11th October 2010 at 17:26.

  6. #576
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrows View Post
    Trident

    Hardly anyone who actually ordered C-17s use them for transporting tanks.

    Even within India it would be more efficient to just use the extensive rail network.
    Rail network is not extensive in the NE.Air is always faster than rail.Hauling tanks are just a part of the equation.
    PEOPLE.FIRST.MISSION.ALWAYS.
    Have a good one..

  7. #577
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrows View Post
    If it is, then the chances are there will be enemy fighters around. Or even if some C-17s did get through, would 5-8 tanks make a difference!?
    Will the airfields be secure?
    What about SAMs?

    Better to use them for paratroopers. See my point?
    India HAS inducted tanks and APCs into theaters where land or rail links were not available through the air route when required. This was done in Sri Lanka for the IPKF as well as Thoise during a period of tension. It is not so remote a likelihood that it would make a C-17 purchase not worthwhile- besides the C-17 has other advantages as well which aren't just restricted to ease of handling tanks. the IAF ACM is on record as having stated that the IAF looked at 8-10 options and the one that best met their requirements for short field operations was the C-17. He also said that the IAF will look for capabilities that match the aspirations of the country. As the aspirations and the sphere of influence grows the capabilities of the IAF must grow to match those aspirations too. Same reason why the IN is now looking for more (likely new) LPDs after the INS Jalashwa, where it had none in the past.
    "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

  8. #578
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    Exercise Indradhanush to begin soon. RAF will field its Typhoons.

    ToI article link
    Top-notch fighters and other aircraft from India and UK will match their combat skills in the `Indra-Dhanush' joint exercise at Kalaikunda airbase in West Bengal later this month. While the British Royal Air Force will deploy their spanking new Eurofighter jets for the exercise slated to begin from October 20, the IAF fleet will be led by the `air dominance' Sukhoi-30MKI fighters.

    "The exercise will be held in an AWACS (airborne warning and control systems) environment, with air defence being a major thrust area. We will be fielding different types of our fighters," said a senior official. Both the Indian and British forces are also expected to use their mid-air refuelling aircraft, like the IL-78 and VC-10 tankers, during the combat manoeuvres.

    "The aim of the joint exercise is to learn from each other and enhance mutual operational understanding. With every exercise, IAF has gained valuable experience and gained respect as a highly-professional and motivated force," the official added. The exercise comes at a time when the $10.4 billion project to acquire 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) for IAF is in the final stages of selection process.
    "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

  9. #579
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrows View Post
    Trident

    Hardly anyone who actually ordered C-17s use them for transporting tanks.

    Even within India it would be more efficient to just use the extensive rail network.
    Like Trident pointed out, using that argument cargo aircraft would be unnecessary, which they clearly aren't to the IAF. Given the extremely limited road and rail infrastructure along the mountainous border areas airlift is the only way to get tanks and artillery to most forward positions in a reasonable timeframe.

  10. #580
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,552
    Some very nice pictures c/o R S Chauhan...
    The pod seems like a Remora alright..
    Interesting payload configuration on th two mirages...Two missiles on the starboard side and the pod on the other...What sort of role the Mirages have got with that configuration is the thing to wonder...
    Another one..
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/torquea...9426/lightbox/
    There are some excellent pixes of the navy and the army too like this
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/torquea...3422/lightbox/
    Some nice pictures of Helixes and the Dhruvs..


    and some of these too...ahem
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/torquea...8747/lightbox/
    PEOPLE.FIRST.MISSION.ALWAYS.
    Have a good one..

  11. #581
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    So the MKI, Mirage-2000 and MiG-27 will participate in Indra-Dhanush (Rainbow) from the IAF side alongwith the A-50EI Phalcon AWACS. Note the emphasis on protection of a high value asset and the mention of logistical management for moving large forces for a "out of area contingency".

    blog link
    Just received this from the Indian Air Force: Indo-UK Air Force Exercise Indradhanush will take place at Air Force Station Kalaikunda, in West Midinapur district, West Bengal from 18 Oct 2010 till 03 Nov 2010.
    This would be for the first time when RAF (Royal Air Force) Typhoons would be seen in a joint operational scenario in India. The IAF would be participating in this exercise with the Su-30 MKI, Mirage-2000, MiG-27 and Phalcon AWACS. The RAF would also be deploying its E-3D AWACS and VC-10 mid-air refuellers.

    During Ex-Indradhanush, specific emphasis will be on exposing more IAF aircrew and controllers to missions like Large Force Engagements, and protection of High Value Aerial Assets -- roles routinely undertaken by RAF as part of coalition/expeditionary force deployment around the globe. It will be for the first time that IAF AWACS will participate in a joint AF exercise. The other novel exposure is expected to be logistical management needed to move large forces for a possible out of area contingency.
    "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

  12. #582
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Teer View Post
    Su-30 MKI firing Kh-29 TE, which has a range of 30 Km. Its usually launched in a dive, (http://www.ausairpower.net/Kh-29-Ked...-Launch-1S.jpg) which has the disadvantage of bringing the aircraft into the AD envelope. This MKI is firing the missile straight and level, and there is a Litening pod. A straight and level launch allows the aircraft to stay as far away as possible. Kh-29TE is a LOBL missile (http://edefense.blogspot.com/2005/12...ian-kh-29.html), so they have found some way to get the Kh-29 the Litening feed.


    Is there any higher resolution? Thanks.
    Typhoon T3B

  13. #583
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    10,776
    Quote Originally Posted by rayrubik View Post
    Rail network is not extensive in the NE.Air is always faster than rail.Hauling tanks are just a part of the equation.
    1. True.
    2. Not true (see below).
    3. True.

    2. Moving one tank by air is faster, if there are runways able to handle a big enough aircraft to carry it. Moving 50 or more tanks can be quicker by rail, because you can put a lot of tanks on one train, & run a series of trains.

    You need to factor in distance, quality of rail links (if any), quality of runways, distance from railhead/runway to where the tanks need to be, number of air freighters available - lots of things.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  14. #584
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrows View Post
    If it is, then the chances are there will be enemy fighters around. Or even if some C-17s did get through, would 5-8 tanks make a difference!?
    Will the airfields be secure?
    What about SAMs?

    Better to use them for paratroopers. See my point?
    It is easier to keep the air clear over the chicken neck area than trying to regain ground after losing it there.

    Airfields in the plains of Assam will be secure unless a catastrophic defeat has taken place.Even in 1962 the airfields there were still open. It does not take a major setback to close the chicken neck though.

  15. #585
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    So the Su-30MKI upgrade chose Zhuk-AE over Irbis-E? but why?

  16. #586
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,826
    Quote Originally Posted by J-7 Hotdog View Post
    So the Su-30MKI upgrade chose Zhuk-AE over Irbis-E? but why?
    Like much of India related defense Journalism, this could be unfounded nonsense. Certainly it would take Phazatron time to make Zhuk-AE bigger and fit/integrate into Flanker, NIIP has been working on that for years.

  17. #587
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    355
    Incidentally, it seems that LCA programme is gathering steam. Total LCAs ordered/money sanctioned for production till now seem to be:-

    TD=2
    PV=5
    LSP=8
    Batch LCA Mark1= 20+20+ (ADA trying for another 20)
    NP=2
    Naval LCA Mark1=6

    LCA Mark-2 Prototypes=4
    Naval LCA Mark 2 Prototypes=2

    Total 89 which is apart from Production run of Mark2 version which is projected to be between 140 to 200
    Last edited by Curious; 12th October 2010 at 15:23.

  18. #588
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    340
    Batch LCA Mark1= 20+20+ (ADA trying for another 20)
    Curious, do you have any source for order of second and third "20" aircraft. I think only first 20 have been ordered yet and LSP are part of first 20.
    Last edited by Corrosion; 12th October 2010 at 14:48.

  19. #589
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    397
    Your total include pre-production and text frames that may never enter service and 20 planes that have not been ordered yet.

    Suppose my version of "gathering steam" is different to yours.

  20. #590
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    355
    New statements of ADA (refer FORCE interview) say that order for second 20 batch is done deal.

    Also ADA statements made (refer old FORCE interviews) that they would like third 20 batch order. Note that LCA mark 2 will fly in 2014, and is supposed to go into production in 2014 to enter service in 2016. Some delay is inevitable, so I think that third batch of Mark-1 may come. Frankly I think that 4th batch of Mark 1.5 should be with old airframe and new engine to allow more time for LCA Mark-2. Or the reason that ADA is so sure of LCA MArk-2 starting to enter service in 2016 may be that changes between Mark1 and 2 are minimal. Some of them may have already come in Naval LCA as it started its design life in 2003 when problems of Mark-1 may have been well known.

  21. #591
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    4,419
    Posting some excerpts from the interview to Force

    Given the Features and Functionality of the Tejas, We Feel the Weight is Reasonable’
    Director ADA, P.S. Subramanyam


    What is the current status of the LCA programme?

    We have developed 2 technology demonstrators TD-1 and TD-2; we have the four prototypes PV-1, PV-2, PV-3 and PV-4. The Limited Series Production aircraft ranging from LSP-1 to LSP-4 are all flying. TD-1, TD-2 and PV-1 have now become outdated and are used for ground testing or testing of equipment that needs to be developed for the Tejas. All the aircraft from PV-2 onwards are participating in the flying test campaign. LSP-5 is currently the final ‘Standard of Preparation’ that we will deliver to the Indian Air Force (IAF) and this aircraft is expected to fly this month. LSP-6 and LSP-7 will follow and have been earmarked for the user evaluation by pilots belonging to the Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment (ASTE).

    Both the IAF and the Indian Navy have committed some money for the Tejas Mk-2 which will be equipped with a higher performing engine. We now have a concurrent programme to develop the Tejas Mk-2 version for the IAF and the Indian Navy. The PV-5 which is a trainer version of the Tejas’ is flying and another aircraft PV-6 is expected to fly by the end of this year. The maiden flight of the Tejas Mk-2 is expected to take place in December 2014 and production will begin in December 2016.

    What is the current order book for the Tejas and what orders can be expected in the future?

    Based on the progress observed by the IAF an order for 20 ‘Tejas’ fighters was placed by the IAF in 2006. Further developments in the LCA programme have resulted in order for another 20 aircraft. There exists a requirement on paper for 100 fighters (five squadrons) for the IAF and a 50 for the Indian Navy, which has been put up to the government of India. The technology growth in engines has been so rapid that is has been very difficult to keep pace with the technology. As a result, the Kaveri engine which we began with in the early Nineties is now unable to match the performance requirements demanded by the user. We are confident that the Tejas equipped with the alternate engine will provide the IAF with a fighter which offers contemporary performance over a decade of service.

    What is the configuration of the LSP versions and what changes will Mk-2 versions entail?

    Equipment-fit LSP-wise is in the final standard of preparation for the IAF. All the sensors, communication equipment and weapons required for the current Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) are present. Also since we were designing a fighter of this class for the first time, we were very conservative in the design. Especially when it came to structural strength characteristics and this has lead to an increase in weight. Weight optimisation will be undertaken for the Tejas Mk-2 variant to reduce its weight. The Mk-2 version will also have better Centre of Gravity (CG) management and maintainability features. Within the programme feasibility, we will be revamping the cockpit electronics to bring it more up to date with technologies that will be prevalent around 2016. There will be advanced electronics, improved cockpit displays and interfaces which will remain contemporary even in the 2020’s.
    The Tejas Mk-2 will feature an alternate engine which will offer a performance increase of about 10 per cent. The engine change for Mk-2 will result in the rear fuselage being changed and intakes having to be redesigned. All these structural changes will also reflect in drawing changes and parts fabrication. The digital Fly by Wire (FBW) Flight Control System (FCS) will not change. We do not see much impact when it comes to hydraulics, electronics and undercarriage, etc. With regards to the developmental programme this will not be a major impact.

    What is the update on the LCA Naval version?

    The ‘Power On’ for the Navy version has to take place where we test all the functions; this will be followed by four to six weeks of exhaustive testing. If we are able to demonstrate the naval variant at the Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) in Goa, then the navy may consider orders for the Mk-1 variant of Tejas itself, to fill the gap for light fighters to operate off its careers. We also expect the navy to order around 2 squadrons of the Mk-2 variant. Initial funding of about Rs 900 crore was obtained for the Naval variant in 2003, as we went along there were many challenges and we found that a major portion of the structure had to be strengthened, nose droop was required, extra control surfaces and the flight control system of Naval variant differs from the IAF variant because of the low speed landing requirements of the LCA Navy. In hindsight, it would have been easier to design the naval variant first and then quickly move onto the air force variant and not the other way around. Our initial estimates on the amount of work required on the Naval variant were not quite accurate and the programme gave us some surprises.

    What is being done to address concerns that the LCA is overweight?

    When you consider the amount of features and functionality given in the Tejas, we feel the weight is reasonable. We had planned initially for a fighter in the 5.5 tonne category but currently it has grown to about 6.5 tonne. The penalty of the weight increase is visible in one or two performance parameters. Some parameters like the sustained turn rate and the severity of other performance requirements earlier are not there now because of change in weapon systems. Particularly guided missiles, which today are all aspect missiles slaved to Helmet Mounted Display Systems (HMDS), advanced electronics and radar. Due to the weight growth, there have been certain deviations in the performance parameters. The IAF has validated these deviations to be compensated by advanced weapon systems which were not available in 1985. We will not incorporate any changes in the Mk-1 version as it is ready for production. 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.

    What is required to ensure CEMILAC clearance will be obtained in December, followed by the IOC?

    The CEMILAC clearance is actually a ‘Release to Certification’, with this certification the Tejas can be cleared for use by the operator i.e. IAF. It was being flown till now by pilots belonging to the National Flight Test Centre (NFTC), the ‘Release to Certification’ will see the Tejas being flown by operational pilots of the IAF. To get CEMILAC certification, a process begins and we have to capture all data that has been generated over the last 20 years and put it through filters to address problems if any. CEMILAC will check all the data we provide and match performance figures for the aircraft and then they approve as a third party agency, the ‘Standard of Preparation’. This will happen by December. We have around 300 people working on all the design data generated and double checking the same. We have not encountered any major issues as part of the certification process so far. In the LCA programme, quality has been given the highest priority.

    The IOC is an understanding with the users i.e. IAF, telling CEMILAC to clear the aircraft in this particular standard of preparation. We will be providing the IAF with an aircraft that is equipped with a specific set of sensors, weapons, avionics, etc. and a particular standard of performance and functionality as declared in the ‘Standard of Preparation’. The IOC is a nomenclature used by the IAF and the ‘Release to Certification’ is provided by CEMILAC. The IAF will move towards FOC for the Tejas in 2014. We have to add a new CCM, BVR, extra weapons and it will also have a mid-air refueling system along with new drop tanks and few other refinements. We look at adding these features in the second lot of 20 aircraft.
    Last edited by Austin; 13th October 2010 at 03:16.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  22. #592
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    Thanks Austin ! that is one illuminating interview and we finally have some details on the Tejas Mk2 !

    And this particular statement of PS Subramanyam confirms it once and for all that the weight of the Tejas Mk1 is 6500 kgs which is nearly same as the Gripen C/D (6800 kgs empty) and JF-17 (6411 kgs empty)..how the heck is that supposed to be overweight only the critics know.


    We had planned initially for a fighter in the 5.5 tonne category but currently it has grown to about 6.5 tonne.
    Last edited by Kramer; 12th October 2010 at 19:00.
    "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

  23. #593
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    Thanks Austin ! that is one illuminating interview and we finally have some details on the Tejas Mk2 !

    And this particular statement of PS Subramanyam confirms it once and for all that the weight of the Tejas Mk1 is 6500 kgs which is nearly same as the Gripen C/D (6800 kgs empty) and JF-17 (6411 kgs empty)..how the heck is that supposed to be overweight only the critics know.
    overweight is depending on size, aerodynamics, and requirements. Otherwise B-52 must be extremely overweight wouldnt you say?

  24. #594
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,858
    It will be good to see the 500Kg reduction in structural weight. As was hinted by Ether the extra weight of the Tejas wasnt to do with a scope creap by the IAF but due to other issues.

    The IAF have been pretty supportive by the sounds of things in accepting limitations on the aircrafts ability to point the nose towards a target. Maybe with the Mk-2 and a loss in weight of 500kg we will see those performance parameters improve.

    I did make not of the fact that they are using helmet targetting and hence have been able to make apologies for deficiencies mentioned above no one can be more pragmatic than that.

    The materials should be well understood and understood enough by now to give the stress team some confidence.

    Still have to wonder if the weight could be further reduced. If the spars are arranged in the LCA as a CAD wireframe i once saw suggests there maybe an opertunity to take out some weight from that region. But again that maybe a different story.

    Have to wonder if the ADA/DRDO will try to poke the international material supplier for some new materials to make the most of the Mk2 opertunity and reduce weight as much as possible. I guess they will always be restricted by pragmatic swings and roundabout balances.
    Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

  25. #595
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    Thanks Austin ! that is one illuminating interview and we finally have some details on the Tejas Mk2 !

    And this particular statement of PS Subramanyam confirms it once and for all that the weight of the Tejas Mk1 is 6500 kgs which is nearly same as the Gripen C/D (6800 kgs empty) and JF-17 (6411 kgs empty)..how the heck is that supposed to be overweight only the critics know.
    It can be said to be over weight simply by the virtue that the final weight of the aircraft was above the design weight of the aircraft. Hence it was over its design weight.

    Now you could argue that most aircraft that size weight around the same in which case you would have to look at the guys doing the weight estimations and ask them what happened.

    On the flip side the fact that the Tejas was no more lighter than its contemporaries makes moot any bombastic claims of Tejas having the most amounts of composites.

    But as you would know composite structures will only be lighter than traditional structures if the design team understand them and if the production team can produce defect free structures.
    Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

  26. #596
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by Teer View Post
    http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=66244

    CHIEF OF THE AIR STAFF CITATIONS

    3004 SQUADRON, AF (which aircraft or is it UAV?)
    .......
    most probably UAV x00y sqn number usually indicates UAV.

    added later : 3004 is an UAV unit.
    Last edited by Boom; 12th October 2010 at 23:12.
    HAL - one step ahead of IBM

  27. #597
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by matt View Post
    It can be said to be over weight simply by the virtue that the final weight of the aircraft was above the design weight of the aircraft. Hence it was over its design weight.

    Now you could argue that most aircraft that size weight around the same in which case you would have to look at the guys doing the weight estimations and ask them what happened.

    On the flip side the fact that the Tejas was no more lighter than its contemporaries makes moot any bombastic claims of Tejas having the most amounts of composites.

    But as you would know composite structures will only be lighter than traditional structures if the design team understand them and if the production team can produce defect free structures.
    wow ! I've never seen such rubbish written ! just because they underestimated the weight initially but still managed to design a fighter that is in the same empty weight range as the Gripen and JF-17 which have nearly same fuel and payload weight, its still overweight !?

    congratulations. you've qualified to a whole new level of trolling !

    BTW, the Tejas has nearly same amount of composites as the Gripen C/D and it still weighs 300 kgs more !

    So maybe Saab too must be fools, huh ?
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

  28. #598
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,897
    When talking about the empty weight of Gripen A/B/C/D please keep the following in mind;

    Parameters like empty weight and range have always been a closely guarded secret by SwAF and Saab.... meaning that the numbers you see in magazines and on the internet are wrong...

    This could in part explain the "strange" fact that the Tejas, having an engine as powerful as the RM12, and having the same empty weight does still not have the same performance as the Gripen C/D :diablo:

    The other part of the explanation is related to the canards, but I will leave that to Robban to explain, all those aerodynamical details just make my head spin.

  29. #599
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,558
    What kind of silly explanation is that ? I can agree Gripen may be aerodynamically better than the Tejas and hence have better performance but to say that the specs of Gripen is a closely guarded secret is laughable.

    Do you think it will have a chance in an order like the MRCA if they do not reveal the specs ? They are offering ToT for nuts and bolts and radar even and would hide the real specs ?
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  30. #600
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,976
    What a rude tone for a simple thing. If an aircraft exceeds its design weight it's over weight by that period. What are the dimensions of the Tejas anyway?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES