Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 540 of 704

Thread: Quadbike Indian Air Force Thread Part 18

  1. #511
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    That's your opinion. IMO, the best looking Tejas yet, although the Tejas Mk2 with the lengthier fuselage will be better looking for sure. As they say, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.
    It looks like a trainer and not like a fighter, same with the twin seat jags, the big twin seat canopy makes it look ugly.

    I prefer the MK 1 LCA to this.
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  2. #512
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,566
    Quote Originally Posted by matt View Post
    UK defense minister to go to India to tell the Indians to buy Typhoons...Maybe it is still the 1920s?
    But...but...the typhoon was only introduced in the 1940s....?

    PEOPLE.FIRST.MISSION.ALWAYS.
    Have a good one..

  3. #513
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,922
    Quote Originally Posted by rayrubik View Post
    But...but...the typhoon was only introduced in the 1940s....?

    Beautiful picture... it must the 1940s, they will sell us the typhoons along with salt and cotton....

    what a daft statement to make, especially considering everyone knows that the Typhoon originators desperately need money so that their own fleets could be upgraded to the tranche 3s...

    I think the snippet from the BBC about the defense minister going to India to tell the Indians to by British is linked to the defense ministry looking for more foriegn investment from outside in British R&D and SME's typhoon might be put forward as a mechanism to do so.

    India has its own issues too much money wasted through corruption within India it does not need to be wrestling with the Eu's problems as well.
    Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

  4. #514
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,697
    For once I have to agree with Quadbike, that thing is not pretty.

    Luckily looks are irrelevant.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  5. #515
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by WinterStars View Post
    Is the metal already cut for the MK2 or is it still in the drawing board?
    What is stopping the Indian Gov from awarding Tech Demonstrator contracts to private firms? I don't think it would be a bad idea. I don't believe there are no Indian companies that could develop decent Military grade Semiconductors, Radars, Rocket propellants, etc.
    After all most private firms survive by constant adaptation and exponential learning curves.
    Currently there are no Indian private firms that can develop anything remotely close to the Tejas Mk1, forget Mk2. There is simply no experience in the private industry in this field as far as design goes and they are only at the component or small assemblies level. Mahindra and Mahindra for instance still took NAL’s help in developing the CNM-5 light airplane and had Gipps Aero in Australia (which they acquired) build and test fly it initially. Besides, ADA and HAL are intimately involved with and familiar with the Tejas Mk1 and hence are the most suited to develop the Mk2. For the AMCA however, I believe that more components and assembly design work should be outsourced to private firms with ADA/HAL/DRDO labs hand-holding them initially to build up their expertise.
    "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

  6. #516
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by quadbike View Post
    It looks like a trainer and not like a fighter, same with the twin seat jags, the big twin seat canopy makes it look ugly.

    I prefer the MK 1 LCA to this.
    NP-1 IS a trainer and a fighter. So why be surprised when it looks like a trainer?

    Can’t help it if the IAF required a trainer that gave superb visibility to the back seater which required a steep cockpit slant and a nose droop. The Gripen D for instance has a very poor view forward for the backseater which the IAF didn’t want since the trainer was designed with their input. Anyway, I disagree with what you say and again reiterate that looks are subjective and what you may find attractive (such as the JF-17) I may not and what I may find attractive you may not.
    "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

  7. #517
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,578

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    That's your opinion. IMO, the best looking Tejas yet, ...
    Agreed... Those LEVCONs give it an added level of coolness.

  8. #518
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by QuantumFX View Post
    Agreed... Those LEVCONs give it an added level of coolness.
    yes, and the larger and heavier landing gear makes it look more brutish than the IAF's Tejas variants. When the final single-seat Naval prototype rolls out (not NP-2), IMO it will be the best looking of all the Tejas variants, with its lengthened fuselage (ala Mk2), LEVCONS and bigger landing gear.
    "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

  9. #519
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    113
    assuming the deal for the 126 MRCA is signed this year, can the first planes be delivered by 2016?

  10. #520
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    yes, and the larger and heavier landing gear makes it look more brutish than the IAF's Tejas variants. When the final single-seat Naval prototype rolls out (not NP-2), IMO it will be the best looking of all the Tejas variants, with its lengthened fuselage (ala Mk2), LEVCONS and bigger landing gear.
    That landing gear is too heavy !! They over engineered it for 5 times the tolerance needed !!


  11. #521
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,578

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    That landing gear is too heavy !! They over engineered it for 5 times the tolerance needed !!

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-scdIM3lNaGE/T3BfnHDL03I/AAAAAAAAJIM/nwFibsl3c30/s1600/page5Story%25282%2529.jpg[/IMG]
    Case of 'better safe than sorry' gone too far?

  12. #522
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    113
    126 Rafales at about 10 billion USD is a great deal. Hopefully they can ink the deal this year and get the first batch by 2017. I though LCA IOC was set for 2014, now it's 2015? Would it be wise from a financial point of view to terminate LCA and get more Rafales instead? The latter being far more capable and modern.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

    From a financial standpoint, Su-30MKI and Rafale should serve as a hi-lo combo. Where would LCA fit in this scheme?
    Last edited by Thornado; 29th March 2012 at 17:58.

  13. #523
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Construction tolerance math isn't based on logic,
    it's built up on trial & error it seem,
    and then a five time increase for the measure is standard practice !.

  14. #524
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    Before people jump to conclusions about it being 5 times as much margin as it required, please keep in mind that this is Suman Sharma reporting. Not the brightest reporter out there and her technical knowledge is rudimentary at best. She tries to make up for it with enthusiasm but it doesn’t work on all issues. This sort of hearsay doesn’t carry much weight (pun intended) unless a reliable source states it (and Ajai Shukla is a lot more reliable..Shiv Aroor knows as much about structures as Suman Sharma does, which is not very much). When she says that they’ll reduce the composite content on the LCA to reduce weight, it says a lot about her reporting..it’s even above the 30000 feet level looking down. Unfortunately, the level of defence reporting in India is backward to be polite. When one reads journals like AW&ST, FlightGlobal with their extensively researched articles by journos who understand what they’re talking about (at least when it comes to their own nation’s defence), most of our Indian journos who write about Indian defence don’t really seem very competent.

    As things stand, it’s not a deal stopper. They’ll redesign the gear and optimize it to bring the weight down to acceptable levels.
    "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

  15. #525
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Thornado View Post
    126 Rafales at about 10 billion USD is a great deal. Hopefully they can ink the deal this year and get the first batch by 2017. I though LCA IOC was set for 2014, now it's 2015? Would it be wise from a financial point of view to terminate LCA and get more Rafales instead? The latter being far more capable and modern.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

    From a financial standpoint, Su-30MKI and Rafale should serve as a hi-lo combo. Where would LCA fit in this scheme?
    Hi JSLL4 !

    They will cost a lot more than $10 billion..more like $15-17 billion in fact. The IAF LCA has already achieved IOC-1 in Feb 2011. It will achieve FOC in 2014, which isn’t bad when one considers that the JF-17 still hasn’t achieved FOC and may do so only by the end of the year despite having entered squadron service in numbers. After all, China has a lot more experience in this field than India does, doesn’t it? From a financial standpoint, it makes a LOT more sense to continue with the LCA since each costs less than half of what the Rafale costs in just upfront costs and over its lifetime will be substantially cheaper to operate and maintain. 126 Rafales is a large enough fleet and the IAF shouldn’t become a completely top-heavy twin engined air force. Plus, the experience gained is invaluable as opposed to simply buying something that someone else developed.

    The N-LCA is a separate program that hasn’t begun flight testing yet and not the same as the IAF LCA.

    But looking at your posting history, something tells me that you’re not here for a proper conversation, rather you’re here to troll. Sorry, none of that will change things as they stand today. Firm orders and solid backing from the IAF.
    "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

  16. #526
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    113
    I wonder why InAF turned down the F-35 offer? Maybe due to time schedule? http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...81000220120201

  17. #527
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,578

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Thornado View Post
    I wonder why InAF turned down the F-35 offer? Maybe due to time schedule? http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...81000220120201
    or maybe the due to the vender

  18. #528
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,704
    Raytheon's MCU being acquired for the Jaguar DARIN II fleet (126 of them)..will allow it to use weapons like the Paveway, JSOW, AIM-9M and Maverick..Perhaps to use the CBU-105 cluster munitions?

    NEW DELHI, March 29, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) has started procuring components required to build the Munitions Control Units for 126 of the Indian Air Force's Jaguar Darin II attack aircraft.

    The MCU enables integration of modern weapons on legacy aircraft with minimal to no modifications to aircraft wiring and the flight or stores management software. The MCU's compact size enables it to be located in a weapons pylon or avionics bay of a legacy aircraft. From there, it interfaces between "smart" weapons and the existing software of a legacy aircraft.

    "Providing the IAF the capability to enhance their Jaguar fleet is the latest chapter in Raytheon's six-decade history of trusted partnership in India," said Harry Schulte, Raytheon Missile Systems' vice president of Air Warfare Systems. "MCU will give the Jaguar the capability to employ 'smart' or 'advanced' weapons like the Joint Standoff Weapon, Maverick missile, Paveway™ precision-guided munition and AIM-9M Sidewinder air-to-air missile."

    Raytheon was awarded a contract to build the MCU in 2011, and funding was authorized for the system in 2012. In anticipation of the contract, Raytheon began preliminary work to integrate MCU on Jaguar in 2008.
    Raytheon begins procuring parts for the MCU for IAF's Jaguars

  19. #529
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,704
    Huge improvement in the IAF's tactical airlift capabilities..they are due to receive all 10 of their C-17s by August 2014 itself. 10 C-17s in just about 15 months is a huge addition to the IAF's transport fleet.

    link

    The Indian Air Force will have all the 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III airlifters by August 2014, Patrick Druez who is in charge of Business Development Global Mobility Systems Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said.

    India will take delivery of the first C-17 in June 2013.”The C-17 met all Indian Air Force requirements in high altitude and hot environment where other airlifters can’t,” he said at a media briefing on the sidelines of the Defence Expo here Thursday.

  20. #530
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,837
    HAL's next gen cockpit display ?



    Last edited by Twinblade; 30th March 2012 at 06:54.

  21. #531
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,837
    Multirole Transport Aircraft, MTA on display at Defexpo 12




    Last edited by Twinblade; 30th March 2012 at 06:50.

  22. #532
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    356
    Interesting Info there TwinBlade.

    Is it mentioned where these LCDs would go, The Integrated LCD looks confusing. They could rearrange those Widgets.

    The MTA looks good.The PD-14 engines are big. Which ones are to be used? the base model or the derated model?

  23. #533
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,837
    Quote Originally Posted by WinterStars View Post
    Interesting Info there TwinBlade.

    Is it mentioned where these LCDs would go, The Integrated LCD looks confusing. They could rearrange those Widgets.

    The MTA looks good.The PD-14 engines are big. Which ones are to be used? the base model or the derated model?
    The panoramic displays are meant for AMCA, but some dubious sources claim that they might be intended for Tejas Mk2 as well. If they are that close to production (which seems highly unlikely), then it would open up a lot of possibilities (Rafale ? Su-30 upg ? FGFA ?)

    Regarding MTA, it seems like the derated model would be used (or at least wiki figures suggest so)

  24. #534
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,837
    http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/03/...m-for-mig.html

    A smaller, lighter version of Brahmos (3?) would be developed for MiG-29 and Rafale. I believe this product have a greater shot at export success considering the number of aircraft that would be able to carry it without major modifications.

  25. #535
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,322
    Oh man.. NATO AF should apply interest in procurring these weapon system when they enter service.. Could these systems rocks!
    Thanks

  26. #536
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,540
    Or develop conventional versions of the French ASMP-A, which is already in service & entirely built within a NATO member country.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  27. #537
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,837
    Integrating Western weapons & systems on Russian aircraft - IAF experience [Aero India 2011]

    ^^ A must watch video on avionics, weapons and network integration among different types of aircraft.

  28. #538
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Or develop conventional versions of the French ASMP-A, which is already in service & entirely built within a NATO member country.
    ASMP-A is more in class of Kh-31PD/AD. and how many ASMP-A can M2K/Rafale type aircraft can carry.
    Brahmos will be larger class. more like 1.5 to 2 tons.

  29. #539
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/03/...m-for-mig.html

    A smaller, lighter version of Brahmos (3?) would be developed for MiG-29 and Rafale. I believe this product have a greater shot at export success considering the number of aircraft that would be able to carry it without major modifications.
    Hmmm. What kind of range would that have, there is already supersonic Kh-31 with very long range in the modern variants.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  30. #540
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    Integrating Western weapons & systems on Russian aircraft - IAF experience [Aero India 2011]

    ^^ A must watch video on avionics, weapons and network integration among different types of aircraft.
    Good video but awful presentation.

    Learn from the West as to how to present things
    Love Planes, Live Planes

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