China, India battle for aerospace lead

[Adux]

what is sicko-30, is it a new plane.

 

[Keysersoze]

Mr Titanium please use terms that we all know......silly names don't add to your argument

 

[Titanium]

Here are some Indeginious fact of LCA from Admiral J G Nadkarni (retd)
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/13nad.htm

"In 1986 an agreement was quietly signed with the United States that permitted DRDO to work with four US Air force laboratories. The to-be-indigenously-developed engine for the LCA -- Kaveri -- was forgotten and the US made General Electric F-404 engine was substituted. Radar was sourced from Erricson Ferranti, carbon-fibre composite panels for wings from Alenia and fly-by-wire controls from Lockheed Martin. Design help was sought from British Aerospace, Avion Marcel Dassault and Deutsche Aerospace. Wind tunnel testing was done in the US, Russia and France. As for armaments -- missiles, guns, rockets and bombs -- every last item was to be imported"

This is from 2001, just to show from the very start LCA is at best assembeled system than indeginious R&D effort.

 

[joey]

Here are some Indeginious fact of LCA from Admiral J G Nadkarni (retd)
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/13nad.htm

"In 1986 an agreement was quietly signed with the United States that permitted DRDO to work with four US Air force laboratories. The to-be-indigenously-developed engine for the LCA -- Kaveri -- was forgotten and the US made General Electric F-404 engine was substituted. Radar was sourced from Erricson Ferranti, carbon-fibre composite panels for wings from Alenia and fly-by-wire controls from Lockheed Martin. Design help was sought from British Aerospace, Avion Marcel Dassault and Deutsche Aerospace. Wind tunnel testing was done in the US, Russia and France. As for armaments -- missiles, guns, rockets and bombs -- every last item was to be imported"

This is from 2001, just to show from the very start LCA is at best assembeled system than indeginious R&D effort

I doubt if you have handled any single project in your lifetime related to defence and I doubt if you have a single clue what R&D means and I doubt if you have a single clue of what assembling means, regardless some part of the post is incorrect and does not provides te complete picture, There are many such hyperboles you will hear from Retd peoples.

1. In 1986 nothing was signed, nada zip zlich.
2. We used LM's factory to test our FBW, the FBW is not handed to us by LM, that little co-operation ceased after nuke tests and we have had to re-stat everything right from beginning. Theye are plenty of open source papers regardinf LCA's FCS developement.
You can check this regarding its FCS,
http://www.aeroindiaseminar.com/pdf_technicalpaper/PS_Krishnan.pdf
3. MMR radar consultance was taken from Erricssion however It was dropped later, the MMR which of today is a long shot from what it was supposed to do, Your welcome to prove how a consultancy changes it being assembled when the whole thing was dropped later.

This is the new radar specs,

120 km range against a small sized fighter target.
10 Target TWS, 2 target attack with ARH missiles
Currently to be fitted to LSP-3
Look down/ Look up TWS- A2A modes tested and verified
Currently testing STT
To be followed by DSTT (two target STT)
Hardware is fully ready.
A2G modes s/w being tested and need to be ported onto MMR. (consultancy in streamlining a2g modes is being taken into)


4. Wind tunnel testing was extensively done in Russia, US and in later stages before reaching FSED stage by NAL, There is no harm in using foreign wind tunnel and testing in as much as you want, its followed everywhere.
5. The design was entirely Indian rather to put it better way as much Indian as J10 is Chinese, Gripen being Swedish, BAE PT 106 was the benchmark start then NAL guys dropped Canard as there was not significant performance gain as per QGSR and its design envelope, extensive consultancy with Dassault and F16XL team resulted in the final freeze of design, the intakes was re-designed by bombay IIT sometime down the line, and the whole design was modified many times.
6. The composites of LCA are precisely from NAL which are SMA's and not DRDO nor Alenia, composite technology intially was sought before 90's but most of what you have today is done by inhouse r&d effort, the Wings were re-designed in 2002 by NAL following a request by IAF in a slight change in its QGSR and it has been re-designed many many times before FSED. The resin system of LCA is different than what other produces , some of them being BMI, APC, PEEK or Epoxy.
7. Amongst the armaments, choice will be made with a mix bag of Indian BVRAAM/PGM once IRNSS comes online along with Russian/Israeli arms, the OAC allows LCA to carry any weapons thast India used in any other fighters.


Here is the timeline for LCA,

- First concept of new aircraft proposed in Oct 1978, based on two Adour Mk.811 engines
- 1982 - 1983 - Feasibility study
- June 1984 - Launch of ADA
- Jan 1985 - LCA programme announced
- Oct 1985 - DASR releases AST
- April 1986 - Project definition phase (PDP)
- 1990 - Development phase started
- March 1990 - PDP completed
- Phase I was sanctioned by the Government of India in June 1993 at a cost of Rs. 2188 crores.
- Phase II of LCA programme was sanctioned by the Government in November 2001 at a cost of Rs. 3302 crores

What's BAE? Are you referring to LCA PT 06 ?

Joey you can come up better than worlds apart thingy.... be specific how LCA is differentfrom Mirage III?. I know and you know LCA is Dassault hand me down design, so don't deny.

One more thing if you do want to reply about difference, for repeating the upteen time don't do the BOILER PLATE OF 90% SURFACE AND 40 % WEIGHT COMPOSITE Thingy...ok?

You dont know whats BAE ...Well its BAE PT 106.

Some quick points between handed down Mirage and LCA..

 

[Titanium]

I doubt if you have handled any single project in your lifetime related to defence and I doubt if you have a single clue what R&D means and I doubt if you have a single clue of what assembling means, regardless some part of the post is incorrect and does not provides te complete picture, There are many such hyperboles you will hear from Retd peoples.

Is heading a defence project requirement for critique? I do have a clue what assembling is .... it is called crewdriver technology mastered by HAL aka Hindustan assembling limited.

1. In 1986 nothing was signed, nada zip zlich.
2. We used LM's factory to test our FBW, the FBW is not handed to us by LM, that little co-operation ceased after nuke tests and we have had to re-stat everything right from beginning. Theye are plenty of open source papers regardinf LCA's FCS developement.
You can check this regarding its FCS,
http://www.aeroindiaseminar.com/pdf_technicalpaper/PS_Krishnan.pdf
3. MMR radar consultance was taken from Erricssion however It was dropped later, the MMR which of today is a long shot from what it was supposed to do, Your welcome to prove how a consultancy changes it being assembled when the whole thing was dropped later.

This is the new radar specs,

120 km range against a small sized fighter target.
10 Target TWS, 2 target attack with ARH missiles
Currently to be fitted to LSP-3
Look down/ Look up TWS- A2A modes tested and verified
Currently testing STT
To be followed by DSTT (two target STT)
Hardware is fully ready.
A2G modes s/w being tested and need to be ported onto MMR. (consultancy in streamlining a2g modes is being taken into)

I have seen the Phd papers and I accept they are good students as MENTIONED IN MY PREVIOS POST ...do don't be fooled by paper doctrote analysing of the original design.

Last I heard Israel is providing the radar......can we discount the radar thing here.

4. Wind tunnel testing was extensively done in Russia, US and in later stages before reaching FSED stage by NAL, There is no harm in using foreign wind tunnel and testing in as much as you want, its followed everywhere.
5. The design was entirely Indian rather to put it better way as much Indian as J10 is Chinese, Gripen being Swedish, BAE PT 106 was the benchmark start then NAL guys dropped Canard as there was not significant performance gain as per QGSR and its design envelope, extensive consultancy with Dassault and F16XL team resulted in the final freeze of design, the intakes was re-designed by bombay IIT sometime down the line, and the whole design was modified many times.
6. The composites of LCA are precisely from NAL which are SMA's and not DRDO nor Alenia, composite technology intially was sought before 90's but most of what you have today is done by inhouse r&d effort, the Wings were re-designed in 2002 by NAL following a request by IAF in a slight change in its QGSR and it has been re-designed many many times before FSED. The resin system of LCA is different than what other produces , some of them being BMI, APC, PEEK or Epoxy.
7. Amongst the armaments, choice will be made with a mix bag of Indian BVRAAM/PGM once IRNSS comes online along with Russian/Israeli arms, the OAC allows LCA to carry any weapons thast India used in any other fighters.

The consultancy is nothing but glorified technology buying..... ala Brahmos




So is Israel Kfir different from Mirage....coz it has canard and Nozzle difference to accomodate GE engine? These superficial changes does not make it different design.......you can say it is improved Mirage as was Kfir and Sauth African Cheetah.

Bythe way don't be under delesion that we are comparing Mirage2000 but rather Mirage III

 

[crowreturns]

haha,I am in surprise that Indians always know the things about China more than we Chinese.All China's friend know what i mean..haha.

 

[joey]

haha,I am in surprise that Indians always know the things about China more than we Chinese.All China's friend know what i mean..haha.

I'm not talking about China here dear, Chill .

Is heading a defence project requirement for critique? I do have a clue what assembling is .... it is called crewdriver technology mastered by HAL aka Hindustan assembling limited.

No heading defence project is never a requirement, but knowing peoples who are involved in defence projects is definitely a requirement for proper analysis, fuelled by obstinficated nationalism your making your arguments loose, If you would like to believe the way you want I have no problem.

I have seen the Phd papers and I accept they are good students as MENTIONED IN MY PREVIOS POST ...do don't be fooled by paper doctrote analysing of the original design.

Didnt quite get you, I pointed you out some of the anomalies of the articles thats it, That article I gave you is not a PHD paper, but a paper presented before some 20 nations in the Aero India seminar by FCS director of ADA. You were saying the FCS to be LM handed down which isnt true is what I said.

Last I heard Israel is providing the radar......can we discount the radar thing here.

Media reports says anything, it even says we have UFO's, Israel is providing ELM 2032 radar till LSP 02 to speed up the weaponisation process, MMR will come from LSP 03 (as per data I have) a2g is being tested, for speeding up the testing process consultancy is being taken in validation of a2g software as I have mentioned in the last line of the radar specs. Erricsion has been dumped decades ago.

The consultancy is nothing but glorified technology buying..... ala Brahmos

Completely Incorrect. Even The J10's have had SIBNIA as Consultant which appeared in AFM. Lets not go to Brahmos please, I know members who have been there done that in Brahmos okay?

So is Israel Kfir different from Mirage....coz it has canard and Nozzle difference to accomodate GE engine? These superficial changes does not make it different design.......you can say it is improved Mirage as was Kfir and Sauth African Cheetah.

First get a clue what your speaking off, the LCA does not follows its design from Mirage by any means but from BAE PT 106 though hugely modified it has been, the same thing serves as basis of Gripen as well, the twin engined BAE PT 106 variant serves as base of EF 2k.

Bythe way don't be under delesion that we are comparing Mirage2000 but rather Mirage III

Doesnt makes much difference.

 

[crowreturns]

What a hoot! I was not talking with you dear！ .I just replied to Adux for topic-"China, India battle for aerospace lead".You are wandering off the point ，not me,So don't butt into my business!

 

[Chukkar]

What a hoot! I was not talking with you dear！ .I just replied to Adux for topic-"China, India battle for aerospace lead".You are wandering off the point ，not me,So don't butt into my business!

Does it hurt you all to talk politely?

 

[A.Rahman]

welcome Chukkar, plz post your intro in the right thread.

 

[Titanium]

First get a clue what your speaking off, the LCA does not follows its design from Mirage by any means but from BAE PT 106 though hugely modified it has been, the same thing serves as basis of Gripen as well, the twin engined BAE PT 106 variant serves as base of EF 2k.

Oh I see !!!! so this Lost Chance Aircraft (LCA) should be on par with Typhoon... tell me you are kidding.

With the design given on platter and on top "Consultancy" provided by BAE, Dassault and Otheres whats you got ? nada zilch.... moreover america opened its laborateries still nil.

With these accomplishment you want to battle it out with China in aerospace?

 

[con]

Oh I see !!!! so this Lost Chance Aircraft (LCA) should be on par with Typhoon... tell me you are kidding.

With the design given on platter and on top "Consultancy" provided by BAE, Dassault and Otheres whats you got ? nada zilch.... moreover america opened its laborateries still nil.

With these accomplishment you want to battle it out with China in aerospace?

Have you seen BAE PT 106? Do you know what the difference b/w PT 106 and LCA design?

Why did the great "Chinese Aerospace Industry" took stock and barrel the Lavi design from Israel,if they were so all knowing?

Why did it they ask the Russians to modify the airframe so that they can stick in the Russian engine? The great Chinese industry cannot carry out a simple taks of modifying a "design given on platter" to fit in a engine on the airframe?

 

[Titanium]

Why did it they ask the Russians to modify the airframe so that they can stick in the Russian engine? The great Chinese industry cannot carry out a simple taks of modifying a "design given on platter" to fit in a engine on the airframe?

So now this? Russian designed the J-10 ...lol. Thats what you came up with to defend nonexistant aerospace prowess?

Rather than answearing the inability of HAL in Lost cahnce aircraft LCA.. after all the help provided by the best in the business . you and your ilk stoop to this!!!


Way to go..... keep it coming

 

[Titanium]

This seems to the options before the Indian Airforce



You know what is expensive and what won't work.

 

[con]

So now this? Russian designed the J-10 ...lol. Thats what you came up with to defend nonexistant aerospace prowess?

Rather than answearing the inability of HAL in Lost cahnce aircraft LCA.. after all the help provided by the best in the business . you and your ilk stoop to this!!!


Way to go..... keep it coming

Your "hot air" statements and twisting comments out of context just indicates that you have no idea about the history of either LCA or the J-10.

Please point out to me where I said that Lavi design belongs to the Russians. And yes it does not belong to the Chinese either.

May be you educate yourself first,then we will talk. Shall we. Else you are just making a fool out of yourself.

Since you are "fully aware" of the inability of HAL,please can you tell what is the difference b/w PT 106 & LCA design?

I am waiting...