India's ASTRA BVRAAM Successfully Testfired From IAF Flanker

[Dillinger]

Kindly elaborate.

An engine can be tweaked for higher thrust by sacrificing the SFC and MTBO (well the latter doesn't really matter for CMs or munitions). With the current SFC on our small turbine engines there is no hope for progressing beyond the 1000-1200km threshold, not without assistance.

If Nirbhay missile engine is indegenious as you claim .

You must back up your claim with valid proof .

what ever you have ranted so far ...no way proves that Nirbhay is using indigenous engine as against imported one .

Do not try to substantiate your claims with counterclaims pertaining to unrelated issues .


Dr Avinash Chander had quite clearly stated that there is no turbofan under development. He himself volunteered the fact that Nirbhay engine is imported one .

Mr Saurav Jha had specifically questioned him as to what is DRDO' long term plan regarding this as Nirbhay will have to inducted in large numbers in future . again he said that industry has to come forward .

I do not think why Dr Avinash Chnder will volunteer wrong information .


anyway , you stop going wrong about and try to intellectualize the do's and don'ts of engine and technicalities .


Question is simple - Does Nirbhay missile use imported engine or indigenous one ?


If you wish to negate statement of Dr Avinash Chander , you must provide specific proof .

Otherwise concede gracefully that you have nothing to back up your claim except your word of mouth !!!

This is not a counter claim.

I have provided you with the very simple reason why no current NPO engine offered can power a LRCM. Furthermore the GTRE has bench tested and dry tested an engine that FITS the SFC and thrust parameters of the Nirbhay's range and flight envelope perfectly.

There is a reason I never quote articles or wiki pages, when one knows how to calculate down to the decimal the parameters then someone (no matter) how respected claiming something contradictory sounds baffling. If Mr. Chander insists that a foreign engine from NPO is powering the Nirbhay then the only thing I can possibly submit is a simple question to him, did they design a new engine for you?

 

[Indo-guy]

An engine can be tweaked for higher thrust by sacrificing the SFC and MTBO (well the latter doesn't really matter for CMs or munitions). With the current SFC on our small turbine engines there is no hope for progressing beyond the 1000-1200km threshold, not without assistance.



This is not a counter claim.

I have provided you with the very simple reason why no current NPO engine offered can power a LRCM. Furthermore the GTRE has bench tested and dry tested an engine that FITS the SFC and thrust parameters of the Nirbhay's range and flight envelope perfectly.

There is a reason I never quote articles or wiki pages, when one knows how to calculate down to the decimal the parameters then someone (no matter) how respected claiming something contradictory sounds baffling. If Mr. Chander insists that a foreign engine from NPO is powering the Nirbhay then the only thing I can possibly submit is a simple question to him, did they design a new engine for you?

Neither me nor Mr Chnader has so far said anything about NPO engine.
He just said imported engine !!!

which imported engine , which company , which country - these are secondary issues .

First you have to agree that Nirbhay is using imported or indegenious engine .

You have no proof whatsoever to back up your claim that Nirbhay is using indigenous engine .

You want me to rely on your ability to count to decimal points as proof of your claim that Nirbhay is using indigenous engine ???


If you have no proof to provide , you should concede gracefully ....

rather than prolonging this circuitous conversation in order to save your ego .

If you have valid proof , I will accept it

If not , then you must accept word of mouth by Dr Avinash Chander .

 

[IND151]

An engine can be tweaked for higher thrust by sacrificing the SFC and MTBO (well the latter doesn't really matter for CMs or munitions). With the current SFC on our small turbine engines there is no hope for progressing beyond the 1000-1200km threshold, not without assistance.



This is not a counter claim.

I have provided you with the very simple reason why no current NPO engine offered can power a LRCM. Furthermore the GTRE has bench tested and dry tested an engine that FITS the SFC and thrust parameters of the Nirbhay's range and flight envelope perfectly.

There is a reason I never quote articles or wiki pages, when one knows how to calculate down to the decimal the parameters then someone (no matter) how respected claiming something contradictory sounds baffling. If Mr. Chander insists that a foreign engine from NPO is powering the Nirbhay then the only thing I can possibly submit is a simple question to him, did they design a new engine for you?

What is SFC and MTBO?

 

[Dillinger]

@Indo-guy

Its not as if I have an ax to grind against DRDO or Mr. Chander.

The issue is that more than him the OEM knows its engines better than ANYONE ELSE, when the OEM itself provides SFC figures which do not match, don't even come close, exactly what is one to deduce? Is the OEM then lying. On the other hand the GTRE issues a formal release (refer to their diagram) with the SFC required down to the last digit and claim it to be their's, is GTRE lying?

What one must do then is to close one's mind and forget every single bit of arithmetic one has learnt.

When the same senior official goes on record to state that TRMs are being produced in country, what does one do, having gone through countless internal audits of every single manufacturing agency and finding not a single in country fab unit.

The same fellow states that the BMD will be in operation in 010, 012...on and on when there is not a single official ASQR for the BMD, in fact the DRDO is running it as an internal project.

The same fellow states that DRDO is in charge of integration of the Baraks with the emdina system and the MoD release contradicts him.

What is SFC and MTBO?

Specific fuel consumption and Mean time between overhaul.

The SFC is linked to the range any platform operating on the engine can achieve along with its internal and/or external fuel stores, generally calculated under standardized ISA-ISO conditions.

Neither me nor Mr Chnader has so far said anything about NPO engine.
He just said imported engine !!!

which imported engine , which company , which country - these are secondary issues .

First you have to agree that Nirbhay is using imported or indegenious engine .

You have no proof whatsoever to back up your claim that Nirbhay is using indigenous engine .

You want me to rely on your ability to count to decimal points as proof of your claim that Nirbhay is using indigenous engine ???


If you have no proof to provide , you should concede gracefully ....

rather than prolonging this circuitous conversation in order to save your ego .

If you have valid proof , I will accept it

If not , then you must accept word of mouth by Dr Avinash Chander .

I cannot just switch my brain off and "accept words".

There is no other OEM which ever offered any other product, that too in contravention of the MCTR, this may fly with folks who think that the Brahmos secretly ranges in at 500km.

I don't accept words because when they claim that they have an indigenous RLG which is apparently accurate enough to guide an ICBM and the IN and the IAF BOTH OFFICIALLY decide to standardize SIGMA RLGs for all future purposes two years later then one can pretty much gauge that something is afoot.

This is the same fellow who along with Mr. safed lungi has claimed that the Tejas has achieved some form of IOC, odd because the TACDE might have something to sat about that, IOC 1 or 2 before TACDE gets done with the bird, formulates the manuals and conversion starts, well the IAF must have changed its norms then all of a sudden.

Every time one reads a news article or release by them, you dig around a little deeper and errors abound. It builds on a pattern. That is one of the primary reasons that I go easy on folks like @he-man despite his proclivity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[he-man]

@Indo-guy

Its not as if I have an ax to grind against DRDO or Mr. Chander.

The issue is that more than him the OEM knows its engines better than ANYONE ELSE, when the OEM itself provides SFC figures which do not match, don't even come close, exactly what is one to deduce? Is the OEM then lying. On the other hand the GTRE issues a formal release (refer to their diagram) with the SFC required down to the last digit and claim it to be their's, is GTRE lying?

What one must do then is to close one's mind and forget every single bit of arithmetic one has learnt.

When the same senior official goes on record to state that TRMs are being produced in country, what does one do, having gone through countless internal audits of every single manufacturing agency and finding not a single in country fab unit.

The same fellow states that the BMD will be operation in 010, 012...on and on when there is not a single official ASQR for the BMD, in fact the DRDO is running it as an internal project.

The same fellow states that DRDO is in charge of integration of the Baraks with the emdina system and the MoD release contradicts him.




Specific fuel consumption and Mean time between overhaul.

The SFC is linked to the range any platform operating on the engine can achieve along with its internal and/or external fuel stores, generally calculated under standardized ISA-ISO conditions.



I cannot just switch my brain off and "accept words".

There is no other OEM which ever offered any other product, that too in contravention of the MCTR, this may fly with folks who think that the Brahmos secretly ranges in at 500km.

I don't accept words because when they claim that they have an indigenous RLG which is apparently accurate enough to guide an ICBM and the IN and the IAF BOTH OFFICIALLY decide to standardize SIGMA RLGs for all future purposes two years later then one can pretty much gauge that something is afoot.

Every time one reads a news article or release by them, you dig around a little deeper and errors abound. It builds on a pattern. That is one of the primary reasons that I go easy on folks like @he-man despite his proclivity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

@Dillinger

npo saturn does not list all the engines on its site,,,,the engines powering the pakfa currently are different from the 117s of su-35s but it finds no mention at all on the site so ur point is kinda moot here.

maybe they delivered a customised engine??

and enough of @he-man bashing here

 

[Indo-guy]

@Indo-guy

Its not as if I have an ax to grind against DRDO or Mr. Chander.

The issue is that more than him the OEM knows its engines better than ANYONE ELSE, when the OEM itself provides SFC figures which do not match, don't even come close, exactly what is one to deduce? Is the OEM then lying. On the other hand the GTRE issues a formal release (refer to their diagram) with the SFC required down to the last digit and claim it to be their's, is GTRE lying?

What one must do then is to close one's mind and forget every single bit of arithmetic one has learnt.

When the same senior official goes on record to state that TRMs are being produced in country, what does one do, having gone through countless internal audits of every single manufacturing agency and finding not a single in country fab unit.

The same fellow states that the BMD will be operation in 010, 012...on and on when there is not a single official ASQR for the BMD, in fact the DRDO is running it as an internal project.

The same fellow states that DRDO is in charge of integration of the Baraks with the emdina system and the MoD release contradicts him.



Specific fuel consumption and Mean time between overhaul.

The SFC is linked to the range any platform operating on the engine can achieve along with its internal and/or external fuel stores.

did GTRE said that they have made engine that is powering Nirbhay ?

since you have nothing substantial to say you are as usual going round about all the peripheral issues ....
You know what difficulties are encountered in project as big as BMD ....

and you are using delay in implementation or realization as planck to discredit Dr Avinash Chander ...that too because you have nothing to negate his statement regarding Nirbhay's engine ????

You either present valid proof to substantiate your claim that Nirbhay is using indigenous engine or concede that Nirbhay is using imported engine as clearly stated by DRDO director Dr Avinash Chnader !!!

 

[Dillinger]

did GTRE said that they have made engine that is powering Nirbhay ?

since you have nothing substantial to say you are as usual going round about all the peripheral issues ....
You know what difficulties are encountered in project as big as BMD ....

and you are using delay in implementation or realization as planck to discredit Dr Avinash Chander ...that too because you have nothing to negate his statement regarding Nirbhay's engine ????

You either present valid proof to substantiate your claim that Nirbhay is using indigenous engine or concede that Nirbhay is using imported engine as clearly stated by DRDO director Dr Avinash Chnader !!!

No they just decided to set up SFC and thrust attributes down to the last DaN required for the Nirbhay just to have a laugh? While NPO decided to misrepresent the same figures for its own engines in some large conspiracy to poke fun at us.

What I have is the word of the OEM itself, OF THE ONLY OEM THAT EVER OFFERED US AN ENGINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CM PROJECTS, FORGIVE ME IF I HAVE A LITTLE MORE FAITH IN THEM SINCE THEY'VE BUILT THE DAMN THINGS.

 

[Indo-guy]

@Indo-guy






I cannot just switch my brain off and "accept words".

There is no other OEM which ever offered any other product, that too in contravention of the MCTR, this may fly with folks who think that the Brahmos secretly ranges in at 500km.

I don't accept words because when they claim that they have an indigenous RLG which is apparently accurate enough to guide an ICBM and the IN and the IAF BOTH OFFICIALLY decide to standardize SIGMA RLGs for all future purposes two years later then one can pretty much gauge that something is afoot.

This is the same fellow who along with Mr. safed lungi has claimed that the Tejas has achieved some form of IOC, odd because the TACDE might have something to sat about that, IOC 1 or 2 before TACDE gets done with the bird, formulates the manuals and conversion starts, well the IAF must have changed its norms then all of a sudden.

Every time one reads a news article or release by them, you dig around a little deeper and errors abound. It builds on a pattern. That is one of the primary reasons that I go easy on folks like @he-man despite his proclivity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Then why don't you post the proof to back up your claim with your 'switched on Brain ' ???

 

[Dillinger]

@Dillinger

npo saturn does not list all the engines on its site,,,,the engines powering the pakfa currently are different from the 117s of su-35s but it finds no mention at all on the site so ur point is kinda moot here.

maybe they delivered a customised engine??

and enough of @he-man bashing here

They list all operational engines, the PAKFA on the other hand runs on an experimental one. Furthermore upon direct query during DEFEXPO they stated that their current employment was ONLY in the SFC related issues of the Laghu Shakti.

Then why don't you post the proof to back up your claim with your 'switched on Brain ' ???

Because another poster already gave you the derived info data on the NPO engines which fall in the weight class required for the Nirbhay and have the thrust attributes.

 

[he-man]

They list all operational engines, the PAKFA on the other hand runs on an experimental one. Furthermore upon direct query during DEFEXPO they stated that their current employment was ONLY in the SFC related issues of the Laghu Shakti.



Because another poster already gave you the derived info data on the NPO engines which fall in the weight class required for the Nirbhay and have the thrust attributes.

maybe nirbhay engine was experimental too

 

[Indo-guy]

No they just decided to set up SFC and thrust attributes down to the last DaN required just to have laugh? While NPO decided to misrepresent the same figures for its own engines in some large conspiracy to poke fun at us.

What I have is the word of the OEM itself, OF THE ONLY OEM THAT EVER OFFERED US AN ENGINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CM PROJECTS, FORGIVE ME IF I HAVE A LITTLE MORE FAITH IN THEM SINCE THEY'VE BUILT THE DAMN THINGS.

They may have decided to set up SFC and thrust attributes to the last DaN ...

that does not prove that Nirbhay missile at present is using indigenous engine !!!

Come up with some better conjectures ....these are too lame !

 

[Dillinger]

maybe nirbhay engine was experimental too

That would mean they built a whole new engine for us and must now be setting up a production line to provide said articles for the test batch as well as the operationalized batch in the future.

They may have decided to set up SFC and thrust attributes to the last DaN ...

that does not prove that Nirbhay missile at present is using indigenous engine !!!

Come up with some better conjectures ....these are too lame !

Again, do me a favor, pick out a single NPO engine within the offering, hell pick out a single engine other than the American or Chinese ones which can provide the SFC, given the formula you can derive it quite easily and then make a simple comparison.

I am yet to actually prove half the things I've heard most of the time, like still looking for that elusive in country fab unit.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Aisey nahin: DRDO ka ab naya naara-------"Abki baar Nirbhay ka lalkaar".

but a cruise missile is quiet and stealthy?

 

[Indo-guy]

Because another poster already gave you the derived info data on the NPO engines which fall in the weight class required for the Nirbhay and have the thrust attributes.

I have observed . this is your habit to stick to your arguments by going tangential all over .....

Forget NPO engine ...which I never mentioned. But you are going round about ...


I am telling you show me the valid proof that Nirbhay missile is using indigenous engine ....!!!

and for God's sake spare me from SFC and last digit decimal kind of arguments ...

If you have nothing to prove your claim , then simply back off .

 

[Dillinger]

I have observed . this is your habit to stick to your arguments by going tangential all over .....

Forget NPO engine ...which I never mentioned. But you are going round about ...


I am telling you show me the valid proof that Nirbhay missile is using indigenous engine ....!!!

and for God's sake spare me from SFC and last digit decimal kind of arguments ...

If you have nothing to prove your claim , then simply back off .

How can I just forget the NPO engines, did the Martians give us the engine or do you think the Americans were kind enough to offer one up, that too from the 90s batch of tomahawks given the parameters.

Unless Mr. Chander wants to test the Nirbhay to a fraction of its range for validation purposes he cannot use the engines on offer. There is a VERY simple way to settle this decisively, wait for the next test, check out the NOTAM advisory released and deduce the range, if its fits the 800 to 1200 km parameter then either the engine is ours or its American OR better yet the Russians have made a BRAND NEW engine for us.

You cannot be "spared" from arguments pertaining to technical parameters officially released by the OEMs involved or allegedly involved, given that they dictate what the product can or CANNOT do.