^ Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
世界上小人一大巴
世界上小人一大巴
Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Capability wise FA-50 is no match to LCA Tejas check the specs of both the aircrafts
i have came to this conclusion that Tejas is best fighter jet in it’s category only after checking the specs
The dry variant of Kaveri engine will power the GHATAK UCAV drone
Kaveri dry engine meant to power India's first stealth, unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), the Ghatak will commence simulated high altitude tests and flight test bed testing in Russia after suffering a year-long delay due to the ongoing war with Ukraine and Russia.
And India doesn’t need to reverse engineer Russian engines (if they haven’t done it already) because they’re not worth it
Last edited:
Lethe
Captain
By 2030 India should have...
10 ~7000t Destroyers (P15+15A+P15B)
10 ~7000t Large Frigates (P17+17A)
10 ~4000t Medium Frigates (Talwar)
10 ~2000-3000t Large Corvettes (P28+NGMV)
(With the exception of the Next-Generation Missile Vessels, all of these ships have already been at least laid down, so even with due caution I think it is reasonable to assume they will arrive by 2030.)
Plus smaller craft like the aforementioned ASW-SWC ships. Not a bad collection of ships really.
Ok here is what I mean: LCA is more advanced than e.g. JF-17 because it makes extensive use of composites. But this is not actually a good thing as it has complicated India's ability to indigenise, refine and produce the aircraft. Great strides in composites have been made under the program, fantastic, but in the meantime the IAF is cratering. Again, India does not need "the best", it needs something that works. Same with full Fly-by-Wire. Great technology, hostile to actually getting the aircraft out the door and into service!
Hopefully Kaveri will indeed find applications that allow for the engine to enter service. But I am not sanguine about this. Unfortunately we are at the point that just because India says it is or will do such a thing, we cannot assume that it will. What I would like to hear about Kaveri is that they are producing more engines and running them for thousands of testbed hours, that they are building a flying testbed aircraft or at least going back to Russia to use theirs again, and other such prosaic developments.
I think your view of Russian engines is very limiting. India would love to have Russian engine technology, and Russia's engineering priorities (emphasising performance over TBO) are probably better aligned with India's requirements than are western engines.
Last edited:
They should fold down when the weapon fires. That is common, even on PLAN ships
India is manufacturing Russian engines from raw material stage for decades the only reason they didn’t use it in Tejas is because it’s not reliable enough to be used in a single engine aircraft.
India is now modifying the existing AL31FP engine of su30mki to produce more thrust but they cannot do any major modifications because IP rights are owned by Russia
It’s naive to say that India didn’t reverse engineer Russian engines they might have done it a long time ago
The Gripen uses the same engine. And it is a whole lot better than the Tejas. The KAI T-50 is a trainer first. Not the same thing.
Latest Russian Al-31 engine variants have similar thrust-to-weight ratio to what I would call 4.5th generation engines like the GE F414. The Tejas 1/1A still uses the GE F404 engine. What matters most for fighter engine performance metrics is turbine inlet temperature and related metrics like thrust-to-weight and fuel consumption. Engine lifetime is nice for economics if you assume you will go into conflict where you won't be losing a lot of aircraft. The Soviets typically designed engines with limited lifetime because modelling of full blown combat between Warsaw Pact and NATO showed most fighter aircraft would not last more than 48h. So they designed the engines to be as cheap to produce as possible. They use as little high performance materials, heck, as little materials period as possible.
Last edited:
Are you talking about MiG-21's Tumansky R-25 turbojet? You know MiG-21 is a single engine aircraft...
In any case, it is not really comparable to anything modern. Even China could build that level of engine for many years, but had difficulties with development and production of modern turbofans until recently.
It's actually more naive to suggest things can be "reverse engineered" so simply. You cannot just take something apart and copy it anymore. Off the top, you cannot copy material fabrication techniques for turbine blades and software engine controls.
That link is total nonsense. Safran is not a wizard. They cannot come in, take apart the engine and magically make it better.
Lethe
Captain
The difficulty with commentaries such as this one is that we can recognise all the pieces, but they can be arranged to form different narratives, and the fine-grained detail that would allow us to clearly favour one narrative over another is typically denied us.
So let us acknowledge that India has obvious strong imperative to become as self-reliant as possible in indigenous platform. Let us also acknowledge that there is tension and sometimes open conflict between the desire of the armed services to have "world-class" platforms to meet threats from China/Pakistan, and the long-term goal of nurturing India's indigenous industry and capabilities. Let us further acknowledge that outright corruption, and certainly the wining and dining of officials on the dime of the foreign manufacturers and governments is an issue. All that being acknowledged, let us throw some wrenches into the author's narrative.
1. Evidence suggests that LCA has a serious weight control problem, this despite extensive use of composites.
2. Navalising LCA requires further beefing up of many structures: weight control problems get worse.
3. My perception -- PERCEPTION -- is that Navy was actually much more pro-LCA than the IAF, and went along with the project, test facilities, etc. until it became abundantly clear that the aircraft was not going to work.
4. Promises to rectify LCA flaws can justly be viewed with skepticism in light of glacial progress to date.
6. Despite author's reservations, commonality of platform (Rafale) between IN and IAF is worth something. You can have common facility for major overhaul, common spare parts inventory, some common training facilities, common upgrade/integration paths.
Where the author seems to be on strongest ground is in criticism of TEDBF. Maybe it will fly in 2026 and be inducted in 2032 as an all-in-one solution to IN's needs for the next generation, but on the balance on probabilities that does not seem very likely. It is very possible to envision further delays and disappointments leading to eventual further acquisition of Rafale, as the author speculates.
Within the "Reality 2023" framework that we must operate in, I think going forward with greater investment in Rafale is the right move. Rafale for IN, more Rafale for IAF (instead of persisting with interminable MRCA), get total number of Rafales into the triple digits. Cross fingers that LCA Mk. 1A/2/TEDBF/AMCA will deliver and relieve pressure on inventory and advance cause of indigenisation. And eventually induct more limited numbers of mature Su-57 to replace Su-30.
India deciding on Rafale would be ideal for China. With J-20 and J-35 becoming the main fighters for the PLAAF in the same timeframe, Chinese air superiority would be all but ensured for the next few decades. As Rafales would not be cheap, they can be expected to eat up most of their procurement funding, slowing development in other areas. Russia is reminded once again that India is unreliable and not a credible counterweight to China. If need be, China can gently balance India's arms build-up by selling equal amounts of J-10Cs to Pakistan again.