Bharat Karnad: Stop wasteful military deals

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
Thanks for the correction.



We differ on the length of the fuselage, fuel capacity and payload. For me these are 13.7m, 2.8 tons fuel and 5 tons payload.

I don't know if you still believe F-414INS6 will have a thrust greater than my figure of 98 KN (not bump thrust). Since you gave a figure of 62 KN earlier for LCA, then I guess you agree that LCA Mk2 (at least IAF version) will have a 98 KN engine.

If you agree that LCA has a 98KN engine, then LCA's T/W according to your figures for A2A role with 6 AAMs will be (6.6+3.4+1) = 0.91 at 100% fuel or 1.07 at 50% fuel.

If we take my estimated figures of 6.6+2.8+1, then we get 0.96 at 100% fuel and 1.1 at 50% fuel.

I have taken an estimate of 6.6 tons OEW because T/W at empty weight gives 1.5, similar to what was required on LCA Mk1. Also, the T/W ratios are quite compliant with what 1985 ASR LCA figures should have been with 0.96 at 100% fuel and 1.1 at 50% fuel and 1 ton weapons.

In fact, your figures are exactly what LCA Mk1 had as of Jan/Feb 2011. Which means your figures make LCA Mk2 underpowered and overestimated. Of course, you can claim LCA Mk2 will have higher thrust rating to balance out your figures, but that is highly unlikely looking at Boeing's and GE's official releases.

Then I don't know why you have added internal laser designator and IRST. IMO, they will be carried in pods like they are today. A Litening pod is more robust and has more features and makes the internal designator unnecessary. A pod hardpoint is already available. I would understand if LCA came with internal weapons bays, but with external weapons, an internal system is unnecessary. As for an IRST housing. Okay, since your claim is for a 1m length increase, the nose will allow one.
There are sources which clearly state 1m increase in length, where did you get the 0.5m increase in length from?
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
The actual thrust of f414 engine incorporating EDE tech is 108KN. F414 INS6 means F414 made of India with six stages of compressor instead of normal seven stages. The EPE model will require a better wide chord swept fan which will take its thrust to 118KN. For some reason, HAL has chosen 98KN as the rating for F414INS6 engine. The airflow needs for 108KN thrust are same as 98KN thrust engine.
 

sasi

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
3,401
Likes
1,690
edit

There are sources which clearly state 1m increase in length, where did you get the 0.5m increase in length from?
i think he got it from here-
link below...
 
Last edited:

sasi

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
3,401
Likes
1,690
Just add to it, there is strong possiblity of 2 pylons only for aoa missle bvr under the fuselage in lca mk2 once frame is extended.
There is a great deal of space btw front and back wheels without affecting centre pylon!
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
There are sources which clearly state 1m increase in length, where did you get the 0.5m increase in length from?
Shiphone posted my source. This was the earliest one.

There were numerous reports from ADA about 0.5m too.

Thanks, Sasi. I have never seen that page. Some interesting points there.

Additional fuel will be required primarily to offset the additional weight (he said approx. 200 kg additional) and higher SFC of the F-414 engine. So, it appears that the Tejas Mk2's range may not go up significantly over that of the Mk1.

@Decklander
This conforms to what I was saying about Mk2. I overshot by 200 Kg for fuel though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
Shiphone posted my source. This was the earliest one.

There were numerous reports from ADA about 0.5m too.



Thanks, Sasi. I have never seen that page. Some interesting points there.



@Decklander
This conforms to what I was saying about Mk2. I overshot by 200 Kg for fuel though.
My fuel figure of 3.4 tons was keeping in mind inserting a plug of 0.5m behind the cockpit for additional fuel and space for avionics. If the length is being extended by only 0.5m, than what you have stated is correct and if the length is being increased by 1m, than my statement is correct.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
About the topic at hand : Wasteful spending indeed for nation but not corrupts involve in such scams & It is the corrupt who are in power and care only and only for there rule and party ..

And make no mistakes about the amount of collaborators from all section of defense ..

One such scam : RFI for Multi-cal Rifle ..
 

sasi

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
3,401
Likes
1,690
My fuel figure of 3.4 tons was keeping in mind inserting a plug of 0.5m behind the cockpit for additional fuel and space for avionics. If the length is being extended by only 0.5m, than what you have stated is correct and if the length is being increased by 1m, than my statement is correct.
wht if 0.25m plug in back and 0.25m front of cockpit?
Lets put it 3tn fuel for mk2!
No know for sure!
Once in iaf hands they will define it!
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Bharat Rakshak "¢ View topic - LCA News and Discussions

The TWR ratio of 1985 was for a low tech LCA with none of the current advanced systems on board and was not capable of firing even R-73 ,

So there is no point in comparing it with the present capacities of tejas mk-1 whose wings were strengthened to carry R-73 , and the to be introduced Astra missiles along with a extra weight capacity pylon for carrying a 2 meter long heavy Elta EW pod, a refueling probe along with full EW suit a first for any Indian fighter at introduction and say only mk-2 will satisfy the 1985 ASR,

In the same page it is clearly mentioned that mk-1 is good enough for IAF and since Navy expressed the desire for higher powered engine IAF also upped it's demand,

LCA mk-1 can itself exceed many close combat specs of mirage-2000 in indian conditions was also stated by former NTSE chief Riaz Khokar.

Also it is clearly stated that most of the fuel increase is going to come mostly from the increase in dia of the all fuselage fuel tanks and larger space freed up in the wing will also lead to increased to fuel capacity not just from 0.5 meter plug in.

LCA is already flying with a extra ballast weight of 200 KG according to former NTSE chief Riaz Khokar,

Also the claimed 6400 KG weight in Aero india 2011 was before the roll out of LSP-7 and 8 which includes close to 400 Kg testing equipment weight.

Besides those 400 Kg testing equipment weight some weight reduction was also carried out on LSP-8 by eliminating few LRUs by combining their functions with other LRUs and we don't know how much of CEMILAC recommendations for close to 1 ton weight reduction was carried out in LSP-8.

SO we will get a clear pic once we know the empty weight of SP versions,

Also talking about manufacturer's Mig-29 STR and Mirage-2000 ITR along with their range figures is pointless.

In Indian hot and dry climatic conditions most of the top figures of those fighters from their makers are not achievable as those fighters and their engines were never tuned to give thier best in Indian conditions, this was clearly stated by none other than Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar,


Mao Sir scoffed at the suggestion that the engine was choking at higher alpha. He said there is no such thing, but rather because it was designed initially for the Kaveri's airflow and had to redesign it for the F-404. They have already tried various intakes on the LCA, with/without spring mounted doors on the intakes.

- When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said "it's enough, let me put it that way". When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29's STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious.

He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure.


He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don't meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then, without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared.

- He was full of praise for the handling of the Tejas. It's a true delight to fly and both he and Grp Cpt Suneet Krishna have tremendous confidence in the aircraft itself. He said that they both push the aircraft to its current limits without any worry since the FCS is very good. He did mention that they didn't push the Tejas Mk1 to its limits at the airshow but just wanted to display that it is maneuverable enough.
Why? Mig-29 has best ITR and STR not due to advanced design , just by making it so short ranged due to two powerful fuel guzzling engines , No one makes such fighters any more. Because the fighters that excel in ITR use that in close combat to overcome their lesser STR along with high off bore WVR missiles and HMD facilities . SO range and weapon load along with reliable mission ready engines is more important than short legged fighters with two unreliable engines .

That is the reason why IAF asked MOD for 126 extra Mirage-2000s( which subsequently transformed into MMRCA tender )and not Mig-29s . It is not that they don't know the Mig-29 has more STR and ITR than the mirage-2000s

Which was clearly shown when LCA mk-1 itself exceeded the speeds of Mig-29 and Su-30 MKI at sea level in hot indian climatic conditions at skies above Goa in it's flutter test long back before weight reduction exercise and with more than 400 Kg of testing equipment on board,

Same will hold good for LCA mk-2 comparison with RAFALE,

and the link to the above page was twice posted once by me and then again by Kunal to refute the useless argument of MK1 could not even reach 1985 ASR and only mk-2 will reach it.

If some one gives a TWR in the ASR for a Mig-21 replacement with no 4th gen capacities and MTOW of just 12 tons and get a fully compliant 4th gen fighter with many EW facilities (including optical passive optical targeting and IRST according to the fact file article by B. Harry on Tejas by 2009 itself) along with refueling probe and 13.5 ton MTOW saying the goal is not reached is a faclie argument.

So brochure pasting specs from various fighters with different aerodynamic and mission profile and ranting at tejas mk-1 not meeting them all in a single platform is pointless and will lead to IAF forever remaining Imported Air force
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Bharat Rakshak "¢ View topic - LCA News and Discussions

Also we must note that in the following quote,

- He was full of praise for the handling of the Tejas. It's a true delight to fly and both he and Grp Cpt Suneet Krishna have tremendous confidence in the aircraft itself. He said that they both push the aircraft to its current limits without any worry since the FCS is very good. He did mention that they didn't push the Tejas Mk1 to its limits at the airshow but just wanted to display that it is maneuverable enough.
that tejas mk-1 LSPs( up to 5) were never ever pushed to even their opened flight envelope limits of 22 aoa and 6G limit, that too with 400 Kg testing equipment on board in any aeroindia display, giving it a STR of 18 deg per second ,

in HOT INDIAN CLIMATIC conditions not clod weather conditions in most foreign airshows which delivers more engine thrust. hot conditions simply sap the peak engine power

Still tejas mk-1 under these partial capability conditions did a vertical loop in 20 seconds . RAFALE in it's indian display has also completed a vertical loop in the same no of seconds,

This 18 deg ASR was the original ASR given by IAF for full 9G load and just 5.5 ton empty weight along with 12 ton MTOW,

Now in Aeroindia 2013 the Tejas mk-1 which weighs much more than the original 5.5 ton weight and with extra 400 Kg of testing equipment on board , well within the partially opened flight envelope limits of 6G and 22 AOA pulled the same 18 deg AOA .

After that Aero India LSP 7 and 8 with auxillary intake and many performance improving and weight saving suggestions implemented by ADA according to CEMILAC suggestions have flown .

The only statement that came after their flights were ,"Tejas has cleared all IAF expectations in close combat specs " from an IDRW article and nothing else. Now no one talks about watered down specs or shortage of close combat performance any more.

The design AOA limitations of tejas was close to 35 deg according to B Harry's fact file article Radiance of tejas . How much was reached is still not disclosed,

Also B Harry's fact file article Radiance of tejas explicitly states that Tejas fuselage follows area rule for minimizing super sonic drag
 
Last edited:

sasi

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
3,401
Likes
1,690
stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don't meet.
true. Just marketing gimmicks! Unless test here, we cannot know.
*One time we bought aoa missle from russia and found out that missle didn't cover the quoted range.
*All weather spike missle failed 7 out 10 tests in India.
*Luh from russia and europe were watered down. None of them met original altitude test.
Example are many!
No one complain unless its a DESI product!
 

CrYsIs

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
935
Likes
496
Country flag
India's wasteful military spending

India is economically small,fragile and is going through a very bad phase and is not expected to reach it's potential for at-least near future.Henceforth we should prioritize our military spending judiciously.

India military expenditure is not like India's space program.While the later consumes only 0.3% of annual budget which goes mostly to domestic industries and provides employment to 16,000+ people,the former consumes a whopping 20% of annual budget most of which goes on to the pockets of foreign defense contractors(& middle men till recently) who are more than happy to fleece us.

Military spending should be such that it helps in building domestic industries and creating employment opportunities for people otherwise it would be hard to justify such spending specially considering dire socio economic conditions of India.

Some of the recent defense deals which i believe is a complete waste of money are :-


1) Admiral Ghorskov -A quarter century old over priced Achilles heel.An aircraft carrier requires huge financial expenditure both for operation and maintenance and not to mention ships and submarines for protection.I don't understand how the navy with it's very limited resources is going to afford that ?
Spending money on AIP & Nuclear submarines would have been a better option.

2) FGFA - Most Indians don't understand what does India-Russia joint partnership means.It means India spends money and Russia does the research & development and gains technological experience to better their own military industry.India gets nothing apart from the getting an export variant of the product.It is widely speculated that FGFA is also heading that way.The 6 billion $ spent on FGFA would be better utilized in developing a locally built 5th gen fighter.

3) Rafale - Another wasteful partnership program where the end beneficiary would be the foreign contractor.Most people are not aware that the so called TOT is never a full TOT.The French or for that matter anybody will never share their secrets.As a result India will never be able to anything without French assistance. They would ensure that India ends up paying big royalty.
The whopping 20 billion $ that would be spent on Rafael could have been better utilized in creating an aerospace industry in India which would have created millions of jobs in India. While China,Russia and Brazil are top players in the aerospace market,India is nowhere in the picture.

Internationally India's defense expenditure appears grotesque specially since the time the country acquired the title "Largest arms importer" and the country is seen as a textboook example of how not to be a nation state.

By heavily investing time,energy and money in building a local defense industry which would create jobs and help in all round social development we will be able to salvage our pride.

India's defense industry continues to remain at infancy even after 60 years of independence.It's highly shameful that even basic trainers,guns and bullets have to be imported from foreign countries. Ofcourse some would justify overly priced foreign import stating Chinese and Pakistani threat.But you forgot that this is 2013 and not 60's.Any attack on India by either China or Pakistan at present time would result in involvement of US,Russia,Japan,South Korea,Europe and many more and nobody would risk that.India should highly use this time to develop it's local industries whatever it may cost and even if it's domestic products are of poorer quality .
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top