Tejas grounds Medium Combat Aircraft project

[pmaitra]

Stop trying to hide a misleading information by overloading unwanted statistics. Back to your old tricks I see.

This is the only thing he is capable of. Confuse, obfuscate, and complicate. He has been doing it for years in the tank related threads. He did that in the Pilatus thread.

He seems to be following this rule:

Low, sneaky ways that some people use to win arguments:
. . .
4. Distract. Throw in diversions which deflect the other person from their main point.
. . .

Source: How to win Arguments - Dos, Don'ts and Sneaky Tactics - Lifehack

Are we expected to take each and every arguements you make as pearly diamonds from god mouth never to be questioned...Provide one single source dude .....else stuff your crap elsewhere....

Source? Him? Ha ha ha - he even claimed Pilatus does not come with hard-points, and then I posted the company flyer from Pilatus website, and he never responded back to that.

 

[p2prada]

1. What does the author mean when he states that ground support is needed for Tejas flight?

The aircraft carries a lot of telemetry equipment which is directly relayed to ground stations. A lot of information about the flying characteristics of the aircraft are relayed to people on the ground who monitor every single detail of the aircraft. Performance of the engines, moving surfaces etc. Meaning the pilot simply does what the ground crew tells him to do. Roll at 200 deg/sec, go vertical at 300 Knots, fly to this altitude etc. With every maneuver they check if the FBW is performing the way it is supposed to. They check if the deflection of the moving surface is enough for the maneuver it is performing, they check if the engine is consuming the right amount of fuel for a particular maneuver etc. If an anomaly is detected, they bring the plane back to the ground and they make the necessary changes.

Even during air shows, some or the other testing procedure goes on. For eg: When the PAKFA's engines swallowed too much fuel, the data they received was very invaluable for the ground crew.

All of this is practically impossible for the pilot alone to handle. Nor does he have the equipment required to perform such diagnostic checks.

In an operational aircraft, all the telemetry devices are gone and the aircraft flies without its flying characteristics being monitored. When the aircraft comes back to the ground, they only perform routine checks for wear and tear, leakages etc.

2. How good is the Tejas radar as compared to the ones in Mig 29 UPG, Kopyo in Bison and Zhuk in MKI?

Zhuk-ME (624mm array) and the Tejas MMR (650m) are of similar class. Mig-21's Kopyo-M (500mm) radar is inferior and has a smaller array.

MKI does not have the Zhuk, it has Bars. Bars (960mm) is a next generation radar, ESA array. It has over 1600 T/R modules. Zhuk AESA will be our best flying radar.

3. Could you elaborate more on landing carriage being overweight issue. I have not yet seen this issue discussed
anywhere in detail.

Nothing much to say because information is not easily available. Landing carriage is overweight and it is part and parcel of out development program because of our lack of experience. The AF version will be fixed first followed by the navy version. In the navy version, they had to strengthen the tail end along with adding an arrestor hook. That has added 500Kg to the aircraft. Landing carriage had to be strengthened too, primarily the nose wheel and the hydraulics. So that has added to the weight. LEVCONS too add to the weight. Even with practical increases in weight, there has been unnecessary weight increases which EADS is helping us with. Because of the small size of the aircraft, making changes is extremely difficult and hence takes longer.

On LCA Mk2 the AF is quite happy with a 98KN level engine, but Navy is most probably thinking about importing the F-414EPE because it will be ~1000Kg heavier than AF version with all the flaws fixed.

 

[gokussj9]

Zhuk-ME (624mm array) and the Tejas MMR (650m) are of similar class. Mig-21's Kopyo-M (500mm) radar is inferior and has a smaller array.

MKI does not have the Zhuk, it has Bars. Bars (960mm) is a next generation radar, ESA array. It has over 1600 T/R modules. Zhuk AESA will be our best flying radar.

On LCA Mk2 the AF is quite happy with a 98KN level engine, but Navy is most probably thinking about importing the F-414EPE because it will be ~1000Kg heavier than AF version with all the flaws fixed.

How does the RBE2 AESA compares to Zhuk AESA? Do super sukhois have Zhuk AESA?
Also, why navy is not going ahead with naval version of Rafale, because if they have to wait for
Mk2, it would be at least good 7-8 years from now on. Has it got to do with the specifications of
aircraft carrier that we are going to have?

 

[p2prada]

How does the RBE2 AESA compares to Zhuk AESA?
Also, why navy is not going ahead with naval version of Rafale, because if they have to wait for
Mk2, it would be at least good 7-8 years from now on. Has it got to do with the specifications of
aircraft carrier that we are going to have?

This is way off topic. So I replied to this post on the MRCA thread.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

My Net is down, Will resume posting soon..

MOD note : Avoid Personal Attacks, Will Ended with Infractions..

 

[p2prada]

Source? Him? Ha ha ha - he even claimed Pilatus does not come with hard-points, and then I posted the company flyer from Pilatus website, and he never responded back to that.

Source? Him? Ha ha ha - he even claimed Pilatus does not come with hard-points, and then I posted the company flyer from Pilatus website, and he never responded back to that.

Quit misleading people here.

Your comprehension ability speaks for itself.

Please point out where I said Pilatus does not come with Hardpoints at all????

I never said anything of the sort that indicates PC-7s "never" came with hardpoints.

Go back a few posts where I said something and you replied with a "Inane hocus-pocus." comment.

Nevermind, since you won't understand what I am talking about anyways, I will give more details.

Your post,

Do you understand we should be able to double them up as CAS if required?

My post,

Are we Chad, Afghanistan or Guatemala? PA is a very advanced army. PC-7s won't scare them.

PC-7s are and will be used for training purposes. Nothing else.

PC-7s are used for CAS when the enemy does not have fighter aircraft of their own. For eg: Taliban, Africans rebels etc. We can worry about it after we have completely annihilated PAF and PLAAF. So we can continue our discussion after both PAF and PLAAF are either disbanded or destroyed.

Your reply,

Inane hocus-pocus.

Do you even know why I named the countries, especially Chad and Guatemala? That's because unlike you I am aware of the small instances in history where PC-7 was used in combat. One was in Chad where the govt hit rebel forces. The other was in Guatemala where it was used in a civil war. Both the times PC-7s were used for CAS.

That's why I asked what I asked in my reply which you claimed to be Inane hocus-pocus.

Meaning I know instances where PC-7 supplied with hardpoints were used in actual combat. The reason why the Swedes removed permanent hardpoints was because of the Iran-Iraq war where the Iraqis dropped chemical weapons on the Iranians.

Now, if I know these important and significant aspects, how did you come to the conclusion that "I claimed" there are no hardpoints at all on the PC-7. I will tell you why, it is because you don't know jack-shit about anything related to the aerospace industry. What you replied with "Inane hocus-pocus" was very very relevant to the discussion, the times when PC-7 was actually used in combat, teh same thing that you were trying to say.

It is because you don't understand such simple facts, it is because you are unable to comprehend what I write here, it is because you don't know jack shit about military aircraft is the reason why I stopped replying to your posts. Kapish...


You can continue your rant in the relevant thread. But I don't give a sh!t. Except stop lying about me.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-than-swiss-pilatus-trainer-5.html#post719035

 

[pmaitra]

Except stop lying about me.

I am lying about you? Ok. Who wrote this, you, or someone else logged into your account?

Pilatus did not place permanent hardpoints which carry heavy loads.

Can you see?

Edit: @Kunal Biswas,

Since you are moderating this thread, I apologize for posting this Pilatus stuff here. I did it to prove the false accusation against me by @p2prada, that I was lying about him. Please feel free to delete this post if you want.

 

[p2prada]

I am lying about you? Ok. Who wrote this, you, or someone else logged into your account?

Pilatus did not place permanent hardpoints which carry heavy loads.

Can you see?

Edit: @Kunal Biswas,

Since you are moderating this thread, I apologize for posting this Pilatus stuff here. I did it to prove the false accusation against me by @p2prada, that I was lying about him. Please feel free to delete this post if you want.

[/quote]

And what is wrong with it?

Pilatus did not place permanent hardpoints on their aircraft. It is a fact. PC-7 Mk2 does not come with hardpoints. It is your comprehension ability, I can't help it. Meaning our aircraft do not come with hardpoints.

Only PC-7 comes with hardpoints and those were the aircraft used for CAS in Chad, Guatemala etc.

And in all your glory, you posted a pic of the PC-7 which IAF does not use. We purchased the PC-7 Mk2. You see it is a different aircraft altogether.

This is the reason why I stopped replying to your posts. You don't know jackshit and you keep proving it again and again.

I posted a copy in the trainer thread.

 

[pmaitra]

I have nothing more to add to this "fine gentleman's" continued prevarications.

I am really fed up of all this.

 

[p2prada]

I have nothing more to add to this "fine gentleman's" continued prevarications.

I am really fed up of all this.

Haha! You posts help a lot with your credibility.

Now what was that about, "Source? Him? Ha ha ha - he even claimed Pilatus does not come with hard-points, and then I posted the company flyer from Pilatus website, and he never responded back to that."

I had posted this a long, long time ago to Dr. Somnath's rants when he claimed he had plenty of sources during our discussions.

"A source can be given, but the reader should have the ability to understand what the source says."

Wouldn't you agree?

You've been had, my man...again.

Cheerio.

 

[Singh]

Gentlemen please don't get personal.

 

[ersakthivel]

Tejas grounds Medium Combat Aircraft project - The New Indian Express






@p2prada @Kunal Biswas , @ersakthivel @Austin

Are the statements in bold credible or is it just paid media at work?

those short of 100 technical parameters is actually the test points that remain to be validated between IOC and FOC. And only because the ADA is sure that there will be no trouble it asked the HAL to gp for serial production. the IAF knows the plane in and out. And how safe it is to fly.

Also untill the project definition phase gets over there will be no actual production work on AMCA -TD-1. Any one can conveniently twist this simple fact into pig headed statements like "AMCA has been put on hold" like any bollywood repoter's scoop on katrina-Salman love affair.

So when the LCA gave creditable 8G flying displays during the AeroIndia show in Yelahanka in Bangalore in February this year, WHO WAS FLYING NEAR IT HOLDING A LIFELINE?

NEVER EVER TRUST any report that quotes "unnamed top MOD officials" farting out top secret defect on LCA . or "senior unnamed army generals" farting out something like the ARJUN tank is too heavy .

Why? Because no one who has a credibility to maintain will associate their name with these kind of egg head reporters.

the egg head does not even know the reason for grounding of the flight test in 2012 is due to excess height of new HMD unit over the pilot's seat and re arranging of hydraulics due to fuel lines butting. he foolishly says that it was grounded due to issues with landing gear. if there are such issues how did the plane land after each and every 2000 sortie?

let me guess why he attributed this due to the landing gear issues. he would have read in any newspapre the Naval LCA needs to shave off weight on strengthened landing gear for career landing requirements and he just discovered that all LCA prortotypes have landing gear problems and deduced with his crooked logic that this was the reason for grounding of test flights.

The report is a fool's tale.All test flights of any yet to be inducted plane is fully regulated and all parameters are checked after each and every flight.it is a global practice. Infact that is what called test flight shedule. Just taking off after every 30 minutes like a joy ride is not test flight shedule. the goose head who put up the report does not even know that the world renowned GE engine on the plane does not need 3 days of maintanence for every sortie flown. So what takes up three days of servicing for each sortie flown?the reporter's head perhaps!!!.

Especially the Indian Express has a legion of eggheads in the guise of defence reporters like the one above.

these kind of reports are paid jobs and if you quote it here our local high priests of Russia is the best will have a field day saying LCA ,"will never be operational".in fact that is the purpose of report like this. In the cut throat military aviation market PR guys can go to any length to cut short a competitor.

 

[ersakthivel]

The whole article is related to Tejas.



Except for Point #6, all his other points are wrong. I have merely stopped replying to his posts. But when it's wrong, it is simply wrong.

The whole Indian express article is just a load of bullshit, with not a single point being factual.

Every single sentence in the Indian express article is a bullshit. how did the reporter know know the mk- 2 will have 90 kn engine. And how was he sure that mk-1 will have ONLY 80 kn engine?

The initial batch of 40 sukoi-30 s spent a decade in IAF without weaponisation just honing flying tactics.

So when we bought the first 40 SUKHOIS as fully imported fighters from russia they did not have any weapon capability into IAF initially.

It is a fact. they were recently sent back to russia to be on par with the other SU-30 MKIs or in exchange for 40 new sukhoi-30 MKIs.

 

[ersakthivel]

Even if they have copied, the aircraft is up and flying with 220+ already inducted in the PLAAF. Go to pee-dee-eff and listen to Paki's saying that Tejas has been copied from Mirage-2K. Some inputs might have been taken, but a copy to copy in a Makkhee to Makkhee style, I am not so sure. If we can design a 4th gen aircraft, why can't the Chinese with a much bigger economy and research budget. A lot of students come to US from China funded by their govt and when they go back, they contribute to their R&D unlike the case of India where govt does not give a damn. Why so much disdain for the Chinese capabilities?



AFAIK, US has its staff at the F-16 airbase in Pakistan so that Chinese cannot tamper with the technology.

WikiLeaks on Shahbaz airbase: F-16s flew in, with guaranteed US presence at base – The Express Tribune



Some proof for the same would help.

Still J-10s crash routinely for their Fly by wire FCS faults recently a very senior PLAAF guy died in one such aircrash .Then only these issues cam to light.. But the LCA tejas has not even met an emergency situation till date with fly by wire issues and praised by each and every IAF test pilot on board. infact the F-16 test pilot reportedly said that F-16 flies better with LCA Tejas's FBW in ADA article posted on it's website.
J-10 is an out and out copy. No input taken sort of thing. You just cannot miss the similarities . They are too obvious from wing shape to air inlet. On the other hand the LCA has completely different wing shape and air intake scheme from M-2000-k.

 

[Mariner HK]

Tejas Mk2 must be mass produced and Tejas MK3 must have 2 Engine Config.Making it a true Medium Fighter with 2 F414 GE .We dont need kavery .We need to focus on Producing 200 MK2 and 100 MK3 Even if we assemble and later we can learn

 

[Yusuf]

Tejas Mk2 must be mass produced and Tejas MK3 must have 2 Engine Config.Making it a true Medium Fighter with 2 F414 GE .We dont need kavery .We need to focus on Producing 200 MK2 and 100 MK3 Even if we assemble and later we can learn

Lets first get the 40 Mk1 in first shall we?

 

[bhramos]

 

[Austin]

J-10 is not an exact copy of cancelled Lavi but Israel consultants worked secretly with Chinese to develop an aircraft based on Lavi experience , Ofcourse Israel were helping Chinese in other projects which was cancelled after US expressed unhappiness and threatened to cancel aid to Israel.

So though J-10 shares many design attributes of Lavi for the reason mentioned above but its not an identical aircraft.

I have yet to see any video which demonstrates J-10 in a comprehensive manner like say we see for F-16 or Mig-29 since J-10 is in production ....the Jury is out on how good the J-10 is both in flying qualities and avionics/radars/sensors

 

[arnabmit]

Tejas killing F-35? Ultimate fanboy wet dream! :fp:

 

[shiphone]

Still J-10s crash routinely for their Fly by wire FCS faults recently a very senior PLAAF guy died in one such aircrash .Then only these issues cam to light.. But the LCA tejas has not even met an emergency situation till date with fly by wire issues and praised by each and every IAF test pilot on board. infact the F-16 test pilot reportedly said that F-16 flies better with LCA Tejas's FBW in ADA article posted on it's website.
J-10 is an out and out copy. No input taken sort of thing. You just cannot miss the similarities . They are too obvious from wing shape to air inlet. On the other hand the LCA has completely different wing shape and air intake scheme from M-2000-k.

Please ...although I have put you on my ignore list for quite while, after reading your BS claiming about J10 illusory FCS problem for some times, I have to do some correction job once again here...

there was no so called such FCS problem in J10 development,and all seven J10 Prototypes had no accidents during the test fly period(1998-2003). the FCS designer -- Yangwei has been promoted to the Chief Designer of J10S ,FC-1 and J20 projects...once again, you'd better get the fact correct first and flooding the thread with loads of imagination without source won't contribute to the discussion...

the accident you mentioned took place on Apr 22 2010(right 3 years ago),costed the life of the famous Ex-test pilot--Xie Fengliang, also the commanding officer of PLAAF 9th Fighter Div...but it was a human error accident due to pilot's overconfidence and lack of the full understanding of J10 flying character before jumping to some complicated acrobatic maneuver.

---------------------------------
back to your LCA and AMCA topic please...put other projects aside ,especially those you totally have no idea....