DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Lonewarrior]

IP right belong to them

Well, it's not always like that you don't have IP rights...things are bit complicated in patents. Obviously the R&D and all the technicalities of a patent are important but what people ignore is the legal aspect of a patent.

We always discuss here how using someone else's IP is bad as they can interfere whenever they want but if someone negotiates an exclusive deal then the licensee loses all the rights except for a single one; mentioning his or her name as inventor.

Here's a classic example of IP.
A small firearm accesories manufacturing firm by the name Magpul worked their a** off and developed a rifle so revolutionary that no one could even imagine of. But as they lacked the manufacturing capability they decided to license the patents a firm called Bushmaster. Bushmaster (together with another firm named Remington) screwed everything so brilliantly that the rifle pretty much got extinct from the market. A more than 10 year old design that's still pretty much better than all the current "next gen" rifles like HK433 and CZ Bren 2 got extinct...and Magpul was unable to do anything despite having IP rights.

So ya, IP rights are not that straightforward

 

[rodeo]

Tei is itself a joint venture ,so it isn't totally indigenous if proof of IP right is not there

GE has nothing to do with TS1400 or with any Turkish design engine. The institution that funds these programs is Defence Secretary Agency in Turkey. IP of these engines doesn't even belong to TEI. TEI cannot produce those engines without the permission of Defence Secretary.

The engine is as ingenious as Kaveri. If someone wants to draw parallel between Shakti and a Turkish engine, it should be T700 that produced under license by TEI. But even there the hot section is produced by TEI.

 

[Lonewolf]

IP of these engines doesn't even belong to TEI.

Need a bit more proof on that

 

[blackleaf]

Compare our carrier capable UAV with TB-3, coz I'm sure we must be having one right? I mean we're using aircraft carrier for past 6 decades, so it should be obvious to have at least one.

And tell me which one's far ahead in terms of specs.

Any deck based fighter we can launch from our carriers will be far more capable that the TB-3. What are you even going to do with the TB-3?
It can't take on enemy carrier fighters.
It can't destroy enemy ships with a payload of 150 kg. A harpoon weighs more than 500 kg. Even the smallest JDAM bombs are 225 kg.

Also whatever radar or electronic warfare suit you can put on a TB-3 will be severely inferior to a carrier fighter due to weight and power constraints.

 

[blackleaf]

GE has nothing to do with TS1400 or with any Turkish design engine. The institution that funds these programs is Defence Secretary Agency in Turkey. IP of these engines doesn't even belong to TEI. TEI cannot produce those engines without the permission of Defence Secretary.

The engine is as ingenious as Kaveri. If someone wants to draw parallel between Shakti and a Turkish engine, it should be T700 that produced under license by TEI. But even there the hot section is produced by TEI.

Is the TS1400 even in service?
The parallels should be between the TS1400 and HAL HTSE-1200.

 

[rodeo]

Is the TS1400 even in service?
The parallels should be between the TS1400 and HAL HTSE-1200.

I meant the indigenousness aspect of it and no TS1400 is not in service yet. It's in flight testing.

 

[jai jaganath]

Is the TS1400 even in service?
The parallels should be between the TS1400 and HAL HTSE-1200.

Atleast ts1400 is in flight testing
Where is htse-1200 bro ?

 

[blackleaf]

Atleast ts1400 is in flight testing
Where is htse-1200 bro ?

HAL Plans HTSE-1200 engine Certification by 2025 – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

 

[Lonewarrior]

It can't take on enemy carrier fighters.
It can't destroy enemy ships with a payload of 150 kg. A harpoon weighs more than 500 kg. Even the smallest JDAM bombs are 225 kg.

Is everything on a carrier designed to take on enemy carrier fighter, enemy ship, carry Harpoon or the smallest JDAM?

This single question should give you an idea but still I'm continuing.

Any deck based fighter we can launch from our carriers will be far more capable that the TB-3.

Sure, no doubt any deck based fighter will be far more capable than TB-3 in almost everything; be it payload or speed or SWaP or combat capabilities...but almost.

A fighter will need a refuel after 3-4 hours or worse need to return to deck. But an UAV can be on station for more than day.
And I'm not even counting pilot fatigue.

What are you even going to do with the TB-3

Something we could not do with our existing carrier based AWACS; fly for 24 hours.
Ka-31s need to return after only 2.5 hours. Even if you consider the gold standard of carrier based AWACS; E-2, it's 6 hours.

Also whatever radar or electronic warfare suit you can put on a TB-3 will be severely inferior to a carrier fighter due to weight and power constraints

Except the fact that SWaP requirements of modern radars have improved exponentially.

A X-band radar now weighs just 60kg, consumes less than 800W of power while being capable enough to detect a low RCS target at distance up to 35km.

In that 150kg weight constraints of TB-2 you can have radar coverage for range more than 300km, a EW suit and sonobuoy...at the same time.

 

[NutCracker]

Is everything on a carrier designed to take on enemy carrier fighter, enemy ship, carry Harpoon or the smallest JDAM?

This single question should give you an idea but still I'm continuing.

Sure, no doubt any deck based fighter will be far more capable than TB-3 in almost everything; be it payload or speed or SWaP or combat capabilities...but almost.

A fighter will need a refuel after 3-4 hours or worse need to return to deck. But an UAV can be on station for more than day.
And I'm not even counting pilot fatigue.

Something we could not do with our existing carrier based AWACS; fly for 24 hours.
Ka-31s need to return after only 2.5 hours. Even if you consider the gold standard of carrier based AWACS; E-2, it's 6 hours.

Except the fact that SWaP requirements of modern radars have improved exponentially.

A X-band radar now weighs just 60kg, consumes less than 800W of power while being capable enough to detect a low RCS target at distance up to 35km.

In that 150kg weight constraints of TB-2 you can have radar coverage for range more than 300km, a EW suit and sonobuoy...at the same time.

Turbo prop drone , bina catapult ke 200m me itne EW equipments/sonobouy ke sath take off kar lega kya ??

Idk just asking. What is the required runway length required for conventional drones??

 

[rodeo]

Any deck based fighter we can launch from our carriers will be far more capable that the TB-3. What are you even going to do with the TB-3?
It can't take on enemy carrier fighters.
It can't destroy enemy ships with a payload of 150 kg. A harpoon weighs more than 500 kg. Even the smallest JDAM bombs are 225 kg.

Also whatever radar or electronic warfare suit you can put on a TB-3 will be severely inferior to a carrier fighter due to weight and power constraints.

TB3's payload capacity is 280 kg and the next version of it will have multi-purpose AESA.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Turbo prop drone , bina catapult ke 200m me itne EW equipments/sonobouy ke sath take off kar lega kya ??

Idk just asking. What is the required runway length required for conventional drones??

Wo saale Turki apne amphibious assault ship se pure weight ke saath turboprop drone udane ka soch rahein hain aur hmare pass to asli waale carrier hain, wo bhi do do.

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

Someone change the name of this thread to "Turkish Defence Industry & Updates" already

 

[NutCracker]

Wo saale Turki apne amphibious assault ship se pure weight ke saath turboprop drone udane ka soch rahein hain aur hmare pass to asli waale carrier hain, wo bhi do do.

Mere ko feasible nahi lagta hai.. ki 170shp wala turbo prop 1700kg ke sath 200m pe take off kar lega.
Looks like khayali pulav.

Kizelelma has chance but not TB3

 

[FalconSlayers]

Astra Mk-II Test Fire picture

 

[Varoon2]

Astra Mk-II Test Fire picture
View attachment 202176

Today's test?

 

[FalconSlayers]

Today's test?

Undated, shared by Alpha Defence.

 

[blackleaf]

TB3's payload capacity is 280 kg and the next version of it will have multi-purpose AESA.

280 kg is not enough for anti-shiping. It still will not be capable of air defence and whatever AESA radar you can fit will be vastly inferior to those on modern deck based fighters.

 

[Fatalis]

 

[AnantS]

Astra Mk-II Test Fire picture
View attachment 202176

exhaust flame color is vastly different(thank god for that) from mk1 whose flame had purple/violet hue.