DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[rone]

View attachment 41430

LCA mk1a cockpit MFDs configuration

it's me or anyone else noticed the config is side stick model ..is iot just for demo or mk1a have sidestick ?

 

[porky_kicker]

it's me or anyone else noticed the config is side stick model ..is iot just for demo or mk1a have sidestick ?

Most probably has a side stick

 

[tharun]

Mrsam 18 squadron
Akash 7 squadron......
Already discussed I believe

No this is not about mrsam or akash missile. It's a joint venture with french for short range.

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

 

[patriots]

Most probably has a side stick

Side stick for mwf
.

Not knew about mk1a

 

[Akula]

There is $5 billion dollar air defence program other than S-400.
Can some one shed some light on it please.

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

XR-SAM, porkykicker has already posted information about it.

View attachment 41430

LCA mk1a cockpit MFDs configuration

Tejasmk1A cockpit explained by the scientists

 

[Shaitan]

View attachment 41431

Wide area display for JaguarMAX

Nice upgrade.-------------------------------------------------

 

[patriots]

Side stick for mwf
.

Not knew about mk1a

Mk1a will have centre stick.....

Just confirmed

 

[Steven Rogers]

View attachment 41430

LCA mk1a cockpit MFDs configuration

The cockpit on mk1a will be same as mk1a...

 

[Tuco]

The cockpit on mk1a will be same as mk1a...

Hasan kya kehna chahte ho? Lol offcourse it will be same as mk1a as both are mk1a.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Hasan kya kehna chahte ho? Lol offcourse it will be same as mk1a as both are mk1a.

Areey yaar mk1 mention karna tha,auto correct dono mk1a kar diya

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Range is primarily determined by onboard fuel carried

Sfdr allows for throttlable thrust management hence allows for conservation of fuel and utilisation of saved fuel for greater thrust during end game maneuvers.

Basically it allows for greater NEZ compared to other propulsion systems.

Range increase is not that much given the same amount of fuel what differs is the kinematics vis a vis coasting velocity / powered on velocity

It is a complicated subject which i am not much informed

Actually, it was easy to throttle liquid fuel engines as the liquid fuel can be controlled with adjustment of valve. When you use solid fuel (I am talking about solid fuel in case of Ram jet combustion) , ignition is out of your control. There is no such mechanism such as controlling the fuel as in the case of liquid fuel. Missile will travel at a velocity proportional to fuel burn rate. What is there in your hand is to divert the missile at that speed. Now maneuver missile without any control over speed is like turn a car travelling at 100 km speed without breaking. To overcome this issue, mechanism to bypass air was developed to control the solid fuel burning. If you want to burn less fuel, you can bypass the air to reduce the fuel burning rate. Both SFDR and Meteor has this mechanism. They can control the speed of missile by bypassing the ram air used in combustion. This gives the flexibility to missile to vary its speed and save fuel and improved "g" turn rate.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

1500 hp engine for tank in development

Please tell us more about this one.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Reusable rockets are currently becoming popular. With its Falcon 9, Elon Musk's SpaceX is also looking at capitalising on this technology. The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) successfully flight tested Reusable Launch Vehicle-Technology Demonstrator (RLV-TD).

The difference between these rocket reusable reentry and one of missile is that rocket engines travels back mainly with gravity and a little bit of fuel. While , in my opinion, missile will have to use fuel to come back to its location after delivering payload into enemy territory. One can not relaunch it in enemy territory where it delivers payload.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

TEDBFView attachment 41299 View attachment 41300 View attachment 41301 View attachment 41302

Can anybody observe that engines are mounted very close to each other. This is done to give the plane a capability to land safely on deck in case of failure of one engine.

Other reason could be maintain aspect ratio without increasing the length of plane by keeping width of fuselage in check.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Going by this so Hawks can be weaponised indeed.

Even , we have the plans to weaponize Sitara.

 

[Tuco]

Please tell us more about this one.

If I am not wrong this engine has been in development in "mission mode" for over a decade now.

 

[porky_kicker]

Actually, it was easy to throttle liquid fuel engines as the liquid fuel can be controlled with adjustment of valve. When you use solid fuel (I am talking about solid fuel in case of Ram jet combustion) , ignition is out of your control. There is no such mechanism such as controlling the fuel as in the case of liquid fuel. Missile will travel at a velocity proportional to fuel burn rate. What is there in your hand is to divert the missile at that speed. Now maneuver missile without any control over speed is like turn a car travelling at 100 km speed without breaking. To overcome this issue, mechanism to bypass air was developed to control the solid fuel burning. If you want to burn less fuel, you can bypass the air to reduce the fuel burning rate. Both SFDR and Meteor has this mechanism. They can control the speed of missile by bypassing the ram air used in combustion. This gives the flexibility to missile to vary its speed and save fuel and improved "g" turn rate.

Yes

that is also known as ablative burning , control the flow of air and thus control the ablative burning of the solid fuel through which it passes

 

[HariPrasad-1]

If I am not wrong this engine has been in development in "mission mode" for over a decade now.

Then it is not mission mode..................

 

[porky_kicker]

This defexpo there is a slight possibility of seeing FCV futuristic combat vehicle

 

[Assassin 2.0]

The IAF lost 13 of its MiG-27Ms aircraft between 2001 and 2016. In the last 10 years, 11 MiG-27Ms, have crashed. Subsequent boards of inquiry shockingly revealed that majority of the MiG-27Ms went down because of “engine-related technical defects” like perennial engine oil leaks from ill-serviced fuel-pumps of the R29B-300 turbofans. Nearly 40% of these turbofans and related accessories licence-produced by HAL’s Koraput Division had to be returned by the IAF for some or the other defects. The problems ranged from oil leaks, metallic particles in oil filters and hot-air leaks from rear casings to troubles in compressor-blades and even in the turbines.

Most of the cause factors can be classified as defects during manufacturing or overhauling processes. The MiG-27M suffered Low-Pressure Turbine Rotor (LPTR) failures in at least 11 incidents. HAL in some cases even lied while overhauling the LPTR, saying that it had followed the overhaul manual, but subsequent IAF investigations revealed that the procedure recommended by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) was not being implemented by HAL. Such lapses had also led to previous crashes of MiG-21 Bisons. The springs installed in the fuel pump of the MiG-21 Bison’s R25-300 turbofans were failing frequently. A MiG-21 Bison crashed in November 2012 in Gujarat, which was attributed to spring failure. Of the five main fuel-pumps fitted with HAL-manufactured springs, at least three springs failed, which is unforgivable as it would have certainly resulted in accidents. Shockingly, the main fuel pumps of the MiG-21 Bison continue to leak fuel, despite four studies conducted and implemented since the 1990s. Despite incorporating changes, fuel leak from the main fuel-pump has continued unabated from throttle-end.

However, another reason behind the poor quality of production and engine repairs is attributed to mass production work in the last leg of a production year in order to achieve the projected target. For example, in the first six months of 2012-2013 production year, HAL finished overhaul work on only four RD-33 turbofans of the MiG-29B-12, but in the last quarter of the year, four RD-33 were completely overhauled within three months. Similarly for the R29B-300s, HAL finished overhauling nine engines in nine months, but interestingly another nine engines were completed within the last three months. The issue was flagged by the IAF, saying that such industrial productivity trends were adversely affecting the quality of overhauled turbofans.

Thus, it appears that HAL was not interested in providing quality turbofans to the IAF and instead was only interested in meeting the production numbers every year. There is also an impression that the workforce in HAL deliberately delayed the production to last three months to earn few extra bucks for ‘overtime’ perks, which is disgusting, given the fact that human lives are at stake. Interestingly, throughout their service-lives, none of the MiG-23BNs, which had come off-the-shelf from IAPA, displayed any engine-related equipment malfunctions!

@south block
:biggrin2:
HAL IS THE BEST IN EXTENDING TIME LINES AND TAKING TEA BREAKS.