The discussion was about metallurgy, specifically Tumansky R-25 engine, which was built in the USSR and also in India. I was pointing out the difference in metallurgy between the two turbines.
You need to look at the time frame. Soviet was quite advanced for its time but not Russian.
It was a US interplanetary lander project in which various universities and companies competed. The Lithium was mined in Russia. The ore was refined in Russia. The alloy was made in Russia. The final product, the fuel tank, was fabricated in Russia.
So??? Use the sales pitch if their is an Indian US interplanetary lander project.
Alcoa Inc. is one of the companies that supplies Al based alloys to NASA. Alcoa Inc.has mines and reprocessing units in Russia but that doesn't make it a Russian metallurgy.
Sverdlovsk not only had the mines, but also the Titanium refining plant in Sverdlovsk, long before Boeing came in.
Because it makes scene to have reprocessing plants near mines. Just having reprocessing industry doesn't make our metallurgy superior.
Boeing facility is not only limited to the mines, but also R&D, where they hire Russian metallurgists, educated in Russian universities.
No they don't. On the contrary Boeing brings most metallurgy from western nations and uses here. Most of its metallurgy used by Boeing is western developed.
They only reason Boeing facility is located their because of the mines.
Final machining and processing of the forgings will be completed by Boeing's Portland, Ore., fabrication facility and other machining subcontractors.
RPG-7 and Stinger had very limited success against the Hind. Fuel economy is not the issue here. Metallurgy is.
Total BS. History showed both weapons resulted in heavy air-loss and you are claiming they were limited success against the Hind.
Stinger with a kill ratio of about 70% and with responsibility for most of the over 350 Soviet or Afghan government aircraft and helicopters downed in the last two years of the war.
Fuel economy is the issue here. Better metallurgy results in reduced weight having a positive effect on fuel economy.
Yup, you start talking about metallurgy and then start talking about "greed" and "brinkmanship." It is clear where the stupidity is coming from. Love it when you cannot go after the message and have to go after the messenger.
Pro-Russian propaganda BS. "Greed" and "brinkmanship" were refereed as separate points as pitfalls dealing with Russians. Its you who are putting things out of context to suit your needs.
Are you talking about "martime-engine development" or "brinkmanship?"
"Greed" and "brinkmanship" were refereed as separate points as pitfalls dealing with Russians.
Didn't Russians threatened to keep Vikramaditya for themselves if we didn't pay extra.
Most of the things you have written in this conversation is unmitigated drivel. I am countering your assertion that Russia has to import advanced alloys from Europe. If that is the case. why can't the Europeans build better off-road vehicles? Metallurgy is needed for chassis, undercarriage, suspension.
Maybe because they don't have a market for it??? Their are compines like Tatra and Mercedes that manufacture off road vehicles.You don't need specialized materials for every thing. You can compensate inferior metallurgy by adding a more metal but that makes things heavy.
Yeah, I remember it. Russia offered to refund the initial payment when the first cost escalation happened. India wanted the ship, knowing well that if India didn't buy it, PRC would.
Isn't the end result that India paid extra and Russian threated us that they would sell it off???