abingdonboy
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 8,084
- Likes
- 33,803
http://*****************/attachments/c4o71prvmaazbjl-jpg.3841/
^ the LCA that the IN is actually interested in.
^ the LCA that the IN is actually interested in.
LCA Navy Mk2 with a one piece canopy (if my eyes are to be trusted) and AMCA with two piece canopy?View attachment 13862
Interesting canopy and chin on LCA Navy Mk2. Something interesting is cooking.
AMCA will have a one piece canopyLCA Navy Mk2 with a one piece canopy (if my eyes are to be trusted) and AMCA with two piece canopy?
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Not according to their Aero India 2017 renderings. Kindly visit AMCA thread for further details.AMCA will have a one piece canopy
It's just renderings, it will have a single piece canaopy don't worry about that.Not according to their Aero India 2017 renderings. Kindly visit AMCA thread for further details.
There's always hope but their track record points to a completely opposite direction.It's just renderings, it will have a single piece canaopy don't worry about that.
It is really interesting that Parrikar mentioned an "INTERNAL lobby"!!! That's pretty damning accusation coming from the minister himself that there are lobbies within the government/services working against the indigenous projects!!!"It is wrong to say the Navy does not support the LCA ...You are being misinformed by an internal lobby," he said.
The statement made has some real weight ..
Disturbing isn't it?"It is wrong to say the Navy does not support the LCA ...You are being misinformed by an internal lobby," he said.
The statement made has some real weight ..
He is talking about the media for sure and the lobbyists employed by foreign OEMs (ie the senior retired brass who are now freelance journalists or employed by think tanks).It is really interesting that Parrikar mentioned an "INTERNAL lobby"!!! That's pretty damning accusation coming from the minister himself that there are lobbies within the government/services working against the indigenous projects!!!
Reporters going there and filing reports should be fine, even if it is a fully sponsored trip. publicity is fine.Disturbing isn't it?
The likes of Shiv Aroor who are going on all expenses paid trips to Sweden for SAAB and the US for Boeing and enjoy major Ad revenue thanks to the same OEMs.
A Good read : http://naradanews.com/2016/12/air-force-chief-sp-tyagi-augustawestland-scam-corruption-cbi/The defence personnel needs to enter, and remain in the good books of the political class for the simple reason of remaining relevant after retirement. The political class may offer him a governor post or some other prominent post if he has been hand in glove with the establishment over issues of mutual benefit. History reveals that just before their retirement, some big deals have been struck by chiefs of armed forces, some of which were later exposed in the media. These big deals ensure that their post-retirement lives are spent in luxury.
He is talking about the media for sure and the lobbyists employed by foreign OEMs (ie the senior retired brass who are now freelance journalists or employed by think tanks).
It is really interesting that Parrikar mentioned an "INTERNAL lobby"!!! That's pretty damning accusation coming from the minister himself that there are lobbies within the government/services working against the indigenous projects!!!
Reporters going there and filing reports should be fine, even if it is a fully sponsored trip. publicity is fine.unwanted part is where they come back and try to influence the decision makers here. lobbying is not fine.
The criticism came directly from the Navy Chief - which was accurately reported by most news outlets. There were criticisms of the Navy Chief's statement itself by several DRDO/ADA folks. So, I am not sure if Parrikar was referring to local/foreign journalists.He is talking about the media for sure and the lobbyists employed by foreign OEMs (ie the senior retired brass who are now freelance journalists or employed by think tanks).
Maybe the Navy is reminding DRDO that the Navy is the only arm that has supported DRDO the most and they they will not be ignored anymore when DRDO wants larger orders from the Army and Air force.The criticism came directly from the Navy Chief - which was accurately reported by most news outlets. There were criticisms of the Navy Chief's statement itself by several DRDO/ADA folks. So, I am not sure if Parrikar was referring to local/foreign journalists.
The Navy Chief's statement was a little mischievous - he referred to the Naval LCA as it is today - even though it was obvious to all that LCA Navy Mk1 was only a TD!!
The right statement (if at all there indeed was a problem with the program) should have been that LCA Navy Mk2 won't meet the Navy's requirement OR that the timeline of LCA Navy Mk2 is not acceptable; but criticizing Mk1 and stirring up the pot is quite weird!!!
There could be number of reasons for this, (if we put the nefarious/suspicious reasons aside) it could be that the Navy feels jealous that Air Force is able to splurge on expensive planes while it is saddled with the cheaper ones!!!
Insisting on twin engined aircraft seems more like a tantrum, when they've the opportunity to get Mk2 custom designed for their needs. LCA Mk2 aircraft will definitely be inferior to Rafale-M or F18; but with the complete armament package (Brahmos NG, Nirbhay, Astra etc.) LCA Mk2 will be as formidable and less expensive than the foreign ones!!Maybe the Navy is reminding DRDO that the Navy is the only arm that has supported DRDO the most and they they will not be ignored anymore when DRDO wants larger orders from the Army and Air force.
Wow!! How does 22% increase in MTOW (16.5 ton mk2 vs 13.5 ton mk1) square with a mere 15% increase in thrust (414 vs 404 engine)? Something happening that's not explicitly reported? Will GE be delivering 414-EPE or higher thrust Kaveri become available??Cmd Balaji (ADA) says LCA Mark 2 prototype expected by 2020. Parallel development for CATOBAR capability dev in parallel for IAC2.
Also mentions that engine ha been identified. AMCA engine consultations are being done with IAF.
Cmd Balaji says 1 metre length extension for Mk-2 likely. MTOW target is in the 16-16.5 ton range.
25 percent increase in internal fuel volume for the LCA Navy Mk-2 is also a design goal.
LCA Navy Mk-2 detailed design will be completed in 18-20 months when plate cutting will begin. Raw material has already been ordered.
https://twitter.com/delhidefence
Only Dassualt could tell you the above but I can assure you that a STOBAR Rafale-M is going to be the fastest and simplest option for the IN available (discounting the MiG-29Ks they don't want). The N-LCA has barely started its carrier qualification (it hasn't even conducted an arrested landing just yet).
When a world class OEM like DA that has decades of experience in carrier fighter says they have modelled it and the Rafale is compatible with the IN's carriers I am inclined to buy it.