@p2prada
This is impossible in 2 reasons:
1 - 95% of surface will include radar dome and heat-resistant engine covers
2 - If you'll substitute more working parts (T-50 has working, stressfully loaded skin covering) with composites, you'll face with strength weaknesses and structural problems which will force you to shrink FGFA flight envelope comparable to original design, as for speeds limit, as for maneurability as well (especially supersonic maneurability will suffer). Are you ready to accept such a drawback just for "more Indian parts" only? I think, HAL director is not.
So, we can say that this is journalamers fairytails (which is enough in Russia as well).
How did you said? Let we be realistic, should we?
Tejas is much simplier, non-supermaneurable and non-supercruisable light fighter without any outstanding requirements, unlike the T-50. Technologies HAL developed for LCA are to weak to be incorporated into FGFA (remember what I've said abour aramides which are absent in HAL technology pocket). Even if they will be greatly improved, there is a great technical risc using them and will require LOTS of additional computations and flight tests.
This is non-needed time and money loss in my point of view, because it can give nothing to T-50 comparable to expences.
And what about LCA... It still has sructural problems and flight envelope limitations due to materials and force structure decisions used, so...
However, there are rumors about a broad technologies transfer to HAL including aramide materials. Tejas will be strong and robust with them as T-50.
Agreed. I even can name the things India will additionally pay for (most part, this is not the secret, just logics):
1 - 2-seater canopy for the part of aircraft (lots of calculations, tests and so on)
2 - Additional software meeting Indian unique requirements
3 - Indigenous weapons integration (LOTS of tests, can cause even your missiles and bombs complete rework to make them possible to be fired supersonic without parasite booms).
4 - Foreign parts integration.
5 - Access to scientific researches results and part of the software sources.
Speaking generally, Indias role in FGFA project is similar to those for GB in F-35 - wide access, but crucial parts Americans left for themselves, which is quite normal.
Thanks for the info! It's interesting.
India doesn't have (apparently for now) any viable BMD systems comparable to S-300/400 (don't even speak about A-135), as we know here in former USSR. There were some info about tests, but nothing viable were built.
And BTW, what you need most in those area, are the global MAWS radars like Voronezh. Because if you cannot forseen your foes first strike, all your nuclear power is a lemon. Nobody will fear your strike, if they know that you are a blind dragon
As for Russians... S-400 has AESA detection and targeting radars, as well al Poliment/Redut Navy SAM variant.
A new Trikand frigats will receive it to (if the proper contract extension will be signed), don't you know?
Americans are almost to test their "Active AEGIS" variant but suffer electrical power lack problems to feed it with Arleigh Burke class engines.
371.
PERSONAL T/R COUNT
~320
plz count it yourselves
if i am wrong then i need to go & check my eyes urgently
Wrong.
On LCA, the slats and engine cover are made of aluminium. The rest, including the radar dome are composites. Carbon composites, glass composites and kevlar composites have been used.This is impossible in 2 reasons:
1 - 95% of surface will include radar dome and heat-resistant engine covers
The article is from The Hindu. It is one of the most reliable papers in India, especially for politics and defence news. So this info has a high chance of being reliable.
At the same time, LCA's composites were designed in the 70s and implemented in the 80s. In comparison FGFA can use much more capable composites. Except for slats, all other effectors on LCA are composites. But I think this can only be answered in time.How did you said? Let we be realistic, should we?
Tejas is much simplier, non-supermaneurable and non-supercruisable light fighter without any outstanding requirements, unlike the T-50. Technologies HAL developed for LCA are to weak to be incorporated into FGFA (remember what I've said abour aramides which are absent in HAL technology pocket). Even if they will be greatly improved, there is a great technical risc using them and will require LOTS of additional computations and flight tests.
This is non-needed time and money loss in my point of view, because it can give nothing to T-50 comparable to expences.
LCA does not have structural issues. It has design issues. More like they took so long designing and developing it that it has become obsolete. On a normal day, had they inducted LCA back in 1999 as planned, LCA would have undergone two or three design changes by now, like Gripen A, Gripen C and Gripen NG, in order to keep up with new technologies. Now the issue is DRDO has to deliver something like Gripen NG on a Gripen C platform.
If I have to take a guess, only flight control and engine softwares will be Russian. It is possible even the radar software will be developed in India even though the hardware will come from Russia. Obviously, we have had some successes in EW which means we will use our ECM tech.
More or less. 25% work on FGFA is a lot. Overall, development of FGFA hardware is still Russia's. So engine, flight controls, and airframe design will be Russian, with some Indian inputs based on our geographical conditions, like location of fuel pipes for high altitude Take off/landing operations etc.
According to our scientists, our current BMD exceeds S-300. That's the reason why Indian Air force did not place orders for S-300. From what the Russians have released about S-500, even our phase 2 program is a match for it. We don't yet have A-135 equivalent only because 53T6 has a nuclear warhead. Missile capabilities should be similar to what we are developing.
The Grave Stone is supposed to be PESA. Poliment is AESA, but it is not even fully tested. Needs to be fitted on a ship.
You are comparing development trials and tests to a nearly operational system.
Supposed, but is not
It is very interesting and exciting as well. However, we will see if it is as capable as S-300PMU-2 (S-400 is much better) when India will go into real testing (mass-attack simulation with real multi-channel fire). If it can intercept one or two Pakistani missiles (like Patriot PAC3) only, it is not the match toS-300PMU-2 at all.
I don't believe that is correct.Supposed, but is not
Grave Stone and Poliment/Redut are the same designs for AD and Navy respectively. Poliment is fitted to Project 20385 frigates and will be for 20380 Trikand frigates if the furter contracts will be signed. The first 20385 is on final stage of construction and Poliment/Redut for it is on the certification tests. The first testing race is planned for summer 2014.
I think you are referring to the new corvettes, not frigates.
I think the user will have to simulate such tests once the system is deployed.
My fault
More capable in what?
I don't think there is a radar called 96N2, there is 92N6 and it is Grave Stone which is PESA.
So air defence role will move from destroyers and cruisers only to frigates too.
The idea was for DRDO to stop IAF from buying S-300PMU-2/3/Favorite etc by developing a superior system. If the IAF accepts it and the system is already being deployed, then it should have demonstrated even ripple fire capability.More capable in what?
Range is good but not enough to be efficient. When it will prove 90% Kill Probability seeking 1-2 dosens of targets simultaneusly like S-300PMU-2 (mass attack defend), then we will talk about capabilities. Hitting 1 test target without any counermeasures is not a big deal even on the slightly greater range.
Yeah, all terminal BMD systems are mobile, even ours.
Should take anywhere between 10 and 15 years for a full fledged IADS to be setup. As of today only two cities will be covered out of dozens of cities, let alone hundreds of military installations.
Oh, I can make a typos writing at night, but as for 92N6 and 96L6 are PESAs... Could you name your sources (not Wikipedia, please).
Yes. Officially proven. 32 40N6 missiles (8x4 vertical launchers) or 128 9М96/9M100 medium range missiles or their combination.
Yeah, definetly should, but steel haven't shown anything but the single test target hit. BTW, what missile was a target?
Neither French, nore Israeli radars are combat or even serious (mass-attack defence, autonomous use and long-range marches in harsh environments) tests proven. So, they cannot be a paragons of reliability or effectiveness.
No, my friend! 30-60 minutes only to pack OR unpack and additional 15 minutes to fire is not a mobility.
Very good. But the biggest thing to do is global MAWs (Voronezh-like radars: Ð ÐДИОЛОКÐЦИОÐÐЫЕ СТÐÐЦИИ ДÐЛЬÐЕГО ОБÐÐРУЖЕÐИЯ "ВОРОÐЕЖ-Ðœ", "ВОРОÐЕЖ-ДМ" И "ВИТИМ". RADAR STATIONS OF THE FAR DETECTION VORONEZH-M", "VORONEZH-DM" AND "VITIM"), passive surviallance systems (like Kolchuga) and network-centric AD environment.
If Akash is at SA-6 level only why is IAF and IA heaping more and more orders for it. Out of charity towards DRDO perhaps?On LCA, the slats and engine cover are made of aluminium. The rest, including the radar dome are composites. Carbon composites, glass composites and kevlar composites have been used.
The article is from The Hindu. It is one of the most reliable papers in India, especially for politics and defence news. So this info has a high chance of being reliable.
Nevertheless we will know in time.
At the same time, LCA's composites were designed in the 70s and implemented in the 80s. In comparison FGFA can use much more capable composites. Except for slats, all other effectors on LCA are composites. But I think this can only be answered in time.
LCA does not have structural issues. It has design issues. More like they took so long designing and developing it that it has become obsolete. On a normal day, had they inducted LCA back in 1999 as planned, LCA would have undergone two or three design changes by now, like Gripen A, Gripen C and Gripen NG, in order to keep up with new technologies. Now the issue is DRDO has to deliver something like Gripen NG on a Gripen C platform.
Anyway, I don't know what tech was transferred to HAL, but LCA will use NAL composites, it is a different company.
If I have to take a guess, only flight control and engine softwares will be Russian. It is possible even the radar software will be developed in India even though the hardware will come from Russia. Obviously, we have had some successes in EW which means we will use our ECM tech.
More or less. 25% work on FGFA is a lot. Overall, development of FGFA hardware is still Russia's. So engine, flight controls, and airframe design will be Russian, with some Indian inputs based on our geographical conditions, like location of fuel pipes for high altitude Take off/landing operations etc.
The two seater development may be taken up at a later date I suppose.
According to our scientists, our current BMD exceeds S-300. That's the reason why Indian Air force did not place orders for S-300. From what the Russians have released about S-500, even our phase 2 program is a match for it. We don't yet have A-135 equivalent only because 53T6 has a nuclear warhead. Missile capabilities should be similar to what we are developing.
The Grave Stone is supposed to be PESA. Poliment is AESA, but it is not even fully tested. Needs to be fitted on a ship.
In comparison, our BMD is being deployed. Anyway the point I was making is with the right decisions, right partners and projects we are finding successes only more advanced countries can. Can you imagine our only previous success in SAMs was a SA-6 level Akash and now we are designing S-300 and S-500 equivalent systems?
Delhi, Mumbai selected for ballistic missile defence shield - Times Of India
You are comparing development trials and tests to a nearly operational system.
