tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post4979387837540403929..comments2024-03-29T05:44:18.835-07:00Comments on Broadsword by Ajai Shukla - Strategy. Economics. Defence.: Navy backs the Tejas with a Rs 900 crore chequeBroadswordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13076780076240598482noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-17835596920910498692009-09-27T13:35:45.991-07:002009-09-27T13:35:45.991-07:00Re Ajai
The new Order for 6 Naval LCA are single ...Re Ajai<br /><br />The new Order for 6 Naval LCA are single seaters or twin trainer version?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01486610428575270302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-51369978004187789882009-09-26T04:59:10.404-07:002009-09-26T04:59:10.404-07:00Hi Prasun,
"To Broadsword: Hi Ajai! While th...Hi Prasun,<br /><br />"To Broadsword: Hi Ajai! While the 'issue' of going for Martin Maker-built ejection seats was settled in the mid-1990s, contract signature for placing firm orders had not taken place then. What I meant to ask you was if contract signature had taken place in the recent past."<br /><br />Is that so? Okay.<br />-------------<br /><br />"As for the 'bolter' from the angled deck, the reqd runway length depends on the configuration of the aircraft, i.e. if it has to do a bolter after it has already come in to land in clean configuration (without carrying its weapons payloads and retaining only 15% fuel reserve), or whether it is still carrying its offensive payload when reqd to do the bolter. If the latter is the case it would require at least a deck length of no less than 400 metres (as the ski ramp isn't available in the angled flight deck to produce the reqd lift)." <br /><br />Prasun, when an aircraft comes around to land on an aircraft carrier, it normally jettisons fuel, not armaments. Simple economics.<br />-------------<br /><br />"With regard to taking forward my own logic, why is the IAF buying an MMRCA then? A very good point indeed, as no one from IAF HQ has as yet been able to give convincing answers to this question."<br /><br />Prasun, I don't recall anyone from IAF HQ ever trying to answer this question. Actually, it isn't a question at all in my mind. The IAF does need medium fighters, just as it needs light and heavy fighters.<br />---------------------<br /><br />"If that is the case, then what exactly is it that a Gripen IN or F-16IN or Rafale or EF-2000 will be able to do or offer that the Su-30MKI will not?" <br /><br />Err, I'm a bit puzzled here. Unless I've missed the entire point, what you're arguing is the equivalent of: Why should we buy Light Machine Guns? We've already got rifles and MMGs.<br />----------------<br /><br />"I'm also not sure if the Tejas is being referred to anyone from either IAF HQ or ADA as the LCA. In all official corresapondence and official on-the-record interviews, ADA no longer refers to the Tejas as the LCA, rather it is called Tejas Mk1 and Tejas Mk2. All PVs and TDs flying at Aero India last February had only 'Tejas' painted into the fuselage, and nowhere was the abbreviation 'LCA' seen on the airframe." <br /><br />And the point you're making is? We should stop referring to it as LCA and call it Tejas?<br /><br />btw, the ADA refers to the Naval LCA only as Naval LCA. I've never ever heard them call it Naval Tejas.<br />--------------------<br /><br />"Thirdly, as successive IAF Chiefs have stated since 2005, the IAF will optimise all its new-generation manned aircraft platforms for effects-based operations, i.e. carrying PGMs whose destructive firepower is not quantified by their weightage, but by their ability to strike their targets with precision. As the Tejas Mk1/2 will not be exceptions and since it too will have extended flight endurance (thanks to its in-flight refuelling probe), I fail to see how exactly the Tejas Mk2 in particular will be 'light', or will be inferior in any respect to the likes of the MiG-29K or even the F-16IN or Gripen IN."<br /><br />I must be missing the point again. I've always had the impression that the categorisation into light, medium and heavy had to do with a lot more than just the punishment that the fighter could inflict on a target. With things like fuel consumption, RCS, ground infrastructure, runway issues, take-off weight at high altitudes, and other important differentiators.<br /><br />But since you've decided quite conclusively that the IAF is making an artificial differentiation, I'll leave it at that.<br />--------------------<br /><br />"As for the landing gear issue, Northrop Grumman is indeed one of the subcontractors to one of the consortiums that have submitted their bids to ADA"<br /><br />Northrop Grumman has told me quite emphatically that they are not in, neither as the lead agent, nor as a subcontractor. ADA has told me exactly the same thing.<br /><br />But since you're convinced about it, I'll leave it at that.Broadswordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13076780076240598482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-87819082124588168572009-09-24T21:19:23.203-07:002009-09-24T21:19:23.203-07:00Actually before the Super Hornet, planes routinely...Actually before the Super Hornet, planes routinely dumped A2G ordanance into the sea before landing. That's why mission planning is so important on carrier ops.<br /><br />You have been schooled.Vincent the Greathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679286051338020367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-39229868352878589472009-09-24T00:23:09.855-07:002009-09-24T00:23:09.855-07:00For ANONYMOUS 23:47.
India's oil&gas hits...For ANONYMOUS 23:47. <br />India's oil&gas hits are common knowledge since 2002.Obviously you do not read the print media / GOI/ ONGC/ INTERNATIONAL Rig zone reports on the subject.Bombay High has been with us since 1974.No attack todate.WHY? As for Osama bin laden no country in their right mind wants him in their land.devsethinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-21914727147595445082009-09-23T18:03:46.236-07:002009-09-23T18:03:46.236-07:00"As for the 'bolter' from the angled ..."As for the 'bolter' from the angled deck, the reqd runway length depends on the configuration of the aircraft, i.e. if it has to do a bolter after it has already come in to land in clean configuration (without carrying its weapons payloads and retaining only 15% fuel reserve), or whether it is still carrying its offensive payload when reqd to do the bolter. If the latter is the case it would require at least a deck length of no less than 400 metres (as the ski ramp isn't available in the angled flight deck to produce the reqd lift)"<br /><br />Prasun. As I said,you will be better off sticking to fiction writing. This is more gassing from you. Why some polemicist like Arundhati Roy would do better with these topics.Atleast she doesnt pretend to write on technical matters.<br /><br />Consider that 400 meter lenght rubbish. What matters is the bring back load in a carrier and that is constrained by the load the arresting cables can take. The plane is any way flying above take off speed (all that stuff about controlled crash etc, which Ajai Shukla wrote about, thump and bash) and can take off even it is a bolter as long the engine is putting out power.<br /><br />That 400 meter angled flight deck is total rubbish. Go google around and check. The largest aircraft carriers in the world,the Nimitz class and Enterprise class,have a TOTAL lenght of around 330 meters or so max. The angled flight deck is much smaller than the straight through deck lenght. <br /><br />Surely you are not suggesting that for America carrier ops, with your ridiculous 400m lenght plucked out of thin air, they actually dump all their heavy A2G weapons before coming in to land and not merely that the plane is within the bring back load envelope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-89033283890134896472009-09-23T10:57:54.185-07:002009-09-23T10:57:54.185-07:00Continued from above....
As for the landing gear i...Continued from above....<br />As for the landing gear issue, Northrop Grumman is indeed one of the subcontractors to one of the consortiums that have submitted their bids to ADA. Northrop Grumman need not come in as an independent or principal bidder and has instead come in as one of the consortium members just as it has for the M-MRCA competition (being part of rival consortiums led by Lockheed Martin and Boeing IDS).Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-22671302008520838502009-09-23T10:51:34.635-07:002009-09-23T10:51:34.635-07:00To Broadsword: Hi Ajai! While the 'issue' ...To Broadsword: Hi Ajai! While the 'issue' of going for Martin Maker-built ejection seats was settled in the mid-1990s, contract signature for placing firm orders had not taken place then. What I meant to ask you was if contract signature had taken place in the recent past.<br />As for the 'bolter' from the angled deck, the reqd runway length depends on the configuration of the aircraft, i.e. if it has to do a bolter after it has already come in to land in clean configuration (without carrying its weapons payloads and retaining only 15% fuel reserve), or whether it is still carrying its offensive payload when reqd to do the bolter. If the latter is the case it would require at least a deck length of no less than 400 metres (as the ski ramp isn't available in the angled flight deck to produce the reqd lift). <br />With regard to taking forward my own logic, why is the IAF buying an MMRCA then? A very good point indeed, as no one from IAF HQ has as yet been able to give convincing answers to this question. If you were to recall, it all started with the term 'MRCA' being coined by the IAF itself in 2002, but by early 2007 the MRCA had morphed into the M-MRCA to accommodate the Rafale, EF-2000, MiG-35 and Super Hornet. Secondly, IAF HQ has officially and repeatedly stated that the M-MRCA was required not so much to acquire new capabilities, but rather to arrest the steady and alarming depreciation of the IAF's fleet inventory of combat aircraft. If that is the case, then what exactly is it that a Gripen IN or F-16IN or Rafale or EF-2000 will be able to do or offer that the Su-30MKI will not? <br />I'm also not sure if the Tejas is being referred to anyone from either IAF HQ or ADA as the LCA. In all official corresapondence and official on-the-record interviews, ADA no longer refers to the Tejas as the LCA, rather it is called Tejas Mk1 and Tejas Mk2. All PVs and TDs flying at Aero India last February had only 'Tejas' painted into the fuselage, and nowhere was the abbreviation 'LCA' seen on the airframe. Thirdly, as successive IAF Chiefs have stated since 2005, the IAF will optimise all its new-generation manned aircraft platforms for effects-based operations, i.e. carrying PGMs whose destructive firepower is not quantified by their weightage, but by their ability to strike their targets with precision. As the Tejas Mk1/2 will not be exceptions and since it too will have extended flight endurance (thanks to its in-flight refuelling probe), I fail to see how exactly the Tejas Mk2 in particular will be 'light', or will be inferior in any respect to the likes of the MiG-29K or even the F-16IN or Gripen IN.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-44324745047651024102009-09-23T10:22:41.533-07:002009-09-23T10:22:41.533-07:00Yo Anon@05:48, for all your needless and idiotic r...Yo Anon@05:48, for all your needless and idiotic rambling about "Prasun's gassings", your last para repeats the same conclusions as those voiced by Prasun. As for Northrop Grumman exiting the airframe business, it looks like you're the one gassing around and making fictitious claims, for Northrop Grumman is still the major sub-contractor (for fabricating airframes for both civil and military aircraft) to both Boeing IDS and Lockheed Martin. Furthermore, new-build E-2D Hawkeye 2000s are also being rolled out. Moral of this story, therefore, is: when pointing a finger at others in total idiotic ignorance, there are four more pointing back at you. So shut your trap!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-46534113363783733572009-09-23T06:46:51.888-07:002009-09-23T06:46:51.888-07:00Ajai sir,
Can you please please give some updates...Ajai sir,<br /><br />Can you please please give some updates wrt the development of the Indian-Russian 5th gen Plane!!<br /><br />Very curious to know..has there been any solid progress ??vishnunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-55893025491324368332009-09-23T01:20:05.560-07:002009-09-23T01:20:05.560-07:00Hi Prasun,
Your last post included this question:...Hi Prasun,<br /><br />Your last post included this question: “Has the Navy selected the OEM for supplying the NLCA’s ejection seats? Will the OEM be Martin Baker, or will it be Zvezda of Russia, which will be supplying the ejection seats for the IAF-specific Tejas LCAs?”<br /><br />In this post you write: “By the way, the NLCAs will all have Martin Baker-built ejection seats. The matter was sorted out as far back as the mid-1990s, I'm told.”<br /><br />I’m a bit mystified!! If you knew the answer, why did you ask me which seat had been selected?<br /><br />-----------------------------<br /><br />To Broadsword: The question was asked earlier and is being repeated: How exactly will the 'Bolter' technique be effected by the NLCA on a STOBAR carrier (either the IAC or INS Vikramaditya)? Via the angled flight deck (which hosts the three arrestor cables)? I ask this question because in all official computer-aided design photos of INS Vikramaditya released thus far by SEVMASH, the takeoff length of a MiG-29K/KUB or NLCA using the ski-ramp is shown as being a lot more than the takeoff length available in the angled deck for a bolter manoeuvre to be performed.<br /><br />Why would a “bolter” require a ski ramp (or, for that matter, a catapult) to get airborne? It is already rolling at over 200 kmph (and is at full throttle) when the decision to abort the landing is taken. How much runway length do you imagine it needs for getting airborne?<br /><br />----------------------<br /><br />“With regard to your statement "The MiG-29K will do a lot more in terms of performance and payload than the NLCA", this I'm afraid requires further clarification or explaining. After all, if the Tejas Mk2 with uprated powerplant, larger wings and a slightly lengthened nose-section is to become the definitive production-standard NLCA then, this variant of the NLCA will in effect become a veritable M-MRCA and will be able to do just about anything the MiG-29Ks are able to do now. In fact, the NLCA will be superior to the MiG-29K in many respects, especially if equipped with the projected twin fuselage-mounted conformal fuel tanks (similar to what is being proposed for the F-16IN, Gripen IN, Rafale and Eurofighter EF-2000).” <br /><br />Taking forward your own logic, why is the IAF buying an MMRCA then? Clearly they believe that the LCA will always be a light fighter. I’m not sure it is wise to be as confident as you that the LCA Mk II will do anything the MiG-29K can do.<br /><br />-------------------------<br /><br />In addition, at a time when the US Navy, French Navy, the Royal Navy and the Russian Navy have all settled down for just one aircraft-type (like the Super Hornet, Rafale, F-35 JSF and the Su-33) to grace their flight-decks, the Indian Navy's wisdom of hosting two distinct types of M-MRCAs on board its aircraft carriers can only be described as being highly questionable (given the extremely limited space available with the IN carriers' hangar bay to accommodate the infrastructure for two separate product support workshops).<br /><br />I think the fact that they’ve completed designs for the IAC and found that they have adequate space for two separate fighters’ support infrastructure (as my article says, they’ve even got two separate aircraft lifts for them) makes your point a bit academic.<br /><br />---------------------------<br /><br />“And as fr the landing gear for NLCA, talks are being held with both Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, as the former has more experience than the latter in this area.”<br /><br />I don’t know where you’re getting this from, Prasun. The matter is well beyond “talks being held with…” Three companies have already submitted bids and Northrop Grumman is not one of them.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />ajaiAjai Shuklahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16488839157370084666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-69308594375377421042009-09-22T20:14:21.766-07:002009-09-22T20:14:21.766-07:00Hi Ajai
"Rafale, surely you know that the LCA...Hi Ajai<br />"Rafale, surely you know that the LCA Mk II incorporates a new engine, which is still to be selected? You want them to start re-engineering the aircraft for a new engine without knowing which new engine they are re-engineering it for??" I meant to ask what progress they have made.Surely they are not going to wait until the engine is selected to start doing something. & my request for updates on the avionics & weaponisation of the LCA was for the current version.Rafalenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-63049210545726205152009-09-22T17:18:33.275-07:002009-09-22T17:18:33.275-07:00"I'm told. And as fr the landing gear for..."I'm told. And as fr the landing gear for NLCA, talks are being held with both Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, as the former has more experience than the latter in this area. In fact, Northrop Grumman always followed a cardinal rule when designing carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft: it always commenced designing such aircraft by first designing and developing the landing gear, and then proceeding to design the rest of the aircraft" <br /><br />Prasun. You should actually stick to writing fiction. All the above lines are just so much gas!. Repeat this . Northrop AND LOCKHEED historically had ZERO experience in carrier borne platforms. The only guys who were carrier experts are the former Grumman corp and McDonell Douglas. Case in point the F-18. The F-18 as the YF-17 in the light fighter competition (which it lost to the F16) was a Northrop design. However, since Northrop did NOT have experience with Naval undercarriage, the design was handed over to McDonnel Douglas which became F18. So much for your gas on "Northrop designing undercarriage first before building a plane" . Like I said, you should stick to fiction writing.<br /><br />Yeah, before you shoot your mouth off on Northrop acquiring Grumman, let us get this clear. Northrop Grumman has EXITED the airframe business basically and the last new airframe it has built (of any kind) is the B2. Kind of puts a spoke in "Northrop designs undercarriage ............" right ?<br /><br />As for Lockheed, they historically NEVER were a player in the carrier based fighter business. Their experience too is basically zilch. In fact, the F35C will probably be the first carrier borne fighter ever.<br /><br />Talking to Lockheed indeed . The guys who they should be talking to are actually Boeing (which bought out McDonell) and Northrop-Grumman (the Grumman part really), who probably have all the experience in carrier landing gears etc. <br /><br />And before you shoot off again on Lockheed and the carrier version of F-35, remember, both Northrop-Grumman and BAE , are full partners with approx 25% work share in the F35 program including key fuselage and structural components and both firms have strong carrier experience which they bring to the table. <br /><br />So if you want consulting help with Navalizing the LCA, the right guys to talk to would be Boeing IDS (the former McDonnel), Northrop Grumman (the former Long Island based Grumman really), BAE systems and Dassault (Super Etendard, Rafale etc).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-5391107962817449482009-09-22T15:53:43.373-07:002009-09-22T15:53:43.373-07:00Ignoring all the trolls here..AKA Vincent I'd ...Ignoring all the trolls here..AKA Vincent I'd like to ask a question to Ajai.<br /><br />Rs 150 Crore per LCA?<br />Isn't that a bit too steep?<br /><br />Is there a catch included ?Tejaswyhttp://www.tejaswy.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-17377650004119356302009-09-22T13:06:20.263-07:002009-09-22T13:06:20.263-07:00To Broadsword: The question was asked earlier and ...To Broadsword: The question was asked earlier and is being repeated: How exactly will the 'Bolter' technique be effected by the NLCA on a STOBAR carrier (either the IAC or INS Vikramaditya)? Via the angled flight deck (which hosts the three arrestor cables)? I ask this question because in all official computer-aided design photos of INS Vikramaditya released thus far by SEVMASH, the takeoff length of a MiG-29K/KUB or NLCA using the ski-ramp is shown as being a lot more than the takeoff length available in the angled deck for a bolter manoeuvre to be performed.<br />With regard to your statement "The MiG-29K will do a lot more in terms of performance and payload than the NLCA", this I'm afraid requires further clarification or explaining. After all, if the Tejas Mk2 with uprated powerplant, larger wings and a slightly lengthened nose-section is to become the definitive production-standard NLCA then, this variant of the NLCA will in effect become a veritable M-MRCA and will be able to do just about anything the MiG-29Ks are able to do now. In fact, the NLCA will be superior to the MiG-29K in many respects, especially if equipped with the projected twin fuselage-mounted conformal fuel tanks (similar to what is being proposed for the F-16IN, Gripen IN, Rafale and Eurofighter EF-2000). In addition, at a time when the US Navy, French Navy, the Royal Navy and the Russian Navy have all settled down for just one aircraft-type (like the Super Hornet, Rafale, F-35 JSF and the Su-33) to grace their flight-decks, the Indian Navy's wisdom of hosting two distinct types of M-MRCAs on board its aircraft carriers can only be described as being highly questionable (given the extremely limited space available with the IN carriers' hangar bay to accommodate the infrastructure for two separate product support workshops). <br />By the way, the NLCAs will all have Martin Baker-built ejection seats. The matter was sorted out as far back as the mid-1990s, I'm told. And as fr the landing gear for NLCA, talks are being held with both Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, as the former has more experience than the latter in this area. In fact, Northrop Grumman always followed a cardinal rule when designing carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft: it always commenced designing such aircraft by first designing and developing the landing gear, and then proceeding to design the rest of the aircraft. Will, therefore, ADA heed such time-tested formula, or will it instead choose to do something different? Only time will tell. Cheers!Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-62500350655219333992009-09-22T11:34:33.782-07:002009-09-22T11:34:33.782-07:00Vincent, what about your "navelized" ;) ...Vincent, what about your "navelized" ;) mother..she's a whore thats been around the block for decades and still struts her sorry ass around to find someone to poke it for a few pennies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-15581730529753513272009-09-22T09:44:11.561-07:002009-09-22T09:44:11.561-07:00A really naive question but since Israelis also wo...A really naive question but since Israelis also worked on Lavi before they shelved why don't we take their consultation on control laws of LCA etc instead of asking Boeing or EuropeansAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-58220051652112034412009-09-22T02:50:40.511-07:002009-09-22T02:50:40.511-07:00For those who don't like the guys in the pic ,...For those who don't like the guys in the pic ,This isn't any hollywood movie ,where the scientists looks well suited and glamorous ...so pls bare it they are Indians working in an Indian facility.What are you expecting dont know ,Hmmm .Arun rajkumar.lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09847013483086178566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-73649317924058358752009-09-22T00:32:24.516-07:002009-09-22T00:32:24.516-07:00Regarding dress they are wearing, it looks like BE...Regarding dress they are wearing, it looks like BEL uniforms and might they are working something related to electronics.I'm sure it is uniform or else why should all wear same kind of dress. <br /><br />I just googled for PV5 model shown in pic and found the following link.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQVB9EI9Z9E<br /> Might be PV5 is already completeAdivasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05610354643866903733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-77815867103459082802009-09-22T00:06:13.982-07:002009-09-22T00:06:13.982-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Adivasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05610354643866903733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-1916955543629390742009-09-22T00:01:53.941-07:002009-09-22T00:01:53.941-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Adivasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05610354643866903733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-9568794615602489862009-09-21T23:22:10.323-07:002009-09-21T23:22:10.323-07:00my dear karupaswamy! ppl who joined HAL in late se...my dear karupaswamy! ppl who joined HAL in late seventies,most of them were from IITs.In those days a selected few only used to go abroad. ppl who joined HAl in the eighties and ninties could have gone to the US of A insearch of few dollars and become a sold out NRI...but most of them have stuck to their job...some out of passion ,some out of necessity and ofcourse some out of inefficiency...The problem is not with ppl... The unions,the reseravetions and the rotten system.. if you have some concrete plan to revitalize DRDO,HAL etc..pls write to the RM... There is no point in crying here!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-6342184858078243062009-09-21T18:42:59.473-07:002009-09-21T18:42:59.473-07:00>>Vincent was the union of a coupling of a c...>>Vincent was the union of a coupling of a crack whore and a pimp..the pimp ran away, leaving Vincent to be sired by the crack whore all by herself..the result is what we all see here on this blog. have pity on him- a bastard child who is looking for a father figure to "drill" some respect and show him some man-love is all Vincent wants..<br /><br /><br />I think you're right.Vincent the Greathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679286051338020367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-88675284825928459872009-09-21T18:41:13.658-07:002009-09-21T18:41:13.658-07:00Navalizing the LCA is like your mother suddenly we...Navalizing the LCA is like your mother suddenly wearing thick makeup and short dress to go out on Saturday night.<br /><br />Not cool.Vincent the Greathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679286051338020367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-30597580018265625462009-09-21T17:38:43.753-07:002009-09-21T17:38:43.753-07:00Prasun,
“if the tail hook misses all three arrest...Prasun,<br /><br />“if the tail hook misses all three arrestor cables, the fighter must have the power and speed to get airborne again before the end of the flight deck.”—I take it that you’re referring to the technique known as ‘Bolter”? And how exactly will the 'Bolter' technique be effected by the NLCA on a STOBAR carrier (either the IAC or INS Vikramaditya)? Via the angled flight deck (which hosts the three arrestor cables)?<br /><br />Yup, Bolter. That technique only comes into play in an arrested landing. What is your question?<br />---------<br /><br />“Business Standard has learnt that the navy has okayed the placement of an order for six Naval LCAs.”—Would these NLCAs be powered by GE-built F404-GE-IN20 turbofans?<br /><br />Yes sir. The article mentions that the next engine would only come in 3-4 years.<br />-------------<br /><br />“If it takes a Top Gun pilot to pull off such landings,...” Top Gun pilot? What exactly is meant by this description of a naval aviator? Does it mean that all Indian Navy pilots type-rated on the MiG-29K/MiG-29KUB or NLCA will have to first become graduates of the Top Gun School at NAS Miramar?<br /><br />No, I use the phrase Top Gun the way I would use Hot Rod or Cool Dude.<br />---------------<br /><br />“That investment in the Tejas programme is rooted in the navy’s plan to operate both light and medium fighters off its aircraft carriers.”—Exactly what criteria is being used to describe ‘light’ and ‘medium’? The aircraft’s MTOW or the weapons payload of the concerned aircraft? What is it exactly that the ‘medium’ MiG-29K can do which the ‘light’ NLCA will not be able to?<br /><br />MTOW. The MiG-29K will do a lot more in terms of performance and payload than the NLCA.<br />--------------<br /><br />“Meanwhile, a major shore-based test facility is coming up at INS Hansa, in Goa, which replicates an aircraft carrier deck on ground, complete with arrested recovery and a ski jump for take off.”—Will this projected facility be type-specific to the NLCA or will it also be used by the MiG-29K/MiG-29KUB?<br /><br />The shore-based facility duplicates the carrier, not the aircraft! You can fly both aircraft from it.<br />--------------<br /><br />Which OEM will be roped in by ADA as consultant for designing the NLCA’s beefed-up landing gear, considering that EADS has no prior experience in developing landing gear for carrier-based combat aircraft? <br /><br />Lockheed Martin, probably. Still under process.<br />-------------<br /><br />Has the Navy selected the OEM for supplying the NLCA’s ejection seats? Will the OEM be Martin Baker, or will it be Zvezda of Russia, which will be supplying the ejection setas for the IAF-specific Tejas LCAs?<br /><br />No idea.<br />----------------<br /><br />Lastly, has the Navy asked ADA to custom-design an engineering simulator or tactical simulator for the NLCA, just as ADA was required to do so in case of the IAF-specific Tejas Mk1 LCA?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />Whew!Ajai Shuklahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16488839157370084666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-1883282504666962592009-09-21T15:20:01.659-07:002009-09-21T15:20:01.659-07:00Sir, thanks for posting this good article. when ...Sir, thanks for posting this good article. when was this signed?Ramuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02868001675898406193noreply@blogger.com