Team-BHP
(
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen
(Post 4460054)
A little off topic: I just checked that Cobham website. I was surprised to see their system also deployed on the SU30!?
I am surprised they were allowed to sell this sort of technology to countries using the SU30!
Another case of money makes the world go around I guess?
Jeroen
|
India is an interesting case study. Given the largesse on offer for exporters you'll find all manner of strange bedfellows. Especially now the Americans want to get in on the act.
Take India's S-400 purchase. Look at the almighty stink US Congress kicked up with Turkey's plan to purchase the S-400, going so far as to halt F-35 deliveries to a partner nation, a NATO nation (now I should add there's a plethora of other reasons also at play here). To that regard India should be under the sanctions spotlight but at the 2+2 dialogue between Mattis, Pompeo, Swaraj and Sitharaman, India kindly reminded the US that Russia is a long time defence ally and India just won't be backtracking on the 5 S-400 systems it agreed to purchase. I think you'll see that American monetary interests in terms of the big tenders still afloat will see this one get brushed under the carpet, unless the White House is forced to issue some sort of rebuke so that there's no double standard wrt the Turkey case (though again, I'm aware Turkey's decision is more glaring given it is a NATO member).
So rather than the Cobham refuelling pods on Sukhois coming across as surprising, I'd be gobsmacked if ever the US should countenance Indian deliveries of F-35 jets whilst S-400 units are being inducted! That would make my head spin truly and I imagine I won't be the only one. Besides I feel like perhaps the pods come under the same bracket as standard kit as maybe ejection seats. Are there sanctions against Martin Baker seats being used by non NATO nations, or shall we say instead Chinese or Russian companies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ads11
(Post 4460505)
... Besides I feel like perhaps the pods come under the same bracket as standard kit as maybe ejection seats. Are there sanctions against Martin Baker seats being used by non NATO nations, or shall we say instead Chinese or Russian companies?
|
AFAIK, Indian SU-30's don't use Martin Baker ejection systems rather the Russian KD-36DM (0-0 ejection seat systems) and to a certain extent DRDO has developed indigenous seat/ejection systems. I remember reading some presentations on this from ADA in an international conference.
https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion...502684392.html
Innocuous little piece, if not motivated, answers some questions and leaves one with a whole lot more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ads11
(Post 4460505)
India is an interesting case study. Given the largesse on offer for exporters you'll find all manner of strange bedfellows.
So rather than the Cobham refuelling pods on Sukhois coming across as surprising......
|
Hope we have not become great jugaadi's :eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGA
(Post 4460837)
|
The article itself sounds more like "yellow" journalism rather than a technical review of COS.
Interesting news -
Quote:
Russia, which buried the MiG-21 in 1985, has asked for 3 aircraft for demonstrations of vintage flying. India, which still uses it, has agreed to the gift.
|
News link
The Hindu carried a piece of news that doesn't seem right to me. It's about an upgraded version of Mig 29 for the IAF. The other things in the article seem believable - new air to ground and air to ship capabilities, mid-air refueling, new cockpit electronics etc. But this is what I choked over my morning coffee:
Quote:
He also said that the fighter plane has the capability of taking off vertically, which has “increased the IAF’s power a lot”.
|
Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...le25148614.ece
VTOL? Really? Can you really bestow that capability upon an aircraft in a midlife upgrade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by locusjag
(Post 4474681)
The Hindu carried a piece of news that doesn't seem right to me. It's about an upgraded version of Mig 29 for the IAF. The other things in the article seem believable - new air to ground and air to ship capabilities, mid-air refueling, new cockpit electronics etc. But this is what I choked over my morning coffee: Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...le25148614.ece
VTOL? Really? Can you really bestow that capability upon an aircraft in a midlife upgrade?
|
He probably meant that the MiG-29 can climb near vertically at an insanely high angle of attack because of its favourable thrust to weight ratio, not vertical take off like the Harrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanchan95
(Post 4474700)
He probably meant that the MiG-29 can climb near vertically at an insanely high angle of attack because of its favourable thrust to weight ratio, not vertical take off like the Harrier.
|
I did consider that interpretation. But then again, wasn't the Mig 29 always capable of a "vertical takeoff", given that it has had a 1+ thrust-to-weight ratio? Or am I barking up the wrong tree - please let me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanchan95
(Post 4474700)
He probably meant that the MiG-29 can climb near vertically at an insanely high angle of attack because of its favourable thrust to weight ratio, not vertical take off like the Harrier.
|
Correct. The Mig 29 now gets upgraded RD-33 engines with digital fuel injection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by locusjag
(Post 4474710)
I did consider that interpretation. But then again, wasn't the Mig 29 always capable of a "vertical takeoff", given that it has had a 1+ thrust-to-weight ratio? Or am I barking up the wrong tree - please let me know.
|
Although our Mig 29s had 1+ thrust to weight ratio, the upgraded ones have even more power. So I guess,
even if the jet is fully loaded with fuel and weapons, it can now take-off "vertically".
These days, lumbering passenger jets have enough power to take off at near 90 degree angles :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYbM-3E11Qo
Quote:
Originally Posted by locusjag
(Post 4474710)
I did consider that interpretation. But then again, wasn't the Mig 29 always capable of a "vertical takeoff", given that it has had a 1+ thrust-to-weight ratio? Or am I barking up the wrong tree - please let me know.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartcat
(Post 4474711)
Correct. The Mig 29 now gets upgraded RD-33 engines with digital fuel injection.
Although our Mig 29s had 1+ thrust to weight ratio, the upgraded ones have even more power. So I guess, even if the jet is fully loaded with fuel and weapons, it can now take-off "vertically".
|
The RD 33 are the same engines that does work on MiG 29-K, the naval version of the fighter, used extensively by the Indian Navy.
The earlier MiG 29s also could do a near vertical take off. As smartcat already pointed out, RD-33 has more power. I know of instances when the MiG 29K took off from the short deck of a carrier, climbed vertically on take off leg and then executed a roll-of-the-top! :Shockked:
(Dropped jaws? Me too!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhanushmenon
(Post 4474757)
The RD 33 are the same engines that does work on MiG 29-K, the naval version of the fighter, used extensively by the Indian Navy.
The earlier MiG 29s also could do a near vertical take off. As smartcat already pointed out, RD-33 has more power. I know of instances when the MiG 29K took off from the short deck of a carrier, climbed vertically on take off leg and then executed a roll-of-the-top! :Shockked:
(Dropped jaws? Me too!)
|
While RD-33s powering early Fulcrums and modern Fulcrums are basically the same, the engines powering the Naval Fulcrums are the slightly different RD-33MK Sea Wasp engines. The engines were specially designed for sea conditions and develop more power than normal RD-33 engines that power land based Fulcrums. They apparently don't smoke as much as 'normal' RD-33s.
The engines that power our UPG Fulcrums are RD-33 series 3 engines and it does duty on newly built MiG-29SMTs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhanushmenon
(Post 4474757)
I know of instances when the MiG 29K took off from the short deck of a carrier
|
Something like this ? Not a short take off, but spectacular nevertheless.
https://youtu.be/xzwL_6NuEls
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartcat
(Post 4478360)
|
What with the entire F35 fleet currently being grounded due to the fuel tube issue, and the total disaster that is Tyndall AFB after Hurricane Michael, expect to see the numbers for the USAF to go down further. To be honest, availability rates are a concern for the US for a while now. They've been flying the wings off of their planes from the constant use for the past 17 years. [See:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...pretty-dismal].
Those Hornet numbers are really galling. That fleet is really being run ragged.
I remember early on that's the main thing that's difficult to convey to Joe Public. Unlike say a taxi fleet, where a tiny fraction will probably be out for maintenance and repair, the rest will be fully available, pretty much most kinds of mechanised military hardware in the air, land and sea domains probably average out at 50% availability (I'd say that's a very rough back of the envelope estimation but I would wager I'm not too far off).
It brings me back to a report recently about poor availability rates for the Su-30s in IAF service. You'd normally expect the rugged Russian kit to be like a trusty old tractor, won't let you down. I wonder if the issues could be traced to the many subsystems married together inside. It's probably why I'm such a big proponent for simplifying the maintenance load by going all in for a platform that has major commonality across say IAF and IN service (cough..Rafale--cough). That way your repair headache is less because the odds are the parts supply chain has less complexity than what I can only imagine is akin to a fractal design given our current diverse fleet composition.
| All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 07:51. | |
