should it not have all glass cockpit ??
No need for glass cockpits, as it is a basic trainer. Had the reqmt been for an advanced turboprop trainer, then glass cockpits like those of the PC-21 would have been specified & asked for.
Prashun, I am posting my response to your comment @May 4, 2012 11:18 PM, in this threadYou wrote:'If you want to be arrogant at least try to be correct and stop being economical with facts. For instance, where is there any mention of NJ9842 in the para that you copy-pasted from god-knows-where? And since when was the Simla Agreement inked in 1971?'If you had ever 'seen' the Karachi Agreement, with your 'own eyes' - a complaint that you have against 'desi journalists' - you would have realised that I have 'copy pasted' Part II/B/2/d the Karachi Agreement, 1949 itself, as published in 'United Nations - Treaty Series', Vol 81; pg 280. And the maps, jointly initialed by India and Pakistan, accompanying the Agreements [Karachi & Simla], depict CFL/LoC to terminate at map coordinate NJ9842. It is the last delineated point to the North-East of Khor (recalling from memory).And Shimla Agreement was signed in 1972. Error is regretted. You wrote:I therefore challenge you produce any document which states in black-and-white that after NJ 9842 there was a straight line or dotted line drawn by either country on the set of maps that showed the LoC.In debating circle, this is called strawman. I challenged your claim that 'NONE of these agreements [Karachi & Simla] is there any sentence which states that the LoC will run “thence north to the glaciers”'. I have quoted the relevant portion of Karachi Agreement [Part II/B/2/d of the Agreement] to prove you wrong. I have never claimed that there is any document that 'states in black-and-white that after NJ 9842 there was a straight line or dotted line drawn by either country on the set of maps that showed the LoC'.Instead of clutching at random soggy straws, have the decency of accepting your error and move on.
Dear Prasun jiWhy india need AA 10 from ukraine when more capable F & F missile like AA 12 adder is available, some versions of which gave more range than AA10.Thanks.
how effective is akash SAM against jamming because its a radar guided is it easy to jamming it?
Hi Prasun , thanx again for replying. If the IAF intended the Mig-27 to be a tank buster, then why didnt it go for the Su-25t. It is a dedicated tank killer and had armour platings. It was an answer to the A-10 two thunderbolt. I thought the Mig -27 was intended for battlefield interdiction and for striking moving targets in the deep battle. U said it was to be used as a tank killer during daytime. But the all out critical battle and the spearhead would be performed at night. I had mistakingly used the word map. Just like modern irst like pirate, skyward have AG modes and see the terrain below in IR , also cant the Flir on the Litening 3 be used to obtain FLIR imagery of the terrain below.The imagery can be obtained in the head down display. Can't this imagery be used for navigation as it is used for target aquisition . Are the planners at Vayu bhawan idiots. They hv retired the Migs as the engines hv reached the end of their technical lifes but there is still life left in the airframe.Regarding fittment of radars on the Jaguar, such work has already been carried out by HAL on the Jaguar IM and hence they have the required technical expertise for carrying out such extensive nose modifications. U yourself were of the view that IAF might fit radar s way back in 09 in Trishul blogspot. Also such an upgrade would be justifiable as the ac will now be capable of SAR, ISAR ,GMTI imagery of targets as well scan and track hostile fighter jets and other ac.Has the IAF got hold of spares for MiG-27M. How long will the fleet remain grounded?Pls reply.
Hi Prasun, what is the inventory of the ARC. I am talking about the intelligence gathering, recon , ELINT, SIGINT aircraft apart from the recent 2 Bombardier 5000. The ARC also have transport aircrafts for transport of personel of establishment 22. Arent the ELINT, SIGINT ac nt fitted with SAR for radar imagery? The 9 ac for Sigint, elint & the 2 ac fitted with SAR, are they meant for replacing the existing inventory. Inspite of all the existing high tech aircraft why cant RAW detect the presence of pakistani jihadis and pakistani intrusion in the Kargil sector. Pls ans. And why dont you write an article on the ARC , about its capabilities.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JQwC_Jf7d4s/T6N3OdUZP3I/AAAAAAcould any1 translate it?
To Anon@10.03AM: Instead of clutching at random soggy straws, it is you that ought to have the decency of accepting your error and move on. If all that you can achieve is try to recall from your ‘memory’ the last delineated point, instead of providing firm quotes from the Treaty’s text, then you’re on extremely shaky ground. For starters, had you read the text of the Karachi Agreement you would have known by now that the grid reference for the past demarcated point of the CFL & LoC is NJ 980420, and was never NJ 9842. Secondly, the CFL & LoC both have a termination point, and that too is clearly mentioned in the treaty’s text, as being NJ 980420. In fact, the Karachi Agreement’s text says: “(d) From Dalunang eastwards the cease-fire line will follow the general line (Point 15495), Ishman, Manus, Gangam, Gunderman (Point 13620), Funkar (Point 17628), Marmak, Natsara, Shangruti (Point 1,531), Chorbat La (Point 16700), Chalunka (on the Shyok River), Khor, thence north to the glaciers & terminating at NJ 980420.” Therefore, if you do have to quote, then do so comprehensively, and don’t leave out details for your own convenience or ulterior motives. And thanks for admitting that “I have never claimed that there is any document that 'states in black-and-white that after NJ 9842 there was a straight line or dotted line drawn by either country on the set of maps that showed the LoC'.” This after all proves my point about the area beyond NJ 980420 being undemarcated till this day—a point the ‘desi’ mass-media folks and even several retired Indian bureaucrats & military officials persistently fail to acknowledge and instead continue to spread lies and disinformation. To Pawan: Why? This is what air combat tactics is all about. Read the AWST article at: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=3313To Anon@11.37AM: Only high-power jammers mounted on aircraft like the B-52 will be able to jam the Akash’s Rajendra BLR. For other types of combat aircraft, the best thing to do when targeted by the Akash is to avoid the Rajendra BLR’s engagement envelope.
To Anon@12.51PM: The Su-25 was never offered for export to India. When critical armoured battles will be fought at nighttime, the duels will be between opposing MBTs and LOHs, and MiG-27Ms will not be required for such battles. Only in daytime when MBTs cannot operate in the desert heat will the MiG-27Ms & Mi-25/Mi-35P attack helicopters be used. The FLIR imagery from LDPs cannot be used for obtaining views of the terrain below since the FLIR sensor is reqd foremost for target acquisition. A single pilot & a single FLIR sensor can’t do two things at the same time. Even if the FLIR imagery of the terrain below is shown on the HDD, the pilot cannot constantly glance downwards on the HDD since if he were to do so, he will lose his situational awareness and consequently, the aircraft will crash. A pilot always has to keep looking out of his cockpit & therefore the HUD exists to display all kinds of weapons launch symbologies. The HDD is made use of only for acquiring a designated ground target and achieving target lock-on with the help of the LDP. After that, the pilot is not reqd to keep staring at the HDD. The on-board radars (a smaller version of the EL/M-2032) of the Jaguar IM have very small antennae that are used only for maritime target acquisition. They’re not MMRs, since the MMR requires far more space in the nose-section, which isn’t available on either the Jaguar IS or Jaguar IM.To Anon@12.55PM: The ARC’s inventory includes about four Astra 1125s (two of which are fitted with belly-mounted LOROP cameras), a Gulfstream Aerospace G-1159A G-3 fitted with side-looking ITEK LOROP camera, and one Learjet 35A also fitted with a side-looking ITEK LOROP camera. In addition, for air transportation reqmts, one IL-76MD, two An-32Bs & two C-130J-30s are requisitioned from the IAF whenever reqd. The to-be-acquired ELINT/SIGINT aircraft won’t have LOROP cameras or SARs. The to-be-acquired Bombardier 5000s will have both Condor LOROP cameras from ELBIT Systems as well as belly-mounted SARs, a version of the EL/M-2060P. They will replace the existing G-3 & Learjet 35A. As to why India failed to detect the intruders at Kargil in 1999, read this: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1615/16151170.htm
Dear Prasun jiThanks.The article answers my query.
hey Prasundahow is the FCS different to the F-INSAS??? Hope to get your reply :)
sir ! During Defense Expo the Glass cockpit shown by Halbit, is that the cockpit that will be integrated on tejas Mk2 and AMCA ?and when we will see the firsr prototype of Tejas MK2?
Prasun,My compliments on a very well-informed and descriptive blog.Keep up the good work Sir..!Best Wishes,Rahul
can the Indian law nab Ravi Rishi who already started telling all that he is Indian born but UK citizen ?
siracc. to u the total inventory of ARC is 6 aircraft ?isn't it too less
toxic_pus is 100% correct. lets end the debate. This is the link to thePDF on the United nations treaty Site for those who want to read it: http://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%2081/v81.pdfYou can search for the term Shyok or scroll to PDF page 296 (marked as physical page 280 in the treaty's original body text).the relevant section clearly states: "khor, thence north to the glaciers." nothing further is specified. Hence this line is quoted repeatedly by Indian side._________QUOTE_________(d) From DALUNANG eastwards the cease-fire line will follow thegeneral line Point 15495, ISHMAN, MANUs, GANGAM, GUNDERMAN, Point 13620,JUNKAR (Point 17628), MARMAK, NATSARA, SHANGRUTH (Point 17531),CHORBAT LA (Point 15700), CHALUNKA (on the SHYOK River), KHOR, thencenorth to the glaciers. This portion of the cease-fire line shall be demarcatedin detail on the basis of the factual position as of 27 July 1949 by the localcommanders, assisted by United Nations Military Observers.
Prasunda, can you please tell me why we did not develope Follan Gnant (originally designed and used as a trainer with RAF)to modern day trainer ??
How many Tavor TAR-21 are ordered?Why not license produce these ARs locally in large numbers(some with 7.62 rounds) instead of buying more of different ?
An observer @3:12 AM. Normally in many cases Prasun is right. But there are few instances where he unknowingly contradicts himself. He generally doesn't accept........ Maybe due to his indomitable fighting spirit. But then compared to likes of "Ajay Shukla" he is a world apart. Give it a rest. Remember no one is perfect and no one can be right everytime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-based_X-band_Radarwill US sell the Sea-based X-band Radar to india i would really like 2 see that baby on indian colors
To ABS: The FCS will be a navalised F-INSAS catering to quantitatively smaller reqmts, but optimised for the maritime warfighting environment. The hardware could well be the same, but the operating software will be specific to the Navy, especially the encryption codes and crypto keys. The FCS and the Link-2 system will also make use of the GSAT-7 fleet comms satellite of the Indian Navy.To Anon@12.22PM: That was just a conceptual design, which was shown not only by HALBIT, but by SAMTEL as well. To Rahul: VMTTo Dashu: It remains to be seen if conclusive evidence can be obtained about any kind of wrongdoing against Ravi Rishi. In my view, the real culprits are Indian citizens who have been decision-makers at BEML & the Army HQ, and the MoD’s Dept of Defence Production & Supplies.To Anon@3.30PM: ARC is also authorised to requisition aircraft from the IAF whenever there is a need to do so, like the IL-76MD, An-32B & C-130J-30.To An Observer: What you’ve quoted was never in doubt. But the question that remains unanswered is why should one keep referring to the Karachi Agreement when it was replaced with the Simla Agreement? Shouldn’t the Simla Agreement be the foundation upon which all conflict resolution mechanisms must be based? One cannot after all keep clutching on to the Karachi Agreement any longer when India herself has ruled out any kind of role to be played by the UN in any dispute resolution between India & Pakistan. Therefore, the term “thence north to the glaciers” has no relevance whatsoever as it does not figure in the Simla Agreement. And even if a straight line were to be drawn from NJ9842 going straight up northwards, the Saltoro Ridge is to the west of this imaginary line.To Sohom Dev: The decision to go for the Folland Gnat/Ajeet was a disastrous one, as the IAF ended up acquiring a transonic combat aircraft at a time when supersonic alternatives were available in plenty. After the Toofani & Mysteres, the Mirage V/50 should have been logically selected, instead of the Gnat. Maybe someone made some extra money through the Gnat procurement exercise. To Anon@9.37PM: Close to 20,000 units of Tavor 21s. Why licence-produce them when it is far cheaper and faster to import them? If the idea is to produce something in-country, then it should be locally designed small arms.To Anon@11.57PM: I don’t think an off-the-shelf purchase of such radars is on the cards. Nor will such radars be sold. The only other alternative is to build one in-country, which is a cost-prohibitive exercise.
Prashun [@May 7, 2012 4:50 AM]This is getting ridiculous.First you said, 'NONE of these agreements is there any sentence which states that the LoC will run “thence north to the glaciers”'. Then, while accepting the existence of the phrase 'thence north to the glaciers', you claimed that the particular paragraph ends thus: 'Khor, thence north to the glaciers & terminating at NJ 980420'. Now you are saying that the para doesn't end with those words after all, and it 'was never in doubt'. Are you for real?But as usual you have left another doozy. Simla Agreement doesn't replace Karachi Agreement. Simla Agreement dilutes UN resolutions on Kashmir, almost to the point of irrelevance, but sadly doesn't completely make those resolutions null and void. Simla Agreement also changed the nomenclature and some ground positions south of NJ 9842. Maps accompanying Simla Agreement continues to show NJ 9842 as the Northern most delineated point and since Simla Agreement is silent about where LoC goes beyond NJ 9842, Karachi Agreement continues to be applicable for that portion. There is nothing in the body text of Simla Accord that nullifies Karachi Agreement or the phrase 'thence north to the glaciers'. That phrase is as much relevant today as it was in 1949.PS: You are going to delete this post as well, isn't it?
hey Prasundathanks a lot for your previous reply :)Now I would like to know when do you think that an MIRVed A-5 be tested, with the DRDO providing no certain clues about it?
Sir ! do you have information about Trichy OFB gun which is under user trial.. please explain its advantage over INSAS rifle
Sir! What happen to Indo US nuke deal ... when US companies will build nuke plant in India.??
If there is such heated toxicity pussyfooting etc around a military deal, is it any wopnder pakistanis and Chinese each have their own claims and qualms as such and the hostilities never end?Let's call that debate 1:1 and let us abandon the match so other topics can be discussed.If you wish to continue I would like some white mischief cheer girls as well without the coverup clothing! ;)
sir ,even if ARC can get aircraft from IAF isn't it prudent that ARC maintain & operate its own fleet..IAF needs its aircraft for its own purposes..it ordered the aircraft for itself & not ARC..acc to u..what is the optimal no. of all kind of aircraft that the ARC need for 24 hr survelaince , SIGINT TECHINT IMINT ELINT.. all along the indian sub-continent ?
http://defencedog.blogspot.in/2012/04/chinese-prototype-for-electromagnetic.html#.T6eXwdkyfe0Chinese Prototype For Electromagnetic Catapults For Aircraft Carriers.Question Is In Arena Of Technology Where We Really Stand In Front Of Chinese On Ground.
mr THINKTANK,according to mr Saraswat we are way way ahead of Chinese(at least in untested BMD) , but don't u know the reality ???we are nowhere near to them
Mr Prasun K Sengupta So You have ALSO SOLD out to the Pakis like all others who are demandingthat Siachen be gifted to Pakistan
Just my two cents on this NJ... debate.From a technical/legal standpoint thence north could be north-east or could be north-west. It is open to each ones interpretation. Nobody can claim it has to be a straight line going up.Therefore I think India is on solid ground [and 22000 feet up] over here :).
Earth is spherical so that must be creating some additional dimension and more confusions. Lol...
Thank your sir for replying .But Gnat did earned the name "saber slayer" . My question was why we did not develope Ajeet into some trainer as it was already into production with HAL . What happened to HTT 34 , we were supposed to even export it to Nigerian Air force ?? What is the status of HJT 36 and 39 ?? thank you in advance .
Dear Prasun da,I just read a defence forum that a top Russian General remarked that Indian have not tested an ICMB ( 5000km range). What is your opinion on this remark..?
What improvements are expected in P-15B destroyers over 15A ones?will it have Nirbhay?There is no news of ur report of 550Km Brahmos,r they in production.can it be done by increasing the fuel load?
To Anon@8.46AM: No, this comment will NOT be deleted as yes, this is getting ridiculous due to you sufferring from the “I am always right and you are always wrong” syndrome. If by your logic, the Simla Agreement doesn't replace the Karachi Agreement, then how can the Simla Agreement dilute any UN resolutions on Kashmir, almost to the point of irrelevance? If the Karachi Agreement still stands on its own then each and every one of its clauses too must be relevant to this day. And this is where as usual you have left another doozy by stating that ”but sadly doesn't completely make those resolutions null and void”. In any court of international law your farcical stance would be rejected outright and you would be told to either stick to the Karachi Agreement or the Simla Agreement as the defining point of departure. And since India swears by the Simla Agreement and has formally never invoked any element of the Karachi Agreement after 1972, the phrase “thence north to the glaciers” holds no relevance after December 1972. And even if any notional or perceptional line runs “thence north to the glaciers” the lack of its formal delineation and demarcation by any sovereign country means that any such notional line cannot be taken to be a sacrosant international boundary by any of the involved disputing parties.To ABS: By 2014 it is expected to commence flight-tests of the MIRVs. To Anon@1.13PM: That weapon system is still at the evaluations stage. Results will be known only by the year’s end. To Anon@1.16PM: Your guess is as good as mine.To Anon@2.58PM: Anyone, including the ARC, can operate and own its own aircraft fleet ONLY if 1) it has its own pool of technical manpower that’s required to support the fleet through the establishment of localised MRO facilities, or 2) can outsource such MRO reqmts to an India-based MRO facility. Presently, none of the two are available for either private operators or govt operators of bizjets. Therefore, all such bizjets have to routinely visit the MRO facilities of their OEMs, located in Singapore. In addition, aircraft like the IL-76MD or An-32B or C-130J-30 are not required by the ARC everyday, but only once a month or so, and therefore it becomes uneconomical for the ARC to own and operate such aircraft types. 24-hour ELINT/SIGINT/SAR surveillance isn’t undertaken by any country, let alone India. Surveillance flights are always undertaken AFTER specific intel inputs are received that require detailed investigating or monitoring.To THINKTANK: India has a long way to go. Just compare the amount of funds allocated per annum by the govts of India and China for R & D & you will find your answer.
To Anon@4.51PM &5.31PM & Mr.RA 13: On the contrary, I’ve always argued that since India had decided by late 1983 to unilaterally violate the terms of the Simla Agreement, then an air-assault operation aimed at establishing a firm foothold at an altitude of 16,000 feet at Dansum (instead of the Saltoro Ridge) should have been launched. Right now, sitting along the Saltoro Ridge offers no operational advantage to India, and anyone contemplating a preparatory fire-assault on India’s Siachen base camp with the help of long-range MBRLs and NLOS-BSMs, and followed by a heliborne air-assault can easily dislodge the Indian soldiers deployed along the Ridge & at Partapur. If either the Chinese or Pakistanis wanted to do it, they would have done it a long time ago. An talking about sellouts, well, that happened a long time ago starting 1951 and became evident only in 1959, when it emerged that the then Govt of India had failed to reveal the fact to its citizens about China building its National Highway 219 to connect Tibet to Xinjiang via Aksai Chin. The second sellout began at around the same time when India refused to delineate and demarcate its borders with China. And after late 1962, just to save its own face, the then Govt of India chose to disregard the actual facts of the 1963 China-Pakistan border settlement and instead began a disinformation campaign that created two myths which survive till this day: China & Pakistan had ganged up against India after the Sino-Indian war of 1962; and that Pakistan had gifted China with large chunks of J & K State’s territory. In reality, a closer examination of actual facts shows that on the contrary, it was Pakistan that benefitted by some 750 square miles of additional territory after demarcating the border between the Northern Areas & Xinjiang. How was this done? Unlike India, which was insisting on working with China on the basis of questionable treaties & surveys undertaken by the Brits ever since they created the state of Kashmir in 1840, both China & Pakistan instead chose to reach an agreement based on the internationally recognised geographical principle of the watershed as being the natural divide in boundary settlements. Consequently, though India used the giving away of 11,000 square miles of the Northern Areas by Pakistan to China to belittle Pakistan, the fact remains that the ceded areas never belonged to Pakistan in the first place and as far back as 1836 all maps published by the Brits has shown these areas as being part of Xinjiang. This included the Shaksgam Valley, which was north of the Karakoram watershed. Thus in conclusion, it was the then Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru who had messed up all avenues of settling the boundary issue with China, while Pakistan not only succeeded through pragmatic diplomatic means, but in the process created the bedrock for a robust friendship that has only pushed India deeper into a hole. This was the REAL SELLOUT, and everything since then has only compounded the lies and perfidy that has not only been untenable to those that view matters objectively, but is today totally indefensible.
To Mr.RA 13: Looks like ‘others’ too have begun taking note of all that I’ve been stating about the rlusive HJT-36 IJT.To Sohom Dev: The Ajeet’s airframe was never found to be suitable for an AJT since the aircraft was never designed to operate as one. By the late 1970s and early 1980s the AJTs of that time were already being equipped with semi-glass cockpits & HUDs & newer turbofans, and featured far more internal volume (for housing avionics & instrumentation) than what was available for the Ajeet. Would a re-engining & redesigned airframe be possible? Probably yes, but that in the early 1980s no one was interested in such launching such R & D programmes since the HJT-16 Kiran basic jet trainer was doing a good job & nobody at that ever could ever imagine that the IAF would eventually have to wait for 22 years to acquire the Hawk Mk132 AJT. The HTT-34 was a stillborn project & was never fully developed. HJT-36 IJT is also in a limbo right now as it is not required, now that the PC-7 Mk2s will start arriving. Compare the cockpits of the PC-7 Mk2 with those of the HJT-36 & you’ll realise the lack of any significant difference between the two. To deba2233: Everyone’s entitled to their own opinions.To Anon@10.56PM: Let’s see if an all-electric propulsion system is selected for the P-15B DDGs. One would have also liked to see an all-gas turbine-based powerplant, although that appears unlikely.
Yes! Others are getting the apprehensions by now that the HJT-36/Sitara-IJT has been dispatched to the Gulag Archipelago.
The period of Indian politics from 1947 to 1962 was laden with worst kinds of international dilemma and national trauma. Imagine, the US was utmost happy with the emerging freedom of India from the clutches of its friendly competitor, the British. US expected opening of a great business market from free and democratic India. On the other hand the USSR under Stalin were glad over the prospects of a separated Pakistan666 on mistaken concept of their revolutionary ethnic and cultural liberation under the “right to secede” in the backyard and almost continuity of their Central Asian Autonomous Republics. The general population and people in command of undivided India were not much averse to such opinions. All calculations started going topsy-turvy with the death of Stalin and rising of Red Dragon at China with immense anticipated power. Pakistan being considered a renegade nation and lacking self respect had more opportunities and inclinations to go for mercurial and real opportunistic diplomatic policies. I am sorry to say that the Pakistanis understood the inherent contradictions here better and before than MaoTseTung himself and they managed to close all the doors on India. Rest is history and India is yet to understand as to what is to be done with China whether fry or roast.I mean there have to be a re-entry through some crevices within the larger paradigm of the structure of the time to correct the undesired faults of the past and so the present and the future. It has to be done.
To Mr.RA 13: You’ve hit the nail bang on its head through this observation: “Pakistan being considered a renegade nation and lacking self respect had more opportunities and inclinations to go for mercurial and real opportunistic diplomatic policies. I am sorry to say that the Pakistanis understood the inherent contradictions here better and before than MaoTseTung himself and they managed to close all the doors on India. Rest is history and India is yet to understand as to what is to be done with China whether fry or roast.”But alas, the great majority of India’s ruling-class/elite have yet to take stock of such realities, leave alone developing an objective appreciation of the present-day situation. And as a consequence of this, it is constantly projected by the country’s mass-media that it is the Indian Army that is vehemently opposed to the demilitarisation of the areas around the Siachen Glacier, without even bothering to ask what is the IAF’s stand on this issue, and what are the IAF’s threat perceptions vis-à-vis the purpoted link-up between the PRC & Pakistan in the Gilgit-Baltistan areas.
PC 7 Mk2 is a turbo prop and it is meant for basic training for rookie pilots . Then we have HJT 16 kirans for jet flying which was supposed to be replaced by HJT 36 sitara . From subsonic to supersonic conversions we have hawk so how come induction of pc 7have its affect on HJT 36 ?? or its like we need only two types of trainer a turbo prop and Hawk which can also cater to subsonic jet flight ??
Thank you sir . Now i know that to make Ajeet a trainer it would have required substantial change in airframe and cockpit layout to accommodate semi glass cockpit but it could have been pursued . We jumped to LCA and kept on adding newer technologies according to modern trends . Had we started with a humble trainer and added variants accordingly then the delay in LCA project could have been minimized . With LCA we started with newer technologies , all digital fly by wire , a MMR , kaveri engine , all composite airframe . So basically we should have incremental changes to our LCA rather then trying to add all technologies and then refine it. You said that both pc 7 and IJT have similar cockpit , was it intended or it just happened to be same ? People of your caliber when reply back the *queries from lesser mortals like us ,it really uplifts the enthusiasm . Thank you once again .
Prasun, what are your thoughts on the CTC and when,if ever, can we expect to see it implemented as we are now long past the 1st March date for start of operations for NCTC.
Dear Prasun, will you please kindly inform what is the present status of HJT-36 Sitara and HTT-40? There seem to be no reports about how the Russian NPO-Saturn engine, that is going to be licence produced in HAL's Koraput unit, is performing on Sitara. By the by is it the same engine that will be powering Nirbhay?
Dear Prasun, I am sorry I have not read your reply to Sohom Dev before I posted above. But I think Sitara is very much alive and kicking. Here is a news story dated April-19, 2012 from http://www.defencenow.com/news/641/russian-engine-al-551-proves-satisfactory-for-homegrown-hjt-16-trainer-aircraft.html. The last para of the news item is "The development of the tandem seated subsonic jet trainer HJT-16 Sitara is being carried out successfully by HAL. HAL has been busy trying to step-up infrastructure facilities for manufacturing the HJT-36 in Tambaram, Chennai. The power plant of the aircraft, NPO Saturn AL-55I, will be locally made under license at HAL’s aero-engineering centre, Koraput. HJT-36 has already secured an order for 76 aircrafts for the IAF and the order could eventually grow to 250 aircraft."
Post a Comment