"DRDO is setting up a fighter engine complex, will have our own fighter engine instead of depending on GE' says HAL CMD R Madhavan "
Thats is quite odd. I thought GTRE was exactly doing that? why a new complex?
LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
"DRDO is setting up a fighter engine complex, will have our own fighter engine instead of depending on GE' says HAL CMD R Madhavan "
Thats is quite odd. I thought GTRE was exactly doing that? why a new complex?
I guess either a JV with RR or Safran is in the works . In all probability with the former.
He is referring to twin test cell.
GE engine local production with ToT was part of the earlier estimate submitted by HAL. Which was cut down because of cost.
Like LCA Tejas ?
And what will they gonna do there when we don’t have a working engine and neither the TOT to produce/assemble one like Volvo or JAEC Japan.
For engine also we need the help of so called powers.
Chinese still uses Russian engines for their J 20.
So you can imagine the challenges in that sector also
We have made such proposal but the other European countries have no desire to regain their autonomy.
France Offers Nuclear Deterrent to All Europe
March 2020
By Shannon Bugos
French President Emmanuel Macron offered to begin discussing with other European countries the role that France’s nuclear deterrent can play in their collective security.
France’s nuclear forces “strengthen the security of Europe through their very existence,” Macron said at the military school École de Guerre in Paris on Feb. 7. An erosion of “the comprehensive security framework” that protects Europe affects France’s defense strategy, he said, which means that “France’s vital interests now have a European dimension.” France’s nuclear deterrence “ensures our independence, our freedom to assess, make decisions, and take action. It prevents adversaries from betting on escalation, intimidation, and blackmailing to achieve their ends,” he said before extending the offer.
At the same time, Macron argued that the international community must limit the role of nuclear deterrence to “extreme circumstances of self-defense,” with the overall goal of preventing war.
“France’s nuclear doctrine strictly adheres to this framework,” he said. France currently has about 300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal.
During his address, Macron outlined three “paradigm shifts” underway in the world. The first he described as strategic, in which “a new hierarchy of powers” is emerging and bringing with it the heightened risk of conflict and military escalation due to competition.
The challenging of “a multilateral order based on law” defines the second paradigm shift, he said, illustrated by the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty last August. (See ACT, September 2019.) “Europeans must collectively realize today that, without a legal framework, they could quickly find themselves at risk of another conventional and even nuclear arms race on their soil,” Macron said. “They cannot stand by.”
The final shift involves the emergence of new technologies and their potential role in conflict. All of these paradigm shifts, he said, demand that the world think about what the future of war will look like. Macron suggested that the heads of state of the permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) convene in order “to fully discharge [their] mandate to maintain peace and international security” in this changing landscape.
Macron presented a four-pillared strategy for confronting these paradigm shifts and achieving peace. The first pillar he called the “promotion of an efficient multilateralism,” to include an increased investment in defense by European countries and a renewed international arms control agenda.
Regarding arms control, the president urged Europe to “rethink disarmament” so that it contributes to international security and highlighted France’s “unique track record in the world,” given its irreversible dismantlement of land-based nuclear weapons, nuclear testing facilities, and fissile material.
The next two pillars Macron described were the development of strategic alliances focused on promoting peace and security and the establishment of greater European autonomy.
Macron dubbed national sovereignty as the final pillar, saying, “if France is to live up to its ambition and its history, it must remain sovereign.”
Personal opinion that window is closed when it comes to PLAAF. We don't have enough AESA equipped aircrafts. So even though our EW and ECM might be more sophisticated. The Chinese will coverup whatever small lead we have in the next few 2-3 years. The J16 already have crossed the 200+ numbers and they are superior to the su 35. Then the J11 are also getting equipped by aesa. On top of that all of them use the pl-15 or will be using by the time we get tejas in enough numbers. And tejas will have to deal will J10 which have much better maneuverability and are aesa equipped. Then there is the j20 which will have even more advanced electronics and would take full advantage of pl15. The j20 is around 90 right now and they will get even more aircrafts so our 36 rafales will be stretched. If it comes down to man behind the machine we might have some miracles like the abhinandan shooting down f16. We might see some J10 or j16 being shotdown since all of there aircrafts don't have TVC. But TVC is any way useless for the most part.
We havent even started upgrading our mki's which should be a bigger priority than the mmrca.
The only saving grace might be the training of the PLAAF. But who knows how good or bad they are. The Thai and Chinese air exercise shows that they are pretty dangerous in wvr. While bvr they are already superior than us.
Suddenly Hal is issuing statement s like Nasik division is free for export production,.. Damn why can't we place additional orders? Or heck all the trainers
BTA - IJT - LCA LIFT .
I feel HAL is ignoring AJT designing. With Hawk i.
AJT with HTFE for CAS would be very welcome..
When you say that J-16 is superior to Su-35, that made me laugh. The Chinese are not able to develop an engine that can be as good as AL-41 on Su-35, surely the Chinese can copy a lot, but then they are not doing it that well either. If their J-16 were such good, there was no need to buy Su-35 in 50+ numbers. Chinese are trying to develop a good engine, but they cannot, since they cannot master the materials required to make a good engine. in fact India and China are nearbout the same situation when it comes to a good engine. but unlike India, China is able to push the plane down the throat of PLAAF for them to use and then come with further improvements.
Also its not a rule that Tejas has to deal with J-10, this is not a boxing match where when PLAAF sees a Tejas, they will send J-10 to face it and not say J-16 or Su-35.
J-20 is good design, but how good it actually is, is questionable, but yes it has the speed and range, but how well it can manoeuvre remains to be seen. IAF chief had clained that IAF Su-30 MKI flying in our own area were able to detect J-20 flying in Tibet, thus we are able to detect J-20 from a good distance (BVRAAM) but can we target them at that range and also can they be shot down at that range (are our missiles good enough)
TVC is not supposed to be used all the time, its supposed to be used in one point of time in combat that can place the advantage to you for a short moment, and during this small window, one is supposed to make most of the opportunity and shoot the enemy down.
Well according to the news sources I have read the J16 is superior in terms of ecm, avionics and radar. The article was from a Chinese perspective and it read that if the j16 was a 10/10 in electronics the su 35 was 8/10. Plus j16 uses an aesa radar so even if we take a higher mtbf for Chinese radars I doubt they will be worse than the Irbis if the Chinese deem so. I do not believe the Chinese but since they are focused on producing j16 makes me feel they are satisfied. Also unlike the j20 the j series flankers uses the al31 fm2 so their engine problems are not as pronounced for their flankers although I agree the su 35 deal was done for getting the know how of the al-41 so that they can use it on their j20. Also the j16 uses far more composites than our mki's which means a smaller RCS. And could help it get a first shoot first kill probability against our flankers. J16 is superior it has better electronics since the mki electronics are atleast a decade old. It has better missiles with larger range that is the pl 15 astra mk 2 will be integrated in 2022 and will still have inferior range of the 300 km claim is even true for the pl 15. The engine is superior too since the al 31 fm 2 has higher thrust but no TVC.
I agree but J10 will be there frontline fighter and will be used similarly the way our mki and mig 21 combo works. So if a tejas does do a interception it will more likely face a j10 than a j11 or j16 which will do a similar job that our mki does.
That's why I said its useless for the part and only works in a 1v1 dogfight.
J 20 seems to be a high speed interceptor and is said to have a bad low speed maneuverability with exceptional high speed maneuverability according to what the Chinese claim. So it might be closer to the typhoon in performance if I'm not wrong. So rafale and mki are opposite and can thrive in low speed regimes. And I doubt our mki's will catch the j20 in a confrontation since the claims are weird. I want to believe that our mki's detected the j20 but it's just a wierd claim considering a stealth aircraft could be detected from such a large range and even if it does we don't have the missiles to counter them since the j20 will be carrying pl 15 while our guys will use the r77-1 and astra for the most part so the pl 15 will have the chance to shoot first. 36 rafales are good for a small skirmish but will be stretched if a mass air invasion happens. I just want to know how the Chinese radar on the j20 performs to be reassured..
Whatever the Chinese claim, please take it with at least kg of salt. If the J-16 is superior to say Su-35 then the whole reason to buy Su-35 is confusing. The Chinese have "stealthy" J-20 and "superior" J-16, why would they be buying Su-35?
Firstly J-16 is the Chinese attempt to reverse engineer Su-30 MKK, the Chinese engine (copied from AL-31F) is not able to give the thrust that they require as they are not able to master the material tech. Further, they have an AESA, but IRBIS-E has definitely better advantage as able to detect at much further range. Since we do not know abt Chinese avionics, it might not be to just name call, but China spending billions to buy 50??? Su-35 despite them having 5th Gen J-20 and superior J-16 that says a lot.
Chinese style is to first copy a plane, and if found satisfactory, they go into mass production. When the PLAAF finds the issues, they would then note it down, and after say 100th unit, they could come with the improvements in new versions and the older versions brought in to modify, thus the Chinese style is to mass-produce thus bringing down the cost of production and get the numbers, then to improve further models, upgrade the older ones. On the other hand, IAF will wait for decades to get the plane they want and ask for changes just test flying it, they will not accept it. on the other hand, PLAAF will accept it, but also suggest modifications. I am sure that the J-16 project started a long time after the Tejas program.
About missiles, there are two things that I would like to point out, its not only the range, but how effective its NEZ is. I can bring the classic example where PAF F-16 fired several AIM-120C-15 against Indian Su-30 MKI none managed to hit. So PLAAF has longer range missile, but how effective NEZ does it have?
J-10 will be the frontline plane, which means it will be the plane which is most used, its use is Short-Medium Range MRCA. Its more or less in the class of Tejas/Gripen/Mirage 2000. Of course that will the interceptor for PLAAF.
J-16 on the other hand will be the one that would be used to more combat. J-16 will be the plane that would be expected to fly to attack IAF, not J-10. J-10 will be the one that will be the shield of PLAAF, the sword being J-16.
J-20 seems more like "stealth strike" plane which would be mainly used to conduct SEAD/DEAD and then to leave the contested airspace for J-16 to dominate with the J-20 playing the "special appearance" role. Thus J-20 will be used to take down vital installations using its "Steath"
As per what I understand J-20 has ok Frontal stealth, but then the other aspects will give it away, specially the engine.
If using one move you can destroy an enemy plane worth say 60 million dollars, almost same price of your plane, then I would say that is money well spent. Then if by your rules then we do not need missiles like MICA-IR or Python or R-73 IR missiles? These are dog fighting missiles, It would take a moment and long pilot training for the pilot to make the scene where he can use the TVC and then cue and fire his Dogfighting missile and take down the enemy almost at point-blank range. I am sure its worth it. Any sensor or system that can allow our plane to have an edge over the enemy and take it down, is worth it, it does not have many penalties, only if the pilot miscalculates and gets it wrong, but thats where the years of combat training and various multi lateral exercises comes handy.
Well the reasoning behind buying the su35 was to learn from the al 41 engine and use it to improve the engine of the j20. I do not believe their claim completely but not taking them seriously would lead to us underestimating them.
I would assume the reverse considering even IAF doesn't use flankers in a offensive role because of the RCS.
The missile bays don't allow for sead dead. It's pure air superiority high altitude interceptor. J20 isn't made for ground strike like the f35. The j16 would be rather used as a bomb truck or the jh 7a.
I'm just saying in a massive air war TVC won't affect since most dogfights are usually high energy fights. TVC isn't as advantageous in those scenarios. T
There is a possibility the Russians blackmailed the Chinese into buying the Su-35. It was probably a condition for continued engine support for their other programs, since the Russians practically have a monopoly with the AL-31F. We are headed the same way with the Americans with GE engines though, but that's a topic for another day.
There's nothing the Chinese can learn from engines when there's no ToT for it. Reports that the Chinese wanted the 117S for their J-20 are also wrong since the Chinese already have an equivalent engine that's under production for the J-20B. This engine even allows the J-20 to supercruise, so it's definitely better than the 117S.
That's where I actually got confused. Chinese engines are based on th cfm-56 which are the base of the f100 series of engines rather than the al 31 so how would buying su 35 really add anything to there engine knowledge or tech. The whole buying of su 35 doesn't make sense. And even if they were blackmailed into buying it they could have bought anything else apart from the su35. The purchase doesn't make sense if there electronics are superior and the engine is related to the American engine rather than anything to the Russian one..
I don't know if the Chinese next gen technologies are worse, the same or better than Russian tech, but what I know for sure is the J-16 is currently far superior to the Su-35 in terms of avionics build due to the use of next gen technologies whereas the Russians have stuck with the tried and tested, more so because they don't have the money for next gen yet. Combine that with a superior performing BVR missile, then you have something that's truly half a generation ahead.
The Chinese can't buy anything else because they need to deal with UAC as a whole, and not just Sukhoi or Salyut etc. It's funny, the Chinese have always dealt with Sukhoi/Salyut, all their fighter jets use Salyut engines, whereas the Su-35 uses a Saturn engine. The Salyut engine failed to make the cut for the Su-35, the same story repeats for Su-57 as well. So the Russians have basically forced the Chinese into a deal which doesn't benefit them one bit, but benefits the Russians the most as it opens the Su-35 up for exports in a big way amongst smaller countries, which is happening right now. There's also the possibility that the Su-35 contract was a peace gesture for stealing Russian tech for the J-15 and J-16, and not for the older engines alone. But of course they can't make it so obvious. If the Russians play it right, maybe they can get the Chinese to buy a second regiment.
The over-reliance on the Russian AL-31 has come back to bite the Chinese in their backsides, but they didn't have a choice then, however now they have their own engines, which is extremely impressive. If the Chinese claims of having designed a supercruiser are true, then that's a remarkable achievement. There also seems to be a J-10D in the works which uses a Chinese engine. Whereas the J-11B has been using Chinese engines post the LRIP stage. Then of course there's the J-16.