What's new

Every One of India’s Nishant Drones Has Crashed

i think you should take english classes..
it is clearly written that developed from Chinese CH-3
Bhaijaan,
Aap iss se bhaar rahiye, aur ho sake toh apne pyaare mohan desert fighter ko ye batye ki its been developed from CH3, and rahi baat english ki toh hindi hamari matra bhasha hai, aur hume hindi aur apko urdu ka prayog karna shobha deta hai....and if talking in hindi or urdu makes us illiterate than all Britishers including americans, french, Italians, Japanese and people like you and me are illiterate, i give more emphasis to my mother tongue thats hindi....
 
I'm sure you were involved in its development .. Although you skipped the fact that it's EOD,communication system,datalink etc components are posted in Pak defence section all made in Pak..

And if your rants are solely based on its design similarity .. Than even your Rustom looks like a failed copy of CH-3.

FYI we are already developing MALE & HALE UAVs.Now go develop a 2 stroke moped engine.

The moped rant is getting boring -- try something new..

As your your "under development" yeah.. Unfortunately that's your last defence... A country that can't produce a decent tactical uav comparable to the UAVs produced by IDS Pvt. Limited in the 90s will produce supa supa 10th gen UAVs..

Maybe your 1 trillion dollar R&D didn't teach you a lesson with your failed 4 mil a pop nishant failure -- after spending millions and over 2 decades..:lol:

Talk about confidence..

Drone Crash Database | Drone Wars UK

Does it cover -- all Indian uav crashes..:lol:

You fool,its another part of deal because of which we have to buy kits and engines.
What?


Still an 'upgraded' SAAB Safari.Never a clean-sheet design.

Try making one yourself .. Exporting worth hundreds of millions is another story..:D


Utter BS once again

Truth hurts???

If Tejas is considered as "indigenously assembled" then every Pakistani productt should be considered as a CBU import.
The only thing tejas is considered is another failure.
As for Pakistani products .. Yeah the butthurt is evident.

As I have said before,I've better things to do,than educating dimwits like you
Try educating the biggest dimwit... Yourself.

If MBB designed the Dhruv,then JF 17 is a Mikoyan design as both off these companies were employed as design consultants.

You know what's hilarious.,, the company employed .. Designed a clone of an existing MBB helicopter ..:lol:

P.S; even indian sources claim that MBB assisted in designing the helicopter .. Hahaha

Already debunked claim. Dhruv is more indigenous than some Agusta choppers.
Augusta itself is a joint European company .. Many of its products are JVs between its partners.
Meanwhile dhruv is a German designed heli with parts imported from a dozen nations.

Here is an old but informative thread on dhruv and its weaponised version

How "Indigenous" is Dhruv/ALH?


Knock yourself out with the soured -- from the horses mouth.

That deal was for a different version of engine.

Ok.. And ardiden engine is an Indian engine based on an already existing turbomeca engine with 10+% components made in India?
:lol:

By this logic,HAL Ajeet is an Indian design,and the Brits have nothing to do with it
Unless India produced something like an F-2 of ajeet..:lol:

P.S: Hope you know F-2 is different than a US F-16.. And Japan has rights over its development etc (Just an example).

Do you even know what that hyphen implies ? It means that is 30 % of the work !!!

On the motors..


And you quoted me after how many days?

Much of those components except for Missile Airframe & Engine components were developed either by independant firms or DRDO itself

From the manufacturer.

The breakthrough for both came with the setting-up of the BrahMos Aerospace on 12 February 1998 located in New Delhi. In a novel concept, BrahMos became a Government-owned private company with equal partnership and operational control with a share of 50.5 per cent for the DRDO and 49.5 per cent for the Russian NPO Mashinostroeyenia Company. The propulsion system (engine) and airframe came from Russia, while the guidance and onboard electronic module came from the DRDO's guided missile programme.

http://www.brahmos.com/pressRelease.php?id=20

You just contradicted yourself..
In the 90s Russia was broke and india after failing to produce a missile contacted Russia .. And modified yakhont (by offering much needed $$)...

The parts India developed??guidance & electric module..

No wonder even a sub sonic CM is out of India's technical reach ! The continous failures of nirbhay is a good example of your technical "expertise" in the field!


Brahmos is a supersonic CM which is superior than anything you have.

Lmao.. Haha... Comparing a terrain hugging awesome CM like Babur or RAAD with Yakhont is a joke... All 3 are o different categories ... Even US doesn't use super sonic CMs (not that they can't build one).

Apart from that we have CM-400 etc.

We are already making one.Now tell me the source of that miniature turbofan used in your 'Babur'

I dot work for NESCOM neither is Babur for sale... Unlike Russian Yakhont which was sold to india .. Longer ranged missiles can't be exported unde MTCR!

BTW Kit assembled Su 30 MKI,huh ?
K
Presently HAL is manufacturing the aircraft from the raw material phase and till date has produced 150 aircraft. HAL has manufactured approximately 43,000 components in airframe and 6,300 components for engines. Twenty six special technologies have also been absorbed and mastered.

With this, 70 per cent components are now made in India by HAL with 100 per cent technology absorption as per the contract in airframe and engine.

HAL, IAF, ministry working on defence needs | Business Standard News

Apart from the 70% that HAL makes, there are also parts that are outsourced to other Indian companies,such as SAMTEL,BEL,Servocontrols Aerospace

No wonder 70% of the fleet remains grounded...

Also the Russians seem to be happy to export jet "assembly kits" to India.

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2015/2/27/2942/?h
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you were involved in its development .. Although you skipped the fact that it's EOD,communication system,datalink etc components are posted in Pak defence section all made in Pak..

And if your rants are solely based on its design similarity .. Than even your Rustom looks like a failed copy of CH-3.



The moped rant is getting boring -- try something new..

As your your "under development" yeah.. Unfortunately that's your last defence... A country that can't produce a decent tactical uav comparable to the UAVs produced by IDS Pvt. Limited in the 90s will produce supa supa 10th gen UAVs..

Maybe your 1 trillion dollar R&D didn't teach you a lesson with your failed 4 mil a pop nishant failure -- after spending millions and over 2 decades..:lol:

Talk about confidence..



Does it cover -- all Indian uav crashes..:lol:


What?




Try making one yourself .. Exporting worth hundreds of millions is another story..:D




Truth hurts???


The only thing tejas is considered is another failure.
As for Pakistani products .. Yeah the butthurt is evident.


Try educating the biggest dimwit... Yourself.



You know what's hilarious.,, the company employed .. Designed a clone of an existing MBB helicopter ..:lol:

P.S; even indian sources claim that MBB assisted in designing the helicopter .. Hahaha


Augusta itself is a joint European company .. Many of its products are JVs between its partners.
Meanwhile dhruv is a German designed heli with parts imported from a dozen nations.

Here is an old but informative thread on dhruv and its weaponised version

How "Indigenous" is Dhruv/ALH?


Knock yourself out with the soured -- from the horses mouth.



Ok.. And ardiden engine is an Indian engine based on an already existing turbomeca engine with 10+% components made in India?
:lol:


Unless India produced something like an F-2 of ajeet..:lol:

P.S: Hope you know F-2 is different than a US F-16.. And Japan has rights over its development etc (Just an example).



On the motors..



And you quoted me after how many days?



You just contradicted yourself..
In the 90s Russia was broke and india after failing to produce a missile contacted Russia .. And modified yakhont (by offering much needed $$)...

The parts India developed??guidance & electric module..

No wonder even a sub sonic CM is out of India's technical reach ! The continous failures of nirbhay is a good example of your technical "expertise" in the field!




Lmao.. Haha... Comparing a terrain hugging awesome CM like Babur or RAAD with Yakhont is a joke... All 3 are o different categories ... Even US doesn't use super sonic CMs (not that they can't build one).

Apart from that we have CM-400 etc.



I dot work for NESCOM neither is Babur for sale... Unlike Russian Yakhont which was sold to india .. Longer ranged missiles can't be exported unde MTCR!



No wonder 70% of the fleet remains grounded...

Also the Russians seem to be happy to export jet "assembly kits" to India.

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2015/2/27/2942/?h

Stop your rant. You are looking like a fool here trying to beat the bush for nothing. For an Elite Member it does not suit your profile.
 
Bhaijaan,
Aap iss se bhaar rahiye, aur ho sake toh apne pyaare mohan desert fighter ko ye batye ki its been developed from CH3, and rahi baat english ki toh hindi hamari matra bhasha hai, aur hume hindi aur apko urdu ka prayog karna shobha deta hai....and if talking in hindi or urdu makes us illiterate than all Britishers including americans, french, Italians, Japanese and people like you and me are illiterate, i give more emphasis to my mother tongue thats hindi....
Bhaijaan,
hamari pyaare mohan desert fighter jo keh rahy hai wo sahy keh rahy hai, par kya kare app jaise kuch ignorant baat ko samajhna he nahy chaty. jaise k kuch log Tejas ko indigenous jet bulaty hai, halanke tejas me har chez import chuda hai.. aur rahy baat english ki tou appki hindi hame samajh me nahy aaty.. is lye thori english sekh legye..
 
Whats the big deal? Every project has failures and success. Its a process. Some countries have media that publicize it, while others hide it. Others take foreign products and re paint it and claim its their own. I don't care as long as we are learning from the mistakes and pushing forward.


My only suggestion is open the floodgates on education. Increase educational quantity and quality for all students from the primary level upwards. On top of that, w should all multiples competitive bids on such projects to compete against each other. It doesn't make any sense to tie up all our resources on one particular UAV project.
 
Bhaijaan,
hamari pyaare mohan desert fighter jo keh rahy hai wo sahy keh rahy hai, par kya kare app jaise kuch ignorant baat ko samajhna he nahy chaty. jaise k kuch log Tejas ko indigenous jet bulaty hai, halanke tejas me har chez import chuda hai.. aur rahy baat english ki tou appki hindi hame samajh me nahy aaty.. is lye thori english sekh legye..
Tejas is an indigenous fighter, ill give you a proof of it.....when tejas project was first started, all major parts like its radar, engine, EW suit, landing gear etc, were all started simultaneously, as a result, we made kaveri, we made uttam aesa radar, we made mayavi EW suit and designed all the components, now the questions arises, where is all of this stuff now??because it was not upto the mark and because it was our first attempt, we went further for the systems to be excellent, and just because it was taking too much time our team went for equivalent of all the equipment's mentioned above.......now tell me does Pakistan have any kind of jet engine tech or a program???does Pakistan has any kind of radar development?? Do you have any EW suite made indigenously??just because our fighter uses foreign equipments doesn't makes it impotent..... Indigenous efforts never die my friend, next time when we make AMCA we will have our own engine, our own radar, our own EW suite and our own munitions..... just assembling a plane in your country doesn't makes it indigenous, you need to work hard.....our country took the initiative and now has got a formidable aerospace sector....did you use google translator to understand my hindi???urdu is an indian language, and it shares many words from hindi JAI HIND
 
Last edited:
Try making one yourself

Number built.

HAL Kiran 190
HAL Marut 147
HAL Krishak 70
HAL HT 2 172
HAL Dhruv 200
HAL Pushpak 160
HAL Basant 39

None of this were modified foreign designs,idiot

Now try to design a single microlight aircraft on your own without running to papa 'China'

I'm sure you were involved in its development .. Although you skipped the fact that it's EOD,communication system,datalink etc components are posted in Pak defence section all made in Pak..

Only these ? For claiming it to be a Pakistani design,the design must be indigenous.

When we talk about delayed but under development Indian UAVs,components like SAR & EO payloads are Indian,and components like actuators & even engines are being indigenized to make our UAV program sanction free.

Indian Dhruv is not 'indigenous' as India took design assistance from MBB,But Chinese CH 3 is indigenous as Pakistan developed the data link :omghaha:

And if your rants are solely based on its design similarity .. Than even your Rustom looks like a failed copy of CH-3.

Rustom I is nothing,but a test-bed based on a legendary Burt Rutan design.Looks like your CH-3 is also based on Long-EZ

The moped rant is getting boring -- try something new..

And your country is yet to produce a moped engine.

As your your "under development" yeah.. Unfortunately that's your last defence... A country that can't produce a decent tactical uav comparable to the UAVs produced by IDS Pvt. Limited in the 90s will produce supa supa 10th gen UAVs..

Stop making a big deal about a 20 year old,inducted platform-Nishant.India is already in the process of developing two UAVs.We have already tested our armed UAVs.

blog_imageimg2.jpg


And FYI IAF was the one who ordered a MALE UAV based on Rustom 1 without DRDO asking for it.

The only thing tejas is considered is another failure.

maybe that's why the IAF and IN ordered it right ?

As for Pakistani products ..

*Chinese

You know what's hilarious.,, the company employed .. Designed a clone of an existing MBB helicopter ..:lol:
P.S; even indian sources claim that MBB assisted in designing the helicopter .. Hahaha

Did I ever claimed that MBB was never employed for design consultancy ? All I said was that Dhruv is an effort by HAL design assisted by MBB.Heck dude I even posted the number of Indian engineers in the design team.Now read this

HAL collaborated with MBB, now Eurocopter Deutschland, on design and development of the ALH, but the aircraft is essentially indigenous in conception and execution. The prototype flight-test programme is the largest undertaken by the company

Source : https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1999/1999%20-%201040.html?search=advanced%20light%20helicopter

MBB is only employed by HAL to provide consultancy for the basic ALH design and has no involvement with any of the military variants of the helicopter.The West German engineers have been advising at every stage of the development process. Their numbers have varied from 30 to the present 15 at the Bangalore site. This must be set against a HAL design team of 250 engineers assisted by 700 technicians.

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%201719.html

Now guess who provided design consultancy for 'Joint Fighter'

CHENGDU AIRCRAFT (CAC) has teamed with Mikoyan MAPO to design and produce a new single-engine fighter to replace China's now defunct Super-7 project.Mikoyan is providing design support and has seconded a team of engineers to CAC

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201842.html?search=mikoyan%20fc%201

As for your claim of 'clone of an existing MBB helicopter' MBB 117 only look similar to Dhruv,and is a different single engine chopper.

Augusta itself is a joint European company .. Many of its products are JVs between its partners.

You idiot,Agusta designed AW 139 before its JV with Westland.Here is some info about Agusta AW 139

Agusta AW 139

Nation of Origin :Italy

First flight :3 February 2001

Co developed with Bell Helicopter

Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6C-67C turboshaft engine, 1,142 kW each

Primary transmission developed by Westland GKN

Secondary transmission developed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries

Avionics supplied by Honeywell

AVCS supplied by Lords

Landing gear supplied Liebherr


Dhruv is more Indigenous than that.

Ok.. And ardiden engine is an Indian engine based on an already existing turbomeca engine with 10+% components made in India?

Even if it is 10% Indian,that doesn't matter much,when even reputed aerospace companies source off-shelf engines from overseas.We produce the Shakti engine locally.

Unless India produced something like an F-2 of ajeet..:lol:

P.S: Hope you know F-2 is different than a US F-16.. And Japan has rights over its development etc (Just an example).

Like you made an 'F-2' out of your Mushaks.Ajeet has more improvements over gnat than your super mushak have over mushak.

Ajeet, design improvements:

The changes from the original Gnat were considerable. They included:

1. Wet wing tanks.

2. The number of hardpoints or pylons under the wings were increased from 2 to 4 (2 on each wing).

3. The addition of slab tail control surfaces

4. Improvements to the hydraulics and control systems

5. Fitting of improved Martin-Baker GF4 ejection seats

6. A new Ferranti ISIS gunsight

7. Improvements to the landing gear to take slightly higher all up weights


So if your Mushak is a Pakistani design,Ajeet is Indian.

On the motors..

Are you simply a fool?

111.jpg


And you quoted me after how many days?

You failed to answer my questions :lol:

You just contradicted yourself..
In the 90s Russia was broke and india after failing to produce a missile contacted Russia .. And modified yakhont (by offering much needed $$)...

Utter Non sense.There was no Indian project to develop a supersonic CM.

The parts India developed??guidance & electric module..

Parts India developed ?

Guidance systems,OBC,MIU,launchers,avionics,UVLMs and Fire Control System.And Now,the X-band seeker & solid booster for the air launched variant

Seeker+for+BrahMos+Mini-3.JPG


No wonder even a sub sonic CM is out of India's technical reach ! The continous failures of nirbhay is a good example of your technical "expertise" in the field!

We have still scored a success and a partial success from three trials and will have more successful trials before induction.And even the base version of will have a terminal seeker and loitering capability.

As everyone knows,delays in our weapon development program insistence in in-house design.

And everyone knows that,due to your non-existant industrial capability & R&D infrastructure you import several.Try designing the turbofan engine of your Babar

B0K7EX1IEAApevH.jpg


Lmao.. Haha... Comparing a terrain hugging awesome CM like Babur or RAAD with Yakhont is a joke... All 3 are o different categories ...

'Awesome' :omghaha:
It wasn't me who started comparing,fool.

Even US doesn't use super sonic CMs (not that they can't build one).

Russia has them,so do China.So please shut up.

Apart from that we have CM-400 etc.

Fully Chinese...:omghaha:

I dot work for NESCOM neither is Babur for sale... Unlike Russian Yakhont which was sold to india .. Longer ranged missiles can't be exported unde MTCR!

Meh...China is not a signatory of MTCR

No wonder 70% of the fleet remains grounded...

Stop pulling figures out of thin air.

Also the Russians seem to be happy to export jet "assembly kits" to India.

Its another part of the Indo-Russian deal in 2012,in which we ordered 42 Su 30 MKIs from Russia
India to Buy $3 Bln Worth of Russian Warplanes, Helicopters

Presently HAL is manufacturing the Su 30 MKI from the raw material phase.HAL has manufactured approximately 43,000 components in airframe and 6,300 components for engines. Twenty six special technologies have also been absorbed and mastered.

With this, 70 per cent components are now made in India by HAL with 100 per cent technology absorption as per the contract in airframe and engine.


Do comeback when you can produce your 'Joint Fighter' with that sort of localisation.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
India is technological and industrial primitive society, they have no business in modern high-tech, its a fact

their so-called 'high-techs' are all foreign made with Indian paints

even this 'dead' drone's core parts were all imported from foreign, they cant make a screw of it
We dont reverse engineer stuff like u guys.What r u good at?Creating TERRORISTS:yahoo::yahoo:.
 
Here is an old but informative thread on dhruv and its weaponised version

How "Indigenous" is Dhruv/ALH?

Quoting some blog and picture made by a pdf member called 'Myth Buster',which

  • Shows a picture of a Rudra as a Dhruv helicopter
  • Claims that Rudra's design is German
  • Claims that Rudra's engine is fully french
  • Claims that floatation equipment,fuuel tanks are imported
  • Claims that all avionics are from Israel
  • Claims that self protection equipment is from S.Africa
I laughed my a$$ off....

1.Design

MBB is only employed by HAL to provide consultancy for the basic ALH design and has no involvement with any of the military variants of the helicopter.The West German engineers have been advising at every stage of the development process. Their numbers have varied from 30 to the present 15 at the Bangalore site. This must be set against a HAL design team of 250 engineers assisted by 700 technicians.

The aircraft is essentially indigenous in conception and execution.


2.Engine

For its first application, the Dhruv, a first engine variant christened the Ardiden 1H1 (or "Shakti" in India), offering a power of 1,400 shp, is jointly developed and producted with HAL.

Turbomeca - Ardiden

3.Self-Defense system is foreign?What is brought,is the MAWS sensors that are a part of Indian developed Multi Sensor Warning System used in Dhruv

DARE's+EW+Products-4.jpg


This is why I said the article is hypocrisy at its very best - They mentioned about import of MAWS sensors but forgot Indigenous development of much advanced Multi Sensor Warning System ,of which the sensor is a part of??

4.fuel tanks, floatation equipment and related gaskets and seals for the ALH are now manufactured locally (article itself states it )

5.MFDs are now manufactured Indigenously.And Israeli Avionics are not a part of every Dhruv,Customer can chose between Indian & Israeli Avionics.This is a fact most of us are well aware of.

Aero India 2003 - Part 6

6.Anti Resonance vibration Isolation System (ARIS) is Indian

7.Automatic flight Control system (AFCS) is Indian

8.Retractable Landing Gear is indian

9.The Guns & Rocket Launcher are not a part of Dhruv,they are for Rudra helicopter.
I guess S 70 Battlehawk is not American,as it uses the same THL 20 gun..Agusta A129 /TAI T-129 is not Indigenous because it uses American M197 Gatling gun..

10.AVCS is not present in all Dhruvs,it is a recent addition.

And these guys forgot about Indigenous ATGM Helina used on Rudra?-Hypocrisy again..


helina1.jpg
 
Quoting some blog and picture made by a pdf member called 'Myth Buster',which

  • Shows a picture of a Rudra as a Dhruv helicopter
  • Claims that Rudra's design is German
  • Claims that Rudra's engine is fully french
  • Claims that floatation equipment,fuuel tanks are imported
  • Claims that all avionics are from Israel
  • Claims that self protection equipment is from S.Africa
I laughed my a$$ off....

1.Design

MBB is only employed by HAL to provide consultancy for the basic ALH design and has no involvement with any of the military variants of the helicopter.The West German engineers have been advising at every stage of the development process. Their numbers have varied from 30 to the present 15 at the Bangalore site. This must be set against a HAL design team of 250 engineers assisted by 700 technicians.

The aircraft is essentially indigenous in conception and execution.


2.Engine

For its first application, the Dhruv, a first engine variant christened the Ardiden 1H1 (or "Shakti" in India), offering a power of 1,400 shp, is jointly developed and producted with HAL.

Turbomeca - Ardiden

3.Self-Defense system is foreign?What is brought,is the MAWS sensors that are a part of Indian developed Multi Sensor Warning System used in Dhruv

DARE%27s+EW+Products-4.jpg


This is why I said the article is hypocrisy at its very best - They mentioned about import of MAWS sensors but forgot Indigenous development of much advanced Multi Sensor Warning System ,of which the sensor is a part of??

4.fuel tanks, floatation equipment and related gaskets and seals for the ALH are now manufactured locally (article itself states it )

5.MFDs are now manufactured Indigenously.And Israeli Avionics are not a part of every Dhruv,Customer can chose between Indian & Israeli Avionics.This is a fact most of us are well aware of.

Aero India 2003 - Part 6

6.Anti Resonance vibration Isolation System (ARIS) is Indian

7.Automatic flight Control system (AFCS) is Indian

8.Retractable Landing Gear is indian

9.The Guns & Rocket Launcher are not a part of Dhruv,they are for Rudra helicopter.
I guess S 70 Battlehawk is not American,as it uses the same THL 20 gun..Agusta A129 /TAI T-129 is not Indigenous because it uses American M197 Gatling gun..

10.AVCS is not present in all Dhruvs,it is a recent addition.

And these guys forgot about Indigenous ATGM Helina used on Rudra?-Hypocrisy again..


helina1.jpg
Can you elaborately explain the chinese z-10, which was assisted with Russian.

Russian Roots Revealed In China's Z-10 | Defense content from Aviation Week

Russian Roots Revealed In China's Z-10
Mar 7, 2013 Guy Norris and _Tony Osborne | AWIN First
Comments 0
Advertisement
Sergei Mikheyev, general designer of the Kamov Design Bureau, has revealed that the Russian helicopter company secretly designed the baseline version of the Z-10 attack helicopter for China in the mid-1990s.

The two-seat helicopter made its public debut at the 2012 Zhuhai air show in China, having undergone extensive testing by the People’s Liberation Army for several years. While an outward resemblance to the AgustaWestland A129 Mangusta was widely discussed, no connection was ever made to Kamov until Mikheyev’s announcement at the Heli-Expo convention here on March 6.

Commenting during a briefing on the Kamov product line, Mikheyev says the decision to reveal the Russian company’s role in the design of the Z-10 followed its unveiling by China at the air show late last year.

Kamov worked on the preliminary design at China’s request in 1995. “Due to understandable reasons this was kept secret, but we made the design and it was accepted by China,” Mikheyev says. The baseline design, which was known internally as Project 941, “was accepted for development,” he adds.

Until now, it was generally believed that the aircraft had been designed in China and that the only real foreign input was in the powerplant.

The Z-10’s development has been highly controversial. Five aircraft were powered by Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6C-67C engines fitted with full authority digital engine controls developed by Hamilton Sundstrand. Following investigations by federal agencies, United Technologies Corp., the parent company of the two firms, was fined $75 million for violating the Arms Export Control Act and making false statements in connection with the illegal export to China of U.S.-origin military software in June 2012.

According to evidence heard in the trial, China has sourced the engines under the pretense of producing a civil medium transport. PW&C provided up to 10 engines for the aircraft. Since then, it has been suggested that Z-10 manufacturer Changhe Aircraft Industries Corporation has had to use a lower-rated indigenously-built engine in the helicopter, forcing it to undertake a significant weight-saving program until a new, more powerful engine becomes available.

Kamov is better known for its co-axial designs such as the Ka-32 transport helicopter and also the Ka-50/52 attack helicopters. The company is producing the Ka-62 utility helicopter.

“So I wish success to the helicopter,” Mikheyev adds.

Now the Chinese engine

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/b...ctor-pleads-guilty-on-china-exports.html?_r=0

Military Contractors Are Fined Over Aid to China
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTJUNE 28, 2012

WASHINGTON — A Canadian subsidiary of the Connecticut-based military contractor the United Technologies Corporation pleaded guilty on Thursday to federal charges that it had illegally helped the Chinese government develop an attack helicopter now in service there.

As part of a settlement with the Justice and State Departments, the military contractor, the Canadian subsidiary and another American subsidiary agreed to pay more than $75 million to the departments for making false statements to federal authorities.

The helicopter, known as the Z-10, seats two people and is designed mainly to attack tanks, armored vehicles and other ground forces. It is being mass produced in China.

The Canadian subsidiary, the Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation, violated the Arms Export Control Act by providing the Chinese with 10 engines to power Z-10 helicopters in 2001 and 2002, according to an announcement by the United States attorney’s office for the District of Connecticut. Technology for the engines, the authorities said, had originally been created for United States military helicopters.

Photo
Copter-popup.jpg

Louis R. Chênevert of United Technologies. He apologized after a subsidiary pleaded guilty to illegally exporting technology. Credit Jonathan Alcorn/Bloomberg News
According to the settlement, Pratt & Whitney Canada pleaded guilty to illegally exporting to China the American military software used to operate the engines.

Pratt & Whitney Canada “anticipated that its work on the Z-10 military attack helicopter in China would open the door to a far more lucrative civilian helicopter market in China” that may have been worth $2 billion to the company, according to the Justice Department. Ultimately, the Chinese government chose not to award the company contracts for civilian helicopters.

United Technologies and its American subsidiary, the Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, waited until 2006 to tell the United States government about the sales, according to the authorities, and then lied about them.

The settlement said that the Justice Department would defer its prosecutions of United Technologies and Hamilton Sundstrand as long as the companies paid their fines and allowed an independent monitor to assess their compliance with export law.

“We accept responsibility for these past violations and we deeply regret they occurred,” said Louis R. Chênevert, the chairman and chief executive of United Technologies.

He said that since 2006 United Technologies had invested more than $30 million “to strengthen its export compliance infrastructure,” including “increased employee training and communications efforts.”

The announcement from the Justice and State Departments comes as the Obama administration has increased its pressure on China. The administration has outlined plans to expand its military presence in the Pacific to reassure allies that they will be protected from the Chinese, who have vastly expanded their military spending in recent years.

“Due in part to the efforts of these companies, China was able to develop its first modern military attack helicopter with restricted U.S. defense technology,” said Lisa Monaco, assistant attorney general for National Security. “As today’s case demonstrates, the Justice Department will spare no effort to hold accountable those who compromise U.S. national security for the sake of profits and then lie about it to the government.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
The Justice Department has increased prosecutions against domestic companies selling military technology to the Chinese. So far this year, it has prosecuted six significant cases.

The most recent arrest occurred in May, when authorities apprehended a Chinese citizen in connection with charges that he had illegally exported transducers to China that can be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium. In April, a California man was sentenced to 46 months in prison for exporting thermal-imaging cameras to China.

“This is not the first and in all likelihood won’t be the last as the U.S. intelligence community assesses that the government of China is one of the most aggressive and capable collectors of sensitive U.S. technologies,” said Bruce Foucart, special agent in charge of homeland security investigations for New England, at a news conference in Bridgeport, Conn.

According to e-mails obtained by the Justice Department, Pratt & Whitney knew that it may have been violating American laws.

“Please note the attached notice (in bold) regarding the imposition of US sanctions on the Chinese Government for military aircraft,” according to an e-mail obtained by the Justice Department. “We must be very careful that the helicopter programs we are doing with the Chinese are not presented or viewed as military programs. As a result of these sanctions, we need to be very careful with the Z10C program. If the first flight will be with a gun ship then we could have problems with the US government.”

Kristin Hussey contributed reporting from Bridgeport, Conn.

Canadian engine flies Chinese attack helicopter

Then with the same logic Z10 is not a chinese
 
Every One of India’s Nishant Drones Has Crashed | War Is Boring


Every One of India’s Nishant Drones Has Crashed
New Delhi kills program after losing all of them
nishant-640x300.jpg


DRONESINDIA December 10, 2015 Robert Beckhusen 1

Nishant1
The Nishant was supposed to be the Indian Army’s premier, domestically-produced surveillance drone. But now it can’t be because all of them, every single one, crashed.

The product of a development program dating to 1995 from India’s state-owned Defense Research and Development Organization, the Nishant was meant to be a medium-altitude drone in a similar class to the Israeli Heron, which India also operates.

The difference being that India would produce the Nishant itself, freeing the country from its dependence on foreign unmanned vehicles, just as China and Pakistan race ahead producing drones of their own.

During its brief lifespan, the catapult-launched Nishant could stay in the air for four-and-a-half hours. The drone carried no weapons. Returning to base, the Nishant would not land like an airplane, but deploy a parachute and float to earth.

It could not carry weapons, as it functioned strictly in a reconnaissance role — spotting for artillery, snooping on enemy troops and hoovering up electronic and signal information from the battlefield. Or at least, that was the plan.

Had Nishant worked out, the Indian Army would have bought a total of twelve and sent them to disputed Kashmir region and to track Maoist rebels in India’s interior.



But it was not to be. The four prototype Nishants entered service in 2011, and then started falling — not floating — out of the sky. The first two went down near the Pakistani border in April 2015. The third Nishant crashed in Rajasthan in early November.

There was only one left … and that crashed on Nov. 19.


Above and at top — Nishant drones, one of them crashed with what appears to be an undeployed parachute. Photos via Indian defense forums
The cause of the last crash appeared to be a parachute which failed to properly deploy.

“In the past DRDO has blamed poor handling by the Army for the loss of at least two systems,” the Economic Times reported. “However, the Army has contended that the system has failed to perform and has technical problemsduring the recovery phase that have not been sorted out.”

To the Army’s credit, it already operates dozens of Israeli drones with no apparent troubles. Retired Lt. Gen. P.C. Katoch, who led the Indian Army’s information systems directorate, blasted the DRDO for a “gross lack of accountability,” producing “schoolboy level” inventions and then bragging about its accomplishments with “false propaganda.”

“For their part, the DRDO in its usual manner has blamed the user for poor handling of the system, a point categorically denied by the Army,” Katoch wrote at SP’s Aviation magazine. “The irony is that this game has been [going] on for decades with no one held accountable in the DRDO.”

“The irony here is that while this monolith of DRDO cannot produce a worthwhile drone in 20 years, Pakistan has already developed and deployed its own armed drone.” Kaotch was referring to the Burraq drone, which Islamabad developed from the Chinese CH-3.

Nishant, however, is dead. With no more left and an obvious lack of faith in the drone, the Indian Army canceled the project for good.


In fact, it is not a easy thing to do to crash an ENTIRE fleet. It must have set some kind of world record.
 
In fact, it is not a easy thing to do to crash an ENTIRE fleet. It must have set some kind of world record.
You are able to make such comment due to open nature of defense news in India and official briefing so that any expert or media could analyze, unlike China whose falling fighter planes like J10 with indigenous engine is tried to hidden by the state and no news comes out of any accident unless it falls to some public place.

Infact only 4 were the initial ordered, and they crashed not like 40 or 400 UAV fleet.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom