Indonesia evaluating purchase of Indian Advanced Light Helicopter-Dhruv

[metalfalcon]

You moron, look at your own post. I have highlighted in my reply to that post. You did write 100% made in pakistan.

You can come up with whatever versions of JF-17, it is still a 4th generation fighter and we have Su-30MKI (a 4.5th gen fighter) to kick ***.

When LCA will come you will run for cover, I can guarantee.

Calm down buddy and use a Good language this is not an Indian defence forum Like BK where you can start abusing and close the topic.

Do you think JF-17 is the END? NO sir NO Its just a beginning we will Work with China on a new project called JXX which will be a 5th generation Fighter jet and we will get the J-10s and J-11 from china soon and They will neutralize the Indian SU-30 MKI Threat,not Completely in technological terms but the ODDS will be covered By our Highly trained and Skilled Pilots

JF-17 Provided the Basic Ground for the co-operation between China and Pakistan, MARK my words " BEST IS STILL TO COME"

When LCA will come you will run for cover, I can guarantee

First Let it come, we will deal with it, Regarding running for cover..... Ok we will Bring your Bird down While remaining in Cover Happy now..

Most of the Indian Analysts and High ranking Officials think that LCA will end up just like ARJUN

 

[daredevil]

Thats the most Silliest thing i have ever heard , This clearly shows me the effect of Indian Propaganda and Indian underestimation of Pakistan. Give me some NEUTRAL PROVE of this statement not an Indian version

LINK. The neutral source.

one more neutral link

I can also give you indian version, since you will not believe it, i'm not going to.

 

[metalfalcon]

LINK. The neutral source.

I can also give you indian version, since you will not believe it, i'm not going to.

Tom Reed, a former nuclear weaponeer (1959–65) and Secretary of the Air Force (1976–77), is the author of At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War (Ballantine Books, 2004). He and Danny Stillman are collaborating on a sequel called Nuclear Express (Zenith Press, in production) that covers the political history of nuclear weapons, 1938–2008. Reed resides in northern California.

This is written by one person and that also in his BOOK, may be he wanted to give some fantasy stuff so that his work can gain more Publicity, if it was by some organization or media publication i would have believed it.

Anyhow its true we got help from China no Doubt about that, but i never knew that it was on this Scale

Don't forget you also got help from somewhere like Russia. India forced us to Develop Nuclear bomb, WE NEVER WATED it untill 1971-1974, Everything is Fair in Love and WAR, we had to make the A-bomb no matter what, Nothing was more Important to us than our Survival.

 

[metalfalcon]

LINK. The neutral source.

one more neutral link

I can also give you indian version, since you will not believe it, i'm not going to.

Hey dude listen up, Please don't deviate from the topic of the thread if you want to have discussion on this topic there is another thread especially for this topic, what i am saying is

Why India always get angry whenever its good news for Pakistan.

India had a Nuclear pact with USA and Pakistan didn't said anything but if we buy Even nut bolts from USA or any other Country for our Defence purposes, India gets a Headache.


India has SU-30 MKI and many other Jets but when Pakistan tries to get F-16s from USA their whole agencies get into action to cancel that deal.

India has problems if we sell our Defence items to Saudi Arabia and gulf countries why ?

India has problems if we sell our Defence items to Srilanka and Bangladesh why ?

We don't have any problem if India is selling its Defence products to any country in the world as this is her right to do so but India should not make a Angry face when Pakistan gets into a Defence deal with any country in the world,As this is our right to do so

 

[daredevil]

Hey dude listen up, Please don't deviate from the topic of the thread if you want to have discussion on this topic there is another thread especially for this topic, what i am saying is

Why India always get angry whenever its good news for Pakistan.

India had a Nuclear pact with USA and Pakistan didn't said anything but if we buy Even nut bolts from USA or any other Country for our Defence purposes, India gets a Headache.


India has SU-30 MKI and many other Jets but when Pakistan tries to get F-16s from USA their whole agencies get into action to cancel that deal.

India has problems if we sell our Defence items to Saudi Arabia and gulf countries why ?

India has problems if we sell our Defence items to Srilanka and Bangladesh why ?

We don't have any problem if India is selling its Defence products to any country in the world as this is her right to do so but India should not make a Angry face when Pakistan gets into a Defence deal with any country in the world,As this is our right to do so

As you said, in your last post, Everything is fair in Love and War. India does, whatever it does, for its own defense and strategic purpose.

We will leave at this. By the way, I have been deviated by 23march, who dragged DRDO and so it began ...

Peace.

 

[daredevil]

Dhruv has been or being supplied to

Burma
Israel
Nepal
Bolivia
Ecuador
Turkey
Peru

Source: Wikipedia

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

who, where stated that JF-17 is 100% made by pakistanis? we still thank our Chinese brothers for helping us but we are not credit choor like indians to satisfy their ego. and is wakopedia what you can come up with? lol its a joke for fanboys battle ground.

Yup except for Pakistanis no one says it was made by Pakistan. Infact I am even tired of this whole "we joined hands with Chinese to design" the plane and "our engineers have helped Chinese brothers "BS etc. It is plaily insulting the Chinese intelligence and their efforts. Are you Pakistanis implying that it was you who timparted the necessary knowhow on aircraft manufacuting to Chinese? What role have you contributed to their aerospace industry that they themselves could not achieve. This is nothing but plane insulting to Chinese aerospace knowhow and knowledge base.

If you want to compare Jf 17 then compare it with Su MKI ir the Mig 21 which we have been building for years. Thunder is nothing but a completely Chinese designed plane with Pakistani requests and demands in mind as an end user , which is to be manufacured in Pakistan. is'nt it what exactly we are doing for decades. So much for you collaboration and knowhow in aerospace design.

IPF

 

[Myth_buster_1]

You moron, look at metalfalcon's post. I have highlighted in my reply to that post. He did write 100% made in pakistan.

You can come up with whatever versions of JF-17, it is still a 4th generation fighter and we have Su-30MKI (a 4.5th gen fighter) to kick ***.

When LCA will come you will run for cover, I can guarantee.

its just so sad to see BK delusional product fanboys run their mouth without any knowledgeable opinion. i bet your brain does not even function without WIKIPEDIA which itself is a joke. LCA a 4.5 generation fighter?
-the "cranked" delta which all indians brag about as their "indigenous" invention of 22nd century lol in fact were used in 1960s designs..
-the first 40-60 wont have AESA radar
-the first 40 will hardly pull 20-22 AOA and the ASR has been reduced from 9 to 8Gs and first 40 will pull less then 8 Gs.
-according to IAF rtd air marshal " first 40 LCA will be incapable for full combat".
first 20 LCA MK1 will be inducted by 2012 FOC in 2013, next 20 batch in 2016. thus only 40 "combat incapable" LCA by 2016. MK2 tranche order in 2020, and by 2025 will their be a MK3 tranche AESA and foreigner Kavir engine be available. by that time all 250 JF-17 will be in service while little air craft aka viggen will be just used for parades and taking pictures along with HF-24.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

By Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar (retd)

Media reports published in June 2008 indicate that the Tejas programme has made progress towards attaining Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) by the end of 2010. Two aircraft doing long distance ferry flights from Bangalore to Nagpur and back, hot weather trials during which the aircraft and its systems have behaved satisfactorily and the first flight of the second Limited Series Production (LSP-2) aircraft with the General Electric F 404 IN 20 engine are small but significant steps towards the objective of introducing the aircraft into IAF squadron service in the next three years or so. To be sure, envelope expansion to the Air Staff Requirement (ASR) specified limits must be completed at the same time. Other reports in the media suggest that the LSP-3 aircraft fitted with an Indo-Israeli Multi Mode Radar (MMR) will fly later this year paving the way for full fledged integration trials of the radar, helmet mounted display and the close combat missile. As the Litening infra-red targeting pod, which gives the aircraft the capability to deliver laser-guided bombs with pin point accuracy, has already been integrated, the aircraft will enter service with useful operational capability as an interim step.

Final Operational Clearance (FOC) expected by the year 2012-2013 time frame, will require integration of a Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air-to-air missile, a GSH-23 gun, a data link and a state of the art Electronic Warfare (EW) suite. An Infra Red Search and Track (IRST) sensor has also been planned but no reports have appeared in the media about the status of development. The manner in which data streams from different sensors are fused and presented to the pilot and the crucial data link will determine the tactical situational awareness of the pilot, other members of the formation, controllers in the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft and controllers on the ground. It is this aspect of a modern aircraft weapon system coupled with off bore sight launch capability available with the helmet mounted display which is of great importance reducing to some extent the value of traditionally used parameters like instantaneous and sustained turn rates and Specific Excess Power (SEP). The extensive work required for FOC is being attempted for the very first time in the country and the learning curve of all those working in the project will be steep. Delays and failures will occur as it is in the very nature of all complex developmental activity wherein the workforce has to learn on the job. The IAF will have to play a lead role in laying down realisable objectives for this phase of the programme. Perhaps the block development model adopted by Lockheed Martin for the F-16 Fighting Falcon could be adopted as it is a time-tested approach. To use space jargon, the final goal can be reached only by a multi-stage and not a single stage to orbit rocket! The developing agencies ADA, DRDO and HAL, it is hoped, will do their utmost to marshal the required human and material resources to complete this very demanding phase of development in a reasonable time frame.

It is vital for the long term interests of the IAF, Indian aeronautics and indeed the nation itself that the Tejas is inducted into frontline squadron service with the capabilities described. As mentioned we will be attempting this level of complex electronic and weapons integration for the first time and the knowledge and experience gained will give our designers and engineers the confidence to move to the next level with the fifth generation fighter, medium transport aircraft and armed helicopter programmes. The benefits of the Tejas programme are already visible in the short period of 22 months taken from metal cutting to first flight of the first prototype of the Intermediate Jet Trainer, Sitara. A large number of Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) developed by both public and private sector industries in the country for the Tejas have been used in this aircraft. HAL has benefited immensely by the experience gained so far, not the least in modern programme management methods and in the use of contemporary aeronautical technologies. The visible movement towards greater indigenous design capability will only accelerate as the Tejas attains FOC. The decision makers in the IAF and the developing agencies must not hesitate to move forward and avoid focusing exclusively on minor shortfalls in performance and maintainability. Only by fielding our own home grown weapon system and operating it in the field for a couple of decades will we be able to build a database on failure rates of important components, form ideas for product improvement and learn other vital lessons to be used in future programmes. Every significant aeronautical power in the world has travelled this route, so why not us? The IAF is justifiably proud of the fact that it is the fourth largest in the world but does not yet operate a single indigenous front line fighter. The time is nigh to do that. An anonymous writer wrote many years ago ‘On the plains of hesitation lie the bones of many millions for at the dawn of victory they lay down to rest never to rise again’. At this stage of the Tejas’s journey towards FOC, we must not hesitate.

Newspaper reports about the search for a new engine due to shortfalls in Tejas’s performance and the slow pace of development of the Kaveri are disquieting for two reasons. Firstly, failure to fly the Kaveri, at least in the flying test bed in Russia, will be a serious mistake. Our tardy progress in the development of the Kaveri can be attributed in large measure to our failure to get the GTX-VS-35 development engines into the air in the late Seventies and early Eighties. At that time, the developing agency did not even contemplate a flying test bed programme nor did the IAF press for it.

If we had had the vision we could have easily done a flying test bed programme because we had the C-119 Packet aircraft in service fitted with an Orpheus jet engine (jet pack) on top of the fuselage. This was done to improve safety while operating in the Ladakh region in case one of the two main piston engines failed, a fairly frequent occurrence at one point in time. Removing the Orpheus engine and replacing it with a GTX engine would have been a relatively simple engineering task and the engine could have been put through its initial paces in perfect safety. The lessons learnt from that exercise would have provided a far better level of understanding and confidence for the engine design team at the launch of the Kaveri programme. Alas! We missed that bus but let us not repeat the same mistake three decades later. Even if there are no plans to fit the Kaveri in a Tejas airframe, we must go through with the flying test bed programme of about 100 hours in Russia. We can call this the Kaveri Mk 1. The benefits to the designers will be immeasurable. When we finally embark on joint development of an engine for the Tejas with a foreign partner, our designers can interact with them with confidence born out of experience.

The second reason for concern is the search for a engine with more than 90kilo Newtons (kN) thrust. There are two main candidate engines which meet this thrust requirement, the US-origin GE-F 414 which powers the F-18 Super Hornet and the EJ-200 which powers the European Typhoon. While performance parameters may be met, there are no free lunches in the world. More thrust means more fuel consumed and if internal and external fuel capacity is not increased, the range and endurance of the Tejas will suffer. Clamour for more internal fuel will definitely arise leading to changes in the airframe, flight controls and undercarriage. The rear fuselage will require modifications to accommodate the new engine and engine health monitoring software will have to be developed and tested. All this is major design activity. Given our protracted decision making process, it will be at least two years from now before work can start on a Tejas airframe. If flight testing time is included we are looking at a five to seven year time frame before FOC can be issued for the re-engined Tejas, say in 2015-2017. This aircraft will be the Tejas Mk 2 and will hopefully meet all IAF specified performance parameters.

In my view it will be better to plan three separate tracks, the first track leading to FOC with all capabilities mentioned earlier for the Tejas with the GE F-404 IN 20 engine. We can call this aircraft the Tejas Mk 1. Efforts to reduce airframe weight, drag and improve installed thrust should be pursued with vigour. This will be a painstaking exercise as no single big ticket item can suddenly improve aircraft performance. If this exercise is done diligently we may end up with an aircraft with very small shortfalls in the performance the IAF is looking for. The IAF may well order more than the 40, being contemplated today. In terms of priority track one should be the highest priority.

The second track should be for the re-engined Tejas Mk 2 which can be produced in the required numbers by 2020 or so. Finally, in the third track we can look at Tejas Mk 3 fitted with the Kaveri Mk 2 engine jointly developed with a foreign partner in the 2025 time frame. This aircraft should have Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. By then the indigenous Airborne Early Warning programme should have been completed and AESA know how will be available to our radar designers. Software upgrades to the Mission Computer (MC) based on the experience of operating the Tejas Mk 1 in service could also be done at the same time.

The LCA, Kaveri and MMR programmes have always received generous support from the Government of India, regardless of the political hue of the party in power at the Centre. Developmental problems and lack of human resources leading to time overruns and IAF concerns over falling force levels have given the average citizen the impression that precious money is being spent on a wasteful programme. Nothing could be farther from the truth which is that induction of the Tejas is absolutely necessary for the future of Indian aeronautics. The media will definitely make caustic comments about how the nation has taken four decades to develop an indigenous fighter which is already obsolete and thousands of crores have gone down the drain. The aeronautical community should maintain a smug silence because what would have been achieved by 2025 could not have been done anywhere else in the world for a development cost of between three and four billion dollars while at the same time building strong and vibrant aeronautical design and manufacturing capability in the country. Chak de Tejas!

The writer has spent nine years in various capacities with the LCA programme and is the author of the recent book, ‘The Tejas Story’

________________________

as for MKI....

our upgraded F-16s "block 52 equivalent" and new block52+ equipped with Amraams will be enough to take down that mkiys. and lol... F-16 news are already giving heart attacks to indian high commands dont know how they are gonna cope with the news when start flying.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Dhruv foreigners made.

The European Union

Belgium

Forges de Zeebrugge FZ

Variants of the ALH have incorporated rocket launchers produced by the Belgiam company, Forges de Zeebrugge FZ.

For example, the photo below shows the FZ nameplate on the rocket launcher mounted on ALH on display at Farnborough International, UK on 14 August 2006.

[Photo Caption] © Robin Ballantyne

Forges de Zeebrugge FZ confirmed that they have contracts with both HAL and the Indian Army, which have been approved by the Belgian authorities and are subject to end-use agreements. Confidentiality clauses contained within the contract prevented fuller disclosure of any details surrounding the nature of the deal.12

France

Turbomeca

The French company Turbomeca (now part of the Safran Group) has undertaken both the direct export of engines from France to India but has also established licensed production and technology transfer arrangements with HAL to produce engines for the ALH. In February 2003, it was announced that Turbomeca and HAL had signed three major contracts. These included a contract for the supply of TM 333 2B2 engines for application on the HAL helicopter; and another contract for the repair and overhaul licence for the TM 333 2B2.13 The HAL website states that the ALH continues to use the "Turbomeca TM 333-2B2 Twin Turbo-shaft Engine 746 kw (1000 SHP)".14

Turbomeca confirmed that it has three contracts with HAL, two of which cover the supply, repair, servicing and overhaul of the TM333-2B2 engines for the ALH. The company also stated that all its contracts were regulated by the appropriate French export licensing authorities.15 However in its response to our enquiries the French Government stated that the engines in question are not classified as war material by the French regulations and do not appear in the list of items subject to the Myanmar embargo. In our view, this interpretation is wrong because non-listed items in the EC Dual Use Regulation if incorporated into military items bound for embargoed destinations become licensable, that is subject to the embargo (for more on this see the section on EU export controls on re-exports over military equipment below).16 It would therefore appear that the French Government places no restrictions on the transfer of equipment fundamental to the operation of the ALH notwithstanding the fact that it is clearly also used as a military aircraft.

GIAT Industries (Nexter) and MBDA

In July 2006 defence news service Shepherd Rotorhub quoted Hindustan

Aeronautics' chairman Ashok Baweja describing a weaponisation programme was under way for the ALH. This was to include a 20mm gun from the French company GIAT and rockets from European missile manufacturer MBDA.17 In December 2006, GIAT (now renamed Nexter) announced that it had been awarded a contract by HAL for:

"the supply of 20 THL 20 turrets that will equip the Indian Armed Forces' Advanced Light Helicopter. The order covers the development phase of 20 turrets. The first deliveries will take place in 2008...."18

In March 2007 Jane's Information Group reported that HAL signed a deal with MBDA in July 2006 for the supply of air-to-air Mistral missiles for armed versions of the ALH.19

Nexter has confirmed that it does supply products to HAL for the ALH. This currently includes twenty 'THL 20' 20mm Helicopter turrets. The company also stated that all of its exports are regulated and approved by the appropriate French export licensing authorities and that any additional contracts to supply the ALH that were not stipulated in the original contract would require a further export licence.20

Germany

Eurocopter Deutschland (formerly MBB) and now wholly owned by Eurocopter

Eurocopter has been involved (originally as MBB) with the development of the ALH since at least July 1984.21 In November 1995, it was reported that Eurocopter had submitted a proposal to the Indian Defence Ministry to "co-produce the ALH designed by HAL. It plans to set up production facilities in India to manufacture the ALH for both local and export markets."22 In 2006 both companies were advertising their mutual co-operation: Eurocopter noting that it was supplying rotor blades for the ALH,23 and HAL announcing that "Eurocopter, the helicopter manufacturer owned by EADS, has been cooperating with HAL for over four decades.... India was the first nation with which Eurocopter signed a licence agreement for technology transfer."24 Amnesty International wrote to Eurocopter in March 2007 asking for clarification over its role in the development of the ALH. As of 25 June 2007, the company had not responded.

SITEC Aerospace

SITEC Aerospace manufactures a range of components and complete assemblies for flight/engine controls for various types of aircraft.25 According to company literature on display at Farnborough International 2006, SITEC provides components for the ALH.

SITEC Aerospace confirmed that they supply parts for the ALH, but that they do not export these directly to HAL, but supply them to another unnamed German manufacturer who subsequently incorporates these items into other systems for the ALH.26

Italy

Elettronica Aster SpA

The Italian company Elettronica Aster SpA on its website describes HAL as a major customer. According to the "Company and Program Overview", Elettronica Aster SpA has produced and supplied the ALH with a brake system.27

Amnesty International wrote to Elettronica Aster SpA in March 2007 to ask for clarifications as to its involvement in the development of the ALH. In its reply dated 15 March, the company had no comment on the specifics of its supply of components for the ALH, stating only that Elettronica Aster SpA's "export activity is regulated by the rules called out in the Italian Law no.185/'90 (with amendment DDL 1927), establishing the regulation for weapons import/export/transit."28

Sweden

Saab AB

Saab Avitronics, the South African joint venture company owned by Saab AB (Sweden) and Saab Grintek (South Africa, itself part owned by Saab AB), has been awarded a multi-million dollar export contract from HAL for the supply of self-protection equipment for installation on the ALH for the Indian Armed Forces.29

Amnesty International wrote to Saab AB on 1 June 2007 asking for clarification over its involvement with the ALH. Saab AB replied saying: "All export approvals from the concerned authorities are in place. The export licences are supported by an end-user certificate."30

The United Kingdom

APPH Precision Hydraulics

At the 2004 Farnborough arms fair, the UK company APPH Precision Hydraulics Ltd displayed its Hydraulic Package as the following:

"HAL Advanced Light Helicopter Hydraulic Package designed and manufactured by APPH Ltd"

Amnesty International wrote to in March 2007 to ask for clarifications as its involvement in the development of the ALH. As of 25 June 2007, the company had not responded.

FPT Industries Ltd

In 1993 it was reported that FPT Industries Ltd had been awarded a contract to supply floatation equipment for the ALH under development by HAL.31 FTP Industries is part of GKN Aerospace Services Ltd. In 1997, it was reported that FPT Industries' self-sealing fuel tank systems were being used in the ALH.32 In 2007, the FPT Industries website stated that: "FPT equipment is fitted to a range of helicopters including ALH".33

In 1997, the then GKN Westland Aerospace Ltd (renamed GKN Aerospace Services Ltd in 2001) was awarded a contract to supply the internal gearbox BR715 for HAL's ALH.34

GKN Aerospace Services Ltd confirmed that they have supplied fuel tanks, floatation equipment and related gaskets and seals for the ALH, but that these are subject to end-use certificates stipulating that they would not be re-exported. The company stated that future supplies for the ALH would be for components and kits for fuel tanks that would be assembled locally in India, but would again be subject to similar end-use undertakings.35 However, while the UK Government normally requires the presentation of end-use documentation as part of the licensing process, it does not as a rule then include explicit end-use restrictions as a condition on the export licence . If this is the case in this instance, what force those end-use undertakings have is unclear.

Other third-country involvement in the ALH:

The United States

It should be noted that the US embargo on Myanmar does not specifically mention indirect supplies, nor does it place controls on civilian components that are incorporated into military systems. However, indirect supplies of US military components or other controlled items are subject to re-export controls under the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) system which specifically states that re-export of US-controlled content can only take place with the express permission of the US Government. Section 123.9 "Country of ultimate destination" provides that:

"(a) The country designated as the country of ultimate destination on an application for an export licence, or on a shipper's export declaration where an exemption is claimed under this subchapter, must be the country of ultimate end-use. The written approval of the Department of State must be obtained before reselling, diverting, transferring, transshipping, or disposing of a defense article in any country other than the country of ultimate destination as stated on the export licence, or on the shipper's export declaration in cases where an exemption is claimed under this subchapter. Exporters must ascertain the specific end-use and end-user prior to submitting an application to the Office of Munitions Control or claiming an exemption under this subchapter. End-use must be confirmed and should not be assumed."36

However, it is not clear whether components supplied by US companies for the ALH have been specifically designed or adapted for military use. If not, they may fall outside this specification.

Aitech Systems Ltd

In September 2005, it was reported that Aitech Systems Ltd, a US company, had announced it had "received the first production order from the Lahav Division of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) for Display & Mission Computers" for inclusion in the glass cockpit of the ALH. The Lahav Division of IAI is under contract to HAL to develop and provide the avionics system for the HAL.37

Deliveries for the first production of Display and Mission Computers were due to be completed by May 2006:

"Aitech will build 400 Display & Mission Computers for the ALH program, to be delivered over the next several years. In addition, Aitech is under contract to IAI to provide the next generation of Display & Mission Computer." 38

Amnesty International wrote to the company in March 2007 asking for clarifications over its involvement with the ALH, but has yet to receive a reply (as of 25 June 2007).

Lord Corporation

In January 2004, it was reported that Lord Corporation had announced that it had been "awarded the first production contract for its active vibration control system" for the ALH. Lord Corporation had been supplying other parts (such as elastomeric bearings) for the main tail rotor and parts for various "isolators", which together formed part of an anti-resonance isolator system aimed at reducing vibrations in the aircraft." The report also stated that "Lord would supply the vibration dampers for these aircraft with user approvals."39

The Lord Corporation wrote to Amnesty International on 9 March 2007 saying that contractual obligations of confidentiality prevented any disclosure of the Lord Corporation's involvement in military products, other than information currently in the public domain. The company also stipulated that it was fully aware of government compliance issues and "strives to be in full compliance with all applicable regulations."40

IAI Israel involvement

The Advanced Light Helicopter demonstrator features IAI's integrated avionics package that was especially designed for helicopters. The "Glass Cockpit" concept package, developed by IAI's Lahav Division, utilizes a comprehensive electronic warfare suite, day and night observation capability, a targeting system and a flexible armaments carrying system. IAI will supply "Glass Cockpit" avionics package to HAL especially designed to meet the requirements of both the Indian Armed Forces and other international customers.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Yup except for Pakistanis no one says it was made by Pakistan. Infact I am even tired of this whole "we joined hands with Chinese to design" the plane and "our engineers have helped Chinese brothers "BS etc. It is plaily insulting the Chinese intelligence and their efforts. Are you Pakistanis implying that it was you who timparted the necessary knowhow on aircraft manufacuting to Chinese? What role have you contributed to their aerospace industry that they themselves could not achieve. This is nothing but plane insulting to Chinese aerospace knowhow and knowledge base.

If you want to compare Jf 17 then compare it with Su MKI ir the Mig 21 which we have been building for years. Thunder is nothing but a completely Chinese designed plane with Pakistani requests and demands in mind as an end user , which is to be manufacured in Pakistan. is'nt it what exactly we are doing for decades. So much for you collaboration and knowhow in aerospace design.

IPF

it was a joint project in which both countries shared the costs. this is all we know from the sources available to us, there's no mention at all about the nationality of the aerospace engineers. therefore, you can't say Pakistani engineers did nothing.

Neo has confirmed that there was a team of 50+ Pakistani aerospace engineers working on the project. they can take most of the responsibility in the design of the aircraft. you can see their fingerprints in the JF-17 design, clipped-delta wing, similar to the F-16.

needless to say, we still had a minor role in the project in terms of development. avionics, structural design(avoiding oscillations or vibrations, flutter), engine (obviously), almost everything else was taken care of by chinese engineers. the main point was to gain experience in aircraft design, especially in systems integration which we can only get through experience, and also experience in manufacturing. we can't manufacture aircraft, we don't have the low-end jobs such as advance welding, precision machining, etc.

though, part of the deal is to slowly take over the entire project, manufacturing the entire airframe which is now starting to include composites, and some of the avionics. hope this answers everyone's questions.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Daredevil mate, from your post I can see some intellect. And hence I am urging you to stop this squabbling as it has no end, just have your views on current topics otherwise Mods here are quite strict especially for Indians.

whatever, as far as I can see, some indians (not all) here have a free reign to troll and leave their flamebait droppings all over threads. of course, there are many immature Pakistanis here too who can't think.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

it was a joint project in which both countries shared the costs

Exactly true..

this is all we know from the sources available to us, there's no mention at all about the nationality of the aerospace engineers. therefore, you can't say Pakistani engineers did nothing.

Any joint project will have your men with partner organisations especially in international collaborations.

As far as their role is concerned I am sure they must have provided suggestion on requirements, observe design process and best practises in design (whatever the Chinese have learnt).

Neo has confirmed that there was a team of 50+ Pakistani aerospace engineers working on the project.

Guess what there are a heck a lot more Indian engineers stationed in Israel and Moscow then mere 50 and we for sure are not claiming we designed Su Mki. The very little number of 50 suggestes what I have been reiterating all the time " They are there to observe > best practises in aviation design>technologies involved in aviation design, >systems integration and make sure that your requirements are folowed in the design process.

they can take most of the responsibility in the design of the aircraft. you can see their fingerprints in the JF-17 design, clipped-delta wing, similar to the F-16.

If you had the capability to design most of the aircraft then the design work would have been done in your nation with Chinese experts visiting you for consultancy and advice and not the other way around.

Are you implying that Chinese did not know the philosophy behind clipped delta wing design.

needless to say, we still had a minor role in the project in terms of development. avionics, structural design(avoiding oscillations or vibrations, flutter), engine (obviously), almost everything else was taken care of by chinese engineers. the main point was to gain experience in aircraft design, especially in systems integration which we can only get through experience, and also experience in manufacturing. we can't manufacture aircraft, we don't have the low-end jobs such as advance welding, precision machining, etc.

Exactly ... you have done now what we have been doing for decades.

though, part of the deal is to slowly take over the entire project, manufacturing the entire airframe which is now starting to include composites, and some of the avionics. hope this answers everyone's questions.

No one questioned your capability to manufacture . All the best

IPF

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

so much for my calm approach towards this thread filled with trolls, I can see my generosity is always rejected by indians and pakistanis both alike.

Any joint project will have your men with partner organisations especially in international collaborations.

yup... that means they are there to do something, not talk about brotherly love with the Chinese.

As far as their role is concerned I am sure they must have provided suggestion on requirements, observe design process and best practises in design (whatever the Chinese have learnt).

as far as YOU are concerned. keep in mind, I'm going along with my sources, which are always 100% on target. the design process is something Pakistani engineers shared with their Chinese counterparts.

Guess what there are a heck a lot more Indian engineers stationed in Israel and Moscow then mere 50 and we for sure are not claiming we designed Su Mki. The very little number of 50 suggestes what I have been reiterating all the time " They are there to observe > best practises in aviation design>technologies involved in aviation design, >systems integration and make sure that your requirements are folowed in the design process.

excuse me, when were we talking about india? you want to know something, there's a hell of a lot more engineers and scientists in China. the Chinese have extended generosity to include them in projects such as Project Crystal, Zodiac, and yours truly JF-17. This has been going on since the 80's, and this covers everything from nuclear weapons, aerospace, tanks, ballistic missiles, launch vehicles, satellites, rocket launcher systems, naval architecture, etc.

it's not only limited to China, the army itself has set up information systems commands, keeping an eye out for new emerging technologies. they have a habit of recruiting pakistani expats from abroad. my own uncle worked for Hughes, which is now owned by Raytheon. My father himself worked for NASA at one time and now works for Eaton. His company rolls out parts for the JSF, F-16, F-15, Airbus 380, Boeing's rocket launch vehicles, etc. a lot of Pakistanis are working here in the US. Many of them go back to pakistan and work for NESCOM and other military organizations.

If you had the capability to design most of the aircraft then the design work would have been done in your nation with Chinese experts visiting you for consultancy and advice and not the other way around.

from where are you getting the idea that all the work was done in China? I haven't found any links or sources for that? both indians and pakistanis, themselves, assume everything was done in China. as far as I'm concerned, we've only seen the JF-17 tested in China, but again, that confirms my idea, we are not able to manufacture it yet.

Are you implying that Chinese did not know the philosophy behind clipped delta wing design.

are you implying that we taught the Chinese? are you shoving these words up my mouth? I never said anything, if Pakistani engineers did anything, it would have been with their Chinese counterparts. they wouldn't be just sitting there and watching it.

Exactly ... you have done now what we have been doing for decades

yes, what you've done on the Hal Tejas for decades.

No one questioned your capability to manufacture . All the best

IPF

thanks, I'm honored.

 

[was]