LCH....mmmm...ppt itself is not going to work.Is IAF is going to use it during war ? or just for training ? or Target practice ? Technology demonstrator ?whatever HAL is producing, IAF is not going to use it during the war. then what is the point in wasting the time and money.Regards,TAX PAYER
OMG! No HUMS and GPWS on board! This could turn out to be a big mistake. Better to take remedial action now before limited series production begins. Also, it's about time HAL embraced the concept of high-speed main rotor blades featuring BERP high-speed tips.
Apache Longbow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MG3t2entB0&feature=related
Well this is a first attempt and may not include eveything. Give them time to get a good handle on the basics and then the goodies will come along. What is concerning me, is that the Paks are looking to get HQ-18 or an equivalent system from China, with possibly local manufacture (like for A100 MRLS). This if true would really complicate things. It seems as if they are really focused on air defence. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-11/18/content_11566622.htmWhat are your thought?
Prasun:What is HUMS to the world, is SHM to DRDO, recently tested on board Nishant. I am sure it would be incorporated in LCH too, not a big deal to wire sensors/anodes to critical components and have them retrieved via junction box (in the form of cartridge) taken to ground station for further evaluation.As for the GPWS:Quote: One of the major weaknesses of (GPWS) is the lack of "look-ahead" information as it only provides altitude above terrain "look-down". In order to overcome such weakness, modern aircraft use the Terrain Awareness Warning System (TAWS). GPWS & EGPSW and TCAS read; mod.nic.in
To keshto: It does become a big deal when the avionics architecture diagram does not reflect the HUMS installation. Mind you, even the Dhruv ALH has yet to incorporate items like HUMS and laser-based terrain obstacle avoidance system, with the latter being imperative for Army-operated ALHs and LCHs. To MPatel: The Pakistan Army is the launch customer for CPMIEC's A-100E MBRL, while the Pakistan Air Force is seriously examining the prospect of acquiring the HQ-9 M-SAM to eventually replace the MIM-23B Improvewd Hawks. But these are all off-the-shelf purchases since they are being/to-be-acquired in rather limited quantities, which do not justify the costs of setting up local production/assembly lines.
Thank You Prasun :-)I didn't know Pak had the MIM-23B! I know they had some (probably inactive by now) Crotale systems fromt he 70s. I remember when you broke the story about the A-100E going to pak, there were many doubters but you were proved tobe correct...you were ahead by about 1-2 years i believe. Is it true that these are now being manufactured in pak now?
It does become a big deal when the avionics architecture diagram does not reflect the HUMS installation. It can be added later because as the diagram shows, avionic bus is under utilised and begging for more interfaces (max 32)For that matter, even the serial data bus (MIL-STD-1553) of 1970 is becoming obsolete and is being replaced by much faster Fiber Optic bus (by OECD countries), MIL-STD-1773, if we talk of architecture.
I will appreciate this LCH if it successfully destroys the cross border terrorist camps in the neighborhood of India.
To keshto: Your conclusions on the obsolescence of the MIL-STD-1553B digibus are way off the mark. Read this: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q1/060109b_nr.html
Prasun I did read yr given stuff (albiet 4 yrs old), thanks. But instead of anything, it vindicates my point. You see 1553 has been upgraded to hyper version, using DSL technology. 1553 is able only upto 1 MBPS (vs 1773 fiber optic 100 MBPS), what a pity! slow as a snail when compared to 1773, which weighs less, and better resists electromagnetic interference, including EMP.Its 4 decade old technology half duplex system (slow) vs dual rate (high transfer rate) 1773 and 1394 (400 MBPS) standard.No wonder F-35 and F-22 discontinued 1553B usage on merit.
To keshto: I agree with you on the inherent superiority of MIL-STD-1773 and 1394 databus standards, especially when operating with a network-centric environment. That is why the CSIO way back in December 2002 had completed developing such a flight control system for the Dhruv ALH. But for some strange reason, no more news has emerged from HAL since then. One would have presumed that such flight control systems would also go on board the LCH and LUH, as well as on the Tejas Mk2 and the 120 to-be-upgraded IAF Jaguar IS (especially since BAE Systems had already developed such a flight control system way back in the early 1980s).
1553 is indeed not future proof and facing serious obsolescence threat. A 1553 eco-system is large today but when you are building something from the ground up then there should be some innovation.Otherwise it is screwdriver integration at its best.Could have looked into fibre channel. Avionics grade POF is pretty much creeping into aerospace industry and a number of fibre channel interface cards are now available.
Post a Comment