Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 18 Dec 2014 15:20

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4006 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 13:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 7091
Karan M wrote:
How things changed after Kargil can also be seen from what happened when the Pakistanis again took over a position on our side of the LoC and attacked an IA patrol. After that initial success, the IAF sent across a couple of Mirage 2000's who LGB'ed the heck out of the Pakistanis and sent them scurrying across the border, post haste. Those who were left alive that is.

Today's IAF can even lase targets with UAVs. And a huge portion is PGM capable (70% of our active fighters). Not like Kargil.


When did this happen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 13:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Posts: 1193
Location: mumbai
Karan M wrote:
No, the Mi-17s flying that day did have CMDS & so did the one that was shot down.
From what I've been told, there were dispensers but no flares, because they were not procured/deployed until the Mi-17 was shot down. After Kargil, there was a mad rush in IN and IAF to equip all planes with CMDS and buy chaff/flares cartridges.

Karan M wrote:
However, the ones that did have operational systems, covered the Mi-17 that was lost with their overlapping CMDS coverage. That was a big reason why the crew decided to take the calculated risk. And the method worked to a large extent allowing for multiple passes to be made. Ultimately though, one missile got through. I won't go into details as to how the formation was set up, even if discussed publicly, but the IAF's method worked brilliantly till then & still has operational relevance.


This is the first time I am hearing this and the overlapping theory doesnt practically seem plausible. An IR seeker on a Stinger or Igla has a limited FoV. The Pakistani Stinger use proportional navigation and the FoV is limited.

Before launching, the operator uses the console to lock the target before firing. Only when the lock on music is heard is the missile fired. Hence the missile is LOBL.

Because the missile is already locked to the target before firing, the flares "have" to originate from the target to seduce the missile from the target. Otherwise the missile seeker has such limited FoV that any flare launched outside of the limited seeker FoV wont seduce the seeker. Hence overlapping flare umbrella cannot be created, because the overlapping flares will not be close to the target to seduce the missile away.

Another reason why overlapping theory is implausible is that flares are magnesium or thermite to generate high temperatures similar to engine exhaust. The flare incendiary melts airframe metal structures and control cables on contact and set hydraulics and fuel on fire. There are safety guidelines for flares deployment and it is suicidal for one aircraft to fly through another planes flares. A flare hitting a rotor is as bad as an incendiary AA round hitting the rotor blade. No plane will fly through another planes flares. If flying side by side, sufficient separation has to be maintained, that negates the primary concept of overlapping flare cover.


Last edited by tsarkar on 14 Nov 2011 14:57, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 13:35 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33967
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
> Aditya_V: when did this happen?

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/other-loonda-kargil-ii.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 21:28 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:
The 139 Mi-17s should replace some of the older Mi-8s and will also be easier to operationalize quickly, given our substantial experience and logistics knowledge of the basic type.
<SNIP>


AFAIK, we have four squadrons with Mi-8 still in service.
Very true, Mi-8s have been given some life extension and are still soldiering on, most of them in the North East but some in the Western Plains too. Why they are even deployed in the ANC!!!
It is intriguing that we are adding 120odd Mi-17V5s and all of them in the Weaponized configuration. What am I missing here?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2011 21:48 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
^^^ Above article on the latest Mi-17V5 order talks about the new inductions coming up in Bhatinda AFS (done) and Srinagar AFS (by March 2012). This is a great development as these appear to be new raising rather than replacement of an existing SQ. any news of the SQ#s. A Noob pooch, what is the difference between a Helicopter SQ and a Helicopter Unit? probably the # of birds, anything else?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2011 21:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6112
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
^^^One and onlee the same.......the nomenclature is XYZ Helicopter Unit for example 129 HU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2011 21:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 7091
Singha wrote:


For some reason I was ignorant about this incident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2011 22:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1636
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
^^ Well that makes the two of us.. If it was published in The Hindu, I missed it completely...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2011 16:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5791
tsarkar wrote:
From what I've been told, there were dispensers but no flares, because they were not procured/deployed until the Mi-17 was shot down. After Kargil, there was a mad rush in IN and IAF to equip all planes with CMDS and buy chaff/flares cartridges.


There were flares with the Mi-17's and they were actually used in the event itself. Its just that the particular Mi-17 in question had a problem with its CMDS system, but given the requirement of CAS, the crew went ahead anyway, taking the risk as it were, with their other helicopters in the formation supporting them. It was a risky workaround and worked for a while. But by making repeated passes, the crew exposed themselves to danger, which after all was bound to happen given the operational requirement. That is what actually brought home the issue to me, in terms of the term "calculated risk", that these men knew what they would face and went ahead anyway. Partly why I don't buy into the entire service versus service issue engaged in by people writing post the event, because at Kargil, the IAF personnel did do what they could for their IA brethren.

Overall, since the situation is far different now, it can be said that there were two tiers of aircraft in the IAF at that point of time, the western ones - the Mirages, Jaguars etc which came with a decent fit to begin with, and also had some good PGM capabilities. But these stocks were carefully husbanded (PGMs) but they had decent RWR, chaff, flares etc as well. The MiG-29s were also ok. In the MiGs, the MiG-23 BNs had seen some local upgrades, but the rest of the older MiG-21 fleet was languishing, and the MiG-27s also per memory got their Israeli CMDS fitted later. Helicopters, we had the systems etc. for the Mi-17s at least. Overall, the IAF had not fared as badly as had the IA in terms of force modernization. They did have limited amounts of niche equipment that had a disproportionate impact when used innovatively. Eg picking up Muntho Dhalo on Litening, using Mirages to mark the target, for MiGs to literally blow it to smithereens.

PS: This report mentions data broadly similar to what I remember.

Quote:
While the MiG-27 was lost because of an engine flameout due to ingestion of smoke and debris, the MiG-21 was lost to a SAM while searching for the downed MiG-27. It is now appreciated that a lack comprehensive of countermeasures (chaff/flare dispensers) across the MiG-21 fleet contributed significantly to the tragedy. Until Kargil, only the MiG-23BN, few Jaguars, and a handful of MiG-27s were fitted with automated countermeasures (in addition to the air defence types). Upgrading the self-defense and jamming capabilities of the rest of the attack fleet has now assumed a sense of urgency and base repair depots have taken on the task of upgrading chaff/flare dispensers..


http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... hatto.html

Quote:
This is the first time I am hearing this and the overlapping theory doesnt practically seem plausible. An IR seeker on a Stinger or Igla has a limited FoV. The Pakistani Stinger use proportional navigation and the FoV is limited.

Before launching, the operator uses the console to lock the target before firing. Only when the lock on music is heard is the missile fired. Hence the missile is LOBL.

Because the missile is already locked to the target before firing, the flares "have" to originate from the target to seduce the missile from the target. Otherwise the missile seeker has such limited FoV that any flare launched outside of the limited seeker FoV wont seduce the seeker. Hence overlapping flare umbrella cannot be created, because the overlapping flares will not be close to the target to seduce the missile away.

Another reason why overlapping theory is implausible is that flares are magnesium or thermite to generate high temperatures similar to engine exhaust. The flare incendiary melts airframe metal structures and control cables on contact and set hydraulics and fuel on fire. There are safety guidelines for flares deployment and it is suicidal for one aircraft to fly through another planes flares. A flare hitting a rotor is as bad as an incendiary AA round hitting the rotor blade. No plane will fly through another planes flares. If flying side by side, sufficient separation has to be maintained, that negates the primary concept of overlapping flare cover.


The operator as you mentioned, targets the Stinger visually, gets a launch tone and fires. AFter which the Stinger etc is autonomous, it cannot be guided to a specific target and nor does the operator have any control over that.The operator will also quickly move away from the firing spot, as the launch smoke gives away his location and exposes him to retaliation. Basically, MANPADS have severe limitations. They are best used against targets whose trajectories are somewhat known and the operator can track them accurately. Closely spaced targets and the missile will go after whichever is in its field of view. If the seeker is heavily jammed with clutter (ie flares) all bets are off. If memory serves, the ones used at Kargil by PA were units transferred during Afghan war and not the latest. Or Chinese ripoffs of the SA-7, Anza-1s. Eitherways, not the latest Igla-S or the like which will be far harder to counter.

In this case, the IAF did manage to create a formation wherein the flares managed to protect the formation from the peaks beside and below the target. How they did it is best left out of the discussion but that was what managed to protect the crew till that point, and which is why it took multiple Stinger/Anza's to bring down that one helicopter. The crew reportedly knew this, and this was part of the mission planning.

There were also other methods the IAF came up with to reduce the risk of MANPADS post Kargil.

But the immediate conclusion from this incident was, that it was practically impossible to sanitize the entire area of MANPADS. The fact that their methods worked in terms of requiring salvos was one thing but even so, the risk meant that operations moved to medium altitude. While the bulk of the publicity was garnered by the attacks from the LGB equipped Mirages, some good results were obtained by pilots flying aircraft with portable GPS systems and synchronizing their attacks manually.

I'm glad that the LCH which flows directly from the lessons of Kargil will have a very comprehensive SPS suite. Including MAWS, CMDS and RWR. The Russians have also demo'ed a DIRCM on their Mi-28s and we are working on one with Israel. I hope that get's included as well on all our planes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2011 23:06 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 14 Oct 2010 19:08
Posts: 76
Rudra helicopters to help army guard western border


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2011 09:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06
Posts: 550
the Mi-17 sports fuel tanks on its sides, one would think that it helps with handling unbalanced loads by transferring fuel between the tanks as needed, would doing the same in Dhruv help in carrying more armaments on its booms? assuming the current limitation is due to the main rotor having to compensate for any unbalance, the latter more pronounced for outward hanging loads

also, having a NOTAR reduce the weight of the heli by getting rid of the tail rotor?

can HAL do these even as a tech demo?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2011 13:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4667
Quote:
LGBS were quickly qualified on the Jaguar - combat use was a flop though, leaving the Mirages as the key carrier.


Thanks Karan

+1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2011 14:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 8351
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
venku_Raj wrote:


Quote:
The induction of 197 light observation helicopters is in the final stages.

LOH in final stages of induction or design?? :-?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2011 15:28 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14158
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
Surya wrote:
Quote:
LGBS were quickly qualified on the Jaguar - combat use was a flop though, leaving the Mirages as the key carrier.


Thanks Karan

+1

1000 pounders with paveway kit paired with ATLIS. the jag itself was not considered suitable for that terrain at the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2011 15:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 246
Location: On the sofa.
Why did the Jags not work well with LGBs in Kargil?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2011 23:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Dec 2007 09:43
Posts: 1166
Location: Chini clone of "Maltin Bakel" ejection seat
Nick_S wrote:
Why did the Jags not work well with LGBs in Kargil?


The Jags with their underpowered engines were probably not suited for combat at those heights. Experts might be able to throw some more light.
However, its OT here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2011 10:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58
Posts: 914
Army to get its first attack copter squadron next year


Quote:
Twenty-five years after the Army established its own aviation wing to provide tactical air support to ground formations, it is getting its own dedicated attack helicopter squadron. This marks a notable shift in its operational capabilities and the beginning of a new chapter in the doctrinal book of the Army Aviation Corps (AAC) that has till now been largely restricted to surveillance and communication roles.

Sources said the first attack helicopter squadron is scheduled to be raised early next year with the induction of indigenously developed Rudra, the weaponised version of the Dhruv - the advance light helicopter that is already in service. The new squadron is likely to be attached with one of the Army’s strike corps.

So far, the Army is the only customer for the Rudra that is stated to be undergoing weapons trials. The machine would be armed with anti-tank guided missiles, rockets and machineguns. It can also carry torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.

The basic concept of the Rudra is similar to that of the Russian made Mi-25/35 helicopter gunships in service with the IAF. Both are heavily armed with the capability to ferry 6-8 combat-ready soldiers in their passenger cabins. This serves the twin purpose of providing close air support to advancing mechanised formations or ground forces in varied operational scenarios as well as deliver troops to the combat zone as reinforcements or for special missions.

Such roles are presently fulfilled by the Mi-25/35, which though operated by the IAF, have been paid for by the Army. Over the years, the IAF has been opposing the growth of the Army Aviation on the grounds that all aerial assets should be with one force to make training, maintenance and logistics easier.

The AAC is primarily equipped with the Cheetah and Chetak light helicopters. Experts have argued
that for the AAC to be an effective combat arm it must have adequate offensive and ground attack capability to provide the requisite tactical air support.

The ACC got some teeth recently with the induction of the Lancer, which is basically the Cheetah retrofitted with two integrated weapons pods each carrying a machine gun and three rockets that can provide limited close air support.

The ACC has also equipped a limited number of Cheetah helicopters airborne battlefield surveillance systems, giving field commanders real-time operational information. The system can relay its feed to a ground based receiver unit as far as 400 km away or it can record the input on to a CD for later viewing.

Assault Fleet

The first attack helicopter squadron is scheduled to be raised early next year with the induction of indigenously developed Rudra, the weaponised version of the Dhruv - the advance light helicopter that is already in service.
The new squadron is likely to be attached with one of the Army’s strike corps.
The Rudra is undergoing weapons trials. The machine would be armed with anti-tank guided missiles, rockets and machineguns. It can also carry torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.



http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20111120/nation.htm#6


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2011 12:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6112
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
^^^Excellent news. But rather than give them to Strike Corps, put them with Pivot Corps - @1 Squadron per Corps for starters. Those Corps will require every bit of firepower for their D+X days of combat - till the time Strike Corps come in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2011 14:19 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 6028
One stupid sawal??

Why give it a different name. Why not just call it an Armed Dhruv. Its not like it is a different machine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 02:47 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
Pratyush wrote:
Why give it a different name. Why not just call it an Armed Dhruv. Its not like it is a different machine.
Rudra brings forth a fiery feeling as comparedto a more timid Druv. Wonder what they will name our Apache Attack helos?!?! Any suggestions?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 02:50 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
^^^ the Tribune article talks about. Weaponized Cheetah named Lancer with an integrated GUn and Rocket pod, this is the first time I am hearing this, Gurus, can some guide to me to more info on this, hope this is not DDMites. When did IA test it and induct it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 02:52 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
rohitvats wrote:
^^^Excellent news. But rather than give them to Strike Corps, put them with Pivot Corps - @1 Squadron per Corps for starters. Those Corps will require every bit of firepower for their D+X days of combat - till the time Strike Corps come in.
Rohit, let us start with the three/four STRIKE Corps and then army every Corps with one SQ of Attack helos, let us get the LCHs, then the pace of Induction of attack helos wil pick up. How many Rudra has the Army ordered? I think they have already ordered 57 LCHs correct?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 02:53 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
rohitvats wrote:
^^^Excellent news. But rather than give them to Strike Corps, put them with Pivot Corps - @1 Squadron per Corps for starters. Those Corps will require every bit of firepower for their D+X days of combat - till the time Strike Corps come in.
Rohit, let us start with the three/four STRIKE Corps and then army every Corps with one SQ of Attack helos, let us get the LCHs, then the pace of Induction of attack helos wil pick up. How many Rudra has the Army ordered? I think they have already ordered 57 LCHs correct?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 03:16 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14158
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
Shrinivasan wrote:
^^^ the Tribune article talks about. Weaponized Cheetah named Lancer with an integrated GUn and Rocket pod, this is the first time I am hearing this, Gurus, can some guide to me to more info on this, hope this is not DDMites. When did IA test it and induct it?

pics
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 4.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... os/Lancer/
and a small report.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 03/Lancer/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 09:07 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
^^^ thanks Rahul, I learnt something new today. I hope we have couple of SQ of these with the IA. Good CASEVAC as well as Flank protection!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 10:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41
Posts: 606
Shrinivasan wrote:
I think they have already ordered 57 LCHs correct?


DNA special: 114 light combat choppers to thwart any Chinese mischief


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 11:18 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6112
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
114 LCH as per reports I've read.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 11:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31
Posts: 141
65 is for the AirForce


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 11:25 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33967
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
imo name or formation is not important, but every IA corps commander (whether strike corps, pivot corps or just regular horse cavalry) should have some LCH & WSI-Dhruv directly under his operational control without needing to call up his theater commander, IAF liaison or worse Dilli(!). his formations can take care of preparing refueling & rearming sites, hides and missions for his assets.

once that is done, the IA logistical chain will naturally evolve to support organic and frequent use of gunships. decision loop being a phone call from Col/Lt Col to the corps general staff HQ, hours can be saved in the fog of war.

even a single sqdn of 10 Rudra and another of 10 WSI-Dhruv per IA corps will be a massive force multiplier in protecting units under pressure and deftly clearing strongpoints of enemy resistance with a well aimed burst or atgm from the night sky 8) penny packets is fine, we need them all over the place, not at predictable points.

IAF can probably plan to create Shakinah massed gunship Natgeo special "hunting with the cobras" type formations of AH64D and Rudra, all spit n polish, bristling with helinas and hellfires and creeping around over swift flowing himalayan rivers below the treeline.... :wink: or 15 of these wingtip to wingtip flying slowly over the Nubra valley sand dunes, raising whirls of dust .... like pack of well fed wolves falling out in a show of strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 16:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1636
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Singhaji,
Imaging the picture that you paint here gives me goosebumps all over.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 16:49 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33967
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
here are 23 AH64A helis flying together over south korea....in a show of force for some unknown reason. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ozCw0zaQT8

just imagine this lot flying a bit lower, line abreast forming a rough 'rohan horsemen charge line' a couple kms long, with eddies of dust from the nubra sand dunes...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 16:59 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 20 Jun 2009 12:54
Posts: 60
The LAH Rudra; Its a recon option in the mountains and meant for anti terrorist ops and certainly not a force multiplier.
There is a big diff betn LAH and LCH.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 17:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Posts: 1193
Location: mumbai
Karan M wrote:
their other helicopters in the formation supporting them.
As I've explained earlier, this is practically impossible, no aviator will fly through flares launched by others and melt his airframe and if launched by others, the physical separation will be sufficient for those flares to be outside missile seeker FoV to have any effect.

Karan M wrote:
Closely spaced targets and the missile will go after whichever is in its field of view.
Now you're coming to the point, and hence the need for the flare to originate from the aircraft.

Karan M wrote:
The fact that their methods worked in terms of requiring salvos was one thing
Stingers cannot be fired in salvoes like Grad rockets. Because unless the operator gets seeker lock, the missile wont fire. Multiple operators acquiring targets at the same time gave the impression of salvoes.

Karan M wrote:
In this case, the IAF did manage to create a formation wherein the flares managed to protect the formation from the peaks beside and below the target. How they did it is best left out of the discussion but that was what managed to protect the crew till that point
Leaving it out of the discussion wont make an apocryphal story true. This is what an Mi-17 with CMDS looks like http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 0.jpg.html. The installation is just aft of the wheel support truss.

These are images of Mi-17 at Kargil. 129 HU and 152 HU participated in those initial attacks.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... rgil25.jpg
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... rgil01.jpg
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... h.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... c.jpg.html
There are exhaust diffusers but absolutely no CMDS in sight anywhere on these birds.

The simple fact is there were no CMDS and flares on those birds. If those so-called tactics and were-there CMDS were so effective, then the Mi-17 wouldnt have been discontinued from strike missions and restricted to transport missions from the day of the loss.

The MiGs were still used for strike after their losses using revised GPS assisted high/medium altitude bombing techniques.

Nick_S wrote:
Why did the Jags not work well with LGBs in Kargil?
Because the integration work on Jaguars were not complete. From the CAG report http://www.cag.gov.in/reports/defence/2 ... apter3.htm
Quote:
The CCS approved a proposal of the Air Force in May 1996 [TS - way before Kargil] for procurement of 15 laser designator pods with thermal imagery for fitment on 10 Jaguars and 5 Mirage-2000 aircraft and modification of 30 Jaguar aircraft for carrying the pods at a total cost of Rs.125 crore. The Ministry concluded a contract with foreign firm ?D? in November 1996 for procurement of 15 laser designator pods with thermal imagery at a total cost of US $ 27.11 million, equivalent to Rs.95 ( 1 US $ = Rs.35) crore to be delivered between March 1998 and February 1999 in two phases.

The flight test and certification on Jaguar aircraft, which was planned to be conducted by March 1998, was completed by the ASTE (Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment), only in December 1999[TS - long after the war], after a delay of 20 months. The delays were attributable mainly to delay in software development and change in modification scheme of the aircraft by HAL owing to mechanical problems. Similarly, certification on Mirage-2000 aircraft was also delayed by nine months[TS - but completed in time for Kargil].

Only one twin seater Jaguar aircraft had been modified by HAL, Bangalore as of May 2000 and the fleet modification of 29 Jaguars was yet to commence.[TS - I believe this bird tried, but didnt succeed because it wasnt tested and defects ironed out]

Fitment of an auto pilot on the Jaguars is mandatory for executing missions with laser designator pods. While the availability of auto pilots for Jaguar aircraft is unlikely at least before 2002, mismatch and inadequate planning have seriously undermined the fleet modification of Jaguars with laser designator pods.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2011 21:55 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33967
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
>> The LAH Rudra; Its a recon option in the mountains and meant for anti terrorist ops and certainly not a force multiplier.

TFTA looks are not the Rudra's strong point. but a system that is networked, has night vision, can disappear into sniper hides upto 200km away and reappear with fresh fuel , crew and weapons , can fire 4 x ATGMs and helmet controlled cannon is a force multiplier in our context...its far more powerful than armed Lancer for example....and far more survivable than a lumbering Mi17....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2011 08:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41
Posts: 606
Image

Quote:
Burke says this latest model is also the one being offered to the IAF. The aircraft has also recently demonstrated the ability to allow its pilot to control Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). “The Indian government will get the Block III Apache – all of the improvements.” In fact, the Boeing brought a prototype of the Block III to India to undergo flight trials by the IAF. “We took an aircraft – a prototype of a Block III aircraft that had all the performance enhancements on it – we took it and we flew it in India (for the trials).”




Apache ‘last man standing’ in Indian attack helo trial


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Nov 2011 10:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Posts: 169
Location: INDIA
Guided helicopter Missiles like Hellphyrrr costs around $ 68000 (35 lakhs at todays exchange rate) as per wiki.
its probably worth to use such missles agianst tanks.
They use this (on predators) to target some mujahids in some TSP vehicles :roll: expensive affair

IMO those B-8 or B-13 pods firing unguided S-8 or more powerful S-13 (it can take out tanks ) probably would be more worthwhile to carry.
Wondering if we can integrate (read allowed) those UB pods on the 64s (S-8s and S-13s are probably cheaper than TFTA equivalents)

Philip saar
As per wiki M230 gun on the 64 has an effective range of 1500 meters (30 x 113mm rounds ) ground targets and the Shipunov 2A42 on mi-28 has effective range 2500 meters :shock: (30 x 165 mm rounds) on ground tragets. how true is it? i mean the mi-28 firing those rounds at 1500 meters would almost punch 2 times that of M230 round.
Shipunov 2A42
M230 chain gun

and the marketing of 1200 rounds carrying capability of 64s are a farce as it uses the auxillary fuel tank area to accomodate that. otherwise its same 300 rounds like mi-28
From the above link on M230->
Quote:
The Apache is capable of carrying up to 1,200 rounds for the gun in a device known as the flat pack. However, utilization by the US Army of a special internal fuel tank, the Robertson IAFS (known as the Robby Tank to the crews), reduces this capacity to 300 rounds


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Nov 2011 13:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Posts: 169
Location: INDIA
pragnya wrote:
Quote:
Burke says this latest model is also the one being offered to the IAF. The aircraft has also recently demonstrated the ability to allow its pilot to control Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). “The Indian government will get the Block III Apache – all of the improvements.” In fact, the Boeing brought a prototype of the Block III to India to undergo flight trials by the IAF. “We took an aircraft – a prototype of a Block III aircraft that had all the performance enhancements on it – we took it and we flew it in India (for the trials).”



Apache ‘last man standing’ in Indian attack helo trial


UAV controlled from Apache available to us !!! 8) That would give some serious capability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2011 05:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Posts: 576
Location: Mumbai
Recent upload from Eric, Sarang over Waddington, 2008.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2011 04:33 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38673
chiragS, I wish that DRDO develops a small 125-250 lbs bomb and fits Sudarshan based LGB kits to give more punch. It will be more cost effective than those Hellfires and will be a all purpose tank, bunker killer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2011 05:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
Vishal Jolapara,
Wonderful pic. Thanks for sharing. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4006 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deejay, Google Feedfetcher, Pratyush, Yahoo [Bot] and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group