Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 25 Dec 2014 11:56

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 ... 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2011 11:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11369
Location: India
I echo Ramanna's sentiments.It seems incredible that the ordnance factories and other PSUs meant to develop missiles and munitions for the forces have not developed a cheap cost-effective PGM using a bomb kit as is being doem worldwide,for fitment onto "dumb bombs" tuning them into cheap PGMs.There is little point in spending millions using ATGMs crushing jihadi insects by an "elephant"! Similarly,even the IN/CG require a simple short ranged ASM.guided bomb for use against small infiltrator boats,pirate skiffs.The same could also be very effective against enemy bunkers,armoured vehicles,etc.,targets of opportunity that could be dealt with at low cost.

We were supposed to be keen on acquiring Israelii "Harpy's and Harops." DEtails of these drones are here.
http://defense-update.com/products/h/harop.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2011 00:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06
Posts: 550
helis are very sensitive to unbalanced lateral loads off from the main rotor vertical axis, which could be the reason why armament load hanging from the booms is very light compared to their payload capacity

maybe one way this is compensated is by carrying EFT's on the sides of the fuselage where fuel could be pumped between tanks as and when a lateral load is expended, like a bomb is dropped from one pylon, so as to keep the center of gravity of the heli

the Mi-17 seems to come with EFTs and yet its armament payload remains at 1500kg, what gives? carrying drop tanks on the far end pylons enables better lateral payload capacity, of course the armament boom has to be wet pylon enabled


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2011 04:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06
Posts: 550
Mi-17 with EFTs

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Czech-Republic--/Mil-Mi-17-1%28Sh%29/0903549/M/

they could very well be replaced with PGMs


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2011 08:15 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34050
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
MBDA is working on a small weapon called SABER which even small UAVs could carry
test video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lERkmjvsLWQ
http://www.defence-update.net/wordpress ... _mbda.html

looks like a kind of analogue to smaller AASM...stuff that can be triple racked onto pylons of manned a/c as well for smaller targets like BAI missions against enemy columns or infra.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2011 18:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Posts: 166
Location: Mumbai
Code:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/comanches-child-the-arh70-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter-updated-02421/


Hah. We should offer them the Rudra. Exactly what they're looking for...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2011 17:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11369
Location: India
HAL's helicopter division has been developing helicopters for our uniqure requirements rather well in recent times.The Dhruv,Rudra now,LCH,Lancer and the light helos derived from the Allouette-3 design,Cheetah/Chetak and Lama ,are all good enough to be displayed at a def.expo.There is a vast market for helos,especially medium sized helos.The robust Cold War design of the MI-8/17V series is the world's best selling helo,with a huge market even for secondhand ones.It is the helicopter's equivalent to the Kilo sub.If the MOD/HAL think visionary,the full caboodle of our indigenously designed helos should be displayed at the next international ekpo,as pricewise we should be very competitive.

We now have to think beyond light helos and develop with assitance preferably a multi-purpose medium sized helo of 10t weight,that can serve aboard our existing naval warships under construction and for the other two services too.One option is to also leverage the huge order for naval helos,60+ medium 10t and more Merlin class AW-101s for carriers and larger warship.With such a large order for 10t helos which will swell to 100+ when the IA and IAF add their wants too,why not ask for TOT just as we are doing with the MMRCA? This way there will be no need for yet another type to be developed and add to the maintenance/logistic burden?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2011 20:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 815
A new version of Arididen is out. It seems to have more power than the older shakti engine.

http://www.turbomeca.com/IMG/pdf/ardide ... l_data.pdf

Compared to older shakti engines.

http://www.turbomeca.com/IMG/pdf/fiche_ ... en_1h1.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2011 23:14 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 28 Jun 2010 02:43
Posts: 54
Location: 27°42′09″N 88°08′54″E
Cybaru wrote:
A new version of Arididen is out. It seems to have more power than the older shakti engine.

http://www.turbomeca.com/IMG/pdf/ardide ... l_data.pdf

Compared to older shakti engines.

http://www.turbomeca.com/IMG/pdf/fiche_ ... en_1h1.pdf


The shakti still seems to have more continous max power than the the newer one.
I am no guru in engine parmeters , but some educated person can throw some light on the changes and their implications. As Far as I see, the major modification seems to be the power output shaft, I am pretty sure there are other smaller changes too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Dec 2011 00:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11778
Ardiden 3g power the Ka-62 which is a 6.5T class chopper , Shakti powers the ALH which is 5.5 ton class , so the higher power compensates for greater take off weight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2011 15:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Posts: 1526
Location: Gora Paki


Hmm abduls havent seen this one posted.

some interesting info on Apache onlee GD hope you like this one!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2011 20:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23821
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=17029
Great stuff. Up until now my mind had been full of the Air Force viewpoint on the issue as enunciated by Jasjit Singh is his Air Power book. But here the Army has very clearly stated its case in elegant but easy to understand language and here I support the Army viewpoint
Quote:
But the Army feels that it should have attack helicopters of its own to perform the task since the “aviation brigade is tailor-made” to move continuously with the Army formations on ground and maintain the “forward edge in the tactical battlefield area”. Currently, the Army does not have its own attack helicopters.
Attack helicopters that are being developed for the Army by the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) are currently undergoing trials.
“Unplanned fleeting opportunities present themselves at different points in time and space, which, if not capitalised upon, lead to a standard toe to toe slugging match. The presence of aviation brigade headquarters in the tactical battlefield area negates these misses,” said a source.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 12:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Posts: 548
Location: Bangalore
Shivji, just to debate this through; will not asking AF to setup up a 'Wing' HQ (which controls and deploys the helicopters depending on Army requirements) tagged along with the tactical Army HQ (Division level??) also work?

Added later: What is AF's view or Jasjit Singh write about in his book regarding Army operating helicopters?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 18:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23821
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
KiranM wrote:
Shivji, just to debate this through; will not asking AF to setup up a 'Wing' HQ (which controls and deploys the helicopters depending on Army requirements) tagged along with the tactical Army HQ (Division level??) also work?

Added later: What is AF's view or Jasjit Singh write about in his book regarding Army operating helicopters?


Jasjit Singh basically classifies the use of air power into close air support (support to the grunt which the grunt on the ground wants to see) and attacks into the rear lines of the enemy (interdiction) where supply routes, stores and Command and Communication are disrupted. Jasjit Singh says something to the effect that given that air power assets are limited in number what the grunt wants to see will help only in a localised area, but the attacks on the enemy's rear will eventually slow down and stop the war while the battlefield interdiction will merely blunt an offensive. Singh concludes that the grunt getting hit may be a price that has to be paid in war for the "larger issue" of taking the enemy's logistics and support. This is a very very "Air Forcy" view where the Air Force, controlling all assets gets to decide where they are best employed and may not be able to provide the grunt with support in given situations.

The army's viewpoint seems to be "Balls. You guys go ahead and do your job and we are grateful for that. But let us have our own little air force of attack and support helos to support the grunt exactly when he needs support rather than calling you and finding out that you are busy elsewhere"

The Air Force has some objections to this. They are valid, I guess, but I think the army has a point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 18:32 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34050
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
given that our wars are only likely to be 2-3 weeks at best, the effect of deep strikes on enemy logistics and movement are likely to be much less than a 'proper' war of say 3-6 months .... usually both our enemies will be the one to initiate the war and they will stock up properly before igniting the fuse.

so I have to say the IAs pov makes sense in our context. and now that they are paying for it out of their own budget, all doctrinal objections should be overruled. IA are the best guys to setup FARPs and hiding places for the attack helicopters and the divisional commander being able to call up attack helis directly is a great boost for us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 19:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1636
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Well, I believe that if this happensit will be relagated to a secondary role in the decision making loop, behind the Army.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 19:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23821
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Bala Vignesh wrote:
Well, I believe that if this happensit will be relagated to a secondary role in the decision making loop, behind the Army.


In a larger philosophical sense the "Air Force" like those of many other nations may worry about being made redundant by other parallel air forces. That is why the AF is looking now at "aerospace commands" and it may the Air force that talks of ability to knock out satellites. But I'm speculating.

There seems to be a lot of work going on to make all 3 forces "integrated". It may be the integration issues that the Air Force worries about. For example the Air Force is tasked with Air Defence and interception of intruding aircraft. Now unless they have a very clear understanding of where the Army is using its helos - the army helos can be killed by friendly fire. Of course it would be instructive to see how the US integrates is various air forces.

The other thing is bases and maintenance. Where will the army base its helos? Who will maintain them? Is the army going to have separate areas or share them with the air force. Whose jurisdiction will this come under? The navy has its own airfileds I think. What about the army?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 19:59 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34050
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
helis do not need runways to operate from. the army bases could provide open fields that heli infra can be built around. infact its better these helis be spread all over and not concentrated into a few bases given that helis have low transit speed and low range vs fighter a/c.

I look forward to Frogfoot MKIs with the IA using sdb and hellfires - have a long list of bad guys to beat up :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 20:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23821
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Singha wrote:
helis do not need runways to operate from. the army bases could provide open fields that heli infra can be built around.


Its not so much about runways as the other infrastructure - hangars, engine maintainance. Technicians, workshops and suppliers of parts - many of which have to be duplicated by the army while they already exist with the air force. the other thing is that if a half hearted job is done (open fields) - it leaves no room for expansion should the army later need a runway to operate UAVs or some such thing. So there will be some expensive duplication unless some sharing agreement is worked out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 20:17 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34050
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
this might get resolved only if we have 'theater commands' that fold in both IAF and IA in that zone. I agree that for stuff like LCH which both IA and IAF will operate, a common infra is best. if IA operates Rudra exclusively it may not matter for rudra atleast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 20:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56
Posts: 1889
Location: Nuked State of Denialistan
Methinks that the IA needs its own Heli SQs. With direct line reporting to CORPS HQ and dotted line to the IAF.

Similarly heavy duty A2G with direct line to IAF and dotted line to IA Corps requesting for blasting enemy supplies, logistics etc. behind enemy lines

Maintenance under the IAF.

Recce by satellite and IAF A/C to be shared with all three including IN

IAF for Air Superiority, DSPA of enemy's strategic assets, enemy airspace.

AAD by all depending on the theatre. IA for its assets and attacking frontlines, IN for the coasts, theatre and assets at sea, and the IAF for strategic, populated targets and CAP over airspace ruled by it, and all Military and R&D, economic and civilain assets located on our ground.

The turf rules have to be thought out logistically, and logically to give us the best edge for a win and bang for the buck. To hell with egos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 21:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28
Posts: 291
shiv wrote:
There seems to be a lot of work going on to make all 3 forces "integrated". It may be the integration issues that the Air Force worries about. For example the Air Force is tasked with Air Defence and interception of intruding aircraft. Now unless they have a very clear understanding of where the Army is using its helos - the army helos can be killed by friendly fire. Of course it would be instructive to see how the US integrates is various air forces.


How do the army & airforce now coordinate with regards to IAF aircrafts returning from strike are not hit by IA SAM/AA system?

I think it makes sense for IA to have its own attack helo's. The IAF can infact stick to fixed wing aircrafts. Its the grunts on the ground who needs Transport Helo's for last mile connectivity, also attack helo's for quick close support. Majority of Helo assets should be owned & operated by IA. They can share infrastructure with IAF bases for the same. Fixed wing aircrafts stay with the IAF, that way they always can operate on the "strategic level". That should keep IAF happy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 21:38 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14170
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
rajan ji, IA already has its own heli sqns for about a quarter century.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 21:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56
Posts: 1889
Location: Nuked State of Denialistan
Rahul M wrote:
rajan ji, IA already has its own heli sqns for about a quarter century.


Rahulji, but not in the numbers or strength or firepower that the IA needs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 22:58 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6129
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:
helis do not need runways to operate from. the army bases could provide open fields that heli infra can be built around.


Its not so much about runways as the other infrastructure - hangars, engine maintainance. Technicians, workshops and suppliers of parts - many of which have to be duplicated by the army while they already exist with the air force. the other thing is that if a half hearted job is done (open fields) - it leaves no room for expansion should the army later need a runway to operate UAVs or some such thing. So there will be some expensive duplication unless some sharing agreement is worked out.


Shiv, the Army Aviation Corps (AAC) Squadrons (called Recce & Obs Squadrons) already have bases which are independent of IAF bases. Same goes for UAV assets as well. You see, most of the time the AAC bases are situated as per the IA requirement and not as per the available infra from IAF. Plus it is far simpler to build a heliport than set-up infra at IAF bases -which may as it is have space constraint. Also, IAF bases are positioned to support IAF's POV about fighting the air-war. IA might want to base and deploy the assets more closer to formations they are likely to operate with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 23:05 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14170
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
no, that's why the argument for expansion. both the rudra and the LCH is being majorly pushed by IA.

personally I find the US military's division of helo assets more sensible. what we can have is joint training when possible for cost savings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 23:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3538
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Just a thought on a simple way to distribute aviation assets. Anything primarily flying 10,000 ft below, belongs to the army, the rest to the Air force.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2011 21:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2141
Location: Lone Star State
ShauryaT wrote:
Just a thought on a simple way to distribute aviation assets. Anything primarily flying 10,000 ft below, belongs to the army, the rest to the Air force.
this will muddle the water more... A better demarcation would be, all rotary assets be with IA and fixed Wing with the IAF. All three services would operate UAVs and UCAVs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2011 21:25 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14170
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
IAF needs helos too for many functions, utility, SAR etc etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2011 23:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 242
IA should have an independent force structure to support these choppers - If IAF and IA are going to use the same birds they can have some common training or depos at the most, but they should have completely seperate command structure, pilots, maintenance personel, deployments, spares and extensive training in working with the IA deployments and insertions - Cold start mandates such changes.

If they try to share them with the IAF, it is no going to be much different than what it is now. Redundency and additional costs are negligible compared to the advantages it provides. IA can bring in the choppers to clear resistance points or circumvent and insert troups or to just stop a moving column of enemy vehecles. Knowing that IA can bring these choppers at a moments notice into the tactical scenario would give multiple headaches to the enemy planners and also give a lot of flexibility to Indian planners. Just Imagine a 100 to 150 attack force on the western sector itself for IA armed to the teeth with 4 KM range missiles to handle enemy vehecles and to provide fire power where needed --


IAF will have its hands full in a war to provide dominance over the theater, maintain air superiority, avoid any balooning on the Indian side that PA is so fond of and ofcourse the strike missions over Pakistan to take out any key assets on land and sea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Dec 2011 11:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Posts: 279
Location: Mumbai, India
Rahul M wrote:
IAF needs helos too for many functions, utility, SAR etc etc.



This is true, but these can be dedicated SAR/Utility Sqns., with CSAR-prepared Garud teams... Mi-17s with night flying capability and ESM/ECM measures backed up by HELINA-armed Rudras, assigned to complement air operations sector-wise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Dec 2011 13:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11369
Location: India
Venkat,you're quite right.When the three services cn't agree upon a Combined "Chief of Staff" structure and want their own indepenent authority,in our expanded theatre war scearios envisahed for the future,the IA must have its own Army Air Corps with enough transports (C-130s for special ops),light aircraft and helos,attack and utility,as it requires.For all major logistic operations,the IAF should possess the bulk of the tansport fleet,rom ligh to heavy aircraft.All attack helos shoudl be under the IA's control along with the large number of utility helos,and armed ALHs that if needs.The integration of ground forces along with attack helos and UAVs/UCAVs into a smooth functioning machine ,is the goal today in keeping wiht the IA's new doctrines to deal with Pak and China.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Dec 2011 04:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Posts: 576
Location: Mumbai
Gaur wrote:
Vishal Jolapara,
Wonderful pic. Thanks for sharing. :)
^ :wink:
Here's another one i just came across
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Dec 2011 05:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1500
shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:
helis do not need runways to operate from. the army bases could provide open fields that heli infra can be built around.


Its not so much about runways as the other infrastructure - hangars, engine maintainance. Technicians, workshops and suppliers of parts - many of which have to be duplicated by the army while they already exist with the air force. the other thing is that if a half hearted job is done (open fields) - it leaves no room for expansion should the army later need a runway to operate UAVs or some such thing. So there will be some expensive duplication unless some sharing agreement is worked out.


Rahul M wrote:
...

personally I find the US military's division of helo assets more sensible. what we can have is joint training when possible for cost savings.


Yes, the IA can have helo assets. However, there is a lot of room for discussion as to how the IAF and IA will share the resources and infrastructure. Here are some questions:

  1. Do both the IA and IAF need separate helicopter training facilities for pilots and technicians? Or can this be shared? Who runs this academy?
  2. Which types of infrastructures shared for what types helicopters and in what situations? Is there enough space in the bases during peacetime and wartime deployments? Who provides the infrastructure and logistics?
  3. Do both the IA and IAF need to recruit their pilots and technicians separately? Or can this be shared? Who is in charge of recruiting?
  4. Do both the IA and IAF need to buy helicopters separately? Or is there a centralized working committee between the IA and the IAF on purchasing decisions based on what each requires?
  5. What level of current "Jointness" exist between the IA and the IAF? What is the level of C4ISR integration between the two services? It is obvious this is not that great.
  6. Who pays for what? Does this mean the IA is angling for increased budget and looking to lessen the IAF budget? Who gets a raise and who gets a cut? How much wastage will there be?

Like someone pointed out earlier, if the Indian Armed Forces can't even decide on the Chief of Defense Staff position then it may be expecting too much for the services to share helicopter resources.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2012 19:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23
Posts: 254
Today near mana airport in Raipur a BSF Dhruv crashed, Three personal were injured(Two pilot one technician). It was on a test flight while crash from 100 feet.why the in service chopper is still in test flight phase? What kind of test user BSF is seeking on end product..
http://idrw.org/?p=6400


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2012 20:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Sep 2011 02:13
Posts: 267
Every helicopter has to go through pre-delivery trials where the standard SOP is followed and the chopper has to go through a series of tests. The flight-test might have been that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2012 21:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23
Posts: 254
Ivanev wrote:
Every helicopter has to go through pre-delivery trials where the standard SOP is followed and the chopper has to go through a series of tests. The flight-test might have been that.

Get the point, Ivanev. Thanks.......
As this product was in test phase before final delivery and hand over to client, So which Dept will suffer the final product cost, HAL or BSF ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2012 16:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32
Posts: 987
HATSOFF CEO Upadhyay quits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2012 07:41 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34050
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
I wonder why helis given to paramils/ civies tend to crash more often than does those in armed forces. are they used more , or the base infra is lacking to inspect and keep them in tip top shape?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2012 10:21 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14170
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
bsf has f'ed up every single flying machine given to them, with the possible exception of the embraers, which are I think maintained by others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2012 12:01 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34050
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
the Embraers being based in delhi are probably looked after by the palam vvip sqdn assets.


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 ... 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arka, Google Feedfetcher, pushkar.bhat and 26 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