Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Aug 2015 03:45

The Mirage 2000 http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/the-mira ... ter-749715

Upgrade: What Makes India's Fighter Jet Better
All India | Written by Vishnu Som | Updated: March 26, 2015 11:46 IST

The Mirage 2000 Upgrade: What Makes India's Fighter Jet Better
The 'new' Mirage 2000, redesignated the Mirage 2000 I, is almost incomparable with the original jet courtesy a host of new systems onboard.

NEW DELHI: 16 years ago, I flew onboard Mirage 2000s of the Indian Air Force over Tiger Hill within days of India handing Pakistan a humiliating defeat in the Kargil war. It remains, what I consider, the biggest exclusive in my career as a journalist.

I had actually been cleared to fly in an operational sortie during the war by the then Defence Minister George Fernandes, but in July 1999, Pakistani forces were shell-shocked by wave after wave of Indian counter-attacks and the writing was on the wall.

If the courage and tenacity of India's soldiers and the breathtaking fire power of the Bofors gun had won us the ground war, the war from the air was won by one aircraft: the Mirage 2000.

After repeated bomb and rocket-runs by IAF MiG 21s and MiG-27s had failed to dislodge heavily entrenched Pakistani defences well within Indian territory, the IAF pressed in its trump card, and the surgical strikes by Mirages using laser-guided bombs broke the back of the enemy's supply lines.

This was French technology and desi jugaad at its best. The IAF in 1999 had just a handful of laser-guided bombs and it didn't have the kit to ensure that the bombs would hit high-altitude targets with pin-point precision. Using a combination of modified laser-guided bombs (and unguided 'dumb bombs') mated to hastily-procured Israeli Litening laser targeting pods, the IAF's Mirages became instruments of death. Point 5140, Tololing, Tiger Hill and a major re-supply base in the Batalik sector were destroyed, cutting off forward deployed Pakistani forces.

Today, three decades after they entered service with the Indian Air Force, the Mirage 2000 is virtually a brand new aircraft with Dassault, the manufacturers of the jet, handing over the first of two upgraded Mirages to the IAF in a ceremony in Istres near Marseilles in France. The remaining 47 jets will be progressively upgraded with extensive French technical assistance by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited or HAL in Bangalore as part of a Rs. 17,547-crore contract finalised in 2011-2012.

The 'new' Mirage 2000, redesignated the Mirage 2000 I, is almost incomparable with the original jet courtesy a host of new systems onboard. At the heart of the upgrade is a new Thales RDY 2 radar, which allows for very long-range engagement of targets in the air, automatic tracking of targets, mapping of targets on the ground using Doppler beam-sharpening techniques, and the ability to track and engage targets which are moving on the ground.

The pilot, now equipped with a display inside their helmet, is able to see superimposed radar data without having to reference any of the displays inside the cockpit. In operational terms, this means that in the case of air combat, the pilot, who is looking through their helmet, can direct weapons by merely pointing their head in the direction of what needs to be hit as opposed to having to manoeuvre the entire jet in the direction of the target - see target, lock on to target, launch weapons.

A key component of the Mirage 2000 I is a host of new weapons, not least of which is the MICA air-to-air missile a state-of-the-art missile which is capable of engaging targets at beyond visual ranges and also at close ranges - one missile for two jobs. Non-upgraded Mirage 2000s in the IAF presently use the Super R-530D to hit aerial targets at long ranges and the Magic II missile for short-range engagements. In January 2012, the government had signed a $1.23 billion contract with the French firm MBDA for the supply of 450 MICA missiles.

In 1999, the Mirage that I flew on had a conventional cockpit with just one large monochrome multi-function display with several basic flight gauges. This was typical of many fighters of 80s vintage. Now, however, the Mirage 2000 features a state-of-the-art glass cockpit with multi-colour, multi-function displays replacing bulky analogue gauges. The cockpit is neater, more user-friendly and far more simple to maintain.

For decades, the Indian Air Force has sworn by the capabilities of its Mirage 2000, the only real multi-role counter to the Pakistan Air Force's F-16s provided by the United States. Over time, however, the PAF's F-16s have been upgraded, while the IAF's Mirages have lost the technological edge. Not anymore. With this upgrade, the Mirage 2000, which entered service with the IAF way back in 1985, is good to go for another 30 years.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Aug 2015 04:24

I guess the Rafales and Mirages will be colocated at Gwalior AFB to ease things. I do hope that if we buy the Rafale we at least, take the number up to 3 squadrons otherwise its just too limited. Doesn't seem like the IAF is evaluating other options as a direct alternative, not a fallback. The JSF is another 4 years away if ordered now.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Aug 2015 05:05

There needs to be a debate on imported fancy toys that come with

a) pretense of TOT
b) limitations on availability in war due to the dependence on foreign vendors
c) Adverse affect on foreign policy - lack of spares availability/sanctions if nation takes a step against the whims of supplier nation
d) Inability to sustain war fighting capability for sustained period due to limited spares
e) Limited ability to mate different weapons to the weapon system

Local toys that:
a) Are delayed more often than not
b) over-commit on deliverables/capabilities that are not fully realized
c) Do not handicap independent foreign policy
d) Help to provide employment and support to local industry and economic wealth of the nation
e) Help spread the nation's brand around the world with exports of locally developed weapons.

There is a clash of two opposed schools of thought perhaps that is the reason for the present state of BRF. We need to take the debate to a separate thread dedicated to this topic. Make in India vs Fake in India -which is the way forward for India?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Aug 2015 05:55

Certainly for another thread, but ...............

I just do not see it as cut and dry as that.

As an example, the possibilities with the Russians: FGFA (not the PAK-FA), the AESA radar and the engine. Seems like there was enough for India to participate. But for whatever reason/s some entity within India has held back on all three counts. No idea why, but imagine the potential of R&D in those three critical areas.

I see all this more as different shades of the same color. An entire spectrum of it - every shade there is. How does one overcome that I have no clue. Middlemen, insiders working against Indian interests, whatever else, the problem set is huge.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Aug 2015 08:26

NRao wrote:Certainly for another thread, but ...............

I just do not see it as cut and dry as that.

As an example, the possibilities with the Russians: FGFA (not the PAK-FA), the AESA radar and the engine. Seems like there was enough for India to participate. But for whatever reason/s some entity within India has held back on all three counts. No idea why, but imagine the potential of R&D in those three critical areas.

Several reports point the finger square at the IAF for dilly dallying to press the case for the Rafale. Others note Russians didn't bother responding in time to the IAFs concerns and were too arrogant. Yet others note the UPA led MODs complete lack of interest in anything involving defence (unless it lined some pockets). Probably all three have some truth to them, and at the end the lack of coordination hurt Indian interests. We could have leapfrogged in A2A AESA radar development for instance, but neither the establishment nor the AF seemed to have seen it that way.

I see all this more as different shades of the same color. An entire spectrum of it - every shade there is. How does one overcome that I have no clue. Middlemen, insiders working against Indian interests, whatever else, the problem set is huge.

This is the reason Parrikar has so many hopes resting on him. Lets see whether he can deliver. Record so far is unproven.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 31 Aug 2015 08:38

Vivek K wrote:Make in India vs Fake in India -which is the way forward for India?

It's not an either/or problem.

There will be elements of both.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Aug 2015 09:05

What I would like to see is a firm decision that the entire Ka 226 line will be manufactured by a private set up with Russian inputs. That leaves HAL free and uninvolved to do what it needs to do. Not having to make Rafale is probably a good thing.

HAL needs to get the LCA production line in order while moving ahead with LCH and LUH and I think IJT as well. HAL is already doing the Hawk and there is now news of the "Combat Hawk" which will be a CAS aircraft. That apart we need to see private players step in for the Rustom series.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Aug 2015 09:07

UPA morons

However, AIN has been told that the Mirage 2000 upgrade facility at Bangalore has not yet been established, possibly because of a lack of government funding. Moreover, once established, the facility is only scheduled to upgrade four aircraft per year. The IAF has 49 Mirage 2000s remaining in the fleet from the 52 supplied – three have crashed. It will therefore take 12 years to complete the work, yet the Mirages are scheduled to be phased out in 2030.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... say-french

HAL was busy running around parking funds in HTT and IJT w/o GOI oversight whilst these operational issues remained pending. Truly NaMo and Parrikar have inherited a cesspool.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Aug 2015 09:17

Mirage 2000I gallery
http://photos.dassault-aviation.com/gal ... 57&lang=en

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Aug 2015 09:45

shiv wrote:What I would like to see is a firm decision that the entire Ka 226 line will be manufactured by a private set up with Russian inputs. That leaves HAL free and uninvolved to do what it needs to do. Not having to make Rafale is probably a good thing.

HAL needs to get the LCA production line in order while moving ahead with LCH and LUH and I think IJT as well. HAL is already doing the Hawk and there is now news of the "Combat Hawk" which will be a CAS aircraft. That apart we need to see private players step in for the Rustom series.

HAL has tremendous lobby with GOI and its wont be easy for any Pvt company to snatch away big orders from its clutch , The larger the order the assured the employment and HAL can keep giving the cheques YOY to GOI , If biggies like Reliance and TATA can wean aways things from them that itself would be an achievement.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Aug 2015 11:03

HAL is now spending 10% of PAT on R&D. Laughably small amount, given the quantum of work it needs to undertake.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 31 Aug 2015 19:49

Austin wrote: HAL has tremendous lobby with GOI and its wont be easy for any Pvt company to snatch away big orders from its clutch , The larger the order the assured the employment and HAL can keep giving the cheques YOY to GOI , If biggies like Reliance and TATA can wean aways things from them that itself would be an achievement.

HAL has influence because its part of GOI. And they have as much right to fight for business contracts as any other civilian contractor. Home turf has its own advantage. There is no argument that they have too much in their hands, but problem may not be there. Look at portfolios of TATA SED, L&T and other defense contractors. For cookie cutter jobs HAL is not as bad any other agency, for example Hawk contract.

From fair discussion point of view, we have't heard anything from HAL side. Problems that we know are 1> Slow rate of production, 2> Poor quality control, 3> Poor management.

But why these problems persist? Is this because of high attrition rate of employees and domain knowledge loss?

From my experience, working as private contractor for Gov agency, things looks turbulent and messy from outside. But in reality its a controlled chaos. If you are dealing with red tape, from inside or outside, then nothing helps. Your whole system/delivery process will be as strong as your weakest link, i.e. Gov/Def Ministry. Doesn't mean there is nothing that cant be fixed in HAL.

Are we beating around the wrong bush?

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 31 Aug 2015 21:19

The cockpit of the M-2000-I should look something similar to the picture below, even though this one from the M2K-5

http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... 2000_5.jpg

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 01 Sep 2015 00:17

Karan M wrote:HAL is now spending 10% of PAT on R&D. Laughably small amount, given the quantum of work it needs to undertake.

10%?! That's it

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Sep 2015 04:09

Anurag wrote:The cockpit of the M-2000-I should look something similar to the picture below, even though this one from the M2K-5

Looks similar to LCA cockpit:

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 01 Sep 2015 06:31

IAF looks to in indigenise the tyres used on its fleet of aircrafts

The Indian Air Force [IAF], earlier this month, invited an 'Expression of Interest' [EOI], "from reputed Indian firms for indigenous development of main and nose wheel tyres of all types of aircraft operated by the IAF". Additionally it stated that the, "company should be able to develop the main and nose wheel tyres as per the procedure laid down in DDPMAS 2002 and carry out complete qualification trials for the same as per Qualifying Test Schedules approved by CEMILAC".

Vendors would have to provide 10 samples of their product for testing & certification, which would be followed by the placing of contract.

via IAF Unhappy With MRF? Searching For Partners To Manufacture Aircraft Tyres

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Sep 2015 08:48

Raja Bose wrote:
Karan M wrote:HAL is now spending 10% of PAT on R&D. Laughably small amount, given the quantum of work it needs to undertake.
10%?! That's it

Yes!! Glad somebofy gets it. Instead if pegging it as a percentage of turnover, they are following some arbit committee reccomendation. For a company with 15k crore turnover and 1.5k crore profit, their spend on rand d will be 150 crores which is peanuts for a capital intensive industry like aero where HAL is alreafy a laggard.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 01 Sep 2015 08:51

.

The Hellenic Mirage 2000-9 cockpit

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2015 17:18

SajeevJino wrote:.

The Hellenic Mirage 2000-9 cockpit

Nice CRT to watch old Star Trek re runs

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2015 17:34

Karan M wrote:HAL is now spending 10% of PAT on R&D. Laughably small amount, given the quantum of work it needs to undertake.

I recall a media article in the days before the internet in which it was "noted" that apart from Western nations and the USSR - India was spending "more than 5%" on research. It was one of those articles that could be construed as praise from gora aadmi on the one hand and on the other side it was a "warning" that there was a competitor coming up. But this was definitely at least 20 years ago.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Sep 2015 14:52

shiv wrote:The concept of knocking out enemy air defences (for the IAF) in 1965 was by attacking radar sites, AA batteries and airfields. There were no special weapons. Just bombs, rockets and guns. No stand off weapons other than the "standoff" range of a few hundred meters while shooting rockets.

But the concept of suppression of enemy air defences existed and that pre dates fancy expressions and acronyms like SEAD, DEAD and "Air dominance". It also pre dates the induction into the IAF of any special weapons and munitions for that purpose.

When we use expressions like SEAD it would be a mistake to copy paste the meaning and usage of those terms by their western air force inventors to what the IAF does except in a very general sense. Too many people learn words like SEAD from the internet with no prior knowledge of how the IAF implemented the idea in its early post 1947 wars even before anyone coined the acronym.

The concept of Suppression of enemy air defenses is what is commonly referred to as SEAD (an acronym). There is nothing special in SEAD today other than the fact that the enemy air defenses are a lot better, and the capability available to the attacking force is also considerably more advanced and includes better hard and soft kill options. What I was asking the fellow members was whether the IAF tasks runway denial as a part of the SEAD mission or whether that is handled on separate strike sorties as a matter of routine (of course flexibility would be there)..If you are laden with EW kit and Anti Radiation Missions you are unlikely to deploy those for runway denial where you need other bombs in your arsenal. Similarly if you are tasked with attacking both you have to carry a different payload thereby limiting the Suppression of enemy air defense coverage you can provide tactically. Suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses have always existed ever since air-defenses and radars proliferated and strategies to both protect them and destroy them have evolved as technology has caught up and enabled newer means to both better protect them and better destroy (or suppress) them. I am fairly certain an Su-30 carrying a jammer pod and a load of ARM's will do SEAD a lot different than how it was done in 1965, similarly the cost of a moderate to high capability command and control, or early warning setup is high enough to actually warrant some stand off protection from a SAM perspective and that influences what payloads (hard and soft) a strike-fighter on a SEAD mission carries.

Runway denial is obviously an incredibly important strike-mission for any air-force looking to develop and sustain air-superiority over the battlefield, my question was more tactic oriented as in how the IAF for example trains and configures its strike figthers for SEAD if that information is even available.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 03 Sep 2015 19:51

It is obvious that with change in weapon and weapon delivery platforms , tactics to take out Radars and shutting off airbases will change , but the basic philosophy will remain the same , take out the eyes of the enemy and deny it air space and that thing will go simultaneously as happened in 1965 or 71 war.

In Kosovo war , we all know the affect of NATO SEAD missions on a well experienced serbian fixed and mobile targets. 500 HARMS were fired with mixed results that too in absence of little or no CAP missions from the opposing side.the result , 3 of 25 SA-6 batteries destroyed, 10 of 41 SAM radars destroyed ( US CLAIMS ) after a total SEAD Sorties 4,538 . Those SEAD missions went unhampered as there was no opposition from serbian air force

just check the tall claims made by US led NATO ( well this is what the bakis have learned from their masters )

At the end of war,
1. NATO officially claimed that they had destroyed 93 Yugoslav tanks. Yugoslavia admitted a total of 3 destroyed tanks. The latter figure was verified by European inspectors when Yugoslavia rejoined the Dayton accords, by noting the difference between the number of tanks then and at the last inspection in 1995
2. NATO claimed that the Yugoslav army lost 93 tanks (M-84's and T-55's), 132 APCs, and 52 artillery pieces.Newsweek, the second-largest news weekly magazine in the U.S, gained access to a suppressed US Air Force report that claimed the real numbers were "3 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450".
3.Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels, or old World War II–era tanks which were not functional. Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them, but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000 feet (5,000 m), making accurate bombing much more difficult. Towards the end of the war, it was claimed that carpet bombing by B-52 aircraft had caused huge casualties among Yugoslav troops stationed along the Kosovo–Albania border. Careful searching by NATO investigators found no evidence of any such large-scale casualties

But what actually affected the serbian forces is this

the most significant loss for the Yugoslav Army was the damaged and destroyed infrastructure. Almost all military air bases and airfields (Batajnica, Lađevci, Slatina, Golubovci and Đakovica) and other military buildings and facilities were badly damaged or destroyed. Unlike the units and their equipment, military buildings couldn't be camouflaged. thus, defence industry and military technical overhaul facilities were also seriously damaged (Utva, Zastava Arms factory, Moma Stanojlović air force overhaul center, technical overhaul centers in Čačak and Kragujevac). Moreover, in an effort to weaken the Yugoslav Army, NATO targeted several important civilian facilities (the Pančevo oil refinery,[201] Novi Sad oil refinery, bridges, TV antennas, railroads, etc.)

I guess this what IAF tried and was successful to some extents in last wars.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Sep 2015 19:56

^ Shaun this is not the thread to talk about that, but a lot of development has happened from lessons learned from that campaign both technology investment wise and tactic development wise. I would suggest you move this discussion to an appropriate thread and we can talk about each of the points (Radars, Decoys - both are essentially a discrimination issue) in more detail.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=1895917#p1895917

arun · Post by **arun** » 05 Sep 2015 07:22

X Posted from the “Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments” thread.

India’s Fighter Acquisition Troubles :

The price exacted due to such grandiose requirements and ambitiously outlined industrial offsets comes in IAF combat aircraft strength, which continues to dwindle as age, serviceability issues, and lack of concrete orders take their toll.

The obvious mismatch between security mandates and capabilities on hand amplifies the pressing need to identify future jet fighter solutions and expedite the procurement process. But instead, India’s woeful defense acquisition practices serve to impede progress toward meeting future air power requirements.

Even when the government attempts to cut through its own labyrinthine process to expedite a foreign military procurement, nothing is ever easy for defense acquisition in India.

From here:

Clicky

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Sep 2015 09:09

Analysis: Boom time beckons for Iranian air force, with sanctions set to be lifted

Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

05 August 2015

Just weeks after Iran agreed in Vienna a deal limiting its ability to manufacture a nuclear bomb, the Iranian air force is already positioning itself to revamp its ageing inventory, all but crippled by 36 years of international sanctions, reports Gareth Jennings .

With the historic agreement still less than a month old, the IRIAF has already been linked with the potential procurement of new combat aircraft from both China and France, in the guise of the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) J-10B and the Dassault Mirage 2000 respectively. According to media reports citing anonymous military and intelligence officials, Beijing has offered to supply the IRIAF with up to 150 J-10B fighters plus associated weaponry, while Paris is reported to have offered to supply surplus Mirage 2000 jets, which are in the process of being replaced in French service by the Rafale.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 05 Sep 2015 22:03

Some tweets from @SJha1618 TL of today:

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 28m28 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
The LCA Mk-1 blueprints are frozen.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 31m31 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
There is now nothing that can get in the way of LCA Mk-1 certification. So ADA has to meet said timelines.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 35m35 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
1200 KW rotary engine.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 38m38 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
Helos: LCH (nearing IOC), LUH, IMRH. NRUAV (potential).

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 39m39 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
Joint projects with the Russians on FGFA and MTA.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 39m39 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
Here's what India's aerospace development scene looks like: LCA Mk-2, AMCA, Rustom-2, a future jet powered UAV, IUSAV, RTA.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 41m41 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
LCA Mk-2 & AMCA projects will require synergy with the air force.Then there are also the jet powered UAVs that need to be developed.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 44m44 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
The aerospace cluster has to buck up. LCA Mk-1 certification and Rustom-2 development has to be completed quickly.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 46m46 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
DRDO's missile, radar and naval systems clusters are growing from strength to strength. The armaments cluster is out of the woods.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 06 Sep 2015 07:58

http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... er/130244/

IAF keen on US Scorpion aircraft offer

After asking state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) to stop work on the intermediate jet trainers (IJT), the Indian Air Force (IAF) is now keen on the US offer of Textron’s AirLand Scorpion light-attack and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft.

. . .

It is estimated that Textron’s Scorpion would cost less than $20 million to procure and around $3,000 per hour to operate.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 06 Sep 2015 08:06

Frankly Scorpion might be a better buy than Apache Helos for CAS in high altitude areas.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 06 Sep 2015 08:10

Would somebody in the know say what requirements the IJT started with and the ones Textron started with for the Scorpion?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2015 08:51

GeorgeWelch wrote:http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... er/130244/

IAF keen on US Scorpion aircraft offer

After asking state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) to stop work on the intermediate jet trainers (IJT), the Indian Air Force (IAF) is now keen on the US offer of Textron’s AirLand Scorpion light-attack and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft.

. . .

It is estimated that Textron’s Scorpion would cost less than $20 million to procure and around $3,000 per hour to operate.

One more unnecessary import , what's wrong with using armed hawk ?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 06 Sep 2015 09:15

^It doesn't line pockets anymore?

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Sep 2015 15:23

Can the Scorpion perform spins required by the IAF for its training? That's where the IJT has had issue. Anyways, that story sounds like another "planted" one.

HAL's IJT Delayed, IAF Scouts Foreign Source

...
Either way, the IAF has put out a very specific list of requirements. To quote from the RFI:

The aircraft should be easy to fly and have good control response/agility. The flying qualities should preferably conform to Mil-F-8785C and Mil Std 1797-A. The aircraft should demonstrate the following qualities: (a) Stalling. An unmistakable natural stall warning should be available, irrespective of the configuration. (b) Spinning. The aircraft must be resistant to spin but it should be possible to perform intentional spin upto six turns to either side and recover safely thereafter. The aircraft behavior in the spin should be predictable and consistent. (c) Aerobatics The IJT should be capable of performing loops, barrel rolls, rolls, combination maneuvers and negative ‘g’ flight without adverse effects on the engine and aircraft structure. The aircraft should be capable of sustained inverted flight for at least 30 seconds at sea level at maximum takeoff power.
...
For its freshly stated requirement, it has specified the following:

The aircraft should be capable of carrying at least 1000 kg of external load. The aircraft should be equipped with a minimum of five hard points and each hard point on the wing should be stressed to carry at least 300 kg stores. The aircraft should be, free from buffet, dutch roll, snaking and wing rock during air to ground weapon training. The aircraft should be capable of employing the following armament: (a) Gun. A light weight gun/ gun-pod with adequate ammunition for at least 5 sec of firing time. (b) Rocket Pods. Reusable rocket pods. (c) Bombs. Should be able to carry at least 4x250 kg retarded or ballistic bombs. The stations should be capable of employing Carrier Bomb Light Stores (CBLS) type of dispensers for carriage of practice bombs (25 lbs and 3 Kg).
...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Sep 2015 00:06

IJT getting heckled!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Sep 2015 01:24

Unnecessary, unsavory and gone!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Sep 2015 01:51

Any 2-bit supplier like Russia or France can squeeze IA'S offensive ability when it is needed. Therefore IAF is being very immature in its fleet development.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Sep 2015 05:20

Imported weapons are ok to act as a temporary deterrent but not necessarily as an enabler of independent foreign policy. It is expected "some conditions apply" i.e. cannot be used against allies, or if used then must align with their foreign policies, or permitted only for defensive purposes, or employ only certain types of arsenal. In wartime when you need emergency supplies, they will come at premium prices plus "you owe me" favors that will be extracted down the road. This is a 30-40 year (as long as the weapon is around plus "debt owed") bond between the two nations. In a nutshell, if Indian aspirations are to remain as a second-fiddle power under the influence of in the likes US, France, Russia, and UK then it can continue to import its weapons spending billions of dollars to keep those nations' MIC world-class while starving its own efforts.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 07 Sep 2015 06:51

^The IAF love for imports is all the more galling considering how even the IA chief is now insisting on an indigenous rifle for its soldiers, not to mention that future acquisitions for the IA will interminably and increasingly be indigenous in the near future itself. At this point the only sore thumb as far as the IA is the tank fleet, which we will see how goes regardless of the import dreams held by some.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Sep 2015 07:19

russian armaments industry is suffering again - just when they were recovering from the post-ussr funding slump and haemorhage of manpower to israel and usa, comes the commodities price collapse and sanctions. whatever money remains will be spent on strategic platforms like submarines, bombers and missiles.

pakfa might already be suffering from lack of investment. about tanks even more so probably.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 07 Sep 2015 12:20

Vivek K wrote:Poof!

Moderators: this type of grotesque propaganda undermining the Indian armed forces should not be appearing on BRF.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Sep 2015 17:52

Vivek K wrote:Poof!

Sh1t! The state secret has been leaked...no one can save us now...

Quickly, in interest of your safety and that of your kith and kin, please immediately apply for <Fill the country of your choice with robust air force and army led by men of vision> Visa and enjoy the safety and security offered it.