Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Sep 2015 21:40

^^^ Standard reaction from poster. No sh1t!!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Sep 2015 21:45

Yes Eklavya. All we should have on BRF is about how terrible DRDO is and about the Late Combat Aircraft.

By favoring imports and having "no plan B", the IAF is enslaving the nation to decades of whims of foreign suppliers - that too the French who will not be able to give any strategic weaponry. And like in the case of M2k upgrade, rape the nation for a few MFDs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2015 08:41

Vivek K wrote:Yes Eklavya. All we should have on BRF is about how terrible DRDO is and about the Late Combat Aircraft.

By favoring imports and having "no plan B", the IAF is enslaving the nation to decades of whims of foreign suppliers - that too the French who will not be able to give any strategic weaponry. And like in the case of M2k upgrade, rape the nation for a few MFDs.

Vivek, I can understand that you may have reasons for your angst at the criticism of DRDO etc. But I do find your tone and language of the way you criticize the IAF hurtful. I think that you are saying things without full knowledge of the constraints under which the IAF works. Maybe the same argument holds true for DRDO/HAL but cursing the IAF is not going to make things better with DRDO any more than praising HAL will make the IAF any different.

As regards decisions made by the IAF here is a screen grab of a page from Air Marshal PC Lal's autobiography that says what the IAF has to contend with when it comes to any re equipment. The IAF never had the freedom or power to have a plan B.

I post the image below and I am requesting you out in the open to temper your language when you accuse the IAF of things that you say. I have personal friends and family in IAF and DRDO/HAL and I must point out that what you say is ignorant and unfair. Please temper your language. It is easy to get into an argument and less easy to exchange what each of us believe to be true. An argument to specifically tear down the accusations you have made would be OT on BRF, but it seems that making such accusations are not OT. I would like discussions to continue to be polite and as free from recrimination as possible.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2015 08:54

If one reads PC Lal's passage above the MMRCA saga becomes fairly clear. Air HQ moved a proposal for checking falling IAF squadron strength by getting more aircraft in lieu of the delayed LCA. IIRC the Mirage 2000 was suggested.

It was the ministry of defence that set the MMRCA selection process going without agreeing to the IAF's original request for more Mirage 2000. 8 years down the line there is no money and the IAF has no way of having any "plan B" when plan A was still under negotiation with the IAF uninvolved in the process as candidly admitted by the defence minister. Suddenly MoD and finance and Dassault say that plan A is not going to happen and IAF is asked about plan B when they have had nothing to do with plan A in the first place and any plan B again has to go past MoD and Finance.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Sep 2015 13:25

shiv wrote:If one reads PC Lal's passage above the MMRCA saga becomes fairly clear. Air HQ moved a proposal for checking falling IAF squadron strength by getting more aircraft in lieu of the delayed LCA. IIRC the Mirage 2000 was suggested.

It was the ministry of defence that set the MMRCA selection process going without agreeing to the IAF's original request for more Mirage 2000. 8 years down the line there is no money and the IAF has no way of having any "plan B" when plan A was still under negotiation with the IAF uninvolved in the process as candidly admitted by the defence minister. Suddenly MoD and finance and Dassault say that plan A is not going to happen and IAF is asked about plan B when they have had nothing to do with plan A in the first place and any plan B again has to go past MoD and Finance.

If you read the Vayu interview the Plan B was from PM which is to buy 36 Aircraft outright , Parrikar clearly says the IAF was asked but they did not have any role in decision making

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Sep 2015 14:01

So , from a civilian pov, there are 4 entities:
* the IAF,
* the AHQ,
* the MOD, and
* the FinMin.

Of all these the "IAF" has no say.

When MP says he consulted with "IAF", he means AHQ.

No matter what, the system failed. I suspect it had to do with St. Anthony and group.

Does the CAS belong to the AHQ then?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 08 Sep 2015 14:07

Austin ji, If you study the process for raising a request, approval and final sanction - it is a very long drawn out procedure. A simple purchase of Aeronautical Publications (APs)for all Units / Sqns can take decade/s. It is scary to get an approval and finally see the approval cancelled after 10/12 yrs. Even the thought of going through the process all over again is really daunting.

The situation is same for other services also. In the case of Naval Submarine battery explosion, the case of old batteries being canabalised from another submarine and used instead of new Exide batteries, demand for which was pending with MOD for long finally cost 02 Officers their lives. Sad.

And I am sure in this even DRDO would be going through similar pains.

Only HAL would have some authority over their money.

Whatever Plan B can be made for Rafale, will take at least 10 years again, unless the approach of the PM is used. Even here, the PM had the advantage of knowing that the IAF agreed to the platform, it was selected after due trials and cost was the issue.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 08 Sep 2015 14:13

NRao wrote:So , from a civilian pov, there are 4 entities:
* the IAF,
* the AHQ,
* the MOD, and
* the FinMin.

Of all these the "IAF" has no say.

When MP says he consulted with "IAF", he means AHQ.

No matter what, the system failed. I suspect it had to do with St. Anthony and group.

Does the CAS belong to the AHQ then?

AHQ is part of IAF. It is the "Fountain Head"

My guess is that Shri Manohar Parrikar meant to convey that while IAF (Air HQ) was consulted, the decision for 36 aircraft deal was the PM's.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 08 Sep 2015 14:54

Mostly corruption in the Armed forces to a great extend happen because of the government at the Center. If the govt at the Center is corrupt you can expect the corrupt politicians being influenced by the weapon suppliers and who in turn to a certain extent influence the people in the force. With the arrival of Modi government a lot of changes has taken place. Even the Rafale which was supposed to be 126 aircraft has been cut short to just 36. The government may be waiting for the indigenous systems to complete trials and once it's done, expect more orders. It may take some time. Have patience.

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Sep 2015 15:58

NRao wrote:So , from a civilian pov, there are 4 entities:
* the IAF,
* the AHQ,
* the MOD, and
* the FinMin.

...

Generally, there seems to be far less hurdle thrown by the 3 entities if the product ordered is indigenous. For e.g. orders for Akash SAM, Arjun MBT, ALH/LCH or INSAS rifles seem to get approved relatively quickly. So if the IAF were to order more LCA Mk.1 the approval would happen within a year or so. The hurdles, mainly by the MoD and Finance Ministry, come into full force when expensive imports are being considered and where chances of corruption are much higher (and usually there is truth-be-told).

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 08 Sep 2015 16:01

With IJT being late by god knows how many years, its only natural the IAF will look at the Scorpion, I for one support this one. Looks like a very pragmatic aircraft, can easily be used for light combat roles too, would work well with the Combat hawk. IJT always had issues, best to scrap it. The Scorpion seems like a good trainer aircraft for stage 2/3 training. I can see a massive potential order considering its rather cheap and the need for Kiran replacements i.e. IJT requirement can be as high as 200 aircraft. This one is prime candidate for make in India. Further delays in Kiran replacement will deteriorate the quality of pilots as Kiran is being phased out.

I say we order 200 of these for operational training needs.

Stage 1: Basic flight training Pilatus (based in Dundigal) PC-7 Mk2/ HTT40, 60 hrs flying + 25 hrs sim
Stage2: Basic Operational Training on Scorpion (40 based each based at key bases across the 5 commands), 80 hrs flying (Initial 20 hrs in basic flight characteristics, remaining 60 hrs in operational training meaning Trainee pilots take part in various real life missions i.e maritime surveillance, airspace control alert, border surveillance etc. best way to learn is to do)
Stage 3: Advanced Training concepts on Hawk/Combat Hawks: 70 hrs flying
Stage 4: LCA Tejas Mk-1 Trainers: 50 hrs flying: Combat training, tactics, best practices & large scale air exercises

In total 260 training hrs. in flight. roughly 1 year worth of training before final designated squadron based training.

http://www.scorpionjet.com/aircraft-features/

http://www.scorpionjet.com/files/TAL-2014-MISSIONS.pdf

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Sep 2015 16:23

Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.

If we know so much that needs rectification, how much is known and can be corrected from within.

God certainly exists. Maybe with a passport from another nation.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 08 Sep 2015 17:57

Why don't we lease enough aircraft and work on the IJT? Why do we want to be tied to a vendor for decades? If the IJT has issues, then we need to put our best minds to work to fix them. Unless we believe that somehow our product will be inferior?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Sep 2015 18:07

^ whether anyone likess it or not, at present the indigenous product is inferior otherwise we would not be in this situation...a product that was supposed to be available in three years but is nowhere to be seen after ten. Perhaps the iaf is at fault here and should have given some orders in good faith?

Leasing might or might not be an option...maybe iaf should spend another ten years wrangling with the two ministries to find out

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 08 Sep 2015 18:10

Hakim ji there needs to be a distinction between the pilots of the IAF that have no control over purchases made by the force and the top brass and babus. My angst, also personal like yours in some respects, is against the latter. I respect our pilots who have always delivered with inferior equipment.

India's decisions are sometimes made to appease foreign vendors killing local innovation and jobs. A poster here wants to straightaway order 200 Scorpions. How about first releasing orders for 200 LCA Mk1? Is that not a disgrace? Domestic development is being killed in India Hakim ji. Is that to IAF'S benefit? Only if the war lasts 10-15 days.

Take the M2Ks - I am sickened by the oohs and aahs over MFDS for which we are paying billions. How about letting the M2Ks die and buying 3 times their number of LCAs? This is the kind of trickery that saw the end of the Marut.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Sep 2015 18:13

srai wrote: Generally, there seems to be far less hurdle thrown by the 3 entities if the product ordered is indigenous. For e.g. orders for Akash SAM, Arjun MBT, ALH/LCH or INSAS rifles seem to get approved relatively quickly. So if the IAF were to order more LCA Mk.1 the approval would happen within a year or so. The hurdles, mainly by the MoD and Finance Ministry, come into full force when expensive imports are being considered and where chances of corruption are much higher (and usually there is truth-be-told).

Aeronautical publications are expensive imports that years for approval?..Iaf had already ordered 40 Lca a decade ago...where are they?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 08 Sep 2015 18:14

What kind of power can only fight 10-15 days?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 08 Sep 2015 18:15

CM - that is a ridiculous question or anti domestic purchase rhetoric. Is the IAF willing to accept IOC MK1s?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Sep 2015 18:25

Yes, the original order was for ioc mk1s iirc. It was small as is to be expected since foc was to be achieved soon after ioc.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Sep 2015 18:29

Vivek K wrote:What kind of power can only fight 10-15 days?

At the risk of sounding Bollywoodish, A power that is led by corrupt politicians..iirc there was some Swiss report that stated that the inafs were among the least corrupt in the world, but the india as a whole ranked amongst the most corrupt..This was around 2004 our earlier. A stellar armed force that had to take orders from a not so stellar leadership gives us the answer to your question

Could be worse I suppose..

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 08 Sep 2015 18:31

Vivek K wrote:This is the kind of trickery that saw the end of the Marut.

+1

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Sep 2015 18:51

whether anyone likess it or not, at present the indigenous product is inferior otherwise we would not be in this situation...

Not the entire truth.

There are some things that are great (plenty of posts on that and I think SJha has some work done on this matter), then there are some areas where there is struggle (which should eb expected) and then there are some areas where there is just no hope or very little. It is this last category that needs addressing.

I would suggest the following in that category:

* Project Management
* Process Management
* Manufacturing
* Communication
* Politics (internal as well as party), and
* A clear picture of what is India's role and where India ought to be

Vivek K wrote:Why don't we lease enough aircraft and work on the IJT? Why do we want to be tied to a vendor for decades? If the IJT has issues, then we need to put our best minds to work to fix them. Unless we believe that somehow our product will be inferior?

You need to provide a list of what problems this will solve. Then we may be able to make headway.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2015 18:56

Vivek K wrote:Hakim ji there needs to be a distinction between the pilots of the IAF that have no control over purchases made by the force and the top brass and babus. My angst, also personal like yours in some respects, is against the latter. I respect our pilots who have always delivered with inferior equipment.

India's decisions are sometimes made to appease foreign vendors killing local innovation and jobs. A poster here wants to straightaway order 200 Scorpions. How about first releasing orders for 200 LCA Mk1? Is that not a disgrace? Domestic development is being killed in India Hakim ji. Is that to IAF'S benefit? Only if the war lasts 10-15 days.

Take the M2Ks - I am sickened by the oohs and aahs over MFDS for which we are paying billions. How about letting the M2Ks die and buying 3 times their number of LCAs? This is the kind of trickery that saw the end of the Marut.

Vivek - I am asking you not to make statements that you will not be able to support. I am referring to this

The IAF lacks strategic vision and probably has not made offensive plans to win against Pakistan or China

Rhetoric is a game that a lot of people can play and I am as good as you or the next guy in playing with words to make it seem like the statement is true in itself and does not require anything more to be said.

What do you mean by "The IAF lacks strategic vision and probably has not made offensive plans to win against Pakistan or China" ? I put it to you that this is an empty accusation you have made without access to IAF doctrine. If you have access, please provide your credentials. I think this statement was an opinion of your. You are entitled to your opinion but I must point out that if you do not say that it is your opinion I am pointing it out now. I think you are wrong. Your feeling sympathy for fighter pilots but not the brass is a contradiction because yesterdays;' young pilot becomes today's brass.

The "buy more LCA" argument is well known but does not in any way support your statement about the IAF having no planning to win wars which is a vicious and unnecessary accusation.

The "Buy 200 Scorpions" post is that man's opinion. I completely (and vehemently) disagree. I was tempted to make a small bet with Septimus saying that the Scorpion will not be bought but he, like everyone else has cleverly worded his statement by saying "The Scorpion will be considered". No one can argue with that. The Scorpion will be considered and rejected. The reason I did not comment on that post is that I did not want to draw attention to what I consider a time wasting post.

On BRF 100 people will have 1000 opinions. It is when opinions are hurtful and unfair and based on ignorance, or cannot be supported that I ask that one's words be tempered. I will state again that on this forum direct criticism of a member would be ad hominem. But vicious and unfair criticism of a personality such as the CAS seems to be acceptable. I have already complained to admins about what I see as a double standard. Poster's rights get protected but the viewpoints of institutions and personalities in the armed forces who do not come on here are not. There is no need to be critical of either members or of personalities. Everyone has opinions and one can agree or disagree, Strongly worded rhetorical statements are made by many people to put their viewpoint across forcefully - but if the viewpoint is unfair or carries unnecessary bile it needs to be called out. Please temper your language and hit what needs to be hit. Please don't take a wild verbal swing if possible unless you can defend it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2015 19:20

On the question of "trickery that ended the Marut" it is unfair again to blame the IAF alone. But I do agree that the same sentiment that makes people go ooh and aaah over Rafale or M2K MFD and over Scorpion is also the sentiment that tells Indians that Indian stuff is bad. The disease affects all Indians to a greater or lesser extent - and the armed forces too are swayed by this. We saw an ex-armed forces BRFite make what I thought was a completely specious argument about imported cars and tried to extrapolate that argument to aircraft. This is about having pre-existing views about what is good and what is bad.

I hate harping on personal experiences but they made me. I had made a post elsewhere about the admiration and awe I received for acquiring a few foreign letters after my name and other educational qualifications. What I did not mention was the hurt I felt within me when my own father believed that I had achieved some particular greatness by doing that - forgetting that it was the butt busting I did in India earlier which he paid for that was responsible for making me successful later. There is a blind and endless admiration for foreign and the Scorpion is just one more in a long long series that includes, Tu 22, Tu 160, F-35, Rafale, Su-24, Su 34 as desirable must haves for the IAF. Particularly on jingo forums like this one - any country simply has to advertise a machine that people look at and say "Awesome! Kickass! Badass! Will kick the door down!" and we have people saying "We also must instantly buy the same stuff"

No one asks if a Nexter 20 mm cannon is effective. People say "Hey we must put a Gatling." The only way that statement can be supported is to say IAF/HAL are stupid and need to surf the net some more

People thought that mounting an EO pod on top of the nose is somehow "wrong" because they had never seen one on other phoren models (until recently and until Hari nair came on here and explained) and imagined that EO pods are needed for looking directly down which would not happen unless it was under the chin. Indian decisions are considered to be bad and unwise and that foreign choices are awesome and badass. This is something we need to grow out of as a nation.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 08 Sep 2015 21:15

Shiv,

I erred in the statement - "The IAF lacks strategic vision and probably has not made offensive plans to win against Pakistan or China". My intent was that the IAF is not looking at an endgame with either of these two enemies. The intent was never to cast aspersion on the fighting ability of the IAF personnel.

My point is very simple. Say IAF buys 250 PGMs. It can then attack perhaps 250 targets if we use one weapon against each target successfully. However, would that be the end of it? Or would IAF need these in the thousands?

As for IAF's current depleted fleet strength, that has a major effect on its war fighting capability especially on two fronts. Can the IAF fight to finish either Pukistan or China with its current fleet strength? Will 36 aircraft (barely 2 squadrons) help it fare better - only marginally at best. The difference is that Pukistan also has BVR equipped fighters and the Chinese fly Su27s and their own aircraft of ambiguous capability but with capable sensors. Both these countries possess AEW/AWACS and therefore our limited possession of these (3 now and 5 in a decade) will not help.

The IAF should have got on board with the IOC of LCAs and fought to build production capacity. If there was a vision then the time and money invested in the LCA should have been used to build fleet strength rapidly - not at 8 a/c per year but more like 25. That is the battle that the IAF should have fought and would have been supported by all. To say that the LCA is not there because of a radome and IFR is a joke when it was designed as a point defence fighter. Plug in the MK1s with DRDO AEWS (buy in the dozens) and you have a capable fleet without enslaving the country's foreign policy and having the capability of finishing Pukistan for once.

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Sep 2015 01:40

Cain Marko wrote:Yes, the original order was for ioc mk1s iirc. It was small as is to be expected since foc was to be achieved soon after ioc.

Small Correction: It was 20 LCA Mk.1 in IOC-2 standard, which we all know did not happen until Dec, 2013. Second lot of 20 LCA Mk.1 is for FOC standard, which is targeted for certification in 2016. The IAF did not order IOC-1 that took place in 2010. There are no other formal intent for purchasing more Mk.1 apart from those 40.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Sep 2015 01:45

Vivek K
>>I erred in the statement - "The IAF lacks strategic vision and probably has not made offensive plans to win against Pakistan or China"

Have you though? I don't see much in the public domain about the IAF planning versus the intricate SAM networks the PRC is setting up, the PGM side especially. Which doesn't mean it isn't there, but there seems to be a lacunae in terms of actually "winning a war" which would mean effort in terms of a scale that would make it to the public domain, as versus managing the joint PRC-PAF threat. The public literature on the PRC threat from the IAF side at CLAWS etc is decidedly unimpressive TBH. There is also a huge lacunae in terms of understanding and managing the local MIC to get the IAF what it needs. Its mostly "we are bad, the Chinese are great, we need XXX planes from France/US/etc" which is also really underwhelming. Its almost as if a bunch of guys googled up stuff and put it together at the last moment. Perhaps the real stuff is classified. But what's out there is pretty bad.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 09 Sep 2015 02:03

Karan,

It is because of this poor planning and rejection of local industry and its development that we enter into wars poorly prepared vis a vis the enemy (i.e. Pakistan). In spite of our bigger pockets, the enemy is the one with better weapon systems and our numerical superiority counts for nothing.

Something has to change and it may be our attitudes towards desi production.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Sep 2015 03:57

Vivek K wrote: It is because of this poor planning and rejection of local industry and its development that we enter into wars poorly prepared vis a vis the enemy (i.e. Pakistan). In spite of our bigger pockets, the enemy is the one with better weapon systems and our numerical superiority counts for nothing.

The above two sentences are contradictory. How can one import few gold-plated weapons, and have numerical supremacy? Or, how can Pakistan build or import better quality weapons with less deeper pockets?

By the way, I am with you that importing the Scorpions will be a sad day in the history of Indian military aviation. No matter which way you look at it: HAL's inability to come up with the IJT. Or IAF's inability to hand hold desi solutions like armed Hawks, or a little more wait on the IJT (now that it is seemingly coming out of the woods). Similarly, I don't understand when it says that it would rather build its own BTTs at BRD, than accepting the HTT-40! Similarly, it appears to be jeopardize every other acquisition to get the 36(+??) Rafales. I believe no orders will come for LCA/AMCA/FGFA till the Rafale orders are placed, to emphasize the falling squadron strength. The Rafales are really beautiful planes, but are they really that indispensable, for India. I beg to differ.

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Sep 2015 04:21

Cain Marko wrote: whether anyone likess it or not, at present the indigenous product is inferior otherwise we would not be in this situation...

So how or when would indigenous product become better than whoever's if the users are refusing to provide that extra little bit of support to get it off the ground? Look at how much other nations have cajoled their products and look at where they are now many decades later. They have many decades lead in their products development and it will take at least 30-years to catch-up to them. If you are starting late like India, you can't expect to have "world-class" indigenous products if you don't support it 200% warts-and-all!

Imports, to some degree, are necessary to "get-the-cutting-edge" so to speak but that doesn't mean you try to force a stop on indigenous efforts by not allocating adequate resources or not ordering enough quantities to make them viable. Quite myopic vision.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Sep 2015 04:38

indranilroy wrote:The above two sentences are contradictory. How can one import few gold-plated weapons, and have numerical supremacy? Or, how can Pakistan build or import better quality weapons with less deeper pockets?

Overall technological superiority for the PAF might be something of a exaggeration. But one can't deny that the IAF's quest for high tech solutions has taken a toll on the LCA program (light or heavy is debatable) and will have an impact on the MiG-replacement effort.

In contrast, the Pakistanis have abandoned their high-end aspirations (Gripen/J-10/J-11) and their commitment to the JF-17 is stronger than ever, as a result of which they have a steady stream of F-7 & Mirage III replacements streaming in at an affordable price.

By the way, I am with you that importing the Scorpions will be a sad day in the history of Indian military aviation. No matter which way you look at it: HAL's inability to come up with the IJT. Or IAF's inability to hand hold desi solutions like armed Hawks, or a little more wait on the IJT (now that it is seemingly coming out of the woods).

I'm more flummoxed by the IAF's training philosophy. Personally, I'd have thought even the Hawk was unnecessary, if not for the timelines involved. The ROKAF goes straight from a BTT to a supersonic AJT, one that's roughly in the same class as the Tejas PV6. The USAF will likely follow suit. Everyone else goes from an BTT to a subsonic Hawk-type AJT. Both options are available to us. What is so damn hard about the transition that the IAF can't do without an intermediate stage? It would be one thing if it were to support a domestic program (though only the Navy seems to welcome such 'obligations'), but to import an IJT? The lunacy is just boggling.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Sep 2015 04:39

Srin, the iaf did give an order for ijt and showed serious interest, where did it fall short

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Sep 2015 04:45

srai wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Yes, the original order was for ioc mk1s iirc. It was small as is to be expected since foc was to be achieved soon after ioc.
Small Correction: It was 20 LCA Mk.1 in IOC-2 standard, which we all know did not happen until Dec, 2013. Second lot of 20 LCA Mk.1 is for FOC standard, which is targeted for certification in 2016. The IAF did not order IOC-1 that took place in 2010. There are no other formal intent for purchasing more Mk.1 apart from those 40.

Out of 20 ioc std., how many are currently flying? When were they supposed to fly? Iirc the order was placed on 2005.

Let us see what happens upon foc...my guess is lca orders are bound to increase

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Sep 2015 04:48

Cain Marko wrote:
srai wrote:...

Small Correction: It was 20 LCA Mk.1 in IOC-2 standard, which we all know did not happen until Dec, 2013. Second lot of 20 LCA Mk.1 is for FOC standard, which is targeted for certification in 2016. The IAF did not order IOC-1 that took place in 2010. There are no other formal intent for purchasing more Mk.1 apart from those 40.
Out of 20 ioc std., how many are currently flying? When were they supposed to fly? Iirc the order was placed on 2005.

Let us see what happens upon foc...my guess is lca orders are bound to increase

But when was the IOC-2 standard frozen for production to start? It was Dec, 2013. Before that the IAF had LSPs 1-8 in various standards to work with. I'm sure more LSPs could have been built to "2005 order" if that is what the IAF wanted.

If the IAF had approved first lot production to IOC-1 standards (was ready on Jan-2011), first squadron would have been in place by now and production of IOC-2 standard would be taking place for second squadron. That's the kind of extra little bit of support I am talking about to get indigenous efforts off the ground.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2015 06:22

IAF’s IJT set for spin test

The Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT), which is being developed as the second rung of the Indian Air Force’s three-level training programme for rookie pilots, is set to undergo its most critical ‘spin' test this month, according to a top executive of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL).

The spin test, which is at least eight months behind schedule, is seen as an ‘agnipariksha’ when it comes to safety of the pilot and the aircraft during combat.

Success will mean HAL can start planning series production “and we are confident of it (success),” HAL Chairman & Managing Director T. Suvarna Raju told The Hindu .

Work on the twin-seat IJT (or HJT-36) started in 1999. Admitting that the spin test had been an issue, Mr. Raju said, “We expected to spin the aircraft about eight months ago and clear it for series production. We could not spin or stall the aircraft. It is a very crucial job that should be done very carefully, as there is a lot of risk for men and material.”

In the last few months, HAL consulted UK aerospace major BAE Systems on certain design changes. The aircraft was modified and assessed many times over by mathematical modelling and wind tunnel tests.

After the engine stall test, “we are re-assessing the spin characteristics. We are close… after carrying out modifications. I am waiting for the happy news [in the next 20-30 days],” Mr. Raju said.

The IAF requires 85 IJTs. Currently into limited series production, the two prototypes have flown around 1,000 hours since the first flight in March 2003.

Delayed

The spin test was planned for 2013, but was delayed over deciding the engine, delivery from Russia and accidents in 2007, 2009 and 2011. “Today, we are confident that that every problem has found a solution. The aircraft that is going to come out of all this is going to be really worth flying,” Mr. Raju said.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Sep 2015 06:45

Well, came across a "5th Gen" Su-35S for the IAF. And, of course all sorts of permutation combinations of it - with/without Rafale, replacing MiG-21/27 by decade end, etc. Some reports claim India has actually signed some documents, etc. So, three "5th Gen" planes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2015 06:50

When we speak of generations, does anyone have any quibbles with Prof Prodyut Das' definitions? If so what are the objections
http://profprodyutdas.blogspot.in/2015/ ... p.html?m=1

The so called Fourth generation introduced the following technologies into combat aircraft.

1. Composite structures
2. Fly by wire controls
3. Glass cockpit
4. BVR missiles

The Fifth generation introduced along with the above technologies the following capabilities:

i) Supercruise
ii) Stealth
iii )Sensor fusion

The relatively poor performance of US equipment vis a vis the “crude” Soviet equipment in the Viet Nam and the Arab Israeli wars had a profound effect on US Military equipment design. The appalling losses suffered by the very seasoned Israeli.AF to Soviet SAMs in the Ramadan War led to a search for RCS reduction. From that direction Full stealth was then a small Yankee step. The back breaking logistics of Vietnam effort led to super cruise and the problem of controlling massed fighter strikes in clinically restricted airspace over hostile Vietnam territory led to sensor fusion as AWACS were horribly vulnerable where it was most needed. Sensor fusion was a form of phased array multiple dispersed AWACS! Both coalesced to form the Fifth Generation which is essentially a US oriented scenario requirement.

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Sep 2015 07:14

^^^

iv) TVC

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Sep 2015 07:14

Is there one definition for 5th Gen planes? I do nto think so. He can say what he pleases and he will be right - as all others are.

So, wiki:

According to Lockheed Martin, the only fifth-generation jet fighter currently in operational service is their own F-22 Raptor.[2][8] US fighter manufacturer Lockheed Martin uses "fifth generation fighter" to describe the F-22 and F-35 fighters, with the definition including "advanced stealth", "extreme performance", "information fusion" and "advanced sustainment".[2] Their definition no longer includes supercruise capability, which has typically been associated with the more advanced modern fighters, but which the F-35 lacks.[9] Lockheed Martin attempted to trademark the term "5th generation fighters" in association with jet aircraft and structural parts thereof,[10] and has a trademark for a logo with the term.[11]

Bye, bye supercruise. Prof Das totally missed that?

Also, two other items that are difficult to accept:

"Sensor fusion". Does he mean Sensor fusion or Data fusion. The prior is a subset of the latter. And, if it is the latter, then:

It absolutely needs a network. How on earth did he miss "Network Centric" is beyond me. IAF, IN and perhaps even the IA is going Network Centric and this man totally misses such a crucial point.

I have found mid 1990 papers he has written on not needing supersonic combat planes. I have to respect his tech knowledge just because he is an engineer and I am not. But, his research into other areas are very shallow and therefore his papers are incomplete.

I wonder who is audience is.

I find it very hard to use his work/s as a point of discussion. Too many flaws.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Sep 2015 07:16

srai wrote:^^^

iv) TVC

High maneuverability.

BUT, do you *really* need it in a "5th Gen" plane?