Transport Aircraft for IAF

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Jun 2011 23:21

The idea was not to rubbish the quality of the capability offered by Orions.....heck, if we can get hold of P-3X orions with latest gizmos for our medium MPA, there would be nothing like it.

My reply was in context of Philip's post.....but we all know our Philip saar....all hail the fatherland!!!!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 18 Jun 2011 00:05

I thought it was the Rodina

Austin and Philip's cherished Rodina

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 18 Jun 2011 00:52

Philip wrote: PS:Want to buy more US transport aircraft anyone?

Absolutely. 60+ C-17s and 100+ C-130J would be ideal and certainly better & cheaper than any Russian crap. Let's be honest without significant Indian money, no Russian system has ever come cheap or on-time.

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 18 Jun 2011 01:25

Mort Walker wrote:
Philip wrote: PS:Want to buy more US transport aircraft anyone?
Absolutely. 60+ C-17s and 100+ C-130J would be ideal and certainly better & cheaper than any Russian crap. Let's be honest without significant Indian money, no Russian system has ever come cheap or on-time.

Ummm the krivaks have been on time and on budget. The gorshkov is an exception because of wiring and pipe upgrades. Oh and I believe the amerikanski aircraft are overpriced and cost sooo much in maintenance in the long run. India should just develop it's own. Plus Lockheed and Boeing are the only major contractors in America and they could just as well be price fixing.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 Jun 2011 01:52

@@GurinderP ^^

"Ummm the krivaks have been on time and on budget. The gorshkov is an exception because of wiring and pipe upgrades. Plus Lockheed and Boeing are the only major contractors in America and they could just as well be price fixing."

If what you say is true about the Gorshkov being an exception, then why does the IN seem so steamed at the Ruskies? I had thought that along with the Nerpa saga and even the Talwars not to mention the MiG spares (global tender) and the famous MKI tire issue, there is a real attitude problem with the Russians.

LM and Boeing prices are pretty transparent when done via FMS --also zero scope for kickbacks. Plus the spares arrive next day UPS

I fear over the next 10 years we are going to discuss the PAK/FA 'teething' problems.

The Russian arms industry is kaput, they are milking us with substandard stuff so they can buy Mistrales from France and UAVs from Israel.

I'd bet IAC-1 commissions before Gorshkov completes sea trials and we get Arihant 2 + 2 before Nerpa turns up because the RuN wants her now.

I agree build it ourselves is the best and only way to go. I was struck by Heketh's statement about the Brit carriers: "He told the BBC the carriers could have been built for a fraction of the cost at a shipyard in South Korea "

Wish we could get the Sokos to set up yards in India to build out the IN. Their newest destroyers are bigger than the Arleigh Burkes

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 Jun 2011 02:02

@Philip^^^
PS:Want to buy more US transport aircraft anyone?

Come on Philip, you're falling for the propaganda. The Orions to be delivered are not 'replacements' (that's paki spin). They are going to delivered as part of the 8 upgrades and additions from an earlier agreement. They are not 'free either'—there's no such thing as a free lunch with unkil. The pakis realize that.

Ultimately, you have to ask the IAF why they want Boeing and LM planes. We respected the IAF's decision on the MMRCA. I think we should do the same on the transports.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 18 Jun 2011 04:10

Philip wrote:Let's be honest.The ATV project could not have reached this stage without the assistance of "hundreds" of Russian experts some of whom who were present in that number at her launch.Indian ambitions to operate nuclear powered subs are joined at the hip with generous Russian assistance.No other nation on the planet has helped India as Russia has.Even France,helping Brazil will deliver the first N-sub only 5+ years from now! It is sheer madness to even think of abandoning the Nerpa/Chakra and ruining the ATV programme in a fit of pique.The relentless acquisition of subs and warships by the Sino-Pak combine demands the success of the ATV and Akula sub acquisitions.

Ahh.

And just where is China getting most of its arms from, including its carrier and subs? That creates this huge need for India to beef up its navy?

Seems like this one is playing both sides as well.

Given the EU/US embargo, without the massive arms acquisitions from Russia (half of Russian exports), and the reverse engineering done with a lot of it, where would mighty China's armed forces be today?

Add to this the nonperformance and dadagiri the Russians are doing with respect to our purchases, and I don't see why we should be swimming with them more than suits our direct interests. We don't need to be younger brother thanking elder for his "generosity"- those days are gone for 2 decades.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2011 05:54

Russia does need thanking, but no where close to the USSR. I would say that Russia would be a great partner if it were not for the upturn in the Indian economy.

BTW, Sukhoi needs to thank India. Some Russian ship yards also need to thanks India. And, of course, Russia needs to thank that Indian lobby that was sold on tanks, etc, etc, etc.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 18 Jun 2011 08:53

Philip wrote:PS:Want to buy more US transport aircraft anyone?

Uncle would pull out 2 frames from a bone yard or from national guard squadron, repaint it and provide it to the Pukes, chillaks and have a beer... We need to order couple more P8is, build atleast 10 more ASW Frigates. Paki Onions can all be fried in PNS Mehran itself by IAF (if not us, Pakibans would take care of these!!!)

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 18 Jun 2011 09:06

I am not a Bear fan, but what is the problem with acquiring the second Akula I sub with the bear is offering Desh? get some additional goodies thrown in with it... and get both babies post haste.. may be we should convince the bear to tow these two to Vizag and finish them here itself under the tender loving care and watch of SDREs

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 18 Jun 2011 09:07

>>>Ummm the krivaks have been on time and on budget.

Yeah, if a 3 year delay from Russia can be accepted as "Normal" ..

vic · Post by **vic** » 18 Jun 2011 09:25

MRTA is basically a 70-80ton MTOW aircraft but it is understated to show it as replacement of An-32s. Compare its size with A320, B737, C130, etc and you would get the idea. There is nothing wrong with MRTA, it is good design but we still need turboprops in category of An-32s and C-130s. MTA is more of a requirement of Russia foisted on India. RTA is also going the turbofan way and will not lead to replacement of An-32s. We need to license produce or launch a indigenous design for turboprop An-32 replacement

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jun 2011 09:57

Pl.compare the qualiy of Russian arms/tech given to India and that given to China or evn Pak.The PRC does not get what India gets.Now Israel wants to sell China high-tech arms,should we "punish" Israel too?! France is similarly selling Pak lethal ordnance,missiles,PGMs,etc.,for its Mirage fleet,plus Scorpene delays and higher costs,so must we abandon the Rafale for the MMRCA? Thanks to illegal reverse-engineerin,Russian estimates are that sales to the PRC will drop to 15% of previous figures.Our three most important military programmmes are JVs with Russia.The ATV/N-subs,the FGFA fighter, and the Brahmo/super-Brahmos hypersonic missile.It is simply impractical to change tired and trusted horses "mid-course" in favour of "two in the Bush"!

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 18 Jun 2011 11:05

Two More Super Hercules Planes on Way to India

The four-engine aircraft, powered by the Rolls-Royce AE2100D3 turboprop, has a maximum cruise speed of 355 knots or 660 kmph.

The Maximum Takeoff Weight is 75,390 kg and it can carry a Maximum Payload of 21,770 kg.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 18 Jun 2011 11:10

IAF to Get Four Super Hercules Transport Aircraft by June-End

Offsets :-

In 2008, India had purchased the Aircraft under the US Government's Foreign Military Sales Route that Includes an Offset Clause under which the Firm will Invest 30 per cent of the Deal Amount back in Indian Defence Industry.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jun 2011 16:25

Published on Jun 18, 2011
By Nitin Gokhale
China Needles, India Responds: The Diplomat

The latest transport aircraft purchase by India is just a first step in a transformation of its military. It’s China that has it worried.

But the diplomatic benefits aside, the C-17 planes will significantly enhance India’s strategic lift capacity. With a payload capacity of more than 73,600 kilograms, the planes are capable of carrying 188 passengers, have reverse thrust engines for short turnaround, and are equipped with a missile warning system with flares to disengage any incoming missile attack. Until now, the Russian IL-76 ‘Gajraj’ and AN-32 has been the Indian Air Force’s mainstay for transporting men and material.

Combined with the purchase of half a dozen tactical lift C-130J Super Hercules aircraft from the Lockheed Martin stable earlier this year, the Indian Air Force is now well on its way to effectively equipping itself to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The Air Force, currently the largest beneficiary of India’s rising military budget, is in the middle of shifting its focus from being a purely Pakistan-centric force, to one that will be capable of simultaneously meeting the twin threats posed by an insecure Pakistan and an increasingly belligerent China.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 18 Jun 2011 18:02

Philip wrote:Pl.compare the qualiy of Russian arms/tech given to India and that given to China or evn Pak.The PRC does not get what India gets.Now Israel wants to sell China high-tech arms,should we "punish" Israel too?! France is similarly selling Pak lethal ordnance,missiles,PGMs,etc.,for its Mirage fleet,plus Scorpene delays and higher costs,so must we abandon the Rafale for the MMRCA? Thanks to illegal reverse-engineerin,Russian estimates are that sales to the PRC will drop to 15% of previous figures.Our three most important military programmmes are JVs with Russia.The ATV/N-subs,the FGFA fighter, and the Brahmo/super-Brahmos hypersonic missile.It is simply impractical to change tired and trusted horses "mid-course" in favour of "two in the Bush"!

China may not get "PAKFA" or "Brahmos", but they get plenty of good quality from the Russkies, and they get it moreover in large quantities, which is a quality of its own. Again I ask you- China had mediocre indigenous ship-building capability (just to focus on the Navy). Indian naval power would not be challenged at all- if Russia hadn't set up China's sub fleets and the upcoming carrier fleet with the "floating casino sales". Historically the balance of naval power was very much on the Indian side. EU & US would not sell anything in this field to them. Israel's transfers are quite tentative and nothing on this scale, the US exerts too much pressure on them to do otherwise.

Without the Russkies the Chinese were nearly completely cut-off from the technology regime after Tianamen square.

Philip wrote:France is similarly selling Pak lethal ordnance,missiles,PGMs,etc.,for its Mirage fleet,plus Scorpene delays and higher costs,so must we abandon the Rafale for the MMRCA?

That is strange, since this is precisely what you argue with respect to the US transport planes.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 18 Jun 2011 18:06

RajeshA wrote:Published on Jun 18, 2011
By Nitin Gokhale
China Needles, India Responds: The Diplomat
The latest transport aircraft purchase by India is just a first step in a transformation of its military. It’s China that has it worried.
The Air Force, currently the largest beneficiary of India’s rising military budget, is in the middle of shifting its focus from being a purely Pakistan-centric force, to one that will be capable of simultaneously meeting the twin threats posed by an insecure Pakistan and an increasingly belligerent China.

Another nugget from the article

Over the next three years, India has plans to deploy at least a squadron of Sukhois at Nyoma—currently just a basic air strip—about 25 kilometres from the Chinese border in the high altitude desert of Ladakh.

Nyoma was supposed to be an ALG only for medium transport aircraft. When did the plans to base fighters crop up? I suspect it's the harvest of a fertile imagination gone overboard. Or am I missing something?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 18 Jun 2011 18:09

France is similarly selling Pak lethal ordnance,missiles,PGMs,etc.,for its Mirage fleet,plus Scorpene delays and higher costs,so must we abandon the Rafale for the MMRCA?

Philip never sees his own contradictions

After the 10th time its meaningless to point it out

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 18 Jun 2011 18:34

Juggi G wrote:Two More Super Hercules Planes on Way to India

The four-engine aircraft, powered by the Rolls-Royce AE2100D3 turboprop, has a maximum cruise speed of 355 knots or 660 kmph.

The Maximum Takeoff Weight is 75,390 kg and it can carry a Maximum Payload of 21,770 kg.

Seen on the way

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2011 18:47

Pl.compare the qualiy of Russian arms/tech given to India and that given to China or evn Pak.The PRC does not get what India gets.Now Israel wants to sell China high-tech arms,should we "punish" Israel too?! France is similarly selling Pak lethal ordnance,missiles,PGMs,etc.,for its Mirage fleet,plus Scorpene delays and higher costs,so must we abandon the Rafale for the MMRCA? Thanks to illegal reverse-engineerin,Russian estimates are that sales to the PRC will drop to 15% of previous figures.Our three most important military programmmes are JVs with Russia.The ATV/N-subs,the FGFA fighter, and the Brahmo/super-Brahmos hypersonic missile.It is simply impractical to change tired and trusted horses "mid-course" in favour of "two in the Bush"!

IF the argument is that the US is replacing 2 P-C3 orions at the expense of India and therefore the Indo-US relationship is (what did you call it?) "sht**y"(?), then, yes, the same rule should apply for France. (Thanks for bring it up.)

Also, we are to compare quality of arms supplied by Russia to china/pak vs. India, then do the same for all other nations.

Maintain one rule for all.

Besides no one is arguing against the JVs. It is the non-JVs that are the issues with the Russians. Keep the JVs as is and change the rest of the "tired" horses. They deservedly need a rest.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2011 18:49

For India to consider Russia as a reliable partner Russia needs to stop her silly circus acts and act like a grown up. Some Russians are spoiling the image of the rest of that great nation.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 18 Jun 2011 19:56

Marut wrote: Another nugget from the article
Over the next three years, India has plans to deploy at least a squadron of Sukhois at Nyoma—currently just a basic air strip—about 25 kilometres from the Chinese border in the high altitude desert of Ladakh.
Nyoma was supposed to be an ALG only for medium transport aircraft. When did the plans to base fighters crop up? I suspect it's the harvest of a fertile imagination gone overboard. Or am I missing something?

no sir. Nitin gokhale infact is right. the IAF is planning to convert the Nyoma into a full fledged air base subject to ofcourse clearance from the MOD.

there were reports to that effect not long back.

The Air-Officer-Commanding-in-Chief of the India’s Western Air Command, Air Marshal NAK Browne said on Friday that the airstrip at Nyoma in Jammu and Kashmir has been proposed to be upgraded to a full-fledged airbase. Almost exactly a year back, the Advanced Landing Ground at Nyoma had been made operational for fixed-wing aircraft with an Indian Air force (IAF) AN-32 landing there, around 23 kilometers from the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and Chinese-held territory.

The air marshal, who was also on that first flight into Nyoma, said that they would like ‘each and every platform of the IAF’ to ‘operate fully’ from Nyoma, further clarifying that ‘fighter aircraft are very much part of that capability’. He also noted that the IAF’s frontline fighter aircraft, the Sukhoi-30 MKI was designed to operate from those those altitudes.

According to Browne, the proposal for the development of Nyoma into an airbase is currently being vetted by the Ministry of Defense and if cleared, it would take at least four years to construct the requisite infrastructure at Nyoma

IAF pitches for airbase at Nyoma

another one -

New Delhi, Oct. 1: The Indian Air Force wants to expand the Nyoma Advanced Landing Ground (ALG) in Ladakh — just 23 kms from the border with China — into a major air base from where all aircraft in the Indian Air Force’s inventory including fighter aircraft like the Sukhoi-30 MKI can operate. The Nyoma ALG is located at an altitude of 13,300 ft.
“The idea is to expand Nyoma into a major air base from where we can operate each and every platform in the IAF’s inventory including fighter aircraft,” the chief of the IAF’s Western Air Command (WAC) Air Marshal N.A.K. Browne said on Friday.

IAF for Nyoma as major base

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 18 Jun 2011 20:54

pragnya, thanks for clarification. I missed these reports.

Still one doubt persists, is it wise to base our frontline fighters so close to the border? In case of any hostilities, the base will be within arty and rocket ranges from across the border. Basing transports of all capacities makes sense for logistical ease, but why fighters when you can base them more securely further back and use refuelling to extend their legs?

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 18 Jun 2011 21:01

Noob pooch:

Wouldn't a base so close to the border be vulnerable to enemy MRLS and Arty barrages.

The MKI have enough range to come from a deeper base and provide cover, then why would IAF risk putting MKI onto a base in such an advanced position.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 18 Jun 2011 21:18

Maybe the idea is to have all the infrastructure in place at Nyoma, so that all air force fighter assests can operate from there, though they may not be permanently based there. Or maybe a chanakian move to make everybody focus on Nyoma, while some place else is further developed for developing the actual blow.

Of course it might be a really hot zone to operate from, but then I would trust the professional judgment of the IAF on this matter.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2011 21:44

"Operational"/"operate fully" and "based" are not the same things.

Given that Lhasa is the goal, on day one it may be in arty range.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Jun 2011 21:47

what bmallick says. the infra will be in place ready for a sudden surge during wartime. detachments of fighters would deploy there temporarily to acclimatise themselves with the terrain and environment.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 18 Jun 2011 21:47

bmallick wrote:Maybe the idea is to have all the infrastructure in place at Nyoma, so that all air force fighter assests can operate from there, though they may not be permanently based there.

correct. i agree with that however as to the bolded part, the Asian Age link speaks -

The IAF sources also said that the infrastructure of the Nyoma ALG can be developed to station Sukhoi-30 MKI aircraft there “permanently” in future.

IAF for Nyoma as major base

twiw.

Or maybe a chanakian move to make everybody focus on Nyoma, while some place else is further developed for developing the actual blow.

in this age of remote satellites will that go unnoticed??

Marut, you are welcome.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2011 21:50

Rahul M wrote:what bmallick says. the infra will be in place ready for a sudden surge during wartime. detachments of fighters would deploy there temporarily to acclimatise themselves with the terrain and environment.

Or to support fast moving Indian forces.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Jun 2011 21:55

I meant during peacetime.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Jun 2011 23:25

In the day and age of long range arty shells and with MLRS having range in excess of 100kms, it would be foolish to base any combat aircraft in Nyoma. Even the placement of Nyoma in the shadow of a mountain range will not be of much help........IMO, with full fledged AB@Nyoma, IAF will sure test which all a/c can operate from such environment.

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 18 Jun 2011 23:26

rohitvats wrote:In the day and age of long range arty shells and with MLRS having range in excess of 100kms, it would be foolish to base any combat aircraft in Nyoma. Even the placement of Nyoma in the shadow of a mountain range will not be of much help........IMO, with full fledged AB@Nyoma, IAF will sure test which all a/c can operate from such environment.

+ 100

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 19 Jun 2011 00:00

rohitvats wrote:In the day and age of long range arty shells and with MLRS having range in excess of 100kms, it would be foolish to base any combat aircraft in Nyoma. Even the placement of Nyoma in the shadow of a mountain range will not be of much help........IMO, with full fledged AB@Nyoma, IAF will sure test which all a/c can operate from such environment.

Well that can be said about all air bases with in range of chinese cruise and ballistic missiles.

IA & IAF both must have done there homework before deciding on creating a full fledged air base at Nyoma. With all due respect Rohit, it would be foolish to call IAF foolish without having full knowledge of all the aspects that IAF has considered. Hence it is better to accept there professional judgment.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jun 2011 00:28

bmallick wrote: Well that can be said about all air bases with in range of chinese cruise and ballistic missiles.

IA & IAF both must have done there homework before deciding on creating a full fledged air base at Nyoma. With all due respect Rohit, it would be foolish to call IAF foolish without having full knowledge of all the aspects that IAF has considered. Hence it is better to accept there professional judgment.

True.

Looking at the map, ND itself is not that far from the border, when one considers all options. Army HQs too are equally vulnerable too.

There would be huge need for sanitizing certain areas.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Jun 2011 00:57

bmallick wrote: Well that can be said about all air bases with in range of chinese cruise and ballistic missiles.

IA & IAF both must have done there homework before deciding on creating a full fledged air base at Nyoma. With all due respect Rohit, it would be foolish to call IAF foolish without having full knowledge of all the aspects that IAF has considered. Hence it is better to accept there professional judgment.

You’re entire argument is based on the premise that the article quoted is correct. Where has the IAF said that it wants to base SU-30MKI or any other fighter in Nyoma? Even if you refer to different links shared by Pragnya in previous page, all they say is that it will have infra to support fighter operations. SUporting fighter operations and basing a fighter aircraft of the type SU-30MKI are two different things. Frankly, if you ask me, the article seems like a cut-copy-paste which uses information from various sources to push through the message.

Now, coming to the point of basing fighters at Nyoma airfield. That airfield would be toast from the word go of Sino-India shooting match. The maximum utility of this airfield will be to assist in reinforcing the sectors prior to break-out of hostilities. Its ability to support operations during hostilities would be suspect. There is another strip to east of Nyoma at Chusul; this area was the scene of heavy fighting in 1962 with airstrip receiving maximum love and attention from the Chinese. Why would IAF want to expose an asset like SU-30MKI to such a threat? All that Chinese need to do is park couple of artillery regiments along the LAC and bang, the airstrip is toast.

And what purpose do the MKI serve being based out of this location? If anything, Nyoma may see deployment of a Tejas detachment. Leh has only recently received a upgrade so that it can base Mig-29 and may see a similar deployment by Tejas as well as MKI.

And btw, threat from couple of regiments of artillery versus cruise missiles or IRBMs is not same.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jun 2011 06:23

Look guys.We've experienced delays,cost hikes with many nations,not just Russia.The Hawk,Scorpene deals for one.Trenton helos,etc.It is unfair to balme only Russia.We all know the problems faced with support for legacy Russian systems,as the SU collapsed and Russian restructuring of its military industry is udnerway.Saying dump the Akula is an asinine,immature thought.No one on the planet is helping us with critical weapon systems like N-sub tech for the ATV,Akula SSGNs,FGFAs,Brahmos,etc.

Keep track of latest deveopments.The Chinese are not getting frontline Russian wares anymore (Russia refused naval SU-33s,which they had to secretly buy one from Ukaine to reverse-engineer) and sales will drop to 15%-Russian stats,because of their illegal reverse-engineering,where they are becoming competitors with Russia for exports.What about other EU nations selling their wares to China and Pak like France? Now even Israel is running to China to sell it advanced weapons and systems! Should we punish the Israelis too?

The US sales of arms to Pak is on a different plane because it nourishes and sustains pak's diabolic acts of terror against India.Perry class FFGs,Orions and their Harpoons,F-16s,etc., are meant specifically to be used against India.The US is so lustful of its Paki rentboy that it places Indian interests last.These are the most dangerous sales of arms to an Indian enemy and we cannot just wash our hands of these sales,that too rewarding the US in the bargain by huge buys in fact thus subsidising US arms deliveries to Pak! The US is making money out of our misery and giving Pak the equiv. of blood transfusions to keepon killing Indians. Thisis the stark reality.

I would prefer telling the US that unless they stop sales of advanced weaponry to Pak that is India-specific,they will not be given lucrative big ticket items from our services.We have a variety of options/nation to choose from.There are many wew supliers like Brazil,S.Africa,S'pore,Korea,etc.,from whom we can buy some advanced systems.I would also suggest that we make a study/list of those nations who are harming India the most by sales to our enemies,those helping us the most,and choose wisely and diversely from amongst the suppliers who "harm us least/help us the most".Germany should be rewarded for stopping the sale of U-214s to Pak because of its terror character.We need our U-209s upgraded and extra AIP U-214s to eventually replace them all would be an excellent buy.India must use the "carrot and stick" policy when needed after weighing the issue in the balance.This list/scale of support,etc.,would be an interesting study.I suggest a thread on it.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 19 Jun 2011 08:33

rohitvats wrote: You’re entire argument is based on the premise that the article quoted is correct. Where has the IAF said that it wants to base SU-30MKI or any other fighter in Nyoma?Even if you refer to different links shared by Pragnya in previous page, all they say is that it will have infra to support fighter operations. SUporting fighter operations and basing a fighter aircraft of the type SU-30MKI are two different things.

Rohit, with all due respect, before jumping the gun and shooting a post, it would be prudent if you please take the time to read my posts prior to the one you have qouted.

This is what I had said:

bmallick wrote:Maybe the idea is to have all the infrastructure in place at Nyoma, so that all air force fighter assests can operate from there, though they may not be permanently based there. Or maybe a chanakian move to make everybody focus on Nyoma, while some place else is further developed for developing the actual blow.

Of course it might be a really hot zone to operate from, but then I would trust the professional judgment of the IAF on this matter.

This is what others understood from my post.

Rahul M wrote:what bmallick says. the infra will be in place ready for a sudden surge during wartime. detachments of fighters would deploy there temporarily to acclimatise themselves with the terrain and environment.

pragnya wrote:
bmallick wrote:Maybe the idea is to have all the infrastructure in place at Nyoma, so that all air force fighter assests can operate from there, though they may not be permanently based there.
correct. i agree with that however as to the bolded part, the Asian Age link speaks -

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 19 Jun 2011 08:50

Nyoma no doubt would be under fire once hostilities begin. However lets look at it initially as landing ground for logistics.

In the high mountainous region of Ladakh, it is difficult to move supplies & move casualties back by the land route. Unlike plains, where we can have multiple road network for redundancy purpose. In Ladakh, the few roads being used for Logistics would be definitely under fire. The enemy would hit them by whatever they have, so that even if they are able to stop movement for a couple of days, that would put severe strain on our forces on ground. Hence the importance of air transport.

In case of air transport, the last leg of logistics to the actual front, would still need to done via dirt tracks, narrow valleys etc, which would again slow & cumbersome. Hence the need to make this last leg as short as possible, therefore the need to have Air Landing grounds as near as the front. Ok, so once we have decided to have the ALG so near to enemy, with in its fire range, then we would have to do have plans to ensure that that enemy is forced to keep its head down and not able to engage this vital arterial node of ours. Maybe this requires additional firepower, in the form of Attack Aircrafts / Helicopters. These aircrafts would have less fuel, but full weapons load during takeoff. The little distance from the front mean that they need not travel distances to hit target and also have high turnaround time.

Would this be a sure fire success? Well it probably would. Are we going to definitely do so, well maybe not, but we should at least have the infra in place to provide us the option to do so. We cannot start building the infra when shit hits the fan, we better have it in place much before that so that we have the flexibility to do so if required.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 19 Jun 2011 09:57

with respect to spares problem from Russians, I would like to understand what would have been state of affairs if we asked for F104 spares from unkil...