I think he might be comparing to earlier specs.shiv wrote:Sankum all planes show a weight increase between "clean" configuration and fully loaded (MTOW= Max Take Off Weight) configuration. That is no more weight gain that a schoolboy gains weight when he carries his school bag.sankum wrote:IJT
The IJT has gone through weight gain at clean weight 4250Kg and MTOW of 5400Kg from HAL website.
Max. takeoff weight: 4,600 kg (10,000 lb)
Simulators have their own role and they already must play a big role, but they are not able to prpvide the fidelity of every Mission and every mission team interaction.Sid wrote:If cost/experience is the concern for AJT, can't we use simulators to fill the gap?
Between PC-7 and Hawk, include simulators to hone trainee pilot skills. For Hands-on experience/qualification we will still have PC-7/Hawk.
I never thought I'd say this about something related to the IAF, but I'm well and truly disgusted today. Seeing the national display team fly & advertise a foreign jet, is simply shameful.
That is a BAE Hawk and is globally recognised as a BAE Hawk. Assembling it in India doesn't make it an Indian aircraft. The only thing that now visually distinguishes the SKAT from the Red Arrows is the paint scheme (and a mild distinction at that).eklavya wrote:^^^^
IAF pilots flying IAF aircraft assembled by HAL. But you see BAE. The pathology of a salesman. Please stop your faux nationalist drama, no one here takes it seriously.
I would have been perfectly satisfied with number-plating over the short term.deejay wrote:^^^ Viv S, and the alternative as of now is? Its either numberplating or fly the Hawks, all Kiran Mk 2's have been withdrawn from Suyakiran team for training.
MOD, would have considered numberplating but decided otherwise. So what is the IAF's shame here?
That is an IAF aircraft flown by an IAF pilot. Only a dyed-in-the-wool tout would see BAE instead.Viv S wrote:That is a BAE Hawk and is globally recognised as a BAE Hawk. Assembling it in India doesn't make it an Indian aircraft. The only thing that now visually distinguishes the SKAT from the Red Arrows is the paint scheme (and a mild distinction at that).eklavya wrote:^^^^
IAF pilots flying IAF aircraft assembled by HAL. But you see BAE. The pathology of a salesman. Please stop your faux nationalist drama, no one here takes it seriously.
Also, when did you get voted the forum's spokesperson? Kindly don't presume to speak on everyone's behalf.
You don't seem to understand - the decision is MOD's and the IAf submits only proposals. Numberplating a sqn has a other impacts but I do not have the facts in hand. All options would have been part of proposal. MOD decided on sanctioning the Hawks. IAF cannot refuse to put in all options.Viv S wrote:I would have been perfectly satisfied with number-plating over the short term.deejay wrote:^^^ Viv S, and the alternative as of now is? Its either numberplating or fly the Hawks, all Kiran Mk 2's have been withdrawn from Suyakiran team for training.
MOD, would have considered numberplating but decided otherwise. So what is the IAF's shame here?
As for the IAF's role - on one hand we have a standing (and apparently urgent) requirement for IJTs, a role that the Hawk could fulfill perfectly well, combined with an attitude towards a larger Tejas Mk1 order (extending to the PV6) that is indiifferent at best and resistant at worst.
On the other hand, the IAF apparently has enough jet trainers to perform air shows with.
This is only because you are not old enough to have seen the Hawker Hunter "Thunderbolts" team of the IAFViv S wrote:I never thought I'd say this about something related to the IAF, but I'm well and truly disgusted today. Seeing the national display team fly & advertise a foreign jet, is simply shameful.
Extra hawks were purpose ordered for SKs. Whether having them for training would change the dynamics for IJT is another question. As far as I can tell sitting on thevpavement 10000 miles away, the IAF isnt dynamic enough to drop the IJT stage entirely for now. An IJT will be added to replace the 16s, whether a Hawk-lite or a HAL product is anybody's guess.deejay wrote:You don't seem to understand - the decision is MOD's and the IAf submits only proposals. Numberplating a sqn has a other impacts but I do not have the facts in hand. All options would have been part of proposal. MOD decided on sanctioning the Hawks. IAF cannot refuse to put in all options.Viv S wrote:quote="deejay"^^^ Viv S, and the alternative as of now is? Its either numberplating or fly the Hawks, all Kiran Mk 2's have been withdrawn from Suyakiran team for training.
MOD, would have considered numberplating but decided otherwise. So what is the IAF's shame here?/quote
I would have been perfectly satisfied with number-plating over the short term.
As for the IAF's role - on one hand we have a standing (and apparently urgent) requirement for IJTs, a role that the Hawk could fulfill perfectly well, combined with an attitude towards a larger Tejas Mk1 order (extending to the PV6) that is indiifferent at best and resistant at worst.
On the other hand, the IAF apparently has enough jet trainers to perform air shows with.
AFAIK, for last one year at least IAF has survived without flying any Formation Aerobatics.
On the question of Hawk availability - Obviously, they are available hence the allocation. Why are they available - are the no. of trainees graduating from AFA lesser than earlier? Probably as the number of available Kiran's are low, it could happen - but I am speculating.
The thing is - the decision is MOD's - that is where the responsibility lies. If IAF has to be responsible, let them decide on all matters and then call out its failures.
I am too young to have seen in person as you perhaps did (?) but I was still aware of it. The Hunter's however were an obsolete type in process of being phased out. The Hawks in contrast are brand new single purpose aircraft during a period that the IAF faces a severe squadron crunch.shiv wrote:This is only because you are not old enough to have seen the Hawker Hunter "Thunderbolts" team of the IAF
The prudent course would be to first ensure that the IAF has a full quota of jet trainers, and then order additional units of an Indian aircraft for this completely non-essential role. I would have preferred the Tejas with the ability to switch over to a combat role if required, but the IJT would be the next best thing.In a decade the same team will fly the IJT and a generaation younger than you will be content for 10-15 years like my generation was seeing the HJT 16.
I will not be surprised if the IJT stage is dropped entirely. If and when the IJT is ready to be inducted, it will serve in an AJT role in a parallel stream. i.e the IAF will have a two stage trainign, with the PC-7 being both your basic as well as your Intermediate trainer..Whether having them for training would change the dynamics for IJT is another question. As far as I can tell sitting on thevpavement 10000 miles away, the IAF isnt dynamic enough to drop the IJT stage entirely for now. An IJT will be added to replace the 16s, whether a Hawk-lite or a HAL product is anybody's guess.
At best that means that the blame is shared. That said, its unlikely that the push to restart the team came from the MoD. Besides, for better or worse, like most people, I hold the IAF to a higher standard.deejay wrote:You don't seem to understand - the decision is MOD's and the IAf submits only proposals. Numberplating a sqn has a other impacts but I do not have the facts in hand. All options would have been part of proposal. MOD decided on sanctioning the Hawks. IAF cannot refuse to put in all options.
.
.
The thing is - the decision is MOD's - that is where the responsibility lies. If IAF has to be responsible, let them decide on all matters and then call out its failures.
I am confident it could survive another 10 years without formation aerobatics, which should have been the lowest priority acquisition for the service.AFAIK, for last one year at least IAF has survived without flying any Formation Aerobatics.
On the question of Hawk availability - Obviously, they are available hence the allocation. Why are they available - are the no. of trainees graduating from AFA lesser than earlier? Probably as the number of available Kiran's are low, it could happen - but I am speculating.
So those who think an Indian display team should fly an Indian aircraft are now 'touts' for the national industry.eklavya wrote:That is an IAF aircraft flown by an IAF pilot. Only a dyed-in-the-wool tout would see BAE instead.
No sir this is totally wrong. They were in service and fully serviceable when the team was current. Hunters were finally retired in 1996. Bharat Rakshak came online in 1997 IIRC - so not that ancientViv S wrote: I am too young to have seen in person as you perhaps did (?) but I was still aware of it. The Hunter's however were an obsolete type in process of being phased out.
You are saying that you are confident that good formation flying skills are the lowest priority for the IAF.Viv S wrote: I am confident it could survive another 10 years without formation aerobatics, which should have been the lowest priority acquisition for the service.
Quit the faux nationalism, you are fooling no one but yourself.Viv S wrote:So those who think an Indian display team should fly an Indian aircraft are now 'touts' for the national industry.eklavya wrote:That is an IAF aircraft flown by an IAF pilot. Only a dyed-in-the-wool tout would see BAE instead.
In that case, would I be right in assuming that these aircraft would have been employed in a combat role in wartime? Didn't they all belong to the No. 20 Squadron?shiv wrote:No sir this is totally wrong. They were in service and fully serviceable when the team was current. Hunters were finally retired in 1996. Bharat Rakshak came online in 1997 IIRC - so not that ancient
The idea of an aerobatic team is partly to build up good formation flying skills and partly to advertise the air force to people who produce the recruits. Since the planes are always performing manoeuvres that stress the airframe and pilot they are never planes that are decrepit or outdated. At least not in the IAF. But they also select fully mature planes.
Does the SKAT team 'teach' formation flying to all other IAF units, or do all other IAF pilots rotate through the SKAT team? In the years without an aerobatic team was the IAF deficient when it came to formation flying skills?shiv wrote:You are saying that you are confident that good formation flying skills are the lowest priority for the IAF.
yeah right!
True to form, any criticism of military choices vis a vis domestic products is your cue to flame the thread.eklavya wrote:Quit the faux nationalism, you are fooling no one but yourself.
But you truly disappointed only with IAF. If the blame has to be shared (If there is any blame) share your true disappointment with MOD tooViv S wrote:At best that means that the blame is shared. That said, its unlikely that the push to restart the team came from the MoD. Besides, for better or worse, like most people, I hold the IAF to a higher standard.deejay wrote:You don't seem to understand - the decision is MOD's and the IAf submits only proposals. Numberplating a sqn has a other impacts but I do not have the facts in hand. All options would have been part of proposal. MOD decided on sanctioning the Hawks. IAF cannot refuse to put in all options.
.
.
The thing is - the decision is MOD's - that is where the responsibility lies. If IAF has to be responsible, let them decide on all matters and then call out its failures.
. The news headline said MOD decision.No one sees you as a supporter of domestic development. Like I said, you fool nobody. The SKAT is IAF pilots flying IAF aircraft. Would you care to disclose who you work for?Viv S wrote:True to form, any criticism of military choices vis a vis domestic products is your cue to flame the thread.eklavya wrote:Quit the faux nationalism, you are fooling no one but yourself.
deejay wrote:We were trainees at Bidar in 1998 and we were co-located with the Suryakirans. It was a major plus for us at Bidar. In may of our Close Formation solos, the lead aircraft would be manned by Suryakiran pilots to ease the instructor congestion.
SK pilots in choppers or are you referring to mixed formation flights (hptr+JT)?There you go again, speaking for everyone on the forum. At least request a public mandate through a poll or something. And I work for Lockheed Martin of course. Just as you suspected. Also get the occasional payoff from Boeing.eklavya wrote:No one sees you as a supporter of domestic development. Like I said, you fool nobody. The SKAT is IAF pilots flying IAF aircraft. Would you care to disclose who you work for?
Viv S in my time we had enough trainers. So all under trainees would fly fixed wing for the ab initio stage (HPT 32) and intermediate stage (HJT 16). It is after this stage that pilots would be tri-furcated to Fighters (fire in a$$), Helicopters (Ceiling Fans) and Transports (Table Fans)Viv S wrote:deejay wrote:We were trainees at Bidar in 1998 and we were co-located with the Suryakirans. It was a major plus for us at Bidar. In may of our Close Formation solos, the lead aircraft would be manned by Suryakiran pilots to ease the instructor congestion.
BTW please consider writing an article for BRF. Would be nice to record these on a more easily accessible part of the site.
. 
Did the training on HPTs and IJTs help adapt to helicopters? What was training thereafter like? Do IA pilots also start out on turboprops or do they go straight to Chetaks? (I would imagine a rotor wing craft would behave very differently from a fixed wing aircraft.) Also, do you have any rookies in the Mi-35 squadrons or does everyone first serve in a Mi-17 squadron?deejay wrote:Viv S in my time we had enough trainers. So all under trainees would fly fixed wing for the ab initio stage (HPT 32) and intermediate stage (HJT 16). It is after this stage that pilots would be tri-furcated to Fighters (fire in a$$), Helicopters (Ceiling Fans) and Transports (Table Fans)
I moved to helicopters after this stage.
The IAF is never without an aerobatic team. The public may not see it but it is always there.Viv S wrote: Does the SKAT team 'teach' formation flying to all other IAF units, or do all other IAF pilots rotate through the SKAT team? In the years without an aerobatic team was the IAF deficient when it came to formation flying skills?
You are suggesting that the IAF wait for a recruiting crisis and then quickly form an aerobatic team? No it cannot work that way. An aerobatic team needs constant practice and the public consists of people from 3 years to 18 yeras and older any of whom may get inspired and respond to a future recruitment callViv S wrote: Question is, are we facing an urgent recruiting crisis? Why shouldn't we able able to wait for an Indian type? And if we do intend to switch to an domestic type (which I strongly doubt), wouldn't the existing Hawks become surplus to requirements?
All IAF pilots are trained in and practice formation flying. Its a basic part of the curriculum. Expecting to sharpen it through exposure to a highly specialized display team (how would that work?) is a dubious notion.shiv wrote:The IAF is never without an aerobatic team. The public may not see it but it is always there.
On the contrary, I'm saying the display team has a limited direct impact on recruiting efforts in this age of Youtube and HDTV, unlike the 80s & 90s when the general public had minimal exposure to the air force. Its a good-to-have option but definitely not a urgent must-have.shiv wrote:You are suggesting that the IAF wait for a recruiting crisis and then quickly form an aerobatic team? No it cannot work that way. An aerobatic team needs constant practice and the public consists of people from 3 years to 18 yeras and older any of whom may get inspired and respond to a future recruitment call
Your main argument seems to be that an aerobatic team should be an "Indian type"? Why? If the Thunderbolts and Mirage teams were good do you believe that the team performance was an advertisement for the aircraft of for pilot skills?
Fixed wing training definitely helps in flying helicopters. Instrument Flying, Close Formation, Night Flying, Navigation etc remain the same. Understanding medium of air, understanding flying, flying rules etc. also remains same. Theories of Aerodynamics, Avionics, Instruments, Engines, Aviation Medicine, Meteorology also remain same. What is added for rotary wing is Hover and Rotor Dynamics and what changes a lot is approach power management during landing. So, our syllabus for helicopter training was short (or shorter than these days).Viv S wrote:...
Did the training on HPTs and IJTs help adapt to helicopters? What was training thereafter like? Do IA pilots also start out on turboprops or do they go straight to Chetaks? (I would imagine a rotor wing craft would behave very differently from a fixed wing aircraft.) Also, do you have any rookies in the Mi-35 squadrons or does everyone first serve in a Mi-17 squadron?
I heard that they were being trifuricated after the Basic Flying Stage. The way I interpret the above is that they allocate who goes to Fighters/Helis/Transports BEFORE they start the Basic Flying Training? How are they doing that?deejay wrote:Unfortunately in today's scenario pilots are getting trifurcated before they commence flying. This does not test a pilots capability to grasp quickly and move in to fighters. Ideally IAF would want the best among trainees to be fighter pilots. Today, that is not happening.
Those who wear Rayban Aviators become fighter jocks.Jagan wrote:I heard that they were being trifuricated after the Basic Flying Stage. The way I interpret the above is that they allocate who goes to Fighters/Helis/Transports BEFORE they start the Basic Flying Training? How are they doing that?deejay wrote:Unfortunately in today's scenario pilots are getting trifurcated before they commence flying. This does not test a pilots capability to grasp quickly and move in to fighters. Ideally IAF would want the best among trainees to be fighter pilots. Today, that is not happening.
