Indian Military Aviation

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 02 Nov 2009 20:22

Plans to replace Cheetah and Chetak chopper to get delayed.

Plans to replace the ageing Cheetah and Chetak chopper fleet of the Army and Air Force are set to get delayed, thanks to indecision of the Defence Ministry over conducting of the field trials.

The original plan was to induct 197 Light Utility Helicopters (LUHs) starting from 2009-10 but the process has not moved beyond the Request for Proposal stage and the vendors response to it.

The summer trials were planned to be held by June-July this year but they have not been held, resulting in delay of six months in the fresh acquisition process for the choppers.

Winter trials, whose deadline is February 15, 2010, are also unlikely to be held as no decision has yet been taken on the schedule, Army sources said here.

This is the second time the Rs 3,500 crore tender has been released for inducting 197 LUHs as the first acquisition process was cancelled in 2007 after it was found that Eurocopter had fielded a civilian variant of its chopper for the trials.

The cancellation of the previous process in 2007 had pushed back the deal by four years and the present delays in the field trials would mean that the choppers can start getting inducted only in 2013-14 given there are no further delays in the process, they said.

Three vendors, including Eurocopter, Italian Agusta Westland and Russian Mil Corporation, submitted their responses in December 2008 to the tender issued in June last year.

Defence Ministry's Technical Evaluation Committee completed its evaluations by April-May this year and had said that the participating companies would be soon invited for trials.

The next trials, sources said, would be possible only in April-May next year.

The previous tender was issued in 2003 and American Bell and Eurocopter were shortlisted for field trials.

Of the 197 choppers to be procured, the Army will get 133 choppers and rest 54 will go to IAF for replacing their old French-origin fleet.

The two forces need a total of 384 choppers, of which 197 will be supplied by foreign vendors and the rest would be co-developed by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited with a foreign manufacturer.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 02 Nov 2009 21:28

^^ In think it is another media created hype or a way to earn quick bucks for some high profile people ...

as eariler Cheetah was doing high altitude duties... which now can be done by Dhruv. I am not saying that we dont need light helos but we can wait a bit longer. Giving chance to have local produced products only. As we have Dhruv flying, LCH in active development (with weight problems). Once it fly next year and get mature in 2-3 yrs, HAL will have lots of experience with helo and it will be much easier to develop a light helo. I hope the oldest Cheetah's and Chetak's can be retired and newer ones can be used for recce purpose. As many Cheetah's and Chetak's, should be getting free from heavy weight high altitude duties.

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 03 Nov 2009 00:31

The army cannot wait longer. I think this 197 copter deal was cancelled once earlier when it was given to Eurocopter after some kind of allegations. Though HAL can make such helicopters but it needs time to produce so many, so it is better to buy off shelf. Otherwise Army has to depend on Mulecopter

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Nov 2009 05:21

Crash shadow on troops carrier

SUJAN DUTTA
An Ilyushin 76

New Delhi, Nov. 2: Indian Air Force headquarters was today thinking of grounding its Ilyushin 76 fleet and has asked the manufacturers for advice after Russia ordered the heavy transport planes back to hangars following a crash.

The IAF operates two squadrons of the aircraft (17) in its transport fleet that ferries troops from difficult terrain — Kashmir and the Northeast — almost daily, and was also used last month to move paramilitary forces for counter-Maoist operations in Maharashtra.

Grounding the aircraft will severely impact the air force’s daily maintenance operations. Hundreds of Indian Army soldiers are dependent on courier services run by the IAF on its IL-76 aircraft.

Variants of the aircraft are also the basic platforms for surveillance missions by the Aviation Research Centre — an intelligence agency — and are also operated as mid-air refuellers and for India’s only airborne early warning and command system.

IAF authorities told The Telegraph the transport directorate at air headquarters was in touch with the two makers of the aircraft — Ilyushin Aviation Complex Joint Stock Company, Moscow, and Tashkent Aircraft Production Corporation in Uzbekistan.

“We are waiting for communication from the companies. We are checking out what has happened,” an IAF source said.

Sources in air headquarters said the authorities were worried after the Russian Air Force reported two IL-76 mishaps in less than a month.

On October 7, one of the four huge D30KP turbofan engines of an IL-76 fell off as it was preparing to take off. There was no casualty. The Russian Air Force had grounded the IL-76 after that incident but the IAF did not.

But on Sunday, another IL-76 doing duty for the Russian interior ministry crashed in Siberia, killing all 11 crew and passengers (troops) on board.

News reports from Russia said the aircraft failed to gain height though it was being powered on full throttle.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2009 06:10

The ARC has a 76?
I thought they had that Gulfstream and B 737 (and now the PM's B737). Is this the detachment based at IGI? One can see a few 76's parked there always.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Nov 2009 06:19

IIRC the IL-76 near-miss incident in NE sometime back was an ARC gajraj.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 03 Nov 2009 07:11

The State Kyiv Design Bureau "Luch" has Developed the "Ingul-A", "Trubezh-A", "Gurt-M", AKIPS Systems of the aircraft missiles and Torpedoes Automated Monitoring and diagnosis used successfully in more than 40 countries of the world and this includes INDIA

INGUL A
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... cwAVGkcpnA

TRUBEZH A
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... FHYbXP3FzQ

GURT M
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... M40-iXxbwg

AKIPS
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... AJt_bwsplQ

and for full detail
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... znIaTLF0kg

R27 missile is productionized by SJSHC Artem of ukrain from which INDIA bought several hundred R27 missile

here is R27 missile production video,nothing much just for some time pass
http://www.artem.ua/cd_0001/avi/R-27_ru ... 51842d2601
http://www.artem.ua/cd_0001/images/r-27 ... 51842d2601

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Nov 2009 08:41

vs civilian airliners the IL76 I see in HAL airport seem to have a very
flat takeoff almost skimming the rooftops. at full load the engines a bit underpowered ?

I know C17 will be purchased but if we want to the keep the IL76 for 15 years would be a good idea to refit their avionics with better gear and re-engine with the PS90 seen in phalcons.

I dont think we will be able to afford 1:1 C17:Il76 replacement anytime soon.

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 03 Nov 2009 09:06

The C17 is so expensive - is it really worth the money??

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 03 Nov 2009 09:48

Its highly improbable that after so many years of service all over the world the Il-76's have suddenly developed a catastrophic flaw that would require the IAF to replace ASAP. I doubt the IAF would replace the airframe any time with C17. Its crazy to do so and I hope there is somebody in the Defense ministry who hasn't drunk the Boeing Kool-Aid!

Numbers wise, a brand new top of the line Il-76's come about $50-$70 million each while a new C-17 would cost $250 million+ . Thats almost FIVE Il-76's for ONE C17! By considering the C17 its like they have forgotten that the average Indian is working 18 hour days to pay their taxes! The idea that they would consider the C17 is quite astounding no matter the bells and whistles it comes with ! Payload wise the IL-76 can carry about 50 tonnes while the C17 can carry about 77 tonnes, so it's more economical to buy TWO of even THREE Il-76's than a single C17 in capital costs alone. And add to these costs to man, fuel, repair and service the C17 compared to already established logistics of servicing and crewing IL-76's !

The C17 is a bad deal and I hope the IAF sees it for what it is!

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Nov 2009 09:56

IAF Transport fleet in 2030
12+ C17 (80 tonnes cargo lift)
80 MTA (20 tonnes cargo lift)
12 C130J Special Ops
?? Light Transport (5-7 tonnes cargo lift)

12+ A330 AAR
6 IL-78

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 03 Nov 2009 10:25

Absolute tonnage is not the best way to assess the aircraft.

The problem with current spec IL-76 is that it cannot ferry a T-90 MBT to Ladakh, let alone Arjun. I doubt even the latest T-72 Rhinos can be airlifted to Ladakh. OTOH C-17s were able to deploy even Canadian Leopard-1s to Afghanistan.

IAF should consider PS-90 upgrade option on IL-76 + provide IFR capability. These measures will give it relative parity with C-17.

Viz-a-viz flight safety IL-76 has always had a poor record in the world, except in IAF. Although there was a scare once on a new IL-78 and pilot was given gallantry award for landing the bird.

On cost front, when Mirage-2000 was acquired it was at least 10 times the average MiG-21 cost, but look at the stellar service it has given.

Brando wrote:Its highly improbable that after so many years of service all over the world the Il-76's have suddenly developed a catastrophic flaw that would require the IAF to replace ASAP. I doubt the IAF would replace the airframe any time with C17. Its crazy to do so and I hope there is somebody in the Defense ministry who hasn't drunk the Boeing Kool-Aid!

Numbers wise, a brand new top of the line Il-76's come about $50-$70 million each while a new C-17 would cost $250 million+ . Thats almost FIVE Il-76's for ONE C17! By considering the C17 its like they have forgotten that the average Indian is working 18 hour days to pay their taxes! The idea that they would consider the C17 is quite astounding no matter the bells and whistles it comes with ! Payload wise the IL-76 can carry about 50 tonnes while the C17 can carry about 77 tonnes, so it's more economical to buy TWO of even THREE Il-76's than a single C17 in capital costs alone. And add to these costs to man, fuel, repair and service the C17 compared to already established logistics of servicing and crewing IL-76's !

The C17 is a bad deal and I hope the IAF sees it for what it is!

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 03 Nov 2009 11:01

Aditya G wrote:Absolute tonnage is not the best way to assess the aircraft.

The problem with current spec IL-76 is that it cannot ferry a T-90 MBT to Ladakh, let alone Arjun. I doubt even the latest T-72 Rhinos can be airlifted to Ladakh. OTOH C-17s were able to deploy even Canadian Leopard-1s to Afghanistan.

IAF should consider PS-90 upgrade option on IL-76 + provide IFR capability. These measures will give it relative parity with C-17.

Viz-a-viz flight safety IL-76 has always had a poor record in the world, except in IAF. Although there was a scare once on a new IL-78 and pilot was given gallantry award for landing the bird.

On cost front, when Mirage-2000 was acquired it was at least 10 times the average MiG-21 cost, but look at the stellar service it has given.

Even wealthy militaries like the USA and Britain dont airlift tanks battalions. They ship the tanks to the nearest port and then truck them or send them by rail if possible. Even with a C-17 you could only take 1 tank at a time and a few tanks are not really going to make a whole lot of difference in Ladakh. You would need a couple of battalions to make an impact. Unless the IAF wants to buy hundreds of C17s like the USAF, there really is no point to the cost. The IAF can just as easily hire a An-125 and fly Tanks to Ladhak and do it for a fraction of the cost of buying a $250 million dollar Boeing dinosaur.

The Mirage 2000 compared to the Mig 21 is a whole different story because they dont even fill the same roles. That would be like comparing apples and oranges while the Il-76 and the C17 fulfill pretty much the same roles. With a upgrade to the Il-76's engines and maybe avionics there is no real reason why it can't be safer and cheaper to operate than the C17s. Besides with so many Il-76's flying all over the world, spares and servicing etc would not be a problem at all besides the IAF is already tooled and equipped to service these planes. There really is no point spending the cost of 5 Il-76's to be able to fly one tank at a time!

Anantz · Post by **Anantz** » 03 Nov 2009 11:16

I think what you fail to understand here is that IL76 is basically a 1970s design, so although it may still be contemporary today with its updates, a decade from now, it will probably be grossly outdated and unsupportable, with spares running dry, and upward scalability of avionics impossible in the new hi-tech battle field. What IAF needs today is an aircraft that can stay up to date for atleast another 3-4 decades. The C-17 with all its latest avionics and technology is vastly superior to an IL76. Don't just compare the aircraft in terms of load carrying capacities. In modern hi-tech battlefield, survivability, automation, serviceability and operational flexibility, is a very important factor for platform choice, something a 1970's designed IL76 may quite be lacking.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Nov 2009 11:21

TOI article today was mentioning having to cannibalize a couple of IL76 to keep the rest running due to difficulty in spare parts.

so either the spare parts chain is breaking down or the russian IL76 use some different parts not in our version.

all in all - we need atleast 50-70 strategic airlift birds -- a mix of A330 cargo and C17 would seem appropriate.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Nov 2009 11:25

somehow, it isn't clear to me why a comprehensive avionics/engine upg won't do just as well.
what exactly has undergone revolutionary change in transport aircraft since the mid 70's ?
heck, even a 50's design hercules is going strong with modifications ! basic design of the IL-76 itself is considered quite robust isn't it ?

perhaps a sqn worth of C-17s can be justified for heavy lift, at most.

p.s. just saw singha ji's post. if that is the reason then it's another matter entirely.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Nov 2009 11:31

not all missions need the low floor and bulbous volume + paradrop abilities of C17/Il76. a bunch of used but reliable A330 cargo planes even leased from holding cos could take over many of the missions the IL76 are flogged for on a daily basis. cargo is mostly in pallets anyway...all one needs is a forklift truck on ground.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 03 Nov 2009 11:34

^^"I think what you fail to understand here is that IL76 is basically a 1970s design..."LOL. I think what you fail to understand is that other future IAF aircrafts like the C130 is basically a 1950s design. As with the C-130, what you do is take a solid design and continuesly upgrade it with better engines and avionics to arrive at a contemporary solution. The Il76MF with PS-90 is one such solution.

It amazes me how the americans and their free publicists can malign almost anything. The IL 76 is the most widely used dedicated jet freighter in the over 40 tonne category, being used extensively all over the world. It can be found hauling NATO equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan day in and day out, on the other hand it operates in some of the most basic African airports routinely. With over 500 birds produced since 1974 the Gajraj hardly needs any approval certificates from yankees and indoyankees.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 03 Nov 2009 12:10

IMO the single most important criteria for military cargo plane would be the ability to take off from short runways, followed by ruggedness. Then the cost and so and so..If the cost is prohibiive, then the plane would become something like the soviet heavy lift helo we purchased, which can lift about 20 tons. But it is sparingly used because of the heavy operating cost and maintenance issues.

IMO, the IL-76 has served the IAF well and the news appearing is motivated to increase the sales pitch of C-17. We should go for it only if it is cheap. Or else, what is the big use, particularly if the cost is 1:5?

Anantz · Post by **Anantz** » 03 Nov 2009 12:49

shanksinha wrote:^^"I think what you fail to understand here is that IL76 is basically a 1970s design..."LOL. I think what you fail to understand is that other future IAF aircrafts like the C130 is basically a 1950s design. As with the C-130, what you do is take a solid design and continuesly upgrade it with better engines and avionics to arrive at a contemporary solution. The Il76MF with PS-90 is one such solution.

Well what about spares and serviceability, will the IL-76 fleet which has already shrunk from 25 - 15 due to serviceability issues even today be serviceable 20 years from now even with newer engines? And what will be the cost of supporting these aircrafts, please remember they weren't license manufactured in India, hence, when the factories churning up spares dry up, we will be struggling to keep it airborne, that too at quite a huge price considering we will end up being one of the few operators of the aircraft in future. Also another thing to add is that Russian platforms are not built for longevity, and they have considerably less Total Technical Life than comparable Western systems, which means more cost in replacing them later. They maybe rugged but they do come we less service life.

And please don't come up with statements like C-130 being of 1950s design, if you look at the specs of the C-130J which India is getting today and compare it with that of the 1950s C-130 I am sure they would be a lot to justify the 1 billion dollar price tag it came with. Is the IL-76 MF with new PS-90 engines generation ahead of its predecessor like the C-130J of today? Or will it be in service in the same numbers as C-17 will be with other airforces in future? The IL 76 has served IAF good, but its time to move on to better systems available today.

Anantz · Post by **Anantz** » 03 Nov 2009 12:56

geeth wrote:IMO the single most important criteria for military cargo plane would be the ability to take off from short runways, followed by ruggedness. Then the cost and so and so..If the cost is prohibiive, then the plane would become something like the soviet heavy lift helo we purchased, which can lift about 20 tons. But it is sparingly used because of the heavy operating cost and maintenance issues.

IMO, the other most important aspect is Sortie rates, how much cargo it can deliver in a single sortie etc, which means less aircraft for a single task hence more aircraft free for other tasks. Today, we have a capability to airlift a Brigade level force at one time, with changing military doctrines we may want a bigger airlift capability, one that is able to infiltrate a larger troop formation deep behind enemy line, while at the same time others may be required to carry on regular troop mobilization to forward areas, this will require aircraft with larger payload capability and better sortie rate and serviceability. So this aspect must also be looked into.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 03 Nov 2009 15:02

>>>And please don't come up with statements like C-130 being of 1950s design, if you look at the specs of the C-130J which India is getting today and compare it with that of the 1950s C-130 I am sure they would be a lot to justify the 1 billion dollar price tag it came with.

Please tell exactly what are the dramatic improvements that had happened to C-130J compared to C-130 - a transport plane with a cargo hold, cockpit, tyres and engines.

Also, What exactly are the additions in the C-17 compared to a IL-76 for a five fold price difference? These also have a cockpit, cargo hold, engines, tyres etc only.

The only 'generational' change I can think of is an improved engine & lighter fuselage structures. But paying five times the price (even if one is a bigger plane) is unjustified IMO.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 03 Nov 2009 15:30

Brando wrote:.....Even with a C-17 you could only take 1 tank at a time and a few tanks are not really going to make a whole lot of difference in Ladakh. You would need a couple of battalions to make an impact..... The IAF can just as easily hire a An-125 and fly Tanks to Ladhak and do it for a fraction of the cost of buying a $250 million dollar Boeing dinosaur.

The Mirage 2000 compared to the Mig 21 is a whole different story because they dont even fill the same roles. That would be like comparing apples and oranges while the Il-76 and the C17 fulfill pretty much the same roles. With a upgrade to the Il-76's engines and maybe avionics there is no real reason why it can't be safer and cheaper to operate than the C17s. Besides with so many Il-76's flying all over the world, spares and servicing etc would not be a problem at all besides the IAF is already tooled and equipped to service these planes. There really is no point spending the cost of 5 Il-76's to be able to fly one tank at a time! .....

Brando, your opinion is not in tune with the lessons of our history. Dont underestimate the impact of MBTs on ground in Ladakh and their importance in that area. Read up on the extent we have gone to in 1962 and 1980s to deploy tanks there. The Army has now issued RFP for 300 light tanks just to deploy to that region. We have even airlifted tanks to Sri Lanka. Remember the troubles we had to face in 1948 when we needed Stuarts in Zojilla pass. Mi-26 prove itself by rapidly deploying for Op Falcon.

I support your arguments on IL-76 upgrade. But the real question is: does IAF need C-17? For one, its capability to deploy to MBTs Ladakh is #1 advantage. We need to scope out what are the other advantages.

IAF has not asked for C-17 to replace Gajraj. 10 C-17 cannot replace the IL-76 fleet. I dont subscribe too much to the cost argument, given the possibile capability that a heavy transport can provide us. Before the 80s, our largest tpt was An-12 .... we were managing fine till the IL-76 came along and suddenly we had Op Pawan, Op Cactus and many strategic missions flown by this aircraft. I am sure at that time we must have questioned "Does IAF need IL-76 capability?"

An-125 is a backup - not a dependable solution for the next 20 years! We can rope in civilian contractors like Volga Dnepr if the need should arise - but this possibility should not prevent us from building our own capability.

Anantz wrote:Well what about spares and serviceability, will the IL-76 fleet which has already shrunk from 25 - 15 due to serviceability issues even today be serviceable 20 years from now even with newer engines? And what will be the cost of supporting these aircrafts, please remember they weren't license manufactured in India, hence, when the factories churning up spares dry up, we will be struggling to keep it airborne, .....

What you say in omnious Anant since we are operating IL-78 and A-50 which is essentially the same aircraft. So what will we do about them given that we need to fly these for next 15 years?

Singha wrote:not all missions need the low floor and bulbous volume + paradrop abilities of C17/Il76. a bunch of used but reliable A330 cargo planes even leased from holding cos could take over many of the missions the IL76 are flogged for on a daily basis. cargo is mostly in pallets anyway...all one needs is a forklift truck on ground.

Singhaji this creative solution is a must during war - however this should not become an 'excuse' to prevent acquisition of true military freighters by the force. For example, instead of buying 10 IL-76 and 20 conversions, its better to buy 20 IL-76 instead. Military operations require quick embarkation and disembarkating of troops, vehicles, hardware and cargo which cannot be done be civilian freighters regardless of size.

I can forsee that if tentative MTA, C-17, IL-76XX purchases delay this situation will arise! IMHO we should immediately build a fleet of 2 sqn of C-130.

PS: HAL had done many cargo conversions for Israel IIRC

Anantz · Post by **Anantz** » 03 Nov 2009 16:11

geeth wrote: Please tell exactly what are the dramatic improvements that had happened to C-130J compared to C-130 - a transport plane with a cargo hold, cockpit, tyres and engines.

Well if you haven't checked the specs mentioned for the C-130J that India is buying, its EW suite and its avionics, it is more akin to the MC-130 Combat Talon,

And this is what wiki has to say about the normal C-130J

The C-130J is the newest version of the Hercules and the only model still in production. Externally similar to the classic Hercules in general appearance, the J model is a very different aircraft. These differences include new Rolls-Royce AE 2100 D3 turboprops with Dowty R391[2] composite scimitar propellers, digital avionics (including Head-Up Displays (HUDs) for each pilot) and reduced crew requirements (two pilots, one load master, and one Crew Chief—no navigator or flight engineer).

The aircraft can also be configured with the "enhanced cargo handling system". The system consists of a computerized loadmasters station from where the user can remotely control the under floor winch and also configure the flip floor system to palletized roller or flat floor cargo handling. Initially developed for the USAF, this system enables rapid role changes to be carried out and so extends the C-130J's time available to complete taskings.[3] These combined changes have improved performance over its C-130E/H siblings, such as 40% greater range, 21% higher maximum speed, and 41% shorter take-off distance

Well if after all this you say that it is the same 1950s C-130 then you have to be mistaken. I have seen the C-17 during Aero India '07 and Aero India '09, and I know how modern the C-17 is, compared to IL-76, ofcourse no offence, the IL-76 is a great aircraft in its own right, I agree with Aditya, the IAF wants C-17 to complement the IL-76 fleet in service, to increase the IAF, airlift capability.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Nov 2009 16:49

Singha wrote:not all missions need the low floor and bulbous volume + paradrop abilities of C17/Il76. a bunch of used but reliable A330 cargo planes even leased from holding cos could take over many of the missions the IL76 are flogged for on a daily basis. cargo is mostly in pallets anyway...all one needs is a forklift truck on ground.

Singha, the IA does use (was using?) IC aircraft for doing the mundane jobs like running courier services which transport men from major nodes like Chandigargh to Leh or from ND to NE (Binaguri/Borjhar). But for everything else, you'd need the trustworthy GAJRAJ and the SUTLEJ. And mind you, the verstality of a true blue trasnport aircraft cannot be matched by the civilian planes.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 03 Nov 2009 18:51

http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2009/11/3329
Hitting an air pocket

good one ....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Nov 2009 19:50

..that flawed article!?

just for one:-

but nevertheless airpower alone does not win wars. ..If it were so, the USA would have won in

flaw: its all USA centric analysis. Take for example Kargil, and decide for yourself.

By then, the fifth generation fighters would be entering the air forces of the world.

The question is whether our national security planners in the prime minister's office, ministry of defence and IAF have thought their way through on issues that will inevitably confront us when we are making choices?

IAF did not plan for MRCA keeping FGFA in mind.. but just keep the squadrons up for the next 50 years! of course there could be technology gain thrugh this mrca deal, and that is all for ToT we are tyring to have.

the author needs to get some basics correct.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 03 Nov 2009 20:13

SaiK wrote:..that flawed article!?

just for one:-
but nevertheless airpower alone does not win wars. ..If it were so, the USA would have won in
flaw: its all USA centric analysis. Take for example Kargil, and decide for yourself.

unfortunately soldiers lives were cheaper than cost of LGBs

and how many LGBs were dropped compared to ammo firing from bofors and katyushas?

jai · Post by **jai** » 03 Nov 2009 20:22

It deploys over 100 JH-7 fighter bombers that bear an uncanny resemblance to the US F-111. The JH-7 has two licence built Rolls Royce Spey MK202 engines and with a weapons load of about 9,000 kg and a combat radius of 1,800 km has the capability of striking deep into India from bases in Xinjiang, Tibet and Yunnan. The Chinese also have 120 Xian H-6 bombers derived from the well proven Russian TU-16 bomber. The H-6 can carry much more ordnance than the JH-7 and also has a combat radius of 1,800 km. The Chinese have modernised these bombers in the late 1990s with new avionics and mid-air refueling capability vastly enhancing their range. The IAF has nothing in comparison. This ability to strike deep into India without inviting a similar response gives the Chinese a clear strategic advantage.

With China, numbers will always be important. While there is only as many fighters that India can buy/produce in the next 10 years, current Chinese numerical superiority in terms of fighters & bombers as well as missiles is a well known fact/nightmare. What leaves me wondering is that while something seems to be happening to acquire/produce fighter aircraft, why would the babu's in defence ministry leave our air defence in such a sorry state ?? One would imagine that our decision makers would want to deploy very strong air defences knowing fully well that the next conflict would most likely involve both our neighbouring friendlies, if not the dragon alone, with main attacks comming from missiles and aerial strikes with our airfields and radars being key targets.
Why are we not mass producing and inducting S 400's/500's across our country ? Would a strong AD network not make the defence forces job of keeping the Dragon at bay easier ?
We seem to be missing something strategically here..or there is more than meets the eye...would the Guru's share some thoughts on this aspect ?
Also, could someone please point me to any earlier threads/information on AD ? Many thanks !

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 03 Nov 2009 21:50

Aditya Sir, A well phrsed post... Couldn't agree with you more.. My only gripe about the Heavy Lift deal is did we not find any other suitable military transporter for the role.. I mean there is no way that there is only aircraft that suits the category... Also on the no of tank battalions in ladakh region, I guess we won't be needing more than say 3-4 squadrons in the whole theater... As they are mostly holding forces not offensive forces... JMHO...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Nov 2009 22:02

Baldev wrote: unfortunately soldiers lives were cheaper than cost of LGBs

feel sorry that you should even look at it this way. /ot.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 04 Nov 2009 00:28

Stealing Lollipops from Babies
Business Standard

Stealing Lollipops from Babies
India's military has long suffered from flawed, inconsistent contracting
Ajai Shukla / New Delhi November 3, 2009, 0:58 IST

If India’s Military Eventually Plumps for primarily American Equipment, a major reason will be: soldiers, sailors and airmen are completely Sick of being Gypped through poorly-framed acquisition contracts that entirely favour the foreign suppliers.

Take India’s contract with BAE Systems, UK, for 66 Hawk Advanced Jet Trainers (AJTs), a billion-dollar procurement that took 18 years to finalise. That contract, it now emerges, was framed so poorly that today — with HAL Bangalore blaming BAE Systems for failing to properly transfer technology — India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) can do nothing to twist BAE Systems’ tail.

The MoD now finds that the Hawk contract contains no provisions for liquidated damages in case BAE Systems defaults on its obligations. And, in an act of inexplicable generosity, India’s MoD paid BAE Systems an unprecedented “up-front” amount of 30 per cent of the contract value; such a payment seldom, if ever, exceeds 15 per cent. Now, with more jet trainers needed and the production line facing delays, fresh inquiries have gone out to global manufacturers, restarting procurement afresh.

Why do such fiascos routinely occur? Astonishingly, because the MoD does not have the legal experts needed for negotiating and framing complex defence contracts. The MoD’s forlorn Legal Cell, manned by 10-12 lawyers on deputation from the Ministry of Law, comes up during the framing of every defence contract against a battery of specialised contracting experts, an integral part of the establishment of every global arms vendor.

This year, the Indian MoD’s beleaguered and inadequate legal team will oversee capital expenditure of more than Rs 50,000 crore. When the MoD finalises its choice of medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA), these less-than-legal-eagles will have to negotiate and frame a single contract worth Rs 50,000 crore. Supplementary contracts will be needed for governing offsets worth half that value again.

Within the MoD, alarm bells have long been sounding. The Solicitor General and the Attorney General have been approached for help in accessing top-class legal advice. But, so far, there has been no response.

The complexity of a defence contract is virtually unparalleled. A “standard contract” is rarely feasible because the usage of each piece of equipment is radically different. Being an international contract, reaching agreement on arbitration is always difficult, especially considering confidentiality and non-disclosure arrangements. Defining force majeure is extremely important, especially when governments can invoke national interest during the execution of a contract. The MoD’s civil servants deal routinely with such issues, but without the benefit of solid legal advice.

India’s military has long suffered from flawed and inconsistent contracting, especially with Russian suppliers. Since the early 1980s, India’s strike corps — the tank units that would spearhead a thrust into Pakistan during war — have faced frustrating shortages of on-board fitment equipment that an ethical defence vendor would supply as a part of the contract. In an instance that generated much resentment, India’s first T-72 tanks were supplied by Russia without the tarpaulin covers that keep out dust and rain. When the military asked for tarpaulins, Russia demanded a supplementary contract, eventually supplying them at highly inflated prices.

In some contracts, especially those involving the supply of “strategically important” equipment, the vendor has the leverage to ignore his contractual obligations. Russia’s shakedown of India over the cost of the Gorshkov is an example of the limitations of any contract. Linking the Gorshkov sale with the transfer of nuclear submarine technology, Russia dismissed the initial price as “unreal, a mistake”, and demanded a renegotiated price. But, in most defence procurements, a good contract guarantees satisfactory supply as well as a healthy buyer-seller relationship.

US defence companies are confident that the experience of contracting with them — with no hidden costs, superb product support, and a “partnership” approach towards the Indian users — will make a big impact on the Indian military. So far, contracting with the US has been relatively smooth, but it is still too early to tell.

The MoD’s lack of capability in defence contracting is just one, especially worrisome, dimension of a broad systemic incompetence in procuring defence equipment. As a Group of Ministers in April 2000, numerous committees and, most recently, an excellent CAG report pointed out, the MoD has failed to put in place a functionally specialised acquisition organisation to handle a task that is clearly far beyond current capabilities.

But instead of a coherent system, procurement continues under 13 different agencies, each reporting to a different functional head. Contracts, after they are concluded, are managed by four different agencies with very little co-ordination among them.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 04 Nov 2009 02:15

http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2009/11/3329
Hitting an air pocket

good one ....

The Article says we are going to order 70-90 new MKI ....

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Nov 2009 09:34

Bala Vignesh wrote:Aditya Sir, A well phrsed post... Couldn't agree with you more.. My only gripe about the Heavy Lift deal is did we not find any other suitable military transporter for the role.. I mean there is no way that there is only aircraft that suits the category... Also on the no of tank battalions in ladakh region, I guess we won't be needing more than say 3-4 squadrons in the whole theater... As they are mostly holding forces not offensive forces... JMHO...

how did you manage to come up with this (bolded part) gem of a conclusion?

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 04 Nov 2009 13:31

Don't mean to interrupt but this news maynot have been posted here.

india buys harop ucav

Usually launched from ground- or sea-based canisters, the “Harop” can be also be adapted for air-launch. The Harop is a vehicle launched, UAV controlled by a remote operator and capable of flying more than 1,000 kilometers and loitering for hours with a 51 pound warhead. Like the autonomous Harpy, the UAV is primarily geared toward the Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) role. It features two modes of guidance to the target. One is homing-in on radio emissions with its anti-radar homing system, or unlike the Harpy, have its operator select static or moving targets with the drones electro-optical (TV) sensor. Using the operator mode, targets can be hit regardless of whether they emit signals or not. This line of sight capability can be used at ranges up to 150 kilometers or
longer using relays built into each weapon.

Can be air-launched. however its a self-destruct ucav.livemint

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 04 Nov 2009 17:12

Dhruv handed over to Mauritius by Shashi Tharoor

http://twitter.com/ShashiTharoor/status/5392582838

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 04 Nov 2009 17:20

Is it possible to bring the HAROP in safely if it is deemed that it is not to be used? Or is it a single fire and forget weapon like say an intelligent JDAM.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 04 Nov 2009 17:43

The self destruct UAV's are not really all that useful if SAM's can just shoot them down. Do they have the ability to carry EW packages on them as well so they can be effective even over hostile skies ? Spending 10 million dollars per UAV to self destruct isnt really effective if they can be easily brought down with SAM's,

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 04 Nov 2009 18:55

Gagan my guess would be that Harop is not a true UCAV and has more in common with loitering munition technology.

It may not have a classy or intimidating name, but I’m sure that robots speak of the HAROP loitering munition with great respect – or perhaps fear - when they… get together for, um, poker night. Israel Aerospace Industries’ bad boy is a remote-controlled, unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) that can be deployed from a mobile launcher. It can be fitted with steerable color or infrared cameras so that it can provide recon. But the creepiest thing about the HAROP – also called Harpy 2 – is that it can hurl itself at a target, setting off 50 lbs of onboard explosives in the process to make sure that it kills the target dead, while minimizing collateral damage.

The HAROP can stay on air for up to 6 hours, plenty of time to select a target within its 620 mi range. So you can deploy it from another city way ahead of time, and have it wait for a target to come out or pass by, then BOOM. Haropped.

I do not want to die that way. If you feel the same way, then you’d better not piss off India or Germany in some royal manner, because both countries recently bought a bunch of HAROPs.

another link

ideal for low-intensity conflicts like anti-insurgency. Its not for larger conflicts even though i may be wrong because its profile mentions SEAD!!

Its a sniper rifle not an assault rifle (hopefully u got what i meant). Ideal for taking out a soft target not expecting such a strike!

shivendrashukla · Post by **shivendrashukla** » 04 Nov 2009 19:07

Gagan wrote:The ARC has a 76?
I thought they had that Gulfstream and B 737 (and now the PM's B737). Is this the detachment based at IGI? One can see a few 76's parked there always.

I think they have 3 IL-76's. Couple of Gulfstreams, B707 (ex AI), one An-32. Not sure about the 737. ARC hangar is bang opposite Palam technical area apron.