Indian Military Aviation

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 08 Jan 2010 17:31

With respect to backfires, India wanted to 'lease' 4 of them whereas Russia said not intrested but willing to SELL instead. They matter died down there only.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Jan 2010 18:01

Marut wrote:Supposed to have been part of the package order with the Gorky and the two Nerpas. Karnad's book talked about the IN getting them but no one else is talking, so no confirmation, no denial (yet!).

his book talked about blackjacks for IAF (not IN) IIRC !

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jan 2010 18:34

What will IAF do with Blackjack ? We do not have a concept of Intercontinental Strategic Bombing coz we do not have any enemies across the continent

But Tu-22M3 would have been useful for Paki mass bombing with 24T payload and 2000km Radius.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Jan 2010 18:39

dunno, I was surprised too. I assumed may be it was a goof-up on BK's part but then you never know. who knows, probably they wanted to hit south china overflying northern myanmar !

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jan 2010 21:13

Kartik wrote:Boeing is reporting that India has submitted a request for a possible C-17 order.

Looks like this thing is going through in quite a hurry and a possible FMS sale route.

anyway, from a jingo's perspective, if the IAF gets something, its a whole lot better than going through a lengthy tender process, followed by a long competition, followed by someone raising an objection, followed by cancellation, followed by a year's delay, followed by another re-tendering and the whole process repeating itself leading to half a decade's delay if not more.

Boeing says, India keen to acquire 10 C-17 aircraft

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 08 Jan 2010 22:51

MCA

f the MCA went the LCA way, it would be not just unacceptable to the air force, but an act of criminal disregard for the country's security. "Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane. That is the job before you,"

I KINDA LIKE IT..!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jan 2010 23:20

So essentially the IAF accepts the fact that what it needs from ADA as NGFA is a first rate 4th Gen plane or 4++ gen fighter designed and built by India.

While the FGFA/PAK-FA remains a clear 5th Gen fighter in IAF mind , this is clear some mystery around NGFA and FGFA.

This is good as that brings more reality into the project where what ADA and Industry can do is kept in mind and some stealth tech is incorporated from design stage.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Jan 2010 23:25

The positive point that I find from the article is that IAF is pushing DRDO to deliver what it wants and is not ready to make any compromise on that, this will have a very positive impact on Indian R&D.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Jan 2010 23:34

from the above article.

Two months later, in October 2008, the name of the MCA programme was changed (on recommendation to the Secretary, Defence Production) to "Next Generation Fighter Aircraft", though MCA continues to be used alternatively without any particular distinction.

As per official documentation by the IAF, it wants the MCA to be a twin-pilot configured {even in this one ? that's a little strange.} multirole stealth aircraft capable of "close air support, all weather interception, air defence suppression, long-range strike, electronic attack, limited command & control and reconnaisance" -- that's the profile from an official IAF wishlist to the ADA last year. That might roll right off the air force's tongue, like off a brochure, but they're deadly serious. Putting all speculation to rest when it officially began dialogue about the MCA in 2008, the IAF said it was not willing to look at a strike aircraft with other capabilities. It wants a fully multirole (preferably, swingrole) aircraft for the job.

building a tech demonstrator, three prototype vehicles and two production series trial jets -- the wind tunnel model unveiled at Yelahanka in February 2009 is largely what the aircraft will look like, though there are three other variants that have not been displayed yet {were those close to what we saw in that old presentation slide ?}. A twin-engine delta planfrom version, which was a direct derivative from the LCA, has since been shelved -- low observable requirements demanded a fully new airframe approach,

the following work has begun on the MCA in full earnest: DARE, Bangalore has appointed a special team to begin identifying avionics and cockpit packages for the first prototype vehicle, and will supply this in published form to the ADA by July 2010. This will include cockpit electronics, cockpit configuration, man-machine interface, mission console systems and computers/software with a focus on data fusion and modular architecture. The LRDE will, in about the same time frame, provide a separate project proposal for an all new radar, to be re-designated for the MCA, as a derivative of the MMR currently being completed with technology from Israel's ELTA. LRDE will independently look in the market for a partner for active array technology, though it communicated to ADA in June 2009 that it had sufficient R&D available to build a reliable AESA prototype with assistance from Bharat Electronics Ltd and two private firms based in Hyderabad.

---------------

The positive point that I find from the article is that IAF is pushing DRDO to deliver what it wants and is not ready to make any compromise on that, this will have a very positive impact on Indian R&D.

exactly, there's a clear difference how the current IAF brass and last few approach desi industry and how the ones in pre 2005 days did. unless IAF has a stake in the program it is destined to be an also ran.

Austin wrote:So essentially the IAF accepts the fact that what it needs from ADA as NGFA is a first rate 4th Gen plane or 4++ gen fighter designed and built by India.

don't know about that. does look like the description of a 5-gen fighter to me. AFA IAF goes it seems they don't care which gen it is, as long as it fills their requirement. and those don't look too backward to me.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Jan 2010 23:41

MCA brochure from AI-009 for comparison.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 08 Jan 2010 23:42

The IAF seems t be very serious about a 100% Indian NGFA even if it wouldn't be a pure 5th gen a/c. If so, the IAF could have waited to get a good look at winning MMRCA contender and then decide upon the final configuration/avionics package of MCA. Until then DRDO can be working on the required technologies through LCA Mk-2 and preliminary funding for the project.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 08 Jan 2010 23:48

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 09 Jan 2010 00:01

KrishG wrote:The IAF seems t be very serious about a 100% Indian NGFA even if it wouldn't be a pure 5th gen a/c.

It wants a pure 5th gen aircraft

As per official documentation by the IAF, it wants the MCA to be a twin-pilot configured multirole stealth aircraft capable of "close air support, all weather interception, air defence suppression, long-range strike, electronic attack, limited command & control and reconnaisance" -- that's the profile from an official IAF wishlist to the ADA last year.

These are the requirements of a 5th gen aircraft AFAIK

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 09 Jan 2010 00:05

FGFA/PAK-FA = F-22 in the western standard.
NGFA/MCA = F-35
As far as setting the requirements, it'll be a feat of sorts if they have this up and running by 2020, as it means they have this developed in 10 years (highly doubtful, but again could be in for a surprise!)

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 09 Jan 2010 00:26

Craig Alpert wrote:FGFA/PAK-FA = F-22 in the western standard.
NGFA/MCA = F-35
As far as setting the requirements, it'll be a feat of sorts if they have this up and running by 2020, as it means they have this developed in 10 years (highly doubtful, but again could be in for a surprise!)

they are looking in flying the first TD 2015 at the latest.{industry was just lacking the manpower,else sharing the work force is no big deal for high-end projects)

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 09 Jan 2010 00:36

jaladipc wrote: they are looking in flying the first TD 2015 at the latest.{industry was just lacking the manpower,else sharing the work force is no big deal for high-end projects)

hmm.. 2015 eh?? might be for an IOC, but I don't see how they can, design, test and get an FOC in the next 5 years even when the article says that they will formalize the requirements around July of 2010 for cockpit and electronics... But if you have sources

that say 2015 then I guess i'll take it for what it's worth (with a pinch of salt)
but nonetheless.. a request to MODS, can I create a MCA/NGFA thread to keep all that information consistent?? If so I'd like to create one, unless someone else jumps on that bandwagon..

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 09 Jan 2010 00:55

Craig Alpert wrote: hmm.. 2015 eh?? might be for an IOC, but I don't see how they can, design, test and get an FOC in the next 5 years even when the article says that they will formalize the requirements around July of 2010 for cockpit and electronics... But if you have sources that say 2015 then I guess i'll take it for what it's worth (with a pinch of salt)

I wouldn't believe it is possible to secure full funding for the project before 2012-13. The MoD will probably wait until the LCA-Mk 2 program nears completion of it's development phase and then go through with the NGFA. Until then it will probably be like 50-100 crores per years for "developing necessary technologies".

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jan 2010 01:04

craig, he said first flight, IOC comes many years after that.

for the thread, please wait till the project is officially sanctioned by GOI, which hasn't happened so far. I think at the rate they are going that might happen in 2011 at the earliest.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 09 Jan 2010 02:23

WRT to the backfires, blackjacks & BK, here is what I understood from book/article snippets and posts on BR (so take it FWIW)

- As part of the effort to develop the triad, we wanted the backfires.
- Rus pitched the blackjacks since they had some 'excess' inventory.
- IN claimed dibs on the backfires so as to have a delivery platform in its force to complete the triad. This found some traction in govt circles.
- IAF sensing this plumped for the blackjacks as IN couldn't justify holding the inter continental strategic bomber.
- Now to this melee, add the masala of Rus wanting to sell & India wanting to lease.
- As I said earlier, no one is talking confirming or denying anything

- BK's book was the most authoritative source I have for all this. And as pointed out there seems to be some discrepancy in it as well.

So one can choose to believe what they want and no one is going to contradict them!

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 09 Jan 2010 02:26

Rahul M wrote:craig, he said first flight, IOC comes many years after that.

for the thread, please wait till the project is officially sanctioned by GOI, which hasn't happened so far. I think at the rate they are going that might happen in 2011 at the earliest.

I stand corrected. Jaladipic my apologies for not reading the "TD."

No worries on the thread, 2011-2012 we'll be around (knock on wood!)

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Jan 2010 05:37

Austin wrote:So essentially the IAF accepts the fact that what it needs from ADA as NGFA is a first rate 4th Gen plane or 4++ gen fighter designed and built by India.

While the FGFA/PAK-FA remains a clear 5th Gen fighter in IAF mind , this is clear some mystery around NGFA and FGFA.

This is good as that brings more reality into the project where what ADA and Industry can do is kept in mind and some stealth tech is incorporated from design stage.

Whatever India gains from PAK-FA program, will be incorporated in the MCA program. So if the PAK-FA manages to be just a 4++++ gen fighter you can expect MCA to be of that level. Whatever be the outcome, politically, Russia wants to call the PAK-FA as 5th gen fighter. We dont have that compulsion. We don’t know still, how much technology fusion going to happen from MMRCA program. MMRCA will definitely be a western aircraft. To absorb all the tech of FGFA and MMRCA efficiently one needs a running program. In that way it is a welcome move.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jan 2010 06:10

IAF bang on target for the most two important specification aspect!

He said it didn't matter what the DRDO was learning from who at this stage. When it came down to putting the nails in, he said he wanted a fully Indian radar on the MCA.

However, technologies such as single crystal and nickel-based superalloys in turbofans are still some way off as far as Indian development is concerned -- the IAF wants the use of both to be a given in the engines that power the MCA.

So, its important either DRDO does it, or gets it done by some one else [contract]. they better start this work along with MRCA supplier list, and engage a couple of them.

The weakest point now is the K, followed by the radar. Very clearly clarified by IAF.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Jan 2010 06:25

If one can see...

FGFA ------- 250 (projected)
MCA ------- 250 (projected)
MRCA ------ 126 (confirmed)
Su-30 ------ 280 (confirmed)
LCA ---------100+(confirmed)

Makes a total of 1000+ a/c , ~ 45 sqd strength. And someone up the ante with the projection of 60 sqd strength, hmm.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 09 Jan 2010 07:04

MoD Cancels Contract for Mid-Air Refuelling Aircraft

While fresh bids will now be called and more contenders are expected to take part in the new process, European giant Airbus will still be in the fray for the contract. Its Closest Competitor will be Boeing, which is also offering a Similar Sized Refueling Aircraft.

However, the IAF has made it clear that it is not in favour of continuing the Russian origin IL 78 aircraft as its mid-air tanker of the Future. The Russian aircraft was the only other contender in the ongoing contract but was rejected by the IAF which found the Airbus a Superior Tanker.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Jan 2010 07:41

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/04/ ... ombat.html

The ADA Director points out, “None of the MMRCA contenders will be state-of-the-art in 2015-2017. But the MCA will; it will incorporate the technologies of the future, which currently feature only on the US Air Force’s F-22 Raptor.”

sum · Post by **sum** » 09 Jan 2010 09:11

However, the IAF has made it clear that it is not in favour of continuing the Russian origin IL 78 aircraft as its mid-air tanker of the Future. The Russian aircraft was the only other contender in the ongoing contract but was rejected by the IAF which found the Airbus a Superior Tanker.

So, who will blink first, the IAF or the MoD?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Jan 2010 09:18

However, the IAF has made it clear that it is not in favour of continuing the Russian origin IL 78 aircraft as its mid-air tanker of the Future. The Russian aircraft was the only other contender in the ongoing contract but was rejected by the IAF which found the Airbus a Superior Tanker.

There hasn't been any news about the IAF being dissatisfied with the IL-78 since the birds came in. Generally our media jumps on news like that. So where did this opposition to the IL-78 suddenly come from?
From the logistics point of view having two different types of tankers in the small tanker fleet that we have makes no sense.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Jan 2010 09:41

I thought that the reason was the Airbus was dual -transport (pallets) and tanker and IL 78 was not

Someone can confirm that?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 09 Jan 2010 12:37

Surya wrote:I thought that the reason was the Airbus was dual -transport (pallets) and tanker and IL 78 was not

Someone can confirm that?

Il-78 is very much transport capable and includes a rear loading ramp to boot. There is a very large fuel tank in the fuselage but that can be removed.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 09 Jan 2010 15:12

Rolls-Royce, HAL plan JV for engine components
http://www.livemint.com/2010/01/0721324 ... for-e.html

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Jan 2010 15:27

Finally some sense ! CNC has cleared the follow-on order for 57 Hawks for the IAF and IN. the whole natak with the RFI to companies for a new AJT is hopefully over and behind us. it really had started to appear like a circus with almost every single aviation company in the world either holding one RFI or having replied to an RFP from the IAF, IA and IN.

article link

he 57 Advanced Jet Trainers (AJT), the Hawk Mk-132 from the BAE Systems of UK, the deal which was held up earlier over price, has been cleared by the commercial negotiation committee (CNC) of the Ministry of Defence and has sent the Rs 9400 crore deal to the Ministry of Finance, before it goes to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

As per the deal Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), will make the aircraft under license production with BAE and Rolls Royce of UK, where BAE will provide the avionics and Rolls Royce will give the engine for the aircraft, of which 40 are for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and 17 for the Indian Navy.

The deal has to be cleared by the Ministry of Finance (MoF), which is likely this month, after which the CCS approval will come. The contract falls under Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP)-2006, in the category 'Buy and Make', though the request for information (RFI) was sent to six vendors across the globe by the MoD, which are the Czech-built Aero Vodochody L-159 Alca (advanced light combat aircraft), Alenia Aermachhi M-346, Russian MiG AT and YAK-130, American Lockheed Martin T-50 Golden Eagle, and the UK BAE Systems for its new variant of the Hawk, which is Hawk-128. But the Hawk Mk-132 was shortlisted, which is already in the inventory of the IAF, as per an old contract for 66 aircraft, of which BAE has supplied 24 and the remaining 42 to be made by HAL under license.

arun · Post by **arun** » 09 Jan 2010 15:33

Boeing Press Release.

India has formally requested 10 C-17 Globemaster III's:

India Submits Letter of Request for Potential Boeing C-17 Order

India Submits Letter of Request for Potential Boeing C-17 Order LONG BEACH, Calif., Jan. 8, 2010 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] announced today that the U.S. government has received a Letter of Request from India's Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Indian Air Force regarding the potential acquisition of 10 C-17 Globemaster III advanced airlifters.

"Boeing is very pleased that the Indian government has expressed interest in acquiring the C-17 to modernize its airlift capabilities, and we look forward to working closely with them," said Vivek Lall, vice president and India country head, Boeing Defense, Space & Security. "We believe the C-17 can fulfill India's needs for military and humanitarian airlift to help it meet its growing domestic and international responsibilities."

The C-17 conducted demonstration flights in February at Aero India 2009 in Bangalore, where members of the MOD and Indian Air Force had the opportunity to see the aircraft's capabilities in action. The Indian Air Force wants to replace and augment its fleet of Russian-made AN-32 and IL-76 airlifters.

"Nations looking to modernize their airlift capabilities turn to the C-17 because it has the highest reliability and mission-capable rate of any airlift aircraft," added Tommy Dunehew, Boeing Global Mobility Systems vice president of Business Development. "It is available right now, without any development risk. Plus, the C-17 is an acquisition success story, with deliveries on or ahead of schedule for the past decade."

A tactical and strategic airlifter, only the C-17 can carry large combat equipment and troops or humanitarian aid across international distances and deliver them directly to small austere airfields anywhere in the world. It can land combat-ready troops on semi-prepared runways or airdrop them directly into the fight. The C-17's ability to back up allows it to operate on narrow taxiways and congested ramps. With a payload of up to 170,000 pounds, the C-17 can take off and land in 3,000 feet or less. ....................

Boeing

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jan 2010 16:50

saw an article somewhere that A400M made its first flight. but airbus has warned the EU they need more money else the pgm will need to be scrapped or something.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 09 Jan 2010 20:56

KrishG wrote:The IAF seems t be very serious about a 100% Indian NGFA even if it wouldn't be a pure 5th gen a/c.

As per official documentation by the IAF, it wants the MCA to be a twin-pilot configured multirole stealth aircraft capable of "close air support, all weather interception, air defence suppression, long-range strike, electronic attack, limited command & control and reconnaisance"

To me it looks like it is medium category version of F 22 raptor specially last 2/3 requirements

Also I think it makes clear INDIA will have 2 5th gen program paralleled. That put end to confusion that MCA will be incorporated in FGFA itself which was discussed in the same thread few pages ago

Just my 2 cents

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 09 Jan 2010 21:15

Good view of the gun pod on Hawk

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QKkSf03VuFY/S ... CN0926.JPG

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 09 Jan 2010 23:28

Surya
With the Il-78 you can either carry cargo/troops or carry fuel for IFR, so you have to convert from one to the other. The Airbus offers the possibility of achieving both simultaneously. Plus you have the advantage of fuel economy, longer range, and greater payload with the Airbus, and lower downtime.

George J · Post by **George J** » 10 Jan 2010 00:18

I am sure the IAF knows what its doing....but I am still trying to figure out WHY should an aircraft tasked to be refueler also need to take 285 people or 43 tons of cargo.....unless they are traveling to overseas exercise (Red Flag, Cope Thunder etc). If you are tasked to fuel aircraft then that is your PRIMARY task, you are not going to "pick up groceries", drop the kids off and then refuel. Either you are on station or you are not on station. If you are on station your JOB is to transfer fuel. What are the 285 passengers going to do at that time? Unless it is a special ops a/c which can air drop assets and refuel at the same time. I am not seen any reference that the 330MRTT can do that.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 10 Jan 2010 00:22

George J wrote:I am sure the IAF knows what its doing....but I am still trying to figure out WHY should an aircraft tasked to be refueler also need to take 285 people or 43 tons of cargo.....unless they are traveling to overseas exercise (Red Flag, Cope Thunder etc). If you are tasked to fuel aircraft then that is your PRIMARY task, you are not going to "pick up groceries", drop the kids off and then refuel. Either you are on station or you are not on station. If you are on station your JOB is to transfer fuel. What are the 285 passengers going to do at that time? Unless it is a special ops a/c which can air drop assets and refuel at the same time. I am not seen any reference that the 330MRTT can do that.

Couldn't they be just looking for a multi-role plane?

George J · Post by **George J** » 10 Jan 2010 00:40

The MKI can carry any combination of aerodynamically acceptable payload on its hard points-A2A, A2G, A2Ship, Recon, ESM...and the latest buddy refuel. And to do its job it does not need to LAND. If it has the right payload for the task it will be use at any task.

The 330MRTT has to LAND to offload passengers and cargo, it cannot air drop. This means if you want to refuel then:
1) the MRTT must be tasked to meet the a/c needing fuel (which means there is no point carry cargo or passengers during that specific sortie)
2) the MRTT just happens to be in vicinity of an a/c needing fuel while its flying a cargo/passenger sortie. So whatever logistics mission its on can wait till the fuel is transferred.

So it can only do ONE task at a time. Unless its going to Red Flag or ..........part of an expeditionary force with fighter escorts.

But even then it has to land to off load....so if it can land then the airstrip is secure.......then whats the need for a fighter escort.

So the only real utility that I see of its multi-role is going for exercises where you can cut down on a dedicated cargo IL-76. If anyone can think of any other application, I would like to know.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Jan 2010 00:46

what if it needs to transport equipment and fuel (to be offloaded)to some place??

Didn;t we use an IL 78 to transport fuel to J&K??