IAF vs PAF: Some observations on attrition

[Rupak]

Much has been made of the PAF's impecable sfatey record, or conversely, the IAF dismal record. A snapshot of attrition rates for the two airforces covering the period of the early 1990s demonstrates that the myth of the PAF's superior safety record is just that; a myth.<P>In a rare moment of weakness the Pakistanis seem to have published some interesting figures for the PAF's attrition rate (expressed as numer of accidents per 10,000 flying hours). These figures were taken from a recent article by Air Marshal (Retd.) Ayaz Ahmad Khan on PIADS.<P>Year Attrition Rate <BR>1991 1.89 Per 10,000 flying hours.<BR>1992 1.11 -//-<BR>1993 1.41 -//-<BR>1994 1.23 -//-<BR>1995 1.32 -//-<BR>1996 1.25 -//-<BR>1997 1.40 -//-<P>It would be nice if we had a breakdown of the actual number of accidents and flying hours for each of these years. <P>Since we have no information with which to assign weights to the annual averages in order to come up with a figure for the period 1991-1997, we are forced to use a simple average. This works out to an attrition rate of 1.37 per 10,000 hours.<P>The Indian figures for the same period (covered by the Kalam report) are<BR>1. Total Accidents = 187<BR>2. Total Flying hours =1,523,005 hours <BR>Annual breakdown<BR>1991-92 256,200 hrs<BR>1992-93 238,000 hrs<BR>1993-94 239,000 hrs<BR>1994-95 249,000 hrs<BR>1995-96 265,300 hrs<BR>1996-97 275,505 hrs<P>This works out to an attrition rate of 1.22 per 10,000 hours for the corresponding period. A figure actually lower than the PAF, even if one were to use a weighted average as a point of reference. Note that the term "accidents" covers repairable aircraft.<P>Furthermore Ayaz Khan writes that in a 19 month period from January 1997 (i.e. upto August 1998) the PAF flew 110,000 hours and suffered 11 major accidents. An attrition rate of 1 per 10,000 hours.<P>While we do not know the exact number of flying hours for the IAF in that 19 month period we can use flying hours from the years 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 to come up a with a reasonable estimate. <BR>In 1997-1998 the IAF logged 306,000 hours and in 1998-1999 logged 311,000 hours. For the sake of argument let us assume that the IAF logged 181,416 hours during the first 7 months of 1998. Hence for the 19 month period begining Jan 1997 the IAF logged a total 487,416 hours. During this period the IAF suffered 21 (7 in 1997 + 14 in first seven months of 1998, based on PIADS own figures) accidents. This translates into a loss rate of 0.43 per 10,000 hours. An attriton rate that is 43% of the PAF's.<P>Any comments welcome.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by rupak (edited 09-12-1999).]

[Vikram Rathore]

Good show....<P>The other thing that strikes me is that the IAF seems to be flying almost 4 times as many hours as the PAF! Given that the ratio of number of aircraft is between 2 and 3:1 in favour of the IAF, this should also demolish the other PAF myth of flying many more hours and therefore being better trained than the IAF..

[Nikhil Shah]

thats, how do you say, damn good analysis!!<P>Lets post this on the TSP Forum and get their reaction.

[Amit Mitra]

It might be good for us to let Pakistan and China continue to underestimate us. When war comes, the truth, not perception will Triumph<P>- Satyameva Jayate

[Rupak]

Guys<P>I am afraid that PLAAF figures are very hard to come by. In fact I know of no published sources for their attrition figures.<P>As an interesting comparison, IIRC the USAF had its safest year this year with 55 "Category A" accidents (i.e. aircraft destroyed) which works out to ~1.5 per 100,000 hours (note: hundred thousand _not_ ten thousand). I don't know about other categories of accidents. Let me re-confirm the 1.5 figure tomorrow.<BR>

[Nikhil Shah]

I feel extremely comfortable calling India the KIng of IT. With our drive for modernizing the Armed Forces, we should get more simulator for our boys. I bet we can crank these babies up in on time. That would give them extra pratice without the fear of losing the aircraft or the life of our pilots.

[Rupak]

Vikram<BR>The 4.4:1 ratio of flying hour between the PAF is attritbutable in part to the IAF's very active transport and chopper fleets. The PAF's transport fleet is about a tenth the size of ours and the bulk of their choppers are operated by the Army. Even so, you would probably fighter hours ratio of 3:1. I do have some figures for the IAF flying hours by type, but none for the PAF. Hence making any accurate comparisons is rather difficult.<P>

[Michael]

Vikram Rathore - actually, the size ratio of IAF vs. PAF is about 1.5:1, that is 750 IAF combat aircraft vs. 500 PAF combat aircraft. So, apparently IAF pilots are getting more flying hours, at least on their own aircraft, but the vast amount of flying hours the PAF pilots get with the air fleets of various Gulf states should not be underestimated. In the end, it may be the PAF which has the most flying hours. <P>I'm very curious if anyone has figures on how many hours the PAF pilots log over in the Gulf? And how many PAF pilots go to the Gulf each year? Do they do a 1 year tour? Or rotate back and forth regularly?<P>Very interested to know exactly how they(PAF) do business over there.

[rama]

Michael, <P> I am curious to know about your 750:500 combat fleet estimates. PIADS lists PAF combat aircraft inventory (including combat capable trainers) to be 476, of which 50 are F-6's and another 50 are A-5's. Both of these types have, for a while now, been slated to be decomissioned by the PAF. <P> BR lists IAF fleet strength to be 888 combat aircraft + 130 combat capable trainers in 1999. Of the IAF fleet, about a 100 odd Mig-21 FL's may be considered ineffective, but that still leaves IAF with a 2:1 advantage. <P>

[Michael]

rama - yeah I didn't notice that discrepancy. I got my figures from here: <A HREF="http://www.alphalink.com.au/~bjordan/airforce14.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.alphalink.com.au/~bjordan/airforce14.htm</A> <P>This site used Jane's World Air Power for its figures, I believe. <P>Here's the breakdown:<BR>Su-30MKI - 10<BR>Mig-29 - 66<BR>Jaguar - 110<BR>Mirage 2000 - 35<BR>MiG-27 - 120<BR>MiG-23 - 80<BR>MiG-21 - 244<BR>MiG-25 - 8<BR>Mi-24 - 12<BR>Mi-35 - 20<BR>Harrier - 12<P>This actually comes out to 717 combat aircraft, but I just rounded off to 750 because of the new deals going through for Mirage 2000's and SU-30 production which should put more aircraft in the Indian inventory very soon.<P>Anyway this disagrees with the BR stats but I think part of the reason is a difference in what aircraft are deemed "combat aircraft".

[Philip]

An interesting note from AWST about Chinese capabilities.It said that while the Israeli,Indian and paki pilots flew their aircraft to the limits of their envelope to master them,the Chinese rarely if ever flew their aircraft in similar fsashion ,because their pilots did not want anything to go wrong and get the stick on the ground!

[Rupak]

Guys:<P>If you exclude reserves (i.e. peacetime availability) the IAF can put 700+ fighters in the air. War time availability has historically been higher.<P>Micheal:<P>Those figures under report the size of the MiG-27 fleet. Janes, for some reason, still lists six MiG-27 Sqns, when infact there are 9. At a minimum that means a u/e of 144 aircraft. And if you included reserves held sqn level you are looking a 180 aircraft.

[Jagan]

Rupak, an interesting analysis, but the obvious questions arise.<P>India , due to its size and nature of duties, the non-combat wings i.e. the transports and choppers will fly a proportionately highter number of hours in the total hours logged by the IAF. applying the figures individually to fighter attrition, transport attrition and chopper attrtiion would present a better perspective of the IAF Attrition rate so that it can be compared. the same needs to be done to the PAF Rate too. This will enable us to identify the area where we lag.

[Rupak]

Jagan<P>I agree. I noted concerns about that in a reply to Vikram. The problem is that while a breakdown exists for IAF flying hours by type, getting a hold of PAF stats is a toughie. In that sense the Air Marshal's piece is heaven sent.<P>Rupak<p>[This message has been edited by rupak (edited 10-12-1999).]

[Bishwa]

Rupak,<BR> PIADS lists only 3 aircraft lost in 1997. This is from <I> <A HREF="http://www.piads.com.pk/attritionpaf97.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.piads.com.pk/attritionpaf97.html</A> </I><P> At a attrition level of 1.4 aircraft lost per 10000 hours for 1997, that works out to be just 21428 hours of total flying. <P> <BR> Compare this with the It is worth mentioning that PAF aircraft had collectively flown over 110,000 flying hours since January 1997.<BR> <BR> This works out to be 69468 Hours/Year. So if both figures are to be taken at face value, the conclusion is the PAF flew just 21428 hours in 1997 and flew 88572 hours in 1998 upto Aug. At that rate they would have clocked a stupendous 151837 hours in 1998. <P><p>[This message has been edited by bishwa (edited 10-12-1999).]

[Rupak]

Bishwa<P>I did see their list. They either haven't done their homework, or they do not know the correct level of attrition, or both. I am inclined to believe it is both.

[Rupak]

Let's do another small exercise based on PIADS figures <P>The breakdown between fighters and transport/helicopters in the PAF is approximately 85:15.<P>Let us over-estimate the number of hours that that PAF fighters put in during the 19 month period from January 1997, so that they are alloted 90% of the flying hours. This works out to 99,000 hours. Furthermore, Air Mrashal Khan says:<BR><I>The PAF accident rate for 1997 till August 98 was 1 aircraft per 10,000 flying hours, and is a tribute to the high expertise and dedication of technicians, engineers and <B>professional excellence of PAF fighter pilots.</B></I><P>This would indicate that the 11 losses were indeed all fighters. However, since this is not conclusive let us use a lower figure (in the ratio of fighters to rest). This works out to 9 fighters.<P>Based on this figure the PAF's fighter attrition rate for the 19 month period works out to 0.90. If we use 8 fighters, then the figure is a corresponding 0.80.<P>Now for the IAF. The IAF's fleet breakdown (fighters vs. rest) is approxiamtely 65:35.<P>Let us over-estimate the amount of hours the "rest" fly @ 50% of total estimated flying hours for the period. <P>This means that the fighters logged up about 243,708 flying hours during the period. During this period the IAF lost 4 fighters in 1997 and 12 fighters during the first seven months of 1998.<P>This means that the loss rate for fighters was 0.65 per 10,000 hours. A figure still lower than the PAF's.<P>JMT<p>[This message has been edited by rupak (edited 10-12-1999).]

[advitya]

[rama]

Michael, <P> The other major discrepancy between Janes and BR is in the number of Mig-21's. IAF operates Mig-21FL's, Mig-21M's and Mig-21bis'es. BR lists 10 squadrons of Mig-21bis, 3 each of Mig-21M and Mig-21FL and in addition 80 combat capable Mig21 trainers for approximately 400 Mig-21's. <P> With 240 Mig-21's IAF would barely have 12 squadrons & no trainers.

[Calvin]

Rupak: Why does the US have an order of magnitude lower problems. Are most of these problems bird hit and hydraulic?

[P Smith]

USAF crash/mishap statistics for FY'98 - <A HREF="http://www-afsc.saia.af.mil/magazine/ht ... mjan99.pdf" TARGET=_blank>http://www-afsc.saia.af.mil/magazine/ht ... n99.pdf</A> <P>Warning: it's huge - I'm not sure if it includes the ANG as well. The numbers for this year are found in the current issue <A HREF="http://www-afsc.saia.af.mil/magazine/ht ... mnov99.pdf" TARGET=_blank>http://www-afsc.saia.af.mil/magazine/ht ... v99.pdf</A>

[shiv]

Good work rupak<P>While it is painful to have to compare ourselves with the piddly terrorist state, it is unfortunately necessary to do so in the interest of truth - at least to reveal to the Pakistanis that there is a concept known as the "the truth"<P>

[Bishwa]

Well going by PIADS figures of 3 aircraft lost in 1997 and AAKs figures of 1.4 aircraft lost per 10000 Hrs of flying we can conclude that the PAF put in a mere 21428 hrs of flying in 1997. Assuming a 90% fighter time, that comes out to be 19285 Hrs on fighters.<P>Assuming PAF has 2 pilots per plane, for 450 planes they will have 900 pilots. Assuming 75% of these pilots are fighter pilots it comes to a figure of 675 fighter pilots.<P>Hence these fighter pilots must have put in only a mere 28 Hrs of flying on an average in 1997. Even if 50% of the pilots were training on Gulf planes, the rest must have put in a mere 56 Hrs in that year.<P>Oh jeez is this what the fabled PAF is made up of? <P><p>[This message has been edited by bishwa (edited 10-12-1999).]

[Rupak]

Calvin<P>LNS correctly identifies the IAF’s major challenges – mantainence and extreme operating conditions.<P>Here are some random some more random thoughts.<P>Bird strikes were a major factor into the early 1990s and accounted for almost 30% of the IAF’s attrition losses between 1987-1992. While this is still a significant problems, the IAF’s adoption of medium level strike doctrine has gone a long way in ameliorating this. As far as hydaulic failures are concerned, these are mainly the result of poor QM practices at HAL.<P>As the fleet (MiG-21s) have aged mantaience problems have become signifciant. This is not because the IAF’s own mainatince practices are poor, but because of the difficulties associated with age. The IAF has 4 units that operate MiG-21FLs. The production run of these aircraft was not trouble free and ended in 1972. This makes the youngest MiG-21FL airframe over 27 years old. The IAF also has 3 units that fly MiG-21Ms. The youngest of these aircraft is now 21 years old. Both types were operated by dual role squadrons thereby putting many more hours on the airframe (and engines) than intended by the manufacturers. Additionally, over the years spares have become very hard to come by for both types because production lines closed over 20 years ago. Cannibalizing aircraft in storage (and their well worn parts) is the only way to keep these fleets operational. It is not surprising that the incidence of structural failures is very high among the MiG-21M/FL.It was hoped that the LCA would allow the former type to be retired by 1992 and the latter type by 1995, at the latest. For a variety of reasons this never happened. <P>Three MiG-21FL squadrons form the backbone of Eastern Air Command’s air defense force. An additional unit (MiGOFTU) fills the crucial Stage IV of the IAF’s training programme. Both because of their age and handling characteristics the MiG-21 is utterly unsuited for this role. However, until a new AJT joins the fleet the FLs will continue to fly in the training role. And until the MiG-27s with EAC are upgraded with pod mounted radar, the three AD MiG-21 units remain indespinsible. The MiG-21M units are very active with WAC, and pull all the routine alerts on the border. They also fill a very important EW role. Although they are being increasingly supplemented by MiG-23BNs (ex-10 Sqn) in that role. <P>In short- More hours-> greater wear and tear -> difficulty in obtaining new parts -> higher chances of mech and structutal failure. Note that MiG-21 losses constitute 60% of IAF fighter losses. While this is costly in men and collateral damage, the hardware losses are easily replaced by pulling aircraft out of storage!<BR>

[Michael]

Thanks for pointing out the error in my figures for IAF fleet strength. My source (from Jane's WAP) badly under-represents the true number of Mig-21's in the IAF fleet, and also shows considerably smaller figures for Jaguars and Mig-23's as well. Also combat capable trainers are not counted. <P>If you count combat jets, combat capable trainers, and armed helicopters as "combat aircraft", then you have a total of 1078 combat aircraft in the IAF. This doesn't even include the IN naval air arm. <P>BR has a great breakdown of the IAF fleet in their air force section, but no breakdown for the Naval Air Arm. You show a list of air squadrons for the IN, but the # of aircraft in a squadron varies widely depending on aircraft type, role, etc., so this doesn't tell us much. There is no "at a glance" chart to show exactly how many TU-142's, KA-28's, etc. the IN possesses. Would it be too much trouble to add that to the naval section on BR?