Indian Military Aviation

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7700
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Mort Walker » 09 Oct 2009 07:02

I absolutely agree that 60 squadrons, each with 20 fixed-wing aircraft, is the minimum needed by the IAF to defend the nation. By 2015 the GDP should be near $3T and planning for 60 squadrons must start now. As usual, the political leadership is asleep at the wheel and the opposition BJP is in disarray. None of this is good.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 09 Oct 2009 07:40

>> each with 20 fixed-wing aircraft

well heli and transport sqdns tend to have fewer airframes and fighters perhaps 16-18 is more the
norm. unique planes like Mig25R again had lower nos.

more than just fighters - we jmho need

- 15 more Midas/A330MRTT tankers (3 sqdns - 2 in NE, 1 in WB/bihar)
- 6 more Phalcons (we have 1 and 2 on order)
- expansion of airbase infra to permit surge deployments of fighter 'wings' and lots of A300
sized cargo flights in a war situation
- 40 C17 planes (4 sqdns) and engine & avionics upg for older 28 Il76
- Spyder for all airbases and military cantonments/bridges/railway junctions
- give tax breaks to local cargo airline operators to bulk up fleet. in times of need
these can be requisitioned as a cheap addition to logistics, in times of peace IAF
need not pay anything

even the above list is a huge multi billion$ tab.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2108
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Vivek K » 09 Oct 2009 07:48

The scary part is that the military leadeship also sends out mixed signals understandably to keep public from paniciking. But the state of affairs especially for the IAF is so dire that the Air Chief(s) should be continuously warning about depleting fleet strength. It took two decades to decide on a AJT that we do not want to give follow-on orders to. Now, the primary trainer fleet has been grounded. Vast numbers of fighter and strike aircraft have been phased out. Only 40 Mig-27s (?) out of the 140 or so are being upgraded. What does that do to the strike force capability? Of the 450 odd Mig-21 fleet, only 125 have been upgraded to bison standard. Rest have either been grounded or will be grounded by 2013 or so. All the Mig-23 MFs and the BNs have also been phased out.

The only saving grace is the 100 odd MKIs plus the 37 new build Jags and the 10 attrition replacement M2Ks. That is the ONLY CAPITAL INVESTMENT in the last 2 decades in the fighter and strike force. This is a shame and a security threat to the country. How can the Air Chief sleep at night?

It appears that we are living in a fool's paradise. No wonder the Chinese are getting more aggressive. Andher nagri aur Chaupat Raja! Take ser Bhaji take ser kha ja. The politicians are looting the country and the people are in a deep slumber as if drunk. With billions from the US Pakis have rebuilt their forces in quick time while we sit and loot. :twisted:

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2108
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Vivek K » 09 Oct 2009 07:49

What should we learn? Mandarin or Pushto?

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Div » 09 Oct 2009 07:55

Vivek K wrote:The scary part is that the military leadeship also sends out mixed signals understandably to keep public from paniciking. But the state of affairs especially for the IAF is so dire that the Air Chief(s) should be continuously warning about depleting fleet strength. It took two decades to decide on a AJT that we do not want to give follow-on orders to. Now, the primary trainer fleet has been grounded. Vast numbers of fighter and strike aircraft have been phased out. Only 40 Mig-27s (?) out of the 140 or so are being upgraded. What does that do to the strike force capability? Of the 450 odd Mig-21 fleet, only 125 have been upgraded to bison standard. Rest have either been grounded or will be grounded by 2013 or so. All the Mig-23 MFs and the BNs have also been phased out.

The only saving grace is the 100 odd MKIs plus the 37 new build Jags and the 10 attrition replacement M2Ks. That is the ONLY CAPITAL INVESTMENT in the last 2 decades in the fighter and strike force. This is a shame and a security threat to the country. How can the Air Chief sleep at night?

It appears that we are living in a fool's paradise. No wonder the Chinese are getting more aggressive. Andher nagri aur Chaupat Raja! Take ser Bhaji take ser kha ja. The politicians are looting the country and the people are in a deep slumber as if drunk. With billions from the US Pakis have rebuilt their forces in quick time while we sit and loot. :twisted:

Good summary.

Same old, same old. :|

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2108
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Vivek K » 09 Oct 2009 08:02

Singha wrote:- 15 more Midas/A330MRTT tankers (3 sqdns - 2 in NE, 1 in WB/bihar)

What is stopping us from ordering these?
- 6 more Phalcons (we have 1 and 2 on order)

What is holding up the order? Will we order after the Chinese launch attacks?
- expansion of airbase infra to permit surge deployments of fighter 'wings' and lots of A300
sized cargo flights in a war situation

When we cannot even build roads to supply the Army even after the jhapad of 1962 , .......
.............even the above list is a huge multi billion$ tab.

The billions are rotting in banks. Using them for national security, building weapons locally, building infrastructure will boost the local economy with good jobs. So where is the problem. I hope we don't have to rue our inaction some day!

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2108
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Vivek K » 09 Oct 2009 08:05

When the MRCA requirement had come out, we were talking about an urgent purchase. Now we are looking at first delivery a decade after the requirement first came out. In the interim, fleet strenght has gone to pot and we continue to fool ourselves that we can take on the Chinese and win.

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby tejas » 09 Oct 2009 08:12

The really scary part is how pathetic India's MIC is. Putting aside the deplorable force levels in the Air Force and lack of artillery acquisitions for nearly three decades, look at GD's list above ( BTW thats a cool $10 billion for the C-17's alone).

Not a single item on that list is made in India. How many more decades will we be sending RFPs for artillery to Singapore and buying used 130 mm howitzers from former Soviet Republics? We will spend $30 billion importing weapons in the next 5 years but can't afford $50 million for testing facilities for GTRE. Most of the OFB products look like they were made in the 1940s.

No country can be truly independent when it essentially imports ALL its conventional weapons.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Dmurphy » 09 Oct 2009 08:37

Vivek K wrote:What is holding up the order? Will we order after the Chinese launch attacks?
For argument's sake, there is the perennial danger of accusation directed at the govt. for having taken a 'hasty' decision involving billions of $$s. And hence there's something fishy. And hence there must have been large scale corruption. Hence we will blacklist that firm till proven innocent. Hence we shall end up cutting the branch we're sitting on.
Vivek K wrote:When we cannot even build roads to supply the Army even after the jhapad of 1962
Well, till recently, the Govt believed developing the roads in border district could be seen as an aggressive move by your panda brothers. hence the laxity. But not so anymore, i'm told.

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Baldev » 09 Oct 2009 08:42

there is PERO radar upgrade is also avialable for mig29 and su27

N001 or N019 radars can be fitted with PESA antenna replacing older antenna

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Dmurphy » 09 Oct 2009 08:45

srai wrote:Retired by 2022
6.5 - MiG-21 Bison
Sir, the previous ACM once said, the Bisons will be around till 2025!
srai wrote:That comes to 35 sqdns [32.5 - (8.5 retired) + (11 raised)]. So that means additional 7 squadrons are being raised more than known at the moment.
You seem to have left out the AJT/IJT inductions that would happen around those times. I believe they too are included in the headcount.

And I'm really scared you have left out MCA. An ominous sign indeed :cry:

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2108
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Vivek K » 09 Oct 2009 09:27

Well from the outside and without a deeper understanding of doctrines, force multipliers, network centric operations etc... (all the fancy words) it seems that we have a gaping hole in our Air Defence capability. 100 Sukhois is what stands between us and the Chinese today. I pray that we actually have more. There were suggestions that the 18 Su30ks be retained. What was the point of returning them? With fleet strength depleting fast, why don't we try to get them back if they are not sold to a 3rd party yet?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3665
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Cain Marko » 09 Oct 2009 10:19

Vivek K wrote:With that strength we can never take on Chin-Pak. Might as well give up now. The economic miracle has failed to fund military growth. We think in small numbers and slow growth. If national security was a concern, we would have decided on the MRCA and the LCA engine 6 months ago. We should be talking of 60 squadrons to make the Chin-Paks think twice and thrice before looking towards India.

We should induct 5 squadrons of LCA MK 1 in 2-3 tears if we are serious.


FWIW, add 50 odd fulcrums into the mix via the IN by 2015. I am sure they will be in the thick of things when things go sour. My guess is that they may order a few more Jags or even modernize more floggers. Perhaps even a few bis. THere are cheap options (even if slightly short term) even today - upg. floggers (another 40 a/c), upgrade 40 fishbeds to bison stds., add an extra 40 odd MiG-29SMTs via the VVS to the Baaz upgrade. This should cost no more than $ 2 billion but will give some numbers. May be try the Qatari M2k-5s again. Of course, they will probly get the extra 50 MKIs on the double and that should help somewhat.

But yes, overall the picture doesn't look too good. Still I doubt the Chinese will try too much mischief so close to winter. Summer 2010 might get interesting unless they are in a major hurry.

CM.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 09 Oct 2009 11:18, edited 1 time in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4198
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby srai » 09 Oct 2009 10:23

Dmurphy wrote:
srai wrote:Retired by 2022
6.5 - MiG-21 Bison
Sir, the previous ACM once said, the Bisons will be around till 2025!
srai wrote:That comes to 35 sqdns [32.5 - (8.5 retired) + (11 raised)]. So that means additional 7 squadrons are being raised more than known at the moment.
You seem to have left out the AJT/IJT inductions that would happen around those times. I believe they too are included in the headcount.

And I'm really scared you have left out MCA. An ominous sign indeed :cry:


I doubt that MiG-21 Bisons will make it till 2025 ... more like 2020 ... partly because of airframe life. Plus, there will be 5 new LCA squadrons inducted during that timeframe of 2014-2022 which will replace those Bisons.

AJT/IJT are part of training squadrons. They are separate from the 42 combat squadrons.

As far as the MCA goes, IAF/MoD have not given it an official go ahead as yet. As you might know, any new fighter development requires around 20 years of active development. Just take a look at the number of years it took to develop EF2000, Rafale, Gripen, JSF, F22 etc. So at this point it is highly unlikely MCA will be ready for induction into the IAF by 2022.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Dmurphy » 09 Oct 2009 12:33

srai wrote:AJT/IJT are part of training squadrons. They are separate from the 42 combat squadrons.
Sir, i have come across an article where it was categorically mentioned that "the dip in squadron numbers has been arrested with the latest acquisitions of AJT Hawks." And as a matter of fact, the AJT can be used in combat mode as well.

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby bhavik » 09 Oct 2009 12:44

hi - i'm newbie with a question

why does it seem that IAF is obsessed with 2 seater a/c's?
Su30MKI, PAKFA ... have been modified to 2 pilots.

Is'nt it better for war time if we are able to fly more aircraft with less pilots? It is nice if a/c's are 2 seater but aren't we going overboard?

What is percentage / ratio of 2 seater crafts in airforces worldwide?
how does it compare with IAF?

Jai Hind!

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1961
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Bala Vignesh » 09 Oct 2009 12:48

srai wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:Srai Sir,
just 2 squadrons worth of Bhadur's are getting upgraded??? And i thought the Bison could serve up until 2020???


Please look at the numbers carefully!

So far IAF only has upgraded 40 MiG-27s (2 sqdns No.10 and 29) and shows no intention of upgrading more. As for 6.5 sqdns of Bisons, if you look carefully, I've listed that under "Retired by 2022" heading. There are 2 MiG-21Bis (i.e. not upgraded to Bison standards) sqdns (No.15 and 26) which will likely be retired by 2014.


Srai Sir, My bad.. didn't see the heading properly...

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Dmurphy » 09 Oct 2009 13:02

bhavik wrote:Is'nt it better for war time if we are able to fly more aircraft with less pilots? It is nice if a/c's are 2 seater but aren't we going overboard?
What makes you think a 2 seater a/c cannot take off with just one pilot?
From what i understand, its for the ease of operations as well as optimum utilisation of the systems on board that we have a WSO on board. Besides, in times of emergency, the 'secondary pilot' can also handle the plane to safety. And a twin seat a/c also rules out the need for separate 'trainer aircraft' as in the case of Migs in IAF. There could be more reasons than these, I'll leave it to the gurus to explain better.

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby bhavik » 09 Oct 2009 13:16

Dmurphy wrote:
bhavik wrote:Is'nt it better for war time if we are able to fly more aircraft with less pilots? It is nice if a/c's are 2 seater but aren't we going overboard?
What makes you think a 2 seater a/c cannot take off with just one pilot?


Just to add, sure they can. But then why delay things by demanding extra development for 2 seaters when 1 could do the job.
Better utilization? I don't know what happens in warlike warlike situation .. are 2 pilots in single a/c effective than 2 pilots in 2 ac's?
I also think it may be always cheaper have trainer ac's rather than training on expensive stuff like MKI or PAKFA..
Why are we delaying things by always asking for aircraft development ? PAKFA has been developed as single seater ... why not also buy some of those?

Also I do not know how many of 126 MRCA's would be 2 seaters?
gurus pls explain?

Himanshu
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Himanshu » 09 Oct 2009 13:25

Because.. pilots fly to practice for war.. and technically a pilot can fly an aircraft alone in a 2 seater.. but the training value would be much less without the wizzo..

I war time it's not an aircraft that fights, but a flying weapon system with 2 pilots sharing and managing the capabilities of the platform that fights.. you put 1 in a 2 seater.. and there you have reduced the capabilities by a factor of more than half..

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby bhavik » 09 Oct 2009 13:34

Himanshu wrote:I war time it's not an aircraft that fights, but a flying weapon system with 2 pilots sharing and managing the capabilities of the platform that fights.. you put 1 in a 2 seater.. and there you have reduced the capabilities by a factor of more than half..

In that respect, are 2 pilots in single a/c more effective than 2 pilots in 2 ac's?
Also what percentage of your ac's should be 1 seater?

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1961
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Bala Vignesh » 09 Oct 2009 15:20

The thing is that with the modern day combat aircraft there is just too much info available to the pilot.. so its better to have two officers in an aircraft... To prevent information overload on them... So that each of them can concentrate on their specialization... And since they are usually heavy aircraft... it can perform the job in a better way... As for the ratio i remember reading somewhere that a ratio of 1:3 is usual... Of course i could be wrong..

Himanshu
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Himanshu » 09 Oct 2009 16:36

bhavik,

It would depend on the kind of aircraft you are employing in the theater of operations.. If you have a dedicated CAP, you would hardly find any dual seater aircraft (ex: mig-29's) or CAS (ex: Mig-27's).. In such scenarios it's always 1:1 ratio between the pilot and aircraft.. but when you go deep in the enemy territory with multi role aircrafts extra pair of brain helps :)

Todays aircrafts like MKI etc are far more capable in terms of the information they can provide. If you can put in sensors like that on JSF/Raptor, it would be relatively easy on the pilot to focus on the primary task of setting up the targets and clicking on the red button.. but we are still to reach there.. so 2 pilots in an MKI level aircraft is going to be the norm of the day for atleast a decade..

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby bhavik » 10 Oct 2009 00:15

Still , even with high pilot workload ... would'nt 2 MKI's be better off scaring any opponent compared to one?
2 MKI can carry a lot more ammo / missiles than one.
In combat are 2 pilots in single a/c more effective than 2 pilots in 2 ac's?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16783
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 10 Oct 2009 00:42

what are you talking about ? scaring off opponents ? what do you think this is, a neighbourhood brawl ?

kindly read through the posts upon posts that have been written on BR on why IAF decided to go for twin seaters in these roles. do read the su-30 thread before asking people the same questions that have been answered time and again, some in the last couple of weeks.

Just to add, sure they can. But then why delay things by demanding extra development for 2 seaters when 1 could do the job. {how do you know that "1 can do the job" ? what is your source ? since we are at it, what job exactly arte you talking about ?}
Better utilization? I don't know what happens in warlike warlike situation .. are 2 pilots in single a/c effective than 2 pilots in 2 ac's? {effective in what respect ? getting airframes in the air mean nothing, zilch, nada if you can't execute your mission}
I also think it may be always cheaper have trainer ac's rather than training on expensive stuff like MKI or PAKFA.. {what does this mean ? pilots should jump off straight from flying propeller planes and AJTs into flying missions on cutting edge aircraft ? }
Why are we delaying things by always asking for aircraft development ? {let's see, may be because we need the twin seater to fit in our doctrine ?}PAKFA has been developed as single seater ... why not also buy some of those? {if they need it, they will buy it. if they don't need it/if it doesn't fit their doctrine no amount of questions from you or anyone else is going to change their mind}


Still , even with high pilot workload ... would'nt 2 MKI's be better off scaring any opponent compared to one?
2 MKI can carry a lot more ammo / missiles than one.
In combat are 2 pilots in single a/c more effective than 2 pilots in 2 ac's?

what insane logic. why does any aircraft have more than one aircrew then ?
why did the US develop specifically develop the 2 seat F15E for strike roles which was subsequently inducted into both the USAF and the israeli AF as F15I.

by your logic USAF should fly 4 B-1 bombers with a pilot each(and no other aircrew) in stead of one B-1 with its 4 person crew, since clearly, 4 pilots in 4 aircrafts are better than 4 crew in one bomber ! :roll:

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Craig Alpert » 10 Oct 2009 00:43

bhavik
Post subject: Re: Indian Military Aviation

In that respect, are 2 pilots in single a/c more effective than 2 pilots in 2 ac's?
Also what percentage of your ac's should be 1 seater?



Bhavik, you seem to ask the same question here. As the aircrafts evolved over the years, so did their roles. Previously during the inductions of Mig 21 era's their main tasks was Dogfights. Today dogfights seem to have died down (although never 100%) albeit radars and BVR missles. Hence the newer fighter acquired by the IAF are "muli-role." With this they can tackle different types of missions with the same aircrafts and modifying them based on their requirements during the mission. Many of these missions take place over enemy territory and over long ranges. Due to the advances in technology, the amount of data that can be given to a SINGLE pilot is simply unbeliveable. If a single pilot is given a recon mission he needs to do 2 things at hand. These being Flying Undetected and Receeing at the same time. Too much information is being displayed on the screen for one pilot to absorb. If detected, he needs to foucs on getting his ass out and the recon is on the backfire. Hence a dual seat option plays in as the best choice, where the Pilot basically controls the plane, while the Navigator/weapons Operator job is to take control of the mission and make sure that when detected he can counter fire while the pilot will always assure to fly them back safe and sound. Not all missions are recon mission, but this is just one example, many more uses for having 2 seater rather than single seater. Mainly the 2nd operator normally operates Radar, fire control and EW equipments and the like.
Hope this helps in answering your question as to why 2 pilots in one aircraft are more effective than 2 jocks in 2 different birds.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16783
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 10 Oct 2009 00:50

even in dogfights the 2 person crew gives certain advantages.
while the pilot can handle the flying and taking shots at an opponent the rear seater can take care of operating jammers against the adversary and the defensive systems like decoys and flares. not to mention keep an eye on the larger battlespace and communicate with the controller aboard friendly AEW&C aircraft.
he can do all this which would otherwise have distracted the pilot making his performance less than optimal. with a rear seater the pilot can concentrate on the actual fighting.
there's a reason why the mki has such an enviable record in 1v1. :wink:

advantages in strike roles are even more obvious.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36352
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby SaiK » 10 Oct 2009 02:14

but, all said and done, there needs to be a lot synch ups between the two brains to act towards mission objectives for victory.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3665
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Oct 2009 02:39

Rahul M wrote:even in dogfights the 2 person crew gives certain advantages..

The obvious one being that 2 pairs of eyes scanning the sky would be far better than a single set. IIRC, they were thinking of making most rafales 2 seaters simply because there was information overload, might've gotten around it by now.

CM.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16783
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 10 Oct 2009 02:42

^^^
Rahul M wrote:even in dogfights the 2 person crew gives certain advantages.
while the pilot can handle the flying and taking shots at an opponent the rear seater can take care of operating jammers against the adversary and the defensive systems like decoys and flares. not to mention keep an eye on the larger battlespace .......


saik, the functions are mostly independent of each other. that is not to say that no co-ordination is required but that is true for virtually all military functions, nothing extra difficult for the mki.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4198
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby srai » 10 Oct 2009 04:31

Dmurphy wrote:
srai wrote:AJT/IJT are part of training squadrons. They are separate from the 42 combat squadrons.
Sir, i have come across an article where it was categorically mentioned that "the dip in squadron numbers has been arrested with the latest acquisitions of AJT Hawks." And as a matter of fact, the AJT can be used in combat mode as well.


As far as the AJT/IJT being combat capable, you are right. In war time, IAF will utilize these for secondary roles.

However, according to the article, it is only considering "fighter" squadrons. That 33.5 squadrons is what IAF has right now for its fighter (i.e. combat) squadrons. If it was including AJTs, then the number would have been higher.

'IAF eyes to meet fighter plane deficit by 2022

The strength (of the fighter squadrons) has to increase. By 2014, it will start increasing. By 2022, we expect to have requisite numbers,' Naik told reporters here.

The current strength of the IAF fighter squadrons is 33.5 well below the sanctioned strength of 39.5. By 2022, the IAF is expected to have 42 squadrons.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Dmurphy » 10 Oct 2009 08:38

srai wrote:That 33.5 squadrons is what IAF has right now for its fighter (i.e. combat) squadrons. If it was including AJTs, then the number would have been higher.

Dear srai ji
check this out

http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... -both.html
The IAF’s number of squadrons had fallen to an alarming 31.5 in 2006. The fleet strength increased to about 33.5 squadrons after the induction of British advanced jet trainers “Hawk” in 2008.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... 4/69502/on
After the induction of British major BAE System's 'Hawk' Advanced Jet Trainers (AJTs) in 2008, the fleet strength of the IAF has increased to about 33.5 squadrons compared to the sanctioned squadron strength of 39.5 squadrons.

You could do the math predicting the future number of squadrons again and find the numbers greatly increased :D

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4198
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby srai » 10 Oct 2009 08:49

Dmurphy wrote:
srai wrote:That 33.5 squadrons is what IAF has right now for its fighter (i.e. combat) squadrons. If it was including AJTs, then the number would have been higher.

Dear srai ji
check this out

http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... -both.html
The IAF’s number of squadrons had fallen to an alarming 31.5 in 2006. The fleet strength increased to about 33.5 squadrons after the induction of British advanced jet trainers “Hawk” in 2008.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... 4/69502/on
After the induction of British major BAE System's 'Hawk' Advanced Jet Trainers (AJTs) in 2008, the fleet strength of the IAF has increased to about 33.5 squadrons compared to the sanctioned squadron strength of 39.5 squadrons.

You could do the math predicting the future number of squadrons again and find the numbers greatly increased :D


Take a look at the IAF fleet page:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units ... Fleet.html

This is what I'm going by. In the BR IAF fleet page, it shows the current fighter squadrons to be 33.5 + 3 second line. The AJTs are listed under HOTS sqdns and is not part of the 33.5 squadrons.

Note: If as you say AJTs are being included in the fighter squadron number of 42 by 2022, then those 7 additional sqdns unknown I mentioned will be made up by the 6 AJT sqdns (since 108 are planned or around 6 sqdns). So this just leaves 1 sqdns unaccounted for. So the 42 sqdns remains as mentioned by the IAF chief ... not going to get the numbers greatly increased by its inclusion ... unless these AJTs are separate from the 42 fighter sqdns. In which case, you will get 42 + 6 AJT + ??? IJT squadrons.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Dmurphy » 10 Oct 2009 09:07

ACM Naik's interview: http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/india_up ... o_ndtv.php

I would definitely want that for which we need long range aircraft, we need air-to-air refullers, we need to ensure that we can reach there.
...
We need very heavy transport aircraft the v hi-tech variety of the C-17 class. We need heavy transport of the 50-60 tonne class, we need long range communication.

Wiki tells me Il-76 has a payload of about 47-50 and ACM wants 50-60 Tons. That might just put the Il-76 out of contention here.

Expect the C-17 to be lobbied for by the IAF.

Also speedier acquisition of A2A refuellers - A330 or Il-78? (After the FinMin nise poking anything can happen)
Long range communication - AWACS?
Long range aircraft - ???

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1961
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Bala Vignesh » 10 Oct 2009 10:27

For Il-76/78 to be in consideration, there should be enough airframes available (IIRC, they are no longer in production).. Since it does meet the criteria set forth... So it would be futile to consider the series if there aren't enough airframes available.. Might as well go for the alternates..

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 10 Oct 2009 10:30

for IOR region C17 has enough of range and payload. for bulk palletized airlift to regular airbases at a cost perhaps cheaper/mile than C17, laying in some A330-cargo is also a good option.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23361
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Austin » 10 Oct 2009 10:30


Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Dmurphy » 10 Oct 2009 10:35

srai wrote:Take a look at the IAF fleet page:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units ... Fleet.html

This is what I'm going by. In the BR IAF fleet page, it shows the current fighter squadrons to be 33.5 + 3 second line
Its 36.5 + 3 = 39.5
So we have the sanctioned 39.5 squadron strength? Excuse me for my lack of knowledge.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4198
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby srai » 10 Oct 2009 13:31

Dmurphy wrote:
srai wrote:Take a look at the IAF fleet page:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units ... Fleet.html

This is what I'm going by. In the BR IAF fleet page, it shows the current fighter squadrons to be 33.5 + 3 second line
Its 36.5 + 3 = 39.5
So we have the sanctioned 39.5 squadron strength? Excuse me for my lack of knowledge.


Good catch!

So it looks like BR IAF Aircraft Fleet Strength page still has 3 more squadrons listed than what is being reported in the news recently. I would assume 3 of the MiG-21 M/MF/Bis squadrons have been number plated. This is a question for BR IAF Webmaster Jagan to investigate ;)

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3392
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Aditya G » 10 Oct 2009 21:22

The Indian Air Force has an aggressive doctrine; i.e. it does not want to fight over Indian Airspace and will attack targets on ground. You can see this by the sheer number of specialist strike aircraft in the force (compared to say Pakistan Air Force which is mainly a defensive force).

I think the IAF has clear plans for Pakistan, but nothing is known about PRC. One IAF chief had remarked that we mapped 5,000 targets in Pakistan..... but what about PRC? Su-30MKIs are our only 'long arm' ... that too only in last 5 years. My conclusion is that for China IAF doctrine must be only defensive.

I hope this changes with induction of IL-78MKI and IL-78EhI ... we need to develop ASMP like nuclear weapon can publish the details to the world. Su-30MKI must be equipped with this missile and known publicly. We need this deterrent.

We must also be prepared to strike targets in South China sea - the PLAN must not enter the Indian ocean. Brahmos-A, Su-30MKI, P-8I, IL-38SD, MiG-29IN, aircraft carrier are remedies.

We must also raise at least 1-2 Hawk strike sqns for COIN and mountain CAS roles. Remember that Hunter sqn was deployed in Kargil War. We need aircraft that can strike in mountains.

Fully agree with Singha on the civilian cargo lifters.

As for IL-76MD: we must look for a replacement now. C-17 is superb but way way too expensive. I can only see IL-76 with PS-90 engines as an alternative boosted by at least 3 sqn of C-130J aircraft. An-32 needs to be replaced by C-27J. Perhaps A-400 is a long term solution.

Dmurphy wrote:ACM Naik's interview: http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/india_up ... o_ndtv.php

I would definitely want that for which we need long range aircraft, we need air-to-air refullers, we need to ensure that we can reach there.
...
We need very heavy transport aircraft the v hi-tech variety of the C-17 class. We need heavy transport of the 50-60 tonne class, we need long range communication.

Wiki tells me Il-76 has a payload of about 47-50 and ACM wants 50-60 Tons. That might just put the Il-76 out of contention here.

Expect the C-17 to be lobbied for by the IAF.

Also speedier acquisition of A2A refuellers - A330 or Il-78? (After the FinMin nise poking anything can happen)
Long range communication - AWACS?
Long range aircraft - ???


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests