Indian Military Aviation

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 01 Jul 2009 12:34

Rahul M wrote:did I see a report that all IMs were fitted with the 2032 or is my memory playing tricks ?

IIRC this was the same time when the new cone shaped nose of the IS was discussed here.
don't think info on EW pods of IMs has been ever made public.

RM, I recall we also discussed 2052 for Jaguars! Its was when the Aero India 2009 was on.

naird · Post by **naird** » 01 Jul 2009 20:34

RaviBg wrote:Indian flight hours are similar to NATO's. Assuming an average of 200 hours per year, it is 2000 hours in 10 years, and 4000 in 20 years. As you go higher up the ranks especially wing commander and above, the amount of flying too reduces. So 3000-4000 hours by the time they occupy staff positions isn't out of the ordinary.

Plus during some periods, like when Soviet Union collapsed and we had shortage of spares etc, the flying hours were curtailed too.

Not sure if that's a good thing for IAF. I googled and could hardly find pilots averaging more than 3500 hours. You can find numerous pilots in USAF averaging more than 5k Hours, Hell even there are paki pilots which average more than 4500 hours.

Just feeling that we are loosing out on quite valuable amount o flying experience. In the end you might be correct, it might just not be worth to have that much flying experience on aircraft such as mig 21 which forms the bulk of force.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 01 Jul 2009 20:55

naird wrote: Not sure if that's a good thing for IAF. I googled and could hardly find pilots averaging more than 3500 hours. You can find numerous pilots in USAF averaging more than 5k Hours, Hell even there are paki pilots which average more than 4500 hours.

Just feeling that we are loosing out on quite valuable amount o flying experience. In the end you might be correct, it might just not be worth to have that much flying experience on aircraft such as mig 21 which forms the bulk of force.

Pakis have a history of lying, so no one believes them. It is the quality of training that matters too, and IAF has held its own against other air forces in many exercises over the years. We have been through this discussion before, and I don't know if there are any threads in archive on this isssue. Don't worry about IAF, they have what it takes

Why do you say it is not worth having much experience on Mig-21? You need to know the machines you operate well, as that is what you take into combat.

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 01 Jul 2009 20:56

naird wrote:
RaviBg wrote:Indian flight hours are similar to NATO's. Assuming an average of 200 hours per year, it is 2000 hours in 10 years, and 4000 in 20 years. As you go higher up the ranks especially wing commander and above, the amount of flying too reduces. So 3000-4000 hours by the time they occupy staff positions isn't out of the ordinary.

Plus during some periods, like when Soviet Union collapsed and we had shortage of spares etc, the flying hours were curtailed too.
Not sure if that's a good thing for IAF. I googled and could hardly find pilots averaging more than 3500 hours. You can find numerous pilots in USAF averaging more than 5k Hours, Hell even there are paki pilots which average more than 4500 hours.

Just feeling that we are loosing out on quite valuable amount o flying experience. In the end you might be correct, it might just not be worth to have that much flying experience on aircraft such as mig 21 which forms the bulk of force.

I read somewhere that the IAF counts number of 'sorties' and not hours. sorties are invariably less than an hour. (note the Tejas flights / hours)

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 01 Jul 2009 20:57

Hell even there are paki pilots which average more than 4500 hours.

the pak chief is on record saying that pilots used to log only 120 hours per year in the early 2000s. They are now doing about 180 hours per year.

naird · Post by **naird** » 01 Jul 2009 21:06

HariC wrote:
I read somewhere that the IAF counts number of 'sorties' and not hours. sorties are invariably less than an hour. (note the Tejas flights / hours)

Not sure about that. If IAF follow's British methodologies then it would be hours. Even Group Captain Ajai rathore took APJ Kalam for a ride, press mentioned his SU 30 MKI flying hours as 700.

As for LCA Tejas , i think it's just a feel good factor. 1141 test flights sounds better than 500-600 flying hours.

naird · Post by **naird** » 01 Jul 2009 21:09

HariC wrote:
Hell even there are paki pilots which average more than 4500 hours.

the pak chief is on record saying that pilots used to log only 120 hours per year in the early 2000s. They are now doing about 180 hours per year.

Absolutely true, but those happened post sanctions when they had to canabilise F16 for spares. But if you take the highter level (wing commanders , group captains, marshall's, etc) of PAF or even the retired PAF personal they have averaged more than 4500 hours on sabres, mirage III, etc. There are some pilots who have averaged more than 4500 hours on F 16 also.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Jul 2009 22:17

My 2cents to the discussion:

As for the IAF with aviators with "high" flying hours, we do not know unless there is list/publication which proves otherwise.

The pilots in charge of instruction (QFI/FCL/FSL) at academy and Sqn level are bound to have high flying hours due to the nature of job. The cumulative flying hours of this sample in any AF cannot be taken as indicative of flight hours/fighter pilot. If that was so the case, there wouldn't be only 450odd Viper Pilots with 1000+ flying hours in USAF (Source:F-16.net). Especially given the fact that F-16 has been to USAF what MiG-21 has been to us and in very many large numbers. These pilots would have been involved with Instructor level profiles at one point or other in their career. An with the kind of training/excercise/weapon testing that USAF does, the numbers are no surprise.

The pilots with organization such as TACDE/ASTE/MOFTU/OCU units are bound to have high flying hours. So I wouldn't be too worried on this account.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 01 Jul 2009 23:04

For some reason, I have seen this emphasis on sorties more among Mig-21 pilots - I guess because they do high number of sorties yet log 35-40 min flying time per sortie.

Air Marshal Rajkmuar during his deputation to Iraq flew 729 sorties in two years.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... -Iraq.html

I flew only 12 sorties at Walid because we stopped flying in early September 1983 as we had asked for a month's time to pack up and leave after selling our cars. Our deputation formally ended on October 03, 1983. I flew 729 sorties during my two year deputation to the Iraqi Air Force. At the rate of one sortie per day of my stay in Iraq I think I earned my pay!

One pilot Gp Capt S S Tyagi in the early 90s had 5000 MiG-21 sorties to his credit IIRC . Air Chief Marshal N C Suri was probably the one with the highest hours among fighters - just over 6000 hours - he ofcourse flew Hunters. There is plenty of information out there if you are looking for flying hours. Award Citations are a very good indicator.

naird · Post by **naird** » 02 Jul 2009 01:14

Thanks Jagan/Rohit.

Question popped up when i saw Air Marshall had 3000 hours of flying experience and i was under the impression that Air marshall's required considerable flying experience.

But then Flying hours is not the sole factor that makes one chief, there are many other aspects.

caesar · Post by **caesar** » 02 Jul 2009 06:14

Jagan wrote: One pilot Gp Capt S S Tyagi in the early 90s had 5000 MiG-21 sorties to his credit IIRC . Air Chief Marshal N C Suri was probably the one with the highest hours among fighters - just over 6000 hours - he ofcourse flew Hunters. There is plenty of information out there if you are looking for flying hours. Award Citations are a very good indicator.

Gp Capt S S (mucchad) Tyagi i believe has the maximum number of hours on the mig21 in the world .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Jul 2009 08:22

"Flying hours" can be much longer in the US and in Europe because of the dense civilian air traffic and even fighters in peacetime have to maintain holding patterns when they approach for landing and the route after take off is controlled by ATCs. So the average US pilot - backed by refuelling would be doing maybe 2-3 hours per sortie getting in and out of crowded airspace while the Indian MiG 21 pilot would be doing quickie 25 minute sorties.

You will probably find Indian Su 30 pilots putting in more flying hours than other types simply because they are doing longer sorties backed by refuelling. Again transport pilots will have long flying hours. A transport pilot doing 2 sorties may do 6 hours and a MiG 21 may not do that in 6 sorties.

The topic of flying hours in the IAF has been discussed before - with some stats. Off the top of my head I seem to recall figures like 120 to 180 hours per year.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 02 Jul 2009 10:40

120 is too low for IAF. PLAAF and PAF manage that. IAF averages about 180-230 for fighter pilots. Su-30 pilots log close to 270-300 hours.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 02 Jul 2009 16:33

shiv wrote:Everyone (or at least a lot of people) were pissed off at the fact that Indian Light Combat helicopter did no have its video/IR/Laser senor pod mounted below the nose but (seemingly stupidly) had it placed above the nose. The argument was of course that targets would be below and would be missed.

Hmm... sirjee... Apaches also have the same problems (their training routines also include mountain warfare - indeed, after A'stan '79 and '99, no one will say that Gunships don't need to be high-alt operable).

However, the clever Unkils have done a very chankian move... put sensor right on tip of nose onlee, so it can see both front and back. A lot of helos put sensors on bottom, so it can swivel back as well. But in mountainous terrain, obvious disadvantages, so vertral mounting is out.... Wonder why we didn't do the nosetip mount... I didn't get any answers at AI09 either.

There are all the advantages to a nosetip design, without any issues. Plus, the size of sensors also increases (if you've seen the Apache up close - I got to within 5 feet of its nose once - the sensors are HUGE - and there are so many of them - on the nose, wingtips, then warners just below the engines, and the mmW above the rotors).

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Jul 2009 18:18

shiv wrote:"Flying hours" can be much longer in the US and in Europe because of the dense civilian air traffic and even fighters in peacetime have to maintain holding patterns when they approach for landing and the route after take off is controlled by ATCs. So the average US pilot - backed by refuelling would be doing maybe 2-3 hours per sortie getting in and out of crowded airspace while the Indian MiG 21 pilot would be doing quickie 25 minute sorties.

You will probably find Indian Su 30 pilots putting in more flying hours than other types simply because they are doing longer sorties backed by refuelling. Again transport pilots will have long flying hours. A transport pilot doing 2 sorties may do 6 hours and a MiG 21 may not do that in 6 sorties.

The topic of flying hours in the IAF has been discussed before - with some stats. Off the top of my head I seem to recall figures like 120 to 180 hours per year.

Some of the densest airspace flying environments is in the UK Continent region. The gora airforces there rarely operate from civil airports because they are simply not normally permitted to do so!

Military airbases here dot the country side every 150 -200 kms in all directions. Not monster bases like ours but small, compact and efficient bases. Most housing is off base and many military personnel often buy houses to live in , selling when they leave or transfer else where. The force generally loans them the money at low interest rates. Some, of course will rent.

The combination air force and civil airport concept is not used much in first world countries because they can afford many more airbases.

In other world countries, there is no viable alternate to "left side airbase and right side International airport" situation.

Many international airports in India have increasingly become allergic to military traffic. They will grudgingly accommodate these guys because international airlines are unused to Indian concepts like "airport closed because MP is landing". These airlines object vehemently because for them time is money.

The reason that the advanced air forces do less of actual flying on the aeroplane is because of self imposed budgetary constraints. Its really very expensive to keep these machines airborne and fully serviceable if you insist on simply busting up the hours.

They fly a limited number of hours but very much more purposefully.

Most of the gora air forces fly much more on purpose built and realistic combat aircraft simulators and retain and hone their sharp edge with some actual aeroplane flying. These sophisticated simulators are delivered much before or along with the aeroplanes. Never, as we have seen in otherworld countries, long after the actual aeroplane is delivered, if at all.

This simulator is not an important option that is used much in our part of the world. More the pity.

Flying hours are really not that very important. Proficiency is much more vital and this does not come merely from clocking up "flying hours"

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 03 Jul 2009 07:58

chetak wrote:[quote="shiv Flying hours are really not that very important. Proficiency is much more vital and this does not come merely from clocking up "flying hours"

Oh really? - I'd say its a pretty important ingredient in the mix, in addition to classroom instruction and simulator training - both of which are probably more relevant to rookie pilots. More hours = more proficiency - or do you disagree?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Jul 2009 12:55

khukri wrote:
chetak wrote:[quote="shiv Flying hours are really not that very important. Proficiency is much more vital and this does not come merely from clocking up "flying hours"
Oh really? - I'd say its a pretty important ingredient in the mix, in addition to classroom instruction and simulator training - both of which are probably more relevant to rookie pilots. More hours = more proficiency - or do you disagree?

all depends on what you do during your hours... airline pilots fly a lot of hours, but the only really critical things they do are during take off and landing.

btw - simulators are not just for rookies. they are a vital part of all forms of training, including full mission rehearsal using actual terrain maps, etc. even in civil aviation, simulator hours are a critical component of training. indian forces have lagged in terms of simulator investments, which is a real pity. they are a massive multiplier.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Jul 2009 13:22

khukri wrote:
chetak wrote:[quote="shiv Flying hours are really not that very important. Proficiency is much more vital and this does not come merely from clocking up "flying hours"
Oh really? - I'd say its a pretty important ingredient in the mix, in addition to classroom instruction and simulator training - both of which are probably more relevant to rookie pilots. More hours = more proficiency - or do you disagree?

Wrong.

More hours does not automatically translate to more proficiency.

In fact it rarely does.

Experienced pilots are able to get more out of a simulator than a rookie.

Rookies can practice and gain experience on a simulator that they would otherwise not be able to appreciate in the actual cockpit.

Don't knock simulator training. Its the main stay of training in all airlines as well as in the enlightened military.

Saves you from picking up too many pieces of fragmented aeroplane later.

By the way, it may be costing us around 45-75 plus crores in fuel and expended assets to train a pilot by the time he reaches the Wing Cdr level, using current training methods.

Why would we not want to reduce such a horrendous cost.

Sean Wilson · Post by **Sean Wilson** » 03 Jul 2009 16:34

Another Jaguar question this time is with regards to the latest two-seat Jaguar ITs produced. As these are combat capable aircraft featuring DARIN 2 and the ability to carry the Litening LDP are they used as trainers or are they specifically for combat? I have read that some think they are for combat roles with the back-seater performing a role similar to the WSO of an F-15E.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Jul 2009 18:18

Sean
search on the BR archives you'll find something - the newest batch of Darin II equipped 2 seaters were meant for strike roles only if i remember correctly. there was even some speculation that it might be for some very special strike missions, like the 2000N

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 03 Jul 2009 18:41

Oh really? - I'd say its a pretty important ingredient in the mix, in addition to classroom instruction and simulator training - both of which are probably more relevant to rookie pilots. More hours = more proficiency - or do you disagree?[/quote]

Wrong.

More hours does not automatically translate to more proficiency.

In fact it rarely does.

Sorry - I disagree - particularly that bit about it rarely does!! - and I'm not exactly saying that without some knowledge to the contrary.
All other things being equal - practise makes perfect.
The more hours a pilot spends in the air practising - the better he gets.
I'm not knocking simulator training - it certainly prepares the pilot for what he has to do in the air without risking an expensive aircraft - and yes an experienced pilot gets more out of it that a rookie - but that's exactly the point - an experienced pilot is one with hours in the air - the more the better - usually!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Jul 2009 21:51

Simulator can take only to certain level. It can't completely replace the flying hours. To fly by the seat of the pants one has to clock a nominal amount of flying hours. To get the feel of Gs pulled, to learn the art of floating in the adverse weather, etc one needs flying hours to his name. Though flying hours don't automatically transfer to the experience gained, for the professional AF like IAF which always hone and improvise the skills, it gives the indication of the experince gained by the pilot.

Sean Wilson · Post by **Sean Wilson** » 04 Jul 2009 03:19

Lalmohan wrote:Sean
search on the BR archives you'll find something - the newest batch of Darin II equipped 2 seaters were meant for strike roles only if i remember correctly. there was even some speculation that it might be for some very special strike missions, like the 2000N

Thanks - I managed to find a few very informative posts.

The Jaguar also operates in the recce role using the Vinten VICON 18 Series 601 (GP) reconnaissance pod. Is recce carried out by all five Jaguar squadrons (Nos 5, 6, 14, 16, 27 and 224) (I have not included 6 Sqn as it operates in the maritime strike role) or is recce carried out by specific squadrons?

With regards to 6 Sqn which also operates the Jaguar IS - are these also equipped to carry the Sea Eagle ASM just like the Jaguar IM?

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 05 Jul 2009 12:07

NRao wrote:Image of cockpit:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... /35421.jpg

http://livefist.blogspot.com/

"IAF An-32 Avionics Upgrade Detailed"

LiveFist has learnt that the avionics of the An-32 will be replaced with an IAI-LAHAV-ELTA developed package, including a full glass cockpit with standard multi-function displays (MFDs) and a control display unit (CDU).

The LAHAV-ELTA avionics package that will go into each IAF An-32 includes a digital moving map, full NVG capability, in-flight mission rehearsal options, head-up display for both pilots (the IAF is still to communicate the the consortium if it wants HUDs for both pilots, one pilot, or none at all) and a significantly new advanced electronic warfare system (EWS), which will feature radar warning receiver, the fourth generation EL/M-2160 missile approach warning system, laser warning receiver and conventional countermeasures. Flight safety features being incorporated into the upgrade will include an advanced Terrain Avoidance Warning System (TAWS) and an Enhanced Traffic Collision Avoidance System (ETCAS), with options for a specialised weather radar.

Will engines be replaced?

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 06 Jul 2009 15:31

India Dumps Its MiG-21s
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatri ... 90705.aspx

Sean Wilson · Post by **Sean Wilson** » 06 Jul 2009 18:44

Jamal K. Malik wrote:India Dumps Its MiG-21s
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatri ... 90705.aspx

I think this will be seen by many as a good decision as the older MiG-21 models have been referred to as "Flying coffins" for quite some time. Thankfully the MiG-21 Bison upgrade has addressed this problem.

The decision to scrap such a large number of aircraft will leave the IAF with a gap in its fighter fleet until the indigenously designed replacement, the Tejas LCA, enters service. If the IAF is looking to scrap so many aircraft within two years do you think they will speed up the procurement of the 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA)? Selection was expected in 2010 with deliveries taking place from 2013.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jul 2009 18:47

guys, STOP POSTING FROM STRATEGYPAGE. I will simply delete any post linking to that garbage dump.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jul 2009 18:51

Raj Malhotra wrote:
NRao wrote:......

"IAF An-32 Avionics Upgrade Detailed"
Will engines be replaced?

the header mentions avionics only and the cost quoted makes engine replacement unlikely.
somewhat understandable, considering that the An-32 is already a heavily overpowered bird, it's unlikely these old frames can handle more powerful engines.

Sean Wilson · Post by **Sean Wilson** » 06 Jul 2009 18:58

Rahul M wrote:guys, STOP POSTING FROM STRATEGYPAGE. I will simply delete any post linking to that garbage dump.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 06 Jul 2009 19:13

Quoting from one link above:

The Indian air force said May 26 it will scrap 70 MiG-21 aircraft next year and, in an added step, will further shrink its fleet of fighter aircraft, depleted by regular crashes.

This was totally unnecessary. I was afraid of this happening. Now suddenly every news about the IAF is linked to crashes.

Sean Wilson · Post by **Sean Wilson** » 06 Jul 2009 19:26

shameekg wrote:Now suddenly every news about the IAF is linked to crashes.

Very true unfortunately. While the MiG-21 does suffer from a poor record there is no need to bring up the details every time an upgrade or scrap decision is released. I have made a point of not mentioning numbers of losses in the two reports I have written (about Jag and Bison).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jul 2009 19:35

Sean Wilson wrote:
Rahul M wrote:guys, STOP POSTING FROM STRATEGYPAGE. I will simply delete any post linking to that garbage dump.
Links to less offensive pages that reports the decision to scrap 70 MiG-21s:

http://www.defencetalk.com/india-to-jun ... fins-2749/

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040526162824.t9losac6.html

my point was not about this particular report (which is in general true though nothing new) but the site itself which in our past experience has atrocious standards, no reliability and shoddy background work.
posting stuff from there simply brings down the level of discussions here.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2009 19:44

Sean Wilson wrote:
Links to less offensive pages that reports the decision to scrap 70 MiG-21s:

http://www.defencetalk.com/india-to-jun ... fins-2749/

gee - thanks for posting. I am glad they got rid of them..I don't know how I missed this news..

MAY 27, 2004

The Indian air force said May 26 it will scrap 70 MiG-21 aircraft next year and, in an added step, will further shrink its fleet of fighter aircraft, depleted by regular crashes.
Air force chief S. Krishnaswamy told reporters in the southern city of Bangalore that the single-seater, Russian-built jets being trashed were the oldest variant of its mainstay MiG fleet.

Meanwhile - here is some other news I missed - while I was busy..

Click here

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 06 Jul 2009 19:45

Rahul M wrote:guys, STOP POSTING FROM STRATEGYPAGE. I will simply delete any post linking to that garbage dump.

Some time bitter thinking can help us in debate.

I'll specifically request it when I'm in need of gyan.
for the moment though, kindly stop posting non sequiturs throughout the forum. this is verging on trolling.
I do not wish to issue warnings but you are forcing my hand. kindly desist.

writing sentences that actually make sense in a given context would also be a good idea.
- Rahul.

Sean Wilson · Post by **Sean Wilson** » 06 Jul 2009 19:55

How did I miss the date on those links when I quickly scanned through them?!! I received a few links from a friend today including the strategypage "report" as he knows I'm interested in the MiG-21. Time for new glasses I think!!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 06 Jul 2009 22:48

Jamal K. Malik wrote:
Rahul M wrote:guys, STOP POSTING FROM STRATEGYPAGE. I will simply delete any post linking to that garbage dump.
Some time bitter thinking can help us in debate.

As Rahul M mentioned, its not about shielding yourself from hostile articles. If you are familiar with strategypage, you will find that they simply conjure information out of their asses. Reliability and strategypage are two words that hardly go together.
Criticism is always welcome, in fact it is necessary, but only if it is reasonable. You cannot just write whatever junk you can think of.
There is a certain level of discussion that is maintained here. If mods were to allow any junk to be posted, then next thing we know, there would be people quoting from pakistani defense forums. That would be a sight to see i guess.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 06 Jul 2009 23:35

another nonsensical post edited.
warning issued for trolling.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 07 Jul 2009 00:10

^^

Please translate into English.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 07 Jul 2009 03:50

shiv wrote:"Flying hours" can be much longer in the US and in Europe because of the dense civilian air traffic and even fighters in peacetime have to maintain holding patterns when they approach for landing and the route after take off is controlled by ATCs. So the average US pilot - backed by refuelling would be doing maybe 2-3 hours per sortie getting in and out of crowded airspace while the Indian MiG 21 pilot would be doing quickie 25 minute sorties.

You will probably find Indian Su 30 pilots putting in more flying hours than other types simply because they are doing longer sorties backed by refuelling. Again transport pilots will have long flying hours. A transport pilot doing 2 sorties may do 6 hours and a MiG 21 may not do that in 6 sorties.

The topic of flying hours in the IAF has been discussed before - with some stats. Off the top of my head I seem to recall figures like 120 to 180 hours per year.

Agree with that. The most important part is take off, landing and manuvering. Hence sorties is quite a good measurement. The question is how long does a sortie last for the Nato memebers. If each sortie lasts about 30 min, then they have twice the number of sorties as compared to hours.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 07 Jul 2009 08:18

Rahul,

what if we have a sticky thread with bold and caps thread name something like "Banned Links/websites" in which you can put up a list of links which are rated for unreliability etc?

Thanks,
Venkat