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.
JimmyJ
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:36
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby JimmyJ » 06 Jan 2011 20:36

shiv wrote:
JimmyJ wrote:Hey, I saw a small plane doing some flights around Bangalore yesterday and today evening. It was white and looked like having engine close to its tails.

Was it Saras?

Sorry but I am a bad plane spotter


If it was white, flying like a maniac and had an engine at the back it would be a Rutan Varieze or equivalent that has been buzzing the Golf course of late. I checked to see if it might be a UAV - but I could see a cockpit. It looked like this didn't it?



I do not think it was this as it had a tail, initially felt like a small business class plane till I realized it looked like test flights. Comes out around 4:30 pm to 5:30pm.


But was lucky to see the YELLSEEA today :)

Wayne Arnold
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 13 Dec 2010 22:20

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Wayne Arnold » 06 Jan 2011 20:59

dear all, as to the selling of the AH-64D's is concerned, isn't a TAA approval required for DCS to take place??

SriSri
BRFite
Posts: 545
Joined: 23 Aug 2006 15:25

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby SriSri » 06 Jan 2011 21:55

Some tidbits after a chat with Saab's country head .. SAAB 340 MSA, SAAB 2000 MPA Offered for Indian Navy Maritime Surveillance Requirements

More to follow in upcoming days! :-)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 06 Jan 2011 21:58

saab 2000 iirc is the airframe on which paki ereyie system is used. it was apparently out of production due to lack of business but is said to be a good plane with a claimed jet-like rate of climb (useful for aew climb to station, irrelevant for MPA)

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Lalmohan » 06 Jan 2011 23:49

siege wrote:dear all, as to the selling of the AH-64D's is concerned, isn't a TAA approval required for DCS to take place??


what do you think ombaba was doing in dilli with the billis hain ji?
clearly some direct military sales deals have been approved in principle and are now awaiting the formal machinery to grind into place

mmrca is not one of these

Raghavendra
BRFite
Posts: 1252
Joined: 11 Mar 2008 19:07
Location: Fishing in Sadhanakere

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Raghavendra » 09 Jan 2011 20:20

Fighter jet Tejas to join Air Force on Monday
http://www.zeenews.com/news679427.html

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 10 Jan 2011 01:22

Is there any chance, at all, that the IAF would get interested in a bomber? Real long range variety.

Comments?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 10 Jan 2011 08:47

NRao wrote:Is there any chance, at all, that the IAF would get interested in a bomber? Real long range variety.

Comments?


I doubt it. The way I see it is as follows:

The mandate of the IAF is dictated by the political set up and the democratically elected government of India. If that mandate requires a long range bomber the IAF would ask for one.

From my viewpoint - I ask myself, does the stated mandate of the IAF require a long range bomber? In terms of utility, a bomber with a round trip capability of 10,000 km may be useful for India only in terms of accessing the east coast of China. To my mind a round trip that lasts over 12 hours should not be needed for some piffling requirement like hitting a few buildings. Anything more than that would require a fleet of bombers - i.e a minimum of 2-3 squadrons. If we are looking at anything less it would have to be for nuclear attack alone - of a type where the bomber is airborne - ready to attack and can be called back if necessary.

The US of course maintained just such a fleet in the cold war where they were actually calculating on fighting a nuclear war with grades of escalation. I don;t think anything in the Indian doctrine calls for "fighting a deliberate nuclear war", and everything seems to hedge on firing off missiles once the decision is taken. Unless this is changed I cannot see the need for a long range bomber.

However a long range bomber is basically a transport aircraft designed to transport bombs rather than people. I would like to see the in house development of long range people transport - a design that could be used as a template for a bomber if need be.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1644
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Sid » 10 Jan 2011 09:12

IAF procurement requirement are more reactive to what our neighbors have. There was one elaborate article in Vayu just on this subject and how IAF went for Su-30 in reaction to series production of Su-27 by China.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 10 Jan 2011 09:20

Sid wrote:IAF procurement requirement are more reactive to what our neighbors have. There was one elaborate article in Vayu just on this subject and how IAF went for Su-30 in reaction to series production of Su-27 by China.


IAF does not decide these things. IAF is asked for advice and to state threat perceptions and the government takes the final call. I think there are enough deluded and misinformed people who will be misled by such statements. If IAF pulled all the strings we would have had 45 squadrons by now. It is only in Pakistan that the army makes these decisions. In China it is the PLA in the background and CCP in front.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1644
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Sid » 10 Jan 2011 10:27

shiv wrote:IAF does not decide these things. IAF is asked for advice and to state threat perceptions and the government takes the final call. I think there are enough deluded and misinformed people who will be misled by such statements. If IAF pulled all the strings we would have had 45 squadrons by now. It is only in Pakistan that the army makes these decisions. In China it is the PLA in the background and CCP in front.


Shiv, do you mean for AWACs, MMRCA, etc etc GOI just asked for advice from IAF and based on IAF reply they took the final call?

I think IAF do put requirements for such strategic systems based on the threat perception around India.

Ofcourse in the end GOI will have the final word.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Austin » 10 Jan 2011 10:51

We have never really heard of IAF ever coming up with the need to have a bomber squadron ( regional or strategic ? ) , their demand for some years have been to declare IAF as Aerospace Force first put by Tyagi and GOI has been chewing on this.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 10 Jan 2011 10:51

Sid wrote:Shiv, do you mean for AWACs, MMRCA, etc etc GOI just asked for advice from IAF and based on IAF reply they took the final call?

I think IAF do put requirements for such strategic systems based on the threat perception around India.

Ofcourse in the end GOI will have the final word.


GoI gets inputs from IAF but makes the final call anyway. I say this in the context of the accusation that the "IAF" decided to go in for the Su-30 reactively. The IAF is a branch of the GoI. The IAF and GoI are in constant touch with each other and the GoI is always asking the IAF what they want and the IAF is always telling the GoI what they need. The IAF cannot reach any such decision on its own, reactively or pro actively.

Over the years there have been pro active and reactive purchases. DPSA (Jaguar) and Hawk were pro active. MRCA is proactive. MiG 21, MiG 23, MiG 29 and Mirage 2000 were reactive. India had no class of aircraft of the Su-30 category other than the Canberra. The canard bearing TV aircraft that we call the MKI was non existent when China bought the Su-27. I am unable to see what was reactive about doing a deal for a totally new and unique class of aircraft. As far as I can tell it was bought on a whole lot of promises and those promises seem to have been upheld as far as I can tell. China has nothing that is equally capable.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1644
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Sid » 10 Jan 2011 10:59

shiv wrote:GoI gets inputs from IAF but makes the final call anyway. I say this in the context of the accusation that the "IAF" decided to go in for the Su-30 reactively. The IAF is a branch of the GoI. The IAF and GoI are in constant touch with each other and the GoI is always asking the IAF what they want and the IAF is always telling the GoI what they need. The IAF cannot reach any such decision on its own, reactively or pro actively.

Over the years there have been pro active and reactive purchases. DPSA (Jaguar) and Hawk were pro active. MRCA is proactive. MiG 21, MiG 23, MiG 29 and Mirage 2000 were reactive. India had no class of aircraft of the Su-30 category other than the Canberra. The canard bearing TV aircraft that we call the MKI was non existent when China bought the Su-27. I am unable to see what was reactive about doing a deal for a totally new and unique class of aircraft. As far as I can tell it was bought on a whole lot of promises and those promises seem to have been upheld as far as I can tell. China has nothing that is equally capable.


These thoughts are from a Vayu article (i.e. Su 30 being a reactive purchase). I will try to link up that article.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Dmurphy » 10 Jan 2011 20:10

India "to Get" Attack Helos from United States

Apparently, being offered something by US immediately qualifies it as "India to get". DDM jokers.

The US has given the clearance for two more missiles and an advanced combat radar for the Indian Air Force (IAF). The US will also be offering Lockheed Martin’s anti-tank Hellfire air-to-surface missile and air-to-air Stinger anti-aircraft missile by Raytheon. The Longbow Fire Control Radar (FCR) is also a Lockheed Martin product.

The US has offered the missiles and the radar as they are part of a weapons package on board the Apache 64D Block III attack helicopter which is being considered by India. The other contender besides the Apache helicopter from the US for IAF’s global tender for 22 combat helicopters is the Russian Mi-28. A decision on either of these combat helicopters will surface in a couple of months as the field and weapon trials have been successfully conducted. The winning helicopter will replace and update India’s s inventory of Soviet Vintage Mi 35 helicopters.

aniket
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 14 Dec 2010 17:34
Location: On the top of the world

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby aniket » 10 Jan 2011 20:18

If the apache or mi 28 win the contract , will they replace the mi 24 or will be in service along with it ?

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Dmurphy » 10 Jan 2011 21:08

Not sure. Russians did offer an upgrade package for Mi-35s, but the Govt wasn't too keen on it with the LCH and these 22 modern birds in the pipeline.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 10 Jan 2011 21:12

the Hinds must be nearing end of their effective lives in a few yrs. they will be replaced and infact no point upgding them when we can produce N numbers of WSI Dhruv first followed by LCH next. for the limited nos heavy role the Mi28/Ah64d is ok....though something like 60 rather than 22 would be a more warm and fuzzy number.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Surya » 10 Jan 2011 22:00

22 never made sense to me but I have never found what the forces are thinking about it.

one sqd per enemy Strike corp would be my outlook.

The rest can be handled by LCH

aniket
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 14 Dec 2010 17:34
Location: On the top of the world

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby aniket » 10 Jan 2011 22:50

I was asking that question because i think the mi 24 went under the Israeli upgrade program only like a few years back so ............

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Lalmohan » 10 Jan 2011 22:57

i have a feeling that apache will be used in conjunction with attack Dhruv's whilst LCH tech matures and we build up our comfort levels with operating smaller hi tech helos

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 11 Jan 2011 08:55

folks the IJT had vanished completely off the radar!

could people activate their chaiwalla contacts or otherwise ask folks in AI2011 what is the situation?
- number of protos flying (2?)
- flight hrs and numbers logged
- how much of unit testplan is done, what remains
- when is the IOC
- when is the FOC
- is the AL55 engine now fully certified and delivered and flying in IJT?

I feel compared to the earlier published timelines, the program looks well behind schedule but nobody in media has picked it up which they normally do.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby suryag » 11 Jan 2011 09:24

^^^ Sir jee from tarmak

R.K. Singh, Secretary Defense Production, said that the Arjun MBT delivery will be completed this fiscal and the Army, according to him, is extremely happy. He said HAL’s IJT will get IOC in June and then touched upon FGFA and stuff like that.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 11 Jan 2011 09:33

AoA ... but we need all the juicy details not just a date...things like production order in 1st tranche, production schedule, avionics, training weapons, high res photos and such.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby suryag » 11 Jan 2011 09:55

Gurus had a question, usaf fighters have their pilots name on it, why does iaf skip it ?

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Gaur » 11 Jan 2011 09:57

suryag wrote:Gurus had a question, usaf fighters have their pilots name on it, why does iaf skip it ?

More importantly, why should we have pilot name on fighters? Is there any advantage to it other than the fact that US does it?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54175
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby ramana » 11 Jan 2011 22:17

Does the IAF see no need for a dumb bomb heavier than the 450kg (1000 lbs) model?

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby suryag » 11 Jan 2011 22:46

Gaur wrote:
suryag wrote:Gurus had a question, usaf fighters have their pilots name on it, why does iaf skip it ?

More importantly, why should we have pilot name on fighters? Is there any advantage to it other than the fact that US does it?

No particular reason thought it would be a little tfta

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54175
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby ramana » 11 Jan 2011 23:17

Suryag, For IAF the a/c is a tool to be used by the pilots. I prefer 1.5 pilots per a/c to generate the sorties for a intense war.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Surya » 12 Jan 2011 01:58

This whole pilot name on aircraft is stoopid

what if the aircraft is not servicable - ?? the pilot will use a diff one ?? then what?

makes no sense

Every day the maintenance officer brings the list of available aircraft to the flight commander and deputy and then they plan out the ops.

some people have favorites and some have aircraft they do not like.

like yaar T 41 is superb but T 37 gives takleef and is temperamental.

But your turn comes up you get the aircraft that have been prepared for that sortie.

so you go your sortie in the day and T 37 is what you get, you suck it up and fly T 37 and pray the bugger does not get temperamental :)

while the guy who flies later might pray for T 37 to act up early and get pulled out of the flight line for the day :)

a day at a squadron is very very interesting.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2734
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby JTull » 12 Jan 2011 02:13

:lol:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby SaiK » 12 Jan 2011 03:01

Rather, pilots could tag themselves with "I fly HF 32" and with some a/c number if they need to associate themselves. Nice tag that they can carry and display where a/c can't even think about going on the streets etc. Nice value addition to their proud TFTA ownerships. But, it might come with security risks.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 12 Jan 2011 09:33

NRao wrote:Is there any chance, at all, that the IAF would get interested in a bomber? Real long range variety.



ramana wrote:Does the IAF see no need for a dumb bomb heavier than the 450kg (1000 lbs) model?



News reports wrote:The LCA is MiG 21++


Funnily enough there is a common philosophical theme that links these questions/statements.

What the IAF wants and what the IAF plans for (for the future) are dependent on the role that the IAF has to play for the nation and how far ahead one wants' to look.

For example, I believe that when the first requirements for the LCA were thought of in the 1980s - they were looking for a MiG 21 replacement albeit with technology (instability/FBW/avionics etc). They were not looking for an aircraft that would aid in future air dominance over regions outside India. They were looking to replace the Mig 21 - originally a clear weather interceptor with a 250 km radius of action. Indai as a nation was blinkered. In the 1980 the nations focus was neighborhood, neighborhood, neighborhood. Defence, defence defence. When we looked fo an attack aircraft we called it DPSA . By deep penetration we were talking about deep penetration into Pakistan. That's all. Funnily enough - if we were merely looking for a Jaguar replacement then the Tejas itself would meet the requirements (somewhat). The Tejas is after all a MiG 27/MiG 21 replacement rolled into one. But it was never designed as a long range attack aircrfat or a ong endurance air dominance fighter. These concepts were unnecessary and unthought of in the India of the 1980s where garibi hatao was the strategic thinking of the day.

If India needs something that is longer ranged and that can carry heavier bombs, we need to define the future and ask the land area that we want to dominate. If we need a plane that can cover Africa and reach Japan and Australia - we need to plan for it now. We need to think what these area may be like 50 years from now and decide if some for of aerial force projection will be useful on those areas. if the answer is yes - we need to go in for a long range attack aircrfat that can carry 5000 kg bombs if needed.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4350
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sanjaykumar » 12 Jan 2011 09:51

Long range aircraft are useless over China. Deep Penetration actually referred to Tibet.

What would the 20 or even 120 long range aircraft do over the Chinese heartland other than illuminate radars?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 12 Jan 2011 10:11

Jaguar was a Pakistan specific decision. It's performance as a low flying accurate delivery platform of weapons was never designed to occur at Tibet altitudes of 15000 feet above sea level, its radius of 900 km insufficient and its agility at high altitude poor. If we need to dominate over distant lands it will have to be over-the-ocean flight and a unrefuelled minimum reach of 5000 km

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7303
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby disha » 12 Jan 2011 10:53

^^^ Somewhere I read that the Indian defense posture is like "Defensive Offensive" capability.

Let's say we have this matrix:

Offensive-Offensive: Means if you think of kicking me, I will break your leg (pre-emptively if necessary). This is what Khan follows.
Defensive-Offensive == Offensive-Defensive: Means if you kick me, I will kick you back (or atleast have the capability to hurt you back).
Defensive-Defensive: Means if you kick me, it will hurt but the cost of you kicking me will not be worth kicking me.

The Indian defense policy falls in Defensive-Offensive, and within that where will a very-deep strike fighter carrying 5000 kg of ordinances fit?

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kailash » 12 Jan 2011 12:17


Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kailash » 12 Jan 2011 12:20


Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kailash » 12 Jan 2011 12:24


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 12 Jan 2011 12:48

the FGFA have a low wing loading should have no problem performing over tibet. for the LR maritime strike role, perhaps a soln to add additional fuel is both a F15E style 'fastpack' (mkting term) CFTs and slotting another fuel tank into both the internal weapons bays and carrying 4 small or 2 large ASMs externally only. I dont think internal bays can accomodate such large missiles in the 700kg+ region like harpoon. for that role and for deep strikes in the northern perimeter of tibet/CAR/baluchistan, a unrefulled radius of 2500km with a decent weapons load is a must. not sure if this will be possible with the additional internal tanks and CFTs but we can try. MKI 1500km radius is not enough...I think that figure might be with full internal fuel but zero weapons.

the AMCA also needs to keep things that will happen in 2050 in mind.

if the desire is to use only internal weapons bay then a family of smaller munitions to fit them has to be done in parallel not just sudarshan.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests