Indian Military Aviation

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Jan 2011 05:08

^^^ Saars, if they would be useful, they would have been used ... I mean do you expect the guys to be so foolish?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Jan 2011 05:13

indranilroy wrote:^^^ Saars, if they would be useful, they would have been used ... I mean do you expect the guys to be so foolish?

Exactly. The IAF wouldn't leave decent 4th gen aircraft just lying around if they could be used. It doesn't have that kind of luxury. I am fairly certain that they don't have too much airframe life left, owing to the reason Rahul posted earlier.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 14 Jan 2011 06:33

chetak wrote:
Rahul M wrote:the K's were flogged much more than normal squadron aircraft for IAF to get rapidly acquainted with the type. I remember some people here did a back of the envelope calculation using known hours on the type figures of su pilots and it did come out very high per year. more than 400 hours per year. the vanilla K has airframe life of 3000 hours IIRC. if more than one set of pilots used an aircraft it could easily come close to that number in 4-5 years.
Rahul M saar,

To achieve that kind of utilization, there has to be matching maintenance effort to quickly bring it back to service.

If as you say it had a airframe life of 3000 hrs, some of the inspections would have comprised of fairly deep overhauls that would have taken it's own time.

In one example of another aircraft, it's 20 year life comprised of sitting on ground for nine odd years undergoing routine maintenance and deep overhauls. Mostly just awaiting it's turn on the already long line. It had done a grand total of 2300 hours during that time.

ex. Wiki reports the AL 31F to have a MTBO of 1000 hrs and service life of 3000 hrs. So, for the above mentioned Su 30k' s to be flogged for 2000 hrs would mean that each engine was overhauled atleast once.

How much time does it take to overhaul an engine ? Specially if the engine is the one of the first of it's kind in the force.

I also said that IAF is not dumb, I am just trying to understand why these are not being used and what parameters could have been considered to make that decision.

P.S. What ever little I could find on web also mentions that these were retired due to being flogged extensively for training.
In that sense, their only use could be display or ADA could take one and try and put some carbon fiber on it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jan 2011 06:44

i asked about the bomb polcy of IAF as it has implication for target destruction. The IAF policy looks like is based on the British policy of small bombs delivered. I talked to a retired designer some years back. He said the US policy was one bomb, one target as you don't get repeat flights.
Analysis of WWII bombing campaigns showed that there are very few places that stand after a 2000 # hits them. For over fifty years these were the main stay.
However RAF had a different lesson. They felt 1000# were good enough and standardized on that. However they used a forged steel casing which gives them good penetration for hard targets like runways, a/c shelters. The US in mid 70s came up with I-2000 case hard target bombs which were used in Gulf War. These were developed to defeat hardened a/c shelters and avoid having to use special weapons. Sort of escalation control. T

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jan 2011 06:56

I also said that IAF is not dumb, I am just trying to understand why these are not being used and what parameters could have been considered to make that decision.

They were "flogged" AND the conversion to MKI standards did not make any sense.

Originally the thinking was that these machines themselves would be modified to MKIs. This did not work because as the MKI evolved into a much bigger machine, thus the conversion route went out of the window. It was deemed cheaper to replace them with MKIs.

Which brings us to the financial revolution that India went through as the MKI itself came into existence. I would like to think that IF India had remained a 1990 country, these Ks would be in use. Perhaps they would not have been flogged - due to lack of funds.

Also recall the initial reaction to the MKI was laughter. That too I suspect played a part. As the MKI evolved it became a mature machine. So the Ks had no value when India could pay (happily I may add) for a spanking new machine that was eons ahead of what would have been a re-manufactured one if they had used the Ks.

The Ks would have a salvage title at best. ............... not worth it.

BTW, this was discussed in great details a few years ago.

Time to move on.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 14 Jan 2011 15:54

X-post

ndia’s MMRCA trials help Russian aerial refueling tanker bid
Defenseworld

Flight trials of the six contenders for India’s Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender have had an unusual side effect on the race to sell India aerial refueling aircraft. Asked to prove aerial refueling capability, the contenders, F-16, Gripen, Rafale, F/A 18, MiG-35 and Eurofighter have had no option but use the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s existing tanker, the Il-86 mid-air refueler to prove that their aircraft is capable of meeting IAF’s requirements as regarding aerial refuelling.

The Il-86 is a contender in India’s re-floated bid to buy fresh aerial refueling tankers. Fresh bids are due later this month and the besides the Il-86, the other likely contenders are the Airbus A-330 MRTT and the Boeing KC-X. The success of the MMRCA aerial refueling tests means that the IL-76 tanker will have a stronger case due to the fact that its capability has been proven on all the MMRCA bidders, one of which will be eventually selected.

In fact, the MMRCA contenders had to make major modifications to their aerial refueling systems to match the IL-76’s fuel pipe mating and locking systems to prove that the their aircraft can be refueled in mid-air. Informed sources told Defenseworld.net that the Russian bid had “emerged stronger” after the MMRCA aerial refueling tests.

At Aero India 2009, the Il-78 had made a demonstration refueling two aircraft simultaneously. It is quite likely that it may repeat this feat with the LCA Tejus at Aero India 2011.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Jan 2011 19:06

this is a bit of DDM at work, there is a NATO refuelling standard and a ruski one. all that has happened is that the 'nato' birds have been adapted to work with the ruski fittings, something which other iaf aircraft have already done. perhaps some lifafa journalism at work here...

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 14 Jan 2011 19:13

Sure DDM at work , Tejas still does not have refueling probe yet ,modification can be carried out by airbus to on its tanker to provide mid air refueling to Russian fighters in iaf's arsenal

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 14 Jan 2011 19:53

ajit, good catch on the four remaining 'K's from Barielly. Never struck me that those four are over there!

Bala, the canberra at Lohegaon is a display warbird.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 14 Jan 2011 20:10

Lalmohan wrote:this is a bit of DDM at work, there is a NATO refuelling standard and a ruski one. all that has happened is that the 'nato' birds have been adapted to work with the ruski fittings, something which other iaf aircraft have already done. perhaps some lifafa journalism at work here...

Refueling probes on IL-78 are not of Russian make, they are of French or British origin (don't remember). I wonder if they were modified at all!!

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 14 Jan 2011 20:52

How come we didn't replace a bison squadron with the K's. The K's maybe flogged, but wouldn't they have more life than the bisons ?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Jan 2011 20:59

Seems to be some contractual dispute otherwise why would the ks be not a) used and b) sold?

Aditya Watts · Post by **Aditya Watts** » 14 Jan 2011 21:33

Ok here is another good one: Put those K's in the Ayni or Farkhor base in Tajikistan

No but seriously, speaking of these Su-30K's, I though that they are converted into MKI's as also mentioned before in this thread.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 15 Jan 2011 07:17

Indian Air Force Delivers $1 Million Aid to Sri Lanka Flood Victims

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 15 Jan 2011 08:16

As per Original contract , once MKI-1 started arriving k's were supposed to be upgraded to MKI-1 standards , but Russian seems to have told Iaf and GOI that K's based on original Su-27UB airframe cannot be upgraded to MKI standards since MKI has gone through various modification to the airframe and also design changes done to it . Russians proposed to Take back K's and offered brand new MKI for some discounted Price and India agreed. i don't know what happened later or Russian still have not found buyers for them or Its quite expensive to overhaul them and then taking it back cost expenses might be bomb . i think it is Russian Property in Indian Hangars , Chinese also have started retiring Su-27 some years back , not much airframe life is left in them i think

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 15 Jan 2011 16:58

Indian Air Chief to visit SL tomorrow

The Indian Air Force Commander Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik will arrive Sri Lanka for a four-day official visit, tomorrow. He will meet President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The Indian Air Force Chief will also meet Chief of Defence Staff and Air Force Commander Air Chief marshal Roshan Goonetilake, tomorrow. He is scheduled to meet the service commanders of the Sri Lanka Army and Navy during his visit. Being a qualified flying instructor Air Chief Marshal Naik is to visit SLAF’s Jet Squadron at Katunayake.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 15 Jan 2011 21:47

HF-24 “Marut” and Hunter to Join IAF again

Indian air force engineers are working hard to re-activate HF-24 “Marut” and Hunter aircraft into flyable condition , No aircraft’s are not joining back in IAF but are been re-activated from their stores and reserves to form the first vintage Squadron which IAF wants to activate ,so that it can display all the aircraft which was once operated by Indian air force in its more then seven decades of its formation .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jan 2011 21:58

sumshyam wrote:HF-24 “Marut” and Hunter to Join IAF again

Indian air force engineers are working hard to re-activate HF-24 “Marut” and Hunter aircraft into flyable condition , No aircraft’s are not joining back in IAF but are been re-activated from their stores and reserves to form the first vintage Squadron which IAF wants to activate ,so that it can display all the aircraft which was once operated by Indian air force in its more then seven decades of its formation .

Brilliant news!!

I have been trying desperately to get video footage of the Marut.

disha · Post by **disha** » 15 Jan 2011 23:06

sumshyam wrote:HF-24 “Marut” and Hunter to Join IAF again

Great news, good to see Maruts flying again.

Not to get my dhotis in twist, but for us SDRE Indians, does not it make sense to come up with Marut-II., that is mate the Marut airframe with current Kaveri Jet engine. Several reasons one can think of doing that:

1. A capable ground attack fighter, on the lines of Chota-Warthog. Top cover can be provided by Su/Mirage/LCA/Mig/Pak-FA/AMCA

2. An excellent test hack for Kaveri engines. Remember it can carry two and has demonstrated returning to base on a single engine. It also is a good glider in case both engines fail.

3. A test bed to expand composites production., several parts of Marut can be converted to composites like Rudder and wings etc., this will enable a larger production facility.

4. A platform for dedicated EW jamming, aerial observer.

5. BSF/Coast Gaurd may need its own air wing!

It can be our "test-bed" platform for various technologies., serpentine intakes, shieldd intakes, flat nozzles - In fact it can be given its own "test-bed" designation like yanks do., for eg. DWHF-24 (DW stands for Dhoti Wearing., the Dhoti could be any test type).

My very very humble opinion onleee.

PS: edited to fix quotes.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jan 2011 15:53

ET

NEW DELHI: The Indian Air Force's new acquisition from the US for special forces operations, the C-130J Super Hercules airlifter , will reach its home base at Hindon on the outskirts of the national capital this week, ahead of its formal induction in February, an officer said.

He told IANS that the first C-130J would be flown into Hindon by an IAF crew and would be readied for joining the service. A function to mark its induction would be held at its home base in the first week of February, he added.

This will be the first of the six C-130Js that India has ordered from the US in a deal worth $950 million in 2008. The other five aircraft would be delivered by the end of the year.

The US Air Force (USAF), which is executing the government-to-government deal, had taken possession of the first C-130J at a ceremony at manufacturer Lockheed Martin's facility at Marietta near Atlanta Dec 16 last year.

It was that very day handed over to the IAF.

Though the US is supplying the six aircraft under its Foreign Military Sales route, Lockheed Martin will execute an offsets commitment under which 30 percent of $950 million - about $285 million - will be reinvested in the Indian defence industry.

The four-engined Hercules will be used by India for transporting its special forces for strategic operations behind enemy lines and is expected to considerably enhance Indian armed forces' special missions capability.

The USAF is training nine batches of IAF crew of 18 pilots, nine loadmasters and nine combat system operators to fly and operate the aircraft. Five of these batches would complete their training in February.

Additionally, nearly 100 maintenance officers and technicians are also being trained at Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas and Marietta.

The IAF, on its part, has modernised its Hindon air base by extending the runway and establishing state-of-the-art hangars, servicing and operations facilities for the C-130J aircraft.

In keeping with IAF requirements, the US government offered a unique C-130J configuration modified for special mission roles and these will be the first uniquely configured aircraft in the IAF fleet for such operations.

The aircraft will be able to perform precision low-level flying, air drops and landing in blackout conditions. Special features are included to ensure aircraft survivability in a hostile air defence environment.

In addition, these aircraft will have refuelling probes, advance radar warning receivers and a counter-measures dispensing system for extended range and additional safety.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Jan 2011 17:09

IAF working on ways to beat fatigue in pilots

"Knowing the danger this factor poses to the successof any mission, it is important that measures be taken thatwill minimise the risk of any undesirable outcome. That is whythe Institute of Aerospace Medicine is trying out methods tocombat fatigue amongst its pilots when conducting operationson round-the-clock basis," Air Marshal Dipankar Ganguly,Director General Medical Services, Air said.

"What applies during peace time is not possible whenthere is a war," he said. During routine operations, a fighter pilot is wellrested before he takes off. "This luxury is not there duringwar time. They are required to fly without adequate rest forfive to ten days, depending on the nature of operation." Elaborating on the trials, Ganguly said "we will useboth pharmacological means and non-pharma ways so that theirsleep and wake pattern is adapted to the nature of operation.

"Say, it is wartime and we want our pilot to deliverat night time. So he must have a good rest before he performs. Unfortunately, if he does not have the habit of sleeping atdaytime he cannot rest and here our medicines will work. "It should be able to make him sleep during the dayand also make him deliver well at night," the Air Marshalsaid. He said that attempts are being made to optimise aircrew and ground crew performance during situations whichrequire intense concentration for long hours.

Group Captain Deepak Gour, director medical services,Aviation Medicine said, "Once we have the switch in our hands,the problem of irregular working hours having a cumulativeeffect on the ability of a pilot during important missionscan be overcome."

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Jan 2011 18:50

^^^

The HF 24 has a very special place in my heart. Will absolutely love to see it fly.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 16 Jan 2011 21:26

The recent January issue of AFM has two tidbits of our interest. It has some reports on DACT between NATO aircraft vs MiG-29s.

In the first - A Sea Harrier FA2 pilot writes about his combat with a Sardinian MiG-29. HIs observes that he got the first MRAAM shot off at midrange - the MiG-29 pilot was either inexperienced or didnt care about it (in practice the Harrier pilot claims 'first kill with the MRAAM shot'). Then the fighters merge. in the turning fight, the Harrier can pull only about 6.5g or so, the MiG pilot pulls 9G. Though the turning fight means the MiG-29 pilot cannot achieve a short range AAM kill , he closes in and 'guns' the harrier down

In the second - a Bulgarian MiG-29 pilot writes that ina close in turning dog fight, the only difference between an experienced and inexperienced pilot of an F-16 (the recent versions) is how long it will take before the MiG-29 is on the F-16's 'six' .. They do say that the latest Short range AAMs carried bythe F-16s give them an edge..

Both do say that the MiG-29s could be spotted as far away as 10m or so due to the smoky engines.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Jan 2011 21:39

Both do say that the MiG-29s could be spotted as far away as 10m or so due to the smoky engines.

hopefully one advantage our polluted environment gives is that there is enough haze and smoke to hide the smoky engines a little longer

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 16 Jan 2011 21:54

^^
The present RD-33 series 3 and RD-33MK are smokeless. So the IAF should not face the same problem.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2011 22:39

Surya wrote:
Both do say that the MiG-29s could be spotted as far away as 10m or so due to the smoky engines.
hopefully one advantage our polluted environment gives is that there is enough haze and smoke to hide the smoky engines a little longer

Why?

It should be Paki polluted env. Take the fight there .................

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Jan 2011 23:15

Nrao

fair enough it may happen

but I see the 29s more closer to our areas

For forward sweeps the Su 30s will take care of that

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 Jan 2011 23:27

Well, the upgraded Baaz should have a very good range/combat radius - good enough to cover most of Pak on A2A patrols and enforce NFZs - but yes, the big boys will take care of really far out sweeps.

Question(s) to all:

What, if any, news on the MiG-29 upgrade? IIRC, deliveries should begin any time now.

And what of the Mirage 2000 upgrade? Was it finally signed? Or are they still haggling as I had
feared?

CM

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 Jan 2011 01:03

Jagan wrote:In the first - A Sea Harrier FA2 pilot writes about his combat with a Sardinian MiG-29. HIs observes that he got the first MRAAM shot off at midrange - the MiG-29 pilot was either inexperienced or didnt care about it (in practice the Harrier pilot claims 'first kill with the MRAAM shot'). Then the fighters merge. in the turning fight, the Harrier can pull only about 6.5g or so, the MiG pilot pulls 9G. Though the turning fight means the MiG-29 pilot cannot achieve a short range AAM kill , he closes in and 'guns' the harrier down

Sardinian MiG-29? Sardinia is an autonomous island territory of Italy. Perhaps you were referring to the Sardinian airbase (where the NATO regularly engages in DACT).

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 17 Jan 2011 01:06

Yeah thats sounds right. Now what was the airforce.?? will have to check and revert.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 17 Jan 2011 03:40

Jagan wrote:Yeah thats sounds right. Now what was the airforce.?? will have to check and revert.

Jag man,

IIRC it was East German Mig 29s as by the time the CIS/post USSR MIG 29s of Hungary/Bulgaria etc starter excercising with NATO and European countries The FA2 might have been on its way out onlee...

Btw I have that article scanned and another few documenting DACT between Mig 29s and F16s will post it in the next couple of days.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Jan 2011 03:52

ramana wrote:i asked about the bomb polcy of IAF as it has implication for target destruction. The IAF policy looks like is based on the British policy of small bombs delivered. I talked to a retired designer some years back. He said the US policy was one bomb, one target as you don't get repeat flights.
Analysis of WWII bombing campaigns showed that there are very few places that stand after a 2000 # hits them. For over fifty years these were the main stay.
However RAF had a different lesson. They felt 1000# were good enough and standardized on that. However they used a forged steel casing which gives them good penetration for hard targets like runways, a/c shelters. The US in mid 70s came up with I-2000 case hard target bombs which were used in Gulf War. These were developed to defeat hardened a/c shelters and avoid having to use special weapons. Sort of escalation control. T

This is a confirmation on why IAF has mostly standardized on the 1,000lb (450kg) bombs and as seen in recent deployment in Vayu Shakti 2010, where each (or in pairs) bomb dropped per target. So far, all the LGB kits are only for the 1,000lb bombs.

Whereas, in Vayu Shakti 2010, 250kg bombs were pretty much deployed as an area weapon with multiple units dropped per plane.

Also, I don't really recall seeing any heavier type of bomb than the 1,000lb in the IAF service ... so if they exist, their quantities must be very small.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 Jan 2011 03:55

andy B wrote:
Jagan wrote:Yeah thats sounds right. Now what was the airforce.?? will have to check and revert.
Jag man,

IIRC it was East German Mig 29s as by the time the CIS/post USSR MIG 29s of Hungary/Bulgaria etc starter excercising with NATO and European countries The FA2 might have been on its way out onlee...

Btw I have that article scanned and another few documenting DACT between Mig 29s and F16s will post it in the next couple of days.

The FA2 wasn't withdrawn from service until 2006, so its quite possible that it trained against Hungarian or Bulgarian MiG-29s.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 17 Jan 2011 03:58

^^^ Actually you are quite right.
Just looked it up and yes that could quite be the case.

Also lets not forget the Polish Mig 29s in addition to the Hungarian, Bulgarian, etc.

Given the erstwhile Luftwaffe Mig 29s also were given off to the Polish AF, sadly though with the advent of the Gripen the Mig 29 will be going off the Polish AF's roster in the future.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jan 2011 05:33

srai wrote:
Also, I don't really recall seeing any heavier type of bomb than the 1,000lb in the IAF service ... so if they exist, their quantities must be very small.

I think the Canberra could carry a 2000 lb bomb internally. Apart from that, until the advent of the Su-30 I know of no other IAF type that could carry anything more than a 1000 lb load per pylon - I am not sure about the Mirage 2000 though. Would be happy to learn if anyone knows anything different.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Jan 2011 06:08

the mirage does carry the ASMP in AdlA service which weighs 800+ kg which is close to 2000 pounds.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 17 Jan 2011 07:40

Is the Chinese J-20 an indication that their J-10 and J-11 programs are not going as well as hoped? Also the problems with the WS-10 would compound their ability to field the J-20 as quickly as is being rumored (unless the Russians give them their engines to commit Hara Kiri). However, getting the J-20 prototype in the air is a significant milestone for the Chinese. What they do with it - radar, engines, payload, internal payload or not, RCS are all big question marks and with their track record, may be insurmountable for the Xerox corp, I mean Shenyang Aircraft Corp.

Indian planners seem to have already figured this in their plans. However, the newly developed aerospace industry should be put to work churning out LCAs. We need to get some LCA squadrons operational as soon as possible and LCA Mk2 flying in short order. Also, the M2K upgrade should either be singned or the MRCA order upped by 50 aircraft and the M2ks left as they are. The PAK-FA will come when ready and we need to do a good job on that.

disha · Post by **disha** » 17 Jan 2011 07:47

pandyan wrote:M2K is also supposedly capable of carrying Matra Arcole BGL1000 which weighs 1000Kg ~2200lbs.

Mirage 2000H with Arcole BGL1000., from keypublishing forum

[Added later: It is from our own B. Harry/ACIG., so appears to be part of IAF onleee]

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jan 2011 07:52

Actually - apart from the engine - the J-10 is probably doing fine. The FC-1/JF-17 is also OK.

However what is not known about these aircraft is reliability, uptime and the efficacy of avionics. The Chinese are definitely moving forward (that does not mean that we are not) - but I think the Chinese have felt "choked and boxed in" by the US and are trying to make the US beat a retreat.

India of course has been boxed in both by China and by the US and China via Pakistan. Technically we have had to base our armed forces on imports from countries other than the US or China or on our own merit. It may be no coincidence that the US, under pressure from China is now "opening up" to India - but not without strings. For example the US has supplied 500 AMRAAMs to Pakistan even as Pakistan looks to acquire the Chinese equivalent - the PL-12. And the US has helped to subsidize the SAAB Erieye's that Pakistan has acquired.

So Chinese developments are part good news. If the US is beaten back by China - the US faces fairly stark choices

1) Keep screwing India, and try and hold on to Pakistan
2) Give India the tech it wants
3) Continue to keep ahead of China and continue to fund and keep Pakistan it its pocket.
4) Cop out and get out

Number 3 above is what the US has traditionally done. Chinese arms developments are upsetting the balance and pushing the US towards options 1 and 2

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 17 Jan 2011 07:53

disha wrote:
pandyan wrote:M2K is also supposedly capable of carrying Matra Arcole BGL1000 which weighs 1000Kg ~2200lbs.
Mirage 2000H with Arcole BGL1000., from keypublishing forum

[Added later: It is from our own B. Harry/ACIG., so appears to be part of IAF onleee]
----

Some great photos of it here too: Bombe Guidée Laser - BGL