Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[vic]

It is great day in Indian Aviation History that we are importing a Trainer of 50 year old design with engine also of 50 year old design with restrictions. Great

[tejas]

The only thing more embarrassing than having to import a toy plane like the Pilatus from a city called Switzerland, is to listen to peaceniks in that city complain that the natives may use this white man's invention to attack people in Indian held Cashmere. I $hit you not! Is there any wonder why these people hold India in the same league as Rwanda? The excuse that the temple of mediocrity (HAL) wasn't asked to build said trainer is garbage. If HAL was privately owned they would always be looking for more business and would have constantly been knocking on the door of the MoD looking for orders. What does a PSU care if orders come or go. You come to work at 11 AM sharp and leave at 2:30 PM, lather, rinse and repeat the next day.

The purchase of the toy plane exceeds greatly what has so far been spent on the Kaveri engine. I wish I could simply stop caring about India

[sum]

^^ Sirji, post by Vic in the Artillery dhaaga about the blatant goal post shifting in IA AD guns case as recorded by CAG should give a good idea as to why PSUs/Pvt would be wary of investing too much without even token go-ahead by IA/IAF esp ( compared to IN)

[Surya]

its known fact that Mig-23 can keep its own against an F-16.

yes yes

it also can hold its own against a mig 29

[tejas]

Sum, boss, I think the only way out of this mess is to bite the bullet and simply stop importing unless it absolutely cannot be made in India. And for those items resources must be provided to eventually stop importing them. If every imported item was banned to India like an ICBM. I bet India would be making a lot of what its importing.

If the GOI handed the Tatas $2 billion in cash and said make me a gas turbine engine and I don't care how you do it. And there's another $3 billion in orders after the engine is ready, I wonder how they would vs a GTRE with both hands tied behind its back.

[sum]

Sum, boss, I think the only way out of this mess is to bite the bullet and simply stop importing unless it absolutely cannot be made in India. And for those items resources must be provided to eventually stop importing them. If every imported item was banned to India like an ICBM. I bet India would be making a lot of what its importing.

^^ +1

[member_19648]

If the GOI handed the Tatas $2 billion in cash and said make me a gas turbine engine and I don't care how you do it. And there's another $3 billion in orders after the engine is ready, I wonder how they would vs a GTRE with both hands tied behind its back.

Hey, I think you should either change your statement or your mindset because this line of thinking is childish to say the least. Have the TATAS proclaimed that they intend and have the capability to build an engine, or how do you know that it is going to be any better!!! Also, commenting on HAL work schedule is pathetic to say the least, you have assumed that they are any less patriotic than you are and are just happy to do their jobs!!! Also, if you want NOT to stop thinking about India or her progress, start reading, get a degree, invent something and CONTRIBUTE!!!

[shiv]

If the GOI handed the Tatas $2 billion in cash and said make me a gas turbine engine and I don't care how you do it. And there's another $3 billion in orders after the engine is ready, I wonder how they would vs a GTRE with both hands tied behind its back.

Fundamental "Indian patriotic" error. "Pvt companies did it in the west therefore they would have done it here." Why didn't they do it here when the pvt companies were doing it elsewhere in the 1940s. Did the GoI stop private Indian companies? Did they need a special invitation from GoI? Did engine designers in the west get special invites from their governments? Engine development and high tech development does not come from profits. It comes from failures and losses. But for that you need to know how tech development works. Knowing how profit making works does not translate to technology.

Tatas make profits. Not aero engines.

[Rahul M]

its known fact that Mig-23 can keep its own against an F-16.

yes yes

it also can hold its own against a mig 29

I see what you did there.

[NRao]

If the GOI handed the Tatas $2 billion in cash and said make me a gas turbine engine and I don't care how you do it. And there's another $3 billion in orders after the engine is ready, I wonder how they would vs a GTRE with both hands tied behind its back.

In addition to what Shiv has posted, most projects until say early-mid 2000 did not meet expectations because of a total lack of project management. Not so much a lack of technical brain power or funds. Lack of coordination, risk evaluation (Ho jaiga) and things like that. Such projects cannot do with out it - learn from past mistakes, etc.

The space program had PM, the ADA, engine did not.

[tejas]

The engine problems are fundamentally a materials issue. Do I know Tatas can succeed where GTRE/Midhani have not? Of course not. However if "private" consultant engineers from abroad can be temporarily hired whether NRIs or not, Tatas can pay them millions of dollars each not thousands of rupees each as they get from PSUs. That could certainly ease some bottlenecks. Why did pvt companies do it in the West, because their R and D was subsidized and they got assured contracts. Something that must be done in India. GE makes profits and aero engines. Given support so can the Tatas.

As for HAL, they will forever be happy building toilet seats for Boeing. I know enough former engineers from HAL to know that GOI ownership is the kiss of death.
I hope other forum members are as proud and pleased as I am that toy planes from Switzerland will be arriving for over $ 10 million each. If a better example of the diseased state of India's MIC exists, I'd like to hear it. Also our negotiating team tried their best but could not get certain restrictions lifted. These high tech. wonders can only be used for training purposes and not, say on bombing runs in Indian occupied-ruled-administered Cashmere--- Peaceniks in Switzerland were actually worried about this. The current set up in the non-strategic sector is an abysmal failure and needs radical changes not bandaids. If this cannot be acknowledged their is no hope other then to import forever.

[NRao]

The engine problems are fundamentally a materials issue. ........................................

True.

PM-Risk_analysis, that is what it is. This, as an example, should have bubbled to the top in a good analysis, long before they actually encountered the problem.

Having said that it does not mean that such problems would have been resolved in time. There is that 'lil thing called R&D - a pretty much non-existent thing as far as I know. I think Shiv's post alludes to this aspect. One of the reasons a lot of projects are stop-n-go, they lurch. Every time they hit a problem they have to re-research or generate more research data (stop), then once that problem is solved then comes the "go". This cycle continues till the end.

I think now they have a national competence database in ND. Who can do what, etc. I feel they are ahead in some techs (missiles), some they are close (sensors, etc) and in some they are too late (engine).

Another factor is vision - I just do not see it, perhaps IN has it. Which is why they had to lean on the Swiss company to provide basic trainers. Everyone on this earth saw the basic trainer issue coming, except ............. Well.

[shiv]

The engine problems are fundamentally a materials issue.

Actually it is much, much more than a materials issue. It is a design plus materials issue. If the material does not meet expectations, the design has to be changed, and for that you have to go right back to the first stage, redesign and then test again. If materials are still not up to expectation, it is back to the drawing board. But unless you already have a huge database of how materials work (from previous experience and failures) and a back up industry that provides materials of those specs, you will never be able to predict material behaviour until you test.

If you apply this problem to all critical components, blade by blade, ring by ring, bearing by bearing - you find that any one of a number of areas can cause problems that lead to redesign. There is no short cut. Industries and companies have "core competencies" where they have the in house tech to work on certain areas. No Indian private company has what it takes to make an aero engine. It seems to cause lot of takleef - but in India DRDO is number 1 in this field. Shows the backwardness of the country. No point worshipping false private company gods when the country lacks the tech base.

If you are interested in a serious discussion on the issue, please visit this thread. I spent some time researching and writing the first post of that thread.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=3&t=6387

[tejas]

Shiv, just started reading the thread you started and its a real eye opener.

[Austin]

yes yes

it also can hold its own against a mig 29

Or even a Flanker

[vic]

The problem is not with HAL, it is with the Babu who has neither allocated adequate money nor mandate nor kicked IAF brass ass to develop basic trainer. It would have been illegal for HAL to spend money on R&D without Babu permission.

[tejas]

^^^^ Precisely why the govt should not be running commercial enterprises. Products actually needed are only made if a govt baboon orders it. In a market set up anywhere a product is needed and money to be made, someone will try to fill that need.

[Surya]

Or even a Flanker

now now - don't lose heart

go for the PAK-FA too while you are at it

[Karan M]

...its known fact that Mig-23 can keep its own against an F-16.

The MiG-23 is simply an earlier generation plane, much harder to fly, less forgiving and will have to depend on very specific criteria (zoom and attack) to even have a chance against the modern day F-16...without even bringing in avionics into the question..

[Austin]

The Mig-23 had different generations to it , the second generation (Mig-23MLD ) were really good one with much better radar and flight performance , The IAF immediately bought the Mig-23MF as immediate stop block against the PAF F-16 , had it not been capable to hold on its own IAF would not have gone for it , they certainly went later with a much capable aircraft in M2K and 29.

Most of the Mig-23 exported were the MF types which for first gen Mig-23 which were downgraded variant of Mig-23M of the same generation.

AFM: Mig-23 versus Western Fighter

[Surya]

The 23 was a 'panic buy' - needed something with BVR and it was a first step for the IAF.

As the article itself says

using the 'slash-and-dash' attack technique - the preferable method, and often the only one available against F-16s and F15s.

The 23 had very limited options in air to air -

The IAF wised up to it and went witht he M2K\Mig 29

So it s is extremely silly to say the 23 could hold its own against the F 16 (which means in a wide range\spectrum) and if it was so good why bother with M2k\29??

(even my friend who has 'downed' a 29 in dACt would not claim it could hold its own)

What it excelled was acceleration and really most useful for the IAF was the 23 BN, which could bomb, and then scoot back with nothing in the PAF able to come close to it

In fact most common task for my friends on the 23 MF\BN was to give Air defence practice as the speed which they came in really tested their reactions.

If it had better electronics and counter measures some more use could have been found for it but it was not a cost effective option

[Austin]

Surya , the article written in AFM is about Mig-23MLD that too in export configuration , which they them self admit were inferior in flight performance and radar compared to what VVS operated then.

No one claims in that article that Mig-23MLD were clearly superior to F-16A or F-15A in all regimes of flight performance infact in most it is inferior but it also points to tactics where it can hold it own against these types , remember we are still talking of Mig-23MLD in export variant.

IAF operated the Mig-23MF which were export variant of Mig-23M which was essentially 1st gen of Mig-23 ...even then if it could fire the BVR shot or get the first look first kill advantage then it was a stop gap for what was available then ..clearly it couldnt win in manouvering fight against F-16 and it would be wrong tactics to get into one.

One can also argue that Mig-21Bison could hold its own against F-16 or MKI ( indeed IAF exercise against Flanker proves that ) provided the Bison fights to its strength ....it ofcourse does not mean Bison is superior in call combat performance against the Flanker.

[Surya]

Austin

you make sense now but not before

but you posted before that it could hold its own -

Hold its own is not based on one off victories here and there

[Lalmohan]

i seem to recall analysis that equated a Mig23M with an F4J/K variant
these aircraft were designed for a different mission - in a straight line with the burners on, not many can catch them
high speed runs with BVR missiles are a good enough tactic under many scenarios

[Surya]

The F 4 was defintely more versatile (lots of load, land. sea, ew, recon - you name it- a flying brick

The IAF could have soldiered on with the 23s if there was a cost effective way to upgrade them.

unfortunately there was not.

whatever was extracted out of it was because of some very good men who maintained the squadrons at a high level and understood the value of the system and their part in it

[srai]

...

AFM: Mig-23 versus Western Fighter

Good read!

...

M1G-23MLD Pros and Cons

...

Westerners might find it interesting to read a 32page Soviet Air Force supplementary air combat manual called Aide-Memoire for the MiG-23 Pilot on Air Combat vs F-15A, F-I6A, F-4E and Kfir C.2,published not long after the Bekaa Valley clashes. At that time both Soviet pilots and those from its client states were still trained mainly in the orthodox - some might say 'inflexible' - air intercept tactics originating from the 1960s, which were mastered to perfection during the MiG-21 era, from the early 1960s to the 1970s. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet Union and its client air arms flew the MiG-23M/ML/MLD in the same way as the MiG-21 as a high-speed point interceptor closely guided and supported by the GCI. It took the Russians 12 years to exploit the Flogger-G/K as a true air superiority fighter. The Aide-Memoire for the MiG-23 Pilot on Air Combat vs F-15A, F-I6A, F-4E and Kfir C.2 refers to the MiG-23MLD(Export) version, powered by the R35-300 turbojet, rated at 28,700lb (127kN) in full afterburner, without the aerodynamics and flight control system improvements of the VVS-FA MIG-23MLDS. According to the manual, the aircraft's main parameters, defining its manoeuvring performance, turn out to be slightly better than the McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II and definitely better than the IAI KfirC.2. However, the MiG-23MLD's air combat performance, as quoted in the manual, is cited as definitely inferior to the McDonnell Douglas F-15A and General Dynamics F-16A. There are only a few areas within the MiG-23MLD's envelope where it could boast performance equal to, or slightly better than, the third-generation US fighters.

...

One of the major advantages of the MiG-23 in combat with the F-15A and F-4E is its compact appearance and relatively small size, along with the fact that the wings are set at a 72° swept angle for high-speed flight. Combined with suitable camouflage, this would make low-level visual detection and tracking very difficult, particularly from above and in head-on encounters.

...

Conclusions and BVR Considerations

The manual concludes that the MiG-23MLD(Export), armed with the R-24/R60MK AAM combination, could be considered reasonably capable of holding its own against all types of enemy fighters. However, it could gain the edge over the F-15A - the most capable of its rivals - only through multiple simultaneous 'slash-and-dash' attacks by several aircraft from different directions and from long range. These would have to be mounted in a decisive manner and would involve a high degree of co-ordination between the groups once the WVR phase was entered into, and there would have to be a timely exit from combat.

...

In order to expand the search zone in a high-threat environment, the Flogger pilot was required to fly a 'weaving' or zig-zag flight profile, with his attention focused on a visual search pattern below the lower limits of his own forces' ground radar coverage, (usually below 1,OOOft [300m] in Central Europe in the 1980s). However, it is well known that MiG-23 pilots had problems with the rearward and downward field of view, as the fighter was designed with a low-drag canopy faired into the fuselage, although the canopy-mounted rear-view mirrors expanded the rearward field of view to some extent. Consequently, during low-level sorties, the Flogger pilot had a great deal of difficulty in keeping a turning 'bogey' in view, or during a visual search below his aircraft and pilot workload was excessively high in this mode of flight. On the other hand, the MiG-23MLD has fast acceleration - thanks to a low-drag airframe and the aerodynamic qualities of the fully-swept wings - and its high speed could make it more difficult for an unseen attacker to satisfy his aiming requirements in the consequently reduced intercept time. This aspect of Flogger operations could be another defensive factor when flying in enemy or disputed airspace.

...

During BVR combat, the manual emphasises that attacks should not be initiated without offensive advantage and the prospect of firing the 'first shot'. The general rule: 'Who shoots first - kills first and dictates the outcome of the engagement' should be seen as a particularly important dictum for the MiG-23 community. If the MiG-23 was dictating the outcome of the engagement, the aircraft could exploit this advantage to the full, using the 'slash-and-dash' attack technique - the preferable method, and often the only one available against F-16s and F15s.

If an unknown type of 'bandit' is encountered, it should be assumed that it is an F-15 - the most capable and hence the most dangerous, enemy fighter. The manual stresses that the MiG23MLD is prohibited from closing head-on with any such adversary, as these may well be F-15s with better radar performance and longer-range BVR missiles. For this reason, one piece of advice that the manual directs specifically at GCI officers is that during fighter sweep operations it would be strictly against the rules for them to vector MiG-23s in head-on attacks against non-identified bandits. However, if such a situation is unavoidable, then the tactics recommended to MiG-23 pilots and GCI officers are as follows: "If the distance to the 'bandits' exceeds 12nm (20km), the MiGs should immediately make a sharp turn away from the target, descending and pulling high-g and then reverting to a 'side-on' or 'tail-on' missile attack. If the target is detected side on, the MiG-23MLD pilot should use chaff and turn away sharply in order to evade the Sparrow missiles, and then revert to attack."

In order to mask a group attack, the manual recommends that own forces' fighters be flown in carefully spaced formations. These are usually known as 'cells' - virtual square 'boxes' of airspace with 1,200ft-long (400m) sides, within which enemy airborne radars are incapable of discriminating the presence of multiple targets. (However, this is only valid for earlier PD [pulsed Doppler] radars without the raid cluster resolution mode introduced in the mid/late-1980s.) In other words, a group of aircraft would be displayed as a single target on an airborne radar display at a distance of more than 8nm (15km). When tracked by enemy radar, all the aircraft within a 'cell' would then execute simultaneous manoeuvring (the so-called 'burst' manoeuvre) in the horizontal and vertical plane, in order to break lock and initiate a massed attack. In a 'real world' situation there would always be the chance that a BVR missile launched at the maximum permissible range might be out-manoeuvred by the enemy. Consequently, in a head-on attack, the advice is for the first R-24R (R-23R) to be launched at 90% maximum range (below 6nm [11km] at low level and 15nm [28km] at medium/high level). The second should follow at 60-70% maximum range (below 4nm [7.5k] and 10nm [20km] respectively).

...

WVR Combat Considerations.

...

The manual assures MiG-23 pilots that the F-15A or F-16A have no valuable advantage in their close air combat weapons. However, these US new-generation fighters are regarded as being much more manoeuvrable, and could consequently achieve a weapons employment solution in their turning engagements much easier and earlier than the MiG-23MLD. In view of this, MiG-23MLD pilots are strongly advised that prolonged turning engagements against F-15As and F-16As, both offensive and defensive, should be avoided by all means. Attack manoeuvring should be broken off at the latest by the end of the first minute of the engagement if no weapon employment solutions have been achieved by then. The manual also advises the pilot to maintain high speed (not below 485kts [900km/h]) during combat as the lower the speed, the greater the 'bandit's' manoeuvring advantage. Manoeuvres which would cause considerable loss of speed - and therefore energy - are permitted only when necessary for weapons employment or missile evasion. MiG-23MLD pilots are advised to avoid any turning combat in the horizontal plane vs the Kfir C.2.

[Singha]

the manual suggests it was good for ground attack if other fighters could provide some top cover.
in air defence role severely limited and would gain an advantage only in very select circumstances....launch a missile or two and then escape at high speed is more or less what the jaguar pilots would be advised to do against interceptors.

[Austin]

Jags dont carry radar hence it lacks BVR capability ........due to swing wing nature of Mig-23 it much more manouverable than Jags ,perhaps even has high top speed.

I read Jags excel in just one single specialised role low level accurate bombing , its designed to just do that and do it well .. if confronted by any kind of interceptor it would ideally drop its load and run away at high speed depending on its small size and ground clutter notch to evade any radar guided missile. Those over wing AAM is useful if the bogey ends up in LOS of its seeker in any forced dog fight.

[shiv]

When we argue about which plane is "superior" in a dogfight, it is worth revisiting former MiG 21 pilot and brfite said
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1205350

That is the conundrum of fighter performance. These days the focus is on multi-role aircraft. So the weight increases to support the various roles, some of which are as disparate as A2A and A2G. As weight increases, you need a heavier engine with higher thrust. In A2A, while you may have higher thrust, you are not just going straight. Combat maneuvers cause rapid change of position, and in a heavier plane you lose energy very rapidly. Essentially, you are using your engines to change your momentum vector rapidly and for a heavier plane, even the excess thrust is not sufficient to compensate for this. A lighter plane may not have the thrust to do a cobra - beyond a certain AoA, 21 falls on its back , but the 21 doesn't have the weight either. It can do several rapid rolls in opposite directions without losing a lot of energy and that gives you a lot of options in a dogfight. I believe even the F22 is too heavy to sustain a dogfight against a lighter plane. It can do so against an F15, but the F15 is overweight, so a victory doesn't count for much. Even the F16 started off as a much lighter platform and gained over the years, which detracts from its original design.

A good analogy here is a comparison between two sports cars in a slalom course (windy road). One is lighter, but has a smaller engine and the heavier one has a beefier engine. Both have the same engine HP per ton of weight. Which do you think is going to win a time trial? Even if you made the contest unequal and gave the heavier car somewhat better HP per ton of weight it would still lose on a slalom. It will win a straightaway course, but the constant twists in a slalom decelerate it too much on each turn for it to recover its energy position. A dogfight is a slalom.

Most likely a moot point in today's BVR environment

[Austin]

I saw a interview of a fighter pilot in dog fight series on discover channel , the pilot says in dog fight energy is every thing any pilot that can retain the energy of its fighter and manouver will win the dog fight.

[Singha]

in all the wars of last 30 yrs, the iran-iraq one is perhaps the only one where dog fights occurred?
in bekka valley there were not much dogfights if any, the syrians were flying blind and were shot down from advantageous positions by IDF
in iraq wars and libya to my memory there were no dogfights. one Mig25 did shoot down a F-18 in a head on encounter with a bvr aam I think. but no turn and burn type top gun scenarios?

[shiv]

Also no fight between equals. Always Israel vs Syria, US vs iraq, NATO vs libya

[Singha]

so I guess we can expect dogfights for sure in the sino-pak-india triangle. need to plan for it.

[sum]

From Livefist:

C130J at Car-Nicobar:

[srai]

...

AFM: Mig-23 versus Western Fighter

Good read!

...

Conclusions and BVR Considerations

The manual concludes that the MiG-23MLD(Export), armed with the R-24/R60MK AAM combination, could be considered reasonably capable of holding its own against all types of enemy fighters. However, it could gain the edge over the F-15A - the most capable of its rivals - only through multiple simultaneous 'slash-and-dash' attacks by several aircraft from different directions and from long range. These would have to be mounted in a decisive manner and would involve a high degree of co-ordination between the groups once the WVR phase was entered into, and there would have to be a timely exit from combat.

...

From what I remember, this sounds like the same tactics that the IAF MiG-21 Bisons (numbering 10 to 12 aircrafts) used against the F-15Cs (numbering 4 aircrafts) during Cope Thunder 2004 -- superior numbers using 'slash-and-dash' BVR/WVR attacks. Results were very successful.

[aniket]

Is it only me that thinks that in almost every press release involving the C-130J that a line of praise is always added in it.It's almost like we are advertising it.

[Karan M]

The Mig-23 had different generations to it , the second generation (Mig-23MLD ) were really good one with much better radar and flight performance , The IAF immediately bought the Mig-23MF as immediate stop block against the PAF F-16 , had it not been capable to hold on its own IAF would not have gone for it , they certainly went later with a much capable aircraft in M2K and 29.

Most of the Mig-23 exported were the MF types which for first gen Mig-23 which were downgraded variant of Mig-23M of the same generation.

AFM: Mig-23 versus Western Fighter

Which is pretty much what Surya and I said...some possible ways to face a F-16 with clever tactics..but not "can keep its own"..keep its own would mean that its a MiG-29 vs F-16 or a F-15 versus a Flanker...somewhat evenly matched platforms across the board.

[Austin]

Which is pretty much what Surya and I said...some possible ways to face a F-16 with clever tactics..but not "can keep its own"..keep its own would mean that its a MiG-29 vs F-16 or a F-15 versus a Flanker...somewhat evenly matched platforms across the board.

Atleast the document says that the export Mig-23MLD can keep its own against all contemporary type and that includes F-16A and F-15A ... it does not claim that it excels against them in all parameter but provides tactics on how to deal.....now a lot will depend on the pilot and circumstances at that point in time on how they end up with the bogey which can be F-4 or F-16 and how other assets if available can aid them.

[Austin]

AW&ST on Indian program on AMCA , Stealth and UCAV , Tejas Mk3

Big Plans

[Kartik]

The first that we've heard of a stealthy Tejas Mk3? interesting..higher composite content, an AESA radar, better shaped fuselage to reduce RCS..I don't know about the Kaveri though- the Kaveri-M88 hybrid may not produce enough power for the Mk2, let alone the Mk3. the F-414EPE may be the only viable engine for future variants since as more features get added, weight inevitably grows. The higher composite content may help to reduce weight, but composites don't necessarily always mean lowered weight, at least for primary structures.

The mention of serpentine duct flow separation issues and internal carriage of weapons being researched indicates that the AMCA's current design will have these must-have 5th gen features. A pity that we've got so little information on what should be the DRDO's prime aerospace effort for the next 15 years.