Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 05 Feb 2015 20:50

Does anyone know what the status of the Embraer-based AEWs is? Info available online implies everything needed to operationalize them was ready before the planes were delivered and all that remained was integration and testing. That was in 2011. Is it operational?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 05 Feb 2015 21:01

Karan M wrote:I think jugaad was order of day over last decade for IAF etc. Which is why in capex constrained environment, their decision to push for gold plated Rafales while cheaper LCAs, Su-30s etc are available becomes even more telling & bizarre.

I think M2K guys are a possibility. There 'maybe' Su 30 in the loop but am not sure about that. LCA would beautifully fit in and I will not be surprised to see dedicated sqn/s.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 06 Feb 2015 20:43

Invisible planes next on DRDO's radar, thanks to Sage Bharadwaj? http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 644_1.html

Prabhu, a former head of the central government's National
Informatics Centre, claimed that the formulae for the alloy has
been sourced from Bharadwaj's book 'Brihad Viman Shastra' and
could make even planes invisible, because it absorbed 80 percent
of the light.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 06 Feb 2015 21:31

yet another ramar pillai ?

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 07 Feb 2015 04:42

dinesha wrote: Invisible planes next on DRDO's radar, thanks to Sage Bharadwaj? http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 644_1.html
Prabhu, a former head of the central government's National
Informatics Centre, claimed that the formulae for the alloy has
been sourced from Bharadwaj's book 'Brihad Viman Shastra' and
could make even planes invisible, because it absorbed 80 percent
of the light.

Black paint absorbs more light than that and we still see black objects. Invisible plane will require a material that can bend light around the body of the plane such that the observer sees the light (and stuff) behind the plane. Or make the entire plane (and the pliot) transparent.

Could be another story if they are talking about radar-spec radiation and 'invisible to radar'.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 07 Feb 2015 05:49

^^^ something something moving object something something standing object something something water car something something ramar pillai something something MIT?

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 07 Feb 2015 08:16

self-deleted

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Feb 2015 09:58

please take this kind of posts to the mil misc thread.

I'll delete this thread afterwards.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2015 16:30

one of the EMB145 is still in HAL airport and makes regular flights usually in afternoon. it must be the testbed to keep integrating sw and hw fixes.

the IAF should order atleast 10 of this type to fill the gaps and make sure Embraer has the airframes lined up in time.

as usual though, they are saving their $$ for rafale and the mythical big awacs when not even the airframe has been finalized and no aggreement with the potential vendors for modifications has even been talked about. if they select the airframe today and pay $$, it will surely take 3-4 yrs for the vendors to take our antenna and power design, do the work including wind tunnel test , make the mods, test and deliver....it is SILLY to hold up a working platform for this. and why would they hurry...we are neither a NATO munna or our order huge like 40 frames....at best it will be 6-8 frames...nothing compared to the tens of billions in deals like KC767 and such...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Feb 2015 18:10

exactly.. the hankering for rafales has meant expenditure on these essential force multipliers is hanging fire.. the IAF is looking at numbers with state of the art airframes.. whereas the need of the hour can be met by improving Su-30 # and adding a bunch of these desi platforms. a rafale without aew&c is going to be of limited use anyhow, so its not as if our investment is wasted!!

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 07 Feb 2015 18:23

said differently, gime Rafales or I shoot in my head

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Feb 2015 22:02

Excerpts of IAF Chief Interview to FORCE

http://www.forceindia.net/Interview_ACMArupRaha.aspx

The Standing Committee on Defence has recently informed the Parliament that IAF’s effective combat strength is down to 25 squadrons. Your comments on the report and how do you propose to make up in the 12th and 13th Defence Plans (2012-2022)?

The IAF today has strength of 35 active fighter squadrons as against the government-authorised strength of 42 squadrons. Timely induction of the LCA and early finalisation of the MMRCA contract are essential to the process of building up the combat squadron strength to the desired levels.

The MMRCA deal seems to have hit rough weather with both sides finding it difficult to break the logjam. What is your Plan B? Has it been set into motion?

The MMRCA contract negotiations are in progress. The maintenance, offset and transfer of technology sub-committees of the contract negotiation committee (CNC) have completed their task and submitted their report to the CNC. The contract sub-committee has also finalised most of the articles of the draft contract as per RFP and DPP. CNC is in the process of resolving certain aspects pertaining to the contractual framework and licence manufacture of 108 Rafale in India with Dassault Aviation and HAL. IAF is hopeful that the outstanding issues will be resolved expeditiously and the contract will be signed soon. No alternatives are being considered as MMRCA induction is a part of IAF’s long term perspective plan based on capabilities required in the long term and the envisaged technology drivers.

When you do expect the contract negotiations on the FGFA regarding design sharing, work share and cost to get resolved? When do you expect the FGFA to enter IAF service, and do you have a Plan B for FGFA?

An Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) to jointly develop a Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft was signed between India and Russia. The project is planned in three phases i.e. preliminary design (PD) phase, research and development (R&D) phase and serial production phase. The PD phase has been concluded and negotiations are underway for the R&D contract. The total cost and work-share distribution of the FGFA project is yet to emerge and we are concerned about the projected timelines of FGFA delivery and efforts are being made to discuss options on how to reduce the induction timelines. A Plan B is not under consideration.

What acquisitions are likely to enter IAF by the end of 12th Defence Plan (2012-2017)?

By the end of the 12th Plan, a majority of the Su-30 MKI would be delivered and we are also expecting the first squadron of LCA to be equipped with full strength of aircraft. The deliveries of upgraded MiG-29 aircraft have already commenced and those of the upgraded Mirage-2000 and the Jaguar DARIN-III are expected to commence during the current Plan period. The C-17 and C-130 deliveries have been completed and deliveries of additional six C-130 aircraft are scheduled in 2017. The deliveries of the Mi-17 V5 being procured for replacing the Mi-8 helicopters will be completed and the induction of the Heavy Lift Helicopters and Attack Helicopters may also commence. The deliveries of 75 PC-7 Mk-II Basic Trainer Aircraft (BTA) commenced during this period and will be completed by August 2015. The first indigenous AEW&C will also be inducted soon. The induction of the indigenous Akash missile system will continue and the induction of the MRSAM systems is expected to commence. Along with these, a large number of other weapon systems, EW systems and radars have also been inducted into the IAF during the current Plan period. The implementation of Modernisation of Airfield Infrastructure (MAFI) project has been completed at the model airfield and we expect the completion of work at another 17 airfields during 12th Plan.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Feb 2015 00:13

jeez, again consistent messaging to the GOI gimme gimme gimme MMRCA but also telling Dassault, you're the only one, ask what you want etc.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 08 Feb 2015 09:29

Import import import while firing DRDO chief.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 08 Feb 2015 10:09

Karan M wrote:jeez, again consistent messaging to the GOI gimme gimme gimme MMRCA but also telling Dassault, you're the only one, ask what you want etc.

Karan ji, Is LCA mk1 that bad that Iaf even refuses to consider it as an alternative to rafale. To me it is a clear case of Perfect being the enemy of good enough. Wars are always won by weapons that are mass producable while being good enough and not by gold plated ones. This simple fact continues to delude Iaf decision makers. In ww2 it was Germans who produced the best tanks, first fighter jet, first assault rifle and first cruise missile among other things, yet they still lost. One of the primary reasons was that they lacked mass production capabilities of the above relative to wat allies could produce.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 08 Feb 2015 10:21

Just in case if it takes time to ramp up LCA production facilities, Iaf can always go for Mig 29k as an interim solution to stem the declining nos. All you have to do is to expand upon navy order. Plus since navy is operating it for quite some time now and performance reports should be available. I believe it is a pretty decent weapons system and far cheaper than rafale.

Navy procurement decision makers are far more practical. They went for the cheap solution that is also good enough(Mig 29k) while fully supporting NLCA.

Behavior of Iaf procurement people in charge of mmrca is just like that of a small child who sees a toy in a store, starts throwing tantrums and refuses to budge untill he gets the same toy.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Feb 2015 10:55

Cant blame IAF for this when GOI takes 15 years to purchase a system when any other government wont take more than 3-4 years to give the go ahead including trails.

MMRCA trail its self has been comical of errors when all the leading fighter has been allowed to participate in trials from the single engine Gripen to twin engine Eurofighter to every thing in between in the name of transparency.

Shows how broken our procurement process is.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 08 Feb 2015 14:45

Austin wrote:Excerpts of IAF Chief Interview to FORCE

http://www.forceindia.net/Interview_ACMArupRaha.aspx

The Standing Committee on Defence has recently informed the Parliament that IAF’s effective combat strength is down to 25 squadrons. Your comments on the report and how do you propose to make up in the 12th and 13th Defence Plans (2012-2022)?

The IAF today has strength of 35 active fighter squadrons as against the government-authorised strength of 42 squadrons. Timely induction of the LCA and early finalisation of the MMRCA contract are essential to the process of building up the combat squadron strength to the desired levels.

The MMRCA deal seems to have hit rough weather with both sides finding it difficult to break the logjam. What is your Plan B? Has it been set into motion?

No alternatives are being considered as MMRCA induction is a part of IAF’s long term perspective plan based on capabilities required in the long term and the envisaged technology drivers.

When you do expect the contract negotiations on the FGFA regarding design sharing, work share and cost to get resolved? When do you expect the FGFA to enter IAF service, and do you have a Plan B for FGFA?

A Plan B is not under consideration.

Either Journalist should stop asking such simple questions or AM should learn to keep mum on it. With such stupid answers, he is making arm dealers king. Very wrong attitude and no strategic talk at all. Even if he is desperate, he is not helping IAF with such comments.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Feb 2015 18:22

Austin wrote:Cant blame IAF for this when GOI takes 15 years to purchase a system when any other government wont take more than 3-4 years to give the go ahead including trails.

MMRCA trail its self has been comical of errors when all the leading fighter has been allowed to participate in trials from the single engine Gripen to twin engine Eurofighter to every thing in between in the name of transparency.

Shows how broken our procurement process is.

It's not about transparency. It was the nuclear power deal and the UNSC seat. Everyone wanted a peice and they would not oppose India's bid. The US price was the reactor business and F-16s/18s. France's was the M2K upgrade and scorpenes etc. Everyone had a dog in the fight.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 08 Feb 2015 18:31

Also is the AM not contradicting DO who said Su was an alternative?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2015 02:40

deejay wrote:
Karan M wrote:I think jugaad was order of day over last decade for IAF etc. Which is why in capex constrained environment, their decision to push for gold plated Rafales while cheaper LCAs, Su-30s etc are available becomes even more telling & bizarre.

I think M2K guys are a possibility. There 'maybe' Su 30 in the loop but am not sure about that. LCA would beautifully fit in and I will not be surprised to see dedicated sqn/s.

M2K upgrades saar mean they will retire only by 2030's.. i guess MiG Squadron guys will finally go for LCA. We still have some 4 MF ones around IIRC. Any other AF would move heaven and earth and replace them with a far superior local airframe rather than waiting for the definitive, superior, xxx variant or a more expensive supercharged import. One to one replacements alone won't cut it for the IAF given ever increasing challenges from PLAAF. They should have worked out a modality with MOD/MOF that a moderate increase in squadron cap could be met locally via the LCA. To get the LCA more heft, IFR be a standard for Mk-1 as well (if its not already).

IAF behavior in that sense is just baffling. Instead of crying hoarse and getting even Mk1 LCA into service fast (and then working out modalities, stick, carrot etc to accelerate production at HAL) they have been sitting and playing the watching game and hoping for the MMRCA. In part, the overemphasis on the MMRCA whilst ignoring the need for the LCA, I daresay this has been due to the negative influence exercised by certain worthies who had an anti LCA mindset and then set the agenda for the IAF. Gent in question now sitting as an advisor at HAL. His influence was certainly toxic.

We also have some 3 MiG-27 non Upg squadrons. Not much use but CAS at this point.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2015 02:49

darshhan wrote:
Karan M wrote:jeez, again consistent messaging to the GOI gimme gimme gimme MMRCA but also telling Dassault, you're the only one, ask what you want etc.
Karan ji, Is LCA mk1 that bad that Iaf even refuses to consider it as an alternative to rafale. To me it is a clear case of Perfect being the enemy of good enough. Wars are always won by weapons that are mass producable while being good enough and not by gold plated ones. This simple fact continues to delude Iaf decision makers. In ww2 it was Germans who produced the best tanks, first fighter jet, first assault rifle and first cruise missile among other things, yet they still lost. One of the primary reasons was that they lacked mass production capabilities of the above relative to wat allies could produce.

Agree, WW2 wise, its the case of the "Tiger" vs "Panzer-IV" all over again. The Mk1 is going to be a perfectly fine aircraft judging by its test crews notes. At any rate, any limitations it has pale in comparison to the MiGs we have in service. Hanger queens which soak up huge resources to keep them operational and at required service levels.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2015 02:50

Gyan wrote:Also is the AM not contradicting DO who said Su was an alternative?

He is messaging the GOI/MOF with this interview in a way and actually reducing our own negotiating position. Seriously, should have just said no comments.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Feb 2015 09:37

Cosmo_R wrote:
It's not about transparency. It was the nuclear power deal and the UNSC seat. Everyone wanted a peice and they would not oppose India's bid. The US price was the reactor business and F-16s/18s. France's was the M2K upgrade and scorpenes etc. Everyone had a dog in the fight.

Its nothing to do with Nuclear power or any thing like that Urgent Requirement for MMRCA deal came immediately after Kargil and since then its gone through one stage or the other and so far we have not signed any deal and its close to 15 years.

Same goes for many key procurement program for Navy and Army.

Our decision making process is just too slow to the point that it is broken and we need to fix our system first before blaming others.

srin · Post by **srin** » 09 Feb 2015 11:53

Ouch ... So, we have an urgent requirement since Kargil (or Op Parakram) and we haven't been able to do anything about it for 15 years. And the IAF says it doesn't have Plan B.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 09 Feb 2015 13:16

srin wrote:Ouch ... So, we have an urgent requirement since Kargil (or Op Parakram) and we haven't been able to do anything about it for 15 years. And the IAF says it doesn't have Plan B.

What could be Plan B? Can it be anything other than More LCA or More Su 30 MKI's? Since the answers are so much in our face the only conclusion I draw from this is that the Procurement Cell at Air HQ does not want to say this as it will mean the death of MMRCA / Rafale.

There definitely is/are Plan B,C,D if one is ready to work on those. The folks responsible for Procurement are the ones who know that openly accepting the existence of Plan A+ will mean the end of road for Rafales. They hide very easily under the garb 'IAF says'.

The way I see it IAF says - "Give us the required equipment (A or B as suitable, but let us have them)." It is people with specific agendas (read lobbies)who say there is no Plan B and hide behind 'IAF says'.

There really is an urgent requirement since Kargil and we really did not equip for this urgent requirement in the 'core' fleet all these years.

We have the bulk of IAF fighter fleet made of Mig 21's. That is the one that needs replacement and that is where we really need the procurement. Somebody wake those procurement folks and get the inventory shaping up.

Too much time and energy is being spent on procuring Rafale, too little time is being spent on getting the BTT, IJT, LCA, AMCA, FGFA etc.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Feb 2015 13:48

"Plan"s as expensive as the MMRCA typically have multiple options from the start. After all when things can go wrong they do go wrong.

However, as strange as it may sound, on this one the IAF is right - the GoI set the rules and one of them was no plan B.

What these Chiefs should say is we are following the rules that were set and not that there is no Plan B.

srin · Post by **srin** » 09 Feb 2015 14:26

deejay wrote:
srin wrote:Ouch ... So, we have an urgent requirement since Kargil (or Op Parakram) and we haven't been able to do anything about it for 15 years. And the IAF says it doesn't have Plan B.
What could be Plan B? Can it be anything other than More LCA or More Su 30 MKI's? Since the answers are so much in our face the only conclusion I draw from this is that the Procurement Cell at Air HQ does not want to say this as it will mean the death of MMRCA / Rafale.

There definitely is/are Plan B,C,D if one is ready to work on those. The folks responsible for Procurement are the ones who know that openly accepting the existence of Plan A+ will mean the end of road for Rafales. They hide very easily under the garb 'IAF says'.

The way I see it IAF says - "Give us the required equipment (A or B as suitable, but let us have them)." It is people with specific agendas (read lobbies)who say there is no Plan B and hide behind 'IAF says'.

There really is an urgent requirement since Kargil and we really did not equip for this urgent requirement in the 'core' fleet all these years.

We have the bulk of IAF fighter fleet made of Mig 21's. That is the one that needs replacement and that is where we really need the procurement. Somebody wake those procurement folks and get the inventory shaping up.

Too much time and energy is being spent on procuring Rafale, too little time is being spent on getting the BTT, IJT, LCA, AMCA, FGFA etc.

The "no plan B" isn't just the lobbies - it is from the higher echelons of the IAF.
From http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/10/ ... te-on.html ...

"We have no back-up plan. We need to get the deal going, or we'll face a big shortfall of fighters in the 2017-22 period," said Browne at his annual press conference ahead of Air Force Day on October 8. "The deal has to work. There's no other option."

If you are waiting for 15 years (or 10 years) for an *urgent* requirement, it is either nor urgent or sadly, is mismanagement.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 09 Feb 2015 14:59

^^^ It may be 'mismanagement' but the urgency is India's and not the groups who dominate the IAF higher echelons. What they say is that there is no Plan B. What they mean is that they are not ready to look at Plan B.

If the problem is seen as IAF's alone and not a National Defence need then why should we fault this higher echelon's position. Since, it is obvious we need replacement fighters urgently, let us not shrug away the need for Fighters because of a lobbies 'need for a specific fighter.'

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Feb 2015 07:52

Srinagar: An army helicopter on Wednesday crashed in Bandipora district of central Kashmir, killing a Lieutenant Colonel and a Major who were piloting the chopper, an Army spokesperson said.

The Dhruv helicopter of Army's aviation squadron based at Manasbal crashed about 30 minutes after it took off during a training sortie this evening, killing the two officers, he said here.

The chopper, which was on night flying training sortie, crashed at a hill in Safapora area of Bandipora, the spokesman said.

sum · Post by **sum** » 12 Feb 2015 08:53

^^ Is this from the "160 SOAR" like special ops ALH squadron which was detailed in a NDTV programme earlier?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Feb 2015 08:57

RIP.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Feb 2015 09:03

IAI, Alpha team up for Indian UAS opportunity

Israel Aerospace Industries has signed a teaming agreement with India's Alpha Design Technologies, under which the partners will market and produce mini-unmanned air systems including the former's Bird-Eye 400 and 650 for Indian customers.

Announced on 11 February, the pact will lead to the production of such systems in India. "Integration of additional applications and subsystems will be performed by Alpha in India with IAI’s support," the Israeli company adds.
..

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Feb 2015 11:17

When did this happen? And why would we need the Predator XP unarmed variant when the Heron meets our current needs and the Rustom is being developed?

Export restrictions limit Predator potential

Following requested purchases of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Predator/Reaper-series unmanned air vehicles by France and the Netherlands in recent weeks, the USA’s backing of an export licence for India but a rejection for Jordan have raised questions over how much potential the UAVs really have outside of NATO.
..

It has invested in an export-specific Predator XP variant – effectively an unarmed, surveillance-only version of the MQ-1 that has become synonymous with unmanned air strikes in the USA’s areas of operation – but only the United Arab Emirates to date has been permitted to purchase the aircraft.

When US President Barack Obama visited India in January, a request for a Predator XP purchase was expected, with New Delhi seeking an array of unmanned technologies.
General Atomics confirms that the US government has granted it a DSP-5 export licence, enabling it “to engage in discussions with the government of India, as well as local industry, for the potential sale of Predator XP”.
..

Sales to Jordan and India would also rock the boat between the USA and Israel. Jordanian sales would upset Israel politically, while India is a significant market for Israel’s UAV industry that it would be hesitant to lose.
..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Feb 2015 11:51

import mania.. also because new GOI wants to show off close ties with US.

neither this, or the raven is particularly game changing.

wig · Post by **wig** » 12 Feb 2015 11:58

sum wrote:^^ Is this from the "160 SOAR" like special ops ALH squadron which was detailed in a NDTV programme earlier?

the helicopter which crashed was from 202 squadron, army aviation, based at Manasbal, J&K
this is the source

The helicopter belonging to 202 Squadron had taken off from a Dhru army aviation base at Mansbal and was on training sortie.

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/dhruv-cra ... lots-dead/

sum · Post by **sum** » 12 Feb 2015 12:29

Thanks, wig-ji.

Seems to be the same squadron then:
Sq 202: The Soaring Gideons

Seem to do a lot of SF insertion/extraction etc and have developed tactics just for that.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Feb 2015 17:32

Kartik wrote:When did this happen? And why would we need the Predator XP unarmed variant when the Heron meets our current needs and the Rustom is being developed?

Export restrictions limit Predator potential

Following requested purchases of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Predator/Reaper-series unmanned air vehicles by France and the Netherlands in recent weeks, the USA’s backing of an export licence for India but a rejection for Jordan have raised questions over how much potential the UAVs really have outside of NATO.
..

It has invested in an export-specific Predator XP variant – effectively an unarmed, surveillance-only version of the MQ-1 that has become synonymous with unmanned air strikes in the USA’s areas of operation – but only the United Arab Emirates to date has been permitted to purchase the aircraft.

When US President Barack Obama visited India in January, a request for a Predator XP purchase was expected, with New Delhi seeking an array of unmanned technologies.
General Atomics confirms that the US government has granted it a DSP-5 export licence, enabling it “to engage in discussions with the government of India, as well as local industry, for the potential sale of Predator XP”.
..

Sales to Jordan and India would also rock the boat between the USA and Israel. Jordanian sales would upset Israel politically, while India is a significant market for Israel’s UAV industry that it would be hesitant to lose.
..

IN has been interested in the naval variant for some time (it is compatible with the P-8Is, etc).

The IA has been interested in this one for some time too - especially for the border area with China. But, I was not aware that there was interest in an armed variant.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2015 19:04

wooohoo AMCA fins got redesigned

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AFEI_iZvHhw/V ... 0/AMCA.jpg

non stealth day 2 variant
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--j2kibQZBf4/V ... CA%2B2.jpg

seems like an ok design visually, edge shaping etc.

curved cockpit edge will likely be refined further.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 15 Feb 2015 08:59

Folks, my KB is being asked to re-design (HW and SW) of a COTS LRU that flies on general aviation and some transports. Can anyone 'authoritatively' give pointers on the system needs (AS9100/DO-254 etc)? I get very contradicting views from different people. I need to prepare a report to the bosses soon.

The consultant folk says: Buy our tools and service (which is not just arm and leg, but kidney and liver too)
Someone who is primarily SW guy says: Do AS9100 properly, and that will do.
Someone who works for another company who do similar thing says: The customer takes care of everything. We just do the paperwork as they say.

Confused onlee..