. ALso, Ekalavya sir, please answer these:Indranil the irony is that the argument currently used against such aircraft is because the USAF does not use it, which is why it becomes necessary to point out that the USAF is considering using such planes to convince those who believe that all wars are fought the way the US plans and fights is wars and one's own local environment and local experiences do not count. Simply saying that it can be used or that there is a role given our circumstances is not convincing, because the standard in our view is always and invariably set by the US and Europe. The worrying part is when the IAF too is unable to see the realities of sanctions and economy and takes the attitude of the illiterate sipahi who says "hathiyar de do aur hum ladenge" . Power is about how and where those hathiyars come from and some beginning has to be made at a time when war is not breathing down our necks. This is not to exonerate HAL. but I am increasingly uncertain about IAF attitudes. The IAF is clearly speaking with two voices where senior leaders pay lip service to Indian origin stuff while I have spoken to a whole lot of junior IAF types who are completely dismissive of anything Indian. This does not bode well.indranilroy wrote: 1. Is there a thumb rule that all weapons training has to be on jets? Did you know that USAF is considering it to cut costs?
Read it all ...Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has prevailed over the Indian Air Force (IAF) in a long-running battle over the basic trainer aircraft on which IAF rookies will learn to fly.
Backing HAL and “Make in India”, the ministry of defence (MoD) ruled on Saturday that the IAF would have to buy the Hindustan Turbo Trainer – 40 (HTT-40), which HAL is developing in Bengaluru.
After a meeting of the MoD’s apex Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), which arrived at this decision, a senior MoD official, briefing the media, said: “The DAC has ordered the IAF to order the HTT-40 in adequate number, to make this project commercially viable.”
Here is my guess. It is simply a question of whether the envisaged roles can be fulfilled or not. I think that the yet to fly HTT 40 is doable but Tejas will still be unable to fulfil the roles envisaged for Rafale + Sukhoi in the timeline required even though it will certainly go into production.Cain Marko wrote:Very interesting. Wonder why such a ruling has not yet happened in favor of Tejas+MKI vs Rafale.
shiv wrote:Here is my guess. It is simply a question of whether the envisaged roles can be fulfilled or not. I think that the yet to fly HTT 40 is doable but Tejas will still be unable to fulfil the roles envisaged for Rafale + Sukhoi in the timeline required even though it will certainly go into production.
PS:The IN's warships and subs are all designed by the Naval design teams totally under its control,which is why it has had phenomenal success. Unless the design and development of combat aircraft,etc. is brought under IAF control the same stalemate and cat fight will continue.Will the babus ever allow HAL,ADA,ADE,etc. to come under IAF control? Dream on!A-10 Thunderbolt II Gets New Wings, Ensures the Sound of Freedom into 2035
The A-10 Thunderbolt II plays a key role in protecting our troops and it’s about to get a makeover.
The U.S. Air Force’s A-10 Warthog, a twin-engine jet designed for close air support of ground forces, is receiving new wings that will improve mission availability and help save the Air Force an estimated $1.3 billion in maintenance costs over the next 30 years.
In recent months, Boeing was awarded three follow-on orders for a total of 56 replacement wings and is on contract to build up to 242 wings at its plant in Macon, Ga.
The A-10 is known for its excellent maneuverability at low air speeds and altitude, and its ability to deliver weapons with great accuracy. A-10s can loiter near battle areas for extended periods of time and operate under 1,000-foot ceilings and 1.5-mile visibility. With its significant range and short takeoff and landing capability, it is uniquely suited to serve in and out of locations near the front lines.
This makeover will allow the A-10 to continue to protect our troops and to operate into 2035.
First of all, thank you for making a quality refutation. It is a pleasure when one finds one, a rarity these days.vaibhav.n wrote:Two quick points;
1. Having an Armed Trainer conduct sorties in an CAS/AT role is a very dangerous proposition. The PakArmy deploys the cream of its AD Bde's to protect its prized Armoured/Mechanised Divisions from low-level threats. For a country a fourth the size of ours, they deploy ~50 Med/Lt/SP AD Regiments which results in a substantially higher AD density with upto 12 AD Bde's. They also draft Mujahid AD Batteries comprising ex-servicemen similar to TA. While these may not present a credible threat for the likes of a Sukhoi/LCA/Mirage 2000, these could pose a problem with slower platforms. Lastly, IIRC they also deploy an RBS-70/Anza section with their Mechanised Infantry and Infantry Battalions unlike the IA. Rohit could elaborate more on this.
Link dated but relevant: Pakistan’s Air Defence
2. IMVVHO, using the trainers above for ISR roles is a retro step. UAV's cannot be replaced, they haul multiple payloads besides having the advantage in endurance. Cost-wise also they are comparable to each other (Heron have cost us ~50crores/Airframe) without having the headache to train Pilots/Co-pilots and can undertake more dangerous jobs at a fraction of the cost.
We should not confuse COIN style low-profile roles which Trainers could fulfill with those in case of a more complicated Air-Land Battle with the PLA/PA.
indranilroy wrote:<SNIP>First of all, thank you for making a quality refutation. It is a pleasure when one finds one, a rarity these days.
1. Absolutely true that AT (especially the first few waves) will always be dangerous. But the HTT-40 will be more survivable than the attack helicopters from the same threats that you speak of. Will it not? Flies higher, faster, and more agile.
Well, let them then go ahead and develop an UAV. As current programs have shown, developing a UAV, especially with high endurance and range is not exactly an easy job which can be considered as spin-off from the main effort (that of developing HTT-40). It again becomes an open ended program - HAL takes its own sweet time to develop something and then jumps in demanding IAF induct an 'indigenous' solution.2. An UAV based on the HTT-40 is in the line too. HAL is doing it all on intenal funds. First the HTT-40 will be readied with 300 crores. If it is, then 150 crores will be sought bring out the armed version in one year. If that succeeds, then 100-150 crores will be sought to turn it into an UAV.
I think the Tejas will not be available in the numbers required in the timelines required unless the Rafale deal is delayed by another 3-4 years after which it can the scrapped at the expense of a precipitous decline in IAF force strength.Arun Menon wrote:shiv wrote:Here is my guess. It is simply a question of whether the envisaged roles can be fulfilled or not. I think that the yet to fly HTT 40 is doable but Tejas will still be unable to fulfil the roles envisaged for Rafale + Sukhoi in the timeline required even though it will certainly go into production.
What roles can Rafale perform that a combination of Su-30MKI and Tejas cannot perform? Please do not enter into the life-cycle/running costs argument area if you can.
The Rafale deal caters for one solitary squadron off-the-shelf with the remaining 108 to be delivered by HAL, the same entity that's already manufacturing the Tejas. Instead of investing in a new Rafale production line, invest in expanding the Tejas production and we'll be able to bolster the IAF's sagging squadron strength.shiv wrote:I think the Tejas will not be available in the numbers required in the timelines required unless the Rafale deal is delayed by another 3-4 years after which it can the scrapped at the expense of a precipitous decline in IAF force strength.
This is way beyond comprehension. Itwould be interesting to know the fine details.Viv S wrote:The Rafale deal caters for one solitary squadron off-the-shelf with the remaining 108 to be delivered by HAL, the same entity that's already manufacturing the Tejas. Instead of investing in a new Rafale production line, invest in expanding the Tejas production and we'll be able to bolster the IAF's sagging squadron strength.shiv wrote:I think the Tejas will not be available in the numbers required in the timelines required unless the Rafale deal is delayed by another 3-4 years after which it can the scrapped at the expense of a precipitous decline in IAF force strength.
Also for the record, the Chinese are inducting 30 J-10s every year in addition to a regiment each of J-16s and JH-7. From a purely numbers perspective the Rafale deal is the iceberg to the IAF's Titanic.
To the best of my knowledge China was the biggest importer for less than a decade (they were overtaken by India in 2011). And as a policy imports were only a stepping stone for the domestic industry. That objective has never been pursued with the same level of dedication in India.shiv wrote:It is so easy to forget that we were the second largest arms importer for decades when China was no1. How come the media did not notice anything then? And China is still a huge importer - we just happen to be no 1 now.
Tanks & IFV's fight together as a part of the cog in a Combined Arms Team and overcome eachother's weakness. While tanks form the tip of a spear, by themselves are weak in holding ground and this is where infantry comes in. Mechanised Infantry allows Commanders to keep up with Armoured vehicles and controlling the pace of the battle. Tanks typically bypass local strongpoints which are dealt by the Mechanised Infantry. Tanks would keep the retreating enemy tanks under preasure until they fallback to secondary defensive lines while Mechanised Infantry would consolidate the gains made and the drama plays out all over again as they prepare for a fresh assault.shiv wrote:At the risk of digression, may I ask, what use are armoured personnel carriers to the army in an environment where the enemy has battle tanks and anti-tank weaponry. The answer is that APCs have a role because every millimetre of the war front will not have tanks and AT weapons at all times. The same holds true for slow, lightly armoured aircraft. In this day and age a small single engined aicraft with a recon pod can spot or illuminate targets and may be able to take out tanks and fortifications at standoff ranges. It's not as if they will be buzzing overhead like Stukas in WW2 movies.
Considering Pakistan as an adversary being a "waste of time" is, in my view and interesting deflection from the topic of being able to fight any war that comes our way which is where I started my post. So there is no connection between my post and your response. In fact we can say that fighting China is a waste of time because we will lose for so many reasons.Viv S wrote:@Shiv
First off, discussing Pakistan as a potential adversary is mostly a waste of time unless its the context of a two-front conflict. Rafale or not we should be able to handle them comfortably when it comes to a conventional conflict. All the same, as a matter of interest it needs to be noted that they've done a fairly deft job of modernization given their limited resources through cheap Chinese imports and second hand western gear.
More important here is our equation vis a vis China. One where we may be facing the prospect of a second military defeat if (god forbid) tensions were to escalate. At the risk of annoying resident BRFites through further repetition, fact is, this is first and foremost an economic issue not a capability issue. China spends over three and a half times more on defence than we do ($140bn to $40bn). Only after we accept that as our primary challenge can we formulate a response and delve into the details. So 'bean-counting' for us is, or at least should be a military necessity.
How do you balance that massive disproportion in spending? You can increase spending but that'll mean a reduced investment in the economy, and reduced growth (including in defence budgets). You can improve efficiency, work around the margins but there's only so much you achieve in that respect. The only option available to India's defence planners is to make cost effectiveness the single overriding priority with regard to all capital purchases. Extract $2 in value from every $1 actually spent and we'll at least have made a start in bridging that chasm.
The Rafale deal too therefore must be viewed from the perspective of cost effectiveness. If we're buying it to create a 'powerful air force' then we've already lost focus. The simple question here is - is the combat capability delivered by 126 Rafale the best return one can get for $20bn (with a substantial part of that consisting of valuable forex) given our other options. I think most folks are coming round to the opinion that its not. And addendum to that question would be - will the Rafale perform any unique function that cannot be performed through other options. Its a good EW platform but answer again is mostly a 'no'.
The Tejas here is an opportunity by virtue of being one of the most cost effectiveness fighters in existence. And we still have the option of the MKI who's production has been domesticated to a large extent. By phrasing it as 'we need both Rafale and Tejas', we're ignoring the fundamental issue here i.e. our limited resources. My question would be - how many less Tejas and Su-30MKIs should be bought such that we can afford 126 Rafales? The answer is most likely too high for anyone to comfortable with.
OR. And the counterpart game theory.But when we talk of what might happen or what could happen in war, no one is wrong. Anything can happen.
Totally off topic here. This is "ideal tank warfare theory". It is always instructive to look at real life scenarios in which the ideal plan theory did not work because it is those situations that one must account for.vaibhav.n wrote:
Tanks & IFV's fight together as a part of the cog in a Combined Arms Team and overcome eachother's weakness. While tanks form the tip of a spear, by themselves are weak in holding ground and this is where infantry comes in. Mechanised Infantry allows Commanders to keep up with Armoured vehicles and controlling the pace of the battle. Tanks typically bypass local strongpoints which are dealt by the Mechanised Infantry. Tanks would keep the retreating enemy tanks under preasure until they fallback to secondary defensive lines while Mechanised Infantry would consolidate the gains made and the drama plays out all over again as they prepare for a fresh assault.
Comparing China and India on high arms imports is completely misleading. As of today only about 15% of PLAAF fighters are imported platforms, as opposed to 100% for the IAF. The Chinese know better than to trust imports for their defence.Viv S wrote:To the best of my knowledge China was the biggest importer for less than a decade (they were overtaken by India in 2011). And as a policy imports were only a stepping stone for the domestic industry. That objective has never been pursued with the same level of dedication in India.shiv wrote:It is so easy to forget that we were the second largest arms importer for decades when China was no1. How come the media did not notice anything then? And China is still a huge importer - we just happen to be no 1 now.
Today their defence imports have almost dried up (<$2bn out of a $140bn outlay). Of that the bulk goes for support expenses (revenue heading) to Russia and propulsion for a variety of platforms (a segment where the Chinese are yet to achieve critical mass though they are well on their way).
LOL , the mighty Iraqi air force have been reduced to cessna !!!!!!!! Iran should return back those 25's .Singha wrote:the iraqi AF is making use of cessna airplanes rigged up with hellfires. in this case the potency of the weapon makes up for shortcoming in the shooter.
