Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Sagar G » 12 Jul 2015 13:31

The steadfast dedication of IAF.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 54m54 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi

SDB has been offered to our guys. But it is competing with a domestic development. No prizes for guessing who's backing the import option.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1844
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby eklavya » 12 Jul 2015 15:04

^^^^
Do you have the specs, test results and costs of the two competing systems? Any information at all on the domestic alternative? Thanks in advance.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Sagar G » 12 Jul 2015 20:35

^^^

Indian alternative is under development and should be available within the next couple of years. Jha's tweet mentions that the foreign one's are competing with the Indian one's hence the specs are most probably similar.

Are you saying that SDB is a critical requirement ???

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1844
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby eklavya » 13 Jul 2015 00:10

^^^^
So you are questioning IAF's "steadfast dedication" based on essentially nil knowledge of the topic. Congratulations.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Sagar G » 13 Jul 2015 00:17

^^^

Why don't you enlighten us with your vast oceans of the same ??? Start by answering the question I asked.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1844
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby eklavya » 13 Jul 2015 00:27

^^^^
I wouldn't know an SDB from a BDS. Indian or American. But I'm not the one commenting sarcastically on the "steadfast dedication" of our IAF, you are, so you ought to know something about the topic, otherwise your original post constitutes an unwarranted attack on our armed forces, which should not be happening on BRF.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Sagar G » 13 Jul 2015 01:19

^^^^

If you can't muster up courage or lack knowledge to answer question(s) posted to you then don't try to play know it all. IAF's penchant for import is well know and documented, why don't you get yourself educated about that instead of blowing hot air here ??? The question you asked is inherently dumb how the hell is anybody supposed to give cost, technical comparison when the other system is under development ??? Even if I have the data why shall I share it with you when the same isn't public ??? You consider yourself entitled around here who gets to ask dumb questions but yet wants proper answer to them ???

When an indigenous system is under development and will be up for user trials (is already under by the lab) then there is no need to jump for imports. That is a well established ploy of the armed forces to kill indigenous projects which is of course supported by apologists like you who have no fig of an idea nor do you care about developing indigenous defence industry (please spare me the stale rant of national interest and best for our soldiers) but that doesn't stop your ilk from blowing hot air and shouting hurr durr how do you dare question IAF !!!

If you have a problem with my post then take it up with mods. You are nobody to make rules about how things are run on BRF.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19442
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karan M » 13 Jul 2015 01:54

^^ Succinctly put. Some folks seem to think they can ask others to run around, collect the data for them, and then do a pretend play of judge jury. If they wouldn't know a SDB from a BDS why ask the data in the first place given they wouldn't understand anything about it. Merely yet another attempt to stifle debate in the form, you no patriotic so and so, how dare you make these points etc.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1844
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby eklavya » 13 Jul 2015 02:21

^^^^
So you are supporting the poster attacking the Armed forces without even one item of data. Would expect nothing less of you.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby NRao » 13 Jul 2015 02:30

,^^^^^

Errrrrr

SJha's tweet is "data". That is what he used to make his first statement on a public chat site.

Which is exactly what you did, used his post as data, to question, then comment on a public chat site.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1844
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby eklavya » 13 Jul 2015 02:36

^^^^
Errrr ... "data" is something on the cost / performance / timeline / etc of the competing systems ... and if someone doesn't have the data, the sensible thing to do is to wait for data to make judgment, rather than make a gratuitous sarcastic remark about India's armed forces.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby NRao » 13 Jul 2015 03:11

^^^^^

"Data" depends on the commentator, not the reader. He, as the author defines what is "data". You can, as your post states, can and have disagreed.

Which is why not everyone agrees with you.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby brar_w » 13 Jul 2015 03:47

eklavya wrote:^^^^
Errrr ... "data" is something on the cost / performance / timeline / etc of the competing systems ... and if someone doesn't have the data, the sensible thing to do is to wait for data to make judgment, rather than make a gratuitous sarcastic remark about India's armed forces.


Try to quantify the value of having the capability to make this yourself....

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby ramana » 13 Jul 2015 04:41

Guys no fratricide. Doesn't help. Will lead to ban/wan.

A couple of days ago I said SDB will be offered to India in Su-30Mki thread by intuition. brar-W, said it wont be!
And bingo it is being offered per SJha.

Even better news is DRDO is also making their own version.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 13 Jul 2015 06:06

Please folks don't fight. Keep off. You guys are tempting me and I simply must not dump a long, thin and straight SDB shaped poop on one more thread.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Shreeman » 13 Jul 2015 06:21

tsarkar wrote:Thank you, Shiv & Sreeman, for your views on user mindset.

One human trait is clear, that a person will buy & use based on his mindset, even if Indian stent is as good as imported stent, and Indian car being as good as a Japanese, Korean or German car.

Which is why many corporations have started a concept called Bring Your Own Devices, wherein employees bring their own laptop, tablets & mobiles and use them instead of company provided ones.

Similarly, in Punjab, Sri Lanka & Kashmir, local police, CPMF and IA dropped their Ishapore 2A1 rifles and SLRs and picked up millitant’s AKs because of convenience. No amount of disciplinary enforcement could make them use the earlier weapon. Thereafter MoD & MHA purchased Romanian & Bulgarian AKs. OF tried to make 1C, A-7, Trichi AR and finally Ghatak that has got orders.

Beyond a point, user mindset cannot be over-ruled even by disciplinary, even in organizations like the military.

In my opinion, User Mindset is determined by two factors, User Experience & User Perception.

User Experience

Historically, India had a controlled economy, where production quotas of scooters & tractors were determined, and users had to wait for ages for delivery. Product quality, continuous product improvement, company support was negligible, that let to profusion of roadside mechanics & garages. Employees had lifelong job security, and promotion was time scale based, and since demand of a growing population was far greater than supply, they gave a damn to user experience. There were exceptions, but more or less, this was the situation.

The nation changed in 90’s & 00’s, but the situation did not change for DPSU’s. Same went for DPSUs. While IAF might import 49 Mirage 2000s, HAL had orderbooks full with 700+ MiG-21, 165 MiG-27, 130+ Jaguars. It gave a damn about timely supply of spares or repair & overhaul.

Whenever users tried to work with DPSU’s on product quality, product improvement, spares, support, etc in a TIMELY manner, all the user found was apathy. Sure, BRD’s tried jugaad, but that is not a long term fix.

In war, this can mean the difference between victory & defeat (less number of planes on the flight line or ships at sea) or life & death (Gnat gun jams).

In peacetime, flight hours and sea time are required to progress careers. Austin had posted new PAF’s chief interview, who said that JF-17 availability has improved sufficiently for pilots to progress their career that highlights the user reluctance to serve newly developed systems. An officer career grows when he practices using a sonar to hunt submarines, and not when he is testing whether a sonar works, and twiddling thumbs in the interim at the pier waiting for the next software or hardware upgrade to be developed and installed for the next round of testing.

https://marutfans.files.wordpress.com/2 ... lide18.jpg

Now, Israelis, Germans, French & other western suppliers charge money, but spares & support are available in a time bound manner. The Mirage 2000 fleet has impeccable product quality, serviceability & availability, though at a cost. Which is why BR members who buy Japanese, Korean & German cars do so, because of product quality, assurance, serviceability & availability. There are product recalls, but the developer/manufacturer takes the onus of product improvement, instead of the user discovering flaws. Users are willing to pay a premium for this.

During Soviet times, the Soviets provided stuff at friendship prices & barter. They would supply spares from their own stock, or arrange for at short notice, their technicians & workers to come over & work on their supplied equipment. This has shaped the User Experience of many service folks. Though after the dissolution of Soviet Union, this is no longer happening, but those who’ve served in the 70’s & 80’s and presently in senior ranks still carry a favourable User Experience.

Same goes for training.

Ecuador Dhruv crashes were attributed to pilot error & BSF Dhruv crashes were attributed by DGCA to pilot error due to unfamiliarity. What is HAL’s recommended training curriculum for users? There is a CAe built simulator in Bangalore, but what is the training curriculum, how well is it implemented, is the curriculum updated, is refresher training given?

The French Government runs a proper agency to train buyers of French equipment called Defense Conseil International. Here is their Air Force training department

http://www.groupedci.com/en/activities/airco/
http://www.groupedci.com/en/activities/ ... ining.html

User Perception

This is created by manufacturers through their marketing (brochures), aircraft demos in tradeshows like Defexpo, Aero India, Farmborough & Paris Air Shows, and active outreach.

Most governments, like the French example above, also support their industry, so joint exercises also double up as a sales effort.

Japanese, Korean & German car companies come to your house on weekends to give test drives.

However, DPSU’s efforts are non-existent to reach out to general users. How many developers & manufacturers visit squadrons to 1. Understand user perspective and 2. To share new features of their products to users? How many DRDO Lab Heads visit forces in the field?

Which is why I had earlier posted that DRDO & HAL need to take Tejas to every airbase so that general pilots & engineers get their hands on it and start appreciating it. I’m sure 90% of IAF pilots would not know Tejas or its capabilities well enough.

Same for Arjun – take it to tank regiments deployed across India.

There was this movie – Harishchandrachi Factory – on Dada Saheb Phalke, who made India’s first motion picture Raja Harishchandra. Very few people came to watch Raja Harishchandra - India’s first movie - despite its revolutionary technical innovation. He then realized the need to promote it. Once he promoted it, the movie was a success.

To summarize, the mindset of pilots is not very different than the mindset of average Indians. Once DRDO & HAL take efforts for ensuring good user experience & user perception, the mindset will change.


ts,

The ishapore example doesnt fit. They were tested and discarded when they failed deployment. This large volume test is essential part of the learning process. There are similar oranges to your apples in other comparisons.

There is no volume of data -- millions of rounds vs millions of flying hours -- to keep everyone from bean counters to machinists, technicians, designers, developers and engineers interested and busy.

And the main argument in accepted thinking is that some how via telepathetic ToT, it will all materialise. No, you will learn poor russian or french. That is all. And all the frog's legs will not result in indica going on to nano.

Even the army didnt outright order 12 rifles (they did that to arjun and dhanush, and those decisions receive due praise) and decide enough was enough. The services understood very well the TD PV LSP process. They are not babes in arms.

The navy is indigenous because ships dont grow on trees. Tanks do. Aircraft do too.

In re. maintenance, crash rates, serviceability, and everything else there is a part of the blame that lies with the services. There is no planning for maintenance or stocking of spares or life testing of components to create visibility for your weather and environment. Heck shelters arent even available. To what extent are craft being treated as rental cars with full liability insurance? The problems exist in all aspects of the system. Compromise on things not related to safety and innovate where fit roles can be found despite shortcomings. The chinese do. The russians do. The bakis have no choice but to do.

If there is a leaking phoren tap serving champa-g-knee, then there never will be wide acceptance of non RO tap water. Excuses will always exist. Flying craft arent being dipped in mud (rather they are when they shouldnt be). The entire user experience of india-genious products is the LCA and dhruv, isnt it? And the dhruv has done plenty better than other froggy light craft in arsenal. Why wouldnt the LCA similarly outperform the tin cans?

The tap repair is the job. Take it or leave it. And the Swedish water isnt going to taste any better either.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 13 Jul 2015 06:51

tsarkar wrote:Thank you, Shiv & Sreeman, for your views on user mindset.

One human trait is clear, that a person will buy & use based on his mindset, even if Indian stent is as good as imported stent, and Indian car being as good as a Japanese, Korean or German car.
<snip>
Now, Israelis, Germans, French & other western suppliers charge money, but spares & support are available in a time bound manner. The Mirage 2000 fleet has impeccable product quality, serviceability & availability, though at a cost. Which is why BR members who buy Japanese, Korean & German cars do so, because of product quality, assurance, serviceability & availability.



tsarkarji. several serious problems here. Since my name has been pulled into the post I will respond

You are right in saying that people's opinions are moulded by their mindset. That holds true for you too. You are no exception. Your mindset already tells you that you know what BR members who buy foreign cars feel and you are posting what you think you know about what others think on here as the truth.

It is YOUR truth not mine or anyone else's truth

Europe became industrialized in the 1800s and by the early 1900s the UK, Germany and France were manufacturing aircraft. Now when these countries went to war some technologies were better in Germany and some better in Britain. The Germans could not say "Ours is less the Brits are better at this. " The Brits could not say "The Germans are better, ours is worse". They simply had to fight and live or die with what was made by their own industries.

It is only when you have the choice of importing that you develop the mindset of comparing and saying "Ours stuff is bad because of X,Y,Z reasons". When fate kicks you in the backside and you can't import you have to depend on Khadi Gramodyog.

You who talk so much about mindsets. No one is born with a mindset to kill or stay put in the face of fire. That mindset has to be inculcated. The mindset to try and cooperate and support local industrial development has to be inculcated rather than giving long lectures about why the other is better.

When the Maratha light infantry regiment is training, the cadets are taught about the history and valour of the MLIR. They are not told about the history and valour of the Pakistani Northern Light Infantry or the Baluch regiment of Pakistan and reminded about a few men in the MLIR who may have reacted with fear or cowardice. I think you know damn well that developing a mindset of pride and confidence in oneself in oneself requires a positive image not a whine about how good everyone else is and how bad we are.

And do you think the armed forces are the only people who need to have positive things said about them and the rest of the faceless people who work their lives day in and day out at HAL can be told that they are fools and they need to look abroad? Do you think their mindset is not important? Think again sir. You are not doing anyone but yourself a favour by your biased psychoanalyses.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby member_22539 » 13 Jul 2015 07:42

^+1

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 349
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby ragupta » 13 Jul 2015 15:02

shiv wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Thank you, Shiv & Sreeman, for your views on user mindset.

One human trait is clear, that a person will buy & use based on his mindset, even if Indian stent is as good as imported stent, and Indian car being as good as a Japanese, Korean or German car.
<snip>
Now, Israelis, Germans, French & other western suppliers charge money, but spares & support are available in a time bound manner. The Mirage 2000 fleet has impeccable product quality, serviceability & availability, though at a cost. Which is why BR members who buy Japanese, Korean & German cars do so, because of product quality, assurance, serviceability & availability.



tsarkarji. several serious problems here. Since my name has been pulled into the post I will respond

You are right in saying that people's opinions are moulded by their mindset. That holds true for you too. You are no exception. Your mindset already tells you that you know what BR members who buy foreign cars feel and you are posting what you think you know about what others think on here as the truth.

It is YOUR truth not mine or anyone else's truth

....
And do you think the armed forces are the only people who need to have positive things said about them and the rest of the faceless people who work their lives day in and day out at HAL can be told that they are fools and they need to look abroad? Do you think their mindset is not important? Think again sir. You are not doing anyone but yourself a favour by your biased psychoanalyses.


+++
Well said, some members on this forum think that armed forces are above criticism and they can do no wrong, it is their birth right to criticize, demean, disparage everything the fellow civilians do. They fail to realize that their strength comes from the civilian support as well, and all Indians want to see strong armed forces rooted on indigenous strength not on imports, so far Imported Army and Imported Armed forces, have been doing simply lip service and have never spoken anything positive about indigenous efforts.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19442
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karan M » 13 Jul 2015 16:17

Eklavya wrote:So you are supporting the poster attacking the Armed forces without even one item of data. Would expect nothing less of you.


LOL, he is not attacking the armed forces but you contribute nothing valuable to any discussion, and yet expect to be spoonfed with work others do & then acts high and mighty about "data" whilst pretending to talk for the armed forces whilst simultaneously admitting you wouldn't know what to make of any data, even it came and bit you on the face.

I expected nothing less of you either (your standards are that low) so the above poster was right in tagging your demands as a farce. :lol:
Last edited by Karan M on 13 Jul 2015 16:20, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19442
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karan M » 13 Jul 2015 16:20

shiv wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Thank you, Shiv & Sreeman, for your views on user mindset.

One human trait is clear, that a person will buy & use based on his mindset, even if Indian stent is as good as imported stent, and Indian car being as good as a Japanese, Korean or German car.
<snip>
Now, Israelis, Germans, French & other western suppliers charge money, but spares & support are available in a time bound manner. The Mirage 2000 fleet has impeccable product quality, serviceability & availability, though at a cost. Which is why BR members who buy Japanese, Korean & German cars do so, because of product quality, assurance, serviceability & availability.



tsarkarji. several serious problems here. Since my name has been pulled into the post I will respond

You are right in saying that people's opinions are moulded by their mindset. That holds true for you too. You are no exception. Your mindset already tells you that you know what BR members who buy foreign cars feel and you are posting what you think you know about what others think on here as the truth.

It is YOUR truth not mine or anyone else's truth

Europe became industrialized in the 1800s and by the early 1900s the UK, Germany and France were manufacturing aircraft. Now when these countries went to war some technologies were better in Germany and some better in Britain. The Germans could not say "Ours is less the Brits are better at this. " The Brits could not say "The Germans are better, ours is worse". They simply had to fight and live or die with what was made by their own industries.

It is only when you have the choice of importing that you develop the mindset of comparing and saying "Ours stuff is bad because of X,Y,Z reasons". When fate kicks you in the backside and you can't import you have to depend on Khadi Gramodyog.

You who talk so much about mindsets. No one is born with a mindset to kill or stay put in the face of fire. That mindset has to be inculcated. The mindset to try and cooperate and support local industrial development has to be inculcated rather than giving long lectures about why the other is better.

When the Maratha light infantry regiment is training, the cadets are taught about the history and valour of the MLIR. They are not told about the history and valour of the Pakistani Northern Light Infantry or the Baluch regiment of Pakistan and reminded about a few men in the MLIR who may have reacted with fear or cowardice. I think you know damn well that developing a mindset of pride and confidence in oneself in oneself requires a positive image not a whine about how good everyone else is and how bad we are.

And do you think the armed forces are the only people who need to have positive things said about them and the rest of the faceless people who work their lives day in and day out at HAL can be told that they are fools and they need to look abroad? Do you think their mindset is not important? Think again sir. You are not doing anyone but yourself a favour by your biased psychoanalyses.


Solid post.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1844
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby eklavya » 14 Jul 2015 02:02

ramana wrote:Guys no fratricide. Doesn't help. Will lead to ban/wan.

A couple of days ago I said SDB will be offered to India in Su-30Mki thread by intuition. brar-W, said it wont be!
And bingo it is being offered per SJha.

Even better news is DRDO is also making their own version.


Do the rules apply to Karan M? It appears he is blithely ignoring your instructions.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby tsarkar » 14 Jul 2015 05:45

shiv wrote:tsarkarji. several serious problems here. Since my name has been pulled into the post I will respond

Happy to hear out those serious problems. One clarification - there is no “pulling your name”. I was just being courteous when you & Sreeman shared your examples and thanked you & Sreeman. No more, no less, and certainly no pulling.

shiv wrote:That holds true for you too. You are no exception.

Absolutely correct. I am no exception from the average Indian

shiv wrote:Your mindset already tells you

When doing a dispassionate analysis, one needs to keep an open mind and not be biased. So my mindset was unbiased when I posted. I stick to facts and let readers do their own analysis. Please highlight any parts of my post that show bias.

shiv wrote:you know what BR members who buy foreign cars feel

I do refer to BR members as an indicative sample set of the larger Indian populace. So I asked them for their reasons for buying foreign cars. And I used published market research on reasons Indian buyers & users give for buying cars.

shiv wrote:you are posting what you think you know about what others think on here as the truth.

That is a very Rumsfeld-ian statement. No, my posting is not that profound or complicated.

I am just posting my opinion & observations.

shiv wrote:It is YOUR truth not mine or anyone else's truth

It is MY opinion or observations, not yours or anyone else’s.

And they’re just that, my opinion & observations, I’ve never said or implied they’re the gospel truth.

shiv wrote:The Germans could not say "Ours is less the Brits are better at this. " The Brits could not say "The Germans are better, ours is worse". They simply had to fight and live or die with what was made by their own industries.

No, that is incorrect. That is not what they did.

Their industries innovated continuously and worked hard to improve over the other. The first generation Messerschmitt BF-109 & Hurricanes evolved to the Focke Wulfs & Tempests and Frank Whittle & Hans von Ohain developed the jet engine independently.

They also begged, borrowed & stole from others.

Begged – Remember the Lend Lease program? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Borrowed – The famous US Mustang fighter performed on borrowed British Rolls Royce engine

Stole – At the end of the WW2, all the allies went bounty hunting Nazi scientists, prominent among them Wernher von Braun. What would the US Space Program be without him?
Von Braun worked on the United States Army's intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) program before his group was assimilated into NASA. Under NASA he served as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight Center and as the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that propelled the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.[4] According to one NASA source, he is, "without doubt, the greatest rocket scientist in history".

So rest assured, they certainly were not a captive market taken for granted to “simply have to fight and live or die with what was made by their own industries”.

shiv wrote:It is only when you have the choice of importing that you develop the mindset of comparing and saying "Ours stuff is bad because of X,Y,Z reasons". When fate kicks you in the backside and you can't import you have to depend on Khadi Gramodyog.

When faced with the LTTE or Kashmiri militants, the option of imports was not there. They picked up captured militant AK-47s. Punjab Police or J&K Police did not stick to their 0.303s. Army jawans did not stick to their SLRs.

Similarly, Maoists not having the option of imports, too do not fight with hammers & sickles that is made quite literally by their gram udyog. They loot the police & CPMFs.

Surely you would know that humans have a mind of their own. And using deprivation to shape human mindset doesn’t work.

shiv wrote:No one is born with a mindset to kill or stay put in the face of fire.

One is born with instincts. Tiger cubs raised in isolation, like the Delhi zoo tiger that inadvertently killed a visitor who jumped inside the enclosure, found its killer instinct when it felt threatened. Humans instinctively hunt & kill for food. Animals and humans stay put in the face of fire to defend their young – or their cause in case of humans.

I am not writing this for the sake of debating. The reason I am writing this is because when an officer or sailor is recruited, that person’s traits are identified and thereafter that person is trained. He or she does not come with love-imported instincts or love-indigenous instincts when born or recruited.

The person develops his or her mindset based on own experience and perception.

shiv wrote:That mindset has to be inculcated. The mindset to try and cooperate and support local industrial development has to be inculcated.

That brings forward the issue of training. Military officers do a lot of training. Rest assured, they are not trained on why imports are better. Rather, there is significant scientific & industrial interaction. For example, while attending the Staff College at Wellington, there is an IDT (Industrial Demonstration Tour). The purpose of this tour is to appreciate scientific, technical & industrial progress. Distinguished scientists are invited to speak on multiple occasions.

Rest assured, Indian officers themselves know the importance of indigenous industry, and they’re given sufficient exposure during their training.

The basic steps of indigenization starts when individual officers & other ranks start on their own initiative to find alternatives to components in major imported systems to reduce downtime hampering operations.

With regards to cooperation, they do work with labs and industry on cooperation, often leaving their parent service on deputation.

shiv wrote:When the Maratha light infantry regiment is training, the cadets are taught about the history and valour of the MLIR. They are not told about the history and valour of the Pakistani Northern Light Infantry or the Baluch regiment of Pakistan and reminded about a few men in the MLIR who may have reacted with fear or cowardice. I think you know damn well that developing a mindset of pride and confidence in oneself in oneself requires a positive image not a whine about how good everyone else is and how bad we are.

The regiment is referred to as MLI and no R.

And no, while history is used for occasional motivation, but it is not used for training. Occasional motivation is not the same as training.

What makes the jawan an effective fighting man is his training.

Ever wondered why the same Indian Sipahi who was defeated by Central Asians or Europeans, when in the service of the Company & Raj, the same Sepoy razed the walls of Ghazni to dust, defeated the Iranians at Khushab, the Turks at Mesopotamia and helped occupy China.

The reason is training.

Training installed a sense of discipline & purpose.

Historically infantry were mowed down by cavalry. However, a trained infantry could deliver a disciplined volley of arrow or musket fire that at the right time & range, would bring down the first wave of cavalry and the dead & injured horses & men would impede the next wave that would be brought down by disciplined fire. Which is why Ranjit Singh & Scindia’s armies that were best trained & drilled and their armies were the last to go down.

So coming back, a jawan’s self confidence comes from his training, not his occasional motivation through ethnicity or history. Had that been true, Naga militants having more faith in ethnicity or Shiv Sena political party having more faith in history would’ve been a more effective fighting force rather than the MLI

shiv wrote: And do you think the armed forces are the only people who need to have positive things said about them and the rest of the faceless people who work their lives day in and day out at HAL can be told that they are fools and they need to look abroad? Do you think their mindset is not important?

I believe this is the gist of your entire post.

Firstly, my posts are NOT A vs B or X vs Y.

Nor are my posts “If A is good, then B must be bad”.

Nor are my posts cheerleading for A & disparaging B.

In light of that, can you substantiate what you wrote here? In which part of my post “did I think that armed forces need positive things said about them?” In which part of my post did I say or implied “rest of the faceless people who work their lives day in and day out at HAL can be told that they are fools?”

I only posted facts to dispel misconceptions floating here, like IAF requirements added to weight or timelines, or IAF could’ve specified weapons earlier. Similarly, I posted my opinion behind the mindset of users.

What I will not do is fall for Pakistani logic like your quoted statement. Let me explain why your quoted statement is Pakistani logic.

You see, whenever someone accuses Pakistan of nurturing terrorists, they retort that India is supporting terrorists in Pakistan. It’s their crooked twisting of the concept of equality.

The Pakistani logic seen in the posting of some members, is that if A is not doing something right, then surely B too is doing something wrong.

Example being if LCA is delayed, then surely IAF added exotic requirements. Although no FACTS are cited to substantiate what those exotic requirements were.

Corollary of that Pakistani logic is that you need to cheer A & B equally or castigate A & B equally, which is essentially what your quoted statement conveys.

The purpose of my posting is not force-fitting equality.

I post on A or B on their own merit.

Let’s discuss overtime & strike in the context of this quoted statement of yours demanding equality.

Whenever a shipbuilding program is sent for approval to DAC & CCS, there is a timeframe mentioned. However, there are huge time overruns. A ship takes long time to be built.

The reason being all unionized shipyard workers spend their working hours doing timepass, and start working only when overtime kicks in and they get overtime bonus.

Unions are affiliated to the unions of the local & national political parties. They form a huge voter block.

Even if someone wants to work diligently, the union won’t allow him to work.

Also, when products are built by workers during overtime, needless to say quality suffers.

These workers are better paid than sailors and jawans, even before being paid overtime.

Here is official government figure on the payment of overtime http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=95280

And a related article http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 055_1.html

So when Naval Officers and Sailors who are working on trials of new build ships or those whose ships are undergoing refits see this, what do you think their impression is?

Their impression is disgust, disdain and contempt. That forms their mindset.

Tell me sir, even going by your crooked Pakistani logic of equality, when did the MLI jawan leave duties unattended pending clocking overtime? Soldiers are court martialed for dereliction of duty

Now, at the slightest offence, unions go on strike. OF Medak employees went on strike when it was planned to increase BMP-2 production by opening a new production line at VF Jabalpur in addition to OF Medak

shiv wrote:Think again sir. You are not doing anyone but yourself a favour by your biased psychoanalyses.

Thank you, sir. I did give it a thought and I concluded that none of my posts are biased.

You could be more specific by pointing out instances where I show bias.

I post based on facts. Nor do I want to show unbiasness by force-fitting equality, or cheering A & B equally, or castigating A & B equally.

You, sir, could also introspect on what you're trying to achieve by force-fitting equality.
Last edited by tsarkar on 14 Jul 2015 08:47, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 14 Jul 2015 06:33

tsarkar wrote:It is MY opinion or observations, not yours or anyone else’s.

And they’re just that, my opinion & observations, I’ve never said or implied they’re the gospel truth


***rest of my post deleted***

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Shreeman » 14 Jul 2015 19:20

Let me take another stab at it.

Just to illustrate the development of mindsets and opinions. Now, I have never sat in a tank. Nor sailed a frigate. Or flown a cargo plane. Yet, I have opinions. Often, driven solely by "dont sell your blood and treasure to the politicians and middlemen's benefit. Everybody, including the POTUS Obama, President Putin and PM Modi is corrupt. The only thing that trickles down is horse urine." This is mainly because I havent found anyone honest in a position of power yet.

This drives my critical and unorthodox, never mainstream, reading, approach to media and thus further development of opinions. Maybe, I am not such an exception to normal thinking. We stop looking when we have found the thing, or the answer. There are not an endless open hours of time or resources. This attitude can become religious.

Now the car example was previously brought up. When the TATAs and Mahindras started competing with Maruti, and Hindustan Motors was on its deathbed, I was quite curious about the future. Obviously, reading the internet wasnt going to tell me how things were going to turn out. You had to ask the users. Not your ITvity young flash in the pan, have driven in oeurope and khan users but your run of the mill, piss poor, take two buses to get to sahibs car and then live in it all day to take two buses back to the slum drivers.

For whatever reason, I was then cheuffered about. So apart from this rather well versed and finicky driver, there was a chance to talk to umpteen other similar uneducated but have to trust our lives on this gizmo every day people everytime the car was parked.

These people understood no technology. The were uniformly afraid of the "gubbara" as it might fire when you hit a bump. Bumps are all there is to most roads after rains. Many had never touched an automatic transmission. Most didnt like power steering. You see, set in their way.

You ask them -- what about car x? The answers would be "kaamyab hai" or "kaamyab nahin nikli". Why? More often than not, they wouldnt have any first hand experience. Or a reason I found acceptable. But this religious "kaamyab" attitude even if they might have driven a poorly maintained or treated example, or even if they personally had a different positive experience, influenced many many purchases. The sahibs went by "can you drive x or y better?".

In many ways, this "kaamyab" attitude persists in all our lives. And grunts in fighting forces are shining examples of this gut-driven, trust your buddys word. Even when there is no corruption, this will remain the hurdle.

Indian doodads are not "kaamyab" even though most of the forces have never set their eyes on it.

The only way, Navy included, forces get off the import teat is by law. Or you could get everybody foreign blacklisted. That is already some sort of law. And they are all corrupt enough.

It really doesnt matter if the doodads are good enough. They were never good enough in the past, imported or otherwise. Just dont import. There wasnt a reason in the past. There isnt one now.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8787
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Rakesh » 17 Jul 2015 05:14

Exercise 'Indradhanush': IAF Contingent Leaves for UK
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Exercise-Indradhanush-IAF-Contingent-Leaves-for-UK/2015/07/15/article2922015.ece
A 190-member Indian Air Force contingent, backed by Su-30 fighters, IL-78 tankers, C-17 strategic and C-130J tactical airlift aircraft, left for the UK today to take part in the fourth edition of ten-day long bilateral exercise 'Indradhanush'.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20610
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 21 Jul 2015 20:03

I found this most interesting piece about the Burmese competition where the MIG-29 outclassed both PRC fighters the J-10 (Lavi clone) and the "Junk Fighter" JF-17,the much touted JV between China and Pak. I don't think it has been posted before,so enjoy the piece.

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... vsj10.html
On 23rd December 2009 a significant event took place which sadly went under reported. When inane drivel were making its way to the news, the event which established the superiority of a fighter over another went largely unnoticed. It was on that very day the first news regarding results of a competition came out in the open. The Myanmar Air force(Tatmadaw Lei) chose the MiG-29SMT Fulcrum over the much hyped China's J-10, and its smaller cousin which was rejected by China itself- the JF-17 Thunder.

This competition was like no other. On one hand the fulcrum was facing setbacks everywhere. First it was in Malaysia where due to endemic corruption and the interference of Middle men, the spares for the MiG-29s were ridiculously over priced by the time it reached the end user. This prompted Malaysia to retire its MiG-29s prematurely. The second setback was on the Algerian front, where another corruption involving Russian middle men lead to sourcing inferior parts for upgrading the MiG-29s. This lead Algeria to cancel the order, which left the Russians in deep soul searching. Just recently the middle men were arrested and criminal cases initiated against them. There were also wild rumors of Myanmar's MiG-29s being grounded due to poor after sales service(which got proved wrong). Plus SMT Fulcrums are basically mothballed MiG-29S fresh out of factory(during the 1990s but never got inducted into the Russian Air Force because of the poor economic condition of Russia) and is re-sold with SMT upgrades to various countries. The Chinese fighters on the other hand had no such setbacks. In addition to the fact that Myanmar is in China's backyard, the Chinese fighters, especially the J-10 was marketed as "ultra modern" and was even offered highly advantageous price and payment conditions.

However the results of that tender was dramatic.

The J-10 is a product of widespread assistance by the western powers during the years of the Cold war. During the cold war, the U.S encouraged Israel to help the Chinese boost their capabilities against what they considered as the "Evil Empire" which was giving the whole western world & China quite a challenge. China and the Soviet Union were at each other throats after the Soviets refused to bow down to china's demands to return "their" land. After many bloody skirmishes, where the Chinese suffered enormous causalities on the hands of the vastly superior Red Army, there was much bad blood between them. The western powers capitalized on this and began to rub shoulders with the Chinese. The Chinese too sold them J-7s to be used on the U.S DACT(Dissimilar Air Combat Training) simulating Soviet fighters. In the midst of this Honey moon, Israel starting sharing their technology with the blessings of Washington. And on top of that list(and a prime candidate since that project was stopped and was not in active service), was the Israeli Lavi.

Israeli Lavi Protoype:
J-10 Production Model:

However before Israel can offer full assistance, the Tienanmen massacre led to an abrupt halt to the help. However the Chinese still retained all the blueprints and even a Lavi mock-up. It was only natural for the Chinese Aerospace having done nothing but copying and reverse engineering fighters for the past 4 decades, to continue reverse engineering the Lavi. The cold war ended and China found itself partnering with its former enemy to ask for help. The Russian engineers who came out in the open reported several blueprints of Lavi in Hebrew! Russians who were cash strapped at this point agreed to help and also offered their engine. After a lot of reverse engineering and a few prototype crashes, J-10 finally flew. The Chinese fan boys were instantly captivated by the "beautiful" Israeli fighter and began over hyping its performance. The fighter was so secretive that only recently did china accept its existence. The first battle for this fighter was against the JF-17 which was a cheap project built on the Super-7(Super J-7) project. The J-10 clearly came out winning on the specs, which lead the PLAAF putting all its money on J-10 and ditching the JF-17, which at this point was referred as Junk Fighter -17 by the aviation community. After the triumphant domestic win, J-10's first real competition outside its motherland was in its neighborhood, Myanmar. There it was pitted against the MiG-29, Soviet Union's First Fourth Generation Fighter.

Inspite of the other advantages heaped on the Chinese fighters, the result is that only the superior fighter wins.
J-10 with its single engine was more risky compared to the twin engined MiG-29. It looses out on Thrust to Weight ratio to the MiG-29SMT. Its G-limits are unknown, as is its range, while Mig-29SMTs data is well known(9Gs and 1800kms without drop tanks). It shares 95% commonality with MiG-29UPG & can share or have a constant flow of spares & after sales support with the Indian Air Force's spare parts vendor. Its stall performance and recovery is unknown, while MiG-29 is known for breath taking stall maneuvers... hence getting out of a stall for a MiG-29 is a piece of cake. It has 7 hardpoints which can be increased to 11 with multi locks and can carry atleast 6 BVR missiles, while J-10 has 7 Weapon Hardpoints(and few pod station hardpoints which can only be used for pods, and less-than 100kg dumb bombs). Out of the 7, it can carry BVR missiles on only 2 hardpoints with dual racks, so a total of only 4 BVR missiles. It can carry 5 tonnes in weapon tonnage while J10's unknown. However some Chinese fan boys claim 4.5 tonnes and some even 6 tonnes. In avionics, there is the clear Russian superiority over Chinese copies. Taking all these facts into consideration, it's no wonder that the MiG-29SMT fulcrum was chosen over a Chinese plane. Apart from the desperate and poor PAF, which has no reliable & cheap suppliers, it seems there is no one else who is willing to take this Chinese fighter yet.

There is little doubt now that the Chinese J-10 has suffered a blow to its prestige with its very first overseas defeat to the MiG-29SMT Fulcrum.


No wonder that the PAF's F-16s were too scared to engage our MIG-29s during the Kargil War! I'd love to see a face-off between a Junk Fighter and an LCA as well.No bets being offered on the result!

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 21 Jul 2015 20:20

How about this from the same source
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... jf-17.html
~~~
Is Pakistan's JF-17 a Thunder or Blunder ?
26th December 2009 02:25PM



Pakistan has witnessed new defense acquisitions in this decade than any other, and in the center of it all is the new fighter which was designed by China with partial funding from Pakistan. It is formally known as JF-17 Thunder. When the fighter was in development, Pakistani online communities were jumping with excitement comparing it with its arch rival India’s modern combatants Su-30MKI, MiG-29B & Mirage-2000H. There were claims of it featuring western Radars and long range missiles, & Chinese ordering some due to its superior capabilities. But the reality is far from it.

China having spent significant amount of money into a fighter which it is never going to use, most probably forced Pakistan to accept its avionics to offset some its development costs. Chinese who are known for their self reliance first and quality next, are further downgrading JF-17s capabilities with their poorly copy-pirated avionics. Along with their dubious weapons, any chance of JF-17 maintaining BVR edge over its adversary’s front-line combatants, for the most part, is unlikely.

Even in close combat JF-17 lacks what it takes to win the fight. Its spine, & wings bearing resemblance(in wing twist & wing area) to a fighter which china knows inside out, the J-7, doesn’t have wing twist nor does it have enough area to provide a low wing loading. Its performance during low speeds and high alphas would be very dangerous for the pilot indeed. It has a Maximum G loading of only 8, as claimed by PAC. Its thrust to weight ratio is another negative point. When its arch rival, the Indian Air Force(IAF), was overtly critical of Tejas for having a low Thrust to Weight ratio, maybe they should have compared it with JF-17 which has even less, even with Emergency Thrust. Pakistan Aeronautical Complex(PAC) proudly displays the RD-93’s “Combat thrust with afterburner” as 19,200lbf, while the whole defense community knows RD-93’s thrust is 18,300lbf and the only real thrust increase was achieved with its new re-designed Sea Wasp RD-33MK engines- which has been explicitly stated by Klimov. However, Klimov’s RD-33 series 3(or series 2?), whose avatar is RD-93 with re-positioned Gear boxes, has a provision for emergency thrust which Klimov says can produce 8700kgf(~19200lbf) in their officially released document. They further state that as “Take-off emergency mode”. So the mentioned thrust can only be used during take-off where the Air is denser, and also only during emergency situations since it would seriously lower the engine’s lifespan. This is a far cry from PAC's “Combat thrust” claim. Why this is being stated is because, the engines(bought by the Chinese after pressurizing the Russians) are the only non-Chinese & non-Pakistani component, and even there they have lied about its capabilities. Hence the true, lower than published, specifications of Chinese and Pakistani components are open to any one’s guesses. In any case, the close combat capabilities of JF-17 is below average or average at best.

The next Achilles heal is JF-17’s speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However JF-17’s max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 is draggier. When compared, their F-7s(Reverse engineered MiG-21s) have higher speed of mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine. The IAF fighters which it is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder.

So why is Pakistan still inducting more and more of this fighter, which its critics increasingly call it Junk Fighter – 17 ? The answer may lie with Pakistan’s recent trauma & its psyche. Having sanctioned by the U.S, the star of their airforce, the F-16s were severally hit by lack of spares and most of the time grounded. The other 2 sources to procure modern Aircraft- Russia, have been sealed off due to the legacy of Soviet era friendship, current market in India & India’s pressure- and the other source, the European Union, for their extremely high costs. The third source, the Chinese, at that time were still flying their reverse engineered MiG-21s. In those circumstances, “Never again” was the motto of PAF and it instantly jumped into the project of further reversing the reverse engineered MiG-21, known as Super-7(a.k.a Super F-7) to obtain self reliance. The result of that project is the JF-17. So the decision was appropriate at that time, in those situations. However now with China having developed the J-10, and going by the recent reports of offering ToT(Transfer of Technology) to Pakistan, one wonders why are the Pakistanis still ordering 250 planes. Is the trauma of F-16 sanctions so high that they don’t even trust the Chinese? This can't be the case because they still need the Chinese to procure the RD-93 engines for them, even after the Chinese transfer all their associated JF-17 tech to PAC. So why...? The answer lies with their ego/psyche rather than the trauma. Unlike J-10, Pakistan shares copyright to JF-17 and that, for some weird reason, gives them something to celebrate about. This is strange for the reason, war machines are for fighting wars and achieving tactical & strategic objectives, not for gloating about who holds the copyrights. When JF-17 comes face to face with MKI or SMT, there won’t be much to celebrate about it, or the few millions if at all it earns though exports. In the end, it’s all about defending ones homeland from the enemy, and not copyrights.

JF-17 would have been the best fighter and a sensible decision in the absence of J-10, but now its reason for existence is as obsolete as the fighter itself. This writer would rather have an upgraded MiG-23MLD than a JF-17 anyday.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20610
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 22 Jul 2015 10:13

IP rights indeed! Junk Fighter the "Blunder". Shiv,knowing the mindest of the Pakis,where the army is always top dog,perhaps it smacks of the Paki army's flatulence...sorry,influence,in that it wants the Junk Fighter to perform more close support duties for the Paki army,always at the receiving end with us,rather than taking on the IAF.As for its engine performance,the author of the report you quoted perhaps is ingnorant of the secret weapon that only the Pakis possess, "jinn power"!

Same source on which aircraft/radar is best in the sub-continent for BVR detection.

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... ghter.html
Which Fighter Plane is the No:1 in the Indian Subcontinent in the BVR(Beyond Visual Range) arena?
Updated 17th April 2012
*Article written before Rafale and Super-Sukhoi acquisition by the IAF*

Official Specs says Zhuk-ME on board Mig-29K & Mig-29SMT upgrade has a detection range of 120km for a 5m2 target. Using the Radar-Range-RCS equation which states that the detection range varies with the fourth root of the RCS((New RCS/Old RCS)^0.25 * Radar Range for Old RCS), it becomes possible to calculate the range of the radar for different RCS values.
For 20m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 170km
For 15m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 158km
For 12.5m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 151km
For 10m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 143km
For 8.5m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 137km
For 3m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 106km
For 1m2, Zhuk-ME detection range is 80km

Official Specs says N-011M BARS onboard Su-30MKI has a detection range of 140km against a clean MiG-29, whose unofficial RCS is 5m2. Further the Radar Manufacturer(NIIP) is offering a BARS radar with a higher power output or a higher power transmitter, if the export client is interested. The basic version which offers a detection range of 140km for clean MiG-29 has a peak power output of 4-5kw, and hence has an 1.2kw average power output. NIIP is offering as high as 5kw average power output, 4 times the power output of the basic version, if the export customer wishes for it. This lead to some speculations that some N-011M BARS radar variants have a high power output, and hence a higher range than the 140km given above. The precise range for this version is not known. Whether this radar is in-service with the Indian Air force is also not known. And even if it is with the IAF, how many of these high powered N-011M BARS radar equipped Su-30MKI there are is also impossible to determine. Hence under these circumstances, only confirmed news and data can be taken into account.
140km detection range for 5m2 target. Hence:
For 8.5m2, BARS detection range is 160km
For 3m2, BARS detection range is 123km
For 1.5m2, BARS detection range is 104km
For 1m2, BARS detection range is 94km


An internet blog of some individual, posted a pic claiming to be the official brochure from CETC. It claims that the KLJ-7 onboard JF-17 has a detection range of 105km for a 5m2 target. However, PAF isn't too fond of this radar eventhough it has the same range as the APG-68(V)9 on F-16block52 & RDY-2 on Mirage-2000-5/-9(both radar's range according to official specs), & more range than RC-400 radar. Even in its most powerful form(meaning the version with the largest antenna, which the JF-17 cannot house due to its relatively small nose), the RC400 has 20% less range than the RDY-2 radar. RC-400 is the radar which the PAF is planning to equip their second block of JF-17 according to current reports. The APG-68(V)9 has a bigger antenna(bigger radar-dish/bigger antenna gives more range) than the KLJ-7, plus it is manufactured by Northrop Grumman, a more mature and advanced Military-Industrial complex than CETC by a large margin. And APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10 are THE best & latest mechanically scanned array type radars on F-16s(Both APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10 have the same range[Reference 17]). Like the APG-68(V)9 & APG-68(V)10, KLJ-7 is also a mechanically scanned array type radar. So the claim that the KLJ-7 has the same range as APG-68(V)9 seems more unlikely. Also is the fact that the PAF preferred a far lesser ranged RC-400 over the KLJ-7 radar. All this is fueling speculation that KLJ-7's true specs is lower than publicized by the closed-to-scrutiny Chinese Defence Establishments. This speculation turned out to be true when Janes Defence Weekly published that the Radar Range of KLJ-7 is actually 75km for a 3m2 Target.[Reference/Source 8]
KLJ-7 has a 75km detection range for 3m2 Target. Hence:
For 20m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 121km
For 15m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 112km
For 12.5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 107km
For 10m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 101km
For 8.5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 97km
For 5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 85km
For 1m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 57km

APG-68(V)9 has a 105km detection range for 5m2 Target. Hence:
For 20m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 149km
For 15m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 138km
For 12.5m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 132km
For 10m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 125km
For 8.5m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 120km
For 3m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 92km
For 1m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 70km



RCS figures are confidential. However unofficially there are some figures available on the internet. They are:
Clean(meaning payload/ammunition not loaded) F-16 after Block 30, which includes block 52 - 1.2m2
Clean Mig-29B & Mig-29SMT - 5m2
Clean Su-30MKI - 10m2 to 15m2

JF-17 without RAM, its RCS would be more than a Clean F-16 block 52 which has RAM & is planform. F-16 block25 & the previous variants, which are planform in construction but without RAM, were said to have an RCS of 3m2-5m2, when clean. JF-17's TWR isn't very high, and adding RAM would mean increasing the weight. So we can expect little or no RAM on JF-17. Also, JF-17 isn't very planform in construction but has DSI and is a smaller aircraft. So lets consider a favorable assumption that the RCS of a clean JF-17 is as low as 2.5m2.[Reference 1]

Su-30MKI's RCS when carrying full 8000kgs AG load is said to be 20m2.[Reference 2]

Lets take Su-30MKI's clean RCS as 11.5m2, higher than a standard Su-27, due to canards & the extra seat.

Mig-29K's RCS is officially confirmed to be 4-5 times less than a old Mig-29, due to composites & RAM. So taking an average value between 4 & 5 = 4.5. When the unofficial RCS of 5 is divided by 4.5 we get an RCS of 1.11. "Considerable increase of flight range is also gained due to increased capacity of drop fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability (with the possibility to refuel from the aircraft of the same type). Due to special coatings Mig-29K radar reflecting surface is 4-5 times smaller than of basic MiG-29."[Reference 3]

It's well known that RCS increases with external payload. JF-17 cannot carry larger payloads. Its load carrying capacity is only 7900lbs or less than 3600kgs. This compared to Su-30MKIs 8000kgs, Mig-29K's 5500kgs, & F-16's 7500kgs. So only a nominal increase of 2.5m2 RCS is taken into consideration for the JF-17. Eventhough Mig-29K carries less payload than a F-16 or Su-30, a RCS increase more than F-16's is considered for calculations, in order to get a uniform RCS. This is done purely for the ease of comparison, but as a result of this the MiG-29K's RCS figure is much more than what it would be been. In the end:

Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Mig-29SMT as 8.5m2, 3.5m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Mig-29K as 5m2, 3.9m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded F-16 Block 52 as 5m2, 3.8m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded JF-17 as 5m2, 2.5m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Su-30MKI as 15m2, 3.5m2 more.


With these RCS values and the above radar ranges, you can now see which fighters will be detecting their opponent fighters first... and first tracking which almost linearly follows detection.

Mig-29K will detect:
Su-30MKI at 158km
Mig-29SMT at 137km
F-16 Block 52 at 120km
JF-17 at 120km

F-16 Block 52 will detect:
Su-30MKI at 138km
Mig-29SMT at 120km
JF-17 at 105km
Mig-29K at 105km

Su-30MKI will detect:
Mig-29SMT at 160km
F-16 Block 52 at 140km
JF-17 at 140km
Mig-29K at 140km

Mig-29SMT will detect:
Su-30MKI at 158km
F-16 Block 52 at 120km
JF-17 at 120km
Mig-29K at 120km

JF-17 will detect:
Su-30MKI at 112km
Mig-29SMT at 97km
F-16 Block52 at 85km
Mig-29K at 85km

Mig-29K comes out as the clear winner. If provided with a long range BVR weapon which could match its powerful radar, Mig-29K navalised version will come out as the BVR winner.
Su-30MKI follows the Mig-29K Naval Fulcrum.
Mig-29SMT & F-16 Block-52 are tied at third, followed by the JF-17.

member_29112
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby member_29112 » 22 Jul 2015 19:37

Rumour (rumour) has it that IJT has been scrapped.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3957
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby deejay » 22 Jul 2015 19:52

^^^A 'pan wala' tells me that the LUH and LCH are coming along fine and that HAL rotary wing division is going great guns. LCH is a world beater in its class with its Avionics and weapons package. It should also be able to meet its timelines for FOC.

The same source tells me that IJT has completed stall and will be taken up for spin in due course. Some control surfaces have been adjusted.

But he did say that IJT has other major problems.

member_29112
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby member_29112 » 22 Jul 2015 19:57

deejay wrote:The same source tells me that IJT has completed stall and will be taken up for spin in due course. Some control surfaces have been adjusted.
But he did say that IJT has other major problems.


I heard that the cancellation is because it cannot stall or spin. Again, these are just rumours.
Edit: Some more rumours that stall problem has been solved. We will have to wait for an official statement.
Last edited by member_29112 on 22 Jul 2015 20:07, edited 1 time in total.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3957
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby deejay » 22 Jul 2015 20:06

^^^ Yes, hopefully - just rumours.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Hobbes » 23 Jul 2015 06:48

I'd posted a tweet by Saurav Jha a few days ago saying that the IJT's issues had all been fixed. SJ's information normally is quite reliable. In any case, HAL has already blotted its copybook with this one, considering their original claims of delivering it in three years or some such number.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20610
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 24 Jul 2015 11:12

I have far more faith in HAL's helo division that the aircraft one. Even the Dhruv,which could not be accommodated on IN warships' hangars was modified with folding rotors.The LCH is going to be a rela world-beater to me.HAL should look at establishing a comprehensive prod. facility with a high annual ROP so that both local and foreign requirements can be met.

IJT woes again. When will it end? The IAF should look at its trg. doctrine again.Some air forces have eliminated the 3-tier method.The Pilatus PC-21 is supposed to be able to replicate an IJT's charcteristics and of combat aircraft too.Several major air forces around the world are using it. It may work out cheaper too than inducting a new IJT from abroad. The IAF/MOD need to take a quick decision on the issue.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1140
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shaun » 24 Jul 2015 20:58

Juggad or improvisation of IAF during kargil war ( Mirage 2K )

1. Innovations like cheating the computers, for different than authorized weapon carriage, were commendable: Speaks of tweaking the software of its mission computer ( French help ???)

2. The lasing time of the laser pods was altered manually with good results: Does it have manual setting mode ?? :D

3. There were no fuzes available for the 1000lb bombs, so pistol fuzes were modified and used effectively: Resident experts can explain .

4. Clearance for carriage of 1000lbs indigeneous bombs was done at Gwalior, the home base of the Mirage 2000 aircraft.

5.There were other innovations like using the "laser designator pod" for recce. The largest logistics camps at Muntho Dalo in the Batalik sector and Pt 4388 in the Mashkoh sector were identified through this method and neutralised effectively.

6.The Mirage 2000 aircraft flew a total of 500 missions with only three drops outs. What does it mean ???


credit
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/kargil-vijay-diwas-kargil-war-kashmir-1999-india-pakistan-war-indian-army-air-force/story/1/5182.html

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Cosmo_R » 24 Jul 2015 21:40

^^^"What does it mean ???" This applies to all six points.

What it means is that we were again caught napping. that we had no standing capability to respond and had to improvise. This may be good enough to repair ambys but modern wars require a lot more locked and loaded capability

We still have not learned anything from Kargil except that we are ready for another Kargil. Whereas the pakis have slowly but surely augmented their capabilities across the board and will pick another surprise.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 204766.cms

We will again 'rush' orders for bombs, arty shells etc. etc. all at advantageous prices.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Singha » 25 Jul 2015 07:55

even now the jaguars and mig27 are incapable of operating strikes in the Leh, Sikkim, Tawang sectors as they do not fly well at altitude.
the original Mig29s are a-2-a onlee.

so only the su30s and m2k are capable of dealing in that vast 2000km sector.

tejas can do it but suffers from a lack of love.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Austin » 25 Jul 2015 10:24

^^ IIRC both Jags and Mig-27 participated in Kargil high altitude carpet bombing but as such they were not designed for high altitude bombing but low and fast precision attack.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20610
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 25 Jul 2015 15:57

We'll have to wait for the upgrades to both M2Ks and 29s. However,I'm sure that the IAF would've tested out the MKIs for the role. Whether the MIG-27UGs have the capability is a moot Q. Jags have yet to be upgraded.

There is this old piece of info:
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... ision.html
Israeli Griffin 3 bomb guidance kits for the Indian Air Force news

12 July 2008
The Indian Air Force is all set to get the Israel Aerospace Industries' (IAI) Griffin 3 laser-guided bomb.

Made by IAI's MBT division, the Griffin 3 is said to be the most advanced version of a combat-proven guidance kit that effectively converts "dumb" bombs into precise weapons, claiming a circular error of probability of less than 2 metres (6.5ft).

The Griffin 3 conversion kit is compatible with the Mk82/83/84 general purpose bomb series.

The kit comprises a front guidance section and a rear section that has steering fins. It provides a 12 kilometre (6.5 nautical miles) stand-off range against ground targets, and allows its flight trajectory and impact angle to be pre-programmed.


Our very own desi alternative:Wik.
Sudarshan laser-guided bomb
The kit can guide a bomb within 10 m CEP from its otherwise 400 m to 1000 m fall off the target.[24] If dropped from normal altitude, it has a range of around 9 km.[1] A program to extend the kit’s capability to further increase its range using GPS is ongoing.[4][25] It is expected to rival GBU-12 Paveway II in performance.[26] However, reports indicate that the kit may not support bunker buster bombs, forcing the IAF to look for alternatives.[27][28]

The successful trials and flight tests in 2010 led ADE to further improve the bomb's accuracy. The Indian Air Force is upgrading a large number of unguided bombs to this standard based on the successful results.[16][23] Sudarshan will be in service with the IAF bombers squadrons of Mig-27 and SEPECAT Jaguar. Also, several other fighters in the IAF could carry these bombs for the air-to-ground attack tasks like Su-30MKI, Mirage-2000 and MiG-29.[9] It might also be used by the Indian Army for its long range artillery strike weapon and Indian Navy from an on-board launcher.[29]
Further development[edit]

ADE is developing a next-generation bomb (NG-LGB), which will address the problem of rolling of the bomb after its release. Its range will be increased to 50 km from the current glide-range of 9 km of Sudarshan, when dropped from normal altitude.[1][17]



Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests