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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 05 Jun 2014 19:45

Ah! Excellent find Shivji. This explains a lot.

I havn't had the time o read the entire article but I may have got the gist, and it explains the modifications that I see in the IJT. I was always thinking of about asymmetry, never thought that there might be premature stalling of one of the wings before the designed critical angle. I think HAL was also thinking on the same lines and introduced the nasal strakes, dorsal fins and wing fences to handle asymmetry.

But in the latest pictures brought to us by Ajai Shukla, the nasal strakes and wing fences have been removed. And modifications have been made to the wing (vortex generators have been added) to delay the stalling of the wing.

May be. I am not sure though :|

Click for higher resolution
Image

Image

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17052
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Rahul M » 05 Jun 2014 19:48

how does one wing stall before the other ? aren't they symmetric ?

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Mihir » 05 Jun 2014 20:12

It was a common problem on the MiG-15. Yefim Gordon's history of the aircraft had some interesting details about it. It's been a while since I read it, so I'm quoting from memory, but the Russians realised very quickly that when it came to swept wings, the two wings had to be exact mirror images of each other to avoid wing-drop. The manufacturing techniques of the time lacked the precision needed to make this happen, so they had to develop newer technology.

Of course, this doesn't explain why the problem exists with the IJT...

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 05 Jun 2014 21:16

indranilroy wrote:Ah! Excellent find Shivji. This explains a lot.

Confession. I did not find it - the link was sent to me by another forum member and I didn't bother to ask him permission before posting it here.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vic » 05 Jun 2014 22:01

I wonder if somebody remembers the bizarre theories and chest beating about the incompetence of ISRO when ASLV failures occured. But ISRO went on to develop PSLV without getting bogged down in ASLV, which was also perfected.


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 06 Jun 2014 01:07

Mihir wrote:It was a common problem on the MiG-15. Yefim Gordon's history of the aircraft had some interesting details about it. It's been a while since I read it, so I'm quoting from memory, but the Russians realised very quickly that when it came to swept wings, the two wings had to be exact mirror images of each other to avoid wing-drop. The manufacturing techniques of the time lacked the precision needed to make this happen, so they had to develop newer technology.

Of course, this doesn't explain why the problem exists with the IJT...

That's what I know too.

Actually, the more I think, the more convinced I become that the "inherent design flaw" is that the washout in the IJT wings is not enough to reduce the severity of the wing drop. This is what they wanted to fix with a long wing fence first (on PT-2). That would have delayed the stalling of the wing tip, but would have actually increased the steep stall characteristic. So now, they are trying to make the propagation of the stall more gradual. The long wing fence is gone, and the vortex generators have been introduced in front of the aelirons.

I think they are inching towards a solution.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 06 Jun 2014 06:22

I find it odd that we simply take for granted (as accurate and true) one news item that says there is an inherent design flaw without asking for more information. In any other field outside a random Internet forum such a conclusion would outright be acknowledged to be nonsense.

On a forum such as this it is OK to make solid theories out of incomplete bits of information. But after a while readers (lurkers and forum members) of theories cooked up from incomplete information internalize those theories as the truth - which it simply cannot be in the absence of more information. I would simply wait and see what turns up in terms of developments.

Meanwhile, please ignore this post.

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 » 06 Jun 2014 07:36

mission briefing during Garuda V

Image

rrao
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 22:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby rrao » 06 Jun 2014 10:42

Another good news!!! EMC tests as per mil-std-464 have been completed on IJT LSP-3!!!!

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17052
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Rahul M » 06 Jun 2014 11:30

thanks vic. so if the news of asymmetric wing stall is correct, the likely cause is differential use of ailerons ?
the other reasons, (pax more on one side, ice formation etc are not that likely IMO)
I doubt the the wings themselves are so asymmetrically made that they lead to one stalling before the other.

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 » 06 Jun 2014 12:09

Rahul M wrote:thanks vic. so if the news of asymmetric wing stall is correct, the likely cause is differential use of ailerons ?
the other reasons, (pax more on one side, ice formation etc are not that likely IMO)
I doubt the the wings themselves are so asymmetrically made that they lead to one stalling before the other.


Dont the wings have to stall at different times for a spin to occur, otherwise only the nose will dip and then no stall? Wasnt the problem the roll, not the wing stall? Surely, simulation and modeling can predict passanger weight level issues?

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 275
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Bhaskar_T » 06 Jun 2014 13:13

Tarmac/Indian express reporting "MiG 29K suffers damage on board Vikramaditya". :(

(Quote) - A MiG 29K naval combat aircraft has suffered damage while landing on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya during operations in Arabian Sea off the coast of Goa, a navy official said on Thursday.
The Russian-make aircraft had taken off from the naval airbase INS Hansa in Goa on Wednesday and hard-landed on the aircraft causing damage to the nose-wheel undercarriage, the official said.
The pilot of the aircraft is safe and further details of the damage are being assessed, they said.
The Navy has ordered a Board of Inquiry (BoI) into the accident on the aircraft carrier procured from Russia at a cost of over Rs 15,000 crore late last year.
In this mishap on-board the 44,500-tonne warship, the pilot missed the first two arrester wires used as aid for landing on the carrier and while he was trying to take off again, it got stuck in the third arrester wire causing a hard-landing, navy officials said.
MiG 29Ks have been procured by India from Russia and India is the only country in the world which operate these twin engine naval fighters. India has ordered for 45 of these aircraft and this is the first accident involving these aircraft.
(Unquote)

Link - http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... ramaditya/

rrao
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 22:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby rrao » 06 Jun 2014 14:32

shiv wrote:I find it odd that we simply take for granted (as accurate and true) one news item that says there is an inherent design flaw without asking for more information. In any other field outside a random Internet forum such a conclusion would outright be acknowledged to be nonsense.

On a forum such as this it is OK to make solid theories out of incomplete bits of information. But after a while readers (lurkers and forum members) of theories cooked up from incomplete information internalize those theories as the truth - which it simply cannot be in the absence of more information. I would simply wait and see what turns up in terms of developments.

Meanwhile, please ignore this post.


Shiv saar !!! i have highest regards for the entire BRF, because it is frequented by veterans from all fields of military complex!!!! i have been seeing snide remarks of HAL,IJT,LCA,DHRUV for quite long time from some ill informed members. Hari Nair sir gave back sharply defending Dhruv performance in siachen in another forum. when i read reports of IJT is bad ,i was literally wondering what could be bad about IJT. Some Jurnos news/ reports have always been critical and you know why!! Addition of strakes and vortex as observed by Indranil ,later removal of strakes suggests the correctness of the news report. you have given a very good link which explains unintentional roll issue and others too have expressed possible causes. The forum thinking and ppl at IJT design centers possibly are thinking on similar lines and HAL is inching closer to resolving the issue!!!!Thats a wonderful sign!!!

anand_sankar
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby anand_sankar » 06 Jun 2014 14:39

Statistically fixed wing carrier ops have higher than average accident rates. Good to know this was just a minor mishap.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby P Chitkara » 06 Jun 2014 14:54

Landing an aircraft on land is far, far easier than landing it on a carrier and one will find hence higher rates of incidents in all navies that operate STOBAR or CATOBAR carriers.

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 » 06 Jun 2014 15:34

P Chitkara wrote:Landing an aircraft on land is far, far easier than landing it on a carrier and one will find hence higher rates of incidents in all navies that operate STOBAR or CATOBAR carriers.


These things happen.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 06 Jun 2014 15:54

rrao wrote: you have given a very good link which explains unintentional roll issue and others too have expressed possible causes. The forum thinking and ppl at IJT design centers possibly are thinking on similar lines and HAL is inching closer to resolving the issue!!!!Thats a wonderful sign!!!



The only question is "How true is that report about roll?". Is it true at all? Has anyone else corroborated it? Could this be yet another fake plant in the IJT versus import saga?

Has anyone actually spoken to people involved intimately or peripherally with the IJT program to confirm that this one single report is true?

It is important to get that right, or else we will be reaching conclusions and solutions for problems that have been misreported or even cooked up.

That is what I am getting at.
Last edited by shiv on 06 Jun 2014 15:58, 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 » 06 Jun 2014 15:58

About the NiG 29 on Vikramaditya, one report stated that after the hook missed the first two cables the pilots throttled up and started going nose up to take off and come around when the third cable caught and the nose wheel slammed down.

Yes. These things happen.

Flight sim buffs should try aiming for a landing on a carrier and see how much more difficult it is.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vic » 06 Jun 2014 16:47

I think we should work on parallel lines to IJT like HTT-40 and LCA Trainer AJT version.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby deejay » 06 Jun 2014 17:42

The only question is "How true is that report about roll?". Is it true at all? Has anyone else corroborated it? Could this be yet another fake plant in the IJT versus import saga?

Has anyone actually spoken to people involved intimately or peripherally with the IJT program to confirm that this one single report is true?

It is important to get that right, or else we will be reaching conclusions and solutions for problems that have been misreported or even cooked up.

That is what I am getting at.


Shiv Saar, +1 for that. There is just too little information to assume on the nature of problem and fixes and the stated problem would have been noticed at a much earlier development phase (in my opinion) not after so many flight hours.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Pratyush » 07 Jun 2014 10:53

Can one ever make the hard landing on an arrested recovery go away.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby symontk » 10 Jun 2014 13:23

I am noticing that few Mirage2000 are in Bangalore, saw one taking off almost vertically

Also saw an Indian AEWCS landing. May be it landed in HAL due to the presence of CABS

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vic » 10 Jun 2014 22:36

Pratyush wrote:Can one ever make the hard landing on an arrested recovery go away.



It seems like word play to disguise a crash. One would need to see the pics to comment definitely.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby srin » 11 Jun 2014 01:01

A carrier landing is a controlled crash. And pilots must accelerate as they touch down in the event that the tail hook doesn't catch the arresting cables.

I'm seriously puzzled about the fuss - isn't this normal ? I mean, there is a reason you have the third cable - in case the first two didn't snag the hook.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby JayS » 11 Jun 2014 01:45

rrao wrote:why cant scaled down RC models of IJT,LCA and SARAS be made and flight performance to some extent be evaluated? The YAK130 with micro turbo engines resembles the original one!!! companies like TAAL, NAL and IITs and university students can make these RC planes...of course making them is not an easy one with available tech resources!!!


Making an RC model would be piece of cake for ADA/HAL. Thing is you can't achieve the actual flight Reynolds number with it. And phenomenon like Stall/spin are very sensitive to Re number and the conditions would be almost impossible to achieve. An RC model would probably fly with ease in situations where an actual full scale plane struggles. It might give a lot of other important flight data but I think that kind of data could be collected though WT testing as well. There are other factors like surface roughness, minute details like poking screw-heads on actual airplane which could affect flow in significant way but would be impossible to imitate by RC model. I am sure if it was so much more helpful, it would have been a widespread practice already. People have used this previously. It could be used as demonstrator but it still can't replace full scale flight testing.

Even state-of-the-art CFD can't help much in the flight regimes where large scale separation is involved. So far CFD is used only as sub-systems and analysis (and recently to some extent design) tool. Full config simulations are limited to only few regimes of flows.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby JayS » 11 Jun 2014 02:06

Rahul M wrote:thanks vic. so if the news of asymmetric wing stall is correct, the likely cause is differential use of ailerons ?
the other reasons, (pax more on one side, ice formation etc are not that likely IMO)
I doubt the the wings themselves are so asymmetrically made that they lead to one stalling before the other.


Rahul, Its possible to have an asymmetric wing drop even when the wings are perfect mirror image of each other and the plane's attitude is perfectly symmetric. The turbulent airflow itself is chaotic in nature. You can have large flow separation started on one wing just a fraction of moment before the other due to very nature of turbulent flow.

Once an IIT prof told the story (he used to work in HAL earlier) how they encountered the issue of random wing drop on some aircraft (can't remember which) and they could find nothing wrong with the wings. Later on some experts from some lab (may be NAL) figured out that the very nature of flow makes its almost impossible to have perfectly symmetric flow as such and one wing or the other would drop depending on the situation for that particular plane. They figured out another way to make the stall smooth IIRC.

Now do we know if IJT issue is random wing drop?? I mean either of the two wings could drop and there is no preference?? Probably the it has steep and sudden stall characteristics which could explain the wing drop. In that case, they might be trying to make the stall smoother, as Indranil was theorizing few posts ago.

There is scarcely any technical info available regarding the actual issue. Pity our agencies don't publish much of their research in a way which is more accessible to average joe like NASA does.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21063
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 11 Jun 2014 07:05

Tx to Indian orders,MIG Corp is enjoying good profits. If the Russian orders for 20Ks also arrive this year,plus a couple of anticipated orders for 29Ks,profits will go up further.

Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG had revenues of RUB30.3 billion (USD880 million) and profits of RUB4.5 billion in 2013, according to figures issued by Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) on 9 June.

According to UAC the 2013 revenue outturn was an increase of 68% over that of 2012.

UAC attributed the growth in revenues to deliveries of MiG-29K/KUB naval fighters to the Russian Navy, deliveries of 10 upgraded MiG-29 fighters to the Indian Air Force, and a higher than expected level of international sales. MiG signed contracts worth around RUB10 billion in 2013, it added.

MiG Director General Sergei Korotkov said that he expected sales in 2014 to exceed those of 2013.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Mihir » 12 Jun 2014 01:10

India's Air Force Modernization Worries Rival Pakistan

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, program coordinator of the Centre for Strategic Studies at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, said India is modernizing its air force with newer, more-capable jets but not downsizing its ranks, according to its newly purchased capabilities.

"Even though the air force is buying more expensive things, it should be downsizing in numbers like every Western air force has done, because you can do more things with fewer planes," he said. "This is not happening."

"Pakistan has been, traditionally, the quality air force and India has been the numerically superior air force," he added.

"The Mirage was meant to fly into Pakistani territory to fight that country’s air force over its own soil, he said. The small, more agile MiG 29 — purchased from Soviet Russia around the same time — was meant for dog fighting incoming Pakistani jets over Indian soil."

"It’s no longer about effects. It’s not about capability. It’s purely about ‘Western technology is superior and we need it.’"

"the aviation arms race is alarming because air power is deployed in the region only in high-end conflicts. Because India shares borders with rivals China and Pakistan, ground forces rather than air strikes are typically employed to settle territorial disputes."

"If you send a division into Pakistan, you know the fighting is going to be localized around the periphery of that division, whereas if you go in for an air strike … [India has] absolutely no way of predicting what the Pakistanis are going to do. Is the response going to be to that one plane … or are they going to come back?"

Who is this Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, and why is someone whose analysis is so amateurish doing research at Observer?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19842
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karan M » 12 Jun 2014 01:57

The amount of BS in that paragraph is beyond amateurish and reflects poorly on ORF.
IIRC, this same idiot had written some utter crap about the MMRCA contest as well.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17052
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Rahul M » 12 Jun 2014 03:54

it's a reliance funded think tank, what do you expect.
abhijit iyer mitra sounds like my nephew, all of 3 years old. (if I throw stone at dog will the dog bite me ?)
he (my nephew) probably has higher IQ though.


nilesh, thanks !

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby JayS » 12 Jun 2014 13:14

indranilroy wrote:Ah! Excellent find Shivji. This explains a lot.

I havn't had the time o read the entire article but I may have got the gist, and it explains the modifications that I see in the IJT. I was always thinking of about asymmetry, never thought that there might be premature stalling of one of the wings before the designed critical angle. I think HAL was also thinking on the same lines and introduced the nasal strakes, dorsal fins and wing fences to handle asymmetry.

But in the latest pictures brought to us by Ajai Shukla, the nasal strakes and wing fences have been removed. And modifications have been made to the wing (vortex generators have been added) to delay the stalling of the wing.

May be. I am not sure though :|

That article does not explain why one wing dropped and a/c rolled. It merely stated the fact and the accident was due to over-estimate of stall AoA by GS in ground-effect. So they set the AoA warning too high. In fact after-accident CFD studies concluded that the stall AoA was indeed over-estimated by about 1.5-1.6 deg due to wrong assumptions in analysis. So the pilot actually stalled the a/c without knowing so and during that stall one wing dropped. Interesting to note is twice before the accident same thing happened and always the right wing dropped.

I did some googling. All the articles about it says that there is "inherent asymmetry'. But it looks more like a speculation that inference i.e. The IJT rolls towards one side, so there must be some kind of asymmetry. I mean the articles do not say with confidence that there is some 'aerodynamic asymmetry". Also it does not mention whether its random or its always one particular wing that drops. Too less info. :|

I find it difficult to think that HAL chose a design with inherent aerodynamic asymmetry in any major way or with abrupt stall characteristics. They would have figured it out in early WT analysis i would guess. Also its not uncommon to have such issues with any airframe. There are always chota-mota tweaks to fine tune the aerodynamics which only surface in flight testing. Don't think there is any asymmetry in shape of wings due to design or mfg process. The asymmetry in internal mass distribution could be a factor as well.

But as you mentioned, the modifications done so far point to smoothing of stall/delay of stall, makes sense. Vortex generator strip seems quite in place from this POV.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Indranil » 12 Jun 2014 22:35

Good points and I agree to all.

AFAIK the same plane will always roll towards the same side in the same wind conditions. Also asymmetry does not only rise during manufacturing. Wear and tear can also introduce slight asymmetry. I really want to know if different prototypes all rolled to the same side. Then my theory is out of the window.

Like you, I also don't believe that HAL is incompetent enough to allow a huge asymmetry in weight distribution etc. That's why I did not go down that route. But it may be the case with this new engine and the associated modifications.

Also I completely agree that these are chota mota modifications needed by almost all planes.

Now pay the Russkies the money they want for a 1200 MTBO. Makes my blood boil on how they are milking our compulsion now. Who has the audacity to give a 100 hour MTBO aero-engine? Show them more money and they will produce a 350 hour engine, and then more money for 1200 hrs engine, and finally may be an engine with world-class MTBO figures. And they (and Philip sir) grumble when we say they are no longer trustworthy.

I really hope a variant of the HTFE-25 can replace the AL-55Is when the IJTs come in for midlife upgrades.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby JayS » 13 Jun 2014 02:27

indranilroy wrote:Good points and I agree to all.

AFAIK the same plane will always roll towards the same side in the same wind conditions. Also asymmetry does not only rise during manufacturing. Wear and tear can also introduce slight asymmetry. I really want to know if different prototypes all rolled to the same side. Then my theory is out of the window.

Like you, I also don't believe that HAL is incompetent enough to allow a huge asymmetry in weight distribution etc. That's why I did not go down that route. But it may be the case with this new engine and the associated modifications.

Also I completely agree that these are chota mota modifications needed by almost all planes.

Now pay the Russkies the money they want for a 1200 MTBO. Makes my blood boil on how they are milking our compulsion now. Who has the audacity to give a 100 hour MTBO aero-engine? Show them more money and they will produce a 350 hour engine, and then more money for 1200 hrs engine, and finally may be an engine with world-class MTBO figures. And they (and Philip sir) grumble when we say they are no longer trustworthy.

I really hope a variant of the HTFE-25 can replace the AL-55Is when the IJTs come in for midlife upgrades.


I actually meant (based on current limited info) asymmetry in internal mass distribution could be a factor because I couldn't think of any other inherent design asymmetry. All these are just speculations anyway.

I would also like to know exactly what kind of roll issue it this. It would clear some doubts. I hope that the solution turns out to be some superficial tweak and it gets IOC quickly otherwise one more import will kill one more promising desi product.

Can't really blame the Russians or any other OEM really, can we?? After all its business as usual for them. We are real culprits that we led us into such situation by gross negligence and sheer lack of planning/policy. But its really funny how puny we are in such deals and how we had to accept an engine with 100 or 150 hr MTBO engine that too for 25kN engine. Probably when we start making our own jet engines even with primitive capabilities, we will have more negotiation power. As a country we are not doing enough.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Nikhil T » 15 Jun 2014 09:38

Follow on order for the Apaches?

Army scores major win over IAF, gets Apache gunships

The government has approved the raising of three squadrons of the iconic American-made Apache attack helicopters for the Indian Army. This marks a big win for the Army in its epic war with the Indian Air Force (IAF) for the control of helicopter gunships.

"The Army will get 39 Apache attack helicopters at an estimated cost of over $2.5 billion after the first tranche of 22 of these gunships, currently being negotiated with the US, is delivered to the IAF," disclosed an exultant officer at Army Headquarters.

All future acquisitions of attack helicopters will thereafter be for the Army, an indication that a reluctant IAF will gradually cede this role of providing close helicopter support for ground troops in combat entirely to the Army, which hopes to start getting its Apaches after 2018.

The new Apache squadrons will be integrated with three existing strike corps of the Army, which are tasked with an offensive cross-border role. "This was a long-standing service requirement for a combined Army team concept," explained the senior officer, arguing that an integrated attack helicopter element will mean better synergy with invading ground forces. Sources indicated that Apache elements will also be provided to the Mountain Strike Corps, which is in the process of being raised.

At the moment, India's Mi-35 and Mi-25 gunships are operated by the IAF under the command of the Army, which is now happier at the prospect of the Army Aviation Corps owning and flying the attack helicopters.

The Army's demand for integral attack helicopters gained currency after the Kargil War of 1999, where it clashed with the IAF in its insistence that helicopter gunships be used against Pakistani fighters entrenched on mountain tops. This even led to a stand-off between the then Chiefs of the Army and the IAF, General V.P. Malik and Air Chief Marshal A.Y. Tipnis.

The IAF's squadrons of heavy and slightly dated Mi-35 Russian-made gunships were not suited for operations at such heights as Kargil's. Under pressure from the Army, the IAF used an Mi-17 transport helicopter as a makeshift gunship against the Pakistanis, who shot it down with a Stinger missile, inflicting both a setback and ignominy on the IAF.

"The Army insisted on the use of attack helicopters. We kept asking them to tell us the task, and leave the choice of assets to be used to us," recalls Air Marshal P.S. Ahluwalia, a former commander-in-chief of the Western Air Command. The IAF believes that the Army does not understand application of air power as well as a specialist Air Force would.

Also, it will take many years for the Army to operate the gunships independently, cautions Air Marshal Ahluwalia. "It'll take some time for Army pilots to be trained in fighter tactics and survivability," he warns, shrugging that the process of training the Army in this role would have to be midwifed by the IAF. The slow-moving, low-flying attack helicopters are vulnerable to surface-to-air and air-to-air missile attacks.

The Army nibbling away at the Air Force turf has soured ties somewhat between the two forces, but observers believe that time is a healer. In the past, the IAF also strongly resisted relinquishing the maritime air role to the Navy, but today, naval aviation has matured into a potent specialist force operating everything from surveillance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft to contemporary multi-role fighters. The Navy's aviation arm has produced three chiefs in the last 25 years.

Having tasked blood with its success in wresting the attack helicopter role, the Army is now eyeing integral fixed-wing aircraft as well. Sensing further turf erosion, the IAF is reminding the Army that in the age of jointmanship and resource crunches, assets and roles must not be duplicated. The last word is yet to be said in the continuing inter-service rivalry.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby dinesh_kimar » 16 Jun 2014 09:23

A search for HTFE-25 led to a Linkedin account which says that the engine is HAL's first FADEC engine....unfortunately, could not view the details on Linkedin.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby rohitvats » 16 Jun 2014 09:54

So, Army is getting Apache gunships, aye? As was surmised by this Abdul that first tranche ordered for IAF is only the starter! Squadron each was planned for Strike Corps from word go. Now waiting for LCH to come online so that Pivot Corps can start getting their complement of Attack Helicopters.

Which brings me to the question - what is the planned production rate of Rudra version of ALH? How is that front looking up? They are key for the planned Combat Aviation Brigade planned for each Corps.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Will » 16 Jun 2014 12:36

rohitvats wrote:So, Army is getting Apache gunships, aye? As was surmised by this Abdul that first tranche ordered for IAF is only the starter! Squadron each was planned for Strike Corps from word go. Now waiting for LCH to come online so that Pivot Corps can start getting their complement of Attack Helicopters.

Which brings me to the question - what is the planned production rate of Rudra version of ALH? How is that front looking up? They are key for the planned Combat Aviation Brigade planned for each Corps.


With man portable anti-aircraft missiles proliferating aren't helicopter gunships sitting ducks in todays environment?

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby srin » 16 Jun 2014 12:37

Good thing, IMO.

Next-step: get fixed-wing CAS aircraft too - a fleet of Rustom's or even a fleet of combat version IJT's. One can always dream.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12427
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Jun 2014 13:40

Is it 39+22 Apaches? or is it a total of 39. Hope the army aviation corps cordinates with AF well during times of war.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests