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.
eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1872
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby eklavya » 06 Jul 2015 10:07

Vivek K wrote:^^^^^Typical troll. I would wager that the NLCA would come in to make good the requirements.

The laptop analogy is typical of the forces- finding any excuse to reject domestic products. Reminiscent of the torsion bar failure of the Arjun put Girard by IA and is lifafa journos to defeat the Arjun in favor of the Tin can.


Accusing the armed forces of corruption at every opportunity is trolling. The forces have placed orders for hundreds of ALH, LCH, IJT (less said the better) ... one can go on and on. Unless you have specific proof, to accuse the armed forces of corruption at every opportunity, as you do, is against the rules of this board. Mods please take action.

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby member_24684 » 07 Jul 2015 08:24

From Thakur Sir

A credible airborne deterrent would have to be based on an in production aircraft to ensure long term availability of spares. The IAF would be happiest if the spares could be sourced from within our country.

The US does not sell its bombers, so India would have to source its requirement from Russia, which currently has just the Su-34 light bomber under production.

The Su-34 is a sibling of the IAF's Su-30MKI. Larger and heavier, the twin seat Su-34 has an enlarged front section. It carries more fuel and features a strengthened airframe. The aircraft is honed to penetrate deep into heavily contested airspace at low levels with crew comfort. It features SEAD electronics and weapons to help deliver its cruise missile payload.

The Su-34 features many of the same major systems as the Su-30MKI, including power plant. The aircraft would be a much more competent delivery platform for the IAF's nuclear deterrent, than the Mirage-2000, Jaguar or Su-30MKI.


Bring the Su 34

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3472
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Aditya G » 08 Jul 2015 00:05

Su-34 is an excellent option - only if we were looking for a bomber or maritime strike aircraft.

For a decade there has been a requirement of 40 aircraft from SFC - it is yet to be addressed. A practical decision will be to quietly address it with additional Super-30s. In brahmos-a we have a long range maritime strike option which will be certified with Su-30 soon, while it is nowhere on the radar for Su-34.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby ramana » 08 Jul 2015 03:06

So whatever happened to the 40 aircraft for the SFC supposed to be ordered from Russia?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9758
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Rakesh » 08 Jul 2015 03:10

With the exception of Mithai, I am not fond of conspiracy stories. That having being said, perhaps the SFC has been quietly raised without much fanfare. Walk softly, but carry a big stick. I am a big fan of the Su-34 and would be a perfect fit for the SFC. Can easily adopt the BrahMos ALCM.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2393
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby VinodTK » 08 Jul 2015 03:43

Bharat Rakshak quoted in the story below

Sukhois fly in to save the day but for how long?
India seems to have accepted the adage that you fight with the best weapons you have, not with the weapons you want. The Indian Air Force will stand down three squadrons of the MiG-21 and MiG-27 jets at the end of their life cycle. Replacing these ageing warhorses will be the Su-30 air dominance fighter.

Inducting more Su-30 Flankers to fill in for retiring aircraft is a sensible move – at least for now. Forced to live within budgets, the IAF cannot splurge on flying white elephants like the Rafale, however appealing they may be. The French aircraft is expected to cost in the region of $200 million per aircraft whereas replacement Sukhois made locally at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) cost around $75 million each.

Each Made in India Sukhoi is worth a handful of imported aircraft. As well as the cost benefit aspect, there is the advantage of being able to quickly make up for war losses. During a conflict, foreign sellers are likely to shake down India for everything they can and the IAF won’t be in any position to bargain. If HAL is able to crank out enough Sukhois, then blackmail is not an option.
пустым не оставлять!!

Why the BrahMos armed Sukhoi is bad news for India’s enemies

According to Bharat Rakshak, India currently has 204 MiG-21s and 99 MiG-27s. It is from this fleet the IAF will retire three squadrons – or 54 aircraft – over the coming two-three years. Filling in will be 18 Su-30s.

But here’s the rub. Just like a tradesman needs a number of specialised tools to be able to undertake and complete a variety of tasks, the air force needs specialised aircraft – light, medium-sized and heavy – to perform different roles.

The MiG-21 is a light interceptor and fighter escort, plus it provides combat air patrol. The Sukhoi being an air superiority fighter can perform these roles. But let’s say the IAF wants to vector a couple of aircraft to intercept a Pakistan Air Force JF-17 intruder. The IAF’s fighter of choice against this Chinese knockoff is likely to be a MiG-21 rather than the Sukhoi. While the Sukhoi can do the job, it would be inefficient to use a strategic aircraft in a low to medium intensity mission. Sending an aircraft that weighs over 18,000 kilos (unloaded) against the comparatively tiny JF-17 (6400 kilos) would also be overkill.

Now let’s come to the MiG-27, a mid-sized ground attack aircraft. The IAF deploys this Cold Warrior in two different roles. One, along with the ancient Jaguar and the multirole Mirage-2000, the Russian aircraft is used as a nuclear bomber. With the MiG-27s expected to fly into the sunset by 2020, the Sukhoi are pitching in. Two squadrons of Sukhois – a virtual Mini Air Force – are currently being configured for the nuclear strike role. The Flanker’s Russian designers never intended the aircraft to be used in a nuclear delivery role because the Russian Air Force has dedicated planes for that, but the IAF is proceeding ahead with the conversion because it has few options.

Secondly, the MiG-27 was developed to support rapidly moving infantry and armoured columns. For instance, the aircraft is most likely to be deployed to take out a column of advancing Pakistani tanks. But what's bread and butter for the MiG-27 could prove suicidal for the Sukhoi because the much heavier Flanker isn’t meant to be used in a battlefield support role. Risking a $75 million aircraft against a Pakistani Al Khalid tank that costs $5 million makes no military sense. Smaller jets or attack helicopters are better suited in this role.

Where the Sukhoi fits

The Sukhoi’s primary strength is in destroying strategic targets and establishing air dominance for other IAF aircraft to operate with impunity. A good example of such a role played by an IAF aircraft was during the 1999 Kargil War when MiG-29s flying over Jammu & Kashmir prevented Pakistan’s American-built F-16s from coming to the aid of the Pakistan Army.

While a number of IAF aircraft took part in the Kargil campaign, it was the cover provided by the MiG-29 Fulcrum armed with beyond visual range (BVR) missiles that exposed the PAF’s plight. “While PAF fighters did fly combat air patrols during the conflict, they stayed well within Pakistani air space," says a Strategy Page report. “On occasions, IAF MiG-29s armed with the deadly R-77 BVR air-to-air missiles were able to lock on to PAF F-16s, forcing the latter to disengage. In the absence of a PAF threat, the IAF was able to deliver numerous devastating strikes on intruder positions and supply dumps.”

This is the role the Sukhoi is meant to play in any future conflict. Currently being armed with the supersonic BrahMos missile, the Flankers can also establish dominance over the oceans to prevent a re-enactment of the 1971 War with Pakistan when the US despatched its Seventh Fleet up the Bay of Bengal in a show of support for Pakistan. The British Navy had also sent in a small flotilla to target Mumbai.

It was the timely arrival of the Russian Pacific Fleet from Vladivostok that stopped this joint American-British strike on India. The downside of this support from Moscow was that India had to make major compromises in its war plans. New Delhi had intended to strike deep inside West Pakistan and completely annihilate Pakistani armour. But Russia insisted that since India had achieved all its objectives – including slicing Pakistan in half – there was no need to continue the war. Moscow was under pressure from Washington, which threatened to call of strategic arms limitations talks if India further dismantled Pakistan.

The incursion of the US Seventh Fleet left a deep scar in India’s collective memory. In this backdrop, the Sukhoi, BrahMos and an extensive armoury of ballistic missiles are India’s insurance that in any future conflict, threats from the US or China can be neutralised without having to rely overly on Russia.

Need for alternatives

The Sukhoi can only be a short-term fix, not a permanent solution. India needs to rapidly induct the HAL-developed Tejas light combat jet and step up work on newer versions. At $30-40 million the Tejas offers a tantalising cost-benefit advantage over the Rafale.

A few hundred Tejas jets of varying configurations can overwhelm enemy defences. It was a Cold War strategy adopted by Russia during the 1970s when its fighter jets were not as advanced as western aircraft. The Russian logic was that "quantity has a quality all its own". The belief was that multiple attacks in tandem could pre-empt, unhinge and paralyse the enemy.

India also needs to look beyond HAL in case the Tejas turns out to be a dud like the Marut jet of the 1960s. A brand new aircraft company – with foreign aerospace specialists – whose sole mission is to develop world class warplanes is the need of the hour. India’s aircraft sector can emulate the success of the BrahMos Corporation, which employs Russian engineers and scientists and is run like a private company free of State control.

For a country of India’s economic and geopolitical heft, dependence on foreign military purchases is not just embarrassing but also suicidal.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 08 Jul 2015 16:11

I cannot understand why the IAF/MOD has not explored building more MIG-29UG std. at home (upgrades of 60+ are being carried out at home) for half the price of a Sukhoi,meaning that one would be able to acquire 5-6 MIG-29UGs for the price of just one Rafale! 45+ new MIG-29Ks are being acquired by the IN for its carrier strike role. The 29s are superb air combat aircraft,and in the new avatar are true multi-role med. class strike fighters. If LCAs fail to arrive on time and in enough qty.,acquiring at least 4-6 sqds. of 29s would be the most cost-effective solution,since the MKIs are too large for the close support/GA role.

SU-34s are ideal for the strat forces in the absence of larger dedicated aircraft like Backfires/Blackjacks. In any case the definitive LCA MK-2s will only arrive post 2020,giving us a gap of 5 years with no effective replacements for the hundreds of MIG-21s/27s being phased out.The MIG-29 is a much cheaper and more cost-effective replacement for these types instead of the heavy MKI. It would also be more than a match for Paki JF-17s and F-16s,as even its original version was a better dogfighter than US F-16s (details posted earlier).In an era of acute fiscal challenges,the cost factor alone is alluring.

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 » 08 Jul 2015 16:16

we do not have a dollar printing press to devote 40 a/c to a SFC that will only fly nukular weapons.
its better to wire up all Su30 and put a small tactical n-warhead onto brahmos-A if at all we need the manned nukular strike option.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karan M » 08 Jul 2015 16:37

The Su-34 has had more serviceability issues than any of the other Flanker variants. In short, if we buy it, another hanger queen, given many of its systems are actually different from those in other Flankers.
That's basically the big problem with Russian gear, their lack of attention to all this stuff.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Vipul » 08 Jul 2015 16:45

A stop gap one time purchase of 40-60 MIG 29 of the latest standard makes sense and is required to make up for the rapidly depleting active aircraft's and squadron strength.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karthik S » 08 Jul 2015 16:50

I was always a fan of the backfires for this role. If only we had the money to buy and maintain them.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3543
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby fanne » 08 Jul 2015 16:54

Deterrence sequence during war or when situation is tensed is as follows -

Your dedicated bomber with New clear detergent flies off and remain deep in friendly sky - Being in air, it is not at risk for ground bombing and being neutralized. Being in the air with its cargo signals the seriousness of the detergent. Now you need a dedicated plane that can do something like this, remain in air patrol for many hours. I doubt SU30MKI can do that.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby srin » 08 Jul 2015 17:25

If you want a bomber, then get a bomber that has enough firepower to obliterate a target - with payload of 30-40 tons. Not another fighter (that can barely do 10 tons) adapted to the role.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 08 Jul 2015 17:40

"HAL production quality under the lens after Hawk crash"
One has heard over the decades complaints about quality control of HAL.It makes one wonder as to how HAL is going to cope with FGFAs,AMCAs,MK-2 LCAs,etc. when a trainer like the Hawk cannot be made as per quality specs. There are so many aero programmes under HAL's wings ,both fixed wing and rotary,that any major OEM abroad would be envious of. It is the fundamental responsibility of the MOD,Min for Def. Production,whose voice one rarely hears,or is allowed to hear (?),who should crack the whip with the DPSUs to ensure that the services receive eqpt. that is in perfect order as designed and specified.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Mihir » 08 Jul 2015 19:42

What exactly can the Su-34 do that the Su-30MKI cannot?

I understand that the IAF needs a top-quality strike aircraft that can penetrate heavily defended airspace and destroy critical targets/air defences. That's why it is buying the Rafale. So what new capability would the Su-34 bring to the table?

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby jayasimha » 08 Jul 2015 19:56

@ Philip
"HAL production quality under the lens after Hawk crash"

Yes it is under the lens since it is very very minute..


Has IAF not crashed Non HAL planes. Do u remember Transport planes they have crashed whose paint has not even dried...

Given a choice, people will just jump to point fingers at PSU. DO you think IAF is above all this. What about their maintenence records. What about the pilot. These presstitutes have a SOP. If Pilot is dead, blame the pilot. If pilot is alive blame the PSU. IAF / supplier are all above the sky.

PSU has to work between devil and deep blue sea. Customer, Govt Vigilant officers and Unions always keep the bosses in pressure. Unlike in Private sector.

Let them give free hand. Like Sunil Mittal Runs Airtel and see for yourself. Airtel is worlds 3rd largest Mobile service provider starting from Cycle part manufacturer.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 08 Jul 2015 20:03

Regarding the Hawk crash, let me post exactly what I said in DFI when someone posted the above article blaming HAL

The crash as been blamed on "quill shaft failure"

Who makes the quill shaft for the Adour turbofan? Was this an imported engine or a locally made one? Was it made totally in India or were components imported? Was the maintenance proper? Could a lubricant failure have led to a structural failure?

It is wrong to pin blame without answers to such questions

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Cosmo_R » 08 Jul 2015 20:32

^^^"Let them give free hand. Like Sunil Mittal Runs Airtel and see for yourself." Sunil Mittal built Airtel with his own money. The PSUs are running on public funds on a cost plus basis. Don't want the scrutiny, political interference and unions? Privatize

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby deejay » 08 Jul 2015 20:47

jayasimha wrote:@ Philip
"HAL production quality under the lens after Hawk crash"

Yes it is under the lens since it is very very minute..


Has IAF not crashed Non HAL planes. Do u remember Transport planes they have crashed whose paint has not even dried...

Given a choice, people will just jump to point fingers at PSU. DO you think IAF is above all this. What about their maintenence records. What about the pilot. These presstitutes have a SOP. If Pilot is dead, blame the pilot. If pilot is alive blame the PSU. IAF / supplier are all above the sky.

PSU has to work between devil and deep blue sea. Customer, Govt Vigilant officers and Unions always keep the bosses in pressure. Unlike in Private sector.

Let them give free hand. Like Sunil Mittal Runs Airtel and see for yourself. Airtel is worlds 3rd largest Mobile service provider starting from Cycle part manufacturer.


Which One? I am refering to the bolded part.

BTW, I think the current charge has come from RollsRoyce and not some presstitute. I have not seen any Indian support to the charge so far apart from the above post.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17048
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Rahul M » 08 Jul 2015 20:54

C-130J ?

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 08 Jul 2015 21:06

deejay wrote:BTW, I think the current charge has come from RollsRoyce

It seems a bit early to reach a firm conclusion. Generally, I thought a post accident court of enquiry takes weeks if not months because every broken bit of aircraft has to be analysed, apart from FDR and what the pilots say happened. And Rolls Royce are involved straightaway? It's only 4 weeks since the crash.

Of course foreign vendors are not always forthright about issues where their equipment may have failed. Like BAe in mysterious Jaguar losses due to failure of landing gear deployment due to hydraulic failure.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby vaibhav.n » 08 Jul 2015 21:11

jayasimha wrote:Has IAF not crashed Non HAL planes. Do u remember Transport planes they have crashed whose paint has not even dried...


IAF like any other AF which trains hard has training accidents. That for a squadron which will insert SF units using the very same maneuvers into enemy territory, the margin for error is thin.

Do you want a shiny clean AF like the Middle East ones and bank on khan to save your musharraf?

jayasimha wrote:PSU has to work between devil and deep blue sea. Customer, Govt Vigilant officers and Unions always keep the bosses in pressure. Unlike in Private sector.


They have job security which is literally cutting edge...... VRS Natarajan of the Tatra Scam fame nothing happenned, CBI closed the case after estimating 750 crores in bribes and the gravy train continues to this day under a different goverment....

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby deejay » 08 Jul 2015 21:18

^^^ If it is the C130J, AFAIK, there has been back and forth with the OEM. The pilots may be taking the blame but there have been issues with the OEM here (Purely off the table info here).

Personally, I lost a course mate and a dear friend in the crash. Late Wg Cdr Raji Nair, was a good friend. He did not have a death wish and nor his crew had any such wish. IAF does not go crashing planes. PSU's or OEM's are rarely blamed. More than 90% (my estimate) COI's end up blaming the pilot or the IAF (as in Maint practices, poor planning, improper training or whatever). Blaming the OEM or a PSU will need a b@lls of steel COI. Try finger pointing at holy cows of the Govt of India - IAF and its Air Marshals command far less authority then the Baboos and Directors's of PSU's in India.

Most of the cover up (as posted above) and efforts to blame dead pilot is to save the OEM and the also the GOI from public embarrassment.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby deejay » 08 Jul 2015 21:20

shiv wrote:Regarding the Hawk crash, let me post exactly what I said in DFI when someone posted the above article blaming HAL

The crash as been blamed on "quill shaft failure"

Who makes the quill shaft for the Adour turbofan? Was this an imported engine or a locally made one? Was it made totally in India or were components imported? Was the maintenance proper? Could a lubricant failure have led to a structural failure?

It is wrong to pin blame without answers to such questions


Shiv Sir, I agree. Too early, too quick. This early to isolate a "quill shaft failure" with RR being sure it is HAL sounds like the efficiency on Krypton.

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 » 08 Jul 2015 21:24

fanne wrote:Deterrence sequence during war or when situation is tensed is as follows -

Your dedicated bomber with New clear detergent flies off and remain deep in friendly sky - Being in air, it is not at risk for ground bombing and being neutralized. Being in the air with its cargo signals the seriousness of the detergent. Now you need a dedicated plane that can do something like this, remain in air patrol for many hours. I doubt SU30MKI can do that.


we could ask if khan can restart production of the B-36 bomber..... this used to be on hair trigger n-armed patrols 24x7 in the good old days.

full TOT will be available :twisted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCZ-Mb1WlyA

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4829
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby hanumadu » 09 Jul 2015 06:41

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 10h10 hours ago
HAL has fixed residual issues with the Intermediate Jet Trainer. Expect news on it soon.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Vipul » 09 Jul 2015 18:42

Boeing gives India 3 more months to seal defence chopper deal.

S aviation major Boeing Company has accepted India’s request to maintain its quotation price for Apache and Chinook helicopters at $2.5 billion (Rs 15,000 crore) for another three months. The price quoted by the American major had expired on June 30, 2015.

Sources told FE: “A decision is expected soon, hence, the company was requested to extend the price deadline for at least three months. So far, the price deadline has been extended at least 10 times since 2013 for 22 Apache AH-64E Apache and 15 Chinook CH-47F.”

Boeing had extended the validity of the price quoted by them for another three months in April hoping to wrap up the deal soon. The MoD had in March sought extension of the validity period on its expiry on March 31.

In April, the company had extended the price deadline and indicated to the government that this would be the last time. However, so far no decision has been taken by the ministry of finance where the files were sent by the MoD for approval. The files once approved by the ministry of finance are then sent to Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for final approval.

Both Apache and Chinooks were selected in a competitive bid over the Russian Mi-28N Night Hunter and the Mi-26 Halo heavy lift helicopter, in 2012.
In February, the company had made it clear it cannot wait indefinitely for the government to sign a deal for Apache attack helicopters and Chinook heavy lift choppers. Again, during US defence secretary Ashton Carter’s visit in June, there were indication that the deal could be finalised, however, there are still no clear indicators of when that will happen.

India operates a Russian-built fleet of ageing Mi-35 attack helicopters that urgently need to be replaced by more modern helicopters with better sensors and missiles. The Apache is considered the world’s premier anti-tank attack helicopter. In its flight evaluation trials, the Indian Air Force had picked the Apache over of the Russian Mi-28N Night Hunter. Similarly, the IAF had concluded that the Chinook heavy lift chopper had lower life-cycle costs than the Russian Mi-26 helicopter and was, therefore, the lowest bidder in the competition.

Sources also indicated that the file relating to the offset conditions for the contract was cleared by the MoD recently and now the deal will come up for discussion in the Cabinet Committee on Security.

The US had been pushing for this contract as it will further bolster American presence in the burgeoning defence market of India.

The American companies have over the last decade bagged defence contracts from India worth around $ 10 billion, including for aircraft like P-8I, C-130J ‘Super Hercules’ and C-17 Globemaster-III.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9758
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Rakesh » 09 Jul 2015 18:54

^^^ This is downright embarrassing. To extend it 10 times. Wow! How long does it take them to decide?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Karan M » 09 Jul 2015 18:56

Mihir wrote:What exactly can the Su-34 do that the Su-30MKI cannot?

I understand that the IAF needs a top-quality strike aircraft that can penetrate heavily defended airspace and destroy critical targets/air defences. That's why it is buying the Rafale. So what new capability would the Su-34 bring to the table?


Shush infidel! Its Russian!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby ramana » 09 Jul 2015 19:08

Mihir wrote:What exactly can the Su-34 do that the Su-30MKI cannot?

I understand that the IAF needs a top-quality strike aircraft that can penetrate heavily defended airspace and destroy critical targets/air defences. That's why it is buying the Rafale. So what new capability would the Su-34 bring to the table?



Mihir, I think hardened electrical cabling is what it will bring and some other gizmos.

If you note IAF wants a particular aircraft for a particular role.
They know what is needed.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Sid » 09 Jul 2015 19:25

Rakesh wrote:^^^ This is downright embarrassing. To extend it 10 times. Wow! How long does it take them to decide?


Probably because GOI is under intense pressure from Russian side to not go ahead with this deal. The day we will say "GO", you will hear Russia/Pakistan attack Helo. deal finalized.

India will gain few new toys but Porkies will gain a new friend.


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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby deejay » 09 Jul 2015 20:10

Rakesh wrote:^^^ This is downright embarrassing. To extend it 10 times. Wow! How long does it take them to decide?


Rakesh Sir, I don't think it is embarrassing at all. All the manufacturers will give a quote with validity of 03 months or some such period. Once the period expires, the duration of quote can be extended. This is what Boeing is doing.

That we need to decide quickly is a requirement based on our necessity. Boeing is pulling no favours. It is a high value deal and we must be sure we want it within the terms they are offering before saying yes.

This constant pressure of price increase is a standard sales tool to force quick decisions which as a customer we must avoid.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Hobbes » 10 Jul 2015 08:22

Some good news on the IJT from Saurav Jha:
* HAL has fixed residual issues with the Intermediate Jet Trainer. Expect news on it soon.

Certainly took them a while to go the last mile!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Philip » 10 Jul 2015 17:13

If they've fixed the "spin" and the "spin" from the "spin",apologies for puns intended,then it will be v.good news indeed.More flights to certify the bird ,final evaluation from the end-user and we could see a little winner here,as it should be v.cheap to build with "good prospects". If it still fails to meet the grade,then it is unlikely that it will survive.


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

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby shiv » 11 Jul 2015 06:59

Lifted from Facebook and posted with permission

Author: Wing Cdr (retd) Gunarathnam David

Dear Sir,

I had been reading, on this forum, quite a bit on the high levels of accuracy achieved by our IAF pilots during the Indo Pak War of 1971. This lead the Americans to believe that we were using some Russian system to aid us. In their minds they could not imagine any one capable of that accuracy much less the IAF., All that we had was jokingly referred to as the Moving Thumb Display (With apologies to the Jaguar Crew ). I salute all our Instructors, senior pilots and the IAF standards which taught each and every one of us----Height ,Speed Course, Calculate Error and apply the required correction to achieve a TOT +/- 10 Seconds at the time the weapon hit the target, it was as precise as that. We have all done it and are familiar with the thrill of it. It still gives us a high.

I left the IAF and went on to fly Commercial Jets, the Airbus 310 and the Boeing 747-400 as a Captain.They were sophisticated Ac, with the state of art Navigation Systems coupled to the Auto Flight and Auto Throttle systems. The RNP or Required Navigation Performance was 5. In other words you had to have a navigation accuracy of +- 5 nms from ones track at all times regardless of the total distances which could be several thousand miles. I am proud to say that if all the Nav Computers failed, armed with only the Moving Thumb Display ( MTD ), one could use what the IAF had taught us to do and navigate for hours on end and achieve an RNP of 2nm, yes 2 nms. Read on, It is so simple.....

It all began when I was doing my training to get my first Command on an Airbus 310. The sectors we had to do that day were Trivandrum- Muscat and Muscat Bombay. After having got airborne from Trivandrum and levelled out at cruise altitude my Examiner ( Wg Cdr Mayadev ) asked me what I would do in the event of Nav Computer failure. Incidentally we had triple redundancy if I remember right and such Failures are catered for, so one normally does not have a total failure where one has to do DR navigation. If one is over land VOR to VOR radials are followed and Navigation poses no problem. Over the vast expanse of Ocean with no VORs it is a different ball game.

Actually all one does is substitute a road/railway line crossing withe the actual LAT/LONG, and one has an accurate Fix. Let us say we are going from TRV-MCT or Trivandrum to Muscat. Your NAV Card has the tracks and distances to all the way points and also their Geographical Co ordinates. The probability of one overflying the exact co ordinates ie LAT/LONG at the same time or (zero error ), is extremely remote. Further India being situated near the Equator, most destinations lie NE, NW, SE or SW of it with a more Easterly or Westerly bias to it. This means that it is more convenient to take a LONG reading exactly as one passes over it and also note the LAT reading at the moment of passing. The co ordinates are given in the Nav Card. So just below that you write the co ordinates of the LONG, and except for the last two digits of the LAT. The last two digits of the LAT note at the exact moment you cross the LONG. If it is done in advance, you are well prepared and only have to note or remember the last two digits. The rear of the Flight Plan is Blank so you can use that to draw a pictorial representation. You draw the track there, say 320 degrees.now draw a vertical line there to represent the Meridian. Plot your co ordinates there. The displacement will show up as left or right of track. Using the 1 x 60 rule, 1minute along Meridian is one mile ( it Lat is taken it varies as Cos Lat towards the Poles. Therefore the advantage of taking LONG instead ). Remember
what they taught on HT-2s ). Round off this displacement to the nearest Minute and it is displacement from track in Nautical miles. If one keeps the Closing Angle as a constant at 60nm ahead that would translate that lateral displacement into degrees. So a displacement of 2nm to the left would always be 2degrees drift at 60nm ahead on track. Now check the actual Ground Speed read out and round it off to the nearest NM/ Min. So at 8 nm/ min you would cover 60nms in 7.5 min. Using double drift method, Alter course course by 4 degrees into wind, Press clock and fly for 7.5 minutes and you will be on track at the end of 7.5 minutes. Alter course only by 2 degrees away from wind to cater for the drift only. Across the Indian Ocean we have flown for as much as 4 hours and have rarely been more than 2nm off track.

I would like to say here that at no time were the passengers put to any risk whatsoever. The NAV Systems were always ON throughout the exercise, but in the fully dim mode. The aircraft was flown on raw data throughout and one flick of a switch would put it back in the Fully Automated mode. A cross reference was always carried out with the Nav Comp at each way point and the aircraft's actual ground position ascertained an cross checked. We even graduated to weather avoidance, using the same technique.

I have written about this only because the Indian Air Force taught me all this and what ever I know of flying, I have passed on to each and every pupil of mine because I used to be an Instructor and Examiner in A 310s in Air India. The Basics of aviation has not changed whether you fly an aircraft as humble as a HT-2 or as sophisticated as a Boeing-744.

I only passed on what the IAF had taught me right from HT-2s onward. The basics of aviation has not changed. The training has to cater for failure of Fully Automated Systems and what to do in such an event, AF 447 may be a case in point as also the Korean B-777 in SFO. I think understanding Three Dimensional Airflow as compared to Two Dimensional Airflow is required to be introduced coupled with correct interpretation of the mass of data presented to you.

I Salute The Indian Air Force

Wg Cdr GM David
( Veteran )

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2480
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby Vivek K » 11 Jul 2015 08:08

Philip wrote:If they've fixed the "spin" and the "spin" from the "spin",apologies for puns intended,then it will be v.good news indeed.More flights to certify the bird ,final evaluation from the end-user and we could see a little winner here,as it should be v.cheap to build with "good prospects". If it still fails to meet the grade,then it is unlikely that it will survive.

Ironic isn't it that the Armata failed in its show off parade yet the poster is very excited about its future. The IJT has "learnt to fail" i.e. spin and the poster is looking at possibilities of failure. The mind set is totally institutionalized against domestic products. :rotfl:

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby tsarkar » 11 Jul 2015 22:14

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.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Postby srai » 12 Jul 2015 05:03

^^^

They need to fund their marketing/advertising departments. Hire some talents to fill them up. Or outsource that to help them manage their image like celebrities do and promote their products like private companies do. Reach their target markets more effectively and widely. Public companies generally tend to lack that world over.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests