Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Jul 2020 22:03

Prem Kumar you are ignoring a basic fact- Pakis had Chinese Nukes mated with M9 and M11 missiles, this was ready from the Mid-90's. At the time when Kargil happened we had 0 Prithvi's with Nukes, we operationalised 4-5 missiles during the conflict.

Luckily for us to target deeper cities the Pakistanis had the Ghauri liquid fueled which was they tested in April 98. When Pakistan tested it twice during Kargil both went haywire with 1 missile going into Iran and other disintegrating at Launch.

This was because the Chinese and the West did not want Pakis to have an operational 1500km missile so they sent them a North Korean missile.

In Hindsight ABV idea of using Air power was considered very brave- at that time Pakis expected we will suck it and trade for Siachen- a Congress or 3rd front Govt might have just done that.

The number of PGM we had before Kargil were so few that every PGM had its Target written on it.

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 09 Jul 2020 22:32

Red tape leaves IAF’s Kargil heavyweight, Mi-26, out of LAC action
https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ ... ion-110143

I hope we get more Chinooks and better border infra and this file is lost in the black hole that is the Babu's iron almera.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Jul 2020 23:13

MeshaVishwas wrote:Red tape leaves IAF’s Kargil heavyweight, Mi-26, out of LAC action
https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ ... ion-110143

I hope we get more Chinooks and better border infra and this file is lost in the black hole that is the Babu's iron almera.

Why? It provides a capability that the Chinook cannot and the IAF believes they can keep them flying for another 15 years. This is not a new acquisition and will be an inexpensive way to retain an existing capability which would otherwise be lost.

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 10 Jul 2020 00:11

nachiket wrote:
MeshaVishwas wrote:Red tape leaves IAF’s Kargil heavyweight, Mi-26, out of LAC action
https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ ... ion-110143

I hope we get more Chinooks and better border infra and this file is lost in the black hole that is the Babu's iron almera.
Why? It provides a capability that the Chinook cannot and the IAF believes they can keep them flying for another 15 years. This is not a new acquisition and will be an inexpensive way to retain an existing capability which would otherwise be lost.

Makes no sense IMO, if any contractor wants to transport oversize cargo, they should charter from Volga Dnepr type firms.
I don't think VayuSena did any Ruski type strategic Atim Bum missions to remote reaches on the Mi-26(I could be wrong) and the bird is more of a liability than an asset.

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 10 Jul 2020 00:45

Loved it!
Definitely worth a stop and click.
https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... 6683/lite/

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Jul 2020 02:55

LakshmanPST wrote:
Without MMRCA, by 2030:-
Heavy Fighters:-
Su30MKI:- 13 squadrons
Medium Weight Fighters:-
Rafale:- 2 squadrons
Mirage 2000:- 0.5 to 1 squadron <2 squadrons up for retirement>
MIG 29:- 1 squadron <3 squadrons up for retirement>
Jaguars:-3 squadrons <3 squadrons already retired>
Tejas Mk2:- 1 squadron
Light Fighters:-
MIG 21:- <all 6 squadrons retired>
Tejas Mk1:- 2 squadrons
Tejas Mk1A:- 4 squadrons

Total:- 27 squadrons
-

All DARIN3 Jaguars will serve well after 2035. The latest ones have enough life to go into 2040. I dont remember the exact number now but its about 4Sq IIRC. The older Jags will retire around 2025. They were never planned for upgrade or re-engine anyhow.

I dont think any of the M2K or MiG29UPG will retire in 2030. M2K has exceptionally high life and they will soldier on for quite a while well beyond 2030 I suppose. And MiG29UPG also should go further till 2035 or more, IMO.

We should have more Sq of Tejas MK2 by 2030. May be 3.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Jul 2020 03:10

JayS wrote: We should have more Sq of Tejas MK2 by 2030. May be 3.

How do you figure that? If the first flight of the prototype happens by 2025 (earliest we can hope for) followed by 2-3 years of testing and initial production, how do you get 3 full squadrons operational by 2030? That is impossibly optimistic.

Also, I am confused about the rather odd number of Mk 1A being ordered - 83. If you consider standard squadron strength as 18 plus maybe 2 reserves you're still left with 3 extra fighters which doesn't make sense to me.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jul 2020 09:28

JayS wrote:
LakshmanPST wrote:
Without MMRCA, by 2030:-
Heavy Fighters:-
Su30MKI:- 13 squadrons 14@ 18 per sqd
Medium Weight Fighters:-
Rafale:- 2 squadrons
Mirage 2000:- 0.5 to 1 squadron <2 squadrons up for retirement> 3 upg sqds till 2035+
MIG 29:- 1 squadron <3 squadrons up for retirement> 4 upg sqds till 2035+
Jaguars:-3 squadrons <3 squadrons already retired> 3-6 upg sqds till 2035
Tejas Mk2:- 1 squadron
Light Fighters:-
MIG 21:- <all 6 squadrons retired>
Tejas Mk1:- 2 squadrons
Tejas Mk1A:- 4 squadrons

Total:- 27 squadrons total 32-35 sqds
-
All DARIN3 Jaguars will serve well after 2035. The latest ones have enough life to go into 2040. I dont remember the exact number now but its about 4Sq IIRC. The older Jags will retire around 2025. They were never planned for upgrade or re-engine anyhow.

I dont think any of the M2K or MiG29UPG will retire in 2030. M2K has exceptionally high life and they will soldier on for quite a while well beyond 2030 I suppose. And MiG29UPG also should go further till 2035 or more, IMO.

We should have more Sq of Tejas MK2 by 2030. May be 3.

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 10 Jul 2020 10:44

Cain Marko wrote: Without MMRCA, by 2030:-
Heavy Fighters:-
Su30MKI:- 13 squadrons 14@ 18 per sqd
Medium Weight Fighters:-
Rafale:- 2 squadrons
Mirage 2000:- 0.5 to 1 squadron <2 squadrons up for retirement> 3 upg sqds till 2035+
MIG 29:- 1 squadron <3 squadrons up for retirement> 4 upg sqds till 2035+
Jaguars:-3 squadrons <3 squadrons already retired> 3-6 upg sqds till 2035
Tejas Mk2:- 1 squadron
Light Fighters:-
MIG 21:- <all 6 squadrons retired>
Tejas Mk1:- 2 squadrons
Tejas Mk1A:- 4 squadrons

Total:- 27 squadrons total 32-35 sqds

JayS wrote:
All DARIN3 Jaguars will serve well after 2035. The latest ones have enough life to go into 2040. I dont remember the exact number now but its about 4Sq IIRC. The older Jags will retire around 2025. They were never planned for upgrade or re-engine anyhow.

I dont think any of the M2K or MiG29UPG will retire in 2030. M2K has exceptionally high life and they will soldier on for quite a while well beyond 2030 I suppose. And MiG29UPG also should go further till 2035 or more, IMO.

We should have more Sq of Tejas MK2 by 2030. May be 3.

We got both MIG 29s and M2ks in early 1980s... If we consider 50 year lifespan, it will be early 2030s...
When I mentioned 2030, I meant 'around 2030'... I also mentioned that they will be 'up for retirement', didn't say they will retire by 2030... What I meant was we will be at a similar situation like we are now with MIG 21s...
How will we operate them beyond 2035...? Do they have enough Air Frame life left in them to serve that long...?
Isn't it wise to have a backup plan for these jets, which is what MMRCA is...?
----
If Su30s are 18 per squadron, we can have 15 squadrons...
But our procurement of S30s was 2 squadrons with 25 each (includes few jets for TACDE), 7+2 squadrons with 20 each and 2 squadrons with 21 each...
The 12 jets we're buying now are only replacements...
I assumed IAF operates them at 20 per squadron... Not sure about exact squadron number...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jul 2020 13:14

LakshmanPST wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Without MMRCA, by 2030:-
Heavy Fighters:-
Su30MKI:- 13 squadrons 14@ 18 per sqd
Medium Weight Fighters:-
Rafale:- 2 squadrons
Mirage 2000:- 0.5 to 1 squadron <2 squadrons up for retirement> 3 upg sqds till 2035+
MIG 29:- 1 squadron <3 squadrons up for retirement> 4 upg sqds till 2035+
Jaguars:-3 squadrons <3 squadrons already retired> 3-6 upg sqds till 2035
Tejas Mk2:- 1 squadron
Light Fighters:-
MIG 21:- <all 6 squadrons retired>
Tejas Mk1:- 2 squadrons
Tejas Mk1A:- 4 squadrons

Total:- 27 squadrons total 32-35 sqds

We got both MIG 29s and M2ks in early 1980s... If we consider 50 year lifespan, it will be early 2030s...
When I mentioned 2030, I meant 'around 2030'... I also mentioned that they will be 'up for retirement', didn't say they will retire by 2030... What I meant was we will be at a similar situation like we are now with MIG 21s...
How will we operate them beyond 2035...? Do they have enough Air Frame life left in them to serve that long...?
Isn't it wise to have a backup plan for these jets, which is what MMRCA is...?
----
If Su30s are 18 per squadron, we can have 15 squadrons...
But our procurement of S30s was 2 squadrons with 25 each (includes few jets for TACDE), 7+2 squadrons with 20 each and 2 squadrons with 21 each...
The 12 jets we're buying now are only replacements...
I assumed IAF operates them at 20 per squadron... Not sure about exact squadron number...

The 21s today are from the early 80s, the 29s from mid 80s to 90s, not to mention the new ones which will be close to zero hours. Ditto with the m2ks, a few of which came after kargil.

The airframe life of the 29 just received an extension. Ditto with the m2k. So, these aren't going anywhere in a hurry.

Su30s are 18 per sqd because no trainers are reqd iirc. So 14sqds (252) and the rest will be reserves and tacde.

I don't see how force levels will come down below what they currently are, with or without the mrca. Now if India is serious about that 42 sqd strength by 2030, yes then the mrca might be helpful.

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 10 Jul 2020 14:13

Vayu reports that the VayuSena has received all the 22 Guardian Heptrs.
Hopefully we order the LCH too and this will give the forces an unmatched edge in the Himalayas.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 10 Jul 2020 15:31

MeshaVishwas wrote:Vayu reports that the VayuSena has received all the 22 Guardian Heptrs.
Hopefully we order the LCH too and this will give the forces an unmatched edge in the Himalayas.

That cannot happen sir....

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 10 Jul 2020 16:03

ks_sachin wrote:
MeshaVishwas wrote:Vayu reports that the VayuSena has received all the 22 Guardian Heptrs.
Hopefully we order the LCH too and this will give the forces an unmatched edge in the Himalayas.
That cannot happen sir....

Saar, you mean no LCH orders?!

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 10 Jul 2020 16:13

nachiket wrote:
JayS wrote: Also, I am confused about the rather odd number of Mk 1A being ordered - 83. If you consider standard squadron strength as 18 plus maybe 2 reserves you're still left with 3 extra fighters.

Saar, I think a good explanation has been given in brf previously by our esteemed stalwarts.

The IAF ordered 123 Tejas in total, 6 squadrons @ 18 fighters + 2 attrition replacement/training roles.

20 LCA LSP (to be converted to Mk.1/1A std.later)
20 LCA Mk.1 (to be converted to Mk.1A std.later)
83 LCA Mk.1A

Total 123. Some twin seat trainers , about 12 are in this mix.

The 3 extra are speculated towards evolving tactics/doctrine at TACDE.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 10 Jul 2020 18:40

MeshaVishwas wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: That cannot happen sir....

Saar, you mean no LCH orders?!

Yes Saar,

No LCH orders...

That is because that would be the sensible thing to do no?

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 10 Jul 2020 18:46

nachiket wrote: Also, I am confused about the rather odd number of Mk 1A being ordered - 83. If you consider standard squadron strength as 18 plus maybe 2 reserves you're still left with 3 extra fighters which doesn't make sense to me.

The break up is 73 Single seaters and 10 Twin seaters...
My guess is, 16 Single seaters + 2 Twin seat Trainers + 2 Single seat reserves per squadron... Total 20 per squadron...
Remaining 2 Twin seaters and 1 single seater for TACDE...

basant · Post by **basant** » 10 Jul 2020 20:37

Is there any particular reason why a squadron should have one and a half dozen in IAF?

idan · Post by **idan** » 10 Jul 2020 20:47

nachiket wrote:
MeshaVishwas wrote:Red tape leaves IAF’s Kargil heavyweight, Mi-26, out of LAC action
https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ ... ion-110143

I hope we get more Chinooks and better border infra and this file is lost in the black hole that is the Babu's iron almera.
Why? It provides a capability that the Chinook cannot and the IAF believes they can keep them flying for another 15 years. This is not a new acquisition and will be an inexpensive way to retain an existing capability which would otherwise be lost.

Now compare that with money spent on modernisation of these Soviet era junks (+ the operations costs) with ultralightweight mountain Howitzers (Kalyani MArG2 + M777 BAE Systems) that can be slung underneath current operating helos of IAF. Why do we need to carry bulky Howitzers to mountains?

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 10 Jul 2020 22:33

ks_sachin wrote:
MeshaVishwas wrote:
Saar, you mean no LCH orders?!
Yes Saar,

No LCH orders...

That is because that would be the sensible thing to do no?

You tell me saar, I am poor at catching sarcasm maybe?

"During the trials, the helicopter and systems performed satisfactorily. LCH also has proven its capability to land and take off at Forward Landing Base in Siachen. LCH is the first attack helicopter to land in Forward Bases at Siachen."

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Jul 2020 23:10

MeshaVishwas wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: Yes Saar,

No LCH orders...

That is because that would be the sensible thing to do no?
You tell me saar, I am poor at catching sarcasm maybe?

He is being sarcastic. We are known to run away from common sense at Usain Bolt's speed when it comes to making defence acquisition decisions.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Jul 2020 04:06

basant wrote:Is there any particular reason why a squadron should have one and a half dozen in IAF?

No such hard and fast rule. There are differences based on type of aircrafts.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Jul 2020 04:15

nachiket wrote:
JayS wrote: We should have more Sq of Tejas MK2 by 2030. May be 3.
How do you figure that? If the first flight of the prototype happens by 2025 (earliest we can hope for) followed by 2-3 years of testing and initial production, how do you get 3 full squadrons operational by 2030? That is impossibly optimistic.

Also, I am confused about the rather odd number of Mk 1A being ordered - 83. If you consider standard squadron strength as 18 plus maybe 2 reserves you're still left with 3 extra fighters which doesn't make sense to me.

The prototype themselves are to be production standard with full concurrent manufacturing. So there will be no break in MFG. Initial ramp up will be there for a couple of yrs max and then we hit the max rate. With Jigless jigs and more streamlined assembly process with many LRUs fitted in sub-assembly level and Tier-1 suppliers already up to speed with Mk1/Mk1A mdg, I expect the rate of production will be easily higher even with given infrastructure of 2 lines being set up for Mk1/Mk1A. If everything goes as per plan, I expect 3Sq within 5-6yrs from first flight.

By the time MK2 is up for serial production, LCA production would have become quite well oiled, with all Tier-1 members brought up to speed. If MoD keeps the money flowing, I dont see why we cant finish order of 200 in less than 10yrs flat from first flight.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Jul 2020 04:21

M2K airframe life is among the best in the contemporary 4Gen Fighters, from what I gather. They will probably last until we are bored of them. French ware is known to be solid. Plus we pamper our M2K like anything.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Jul 2020 04:26

dinesh_kimar wrote:
nachiket wrote:
Saar, I think a good explanation has been given in brf previously by our esteemed stalwarts.

The IAF ordered 123 Tejas in total, 6 squadrons @ 18 fighters + 2 attrition replacement/training roles.

20 LCA LSP (to be converted to Mk.1/1A std.later)
20 LCA Mk.1 (to be converted to Mk.1A std.later)
83 LCA Mk.1A

Total 123. Some twin seat trainers , about 12 are in this mix.

The 3 extra are speculated towards evolving tactics/doctrine at TACDE.

Total 18 trainers are planned out of 123 and all will be FOC standard equivalent I suppose.

I have seen 2 theories on BRF IIRC - one is this 3 for TACDE and another that first 3SP had slight variations among them as there was quite a bit of time spent between their mfg and some design changes still were pushed. So they are not 100% identical. And these 3 additional jets are to replace them eventually.

I dont know exactly whay 83. Would be a good question for HVT.

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 11 Jul 2020 05:15

JayS wrote:M2K airframe life is among the best in the contemporary 4Gen Fighters, from what I gather. They will probably last until we are bored of them. French ware is known to be solid. Plus we pamper our M2K like anything.

Yeah, Angad said as much in his interview to ORF.
Overbuilt is the word he used I believe.
He spoke highly of the Mission Computer by HAL as well.
I sure as hell hope we unleash Babudomitis on the MRFA on one hand and extend all budgetary support for the Tejas/Super Tejas/AMCA on the other.
Fingers crossed.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 11 Jul 2020 11:03

https://theprint.in/defence/iaf-gets-ni ... er/457828/

IAF gets night-flying capability at Leh for MiG-29s, force sees it as a ‘game-changer’

Surprised the hell out of me, as I assumed that Mig 29s/Leh had night flying capabilities even earlier. Is this a general problem with Mig 29 before upgrade (Hah), or an issue with Leh airfield capabilities ? Or something specific about the combination

And why would VFR rules, even partially, still be in use at night in Leh ? If they are lighting up the airport to make return location/landing easier, wouldn't that make it an easier target for China during war ?

Also : IAF had no objections to civil aviation operations at Leh at night https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr

Edit: This is most likely upgrade of Leh airport with some ILS equipment; all ILS equipment short of Category IIIc (very few worldwide) have specified distances at which the runway has to be in visual range. Since Leh did not host any permanent fixed wing squadrons, it is possible it didn't have any ILS equipment earlier. Civil usage and plans could also have added to impetus and money; of course the current trigger for hosting Mig29 and night flights would be the chinese border conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumen ... categories

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 11 Jul 2020 12:53

nachiket wrote:
MeshaVishwas wrote: You tell me saar, I am poor at catching sarcasm maybe?
He is being sarcastic. We are known to run away from common sense at Usain Bolt's speed when it comes to making defence acquisition decisions.

Nachiketji
Has this got something to do with LCH ordering: https://youtu.be/No2l3XrFjLA
Not sure how reliable the IDU is but seems to allude that Army wants to integrate Hellfire and DRDO wants HELINA and SANT

Will this be again a Desi vs Phoren competition

mody · Post by **mody** » 11 Jul 2020 15:47

LCH orders not yet placed. A LSP order of 15 was to be placed. Maybe HAL has already started the work, as the new assembly line has been setup. The formal order is still awaited.
Strangely the breakup for the 15 LSP is 10 for IAF and 5 for IA. I don't know why its not the reverse. With the 22 Apache's coming for IAF, I don't think IAF will need more than a couple dozen LCH for whatever missions they have in mind.
On the other hand, for the IA, I would like to order at least 12-14 dozens of LCH.
The whole Army Aviation Core would need to be re-organized. 6 LCH should form 1 Combat Heli Assault Battalion. Assign 1 such battalion to each Division, especially in the mountains, pus a few independent battalions attached to at the Corps level.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 11 Jul 2020 15:53

According to TP Unni IA wants 97 LCH and IAF 65 LCH for a total of 162 nos.
IA has 78 Rudras and IAF has 16 Rudras.
Each Helicopter unit has 10-11 Helicopter.

mody · Post by **mody** » 11 Jul 2020 16:10

There was a lot of discussion about co-ordination between IA and IAF during conflict (particularly in the background of the Kargil experience) and how the two services end up fighting two different wars.

I am a layman and do not have any knowledge about how the things are actually handled in the military. We yet do not have joint operational commands (except for Andamans). So how are the air and ground operations co-ordinated during conflict? Specifically at what level? Can a Brigadier level officer call in an air strike at a place of his choosing, provided the intel with regards to enemy position/location is precise? Or does this have to be done at a higher level. Would a Colonel or Brigadier level officer would have to relay the requirement to say a Maj. Gen rank officer, who would then have to co-ordinate with his IAF peer? Are things going to change on this front with the formation of IBGs and theater commands?

What about if some IA position is under risk of being run over or is surrounded and in risk of being cutoff? In the US military, at least as per Hollywood movies and some info on Wiki, if a major US land position is in the danger of being over run, they can relay the dire circumstances being faced and every available air and artillery asset that can be provided to alleviate the situation is pressed in (code: Broken Arrow).

Also, in the US army and Marine Corps, there are trained FACs, perhaps at every battalion level, that can call in and direct airstrikes against ground targets.

mody · Post by **mody** » 11 Jul 2020 16:14

sankum wrote:According to TP Unni IA wants 97 LCH and IAF 65 LCH for a total of 162 nos.
IA has 78 Rudras and IAF has 16 Rudras.
Each Helicopter unit has 10-11 Helicopter.

The original figure for IA was 114 LCH. Maybe it was reduced a little, as more Rudras were inducted. Initially about 60 Rudras were to be inducted.
Don't know why IAF would want 65 LCH in addition to 22 Apaches.
I hope with the formation of IBGs, the Army Aviation Corp is re-organised and Rudras and LCH become much more ubiquitous.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 11 Jul 2020 16:47

IA reduced the LCH by 17 nos and increased Rudras by 18 nos.

basant · Post by **basant** » 12 Jul 2020 09:09

JayS wrote:
basant wrote:Is there any particular reason why a squadron should have one and a half dozen in IAF?
No such hard and fast rule. There are differences based on type of aircrafts.

Thanks, sir!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jul 2020 00:25

Idan,the MI-26 is certainly not junk.Far be from it.They're the most capable heavylift helos in the world, that can even rescue a downed Chinook,as was done in Afg! The new upgraded 26T is even more capable.And why std. 155m howitzers instead of lightweight ones? It's because the LW howitzer's range ( 24 km,30km with assisted projectiles) is a good 10 km less than the desi Bofors,Dhanush which has a 38km range.Kalyani LWHs are supposed to be even lighter than the BAe LW gun with the same or even better range. The DRDO ATAGS has an even better range of 40km.

If you read the report about MI-26 upgrades,only it can carry the heavy eqpt. required like bulldozers and other infra. eqpt. etc.that the BRO desperately needs for building the border infrastructure in the most inhospitable mountainous terrain. In a recent TV feature on our border infra, it was clearly spet out by the panellists that days taken by winding roads in the mountains to deliver troops and eqpt., was reduced to just a few hours if heli-lifted especially if it was by heavy- lift helos. A network of helipads strategically located to support our troops in key locations can swiftly support them more effectively by slow- moving road convoys.

Comparisons.The MI-26 has the payload capacity of a C-130J Hercules,20t ,with an 80 pax capacity,costing $20-25M. The smaller Chinook can carry a max of 30+ pax and costs $38+ M.In fact the PAC had drawn attention to the same diffetences but the decision ( to buy Chinooks) was a political one,to buy as much US eqpt.as possible.

PS: If memory serves me right, the cost of upgrade of an MI-26 was just $3 M each. Compare that withthe cost of a new 26T being $20-25M and a new Chinook at $38+M.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 13 Jul 2020 01:04

Lol. It's like a Volkswagen vs a Yugo.

1200 Chinooks have been sold vs 300 Mi-26 Halos.
People compare and check many things before buying.

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 13 Jul 2020 01:06

Philip wrote:Idan,the MI-26 is certainly not junk.Far be from it.They're the most capable heavylift helos in the world, that can even rescue a downed Chinook,as was done in Afg! The new upgraded 26T is even more capable..

Adm. Philipov Ji, why the same raaga each year?

Manish_P wrote:
Philip wrote: I pointed out the lesser capabilities of the Chinook vs the MI-26 .... Ru birds would've beem cheaper to acquire and operate.
It's hardly that simple. Both types have their unique advantages (and disadvantages) based on mission types. In an ideal scenario it would be great if the IAF had both types concurrently. To some extent it does indeed have it today

This analysis, by Dr. Vivek Ahuja, was also posted on BR forums some years ago - The Beta Coefficient - musings of an aerospace engineer - Why the Chinook is efficient and the Mi-26 is a heavy-lifting guzzler

viewtopic.php?t=6918&start=3840#p2319831

titash · Post by **titash** » 13 Jul 2020 02:27

Philip wrote:Idan,the MI-26 is certainly not junk.Far be from it.They're the most capable heavylift helos in the world, that can even rescue a downed Chinook,as was done in Afg! The new upgraded 26T is even more capable.And why std. 155m howitzers instead of lightweight ones? It's because the LW howitzer's range ( 24 km,30km with assisted projectiles) is a good 10 km less than the desi Bofors,Dhanush which has a 38km range.Kalyani LWHs are supposed to be even lighter than the BAe LW gun with the same or even better range. The DRDO ATAGS has an even better range of 40km.

If you read the report about MI-26 upgrades,only it can carry the heavy eqpt. required like bulldozers and other infra. eqpt. etc.that the BRO desperately needs for building the border infrastructure in the most inhospitable mountainous terrain. In a recent TV feature on our border infra, it was clearly spet out by the panellists that days taken by winding roads in the mountains to deliver troops and eqpt., was reduced to just a few hours if heli-lifted especially if it was by heavy- lift helos. A network of helipads strategically located to support our troops in key locations can swiftly support them more effectively by slow- moving road convoys.

Comparisons.The MI-26 has the payload capacity of a C-130J Hercules,20t ,with an 80 pax capacity,costing $20-25M. The smaller Chinook can carry a max of 30+ pax and costs $38+ M.In fact the PAC had drawn attention to the same diffetences but the decision ( to buy Chinooks) was a political one,to buy as much US eqpt.as possible.

PS: If memory serves me right, the cost of upgrade of an MI-26 was just $3 M each. Compare that withthe cost of a new 26T being $20-25M and a new Chinook at $38+M.

You can (and probably should) have both:

1) a large fleet of reliable, low OPEX machines for daal-chawal operations...ergo Chinook

2) a small fleet of high maintenance, high OPEX machines for niche outsize payload operations ...ergo Mi-26

They don't necessarily replace each other. Plus we had little choice but to order large amounts of US defence gear and reduce the trade deficit (we don't have that pressure point with the Russians). Hence Apaches, Chinooks, C-17, C-130, P-8i, etc.

idan · Post by **idan** » 13 Jul 2020 03:13

Philip wrote:Idan,the MI-26 is certainly not junk.Far be from it.They're the most capable heavylift helos in the world, that can even rescue a downed Chinook,as was done in Afg! The new upgraded 26T is even more capable.And why std. 155m howitzers instead of lightweight ones? It's because the LW howitzer's range ( 24 km,30km with assisted projectiles) is a good 10 km less than the desi Bofors,Dhanush which has a 38km range.Kalyani LWHs are supposed to be even lighter than the BAe LW gun with the same or even better range. The DRDO ATAGS has an even better range of 40km.

If you read the report about MI-26 upgrades,only it can carry the heavy eqpt. required like bulldozers and other infra. eqpt. etc.that the BRO desperately needs for building the border infrastructure in the most inhospitable mountainous terrain. In a recent TV feature on our border infra, it was clearly spet out by the panellists that days taken by winding roads in the mountains to deliver troops and eqpt., was reduced to just a few hours if heli-lifted especially if it was by heavy- lift helos. A network of helipads strategically located to support our troops in key locations can swiftly support them more effectively by slow- moving road convoys.

Comparisons.The MI-26 has the payload capacity of a C-130J Hercules,20t ,with an 80 pax capacity,costing $20-25M. The smaller Chinook can carry a max of 30+ pax and costs $38+ M.In fact the PAC had drawn attention to the same diffetences but the decision ( to buy Chinooks) was a political one,to buy as much US eqpt.as possible.

PS: If memory serves me right, the cost of upgrade of an MI-26 was just $3 M each. Compare that withthe cost of a new 26T being $20-25M and a new Chinook at $38+M.

If transportation of bulldozers for BRO is the main objective a civilian contract to heavy lifting Mi26 operator will suffice. What is the point of keeping assets that will be seldom used. The lifecycle costs plus spares as the helos go out of production gradually. As for mountain Howitzers, they are built for a purpose to be lightweight yet can be perched in high altitude optimised for heights and quick shoot and move. The idea of flying Mi26 into mountain terrain is a logistics nightmare. Rather IAF can auction those helos as it is to an Indian civilian cargo operator with guaranteed contracts for BRO.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 13 Jul 2020 04:43

I am reading Tanvi Madan’s “The Fateful Triangle”. Very interesting book overall, and I came across a startling revealation - USA blocked the sale of Viggen aircraft to India. This was from a memo of a conversation between US Secretary Cyrus Vance and Chinese FM Huang Hua, so this is as official as it gets.

There has been conversation about this on BRF, regarding why Jaguars were chosen. Maybe because they were what was available outside of Soviet offerings...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Jul 2020 16:01

Y I Patel wrote:I am reading Tanvi Madan’s “The Fateful Triangle”. Very interesting book overall, and I came across a startling revealation - USA blocked the sale of Viggen aircraft to India. This was from a memo of a conversation between US Secretary Cyrus Vance and Chinese FM Huang Hua, so this is as official as it gets.

There has been conversation about this on BRF, regarding why Jaguars were chosen. Maybe because they were what was available outside of Soviet offerings...

This is a well known fact. They blocked the sale of the Viggen engine to India and that killed the sale. Just as they blocked the engine sale for 24 Kfirs to Equador and killed that sale.

Mirage F1 was the other competitor. But Jag won out.