Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 20 Dec 2017 22:30

With last-minute approval, India set to snap up world’s last available C-17 Globemaster

Manu Pubby, 20-Dec-2017

https://theprint.in/2017/12/20/india-se ... ssion=true

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 20 Dec 2017 22:31

Chola, why not join the marines and do all the fancy american stuff for a few years and then join the Russians and do their fancy stuff too and then come back here and we will certainly follow anything you say - Amercian, Russian, mix, Martian or Borkina Fasoan.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Dec 2017 03:13

Deejay,

I am quite sure that the range problem is very solvable on the LCA. I am also sure that it is not bumpier in an LCA than in a Jaguar.

But, you have brought up an important distinction in the Jaguar which I had not thought off. Is LCA as sturdy as a Jaguar for doing nape of the earth flying day in and day out?

1. FOD is much more likely while flying close to earth. LCA does not have the luxury of an engine failure. Here I must add that the close proximity of Jaguars engines reduces some of the benefits of having dual engines. If one engine has a catastrophic failure, it would take out the second engine. The Marut designers were very careful in avoiding this problem.

2. It is easy to repair the skin of a metal plane damaged by FOD. More than 90 percent of LCA's skin are made of composites. You can't hammer a composite part back to shape. A composite panel is significantly more expensive than its metal counterpart and cannot be machined together at a repair depot.

3. The hydraulics and moving parts have to work a tad bit harder to keep the plane flying level in a bumpy environment. Are the hydraulics and parts qualified for these extra loads as part of regular flying.

The above may require modifying the LCA for DPSA roles. It will have higher empty weight than "regular" Tejas but will still be a very good replacement for the Jaguar, improving on its performance and flexibility of use.

Here are a few modifications:
1. To reduce FOD damge to engines, introduce Mig-29/Su-30 like mesh in the intake.
2. Replace panels susceptible to FOD damage with metal counterparts.
3. Qualify hydraulics/moving parts for higher cycles/loads.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Dec 2017 03:43

Indranil, On the contrary composite panels are easily repairable in situ based on damage size. All that is needed is a fiberglass or Graphite epoxy cloth and resin. Then mfg aides like bleeder cloth, thick Mylar sheet and a vacuum pump. And a good can of spray paint.

All the improvements can be in LCA Mk2.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Dec 2017 04:06

Cain, the reason our NGARM is being developed is because Kh-31 in IAF service was a dud. No joke. So to talk of it targeting AWACS when it had issues as a regular ARM itself is seriously being over-optimistic. I have a post somewhere about it on the forum - a bunch of Russian and other stuff in IAF service flopped. Which is why it gets hilarious (in a not so amusing fashion) where we rush to import citing local programs don't cut it. The quick fix imports often don't work.

Second, a ground target may shut off but the rough bearing is in the navigation and the missile will go there and destruct. The issue is the range estimation. As the signal grows stronger, the signal processing can be tuned to ostensibly detect maximum signature and destruct.

The radar can't run off so quickly. A typical biz jet can easily pull 0.6 Mach, that's around 10.4 km/min and at 300 Km distance, and at Mach 3, the Kh-31 takes 5.8 mins to reach the target. So now you have a circle of radius 60 km, i.e. 120 km diameter in which the non emitting target may be hiding. Do you think the Kh-31 will know where the target is without midcourse guidance? Even at half that, say 30 km radius (assuming fired at 150km, everything reduces accordingly), the calculations are way off.

Even against ground targets, the Americans discovered they had to add mid-course datalinks, embedded Nav-attack with GPS update (to minimize the drift) and a memory to store the last target bearing (in case of shut down) and even then fast missiles are not cent per cent guaranteed to get the job done. So you have the loitering HAROPS, HARPY type munitions. A fast moving AWACS is of an order of difference in terms of targeting.

So coming to NGARM - we know it has an AR seeker and a MMW one. Considering what we have discussed - it makes ample sense. The AR seeker cues it in the right bearing. The MMW seeker allows the missile to detect the presence of a target and destruct and guide it in the penultimate stage, because even if the target is shut off, the MMW seeker goes active and detects the target. Its a better way than having a bearing only Kh-31 type weapon, which for all its speed lacks the sophistication to actually target moving targets or non emitting ones. The Kh-31 PD or the latest Kh-58 may have some improvements to address this issue, but I dont know.

Cain Marko wrote:
Karan M wrote:
That is some blog speculation to be honest.

Aircraft move fast. So you need mid course guidance.

We can do that with our missiles we have the building blocks.
Say the arm is fired at 120-150km distance, how far can awacs run during the 2-3 odd minutes available to it? Iirc, the kh31 is supposed to have radar guided mcu capability. Here is what good ole kopp had to say about it...
During the 1990s there were persistent claims that the airframe was being adapted for use as a long range AAM with a Counter-ISR role, as an “AWACS-killer”, with the designation R-31P. The reality is that both the anti-radiation and anti-shipping variants of the extended range configurations of this missile have compatible 135 NMI plus range on high altitude trajectories, and suitable basic seeker technology, and both have a suitable laser proximity fuse. Adaptation for an air - air role of this kind would involve primarily changes to the control laws in the guidance and proximity fusing timing parameters. It is entirely conceivable that such a Counter-ISR capability already exists embedded in newer variants of the missile's guidance system.
So that poster might not altogether be a hawa mein teer, no pun intended.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Dec 2017 04:18

IAF's own estimation of attrition margin (not sustainable) is of the order of 2% per day as I recall. Anything above that, and the overall mission planning is compromised. So if we take that, its 50 days of combat before the entire fleet disappears (not assuming relative percentage allocations per the declining fleet but the original number fixed).

So its plain that despite the willingness to fight, the assets that bring the fight to the enemy are crucial & even more so than the aircraft themselves, the pilots. Post war, you can buy new fighters, but training replacement pilots (human cost apart), will take time and is a security hazard too (what if Pak attacks after a bruising war with PRC).

IMHO, this is why the IAF (wisely) pulled out of lo-lo attacks in Kargil & reoriented to LGB attacks or GPS aided attacks from high-alt.

So, if 30% of the fleet is Jaguars, then the IAF can deploy them when they have to - but if they do have the luxury of deciding how to use them, I suspect they will be against targets that are not ringfenced by layers of SAMS etc. Deep inside enemy territory.

Jaguars fly lo-lo then might do a pop-up for their sensors and weaponry (depending on what they have). Fuel burn will be maximum & even so the low-low profile till target may get them the element of surprise (all depends on mission planning) but targeting low fliers with MANPADS & Ack-Ack is not easy.

Against TSPAF we have a good chance with Jaguars, low flying routes, not so many SAM batteries, heavy MANPADS + Ack-ack but still not easy to take on a Jaguar on its initial bombing run. Repeated passes (e.g. Mangat sir in 1971) are what constitute a much higher risk.

If Jaguar EW fit is refreshed with escort jammers & they carry SPJs too - their vulnerability to radar guided SAMs may also reduce to the point, IAF can actually depend on them heavily.

Its PRC where the true challenge lies, layers of MANPADS+ SHORADS+ Medium + Long range SAMs + AWACS + fighters. We will have to send in our best assets with the best EW gear to actively fight it, and that too with longest ranges possible.

IMHO, the DRDO programs for SAAW/SANT/PGMs can't come fast enough - they will provide the crucial stand off range for getting pilots out of trouble. Fire and forget munitions like SAAW are essential because without an auto-pilot (Jaguar's imported one has issues), trying to fix the target, AND then maneuver the aircraft at low level is a recipe for trouble. The high flying profiles are visible on radar.

Akshay Kapoor wrote:T Sarkar sir,

Fair point that warfare is evolving and we have to adapt but rates of adoption and adaption depend upon economic capacity & nation's willingness to spend. It is obvious that the latter is certainly not there so it must never be forgotten that the vast majority of our forces - certainly army and perhaps the IAF (and I wont speak for the Navy as T Sarkar sir is best suited to do that) go into harm's way much more than other forces. And this will continue for decades yet for sure. When 30% of your fleet is Jags surely you will use them. And bayonets are still used - very much used sir.

Shivji's response was to a post saying words to the effect 'the US is a might power. X doesn't work for them so why will it work for (implied second rate or third rate power) for India'. Personally I feel he made valid points.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Dec 2017 05:46

Karan M wrote:Cain, the reason our NGARM is being developed is because Kh-31 in IAF service was a dud. No joke. So to talk of it targeting AWACS when it had issues as a regular ARM itself is seriously being over-optimistic. I have a post somewhere about it on the forum - a bunch of Russian and other stuff in IAF service flopped. Which is why it gets hilarious (in a not so amusing fashion) where we rush to import citing local programs don't cut it. The quick fix imports often don't work.

Second, a ground target may shut off but the rough bearing is in the navigation and the missile will go there and destruct. The issue is the range estimation. As the signal grows stronger, the signal processing can be tuned to ostensibly detect maximum signature and destruct.

The radar can't run off so quickly. A typical biz jet can easily pull 0.6 Mach, that's around 10.4 km/min and at 300 Km distance, and at Mach 3, the Kh-31 takes 5.8 mins to reach the target. So now you have a circle of radius 60 km, i.e. 120 km diameter in which the non emitting target may be hiding. Do you think the Kh-31 will know where the target is without midcourse guidance? Even at half that, say 30 km radius (assuming fired at 150km, everything reduces accordingly), the calculations are way off.

Even against ground targets, the Americans discovered they had to add mid-course datalinks, embedded Nav-attack with GPS update (to minimize the drift) and a memory to store the last target bearing (in case of shut down) and even then fast missiles are not cent per cent guaranteed to get the job done. So you have the loitering HAROPS, HARPY type munitions. A fast moving AWACS is of an order of difference in terms of targeting.

So coming to NGARM - we know it has an AR seeker and a MMW one. Considering what we have discussed - it makes ample sense. The AR seeker cues it in the right bearing. The MMW seeker allows the missile to detect the presence of a target and destruct and guide it in the penultimate stage, because even if the target is shut off, the MMW seeker goes active and detects the target. Its a better way than having a bearing only Kh-31 type weapon, which for all its speed lacks the sophistication to actually target moving targets or non emitting ones. The Kh-31 PD or the latest Kh-58 may have some improvements to address this issue, but I dont know.

Cain Marko wrote: Say the arm is fired at 120-150km distance, how far can awacs run during the 2-3 odd minutes available to it? Iirc, the kh31 is supposed to have radar guided mcu capability. Here is what good ole kopp had to say about it...

So that poster might not altogether be a hawa mein teer, no pun intended.

I'm not surprised that a lot of rusdki maal bought around later 90s is not up to spec, but would not be surprised if things have changed over the last 10 years. Still, there can be no dispute that local programs are the only real solution and I'm glad that drdo send to have sorted out propulsion and lately seeker tech, very commendable and a huge ray of hope.

The reason I brought out the kh31 was sheer curiosity about the possibility of an arm being used for anti awacs role.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Dec 2017 06:15

Ok, some more positive news. Kudos to Modi led GOI!

MOD Achievements year end reads, agreement for SDR signed in July 2017
http://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail ... ID=1513066

Please read my posts from here to get the gist.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6842&p=2161088&hilit=radio#p2161088

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Dec 2017 06:21

Slowly and steadily, we are making tangible and significant steps forward.

Su-30 serviceability up, spares stockpiles being built, basic gaps like BVR weapon, SDR being fixed, EW next on roadmap (2019), SAMs and sensors galore being inducted (Litening pods), advanced silver bullet force signed for (Rafale), Tejas program finally given a firm order book (still in progress, but will happen), our bread and butter systems (Mi-17, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 etc) getting upgrades...

IMHO, next bunch of big ticket acquisitions will occur post 2019.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Dec 2017 21:02

Many members question whether foreign systems purchased are adequately tested in India.

One vague fact I knew was that the Sea Harrier under development was sent to India during monsoons in July 1972 where it logged 20 odds sorties in two days and people remembered those trials for the aircraft's sterling performance.

Sadly, details were unavailable except scant references like the one in Admiral Hiranandani's book.

https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/def ... 7Apr16.pdf

In July 1972, British Aerospace, sent their demonstrator G-VTOL Harrier to India for landing trials on board the VIKRANT. The trials showed that VIKRANT would be able to operate VTOL type aircraft.

Today I found a wonderful book by Yefim Gordon - Harrier in India - that has the complete story of Harrier trials in India with 21 sorties in two days (Page 42 onwards)

https://www.scribd.com/document/2650121 ... r-in-India

The second day’s ﬂying saw Capt Tahiliani ﬂying in the rear cockpit for the ﬁrst six ﬂights. Despite his inexperience in the aeroplane, plus the fact that he was currently employed in a senior staff post and not on full-time ﬂying time duty, Tahiliani had no difﬁculty in taking control of the Harrier outside the hangar at Cochin, and ﬂew entirely unaided into a hover astern of the Vikrant 20min later.

By the end of his six ﬂights on the second day Tahiliani had ﬂown a take-off on the full length of the axial deck and had accompanied me on the ﬁrst angled-deck take-off using the short 317ft (97m) angled-deck run.

My search was triggered by a wonderful new article on BR on Air Marshal Joshi's landing at Leh
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/histo ... n-leh.html

That had an interesting datapoint

Even the British Harrier trials planned in 1973 could not be undertaken due to various problems and confidence levels of the British test pilots.

What I found interesting was that a Naval Fighter was planned to be tested in Leh when even Air Force fighters operated a decade later.

There is a concept called User Experience. The very positive experience of Admiral R H Tahilyani, later Chief of Naval Staff, no doubt ensured his support for the Sea Harrier when India purchased it in the 80's.

HAL never focused much on on user experience until now, with Tejas trainers taking decision makers in Aero India and dignitaries like Singapore Defence Minister on demo flights.

Do read the Harrier article and the complete description of flight operations including cross deck landing. That impresses pilots, and not invented conspiracy theories and Natashas speculated by members. In 1972, it was an under development aircraft.

And no, I'm NOT comparing it to Tejas, since Tejas was developed from zero and the British had development experience since 1930's. Sidney Camm of Hawker did aircraft development from Hurricane to Harrier. I'm only trying to explain how good design and good performance impresses users.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2017 21:39

for anti awacs role what we really need is a airborne barak8 - its considerably thinner and lighter than the meaty R37 AAM that Mig31BM carries. the airframe can be adapted for a bigger faster burn 1st stage motor that will take it upto Mach4 for a coast phase and then a AAM 2nd stage with active radar and ARM seeker...the SM6 concept

something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_(missile)

if not a kill, these LRAAMs can chase tankers and awacs off station in advance of impending activity by our planes. kind of area denial system. but flankers really lack the ceiling and blinding sustained speed of the mighty Mig31BM, so more vulnerable to countershots and not able to show a clean pair of heels as the Mig31 can when escaping after takings its shot.

each is more than twice the weight of a harpoon ASM

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2017 21:50

the Mig31 above is packing 6 of these javelins underbody and 4 AA12 under the wings. and even then will be pulling mach2+ for sure.

#true power.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Dec 2017 22:19

tsarkar wrote:Many members question whether foreign systems purchased are adequately tested in India.

Oh most certainly, and the fact remains that the limited amount of leeway available for compressed trials (as versus the protracted sort of Arjun trials) means the vendors can always scrape through someplace or somewhere. This is especially true, given the exorbitant costs involved in modern munitions.

The faults show up later, and derail the entire acquisition or intent.
At least with local programs, we can persevere (even with recalcitrant PSUs) and get a partial or complete fix. With the heavy legal team protected foreign vendors, we are between a rock and a hard place.

Simply put, its not a question of natashas or any such rubbish (9 times out of ten anyhow) but pure and simple, complex systems being tested by overworked teams where one missing thing is left for later (T-90 sights) or the real issues show up post induction in support and service (T-90 ammo & TOT) or in operational usage (MiG-29K deck ops) and in most cases, the foreign vendor either shows MOD the middle finger or asks an exorbitant fee.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Dec 2017 22:35

Singha, I am not giving any great secret away by stating that DRDO public presentations actually showed Astra Mk2 to have a dual pulse motor just like the Barak-8 in 2015. These were public ones at seminars etc. Don't know what the current plan is.

Avinash Chander mentioned there was a plan for an Astra Mk3 in 2014, with a range of 150km. I take that as an "actual operational range" as versus RMax which would actually be much higher.

Flankers may not be equal to a true MiG-31 but if they can be serviceable and available in number, aren't they enough.

The Su-30 radar aperture is 1 mtr dia, high time IAF asked MOD to fund a local radar of that size. At least it will offer us better performance than the current Bars & be more reliable and offer a base to benchmark foreign imports (if AF still insists on them).

Singha wrote:for anti awacs role what we really need is a airborne barak8 - its considerably thinner and lighter than the meaty R37 AAM that Mig31BM carries. the airframe can be adapted for a bigger faster burn 1st stage motor that will take it upto Mach4 for a coast phase and then a AAM 2nd stage with active radar and ARM seeker...the SM6 concept

something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_(missile)

if not a kill, these LRAAMs can chase tankers and awacs off station in advance of impending activity by our planes. kind of area denial system. but flankers really lack the ceiling and blinding sustained speed of the mighty Mig31BM, so more vulnerable to countershots and not able to show a clean pair of heels as the Mig31 can when escaping after takings its shot.

each is more than twice the weight of a harpoon ASM

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2017 22:52

gratifying to know that meatier astra models are planned for.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Dec 2017 05:10

IAF's mid-air refuelling fleet numbers to take a hit as airplanes go for overhaul

The Indian Air Force’s mid-air refuelling capabilities will take a hit next year when its Russia-procured Ilyushin-78 tankers go for an overhaul, leaving the air force with little option as two attempts to buy new tankers have failed.

The IAF operates a modest fleet of six IL-78 aircraft bought from Russia in 2003-04 at a cost of Rs 132 crore each to expand the strategic reach of its fighter jets. Riddled with problems, only two or three planes from the tanker squadron are available for missions at any given time.

Used for refuelling jets mid-air to keep them airborne longer, the IL-78 tankers’ overhaul — in phases — will involve upgrading the engines of the aircraft to allow them to take off from shorter runways.

“No doubt we will have even fewer refuellers to exploit during the refit. This happens in the lifetime of every fleet. It’s unavoidable,” said Air Chief Marshal Fali Major, a retired IAF chief. The air force’s midair refuelling crisis is partly a result of failed attempts to strengthen its capabilities with new tankers.

Two tenders to buy refuellers in the last 10 years came to naught due to commercial complications. European Airbus 330 MRTT was the frontrunner in both tanker contests in which the Russian IL-78 also took part.

India is expected to float a new global tender for six or more tankers next year to stay prepared to counter China in the eastern sector, the sources said. The purchase could be worth as much as Rs 13,000 crore.

The finance ministry had raised objections over the price during the last tender.

“Building military strength doesn’t come cheap. You can’t put a price on enhanced operational capability. Tankers are an essential requirement and the government needs to prioritise the purchase,” said Air Marshal Vinod Patni (retd), head of Centre for Air Power Studies and a former IAF vice chief.

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik, also a retired IAF chief, stressed that the tankers allow fighter planes to carry more weapons and less fuel when taking off from high altitude bases.

American, Russian, European and Israeli military contractors are tracking the air force’s tanker programme. US defence major Boeing and Israel Aerospace Industries’ Bedek Aviation Group are expected to be new entrants in the tanker competition.

A recent comprehensive audit of the tanker fleet revealed that the IAF’s runways were too short for its IL-78 tanker fleet, their refuelling pods were dogged by failures and the aircraft’s overall airworthiness was questionable.

In a report tabled in Parliament in August, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) also found that there weren’t enough hangars for the IL-78 refuellers, tanking them up on the ground posed problems and there were no dedicated refuelling corridors in the skies.

The aircraft requires a runway length of 11,480 feet to 15,022 feet to carry full fuel loads, but the 10 airfields identified by the IAF for tanker operations have runways measuring less than 10,000 feet.

The national auditor also raised questions about the reliability of the fleet. The report found that the serviceability of the IL-78 fleet stood at 49% during the 2010-16 period, compared to a desired 70%, and also that less than half the fleet was mission-ready at any given time.

The serviceability of aerial refuelling pods — hoses used to transfer fuel — was also found to be poor due to frequent failures, inadequate repair facilities and poor maintenance support from the manufacturer.

The air force doesn’t have enough hydrant refueling systems (HRS) to tank up the refuellers swiftly and efficiently on the ground.

The HRS facility or underground tanks was available only in two of the 10 airbases identified for IL-78 operations in 2007, the report found.

It also revealed that the IAF had not obtained approval for creating 12 dedicated corridors for midair refuelling so that commercial traffic is not disrupted and only one hangar had been constructed for the six refuellers.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Dec 2017 05:29

Strangely proactive act by the MoD- they will actually scout for second-hand Mi-35s in the international market, to then donate them to Afghanistan. But why not look to pay for the overhaul and servicing of the grounded Mi-35s first? Wouldn't that be cheaper? Or have they been cannibalized to keep the rest flying or are in too poor a condition to be brought back to active service?

link

Afghanistan could receive Mil Mi-35 ‘Hind-E’ assault helicopters donated from India, according to a media report.

India is looking to buy an undisclosed number of surplus Mi-35s from third-party countries, which it would then pass on to Afghanistan, The Hindu reported on 21 December.

The Mi-35s (pictured) and previously donated Mi-25s operated by the Afghans have largely been grounded due to serviceability issues. India is now looking to acquire from a third-party country more Mi-35s which it will donate to Afghanistan.

According to the report, which cited unnamed Indian and Afghan officials, a team from the Indian Ministry of Defence will travel to an undisclosed Eastern European country to look into sourcing the helicopters. The Hindu named Serbia and/or Ukraine as being likely donors, although it should be noted that the former does not currently operate the ‘Hind’, while the latter fields the older Mi-24 model of the helicopter.

Equipping the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF) in general and the Afghan Air Force (AAF) in particular is overseen by the United States’ Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).

It is the current policy of the United States to transition the ANDSF and AAF from its previously-held largely Russian-built inventory over to US-built and supplied equipment. For the air force, this has meant replacing the Mi-35s with MDHI MD530F Cayuse Warrior light attack helicopters and Sierra-Nevada Corporation/Embraer A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft.

While acquiring new Mi-35s for the AAF would appear to fly in the face of this equipment policy, the Mi-24/25/35 does have some unique capabilities in its ability to transport troops while providing effective close air support that cannot be so easily replicated by any US-built platform. Its ruggedness and survivability are also well suited to the hostile Afghan operation environment.

India had previously donated four Mi-25 helicopters to Afghanistan, the first of which arrived in-country in December 2015. These Mi-25s were intended to replace five Mi-35s that had already been grounded due to serviceability issues.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 27 Dec 2017 07:35

Man that C2 is so like a scaled down C17.
the front landing hear, the nose.... OMG everything says C17

Time to rethink about our Medium Range Aircraft strategy ?
or is C130 the way to go ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Dec 2017 12:31

I came across this article from the AMR,worth reading as it is from an outsider's viewpoint of the IAF in general.The upgrades details added are in context from a piece from Flight,which said that by the next decade MIG-29s would start retiring,which is an error as can be seen from the upgrades of M2Ks and MIG-29s.Both med. MR aircraft should be with us at least upto 2040.
MIG-29 upgrades are reportedly been completed as well,can't work out the issue of kits from Ru,as from the BRD report ,90% of all material for components,etc. was sourced locally.
All (67/69,depending upon the source) MIG-29s have been upgraded,for just $900M,while the 54 M2Ks ($2.5/3B) are still going on and will be completed in a few years time.There was a recent report about some trouble at HAL,cost dispute,which was delaying the upgrades.

2016 report:
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/mig-29- ... ge-1465234

Xcpt:http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... air-force/

Encompassing the integration of a new avionics kit, Klimov RD-33 turbofan engines, and a Phazatron Zhuk-M radar system, the upgrades are expected to expand the fighter’s service life up to 40 years.
The aircraft has also been equipped to boost its beyond-visual-range combat ability and for air-to-air refuelling to extend flight time for up to 3,500 hours.
The upgrades improve the aircraft’s ability to engage airborne targets and to strike ground-based moving and stationary targets during day and night and in all weather conditions.

A March AMR report on the IAF in general and notes on Tejas.This an outsider's view of the IAF in general.
https://asianmilitaryreview.com/2017/05 ... teeth-iaf/

Sharpening The Tiger’s Teeth
This is an article published in our February/March 2017 Issue.

By Joetey Attariwala - May 16, 2017

36 new-build Dassault Rafale omni-role fighters have been acquired for the IAF in a government-to-government acquisition process. The first deliveries are expected in 2019. (Joetey Attariwala)

The Indian Air Force (IAF) describes itself as a modern, technology-intensive force distinguished by its commitment to excellence and professionalism, and claims it is keeping pace with strategic demands while modernising in a phased manner.

On the surface those statements can be regarded as generally true, however modernization programmes for India’s fleets of fighters have had a checkered past, and continue to be fraught with political wrangling and the dichotomy of high aspirations hamstrung by questionable expertise in programme definition and execution. For example, the indigenously built Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Tejas Mk.1/A Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) has been in development for approximately thirty years, with only four aircraft currently delivered to the IAF. The most positive among us would find that design and development effort woefully lacking. Such is the state of that programme that some air power commentators have acidly suggested that 30 years of developing the aircraft has essentially yielded a 21st century MiG-21 fighter.

In effort to get a first-hand appreciation and understanding of the Indian Air Force and the status of its fleet of fighter aircraft, AMR repeatedly reached out to the Indian Air Force, and also to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), with no reply from either organisation. It is exceptionally troubling that the Indian Air Force’s very own public relations department could not muster a simple reply or speak about its own aircraft or programmes. It is equally troubling that after speaking with a HAL public relations manager who requested the author submit a query by e-mail, chose to take no further action.

Fleet Upgrades
A Hindustan Times article published in 2016 referenced a top Indian defence ministry source saying that the IAF was working towards the target of inducting approximately 400 warplanes by 2030 to buttress its depleting force levels which apparently set off “alarm bells” about the country’s ability to tackle a combined threat from the People’s Republic of China and Pakistan. According to the article, the IAF’s fighter squadrons have shrunk to 33 (comprising roughly 640 fighters) compared to a desirable strength of 42 squadrons.

According to a 2016 report entitled Indian Air Power: Challenges and Opportunities, written by Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and Angad Singh, published in the Defence Primer: India at 75 book, the authors contend that the IAF will only be close to a 40-plus squadron force a decade from now, with two major caveats/ First, nearly half the force will by then be either obsolete or obsolescent, and second, the entire projection hinges on a number of programmes that are at various stages of development today, and will need to run smoothly over the next ten or so years.

One of the biggest capability gaps that the IAF is facing stems from the large number of ageing Soviet-era fighters which it has in its inventory. So today, the IAF is in the process of a comprehensive modernisation plan with upgrades for its fighter fleet in order to enhance their operational capabilities. Of the available fleets, the MiG-21Bis/Bisons/M/MF and MiG-27ML are slowly being phased out, while the SEPECAT Jaguar-M/S, Dassault Mirage-2000H/TH and MiG-29B/UPG aircraft are all undergoing upgrades. The following will describe some of the latest happenings for the operational fleets.

The IAF currently operates nine squadrons of MiG-21 family aircraft. Broadly speaking, the MiG-21s function as interceptors, however they are able to function in the strike role by utilising free fall bombs and rockets. Of the nine squadrons, one can arguably say that six are ‘combat relevant’ as they comprise aircraft that were upgraded from the MiG-21Bis variant to the MiG-21 Bison standard. The remaining three squadrons are comprised of older MiG-21M/MF and MiG-21Bis units. Meanwhile, the IAF operates three squadrons of MiG-27ML fighters. These aircraft have been upgraded with semi-glass cockpits, and the ability to mount targeting pods and deliver precision-guided munitions. On paper these upgraded aircraft appear formidable however they face numerous maintenance and availability issues yielding poor sortie generation rates, and are largely regarded as aircraft that would operate in a permissive environment for ground attack.

Away from the MiG-27ML fleet, India was the first international customer of the MiG-29B/UPG. The IAF placed an order for more than 50 MiG-29B/UPGs in 1980 while the aircraft was still in its initial development phase. Since its induction into the IAF in 1985, the aircraft has undergone a series of modifications with the addition of new avionics, sub-systems, turbofans and radars. The IAF has three squadrons of MiG-29’s, each comprising approximately 20 aircraft. An upgrade programme has begun, however sources say that it is proceeding much slower than expected. The modernization is part of a $900 million contract to upgrade 63 aircraft. These upgrades are intended to bring the IAF MiG-29’s closer to the Russian Air Force MiG-29SMT variant. The first MiG-29UPG flight was conducted on 4 February 2011 with the first three MiG-29UPG upgraded fighters being delivered to India in December 2012; over two years behind schedule.

According to Angad Singh, an Indian aerospace and defence expert based in New Delhi: “The MiG-29UPG is similar to the MiG-21 Bison upgrade in that it is pulling as much 21st century capability as possible into the MiG-29. In fact, the Air Force is leveraging as much technology as it can from the Indian Navy MiG-29K fleet.” Mr. Singh continued that: “(A) lot of the new avionics and (components) come from the MiG-29K. It will give the MiG-29UPG capability for all the air-to-air missiles in the Indian inventory, and a lot better air-to-ground capability over the original MiG-29Bs, including a PGM (Precision Guided Munition) capability.” Unfortunately, this upgrade programme, which is being performed domestically, is suffering from considerable delays, and informed sources believe the delays are due to shortfalls in upgrade kit availability from Russia.

Jaguar
In 1978 the IAF procured a fleet of Jaguar-M/S aircraft. The order involved 40 Jaguars built in Europe, and 120 aircraft built under licence by HAL. The IAF has embarked upon Display Attack and Ranging Inertial Navigation-III (DARIN) upgrade for the Jaguar-S which is outfitting the aircraft with the Israel Aerospace Industries’ ELTA Systems Division EL/M-2052 X-band (8.5-10.68 gigahertz) Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, already equipping the IAF’s Jaguar-M squadron onto the remaining six IAF Jaguar-S squadrons. The remaining chapter in the Jaguar upgrade story revolves around the engine. Previous upgrades have cumulatively added weight to the aircraft without any increase in engine performance or thrust. The DARIN-III upgrade was originally supposed to include an engine upgrade, however that aspect has been de-linked. As recently as last year the IAF said it will re-engine the Jaguar fleet, with the front runner appearing to be the Honeywell F125IN turbofan. Rolls-Royce has also proposed an upgrade to the aircraft’s existing Adour engine.

Maintenance airmen from the Indian Air Force’s 14 Fighter Squadron work to change a shock absorber on their Jaguar attack jet aircraft at Eielson airbase in Arkansas. (USAF)
The IAF’s other European fast jet is the Mirage-2000H/TH. It is the primary IAF aircraft that is tasked with the nuclear strike role. In July 2011, India approved an $3 billion upgrade to its entire Mirage 2000T/TH fleet which included the acquisition of over 400 MBDA MICA Active Radar Homing (ARH) and infrared guided Air-to-Air Missiles. The Mirage 2000T/TH upgrade was reportedly based on the French Air Force Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 standard; the most advanced variant of the aircraft.

This is a non-upgraded Mirage 2000H is seen here dropping bombs over the Pokhran desert range in northern India. The upgraded aircraft are easily distinguished by their grey radomes, as opposed to the black radomes of this aircraft. (Angad Singh)
In March 2015, India received the first two upgraded Mirage 2000T/TH fighters from Dassault. The remainder of the IAF’s Mirage 2000T/TH fleet (47 aircraft) will be upgraded in India by HAL over the next five years, at a reported cost of around $1.9 billion. The upgraded jets are fitted with the Thales RDY-2 X-band radar, a helmet mounted display, new avionics, and the ability to fire new weapons including the MICA AAM. These upgraded jets will be designated the Mirage 2000I for the single-seat version and the Mirage 2000TI for the twin-seat version.

Su-30MKI
The IAF’s other leading frontline fighter is the Su-30MKI. Regarded by the IAF as an air superiority fighter, the total order for the aircraft is for 272 examples, with ten squadrons currently fielded, and up to four squadrons yet to be formed with new-build aircraft depending on the eventual squadron size. As the designation denotes, the aircraft is intended to reign supreme in the skies, however it also has an air-to-ground capability with air-to-ground ordnance delivery. Because of its size and payload capability, the IAF determined that customized Su-30MKI’s would be the best platform to integrate with the BrahMos Aerospace BrahMos-A air-to-ground satellite and ARH-guided supersonic cruise missile. Customised MKIs have a strengthened rebuilt centre fuselage section in order to carry the BrahMos-A on the centerline station. The first flight took place on 25th June 2016 at Nashik in western India, and subsequent flights have validated carriage and weapon separation trials. Testing with a live BrahMos-A missile is planned for sometime in 2017. It is still to be determined how many aircraft will receive the BrahMos-A upgrade, however prevailing thoughts lean towards a sub-fleet to the MKI fleet.

The Indian Air Force has sent aircraft in the past to participate in the United States Air Force’s Red Flag exercise held in Las Vegas, Nevada. This has included Su-30MKI fighters. (Ken Skehon)
The SU-30MKI is also being used to test the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) indigenously designed Astra beyond-visual-range missile. The missile test program is behind schedule, although India’s DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation), which is leading the trials, hopes to complete the remaining tests before the end of the second quarter of 2017. The DRDO has also used the Su-30MKI to flight test the indigenously designed DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon (SAAW) over the Integrated Test Range in Odisha. This weapon will ultimately be fielded by the Su-30MKI and Jaguar fleets, and likely the Dassault Rafale-F3A/B, of which the IAF is acquiring 36, once it is inducted into the IAF.

Tejas LCA
Regarding indigenous platforms, The Tejas Mk.1/1A was designed by India’s Advanced Development Agency (ADA) and its design dates back to the 1980s as the aircraft was intended as an indigenous replacement for the MiG-21 family, yet it has encountered numerous problems and delays such that many in India’s air power community question the aircraft’s relevance. Nonetheless, the LCA has provided India with lessons learned on aircraft design, and that will surely help in the future.

Although it has suffered its share of challenges, the Tejas Mk.1/1A programme does now appear to be moving forward, with a new development of the aircraft, known as the Tejas Mk.2 mooted. (Angad Singh)
The IAF has ordered 40 Tejas Mk.1 aircraft, with a further 100 Tejas Mk.1A aircraft being built for the IAF. The latter is HAL’s effort to leverage their expertise in aircraft modification and upgrades to equip the Tejas with an advanced AESA radar, and an electronic jamming pod. It will also incorporate weight reduction along with easier service maintainability which will serve to reduce downtime for each aircraft. The Tejas Mk. 1A variant will also have a mid-air refuelling probe to enhance its endurance and operational range. Meanwhile, the Tejas Mk.2 variant is an ADA-spearheaded effort to institute some configuration changes to the overall Tejas family design, and to integrate General Electric’s F414-GE-INS6 turboban: “The Tejas Mk.2 would be similar to the Saab JAS-39E/F Gripen fighter where you upgrade the engine and beef up the airframe around it, and you therefore end up with a more capable aircraft overall,” said Mr. Singh. Some question this approach as the ADA has had a checkered past through the Engineering and Manufacturing and Development (EMD) phase of the original Tejas Mk.1 design, and therefore the potential for delay is a distinct possibility.

Future Aspirations
Over the next few years, the IAF will induct more Su-30MKIs, Tejas Mk.1/1A and Rafale-F3A/B fighters. The first deliveries of the Rafale-F3A/B are expected in 2019. However, things are less clear regarding the joint Indo-Russian collaboration on the Sukhoi PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter. The IAF has recently completed a design review of the aircraft, and has found: “gaps in information in terms of the depth and transfer of technology…and a lack of visibility of total cost,” as stated by IAF chief of the air staff, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha. The Indian Government, through its ‘Make In India’, which is encouraging foreign companies to build their products in the country has invited proposals from Sweden, in the form of the JAS-39E/F and the United States, in the form of the Lockheed Martin F-16 Block-70/72 to transfer technology to the country in a competition aimed at acquiring approximately 100 single engine fighter aircraft which would be built in India. It is expected that this will be followed by a similar process to acquire approximately 100 dual engine fighter aircraft.

36 new-build Dassault Rafale omni-role fighters have been acquired for the IAF in a government-to-government acquisition process. The first deliveries are expected in 2019. (Joetey Attariwala)
India is also pursuing an indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) design. Conceptual designs have been formulated, and the aircraft is expected to be broadly similar to Lockheed Martin’s F-35A/B/C Lightning-II fifth-generation fighter in terms of range and performance, and is expected to include design features such as internal weapons storage and S-shaped engine inlets. Sadly, if past IAF acquisition is any guide, the AMCA program is decades away if it comes to fruition, and that begs the question of whether it will be relevant by then.

Mr. Singh is critical of the Indian defence procurement process and has argued that: “because of the Indian system, we are inducting fourth- or 4.5-generation aircraft in the 2020s, which is entirely unacceptable. It will be great to say that we have these aircraft on paper, but there is a very real potential is that they will be hopelessly outclassed. We seem to keep buying aircraft on the back end of the operational curve, and that’s also a very real problem. What I would like to see is speed in decision making because the longer we dither, the greater the costs.”

A titbit on buying old Malaysian MIG-29s.paying for it with SU-30 parts.

Malaysian Mig’s are approximately 22 years old, which Indian Air Force is looking to procure and upgrade up to UPG level. Mig-29 UPG is currently one of the most advance Mig-29s in the world. The mig-29 upgrade includes ZHUK-ME AESA radar, RD-33 series 3 turbofan engine, IFR probe, an advanced weapon control system and avionics. The UPG upgrades will cost India $13 Million, and a new Mig-29 can cost up to $22 million dollars. India is cleverly saving $9 Million dollars on each aircraft. After the upgrade, the aircraft will have more strengths.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 27 Dec 2017 18:52

Better still, go for emb 145 sized 50 seater, can be fitted with kaveri derivative once mature.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2017 19:17

deejay - my personal opinion is that most people cannot differentiate engine from wing and black coloured horn in nose. Having pankha is probably more reassuring than a stupid cylinder hanging off the wing that does nothing throughout the flight. Air tickets are becoming so affordable that we really must encourage short flights as low as 150-250 km and this is where prop scores over jet. I just took a Blr-Chennai-Blr trip and I always listen to what the pilot says. Onward at least was 45 min and the plane just climbed to 19,000 ft stayed there for 5-10 min and then started descending. Not the most efficient flight profile for jet. (A 320) Return was just 35 min. And these are 2 major cities. Need aircraft that are fuel efficient in the 10-20,000 foot altitude range

For a feederliner - jets are no good for short haul. Right now if I want to go to Chennai or a big city there are dozens of flights a day. But mysore, Coimbatore, Belgaum, Pondicherry etc have just one or two stupid flights a day. We need a feederliner that people can fly efficiently and connect tier 3 cities with 8-10 flights a day

The wing selection for Saras was definitely to keep a clean wing with max efficiency as per what I read

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2017 19:32

Small cities have fewer people travelling in and out and typically there is just one flight to that city from big city (in the morning) and one flight out in the evening for the burra sahib to fly in and out. What if a small town boy wants to work in big city and commute by air every day. It happens even in India. Seen it happening in 60s between Mumbai and Pune (train), Mysore Blr and flights to Chennai by a cousin of mine. This is normal in Amreeka for many. There must be prop feederliners for short distances. Not 90-150 seaters and definitely not 150+ seats. 10-30 seats is optimum.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 27 Dec 2017 19:51

Civil aviation thread folks. This is mil aviation.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jan 2018 21:30

Deliberately putting this link here because it is so full of answers to questions/discussion we have been having..
The more things change, the more they remain the same..

http://www.sonsofdamien.co.uk/hunter%201.htm

Read it all - I will simply quote some stuff

The first 20 F.1s built were basically trials and evaluation machines. They weren't manufactured to an entirely uniform specification and they were modified in various different ways to test out new features, such as a "blown flaps" scheme to reduce takeoff roll, and even a revised rear fuselage to test out "area ruling", in which transonic handling was to be improved by minimizing changes in aircraft cross-section.

The most obvious problem was that the type's internal fuel capacity was much too small, giving it minimal endurance. There were subtler problems as well. There was a mismatch between engine inlet design and engine air requirements that led to surges and other problems. Another issue was that the Hunter originally used split flaps for air brakes, but this led to nasty pitch-down problems, as did air brakes along each side of the rear fuselage. A ventral airbrake was introduced in the 19th F.1 that was much more satisfactory, except for the fact that it couldn't be used on landings, and so was disabled when the landing gear were extended.

A major problem was that at high altitudes firing the cannons also tended to cause engine surges and flameouts. All that could be done was to install a modification that cut fuel to the engine when the cannon were fired, which coupled to the cannons' heavy recoil caused the nose to pitch down at high altitude. Even with this fix, cannon firing was restricted to low altitude and speed, which was not exactly appropriate for an aircraft designed for the air combat role.

Another problem was that discarded cannon ammunition belt links tended to strike back against and tear up the rear fuselage and tail. In addition, the canopy tended to mist and ice badly during descents, sometimes completely blinding the pilot.

The mounting for the cannon pack was reinforced, since early on the Hunter demonstrated some stress and cracking from the cannon recoil, and an air scoop was added in the nose that popped open while the cannon were being fired to flush out any potentially explosive build-up of muzzle gases. Many F.4s were modified with two blisters under the fuselage just forward of the engine intakes to collect the cannon ammunition belt links and prevent them from chopping up the tail. The cannon shells continued to be discarded since they were heavy enough to fall away from the aircraft. The "Sabrina’s", as they were named in honour of a busty movie star, were also retrofitted to some earlier Hunters.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jan 2018 22:17

That's what Rakesh Sharma told us a decade ago ( gun trials being the most difficult) when we were gung-ho about the LCA when he was one of its test pilots!

nam · Post by **nam** » 13 Jan 2018 23:50

Cannon on modern seem to be such a complex feature, despite the fact that humans have fought a entire world war with thousands of fighter jets with only cannons!

Amazing.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Jan 2018 02:25

Philip wrote:That's what Rakesh Sharma told us a decade ago ( gun trials being the most difficult) when we were gung-ho about the LCA when he was one of its test pilots!

How could Rakesh Sharma ji have been a test pilot of LCA?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Jan 2018 03:00

Indranil wrote:
Philip wrote:That's what Rakesh Sharma told us a decade ago ( gun trials being the most difficult) when we were gung-ho about the LCA when he was one of its test pilots!
How could Rakesh Sharma ji have been a test pilot of LCA?

That’s an alternate fact!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jan 2018 05:09

Indranil wrote:
Philip wrote:That's what Rakesh Sharma told us a decade ago ( gun trials being the most difficult) when we were gung-ho about the LCA when he was one of its test pilots!
How could Rakesh Sharma ji have been a test pilot of LCA?

Both he and late Baldev Singh were on the program early years with AM Rajkumar.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 14 Jan 2018 07:49

people commuting to cities on trains is v common ..in 60's and even today. mumbai pune...delhi ..panipat..karnal ... khurja..even mathura.. I am though not sure about flights for people ( small cities) to work elsewhere... are there enough people to afford flights.. i am sure airlines have a good grip of traffic patterns / load. eg..delhi chandigarh... these days once can drive door to door in 4.5 hours to chandigarh... if i take a plane..i need to reach airport atleast 1 hour in advance ( advised 90 min) ..50 min is flight time... then again some time to come out..catch a taxi ..reach destination... not much time saving.. and chandigarh is a rich city yet i think there are only 7 to 8 flt per day . Ludhiana which is one of the more prosperous city in punjab has no flights since chandigarh / amritsar are close by... I am not sure if there a substantial mass of people who can afford daily to/fro air commute??

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jan 2018 08:01

manjgu wrote: am not sure if there a substantial mass of people who can afford daily to/fro air commute??

I don't suppose you have actually booked any air tickets in India recently, or looked at intercity cab prices, or tried to book a train when you need to travel in a rush, or looked at traffic in cities, or even considered twice weekly commutes. I would like to see that Ivory tower you are sitting in. Please shift topic to civil aviation thread in wotzisname forum

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 14 Jan 2018 08:31

Indranil wrote:
Philip wrote:That's what Rakesh Sharma told us a decade ago ( gun trials being the most difficult) when we were gung-ho about the LCA when he was one of its test pilots!
How could Rakesh Sharma ji have been a test pilot of LCA?

Did Philip Saab mean Rajiv Kothiyal? Didn't he come to one of BRF meetings?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jan 2018 10:16

Rakesh Sharma came for a meet and so did Baldy (Baldev). They all worked on the LCA before it flew. Philip was there. He is right.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Jan 2018 10:59

Rajesh Sharma was part of the LCA program, but never its test pilot.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jan 2018 11:04

AM Imamdar the head of Eastern Command was also there.It was the best attended meet of BR ever with IAF veterans and serving sr. officers.The next day we had another get- together at the Bangalore Club where I brought Adm.Stan Dawson former CNS and architect of the Karwar base to be our chief guest.He beautifully explained how he got the idea of having a base there to decongest Bombay,remembering its features well after taking part in a landing exercise there when he was a young officer.Shiv organised both evenings extremely well!
Well Rakesh Sharma was posted at BLR with the programme.It would be funny if he never flew the bird.To my memory, all those connected with the programme present at that evening gave us their opinion of its flight characteristics.I was seated with RK during that evening and asked him a lot of Qs.We , BR , assumed that in a few years the LCA would enter service but those present RK especially, brought us back to earth explaining the various test/trial regime required and especially the gun trials, the most demanding.I can't t remember how many prototypes were flying at that time .Shiv might.It was around 12-15 yrs ago now?

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 14 Jan 2018 11:17

Did any of you meet Wing Co Upadhyay?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jan 2018 11:39

Sachin, I frankly can't remember all the names after such a long time.I think we had at least 4 from the LCA team, the AM, Shiv's cousin and a few others, service/ veterans.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 14 Jan 2018 11:45

Just a punt. Tbe wing co was CTP rotary

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jan 2018 12:07

Philip - Rakesh retired before the Tejas flew. We had Wingco(then) Palit, Baldev, Inamdar in one meet. In another we had Adm Dawson - a fun man. My biggest regret is that I promised to digitize his gramophone record collection but did not do it before he passed away. Upadhyaya - no.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jan 2018 12:57

Rakesh Sharma left in 1998, before LCA's first flight. So he never flew LCA. But I suppose he did indeed test flew LCA's FCS on the F16 emulator in US.