Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62661
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 27 Jan 2018 20:27

there is no boom operator seat in the back, its all by video now

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62661
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 27 Jan 2018 20:30

the a330mrtt uses exactly the same concepts. tanker and cargo combi role. note the boom to refuel usaf and nato heavies.

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62661
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 27 Jan 2018 20:36

to me getting on the KC46 bandwagon whether directly or via IAI adapted aiframes sounds sensible given the nearly 200 planes that are being built . looking at KC135 and KC10 still going strong, these new builds will serve 50+ years and get a new engine at MLU

unless air bus gives a sweet discount on the service costs which imo they honestly cannot given the low numbers of MRTT and our low numbers purchased.

they might serve out lifespan as unmanned AI controlled refuelers with no human intervention , refueling UAVs of all stripes from AWACS to strike birds to CAPs.

there is only one gorilla in town, and best to put on our monkey suits and "align" behind that convoy :lol:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby brar_w » 27 Jan 2018 20:42

Keep in mind that KC46 is not only KC-X but most likely also KC-Y so the USAF will be buying a lot more than what is currently a program of record to support KC-X requirements. For the IAF they should just buy the cheapest and most reliable platform as far as ovsrall cost is concerned in order to maximize the fleet size. Airbus will likely price its tanker quite aggressively so this will be an interesting program to follow given two precious failed attempts.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5224
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 20:48

shiv wrote:Fact. Those 22 aircraft will not need air refuelling for 99% of their airframe lives in their service in India. While our existing fighters - 280 odd Su-30s, 40 odd Mirages right now can do with refuelling and projected, already ordered numbers of Tejas will need that more than ever. I a

A fighter will not need aerial refueling for 99% of its flight time, so one could argue that the idea of AAR itself superfluous. Right upto the point where a (statistically improbable) war begins. Or an overseas Op Khukri type contingency comes up. Meanwhile, the boom-equipped refuelers remains quite capable of refuelling the 280 odd Su-30s, 40 odd Mirages & already ordered Tejas.

I do not mean this personally about you, but this actually is the language used by salespeople. Predict the future where it suits them. Numbers of Tejas will grow. What else will grow we don't know.

If you buy an aircraft for the next 40 years, its hardly wise to limit its capabilities to what was required 10 years ago.

Also, that the IAF & IN's fleets will continue to grow is pretty much a given. The plans for the AWACS & further P-8s are known. As the fighter fleet grows (55 squadron objective), the need for force multipliers will also grow proportionately.

The aircraft and its sellers will not be hampered one bit. We are going to pay the price for lugging around and maintaining several 100 kgs of unnecessary weight for 99.99% of ops. On civilian aircraft every kg costs Rs 250 now. Multiply that by 500 for every flight of a refueller with a useless boom - 1.25 lakhs per flight.

Yeah it doesn't work like that. The marginal cost of lugging baggage around isn't what they're charging you for at the check-in counter. If it were they'd be charging a 90 kg passenger, Rs 10,000 over what they charge a traveller weighing only 50 kgs.

In fact, using the same <weight ∝ induced drag ∝ operating cost> logic one can say that since a KC-46 at 50% fuel weighs 130,630 kg, losing 500 kg would improve the fuel burn by 0.38%. That's about $40 per hour, (generously) assuming $10,000/hr in fuel expenses.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5224
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 20:59

shiv wrote:Most small aircraft are unable to take the high rate of flow offered by the boom system - one more useless redundant feature waiting for those 20 odd aircraft for their 1 in 100 flight need to refuel midair. And if the boom is used with a basket to attach to a probe - the imagined advantage of fast refuelling, use in turbulent conditions and refuelling huge aircraft vanishes.

You don't put a basket on the probe, it goes on the end of the hose. The hose is separate and the boom is separate (ref: illustrations). Aircraft equipped with receptacles use the boom, the rest use the drogues with their probes.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 21:01

Viv S wrote:A fighter will not need aerial refueling for 99% of its flight time, so one could argue that the idea of AAR itself superfluous.

By this logic air refuelling is unnecessary. But given the difference in (unrefuelled) radius of action of Tejas - say 350-500 km and Su-30 (1500 km) the Tejas would require more refuelling than the Su-30 in a mixed aircraft sortie.

Viv S wrote:Also, that the IAF & IN's fleets will continue to grow is pretty much a given. The plans for the AWACS & further P-8s are known. As the fighter fleet grows (55 squadron objective), the need for force multipliers will also grow proportionately.
Yes - but other than P-8s which belong to the navy ALL other aircraft that allow refuelling have probes and none have boom receptacles. I do not foresee boom receptacle being installed as a standard in any IAF aircraft for the next 40 years and in any case fighters do not allow the rate of fuel transfer that a boom offers.

Viv S wrote:In fact, using the same <weight ∝ induced drag ∝ operating cost> logic one can say that since a KC-46 at 50% fuel weighs 130,630 kg, losing 500 kg would improve the fuel burn by 0.38%. That's about $40 per hour, (generously) assuming $10,000/hr in fuel expenses.

Indeed and this would be standard operating procedure in many situations. But that is not an argument in favour of a boom

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2018 21:06

Viv S wrote:
shiv wrote:Most small aircraft are unable to take the high rate of flow offered by the boom system - one more useless redundant feature waiting for those 20 odd aircraft for their 1 in 100 flight need to refuel midair. And if the boom is used with a basket to attach to a probe - the imagined advantage of fast refuelling, use in turbulent conditions and refuelling huge aircraft vanishes.

You don't put a basket on the probe, it goes on the end of the hose. The hose is separate and the boom is separate (ref: illustrations). Aircraft equipped with receptacles use the boom, the rest use the drogues with their probes.

But that hose simply takes away the fast refuelling advantage of the boom. The basket waves about in turbulence and the advantage of boom in turbulent air is nullified. That aside when 95 plus % of aircraft have probes and cannot use boom refuelling there is no use having one.

This will be my last post. I disagree with your contention and I do not think the reasons you have provided are any better than the sort of rhetoric a sales brochure would offer. I will have to see much better justification to agree. More posts repeating the same stuff will not cut it.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5224
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 21:36

shiv wrote:By this logic air refuelling is unnecessary. But given the difference in (unrefuelled) radius of action of Tejas - say 350-500 km and Su-30 (1500 km) the Tejas would require more refuelling than the Su-30 in a mixed aircraft sortie.

Yes - but other than P-8s which belong to the navy ALL other aircraft that allow refuelling have probes and none have boom receptacles. I do not foresee boom receptacle being installed as a standard in any IAF aircraft for the next 40 years and in any case fighters do not allow the rate of fuel transfer that a boom offers.

In addition to the P-8, the C-17s & C-130Js have boom receptacles (albeit, in addition to a probe in the latter case). The F-16s contending for an IAF contract, do as well. If exercised, the same options open up for the A-330 AWACS and indeed even the AURA & AMCA.

But that hose simply takes away the fast refuelling advantage of the boom. The basket waves about in turbulence and the advantage of boom in turbulent air is nullified. That aside when 95 plus % of aircraft have probes and cannot use boom refuelling there is no use having one.

You don't use the hose & the boom at the same time. When you're refueling a P-8I you use the boom, when you're got a Rafale lined up, you keep the boom retracted and extend the hose.

Its true that the vast majority of the IAF & IN fleet cannot hook up with the boom. Still if costs just 0.38% more in fuel costs, its very modest price to pay in order to retain the capability to tank existing and future receptacle-equipped aircraft (particularly the P-8Is).

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 27 Jan 2018 22:20

Indian Airforce Surface To Air Missiles System


JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2276
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 27 Jan 2018 23:48

Saras PT1N test flight video by Tarmak007

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50012
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ramana » 28 Jan 2018 05:06

Nice take off and clean landing.

Congrats.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 28 Jan 2018 12:35

Python-6 AAM ?

Image
Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3383
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JayS » 28 Jan 2018 13:02

Austin wrote:Python-6 AAM ?


Wrong thread Austin..?

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cosmo_R » 28 Jan 2018 20:16

^^^Key takeaway: :"Israeli researchers work on antimissile missile in hopes of an air force order"

They keep plugging away—first with the hope of an IDF order but with the fallback of selling it to us because they have a marketing machine that is connected to R&D. They are not 'order takers'.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5400
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Rakesh » 28 Jan 2018 22:12

Cosmo: please continue discussion in International Aerospace thread.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 29 Jan 2018 10:35

JayS wrote:
Austin wrote:Python-6 AAM ?


Wrong thread Austin..?


Hmm no , Something IAF can look at as it operates Python-4/5 , This seems to be a bigger missile compared to P-4/5 but also has mutimode guidace AESA/IIR , Likely it will have anti-BVR missile capability

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62661
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 29 Jan 2018 11:54

i wonder if they are aiming to take a shot at Tochka or "Frog" type SRBMs that hezbollah might used in a conflict... the F16s could roam around and attempt to interdict in boost phase itself, then leave it to arrow and iron dome for high alt and terminal phase.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 29 Jan 2018 12:13

Singha wrote:i wonder if they are aiming to take a shot at Tochka or "Frog" type SRBMs that hezbollah might used in a conflict... the F16s could roam around and attempt to interdict in boost phase itself, then leave it to arrow and iron dome for high alt and terminal phase.


Yes very likely , David sling on which python 6 is based has been very successful in dealing with mrls and other type targets , should be good in anti bar and anti-Bm role

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby tsarkar » 29 Jan 2018 13:51

Austin wrote:
JayS wrote:Wrong thread Austin..?
Hmm no , Something IAF can look at as it operates Python-4/5 , This seems to be a bigger missile compared to P-4/5 but also has mutimode guidace AESA/IIR , Likely it will have anti-BVR missile capability

Only on the Spyder ground based system. No A2A application. It was trialed on Tejas but will not move forward. Almost every vendor is developing and evolving something that can be covered in Intl Thread.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby brar_w » 29 Jan 2018 15:49

Austin wrote:
Singha wrote:i wonder if they are aiming to take a shot at Tochka or "Frog" type SRBMs that hezbollah might used in a conflict... the F16s could roam around and attempt to interdict in boost phase itself, then leave it to arrow and iron dome for high alt and terminal phase.


Yes very likely , David sling on which python 6 is based has been very successful in dealing with mrls and other type targets , should be good in anti bar and anti-Bm role


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1238&p=2248047#p2248047

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6729
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 31 Jan 2018 00:34

Discussion on a prospective Israeli missile does not belong here.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6729
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Helicopters

Postby Indranil » 31 Jan 2018 01:16

Is the HS748 are the worst utilized resource in our services? With so much airframe life left in them, wonder if HAL should have re-engined them and coverted them into more useful roles than "communication and logistics". Things that come to mind:

1. Saab 2000 Erieye equivalent using the LRDE's AAAU
Image
2. Andover variant with a rear loading ramp for special purpose missions (augment the C-130Js)
Image
3. And some blisters for COMINT/SIGINT.
4. Navy/CG's MRMR and MPA competition.
Image
5. Poor man's aerial refuelers. Actually, if you want to refuel turboprops like the C295s and the C130Js or helicopters, you don't want jet based refuelers.
6. Civilian cargo planes.

But it decides to invest resources to study amphibians which stabilize themselves with rows!
Last edited by Indranil on 31 Jan 2018 11:35, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Moved to correct thread

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3871
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kartik » 31 Jan 2018 01:26

shiv wrote:Probe and drogue and flying boom are different systems. Boom is rigid and gives high flow rates - but only 1 a/c can be refuelled at at a time. Probe and drogue is a hose, lower flow rate, can feed multiple aircraft and can be adapted for buddy-buddy refuelling. I don't see India changing over to flying boom anytime soon.


India won't change over to a flying boom for its fighter fleet, since none of its existing types can be refueled by a boom and receptacle method. However, there are types in the IAF and IN inventory that cannot be refueled by a probe and drogue method. Which means, if you want to extend their range, you'll need a tanker with the capability of using a boom. That is why there is a very high possibility that this tanker contest will make a boom one of the mandatory requirements. Will also serve the IAF's purpose in further pushing the Il-78M from any chance of participating in the contest and winning on cost grounds.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3871
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kartik » 31 Jan 2018 01:32

shiv wrote:
Viv S wrote:
So an IAF tanker will be capable of refueling a C-17 or P-8 with its boom and a Su-30/Tejas/Rafale through its hose. The C-130 & conceived SEF might be able to use either.

You mean a hose/basket will get attached to the end of a boom for the C-130. I'll believe that if and when I see a flying boom tanker in the IAF so I think it is simply speculation.

IAF C-130s have a probe and do not need a separate receptacle for boom unless weight and space have been wasted by having a receptacle too.

Refuelling Navy P-8s over the sea is not something the I foresee the IAF planning for, and given the fact that the P-8 has a patrol time of 8-10 hours - grabbing an IAF tanker for refuelling seems an unlikely event to me. However our latest friends Amreeka could refuel them over the sea I guess, if the need arises.


No, what he means is that tankers like the A-330MRTT and KC-46A can use wing-mounted hoses with drogues, for probe equipped airplanes, while also retaining the big boom for those airplanes that have a receptacle. IAF C-130Js can use both their probes or the receptacles in order to be refueled. the F-16 Block 70 was to be offered with the CARTS system for allowing probe and drogue refueling, while also retaining the regular F-16 style receptacle for boom based refueling. CARTS was demonstrated to the IAF as part of the MRCA contest itself.

This boom receptacle style refueling will also very likely be needed for the A330 based AWACS that DRDO is working on. Netra AEW&C has the probe, so it'll need probe and drogue type refueling.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3871
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Kartik » 31 Jan 2018 01:37

shiv wrote:
Viv S wrote:Better to have it and not need it rather than to need it and not have it. It doesn't stop the aircraft from regular hose-and-drogue refueling.

Having it and not needing it would be a ludicrous waste like a man buying tampons for himself.That probe on the C-130J would be as much a waste as a 100% useless boom waiting for a call from the Indian navy for refuelling a P8I

The IAF will need refuelling for Tejas aircraft that will come in numbers. Lugging around a useless boom and operator is a choice that I am wiling to bet the IAF will not make. Here is something that we will know in a few years - I am willing to wait and see. It is highly unlikely that the IAF will go and select a tanker aircraft with 33% of its refuelling potential wasted on 2% of its aircraft inventory - or worse, doing it as a "sacrifice" for the navy.

The sort of tanker you are talking about is great for NATO. Not for the IAF


So are you basically saying that the IAF will ASK for a refueler that doesn't carry a boom and will need to be specifically modified for that purpose? And specifically lose the flexibility of being able to refuel 2 types, the C-17 and the P-8I based on the logic that they may not generally need refueling?

I think that reading the RFI, if its ever released to the public will clear that out- the IAF will very likely, IMO, go with the boom if its part of the refueling setup as of now. Makes no sense to spend or ask for a specific useful capability to be deleted.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 31 Jan 2018 07:41

Kartik wrote:So are you basically saying that the IAF will ASK for a refueler that doesn't carry a boom and will need to be specifically modified for that purpose? And specifically lose the flexibility of being able to refuel 2 types, the C-17 and the P-8I based on the logic that they may not generally need refueling?

I think that reading the RFI, if its ever released to the public will clear that out- the IAF will very likely, IMO, go with the boom if its part of the refueling setup as of now. Makes no sense to spend or ask for a specific useful capability to be deleted.

I am "basically" saying nothing more than indicated by the data available to both you and me.

News reports say that the IAF has released an RFI for a tanker that is "twin engine" and with "two crew" members (for cost considerations as per the reports on the previous page of this thread). You pointed out yourself that "twin engine" means the Midas is ruled out. I am saying that "twin crew" rules out any aircraft with flying boom because that requires an extra boom operator. The IAF is also apparently considering any aircraft that can be converted to tankers provided they have a 40 year life remaining. I would be surprised if the IAF deliberately asks for a flying boom to be fitted as part of the conversion process. I have seen nothing to suggest that this might happen.

I would be happy to learn about any dedicated tanker that has a boom and only 2 crew . A casual Google search threw up nothing, but please tell me if you know. Does the CRAG system reduce the crew to 2? Would that require the signing of all sorts of agreements for the fitting of US avionics of the genre that were left out from aircraft like the P-8I?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Helicopters

Postby shiv » 31 Jan 2018 08:11

Indranil wrote:Is the HS748 are the worst utilized resource in our services? With so much airframe life left in them, wonder if HAL should have re-engined them and coverted them into more useful roles than "communication and logistics". Things that come to mind:

,,er This is the helicopters thread but since you have made the allegation..

Image

Also used for
1. Tejas radome/radar testing
2. Conversion trainer to multi-engine transport flying for pilots

"worst utilized"? How?
Last edited by Indranil on 31 Jan 2018 11:34, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Moved to correct thread

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6729
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 31 Jan 2018 11:51

Hakeem,

That doesn’t warrant 56 airframes. In fact each of these airframes are used about 350 hrs per annum. They have on average 80,000 hours of airframe life left in them!

In 2013, they issued RFIs for new engines, MFDs, radars etc. Wonder what happened of that idea.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 31 Jan 2018 12:55

^^^
Aren't those 56 owned by the IAF? It plans to replace them with C-295 or something along that line.

Hopefully, that will then free up these 56 Avros for DRDO programs.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 288
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ashishvikas » 31 Jan 2018 13:11

Shuklaji - UK offers India finance for buying Hawk jets: New Delhi not sure about deal

Wednesday, 31 January 2018

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2018/01/u ... k.html?m=1

Why not get 20 LCA IOC2/FOC instead ??

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1552
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srin » 31 Jan 2018 13:35

Btw, what is happening on the C-295 ? Last I heard was some 6 months ago when the contract negotiations started. Wasn't it cleared some 3 years ago ?

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1448
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Zynda » 31 Jan 2018 15:11

GoI wants C295 to be part of MII. I think Tata was chosen to be the preferred partner for assembly but Airbus (& Tata) are insisting that 56 would be not economical...they want GoI to push up the orders to at least around 100 or so...I guess the deal is stuck in limbo.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19349
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 31 Jan 2018 15:48

Don't forget thtat the Avro was the ill-fated AEW platform that took not just the crew but the cream of the team working on the desi AEW aircraft.The airframe was supposedly found to be too weak for the radome in the investigation.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1552
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srin » 31 Jan 2018 21:11

Zynda wrote:GoI wants C295 to be part of MII. I think Tata was chosen to be the preferred partner for assembly but Airbus (& Tata) are insisting that 56 would be not economical...they want GoI to push up the orders to at least around 100 or so...I guess the deal is stuck in limbo.


Thank you - hadn't seen that update.
I don't think I'll ever understand our procurement process. That we allow these further negotiations after declaring the winner is really astounding. First with Rafale and now with this. And we punish ourselves instead of the other guys.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62661
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 31 Jan 2018 21:59

Can the hs748 do hot and high ops to border areas?
Even then perhaps its ceiling is half that of a business jet which we use for elint role
An32 has much more powerful engine

Its a plane which could perhaps have obviated the do228 if developed properly with new engines

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 31 Jan 2018 22:06

Singha wrote:Can the hs748 do hot and high ops to border areas?
Even then perhaps its ceiling is half that of a business jet which we use for elint role
An32 has much more powerful engine

Its a plane which could perhaps have obviated the do228 if developed properly with new engines

HS-748 in Leh
It is understandable that the Herk aircrew were overwhelmed by the majesty of Ladakh mountains and by the approach and landing patterns of the IAF aircraft. Every Indian pilot, civil or military goes thru the same feelings. But it is not such an extraordinary procedure with 270 degree turns onto final approach, and 90 degree turns to ‘dodge peaks and abutments’. It is pertinent to state here that the procedures made by the pioneers of our transport fleet way back in the late 40s and early 50s are still followed in 2002. What was good enough and safe for a Packet in 1956, is good enough for the Il-76 in 2002. The IL 76 sticks to the same heights for entry into the Leh valley from the south as it has been for the AN-12 since 1961. The heights for downwind for Packets, Daks, AN-32s, AN-12s, HS-748s, Boeing 737s and fighter aircraft, is exactly the same for an approach and landing on RW 07. Surely it cannot be as dangerous and difficult as made out to be by the Herk pilots.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6729
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 31 Jan 2018 22:41

There is no reason other than the engines to limit the flight ceiling of the HS748.

Philip sir, the chapati may be too big for the HS748. But a beam is perfectly okay, as shown by the Swedes and the Chinese.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19349
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 31 Jan 2018 23:59

True, but how much of life is left in these old airframes and wouldn't another platform ( like EMBs, etc.) be a better performer endurance-wise?Let these venerable machines perform rheir transport duties for as long as poss., then gently retire them.I know that in the old days newspapers use to use them, now couriers perhaps the best bet.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6729
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 01 Feb 2018 01:28

Answered that question a few posts above. They had an average of 80,000 hours of airframe life left in them. They are currently flying 350 hours a year.The age of the airfame is not the problem here. How long have the B-52s been flying? They are supposed to fly till 2040! Making IAF agree was a problem earlier because HAL was trying to kill the Avro replacement program with this proposal. But, this is not how it should have placed it IMHO. It is a proposal to use the aircraft to its full potential. It is a good aircraft with a good record.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sgopal and 22 guests