Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Locked
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Indranil »

srin wrote:I haven't been following Saras since the crash and things went relatively quiet. Always thought it was a civilian aircraft.

What's the proposed role of Saras in IAF ? How is it better than say Dornier 228 ?
Saras flies higher and faster than the 228. Saras is pressurized, while the 228 is not. Saras has lower payload. An interesting field is coming up in India.

Mahindra will come with the NM-5, Airvan 8 Airvan 10, and Airvan 18, all at the lowest entry plane. Amazing value for money.
Tata will come with the Pilatus PC-12NG (I have flown this aircraft, a very capable one) and the 228NG, another well tested aircraft.
HAL will come with the 10 seater which will be in direct competition with the Airvan 8 and Airvan 10, and of course the Saras.

Personally, I don't like HAL's 10-seater. I understand that it is trying to leverage some of the HTT-40 experience. I would have loved to see HAL and NAL working together to come up with the long talked about extended version of Saras, and possibly even a jet powered Saras. The later projects would have fed nicely into the NCAD program.
member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by member_23370 »

Whatever happened to the RTA? 50-70 seaters.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Singha »

it was kept in the round white filing cabinet.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by shiv »

Singha wrote:it was kept in the round white filing cabinet.
:D
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by symontk »

I understand the joke, but lets agree on the technical expertise we have created to start on that project, it may not be worth the effort. We might need to wait for some more time
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Aditya G »

Before RTA, I would like to understand where NAL stands in the overall scheme of things. It should be merged with HAL to augment latter's R&D capability
arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by arijitkm »

Lockheed shows interest in building F-16s in India. Hindustan Times
PM Narendra Modi’s Make in India plan appears to be generating a buzz in the US, with Bethesda-based aerospace major Lockheed Martin indicating interest in building its iconic F-16 fighter plane in the country.
Top sources said during a meeting with Modi in New York on Thursday, Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson discussed the possibility of building the fighter planes in India.
The single-engine F-16 took part in India’s multi-billion dollar tender to buy modern warplanes, but the US firm was knocked out of the competition in early stages.
After the Modi-Hewson meeting, ministry of external affairs spokesman Vikas Swarup tweeted, “Cleared for takeoff. Marillyn Hewson, Chairman of @LockheedMartin discusses aerospace industry w/ PM @narendramodi.”
Lockheed Martin has delivered more than 4,500 fighters to 28 international customers, including the Pakistan Air Force.
The US firm has introduced several upgraded variants of the fighter that has been around for more than 40 years. New F-16 variants come packed with enhancements such as active electronically scanned array radars, improved situational awareness for pilots, better avionics and sensors and increased payload to keep pace with rapidly evolving military requirements.
India finally scrapped the contract to buy 126 fighter jets and is currently negotiating with France to buy 36 Rafale fighters under a government-to-government sale.
To meet the Indian Air Force’s requirements, the possibilities being explored by New Delhi include going in for large-scale manufacturing of the locally-produced light combat aircraft or building a fighter with foreign collaboration in India.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Philip »

Yawn! After almost every US ally has operated F-16s,including the Pakis for decades,Lockheed expects the IAF to swallow a vintage design.This is the equiv to a US CEO of an auto major, who accompanied a US pres. on his visit to Japan, wanted the Japanese to buy US made cars with left-hand drive. Someone should tell the US and the Blockhead....sorry,Lockheed CEO,that Md.Bin Tughlaq isn't the Indian PM,but one N.Modiji!
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Karan M »

yes yes india should buy the ultra super duper mig-35s from putinwa
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by RoyG »

Karan M wrote:yes yes india should buy the ultra super duper mig-35s from putinwa
:lol:
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by member_22539 »

^Hey, the mig is 3 to 5 years younger and that makes all the difference.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Karan M »

Interesting when read together, IAF to get Heron TP
http://defense-update.com/20150912_new- ... giPcSseGYA

And Israel phases out Cobra helicopters in favor of drone
http://defense-update.com/20140531_isra ... giShyseGYA

If this reduces the deaths we suffer at LOC whilst taking down larger number of terrorist pigs, then its worth it and more.

And a point for the IAF:
http://defense-update.com/20100221_eita ... giTKiseGYA
While Eitan is a new aircraft, considered to be among the world’s most ophisticated unmanned aircraft, it is answering an operational specification, defined by the IAF over 15 years ago.
The IAF cooperated closely with the industry team in developing the aircraft, headed by IAI as the system development and prime ontractor.
It took Israel, a world leader in drones, 15 years for this program.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by srai »

Karan M wrote:...

And a point for the IAF:
http://defense-update.com/20100221_eita ... giTKiseGYA
While Eitan is a new aircraft, considered to be among the world’s most ophisticated unmanned aircraft, it is answering an operational specification, defined by the IAF over 15 years ago.
The IAF cooperated closely with the industry team in developing the aircraft, headed by IAI as the system development and prime ontractor.
It took Israel, a world leader in drones, 15 years for this program.
If you just import it now, you think you are getting a plane within x months without realizing how much effort went into R&D on it ;)

DDMs would have a field day ... Israelis delivered high-quality x-Gen UAV within 24/36-months from order while DRDO is still languishing at it, with "performance" deficiencies, for many many years! Ofcourse as is standard practice, dead silence from DRDO :-?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by shiv »

arijitkm wrote:Lockheed shows interest in building F-16s in India. Hindustan Times
PM Narendra Modi’s Make in India plan appears to be generating a buzz in the US, with Bethesda-based aerospace major Lockheed Martin indicating interest in building its iconic F-16 fighter plane in the country.
Top sources said during a meeting with Modi in New York on Thursday, Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson discussed the possibility of building the fighter planes in India.
The single-engine F-16 took part in India’s multi-billion dollar tender to buy modern warplanes, but the US firm was knocked out of the competition in early stages.
After the Modi-Hewson meeting, ministry of external affairs spokesman Vikas Swarup tweeted, “Cleared for takeoff. Marillyn Hewson, Chairman of @LockheedMartin discusses aerospace industry w/ PM @narendramodi.”
Lockheed Martin has delivered more than 4,500 fighters to 28 international customers, including the Pakistan Air Force.
The US firm has introduced several upgraded variants of the fighter that has been around for more than 40 years. New F-16 variants come packed with enhancements such as active electronically scanned array radars, improved situational awareness for pilots, better avionics and sensors and increased payload to keep pace with rapidly evolving military requirements.
India finally scrapped the contract to buy 126 fighter jets and is currently negotiating with France to buy 36 Rafale fighters under a government-to-government sale.
To meet the Indian Air Force’s requirements, the possibilities being explored by New Delhi include going in for large-scale manufacturing of the locally-produced light combat aircraft or building a fighter with foreign collaboration in India.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIWKgtz_VsE
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Philip »

If a light fighter from abroad is required (if the LCA prog. is delayed even further) then there are only two cost-effective worthwhile types.The MIG-35 or Gripen.You can take your pick.The old MIG-29 was a better WVR aircraft than the F-16,wetsern sources and even Paki F-16s shied off facing IAF MIG-29s at Kargil remember (boys with short memories)? 29-UG ones are almost a new type.It would be interesting to have a duel between IN MIG-29Ks and the upgraded M2Ks,just for internal evaluation,just as AM Masand did some time ago when the IAF was surprised to find that the MIG-29 scored over the M-2000 every time! :rotfl:
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Viv S »

Then there were all those other times when the MiG-29 simply couldn't get off the ground because of its miserable serviceability rate. Or couldn't get very far because it was prone to running out of fuel. Or had to RTB because an engine conked out. Did someone say 'short memories'. :?:

Althoughhhh.. if the MoD were to try to impose the MiG-29 on the IAF, that would certainly prompt the IAF to discover a new passion for the Tejas, so there is an upside.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5415
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Manish_P »

@Philip
The old MIG-29 was a better WVR aircraft than the F-16,wetsern sources and even Paki F-16s shied off facing IAF MIG-29s at Kargil
Ironically that was probably more due to the IAF MiG 29s being able to lock on the F-16s with long range BVR AAMs

The PAF did not have BVR capability at the time
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19227
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by NRao »

Manish_P wrote:@Philip
The old MIG-29 was a better WVR aircraft than the F-16,wetsern sources and even Paki F-16s shied off facing IAF MIG-29s at Kargil
Ironically that was probably more due to the IAF MiG 29s being able to lock on the F-16s with long range BVR AAMs

The PAF did not have BVR capability at the time
Logic generates noise and cannot be heard. Do not expect to go too far.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Karan M »

^^ "Debating" with Philip is like talking to a vuvuzela. Russian is great, Indian sux. Russian is great. Rinse, lather, repeat.

...
Meanwhile with the original R-77 a failure, wonder what the status is for fixing the issue, apart from the Astra.
SIPRI says 500 R-77s were purchased in 2011. Hopefully the upgraded, more reliable variants than the original batch of 1000.

meanwhile one interesting snippet. Mk-2 is apparently also in tests for the Astra. the original astra is planned for dec 2016.
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi ... /astra.pdf
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by srai »

Karan M wrote:...
SIPRI says 500 R-77s were purchased in 2011. Hopefully the upgraded, more reliable variants than the original batch of 1000.
...
Those are for MiG-29K I think based on the timelines. There are other AAM/AGM bought around the same period which were soon after the MiG-29K induction.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Philip »

That seems to be the IAF's refrain too! After all it is the IAF that has ordered 272+ MKIs,upgrades to the 60+ 29s fro just unbder $1B when 40+ M2Ks is costing us $2.5B by comparison.The IAF also took the vintage MIG-21,the mainstay of the IAF for decades, to Bison std. which drew huge praise from the ahem....USAF when they exercised with us!

The recent orders for MIG-29s and MIG-35s by Egypt from Russia demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and attractiveness of the aircraft. Others see in it what a few on BRF do not.More's the pity.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by shiv »

Tweet from Shiv Aroor says the Apache and Chinook deals have been signed.

I can't comment on the Apache - but I think the Chinook is a good choice.

Typically the Yanks will supply these machines double quick.
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3118
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by JTull »

Chinook is a fantastic machine. The biggest advantage it has is high availability.

I'm more concerned with delays in C-17 follow-on order. And LCA-Mk1 (A?).
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by brar_w »

JTull wrote:Chinook is a fantastic machine. The biggest advantage it has is high availability.

I'm more concerned with delays in C-17 follow-on order. And LCA-Mk1 (A?).
Both the Chinook and the Apache have tracked fairly well to the Peacetime Mission readiness rates even in combat deployments in Afghanistan, despite these aircrafts flying at something like 3 times the peacetime sortie rates. The Chinook fell below the peacetime required MA rates for a brief while before recovering but the AH-64D continued to exceed the requirements, and these were not all new aircraft obviously and were for global deployments. The AH-64E or D blk.III has measures that should benefit Mission availability and impact readiness in a positive fashion.

I don't think there is any C-17 remaining to sell. There was one that was available around June but it may also have been accounted for by now.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Karan M »

srai wrote:
Karan M wrote:...
SIPRI says 500 R-77s were purchased in 2011. Hopefully the upgraded, more reliable variants than the original batch of 1000.
...
Those are for MiG-29K I think based on the timelines. There are other AAM/AGM bought around the same period which were soon after the MiG-29K induction.
Could very well be. Given the state of the MiG-29k fleet though, perhaps IN may donate them to IAF which may well say "no thanks". :roll: :lol:
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Karan M »

shiv wrote:Tweet from Shiv Aroor says the Apache and Chinook deals have been signed.

I can't comment on the Apache - but I think the Chinook is a good choice.

Typically the Yanks will supply these machines double quick.
Apache is also a darn good choice. Hopefully we can do some nifty ISR tricks with it by acquiring additional assets in the future.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... fghanistan

For stuff like Longewala, we have some new tricks now. Hopefully we figure out a way to datalink information from our Apaches to the Rudra WSIs and LCHs.
In 1998, the AH64Dcame into service. It was even deadlier; 400 per cent more lethal (hitting more targets) and 720 per cent more survivable than its predecessor. The most significant addition was the state of the art Longbow Radar which could operate in all weathers, day or night, simultaneously detect 1,024 potential targets, moving or static, up to eight kilometres away, classify the top 256 and display the sixteen most threatening for destruction – all in three seconds. Twenty-one seconds later, every one of those targets could be destroyed by a single Apache’s Hellfire. A squadron of eight AH64Ds working in unison could terminate 128 tanks in twenty-eight seconds”
The Apaches are exceeding their planned flight hours by 20-30%, and Aviation Week Ares reports external link that British Apache Longbows are using the radars for a variety of roles. The Longbows can act as aerial coordinators, using their radars to keep track of other helicopters, jets, and UAVs in their airspace – especially at night. They also sweep large areas of desert terrain, and on at least one occasion the radar’s ability to penetrate dust and other obscurement helped the pilot talk a CH-47 Chinook onto a landing zone, after the Chinook pilot’s night vision goggles had become useless.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/afg ... 4ds-04289/

Significant force multiplier. Knowing the IAF, they will probably be teaching the Yanks on some new ways to use this chopper in a few years time.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by brar_w »

Posting this again given the recent developments. This video explains some of the changes made from the block I and II Ah-64D to the block III evolution. Block III Delta is now the Echo variant.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Cosmo_R »

^^^"A squadron of eight AH64Ds working in unison could terminate 128 tanks in twenty-eight seconds”

If that's true, what is the case for tanks in the IA?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Karan M »

^^ Only if the Ah-64Es are not brought low by ambushes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala

Point is choppers alone are not a panacea. They can bring superb capabilities to the fight, but can be countered as well. Their big advantage is mobility. For specific situations where IA is caught off guard (eg Longewala type stuff) they can be a huge plus. Or operate in combination with tanks!
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by abhik »

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^"A squadron of eight AH64Ds working in unison could terminate 128 tanks in twenty-eight seconds”
Yes, just like a squadron of MKIs will shoot the entire Paki AF out of the sky. Through results may vary onlee.

"420% increase in lethality, 786% increase in survivability" made me :rotfl: . American propagandu need to become more sophisticated.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by rohitvats »

Karan M wrote:<SNIP> Or operate in combination with tanks!
The squadron of Mi-35 in Suratgarh operates in conjunction with II Corps. The one sitting in Pathankot takes care of the sensitive Gurdaspur-Pathankot-Sambha belt. The beauty of helicopters is that the firepower can be shifted from one theater to another quickly and concentrated on the objective.

Pathankot is home to two independent armored brigades. I studied there. You've to see to believe the kind of low level flying Mi-35 guys used to do. Making use of every feature and aspect of the terrain. Have you seen the typical very tall stand-alone water tanks in cantonments? Well, imagine a Mi-35 popping out from behind it and flying straight at you but no more than 30 feet from the ground!

The cantonment is build on an undulating hill with gradient increasing as you go north (towards Dalhousie)...on good days, we would find ourselves overlooking the Hinds flying at a level LOWER than our vantage point! They used to take this 'nallah' to reach a pop up point below the hill crest (you could not see them from other side of the hill) and and then suddenly spring out of nowhere, make a high speed dash and then peel off and duck cover again behind another hill.

These fellows use to practice regularly with tanks from these brigades. It is a sight to behold! Such a huge machine flying so low over you. There was this one time when they scrapped the antennae of an Officer's Mess next to our school.

Same was the case with Mig-21s and especially, the Jaguar. Come exercise season and you'd see flights of Jaguars flying absolutely low while trying to hit a dummy targets (the Pathankot AFS, I think). You could clearly make out the outline of the pilots upper torso and his oxygen mask!

We'd know when exercises were being conducted and used to sit on roof-top of our house for hours trying to get glimpse of these magnificent jets. You could clearly make out the jets trying to mask the radar by flying below the hill crest line.

Many a times the Mi-35 chaps used to land at the Army Golf Course helipad after their bit of flying around (I think to talk to the guys in Black Dungaree) and we used to rush in our bicycles to have a look and feel of the giant helicopter. It was an amazing feeling peeping inside of the cockpit and generally walking around the chopper.

There are some pleasures only Army/Service life can give. Like sitting inside the cabin of radar controlled L-70 gun and using the joystick (or, control stick) to move the cursor and point the guns towards overflying Mig-21s or Mi-35. Or, taking a ride in Arjun tank when they first joined the 43rd Armored Regiment.

What a childhood that was!
Last edited by rohitvats on 28 Sep 2015 23:01, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by brar_w »

He's probably talking about purely the number of targets engaged and the stand off ranges allowed by the radar, essentially how stand-off can you get with the longbow compared to the older version that lacked it. Its an author's opinion and probably based on simple math taking into account the different forms of targeting available with the longbow etc. Of course it isn't 4 or 7 times more lethal or survivable in all contexts compared to the A but it will under the right circumstances get you many times the targets from many times the distance compared to the A..

The book to read on the AH-64's combat performance is Jonathan Bernstein's AH-64 Apache Units of Operations Enduring Freedom & Iraqi Freedom. I had posted a pdf of it a while back here. The Apache like any other attack helicopter would require the right tactics and support to be effective against all sorts of threats in all sorts of scenario.

Edit: Here's a link to Bernstein's book - http://docdro.id/XtbdLiG
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Sep 2015 02:45, edited 2 times in total.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by rohitvats »

^^^That is why the Indian Armored Divisions have organic ZSU-23-4 and Tungushka AA/AA+Missile self propelled platforms.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Cosmo_R »

Karan M wrote:^^ Only if the Ah-64Es are not brought low by ambushes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala

Point is choppers alone are not a panacea. They can bring superb capabilities to the fight, but can be countered as well. Their big advantage is mobility. For specific situations where IA is caught off guard (eg Longewala type stuff) they can be a huge plus. Or operate in combination with tanks!
I guess what I am trying get is the mix of attack choppers and tanks. If our objective is purely defensive (stop the paki armored thrust) and the destruction of enemy assets, choppers seem to be better bet given mobility and the reach and quantity of their firepower. OTOH, if we want to hold territory...
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Karthik S »

Guys, when we are going to get our own LCH, why are we investing in Apaches?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Karan M »

abhik wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:^^^"A squadron of eight AH64Ds working in unison could terminate 128 tanks in twenty-eight seconds”
Yes, just like a squadron of MKIs will shoot the entire Paki AF out of the sky. Through results may vary onlee.

"420% increase in lethality, 786% increase in survivability" made me :rotfl: . American propagandu need to become more sophisticated.
What about Russian propagandu then?
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison- ... u30-1.html
>In terms of maximum aerodynamic efficiency, the Su-30MKI, like all Su-27-family aircraft, is unparalleled in the world and outperforms the above foreign counterparts by at least 50 to 100 percent.
>However, according to preliminary assessments, the Su-30MKI’s supermaneuverability gives it a 30-percent superiority over its competitors in close air combat. Aircraft multiple capabilities put into the forefront the problem of effective weapon employment.
>Aircraft combat capabilities are usually assessed using complex efficiency indicators defining aircraft overall performance. According to preliminary estimates, in long-range air combat, the Su-30MKI outperforms the F-16C Block 60, F-16C Block 50 and F-18E/F aircraft by 15, 20 and 12-15 percent, respectively, owing to its radar’s greater detection range, higher jamming immunity and multichannel capability, as well as better maneuverability.
>The Su-30MKI’s supermaneuverability and better air-to-air missiles give this aircraft superiority in close air combat in which it excels the F-16C Block 50 by 10-15 percent, F-16C Block 60 by 20-30 percent (as the high wing loading significantly limits its maneuverability in close-range combat), and F-18E/F by 15-20 percent.
Common sense clearly suggests they are comparing the Ah-64variant to its prior versions.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Karan M »

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:<SNIP> Or operate in combination with tanks!
The squadron of Mi-35 in Suratgarh operates in conjunction with II Corps. The one sitting in Pathankot takes care of the sensitive Gurdaspur-Pathankot-Sambha belt. The beauty of helicopters is that the firepower can be shifted from one theater to another quickly and concentrated on the objective.

Pathankot is home to two independent armored brigades. I studied there. You've to see to believe the kind of low level flying Mi-35 guys used to do. Making use of every feature and aspect of the terrain. Have you seen the typical very tall stand-alone water tanks in cantonments? Well, imagine a Mi-35 popping out from behind it and flying straight at you but no more than 30 feet from the ground!

The cantonment is build on an undulating hill with gradient increasing as you go north (towards Dalhousie)...on good days, we would find ourselves overlooking the Hinds flying at a level LOWER than our vantage point! They used to take this 'nallah' to reach a pop up point below the hill crest (you could not see them from other side of the hill) and and then suddenly spring out of nowhere, make a high speed dash and then peel off and duck cover again behind another hill.

These fellows use to practice regularly with tanks from these brigades. It is a sight to behold! Such a huge machine flying so low over you. There was this one time when they scrapped the antennae of an Officer's Mess next to our school.

Same was the case with Mig-21s and especially, the Jaguar. Come exercise season and you'd see flights of Jaguars flying absolutely low while trying to hit a dummy targets (the Pathankot AFS, I think). You could clearly make out the outline of the pilots upper torso and his oxygen mask!

We'd know when exercises were being conducted and used to sit on roof-top of our house for hours trying to get glimpse of these magnificent jets. You could clearly make out the jets trying to mask the radar by flying below the hill crest line.

Many a times the Mi-35 chaps used to land at the Army Golf Course helipad after their bit of flying around (I think to talk to the guys in Black Dungaree) and we used to rush in our bicycles to have a look and feel of the giant helicopter. It was an amazing feeling peeping inside of the cockpit and generally walking around the chopper.

There are some pleasures only Army/Service life can give. Like sitting inside the cabin of radar controlled L-70 gun and using the joystick (or, control stick) to move the cursor and point the guns towards overflying Mig-21s or Mi-35. Or, taking a ride in Arjun tank when they first joined the 43rd Armored Regiment.

What a childhood that was!
Wow!! How low did the Jags and MiGs fly? Were they at 30 ft too? Anazing post.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by srai »

Karthik S wrote:Guys, when we are going to get our own LCH, why are we investing in Apaches?
Didn't you get the memo ;)
... [it is] even deadlier; 400 per cent more lethal (hitting more targets) and 720 per cent more survivable than its predecessor. The most significant addition was the state of the art Longbow Radar which could operate in all weathers, day or night, simultaneously detect 1,024 potential targets, moving or static, up to eight kilometres away, classify the top 256 and display the sixteen most threatening for destruction – all in three seconds. Twenty-one seconds later, every one of those targets could be destroyed by a single Apache’s Hellfire. A squadron of eight AH64Ds working in unison could terminate 128 tanks in twenty-eight seconds”
How can LCH compete against such numbers ;)
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Philip »

All attack helos will face withering fire from anti-air integral defences of ground forces,SAMs,arty,MANPADS as well as MBT defences.Remember our losses at Kargil.US/NATO helo losses in Af-Pak useful stas.Only tough beasts like A-10s,SU-25s-why the're being sent to Syria,will have the capability to survive the hail of fire from the ground. Attack helos are needed in large numbers and even utility helos like MI-17s,Dhruvs,etc. must have some sort of weaponry when pressed into action.Enjoy this.Pl send it to DM MP!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ingle.html
Chop the Chopper
The Army's Apache attack-helicopter had a bad wa
r.
By Fred Kaplan

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is gearing up for his next war—not with the Syrians or the North Koreans but with the hidebound generals of the U.S. Army. These are the generals who criticized Rumsfeld's battle plan while Gulf War II was still raging and who beat back his efforts, over the past few years, to "transform" the Army into a lighter, lither fighting force. With Rumsfeld's star rising and the generals' tarnished, he can be expected to mount a new offensive on their bureaucratic turf at the first opportunity.

He might want to start by junking the Army's attack helicopter. The current version, the AH-64D Apache Longbow, is in many ways a vast improvement over earlier models, but it is still too dangerous to the pilots who fly it and not dangerous enough to the enemy it's designed to attack.
Fred Kaplan Fred Kaplan

Fred Kaplan is the author of The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War and 1959: The Year Everything Changed.

The U.S. Army's only disastrous operation in Gulf War II (at least the only one we know about) took place on March 24, when 33 Apache helicopters were ordered to move out ahead of the 3rd Infantry Division and to attack an Iraqi Republican Guard regiment in the suburbs of Karbala. Meeting heavy fire from small arms and shoulder-mounted rocket-propelled grenades, the Apaches flew back to base, 30 of them shot up, several disablingly so. One helicopter was shot down in the encounter, and its two crewmen were taken prisoner.

After that incident, Apaches were used more cautiously—on reconnaissance missions or for firing at small groups of armored vehicles. Rarely if ever did they penetrate far beyond the front line of battle, out in front of U.S. ground troops or without the escort of fixed-wing aircraft flying far overhead.

Shortly afterward, when a speech by Saddam Hussein was broadcast over Iraqi television, some armchair commentators observed that the speech was probably live, or at least very recent, because he referred to the downing of an Apache. In fact, that proved nothing. If one thing could have been predicted before the war started, it was that an Apache would be shot down.

Last year, during the Afghanistan war, seven Apaches were flown in to attack Taliban fighters as part of Operation Anaconda. They all got shot up, again by RPGs and machine-gun fire. None crashed, but five were so damaged they were declared "non-mission-capable"—in other words, unable to go back into combat without extensive repair—after the first day.

In the 1999 air war over Kosovo, 24 Apache helicopters were transported to the allied base in Albania. Their arrival was anticipated by many officers and analysts as a turning point in the war. Yet, within days, two choppers crashed during training exercises. Commanders decided not to send any of them into battle; the risk of losing them to Serbian surface-to-air missiles was considered too great. :rotfl:

Attack helicopters have always been troublesome. The U.S. Army lost over 5,000 helicopters in the Vietnam War. (Nor is this a uniquely American problem: The Soviets lost hundreds of Hind helicopters to mujahideen firing shoulder-launched Stinger missiles during their Afghan venture.)

This sorry chronicle raises the question: Why did the Army build helicopters in the first place?

It all goes back to the end of World War II, when the Air Force became an independent service of the armed forces. (Before and during the war, air forces were a branch of the Army.) In its first few years of independence, the Air Force became involved in tumultuous budget battles with the other services. Finally, in April 1948, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal called a meeting with the service chiefs in Key West, Fla., where they divvied up "roles and missions." The emerging document was called the Key West Agreement. An informal understanding that grew out of the accord was that the Air Force (and, to an extent, the Navy) would have a monopoly on fixed-wing combat planes.

The Key West Agreement specified that one mission of the Air Force would be close air support for Army troops on the battlefield. However, it soon became clear that the Air Force generals—enamored of the A-bomb and then the H-bomb—had no interest in this task. To their minds, the next war would be a nuclear war. Armies would play no serious role, so why divert airplanes to giving them cover?

The Army realized it would have to provide its own air support. Blocked from building its own fixed-wing planes, it built rotary-wing planes (or, in civilian parlance, helicopters). And it built thousands of them.

During the Vietnam War, the Air Force's reluctance—at times refusal—to provide close air support became a grave problem. Congressional hearings were held on the lack of any airplane dedicated to that mission. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara briefly brought a wing of the Navy's late-'40s A-1 fighter bombers out of mothballs to take up some of the slack.

Finally, the Army got bold and began research and development on a hybrid aircraft, a bizarre-looking fixed-wing helicopter called the Cheyenne.

McNamara killed the Cheyenne before it got off the ground, but meanwhile, an Air Force general named Richard Yudkin was furious about the Army's maneuver. He saw it as an infringement of the Key West Agreement and a raid on the Air Force's share of the budget. In response, he initiated the Air Force's very first dedicated close-air-support attack plane called the A-X, which grew into the A-10.

Yudkin was a bit of a rebel within the Air Force. The establishment generals (who, by the early '70s, were still dominated by the nuclear-bomber crowd) hated the idea of the A-X for the same reason they hated the close-air-support mission: It had nothing to do with the Air Force's bigger, more glamorous roles. Yudkin couldn't even get the Air Force R & D directorate to work on the project, so he set up his own staff to do it.

The A-10 rolled onto the tarmac in 1976. The brass still hated the thing. It survived only because of pork-barrel politics—it was built by Fairchild Industries in Bethpage, Long Island, home district of Rep. Joseph Addabbo, who was chairman of the House appropriations' defense subcommittee. The plan was to build 850 of the planes. By 1986, when Addabbo died, Fairchild had built just 627, and the program came to a crashing halt. No more A-10s were ordered, and 197 of those in existence were transferred to the Air National Guard and allowed to rot.

When the first Gulf War was being planned in 1990, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the chief of U.S. Central Command, had to fight the Air Force to send over a mere 174 A-10s for his use. Yet in the course of the war, those A-10s knocked out roughly half of the 1,700 Iraqi tanks that were destroyed from the air, as well as several hundred armored personnel carriers and self-propelled artillery guns. They also conducted search and rescue operations, blew up roads and bridges, and hunted for Scuds.

Even the Air Force brass had to admit the planes had done a good job, and they kept them in the fleet. (They had planned on replacing all of them with modified F-16s.) Though the statistics aren't yet in, the A-10s seemed to do well in Gulf War II, especially now that the Army, Air Force, and Marines are more inclined to coordinate their battle plans.

The A-10 is an unsightly, lumbering beast of a plane. (It's commonly called the Warthog.) It flies low and slow, but its cockpit is made of titanium; it can be shot up very badly, all over, and still not crash. It was the only plane that the Desert Storm air commanders dared fly at under 15,000 feet. Its GAU-8 gun can fire 3,900 rounds of 30 mm armor-piercing ammo per minute. It can also fire Maverick air-to-ground missiles.

So here's a suggestion for Donald Rumsfeld: Deep-six the Apache, and restart the A-10.
Guys,don't we see a similar pattern here as well? The IAF and IA often at loggerheads about close air support.Even FM Sam M.spoke about it after the '71 war. Our current top brass in the IAF sneer at attempts at creating "mini-air forces",but the hard truth has to be faced,that helos are vulnerable to the ever-increasing sophistication of air defences.Even NATO/Western fighters reduced low level attacks against Iraq after 6 Tornados bit the dust. Either the IA gets its own dedicated close support aircraft,or the IAF bites the bullet and acquires the same,to be dedicated for support of ground troops at the call of the IA commanders in the field. Have the Indian armed forces/MOD learnt these lessons from the two GWars?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Post by Philip »

PS:From a well known def analyst.
I am at my wits end to understand any of these procurements...the Apache is a gold plated machine that will kill the IAF. you're right, we should have gone in for an A-10 type of aircraft
Locked