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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19534
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 10 Sep 2018 00:51

It was not gas by the media.The MOD was silent on hhe issue becos there was considerable pressure to hold the tamasha in Lucknow for different reasons.

Media reports.
Sr. officials of the MOD, IAF and local admin. visited Lucknow assessing the amenities there mid- July.What appeared to be the tipping point was
that intl. participants were against such a move as their annual budgeting was from Jan. to Dec.AM Pandey (retd.) said while welcoming the decision, that " you cannot impose a financial burden on them for 2018. They may have had to skip the event if it were held this year".Had participation been poor, the total exercise would've been a flop.Bangalore is the acknowledged aerospace centre of the country with so many desi and firang entities based there and has huge hospitality capability to cater to the huge number of visitors participating and attending the show. Participants reportrdly suffered bad experiences and many inconveniences when DEFEXPO was twice shifted from Delhi to Goa in 2016 and Kancheepuram in 2018.Holding it there is for genuine practical reasons not political.

Our Defexpos and air shows have yet a lot to learn from established shows like Paris, Farnborough, Spore, etc.The BLR air show has incrementally improved over the years, but a lot remains to be improved.In particular the quality of public toilets and catering outlets. Transportation to the show and parking is a nightmare unless you have a VIP pass. Knowing well that BLR is the permanent venue for the air show, infra facilities must be redesigned and executed after a show ends and the feedback from participants is recd.

Any new venue for defexpos requires a few years of advance planning.However, Defexpo which is the Land and Naval expo should find a permanent venue where visits to naval ships and even subs are possible.They could even be split up. You can't have a naval show in Delhi. Goa would be the best permanent location for a Naval expo as GSL is also available to visit .Goa too is the country's most popular international beach tourist destination with a large hotel capacity.

The Land expo can rotate giving a chance for states and cities which have land systems entities to showcase their products.Hyderabad has in the past been the venue for the civil aviation expo.This is one expo that could also rotate as well as the annual auto show.Cities like Pune, Madras, etc. are major auto manufacturing centres and have good infra for the same.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1925
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Bala Vignesh » 11 Sep 2018 19:21

ks_sachin wrote:
To all the air warfare gurus is it possible to

- conceptualise a specific mission into China
- identify the strike package
- identify CAP requirements
- identify refuelling requirements for that specific mission

I feel that there is a lot of "I feel" and "I think" but the lack of aerial refuelling assets would be better highlighted by a case study that could bring this to life. Alas I am not sufficiently competent to address this....


ks_sachin saar,

Taking up the discussion on the aerial refuelling here since continuing this discussion in the Tejas thread would derail it and bring BReaper action on us.

There is a ready-made scenario available for what you are asking in BRF, thanks to those amazing scenarios that Vivek Ahuja used to share here. While I understand that it was a fantasy scenario, the performances of the aircraft and the over capabilities of both the belligerents in the scenarios are pretty close to the truth so we can use that as our starting point, collate all the air action that takes place and based on that generate the tanking demand that is present based on those.


fanne wrote:@singha - We have 272 (-8) SU30MKI to refuel them. Even Mig 29 have buddy refueling. More Midas or whatever is good, but we are covered.
Let's look at the use case, the plane takes off with max fuel and load (one can argue, less fuel and more load, but none of these planes are limited by fuel load to compromise on weapon load), from interior (1- no need to refuel at this point, as it is full), crosses into TSP or TSPF (TSP's friend) territory, (2 -small use case for refueling for fighters that have taken off from hinterland, since near border contested airspace), 3- refueling in hostile airspace - suicidal but needed),coming back from raid (4-in enemy or own territory near border) or way back in own territory -5.

For all cases except 5, I would trust SU30MKI to provide me a-a refueling than a Midas or anything else. Another 6-10 tankers wouldn't hurt, but we are not in that bad shape.

@fanne,

In a conventional symmetric war, I would prefer to have my fighters and strike aircraft available for combat missions instead of being used as a utility platform. They can act these roles in peacetime but not during war. Also the quantum of fuel they can offload to a receiver would be very low. For eg, MKI carries about 7-9 tonnes of fuel internally, depending on the source you take as reference, and doesn't carry a drop tank as far as I know. Even if it offloads 50% of this load, its just 3.5T, which translates to a less than a tonne per bird in a flight of 4. Can you imagine the no of MKI's that would be required to feed a squadrons worth of strike aircraft, aircrafts that can prove much more useful dominating the enemy's airspace or supporting naval operations or just bombing the crap out of the enemy's rear echelons?

mody
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby mody » 12 Sep 2018 16:47

Air India owns 3 Boeing 777LR aircraft which are not used much and are not the most optimum configuration for the B777s. All other B777s with Air India are the 'ER' version.

It would be worth exploring if the same can be converted as refuelling aircrafts for the IAF. It would be a win-win for everyone. Air India would be able to get rid of unwanted planes and IAF, would be able to get cheap planes. The cost of conversion of the planes would haver to be examined.
If the Boing 767 and Airbus A330 can be used, I don't see by the Boeing 777 cannot be used.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1212
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby nam » 12 Sep 2018 17:06

That would work, if IAF will consider anything other than new tankers. I cannot to this day understand how IAF prefers to wait for new tankers.

I presume tankers are not a priority, only new fighter jets are.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35824
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby SaiK » 12 Sep 2018 17:20

Right now the equation still is - Russia doesn't have so we don't have it too. I'm talking about stealth bombers. Thanks to Agni series.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1569
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby manjgu » 12 Sep 2018 19:51

nam : i think India foresees a shooting match with NaPakis only. to tackle napakis , tankers are not such a priority IMHO. Fighter jets are top priority.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 289
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby titash » 12 Sep 2018 19:59

Cross-posting from the Tejas thread.

From the horse's mouth:

IAF is investing heavily in Tejas, looking at 12 squadrons of Tejas Mark-2 after first 123 Mark-1A jets," Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa said.


http://defencebuzz.org/2018/09/rafale-and-s-400-purchase-will-be-critical-to-plug-gaps-in-indian-air-defence-capabilities-air-force-chief-d43f192f-0551-4ed0-ba7d-d256a6c43ae9.html

So the Tejas will ultimately see 40 + 80 + 220 = 350 odd jets. This is the final vindication of our scientists and engineers and even our politicos who kept funding going.
8) 8) 8)

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1686
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Picklu » 12 Sep 2018 20:14

Makes it even more important to get out of GE dependency. Even if that means 10% performance shortfall

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35824
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby SaiK » 12 Sep 2018 21:40

how good is this? some basics compared, but pretty useful (if the data is correct)
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... it=COMPARE

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1212
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby nam » 12 Sep 2018 22:20

manjgu wrote:nam : i think India foresees a shooting match with NaPakis only. to tackle napakis , tankers are not such a priority IMHO. Fighter jets are top priority.


Priority of having fighter jets is fine, however I was referring to IAF's habit of waiting for "new" ones, rather than use existing civilian/ 2 hand jets and converted them. Getting everything new is not always the most economical proposition.

Granted there might be question of airframe life, however there is no enthusiasm shown. It becomes even bizarre when IAF laids down requirement for AWACS with tanker role! ( which is a okay requirement , but indicates a bit of desperation)

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12812
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Lalmohan » 13 Sep 2018 14:13

tankers may need significant structural modifications (quite apart from the plumbing, etc.) which might make it uneconomical to convert a standard passenger version

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 13 Sep 2018 14:56

Anything is better than current situation. Probably only half of Midas are servicable at one time and RFPs/RFQ process is going in circles. I think the Israeli proposal of converting used airframes to tankers should get about a dozen in a very short span of time. In the meantime all 3 services should put their heads together to formulate a 30-40 year plan for their (un)manned fixed wing and heavy heli fleets.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ks_sachin » 13 Sep 2018 15:07

Picklu wrote:Makes it even more important to get out of GE dependency. Even if that means 10% performance shortfall

What does a 10% shortfall in engine performance mean for the aircraft. Are we being a bit glib here?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19534
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 13 Sep 2018 16:31

JT, can't we lease out a few tankers? Addimg more IL-78s of the new upgraded version is the most most-effective; but where's the moolah for AWACS/ AEW and the fighters coming from? A lease could be the answer until we can buy new ones.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby abhik » 13 Sep 2018 21:18

Starting with a used air frame will knock off some $150-200 from the cost, Israel is already offering such a solution (airbus and boeing may be resistant though). The tanker contract has already been cancelled twice, I hope we take the sensible route instead of indefinitely waiting for chi-chi solution that we wont be able to afford.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1686
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Picklu » 13 Sep 2018 21:44

ks_sachin wrote:
Picklu wrote:Makes it even more important to get out of GE dependency. Even if that means 10% performance shortfall

What does a 10% shortfall in engine performance mean for the aircraft. Are we being a bit glib here?


Instead of regular 4000 hrs, MTBF of 3600 hrs for one? Instead of 52 and 81 KN, a thrust of 46 - 73 KN for another? Instead of 1.1 ton, 1.2 ton weight ? You get the drift?

For comparison,

1. m53 in our M2k has 54 - 86 KN thrust but weighs more than 1.5 ton
2. Chinese operational engines have MTBD in 2 digit
3. rd33 has 50-81 KN, "stated life expectancy" 4000 hrs and weighs 1 ton while continue to spew black smoke all over

The aircraft, even with the 10% short fall is going to be quite competitive and more importantly, a "dog" is still better than no "cheeta"

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12812
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Lalmohan » 13 Sep 2018 21:52

not sure... the 10% shortfall could be in all kinds of areas... highly probably that it will be at the margins of performance, where it matters the most
depending on what it is...

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1686
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Picklu » 13 Sep 2018 21:55

Which is better? to have an aircraft with reduced performance or having no aircraft at all since all 324 are down due to sanctions? Even actual sanction won't be required, just threat of it would be enough.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ArjunPandit » 13 Sep 2018 22:21

abhik wrote:Starting with a used air frame will knock off some $150-200 from the cost, Israel is already offering such a solution (airbus and boeing may be resistant though). The tanker contract has already been cancelled twice, I hope we take the sensible route instead of indefinitely waiting for chi-chi solution that we wont be able to afford.

makes sense, but who initiates this process, IAF, MoD or the seller?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 13 Sep 2018 23:20

boeing can convert the 777LR into tanker using much the same tech developed for the 767 pegasus tankers now being built.
but for a small order it wont be cheap. this behemoth tanker would be ideally suited to refuel awacs, NEACP E4, jstars and large bombers....or loiter endlessly in safe zone refueling passing squadrons of planes.

globalsecurity

Both the 777 and 767 commercial jets are assembled at Boeing's plant in Everett, and the tankers also would be built there. Modification work required to turn the base plane into tankers would also be done at the Everett plant on separate tanker-assembly lines. In addition to carrying much more fuel than the KC767, the KC-777 could carry up to 37 cargo pallets, compared with 19 for the 767. The KC-777 also could be converted into a transport for up to 320 passengers, while the 767 could carry only about 200 passengers.

The KC-777 tanker is based on Boeing's new long-range 777-200LR, which entered airline service in 2006. It is the world's longest-range passenger plane. Boeing used the 777-200LR design as the basis for its 777 freighter, which was in development. The development process would take about three years. However, much of the technologies and experiences of creating a tanker from a 767 would be applicable in the case of a KC-777. Also, the commercial freighter version of the 777 had matured, and that also would decrease the developmental risk of converting the 777 to a tanker.

The KC-777 would be 209 feet long with a wingspan of 212 feet, 7 inches. That's the same size as the 777-200LR commercial jet. The KC-777 would be able to carry far more fuel, cargo and passengers than either the KC-767 or the Airbus A330 tanker. The KC-767 offers more operational flexibility, while the KC-777 would be better suited for long-range strategic missions in which more cargo needs to be delivered. The KC-777 would be able to carry more than 350,000 pounds (160,000 kilograms) of fuel and offload more than 220,000 pounds (100,000 kg) of it on a mission of 500 nautical miles (900 kilometers). On the other hand, the KC-767 can lift off with more than 200,000 pounds (90,000 kg) of fuel and offload more than 130,000 pounds (60,000 kg) in a similar mission. The KC-777 would be able to deliver 200 percent more fuel after flying 1,000 nautical miles than older Air Force KC-135s. The KC-777 could carry up to 37 pallets of cargo, compared to the 19 pallets for the KC-767.

Long-range and cargo capacity make the 777 the best tanker option for missions where maximum fuel offload and cargo/passenger capabilities are paramount. The 777 provides extended payload range, strong fuel offload performance and hauling capacity that exceeds 170,000 pounds (77,000 kilograms) of cargo. With its fuel-efficient design, it would excel at supporting global strike and aircraft deployment missions.

The same technology would appear in both a 767 and 777 tanker. The boom operator's station was developed with the boom operator in mind. The station is located near the flight deck and features a third-generation Remote Vision System that provides a 185-degree field of view and offers full control of air refueling. The fly-by-wire boom is fifth-generation; it's compatible with all U.S. Air Force receivers and offers the highest fuel transfer rates available. In addition, wing aerial refueling pod and centerline hose drum technology is all transferable.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 13 Sep 2018 23:21

Philip wrote:JT, can't we lease out a few tankers? Addimg more IL-78s of the new upgraded version is the most most-effective; but where's the moolah for AWACS/ AEW and the fighters coming from? A lease could be the answer until we can buy new ones.


Midas pods came from Israel so what you're proposing is exactly the same as Israeli offer using pre-owned 767s but with a different airframe. I'd prefer the 767 route as we're less likely to run into issues with spares. Leasing is a difficult proposition if the airframe owner in Russia has to source the pods from Israel first. It will require very long-term lease to offset upfront costs, negating any gains. Besides, I doubt Russians will guarantee 80+% availability rates which a lease would entail.

abhik wrote:Starting with a used air frame will knock off some $150-200 from the cost, Israel is already offering such a solution (airbus and boeing may be resistant though). The tanker contract has already been cancelled twice, I hope we take the sensible route instead of indefinitely waiting for chi-chi solution that we wont be able to afford.


Airbus wouldn't mind as they are not having any luck anyway. Once IAF gets some used airframes, they are likely to continue down that route (unless it's IL-76/78) 8) .
Boeing is attempting to block Israeli offer as they feel they've better chance in a direct Govt to Govt deal.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3191
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Sep 2018 02:35

Apologies if this was posted before, but this is crazy :shock:

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/iaf-chief-b-s-dhanoa-says-social-media-addiction-leads-to-lack-of-sleep-among-pilots-1916727?pfrom=home-livetv


HQ always thought BR was addictive...

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5577
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Rakesh » 15 Sep 2018 05:03

Cain Marko wrote:Apologies if this was posted before, but this is crazy :shock:

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/iaf-chief-b-s-dhanoa-says-social-media-addiction-leads-to-lack-of-sleep-among-pilots-1916727?pfrom=home-livetv


HQ always thought BR was addictive...

Most HQ - mine included - feel the same. Perhaps they might start a forum of their own :lol:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 15 Sep 2018 06:57

We should go for the kc46 767 new build tankers if we want new
In parallel pickup some 10/100 older 767 airframes and get them
Converted

The old days of 45 min sorties are long gone

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 15 Sep 2018 07:38

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/iaf-chi ... ome-livetv

social media driven sleep deprivation caused crash in 2013

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 15 Sep 2018 08:09

this video proves the Mi17v is better than SH60 for roping and egress - note how many paras are exiting at same time.

https://www.facebook.com/shatrujeet009/ ... 59455/?t=6

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19534
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 15 Sep 2018 09:52

The MI-8/17 is a classic.It has proven itself over decades and was the most sought after med. multi-role helo in the Afghan conflict used by NATO forces.That we operate over 150 of the type is a testament to its superb qualities.Another batch is supposedly being asked for.
My only angst on this issue is why with so many inducted we never thought of setting up assemby/ indigenisation of the type in India, when we've manufactured over a thousand of Ru aircraft. Opportunity missed.
Last edited by Philip on 15 Sep 2018 17:10, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 15 Sep 2018 13:49

Singha wrote:this video proves the Mi17v is better than SH60 for roping and egress - note how many paras are exiting at same time.

The Mi-17 is a different class of rotorcraft being about 50% larger. It’s American analogue would be the S-92.

The Russian analogue to the SH-60 on the other hand is the Ka-27.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, Kakarat, ParGha, Truthseeker and 43 guests