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: 19679
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 06 Jan 2019 17:09

Unbeilevable situ! What on earth is happening in the MOD? Has the defence budget gone south od what? How can the IAF not pay HAL?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1681
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby nam » 06 Jan 2019 17:25

Frankly a non issue. Iaf a goi arm, did not pay hal, another goi arm, who then went to get loan from a PSU bank, another goi arm.

The customer is GOI, the producer is GOI, profit maker is GOI.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2271
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby abhik » 07 Jan 2019 09:51

HAL is a publicly listed company, not sure if it can be called a "GoI arm". And as pointed out in the article it will soon be the MSME suppliers that will suffer. I expect the congies to ask if there were any delays in making payments for Rafale, and by extension to Mr. Ambani - it will nicely tie in with the ongoing 1Lac crore HAL Non-Order-Order controversy.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3707
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JayS » 07 Jan 2019 15:53

abhik wrote:HAL is a publicly listed company, not sure if it can be called a "GoI arm". And as pointed out in the article it will soon be the MSME suppliers that will suffer. I expect the congies to ask if there were any delays in making payments for Rafale, and by extension to Mr. Ambani - it will nicely tie in with the ongoing 1Lac crore HAL Non-Order-Order controversy.

Don't give them ideas.. :wink:

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6221
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby nachiket » 09 Jan 2019 06:28

Dileep wrote:You millennials!!! :lol:
We inherited a lot of British legacy, and just kept them because those were for the advantage for those in power. Denying free and open communication to the masses was definitely a concern.

Use of radio receivers was one of those, and they were regulated by a license. You need to go to the big post office in town to buy stamps and stick them on the license book. The radio could be confiscated and you put in jail if you operate the radio without a license. They were de regulated in the seventies. First two band radios were deregulated and later all receivers.

The same security argument was used when telephones were deregulated. I am not talking about cell phones. The simply STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialing. The facility to directly dial a phone number in another town) was seriously opposed.

:shock:
I am frankly embarrassed that this is the first time I've heard of this.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3748
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby sanjaykumar » 09 Jan 2019 09:36

To be fair radio licences were only phased out in 1971 in Britain. They were ostensibly to fund radio programming unlike advertisements in the US

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7025
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 09 Jan 2019 09:55

Philip wrote:Get both.C-295 new-gen birds and upgrade as many airworthy AVROs.The IAF's logistic capability increases proportionate to the threat from the Sino- Pak axis.
" All hands to the pump", is an old saying.In a crisis even civil birds are utilised for troop movements. Old crocks still have their potential, but this should not be a devious move to scuttle the Tata- Airbus JV in the pvt. sector.DPSUs are scared sh*tless of being exposed by more competitive and productive pvt. sector majors.

I agree. But, frankly the C295 has gone NOWHERE!!!

Under the current situation, modernizing the 748s make perfect sense. With modern engines, avionics and cockpit, the Avros can serve us well. They have rough field and STOL capability from Day 1 which could be great for the advanced landing strips. Although it looks nice to land IL-78s and C-17s at these ALGs, their operations cannot be sustained from these strips. The strip itself takes a beating after very few landings of these heavies. The logistics to handle such large aircraft is not present. Lighter aircrafts with rough field capabilities like the 748s are ideal. The only problem is Avro's cargo doors which don't allow access from ground. IAF has flagged this one of the prime reasons for non-utilization of these assets. The intial Andover prototypes were modified from existing 748s. Can HAL do the same for all the 748s in our inventory (with or without BAe consultancy). IMHO, these are the incremental projects that ideal for HAL's budding designers. It will have immense practical use.

Also these are perfect for the Indian Navy/Coast guard medium maritime patrol aircraft. Between HAL (maritime Do-228s) and CABS (Netra's sensor placement experience), they have the ability to come up with this aircraft in 5 years.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63959
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 09 Jan 2019 10:10

do you mean our hs748 lacks the cargo door?

Image

how much of paylaod/people can it take into a ALG? more than AN32 which has advantage of oversized engine to our high alt need?

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2271
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby abhik » 09 Jan 2019 10:32

JayS wrote:
abhik wrote:HAL is a publicly listed company, not sure if it can be called a "GoI arm". And as pointed out in the article it will soon be the MSME suppliers that will suffer. I expect the congies to ask if there were any delays in making payments for Rafale, and by extension to Mr. Ambani - it will nicely tie in with the ongoing 1Lac crore HAL Non-Order-Order controversy.

Don't give them ideas.. :wink:

lol as expected the clown prince has tweeted out the same, this was full toss ball waiting to be smashed out of the park for a six. ToI has almost half a page dedicated to this story - apparently HAL did a stock buyback of 6k a couple years back apart from paying huge dividends every year. Conspicuously there is no explanation from the government. At this rate Tejas Mk1A deal may not get signed, or alteast no payment made before the elections.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7025
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 09 Jan 2019 11:28

The Andovers have a cargo ramp. The 748s (in IAF) have oversized cargo doors at the rear. To load through this door efficiently, one has to use pallet handlers which may not be present at ALGs.

Image

The new engines that HAL is seeking would give the 748s similar payload capability as the 32s. The ALGs are actually not at very high altitudes.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Arun.prabhu » 09 Jan 2019 20:39

I suspect IAF is feeling the pinch. As I'd stated before, spending too much on a few aircraft will impact everything. Will INR being weak and everything else, this is to be expected.

Philip wrote:Unbeilevable situ! What on earth is happening in the MOD? Has the defence budget gone south od what? How can the IAF not pay HAL?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19679
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 09 Jan 2019 23:56

Yes.AVROs without rear ramps will be more difficult to handle large cargo than our AN-32s and other aircraft with rear ramps capable of carrying light vehicles.AVROs wod be best as troop transports, para- dropping,, etc.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 392
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Haridas » 10 Jan 2019 12:50

Philip wrote:Yes.AVROs without rear ramps will be more difficult to handle large cargo than our AN-32s and other aircraft with rear ramps capable of carrying light vehicles.AVROs wod be best as troop transports, para- dropping,, etc.

Low set tail plane makes it very risky for paradropping.
Otoh, I believe it's a presurrized cabin.
Also I think tail ramp is structurally possible. Albeit fuselage is too high (that is the reason it's tail conic is not chopped slant, as at max AOA tail is too high to risk touching runway. Very unlike AN12, 32, IL76, C17, Caribou )

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7025
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 10 Jan 2019 19:35

HAridasji, you are right. You are actually describing the differences between the 748 and the Andover. Hence, my suggestion.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3808
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby deejay » 10 Jan 2019 20:07

Haridas wrote:
Philip wrote:Yes.AVROs without rear ramps will be more difficult to handle large cargo than our AN-32s and other aircraft with rear ramps capable of carrying light vehicles.AVROs wod be best as troop transports, para- dropping,, etc.

Low set tail plane makes it very risky for paradropping.
Otoh, I believe it's a presurrized cabin.
Also I think tail ramp is structurally possible. Albeit fuselage is too high (that is the reason it's tail conic is not chopped slant, as at max AOA tail is too high to risk touching runway. Very unlike AN12, 32, IL76, C17, Caribou )


Sir, from what I know, the HS 748, the cg is too far forward to encourage rare ramp ops. From memory, cabin tube seemed narrower than "anna battis" and is considerably slower. My flight from Guwahati to Kolkata on an AVRO (long back) was 03 hrs plus. Anna battis (AN 32) has a great short field performance. I don't know about that viz. AVRO.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1124
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Gyan » 11 Jan 2019 12:58

Our Avros, An-32s, IL-76 have huge amount of service life left and C-17 are underutilized. We need to concentrate on buying spares & setting up hangers and maintenance facilities rather than new acquisitions

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7025
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 14 Jan 2019 10:55

deejay wrote:
Haridas wrote:Low set tail plane makes it very risky for paradropping.
Otoh, I believe it's a presurrized cabin.
Also I think tail ramp is structurally possible. Albeit fuselage is too high (that is the reason it's tail conic is not chopped slant, as at max AOA tail is too high to risk touching runway. Very unlike AN12, 32, IL76, C17, Caribou )


Sir, from what I know, the HS 748, the cg is too far forward to encourage rare ramp ops. From memory, cabin tube seemed narrower than "anna battis" and is considerably slower. My flight from Guwahati to Kolkata on an AVRO (long back) was 03 hrs plus. Anna battis (AN 32) has a great short field performance. I don't know about that viz. AVRO.

Hi Deejay,

Always a pleasure to discuss things with the knowledgeable.

1. I have not heard about the CG problem. There may be truth to it. But that is easily fixable if the empennage is going to be remodeled. Anyways, adding the ramp and its mechanism is going to add weight to the back.
2. The HS748 was designed for rough field and STOL performance from day one. That was the selling point of the Avro. The very first deliveries to South American and African countries. In fact, the the STOL features of the 748 and the 32 are very similar. Long wing, single long slotted flap, engine exhaust over the wing, etc.
3. The speed will not be a problem after the new engine-propeller fix. If they go for a 5 blade propeller, which I highly suspect will be the case, then won't need to move the engine mount. The later was the case with the Andover, which gave rise to a lot of changes.
4. I think the second source of major changes between the Andover and the HS748 was the kneeling LGs. I don't think that is needed either. When the fuselage ramp is open, it need not reach the ground. The difference of a few feet can be made up with a small ground based ramp.
5. A total of 9 HS748s were modified to the Andover variant, so it is certainly possible.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 392
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Haridas » 14 Jan 2019 12:03

deejay wrote:Sir, from what I know, the HS 748, the cg is too far forward to encourage rare ramp ops. From memory, cabin tube seemed narrower than "anna battis" and is considerably slower. My flight from Guwahati to Kolkata on an AVRO (long back) was 03 hrs plus. Anna battis (AN 32) has a great short field performance. I don't know about that viz. AVRO.


NSS Avro at Begumpet were most accesible to get near and into. Not to mention hours & days watching the beauty from my home window just 200 m away. From my reading the IAF Avero manuals back in 1976, it was perpaps the only IAF transport A/C with a a radar (weather radar), the turbo prop's jet component of thrust was iirc 440 kg each, constant RPM turbine engine.

I was quite impressed with its takeoff acceleration flying from Chandigarh to Dilli on an Indian Airlines flight back around 1989. Yes fuselage is narrow. Unlike Superconnie or the fatty IL76.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3707
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JayS » 14 Jan 2019 14:19

Indranil wrote:
deejay wrote:
Sir, from what I know, the HS 748, the cg is too far forward to encourage rare ramp ops. From memory, cabin tube seemed narrower than "anna battis" and is considerably slower. My flight from Guwahati to Kolkata on an AVRO (long back) was 03 hrs plus. Anna battis (AN 32) has a great short field performance. I don't know about that viz. AVRO.

Hi Deejay,

Always a pleasure to discuss things with the knowledgeable.

1. I have not heard about the CG problem. There may be truth to it. But that is easily fixable if the empennage is going to be remodeled. Anyways, adding the ramp and its mechanism is going to add weight to the back.

Any backward movement of CG will also have to be accompanied by commensurate shift in Center of Lift CL. Wings are not moving anywhere. So all that change will have to come from tail. Its doable theoretically, but in practice it may get into the spiral of "too big tail needed to move the CL but all that weight moves CG further downstream".

PS: Question - Is HS 748 designed for airdrop..? Someone mentioned its pressurized. If its not designed to open doors at altitude mid air, then making it do so would need further structural modifications.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7025
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 14 Jan 2019 16:28

Jay,

We know that this conversion can be done and works quite well. So, I don't think that they need to change the CG too much. The Andover was used for paradrops. No less than Price Charles jumped off it.

The following link has a good video of STOL operations
https://46squadron.org/1966/09/andover-era-abingdon/


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aakashrj, Manish_P, rkhanna and 76 guests