Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

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.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6836
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nachiket » 30 Dec 2017 02:23

titash wrote:


So looks like the last of the non-upgraded MiG-27s are gone. I always wondered why the MiG-23/27 was the first to go...even before the much older MiG-21s and the Jags which frankly are at least 10 years older. Is it because the swing wing was always a maintenance hog? Or because the Tumansky R-29 turbojet was just too expensive to maintain and/or unreliable and/or fuel-guzzling?

Garus - any insights?

Reliability issues with the engine + maintenance costs and some spares issues as per my knowledge. The Mig-23 case was slightly different than the 27 though. The MF interceptor version was the first to go because we had better options available and the Mig-23 wasn't exactly the F-16 counterpart that the IAF had hoped for when it was initially bought. The BN ground attack version was superseded by the Mig-27ML. The Mig-23 didn't have a good safety record either.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Surya » 30 Dec 2017 02:54

nachiket wrote:Reliability issues with the engine + maintenance costs and some spares issues as per my knowledge..


And HAL all tied up in Su 30 MKI and other things

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1980
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 30 Dec 2017 09:07

Surya wrote:And HAL all tied up in Su 30 MKI and other things

What has HAL got to do with this, suryaji?? Their manufacturing and overhaul divisions are separate entities not tied to each other. Let's not bash HAL just for the sake of it.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 30 Dec 2017 22:10

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Surya wrote:And HAL all tied up in Su 30 MKI and other things

What has HAL got to do with this, suryaji?? Their manufacturing and overhaul divisions are separate entities not tied to each other. Let's not bash HAL just for the sake of it.
Besides, the IAF’s BRDs do quite a bit of MiG/Su maintenance and upgrades along with assembly from CKD kits of Mi-17, PC-7 and others.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21044
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Prem » 31 Dec 2017 06:26

Bahadurs no more
Image

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Surya » 31 Dec 2017 06:47

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Surya wrote:And HAL all tied up in Su 30 MKI and other things

What has HAL got to do with this, suryaji?? Their manufacturing and overhaul divisions are separate entities not tied to each other. Let's not bash HAL just for the sake of it.



There is no bashing

just a fact-

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 31 Dec 2017 15:52

Looks like IAF may borrow a few Flycatchers from IA or order a few extra Flycatchers from BEL.

But note the basic concept can be extended multiple ways.

DRDO DSJ

Networking of Tracking Radars of Two Different SAM Weapons to Protect the Missile in Intensive Jamming Environment
G. Kumaraswamy Rao, Sreehari Rao, Sudhir Kumar Chaudhuri

Abstract

Many countries including India use the Russian made SAM-3 (Pechora) surface-to-air missile (SAM) weapon systems to protect their strategic and tactical infrastructure. The mathematical computations done in this paper, conclusively proves that SA-125 low-blow tracking radar of Pechora is vulnerable to jamming. A project was undertaken to overcome the jamming vulnerability of Pechora aiming to design and develop an electronic counter counter measure system. This system networked the Pechora tracking radar with a western tracking radar, Flycatcher, developed by HSA Holland. The latter radar works in a MMW band. When jamming (x band) is employed by enemy aircraft the Low blow radar failed to provide target coordinates. But the flycatcher tracking radar which is tracking in Ka band provided the tracking coordinates (after parallax correction) to the command guidance computer. This way the missile guidance is protected until missile warhead in missile blasts near the target. Extensive trials carried out with a number of aircraft sorties proved the success of this developed system against jamming.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 31 Dec 2017 17:48

Guess who did the study above? Led by a rtd DRDO scientist who led the development of the guidance scheme for the Trishul program, which too used the Flycatcher radar. So much for what did Trishul bring.

For the future:

(i) This has proven the concept of networking various weapon sensor systems.
(ii) Each system can act as a backup or redundant to achieve 100 per cent kill probability against an airborne intruder.
(iii) Complex EW jamming attacks by enemy can be defeated.
(iv) Our Indian developed Akash missile system can be networked with available Russian missile systems

(v) An effective air defence shield can be realised by networking the available weapon guidance systems of both Indian, Western and Russian systems, so that no aircraft or missile can intrude into our air space


Under conditions of jamming, manual, semi automatic and automatic modes were developed and successfully demonstrated with live aircraft sorties with the cooperation of Indian Air Force units across one of the western border. Necessary hardware interfaces and software required for these exercises were developed by DRDO. The modern trend in air defence systems is to use multi-sensor fusion of data. The software packages developed in this project can be used for interfacing any two tracking radar systems.


Interesting times.

Also, even better that our retired scientists contributed to this program critically.

Prof. G. Kumaraswamy Rao currently working as Professor at Bharat Institute of Engineering & Technology, Hyderabad. He retired as Scientist ‘H’ and Director, Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, Hyderabad. He was the head of the Electronics Group for the Trishul and Akash weapon systems. He was responsible for the design and development of Radar Guidance System for Trishul. He was also the Program Director of Integrated Electronic Warfare Systems for Army, Navy and Signal Intelligence Directorate.
In the current study, he is instrumental in formulating the concept (based on the requirement of IAF), developing the system and carrying the field trials.

Dr R. Sreehari Rao obtained BE from Andhra University, MTech from IIT Kharagpur and PhD from IIT Madras. Presently working as Director (R&D) at Bharat Institute of Engineering & Technology, Hyderabad. He retired as Distinguished Scientist and Chief Controller R&D, DRDO, Delhi. He has guided the activities of number of defence labs. of DRDO.
In the current study, he has reviewed the design of this system critically, and provided the inputs for necessary modifications so that the full fledged system is practically realised.

Dr Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, FNAE obtained B.E.E. from Jadavpur University. MTech from IIT Madras and PhD from Cranfield Institute of Technology, United Kingdom. Presently working as Director BIET. He retired as Scientist ‘H’ and Director, Research Centre Imarat, Hyderabad. He established Hardware-In-loop Simulation Lab at RCI. He was responsible for design and development onboard mission software for Inertial Guided Missiles. He developed advanced simulation center with high fidility motion simulations for Agni, Prithvi, Akash and Trishul weapon systems.

In the current study, he is involved in designing the interfaces between the SAM - 3 weapon and the developed system.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 01 Jan 2018 23:04

Looks like Jaguars are getting new engines

https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/947730416621928448

Happy New Year...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 02 Jan 2018 03:02

That's great news!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2018 04:36

Any idea of the timeframe of the upgrade completion?
120 aircraft upgrades should not take as long as the M2K upgrades.

Reg.Trishul, no beef about the capabilities of the distinguished retd. scientists and their achievements but the fact remains that Trishul was a failure.I know how a dedicated IN naval officer,expert in his field , who made a valuable contribution in designing combat systems for IN warships,evaluated Barak-1 as a substitute for the IN when Trishul failed and against Trishul's capabilities.He was sent to Israel for the same. We have Barak-1 aboard our warships, the VikA too, thanks to him.But he was allegedly denigrated by some in the DRDO for his evaluation of Trishul and lost a promotion because of unfounded allegations against him.He was later vindicated for his decision to go in for Barak-1.

Today the IN has Barak-8 in service after the same DRDO which denigrated Barak earlier entered into a JV with Israel and the missile the basis for tri-service reqs.! I'm sure the officer, now deceased will be wherever he is in the afterlife, smiling at the irony of it all.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 04:51

Philip wrote:Reg.Trishul, no beef about the capabilities of the distinguished retd. scientists and their achievements but the fact remains that Trishul was a failure.I know how a dedicated IN naval officer,expert in his field , who made a valuable contribution in designing combat systems for IN warships,evaluated Barak-1 as a substitute for the IN when Trishul failed and against Trishul's capabilities.He was sent to Israel for the same. We have Barak-1 aboard our warships, the VikA too, thanks to him.But he was allegedly denigrated by some in the DRDO for his evaluation of Trishul and lost a promotion because of unfounded allegations against him.He was later vindicated for his decision to go in for Barak-1.


Right, we have open confirmation of the fact the IAF/IA Trishul's worked and were in fact offered for usage by the services, but lets ignore that. We even have the specific paper in question that detailed the completion of the improved guidance (Post-flight Analysis and Design Improvement
in Command Guidance System for a Short-range Surface-to-air Missile System, 2005).

Further, "The new command guidance system design was validated and fully established consistently through 11 flight tests (FT-46 to FT-56). FT-55 has demonstrated the physical target destruction with complete functioning of the radio proximity fuse and warhead chain".

Next, the reality is that Kalam himself openly supported the acquisition of Barak-1 and multiple DRDO bosses openly stated the Trishul Navy was not in development anymore. But now we have some hidden conspiracy going around.

Here are further specifics - the Trishul's fire control solution is being used today to develop a parallel solution for obsolete Russian systems which are woefully vulnerable to jamming. The AF recognized this & worked with the ex-Trishul team to implement it. It can even be extended to other systems.

Similarly, the modifications made to RAWL for Trishul, were then retrofitted by BEL to allow the IN to detect low flying skimmers.

That is enough for sensible folks to understand what India gains from such programs even if the services don't procure the items in bulk. The benefits continue to accrue across multiple acquisitions.

Your bias is not even hidden, and your "stories" get more and more ludicrous, and colorful each time around and remain wonderfully short of specifics.

Today the IN has Barak-8 in service after the same DRDO which denigrated Barak earlier entered into a JV with Israel and the missile the basis for tri-service reqs.! I'm sure the officer, now deceased will be wherever he is in the afterlife, smiling at the irony of it all.


Don't use other folks & their accomplishments to float your petty theories.

Further, the Barak-8 has nothing to do with Barak-1, either in design or subsystems. And we are all well aware on this board how you sought to use media reports to pretend that India did not contribute much to the program.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2018 05:19

I am not disputing any "gain" that we have obtained from the Trishul programme or any other programme that may have been in the works.There will always be a silver lining somewhere in a failed programme.

However the facts are indisputable.Trishul did not make the grade as a complete tri-service weapon system, or even for one service.We had to go in for another.I have given a tiny insight into how Barak was chosen and how a dedicated IN officer suffered as a consequence for his expertise.Today ironically, the DRDO does have a JV for Barak-8, also an indisputable fact.

Please make a distinction between my objective observations regarding a failed system which in no way criticised the scientists who may have been part of the programme .The reasons for failure could've been poor management, or inability to develop locally a critical element of the programme while the rest performed as intended.Take the LCA for example.Barring the engine and radar, we've mastered FBW,composites,avionics,plus weaponry intended like Astra , glide bombs, etc.However both engine and radar alternatives are available and being used.Perhaps this was not the case with Trishul.

PS: Your information boundary is limited reg. the acquisition of Barak.I stand by my statements.I knew the officer for two decades.There are other sr.multi-starred IN officers who will vouch for the same.Pl. also stop your puerile personal attacks against me.You can politely disagree instead of venting your bile.So what if B-8 is a different missile? The fact is that the DRDO went to the same manufacturers after the success of B-1.That speaks for itself.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 05:33

Philip wrote:I am not disputing any "gain" that we have obtained from the Trishul programme or any other programme that may have been in the works.There will always be a silver lining somewhere in a failed programme.

However the facts are indisputable.Trishul did not make the grade as a complete tri-service weapon system, or even for one service.We had to go in for another.I have given a tiny insight into how Barak was chosen and how a dedicated IN officer suffered as a consequence for his expertise.Today ironically, the DRDO does have a JV for Barak-8, also an indisputable fact.


The details mentioned above don't constitute a silver lining. They clearly detail the Trishul worked. Your deliberate insistence on ignoring the actual facts (guidance worked) & so did the fire control (as evidenced by the IAF still persisting with it), speaks volumes about the mendacious approach you take in your posts.

Further, you have not provided any evidence whatsoever in regards of your claimed so-called facts. Your claims of any IN officer suffering and so forth, given your overt bias against Indian programs are similarly dodgy, given the facts on the ground regarding the head of the DRDO himself (and his successors, including Atre) openly supporting the Barak-1. As matter of fact, when CAG went after a Naval chief for "supporting the Barak-1", even then DRDO took a measured stance and openly noted the naval trishul was not ready.

Your statements regarding secret conversations and so forth on the Trishul are of similar veracity as your other claims regarding multiple other Indian programs, wherein you quote dubious sources & convenient hearsay, often with the worst kind of salacious claims.

This is the third instance of the sort wherein you claim dodgy secret conversations which are openly contradicted by actual evidence, in order to paint Indian organizations in a dubious light.

Please make a distinction between my objective observations regarding a failed system which in no way criticised the scientists who may have been part of the programme .The reasons for failure could've been poor management, or inability to develop locally a critical element of the programme while the rest performed as intended.Take the LCA for example.Barring the engine and radar, we've mastered FBW,composites,avionics,plus weaponry intended like Astra , glide bombs, etc.However both engine and radar alternatives are available and being used.Perhaps this was not the case with Trishul.


You display a comprehensive inability to understand even the most basic of issues. Trishul was hardly a failed system, when 2 out of 3 variants were successfully developed & as matter of fact, even today a Trishul similar system is now in production by Thales for nations unable to afford expensive fire and forget systems (http://www.janes.com/article/54461/flyc ... -dsei15-d3).

The Trishul tests comprehensively proved the system worked & the program was closed merely because the services felt they had the budget to procure a more advanced fire & forget system which is what the local QRSAM is all about. Which program too, you were pushing for dodgy imports in the guise of "urgency".

PS: Your information boundary is limited reg. the acquisition of Barak.I stand by my statements.I knew the officer for two decades.There are other sr.multi-starred IN officers who will vouch for the same.


Your he-said and she-said statements are woefully out of bounds. I am not the only one to have noticed how quickly you resort to slander & "off the record" claims to bolster weak arguments bereft of facts. There have been multiple forum posters who have pointed to the same and repeatedly.

Pl. also stop your puerile personal attacks against me.You can politely disagree instead of venting your bile.So what if B-8 is a different missile? The fact is that the DRDO went to the same manufacturers after the success of B-1.That speaks for itself.


Its hilarious that you think you can slander national organizations & then when folks point out your misrepresentations and constant dodgy remarks, bereft of facts, whilst providing facts in turn, you claim they are "puerile personal attacks" and "venting your bile". Quite polite there.

Next, the fact itself that DRDO worked with IAI for multiple programs, including its hypersonics program, its BMD, and the Barak-8 clearly shows that your claims of there being some hidden conspiracy in DRDO to sabotage the Barak-1 acquisition, are, like the rest of your usual statements, dodgy.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 02 Jan 2018 05:43

ramana wrote:Looks like Jaguars are getting new engines

https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/947730416621928448

Happy New Year...

Let's delay the celebrations until an actual contract is signed ... then a Jaguar flying with the new engines ... then inducted into the IAF :wink:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2018 05:50

PPS: There was a major controversy over acquisition of Barak-1 when George Fernandes was DM.Dozens of people were accused from politicos, babus, service officers, including retd. Adm.Nanda, etc. After 7 yrs. of investigations no evidence was found of bribery/corruption clearing the way for Barak-1's acquisition.This was no "petty theories".People falsely accused suffered during this time.

Where have I slandered an Indian organisation? Pl.show me.If Trishul was such a great success why did we not induct it? You keep repeating statements that it worked but did it make the grade? You yourself have stated that we wanted something better and the defence establishment agreed. QED. But it is also a fact as I've posted that there was a raging controversy alleging malfeasance in the acquisition which lasted for 7 years.An honest officer suffered ,caught up in the controversy.I am repeating a little of what he told me.You are trying to insinuate me of denigrating the DRDO as a whole by merely saying that the DRDO and Israeli entities have worked on programmes together avoiding the B-1 issue.This is a specious argument . I have at times even mentioned the names of sr. service officers who have come on record in the media regarding their experiences, so don't drumbeat the fiction of my inventing details.I don't.

If we are unwilling to address our shortcomings while celebrating our successes we will end up like Pakistan with its tall claims about djinn power! A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In the case of B-8 , the success only reinforces that the JV route speeds up acquisition of urgently reqd. weapon systems where we do not possess everything techwise.Perhaps if we had had a JV for Trishul it would be in service today instead of B-1.The result is that we have B-8 today, thankfully.

PS:By the way, the 150km Barak-8 ER under development according to DID is allegedly a different system with no Indian IP rights.This sounds strange. If we have been a partner for the basic B-8 , jointly developed, ? How can the JV partner cut us out of a further improved development of the same? Will we have to enter into a new JV shelling out more $ later on or will we be asked to pay if we develop an ER version all on our own in similar fashion? This issue could be taken to the missile td.
Last edited by Philip on 02 Jan 2018 06:10, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 06:05

Philip wrote:PPS: There was a major controversy over acquisition of Barak-1 when George Fernandes was DM.Dozens of people were accused from politicos, babus, service officers, including retd. Adm.Nanda, etc. After 7 yrs. of investigations no evidence was found of bribery/corruption clearing the way for Barak-1's acquisition.This was no "petty theories".


And what relevance does this have to your claims that folks in DRDO were targeting any officer or otherwise?

Again, provide the evidence. Your statements more and more reek of an agenda.

So today, politicians are claiming Rafale deal is crooked. What next, will you claim DRDO/ADA is orchestrating the same based on "secret conversations"?


Where have I slandered an Indian organisation? Pl.show me.


Kindly provide the evidence which so called unnamed officers in DRDO targeted IN officers over Barak. Your claims are petty & bereft of evidence.

If Trishul was such a great success why did we not induct it?


That should be obvious to anyone, that two of the services (as is their prerogative) changed their requirements as they felt they could afford seeker equipped systems!

Hardly the fault of the system in which case which was demonstrated to work & the evidence has been provided repeatedly. Something, which I note, you are unable to counter.

You keep repeating statements that it worked but did it make the grade? You yourself have yourself stated that we wanted something better and the defence establishment agreed. QED.


Err.. no! I made statements which clearly pointed your so-called claims of the system being a failure were false. QED. The system worked and was proven in trials..

Second, better is subjective. The systems today, ostensibly replacing the Trishul are fire & forget, and survivable but are not in MMW band (which is what made the Trishul harder to jam & which is why the IAF is still looking at it) and are FAR more expensive!

Its the same reason an Akash without a seeker may still be a better option for SRSAM rather than a seeker equipped missile & why multiple nations are persisting with CLOS systems with cheaper missiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS_23#Missile) and the IAF itself is depending on a mix of the affordable Akash and the expensive Barak-8.

But it is also a fact as I've posted that there was a raging controversy alleging malfeasance in the acquisition which lasted for 7 years.An honest officer suffered ,caught up in the controversy.I am repeating a little of what he told me.


I see, so now you note the officer was caught up in some malfeasance allegations and "he told you". Where is the evidence, that people in the DRDO targeted him & caused his suffering? Allegations in arms deals in India are dime a dozen, these events occur with clockwork regularity due to politics.

What is however not acceptable, is your muck raking trying to create bad blood between Indian organizations using these events as a convenient foil.

You make the most dubious of allegations, in a glib manner, without the slightest propriety & you expect them to go unchallenged. Wonderful.

You are trying to insinuate me of denigrating the DRDO as a whole by merely saying that the DRDO and Israeli entities have worked on programmes together avoiding the B-1 issue.This is a specious argument . I have at times even mentioned the names of sr. service officers who have come on record in the media regarding their experiences, so don't drumbeat the fiction of my inventing details.I don't.


Oh yes, we all know how you selectively quote only those reports who play to your proven biases regarding local programs.

If we are unwilling to address our shortcomings while celebrating our successes we will end up like Pakistan with its tall claims about djinn power!


Go easy on the dodgy comparisons, dear chap. You were provided specific statements about what worked and what didn't. Don't try to muddle around & bring Pakistan & other countries into the picture using dubious comparisons.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In the case of B-8 , the success only reinforces that the JV route speeds up acquisition of urgently reqd. weapon systems where we do not possess everything techwise.Perhaps if we had had a JV for Trishul it would be in service today instead of B-1.The result is that we have B-8 today, thankfully.


Ah of course, the famed "JV route".

And here you are busy trying to educate everyone about "acquisitions" and so forth.

Are you even aware that in the Trishul the fire control radar was the Flycatcher & the surveillance radar was from Thales? And the Trishul being a direct threat to imports meant that no foreign OEM was willing to work with India on the actual guidance, and India did the maximum possible to derisk the program by utilizing the above foreign systems which were already in Indian service, based on explicit requests from the services

In short, your awareness of local programs and JVs is next to nil. You quote meaningless buzz words about JVs, this, that, but ignore the specifics. It is not any JV that automatically confers success. It is programs like Trishul which provide the basis!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2018 06:17

You know how it is impossible for certain facts and names to be given.I stand by my statements .Pl. believe me they are accurate.Unfortunately the officer is deceased but his IN colleagues are available.If you want a private in-camera discussion it may be possible , but I reiterate, whatever I post is based upon facts and in most cases where not quoting media reports,easily verifiable, first person accounts.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2018 06:22

If Trishul assistance was a threat to imports, then why did thd Russians and Israelis come to us with their JVs for BMos and B-8? They could've just sold us the same like B-1, Klub, etc.? Amazing that it was as you say Trishul that made it all possible! One never knew.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 02 Jan 2018 06:24

^^^
Philip, in order to JV both parties need to bring something to the table ... unless one party will only provide the funds that is.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 06:26

Philip wrote:You know how it is impossible for certain facts and names to be given.I stand by my statements .Pl. believe me they are accurate.Unfortunately the officer is deceased but his IN colleagues are available.If you want a private in-camera discussion it may be possible , but I reiterate, whatever I post is based upon facts and in most cases where not quoting media reports,easily verifiable, first person accounts.


Why is it impossible? Stand by your words.

Your posts on the other hand repeatedly quote the most dubious of sources including websites like strategy page, constantly resort to insinuations regarding Indian organizations, while denigrating their achievements & further now seek to introduce a divide between Indian organizations.

You are engaging in the worst kind of base slander, trying to create bad blood between Indian organizations based on innuendo. It is simply not acceptable.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 06:31

Philip wrote:If Trishul assistance was a threat to imports, then why did thd Russians and Israelis come to us with their JVs for BMos and B-8? They could've just sold us the same like B-1, Klub, etc.? Amazing that it was as you say Trishul that made it all possible! One never knew.


Philip, for crying out loud, please get over this fascination for JVs. They are based on hard nosed appreciation of where Indian industry is & the amount of money we are willing to fork over. They care two hoots about our national security or preparedness.

Barak-8 for the IAF uses C3I tech developed by DRDO for the BMD program. The compact packaging of TELs etc - where do you think DRDO learnt that? It was all Akash. In Trishul, we disassembled even the Flycatcher radar, and put it on a tracked vehicle. Nobody helped us with that, including the cabling.

The Barak-8 uses a mix of Israeli tech (for which they charge us an arm and a leg) and Indian solutions via Akash and multiple other programs. The Brahmos uses Akash developed C3I plus Prithvi weapons control - and guess what, your beloved Russians don't want us to ever make the engine locally either. They want us to be subservient.

Each time you harp on JVs being the be-all and end-all, its really tragic, since you completely ignore the money involved & the compromises made & the local contribution.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2018 06:34

If Trishul assistance was a threat to imports, then why did thd Russians and Israelis come to us with their JVs for BMos and B-8? They could've just sold us the same like B-1, Klub, etc.? Amazing that it was as you say Trishul that made it all possible! One never knew.

PS: I ask a genuine Q, not as an argumentative tool since you've explained Trishul dev. in detail.In the case of the LCA we are acquiring the MK-1 which is inadequate in performance according to the IAF which has acknowledged that govt. pressure was applied.The promise of the MK-1A with the AESA radar etc. to follow in large numbers with much improved performance sweetened the deal.Why at that time could the same have not been done for Trishul at least for the IA .QRSAM with improved performances is arriving well over a decade since Trishul was developed. The IN obtained B-1 as a result for its warships but why did the IA and IAF not possess a similar firang system in the interim or use Trishul? Akash has only recently arrived and was meant to be longer ranged so could not have been a substitute.

PPS: I am equally aware of sev.systems where we've cross-used components, that's our innovative strength, and there is no fascination for JVs as a magic bullet.There are only 3 ways in which we can get a weapon system.1- buy it outright. 2- A JV. 3- Develop it in- house all by ourselves ,and/or like the Chinese steal from wherever we can.Depending upon the need and urgency of the situation we choose one of the three, which is what we're doing with JVs trying to reduce the import content.In this regard from a JV we get insights in the design and dev.of the system that a mere outright purchase would not and which we would have to reinvent at long lead time by going it alone.Oc course there is large local input it is obvious and as shown in the case of BMos we have taken it to further levels of development and capability. A JV offers us a half-step to self-sufficiency.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 06:53

Philip wrote:If Trishul assistance was a threat to imports, then why did thd Russians and Israelis come to us with their JVs for BMos and B-8? They could've just sold us the same like B-1, Klub, etc.? Amazing that it was as you say Trishul that made it all possible! One never knew.


Again, why wouldn't they work with us when they can get our Indian money, and replace the Indian systems in their fully tested system and then make more money on the side?

They are that avaricious.

The Russians have the Yakhont and have sold it to other countries as well. Did they give one hoot for Indian sensitivities?
Similarly, what prevents IAI from Israelizing the complete Barak-8 and selling it like a completely Israeli system. We can pursue some legal squabbling or keep our mouth shut knowing we might need to go back to either country for spares or some gizmo for what we have already purchased. This is how they arm twist us.

The only positive is that at least we got a system in service which is X % Indian as versus a complete import!!

If you didn't have Barak-8 with Indian C3I trailers, Indian missile firing vehicles with their comms, Indian loaders and so forth, you would have to purchase some Russian Vityaz or western system with the whole thing being screwdrivered in India. That's the only advantage of JVs. But by no means are they ideal.

Compare & contrast Indian investment in MRSAM vs Akash & see what the respective ROIs are. If India were to invest upfront in Akash like MRSAM with the attendant free availability of resources, would it even take so much time, hardly. We splurge for imports and that's a fact.

PS: I ask a genuine Q, not as an argumentative tool since you've explained Trishul dev. in detail.In the case of the LCA we are acquiring the MK-1 which is inadequate in performance according to the IAF which has acknowledged that govt. pressure was applied.The promise of the MK-1A with the AESA radar etc. to follow in large numbers with much improved performance sweetened the deal.Why at that time could the same have not been done for Trishul at least for the IA .QRSAM with improved performances is arriving well over a decade since Trishul was developed. The IN obtained B-1 as a results for its warships but why did the IA and IAF not possess a similar sysytem in the interim?


First, Govt pressure on IAF etc is overstated. A paltry few Mk1s are being acquired of which half will be made into Mk1A, and the Govt has been unable to swing any deal perforce on the services. Do you see a thousand LCAs in service? The services have specific requirements and they dont back down either (which is their prerogative and this autonomy is essential to prevent malfeasance from corrupt GOIs forcing wrong decisions).

The only exceptions are the DPSU complex (as versus DRDO) which only ensure they get to make whatever is ordered from abroad and that is because of their heavy unionization and ability to offer political gains far beyond the technocratic DRDO, ISRO etc.

As regards access to technology, the simple answer is the India of today is not the India of ten years back, economically and hence we have more access to imported gizmos and also a bigger pool of trained manpower because of programs like Trishul, Akash etc which painstakingly built competence in radars etc.

The Israeli AESA for LCA was initially denied. It has taken several years of pressure to get it released. DRDO's AESA radar program making progress is also clearly noted by the Israelis who realized they'd lose an easy deal if they delayed further. We paid through the nose to get earlier gen Greenpine tech for the BMD program and indigenized that with our homegrown modules. Would DRDO have been able to do anything with GreenPine if it did not have phased array experience with Akash? South Korea, whose electronics capability dwarfs ours, had to procure GreenPines off the shelf, whereas we, thanks to Akash et al, got around to indigenizing the systems and making advanced variants on our own.

South Korea, the new flavor of choice on the forum, has industrial capabilities which dwarfs Indias. Yet we are neck to neck with them, with a fraction of their investments, on a variety of advanced systems. If our private sector was unshackled, the last mile issue in manufacturing DRDO designed systems and keeping them updated would also disappear. We wouldn't be importing K-9s if a Bharat Forge worked with DRDO to adapt the ATAGS with an Arjun chassis and such freedom was available a decade back.

Kindly understand the depth of effort that goes into developing homegrown technology & the financial and strategic constraints involved. Its hardly a coincidence that when Uttam is in tests with India having demonstrated it can field X-band fighter TRMs of its own design, and locally made, suddenly AESAs are on offer for the LCA. And DRDO is now using those very same X Band TRMs for programs like QRSAM and nothing stops it from using them for its next gen BMD program either. All these programs feed off of each other and to India's credit, unlike the sprawling Chinese or Russian system, in India we have one coherent group, the DRDO which has multiple labs which share the technology within themselves. So if DLRL develops radar fingerprinting tech, its available to DARE for the IAF and both labs can walk over to RCI to figure out how avionics work and counter that. In other countries, the left hand does not know what the right is doing and information sharing is in silos. For our limited budget, the gains we are making are fairly comprehensive.

In this milieu, it is completely irresponsible to create bad blood between the services and the developers using hearsay, which is only exploited by vested interests who seek to stop our progress above using every trick in the book.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 02 Jan 2018 07:13

KaranM wrote:...
All these programs feed off of each other and to India's credit, unlike the sprawling Chinese or Russian system, in India we have one coherent group, the DRDO which has multiple labs which share the technology within themselves. So if DLRL develops radar fingerprinting tech, its available to DARE for the IAF and both labs can walk over to RCI to figure out how avionics work and counter that. In other countries, the left hand does not know what the right is doing and information sharing is in silos. For our limited budget, the gains we are making are fairly comprehensive.
...

This is an example of where privatization of R&D would be inefficient. Knowledge should be shared openly (without fears of it being stolen [i.e. no need for restrictive legal contracts]) between various labs and amongst larger clusters.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 02 Jan 2018 08:13

DOes anybody know about the motor of the QRSAM booster? It’s different from all the Indian missiles, I have seen till now.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 02 Jan 2018 08:23


The Russians have the Yakhont and have sold it to other countries as well. Did they give one hoot for Indian sensitivities?
Similarly, what prevents IAI from Israelizing the complete Barak-8 and selling it like a completely Israeli system.

Yakhont is technically a different missile than Brahmos strong indications it was funded by China (directly or indirectly) so not sure why they should care about India sensitivities.It does with complete with Brahmos and considering Russians heavily subsidize Yakhont most countries would likely procure that. I see the point you are trying to make but just want to point it out.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ashishvikas » 02 Jan 2018 12:45

Indian MoD clears proposals to procure 240 Russian PGMs for the IAF & 460 Barak point defence missiles for the Navy.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/948086817705803778

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 13:54

John wrote:

The Russians have the Yakhont and have sold it to other countries as well. Did they give one hoot for Indian sensitivities?
Similarly, what prevents IAI from Israelizing the complete Barak-8 and selling it like a completely Israeli system.

Yakhont is technically a different missile than Brahmos strong indications it was funded by China (directly or indirectly) so not sure why they should care about India sensitivities.It does with complete with Brahmos and considering Russians heavily subsidize Yakhont most countries would likely procure that. I see the point you are trying to make but just want to point it out.


Yakhont is not funded by China or sold to China, I think you must be referring to the reports about the Brahmos lookalike revealed by China which I'd wager, China is perfectly capable of developing on its own - its not as good as the Yakhont specs wise, either. The Yakhont itself was developed from earlier Russian missiles, layout wise, some of which may have been lying around in Ukraine and elsewhere which the Chinese could anyday have picked up to fiddle around with, reverse engineer with their own local labs and metallurgy and come up with a similar system (but not the same).

The Yakhont is nothing other than the Brahmos itself albeit with a full Russian mission suite, including a Russian navigation system and the ground systems are all Russian.

Alternatively which is actually more accurate, you can certainly claim the Brahmos missile is nothing but the Yakhont with India specific modifications and sub-systems whereas the entire system (ground launchers, C3I etc) is significantly more Indian with all sorts of stuff ported over from Akash (launcher tech, comms, battery layout) & Prithvi (weapons control unit).

The point I am making is Yakhont was an unfinished missile. The Russians used Indian money via the Brahmos to fully develop it and finish it off & are now busy exporting it in an all-Russian version with two hoots about what India paid for.

This entire JV thing hence, is hardly any ideal answer. We still get some value (better a half Indian Brahmos system, rather than a 100% Harpoon import) but we can forget about any long term international benefit or ground changing benefit.

Even in Barak-8, Rafael was least interested in transferring seeker technology to BEL to make it locally. Till this date, I am yet to find confirmation about the details of how much the BDL facility will build of the missile & as regards the AESA radars with the program, the main advantage is we will locally assemble, calibrate and test them. The seekers are the real difference vis a vis what we have & what we need. Why will Rafael give that to us, irrespective of what they promised when we committed to the program. Usual stuff.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 13:55

ashishvikas wrote:Indian MoD clears proposals to procure 240 Russian PGMs for the IAF & 460 Barak point defence missiles for the Navy.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/948086817705803778


Likely KAB series bombs

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 14:04

Yes exactly, and it is to India's significant advantage that its sword and shield are under one complex, with both sides cooperating with each other.

We have teams working on systems and countermeasures to the systems well within the same complex/lab cluster.

Few, if any countries, have such a comprehensive cost-effective advantage and we should do all we can to retain it. There are only a handful of firms in the world, in the private sector with the range of products DRDO is making and even they don't span all the systems.

Each team can take advantage of common developments and keep abreast of the latest in technologies. They don't need to sign restrictive disclosure agreements and can share all the facts openly without worrying their IP is going to a competitor or somebody else will take advantage. The weapons team can confidently claim their x weapon can evade y while knowing exactly what y is, while the y team can work on developing a system that can track the weapon and so forth. Both are running hand in hand. This is a huge advantage and DRDO has been "seeding" labs with senior scientists handpicked from the other establishment.

I can go into detail, but it is perhaps best left unsaid even if open source.

srai wrote:
KaranM wrote:...
All these programs feed off of each other and to India's credit, unlike the sprawling Chinese or Russian system, in India we have one coherent group, the DRDO which has multiple labs which share the technology within themselves. So if DLRL develops radar fingerprinting tech, its available to DARE for the IAF and both labs can walk over to RCI to figure out how avionics work and counter that. In other countries, the left hand does not know what the right is doing and information sharing is in silos. For our limited budget, the gains we are making are fairly comprehensive.
...

This is an example of where privatization of R&D would be inefficient. Knowledge should be shared openly (without fears of it being stolen [i.e. no need for restrictive legal contracts]) between various labs and amongst larger clusters.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 14:40

Further, its no secret that thanks to a variety of OSINT - our RFPs, RFIs (services and DRDO) plus HUMINT/other leaks - our system is almost completely compromised in terms of many vendors knowing exactly where we stand in terms of our programs.

They may not know how they work to jam them or defeat them, but they most definitely know where we stand in terms of having developed our complete capabilities.

So, when a DRDO vendor openly states in its annual report that it has developed X-Band TRMs and DRDO is evaluating them on a rooftop test bed and DRDO makes advances in its AEW&C program, we are clearly just a couple of years away from developing a homegrown AESA in its Mk1 version. So suddenly, the Rafale AESA is available for the LCA Mk1A, the ELTA 2052/M is on offer for the Jaguar and LCA programs.. the list goes on and on.

Now after QRSAM etc, don't be surprised if suddenly DEW weapons make their appearance in more arms fairs as the global arms majors realize India is now more or less self sufficient in missiles, is shifting focus to DEW & hence they'd better get their products sold before local alternatives emerge.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 02 Jan 2018 15:46

^^^
They can get India through the imported platform, which are tightly integrated with their own sub-systems and weaponry. Whole support ecosystem have to be imported along with the platform. SEF/TEF will be a setback on the indigenous momentum, IMO.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 15:49

Yes, unfortunately very true. The whole ecosystem comes with the imported platform and many times, the import is anything but what is promised.

At least with our local programs, the MK1 will work, even if it is not as fancy or glitzy on brochure as the imported one. A local missile may weigh 20 kg more but at least it will work as promised thanks to all the heavy local trials.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 02 Jan 2018 17:49

Yakhont is not funded by China or sold to China, I think you must be referring to the reports about the Brahmos lookalike revealed by China which I'd wager, China is perfectly capable of developing on its own - its not as good as the Yakhont specs wise, either.

Yakhont was supposedly funded by unnamed Asian nation the report originated in 90s. At that time it was believed that Moskit deal China did with Russia included funding for multiple platforms. I will dig it up when I get a chance. Yakhont was being offered for export as early as 97 which predates Brahmos. Syrian sale of Yakhont was discussed in early 2000s and deal was signed in 07. Production and deliveries finished in 2010.

So if you take that as timeline russians took money from Brahmos and finish devolopment including the land based version before Brahmos is inducted which doesn’t make sense.

Also to my knowledge No other development tests were done for Yakhont in 00s. IMO Brahmos is fully devoloped version of Oniks and Yakhont doesn’t have powerful onboard computer and software that Brahmos has.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 02 Jan 2018 21:44

John, Russia offered many things for export including the Su-35. The understanding was the purchaser would finish the development.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10785
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Jan 2018 21:50

Prem wrote:Bahadurs no more
Image

These look like the upgraded versions,around 80 plus are still in service

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cybaru » 03 Jan 2018 00:18

how can you tell that they are upgraded?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 03 Jan 2018 06:57

^^^
Only 40 were upgraded AFIK

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 03 Jan 2018 07:08

Karan M wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:Indian MoD clears proposals to procure 240 Russian PGMs for the IAF & 460 Barak point defence missiles for the Navy.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/948086817705803778


Likely KAB series bombs



The price is Rs. 1254 Crores for 240 PGMs and 131 missiles for Rs. 460 crores.
The PGM works out to be Rs 5.23 Crore per PGM. The PGMs are supposed to be cheap.
So most likely these are some sort of missiles as price is 1.5 times the Baraks.

What exactly are these and for which aircraft? SU-30MKIs?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests