Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

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

Post by vivek_ahuja »

nam wrote:I think the issue is that IAF is looking for every excuse to move away from HAL. It is not the plane that is the problem.
Avros are really old and antiquated. They are airworthy still, and that is all that there is left to say about them. They can be used for training.

C295s can and will be used far more aggressively.

And with private players finally being involved in the production (something that BRF has been clamoring for years as stepping stone to a home-grown aerospace industry), why make statements about HAL here?
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

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

Post by vivek_ahuja »

asbchakri wrote:Wiki C-295 aircraft specs say it can carry armaments. Will these aircraft we are buying will also have this capabilities
I doubt it. Money for acquiring so many basic transports alone is going to be painful for India to absorb.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/1 ... 70405?s=19 ---> India to ink 2 landmark military aircraft deals in next few months.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

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

Post by vivek_ahuja »

One of the parameters that will decide whether the C295 will also start replacing the AN32 later is going to be their hot-and-high performance. If one recalls, the AN26 was the original baseline aircraft that was modified to the AN32 to enable operating from high altitudes with high power requirements for take off in summer conditions.

Is the C295 akin to the AN26 or the AN32 for hot-and-high power conditions?

If the baseline C295 cannot operate reliably from high altitude airbases whilst carrying troops and cargo, then it will be relegated to the Avro replacement role in lower altitudes (troop transport over the plains, training, communication flights and disaster response + potentially MPA and AEW). That will reduce its importance in the IAF fleet.

C-130Js can operate hot-and-high without (noticeable) problems.
ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 441
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

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

Post by ManuJ »

Airbus touts C-295's hot and high performance, especially with the newer versions of the aircraft.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Post by AkshaySG »

I didn't follow the C-295 deal too closely , can anyone tell me why we zeroed in on it over Alenia C-27J ? ... There are several other countries who evaluated both and decided to go with Alenia C-27
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14333
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Post by Aditya_V »

For C-295 deal, Rafale we must leverage French for more manufacturer of Shakti Engines and Quick conversion and close working with DRDO for conversion of A-320's and integration of our AIP in Scorpenes, who were trying their damn best to promote MESMA AIP instead of DRDO Fuel Cells.

Quickly order and keep spare GE 404 and GE 414's also.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Post by Philip »

The C-295s are long overdue,ancient AVROs have done a remarkable job over 6 decades! The logistic demands upon the IAF have dramatically increased with the Chin aggression in the Himalayas from Ar.P. to Ladakh. Our smaller airstrips and landing grounds will bebetter suited to 295 operations wherelarger aircraft may suffer payload limitations.What we must also do is to upgrade the 2 or so MI-26s ,the world's largest helos,plus acquire at least 6-8 more for logisticdutiies where airstrips are impossible,only helipads available. These large helos can carry ICVs,missiles,etc. ,even downed Chinooks in the Afg. conflict.
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

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

Post by andy B »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Is the C295 akin to the AN26 or the AN32 for hot-and-high power conditions?

If the baseline C295 cannot operate reliably from high altitude airbases whilst carrying troops and cargo, then it will be relegated to the Avro replacement role in lower altitudes (troop transport over the plains, training, communication flights and disaster response + potentially MPA and AEW). That will reduce its importance in the IAF fleet.

C-130Js can operate hot-and-high without (noticeable) problems.
Vivek! Great to see you again on the boards. I am reading chimera all pver again! :D

I would dare say for a pure AEW role operating up north, I sincerely hope we stay with a Jet choice which will be better suited for ingress/egress to station and high altitude performance.

For the mpa role I think the 295 will do extremely well and will show immensely better capability than the 228 workhorse. There are some very well established precedents for the mpa role with the uscg ocean sentry and other mpas with naval services.

Having said that I will defer to you for a more informed opinion :wink:
AkshaySG wrote:I didn't follow the C-295 deal too closely , can anyone tell me why we zeroed in on it over Alenia C-27J ? ... There are several other countries who evaluated both and decided to go with Alenia C-27
Akshay saar, in essence the c27J has more capability in certain roles due to large amount of excess power resulting from the samw rolls royce AE2100 that the J Hercules uses. Also the cabin is wider but IIRC shorter than the 295 with higher payload capability for the c27.

The 295 uses PW127 which are noticeably less powerful. This and other avionics differences also lead the capability vs cost conundrum. The c27J globally has a smaller fleet (around 88 plus) in service with more specialised applications not just transport compared to the c295 (160+). As an example the RAAF replaced the dhc4 caribou with the spartan.

Globally these are the only platforms in the mid tier transport segment and I suspect we went for the c295 as it was more affordable for a large fleet (albeit maybe less capable in certain roles).

https://flaps-aviacion-aviation-luftfah ... c-27j.html

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... j-buy.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/SP/DT-Caribou-Pt.1.pdf
darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4018
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

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

Post by darshan »

IAF signs MoU with IDSR, Gujarat University for academic Collaboration
https://www.deshgujarat.com/2021/01/06/ ... aboration/
New Delhi: Indian Air Force and Institute of Defence Studies and Research (IDSR), an autonomous Institution of Gujarat University under the patronage of Government of Gujarat signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 29 Dec 20. The MoU will enable Officers of IAF to undertake Doctoral Research, Post-Graduate Programme and Post Graduate Diploma covering various areas of interest that includes Defence studies, Defence Management, National Security, Aerospace &Aviation Science and other areas of Defence Technology.
....
As part of Project Akashdeep, Indian Air Force has entered into such partnership with various prestigious Academias to promote research by Officers and create a pool of think tanks with strategic knowledge and intellectual skills. The expertise of these officers would contribute towards formulation of sound strategic plan and policies inthe advent of hybrid Military Operations.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

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

Post by vivek_ahuja »

andy B wrote:I would dare say for a pure AEW role operating up north, I sincerely hope we stay with a Jet choice which will be better suited for ingress/egress to station and high altitude performance.
This is a given. I very much doubt the IAF using prop-powered AEW for the northern regions. But the Navy has different requirements and they might welcome a land-based augmentation of the shipborne Ka-31 AEW.
andy B wrote:For the mpa role I think the 295 will do extremely well and will show immensely better capability than the 228 workhorse. There are some very well established precedents for the mpa role with the uscg ocean sentry and other mpas with naval services.
Yes, for maritime roles, the C-295 is Do-228 on steroids. And if a production line for the C-295 is created in India, I see little reason for the forces to order more Do-228 other than for cost/attrition-replacement reasons.
andy B wrote:Akshay saar, in essence the c27J has more capability in certain roles due to large amount of excess power resulting from the samw rolls royce AE2100 that the J Hercules uses. Also the cabin is wider but IIRC shorter than the 295 with higher payload capability for the c27.

The 295 uses PW127 which are noticeably less powerful. This and other avionics differences also lead the capability vs cost conundrum. The c27J globally has a smaller fleet (around 88 plus) in service with more specialised applications not just transport compared to the c295 (160+). As an example the RAAF replaced the dhc4 caribou with the spartan.
Yes, you don't need every aircraft of the IAF to be optimized for rugged operations. The Avro was not expected to fly into Leh, for example. But the AN-32 was. The IAF may order more C-130Js + C-295s to replace the AN-32s. The C-130Js for the rugged dusty airstrip operations and the C-295s for airfield to airfield operations.
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Post by V_Raman »

C27J would make more sense given engine commonality with Hercules correct?
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

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

Post by andy B »

V_Raman wrote:C27J would make more sense given engine commonality with Hercules correct?
Correct however upfront acquisition cost and total operating/maintenance cost (although this would be mitigated to an extent given engine commonality) would be higer.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

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

Post by vivek_ahuja »

V_Raman wrote:C27J would make more sense given engine commonality with Hercules correct?
It also matters on how much the OEM is willing to partner with Indian manufacturers and do ToT. Perhaps the C-295 makers offered more on that front than the C27J makers did.
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

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

Post by andy B »

Vivek! Thanks for the response as always! For the navy AEW applications it certainly holds some promise. I guess the airframe is also large enough to incorporate any apus' required for power generation deficiency if any.

For the IAF the C130J makes most sense as even with lower number of airframes it provides immense capabilities! I suspect though existing budgetary constraints will not allow foe this. In all likelihood by the time we get around to make funds available lockmart will close the lines :cry:
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

vivek_ahuja wrote:One of the parameters that will decide whether the C295 will also start replacing the AN32 later is going to be their hot-and-high performance. If one recalls, the AN26 was the original baseline aircraft that was modified to the AN32 to enable operating from high altitudes with high power requirements for take off in summer conditions.

Is the C295 akin to the AN26 or the AN32 for hot-and-high power conditions?

If the baseline C295 cannot operate reliably from high altitude airbases whilst carrying troops and cargo, then it will be relegated to the Avro replacement role in lower altitudes (troop transport over the plains, training, communication flights and disaster response + potentially MPA and AEW). That will reduce its importance in the IAF fleet.

C-130Js can operate hot-and-high without (noticeable) problems.
Vivek, you know there is no way that the C295s can replace the 32s in hot and high performance.

C295: MTOW 23,000 kgs, engine power: 2x1972 kW, wing area: 59 m^2.
An32: MTOW 27,000 kgs, engine power: 2x3812 kW, wing area: 75 m^2.

There is no comparison in hot and high conditions!!
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

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

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Indranil wrote:Vivek, you know there is no way that the C295s can replace the 32s in hot and high performance.

C295: MTOW 23,000 kgs, engine power: 2x1972 kW, wing area: 59 m^2.
An32: MTOW 27,000 kgs, engine power: 2x3812 kW, wing area: 75 m^2.

There is no comparison in hot and high conditions!!
I was baiting someone to show up with the numbers. And you did not disappoint! :)

So, there it is. The AN-32 will need its own replacement. But as I suggested previously, it may not need to be 1-to-1 replacement. A combination of C-130Js and C-295s might close the gap. The former for high altitudes and latter for the plains.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

C295 is not a replacement for the Avros either. The Avros hardly do anything! Their only proper use right now is in pilot training. When it is use for communications, most of the plane flies empty. The C295s will create a new niche which is currently not catered to by anybody. One could say that the C295s are going to do the role that the Avros were supposed to do.

I have talked to people in the know and I will put it bluntly.

1. There is no going back on the C295 decision (thank God).
2. But nothing else will go forward till the C295 order is placed. I hope the Avros are reengined and put back into service. They will make excellent MPAs. They weigh the same as the 295s and will have similarly powered engines. They were designed as airliners and are therefore more efficient than the 295s with a large ramp at the back. Consider the wing area: 77 m^2. Additionally, it has low wings, i.e. larger undercarriage and much higher ground clearance. This is very useful for maritime patrol radars and their radomes. You can fit larger arrays and the radomes don't get roughed up by the FOD kicked up by the front tyre(s).
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Indranil wrote:Vivek, you know there is no way that the C295s can replace the 32s in hot and high performance.

C295: MTOW 23,000 kgs, engine power: 2x1972 kW, wing area: 59 m^2.
An32: MTOW 27,000 kgs, engine power: 2x3812 kW, wing area: 75 m^2.

There is no comparison in hot and high conditions!!
I was baiting someone to show up with the numbers. And you did not disappoint! :)

So, there it is. The AN-32 will need its own replacement. But as I suggested previously, it may not need to be 1-to-1 replacement. A combination of C-130Js and C-295s might close the gap. The former for high altitudes and latter for the plains.
We wanted to walk away from the Russians/Ukranians. But the An132 line was begging for a new home. Saudi Arabia lapped it up. It has not gone smoothly there lately. But, it is not because of the plane. They got the plane out in 2016 and flew it in 2017.

Even now, I don't know what we are doing with our NCAD program. Buy the damn Antonov designs, fit best in class engines and avionics and run with it. They want funding, we want the planes. But we want to reinvent the wheel.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

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

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Indranil wrote:We wanted to walk away from the Russians/Ukranians. But the An132 line was begging for a new home. Saudi Arabia lapped it up. It has not gone smoothly there lately. But, it is not because of the plane. They got the plane out in 2016 and flew it in 2017.

Even now, I don't know what we are doing with our NCAD program. Buy the damn Antonov designs, fit best in class engines and avionics and run with it. They want funding, we want the planes. But we want to reinvent the wheel.
I am not against reinventing the wheel. Sometimes it is the only way to learn new technology and build a homegrown program.

That said, I am against the idea of having different planes for every conceivable niche possible. Sometimes an overkill for a niche problem is fine in exchange of larger fleets of smaller number of types. If the C-17 exists for strategic transport, the C-130J exists for tactical transport (with rough-field and hot-and-high capabilities) and the C-295 exists for the small transport requirements, then I would strongly argue against adding more types in between. Who cares if the C-130J was used to do a job that could have been done by a C27J. Sometimes you have to draw the line.

The only exception for the above is if you want to induct home-grown airplanes. Then the economy-of-scale should not be the metric to use against its induction into the ecosystem.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Post by Philip »

Isn't the MTA still alive,embers flickering? At some point post 2030,even the upgraded,overhauled AN-32s will require replacing,100+ aircraft. But yes,the C-295 maritime variants will certainly be an improvement over the DO-228s.
As for the AVROs,how much of life is left in the airframes of the inventory for it to continue in a useful role?
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

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

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Philip wrote:Isn't the MTA still alive, embers flickering?
Since I am on a roll making bold claims all over this forum, I will make one more: the MTA is dead and buried.

Nothing will come off it. When the time comes to replace the AN-32, it will be something off the shelf. Preferably a type that already exists in the IAF (C-130J, C-295, etc.).
Philip wrote:As for the AVROs, how much of life is left in the airframes of the inventory for it to continue in a useful role?
Avros are done. They are being flogged because there is no choice, but the IAF will drop them like hot potatoes the moment the C-295s start rolling off the production lines.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18276
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 49920?s=20 ---> IAF Chief: Future focus of the air force will be on aspects of:

- Persistent presence
- Multirole capability
- Rapid deployment
- Spectrum dominance
- Secure technology
- Central information management
- Precision targeting
- Rapid innovation for asymmetric capability
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Indranil, Basically the Avros have airframe life you are saying. What new engines would you suggest? The C295/C-130 would be adequate? Reason is it could be used in Andamans
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

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

Post by andy B »

ramana wrote:Indranil, Basically the Avros have airframe life you are saying. What new engines would you suggest? The C295/C-130 would be adequate? Reason is it could be used in Andamans
Ramana ji, thanks for raising this, IR had previously noted that the Avros have a very large quantum of airframe life left.

IR on this point, given the c295s are coming would it make sense to try and get the PW127s. I think the AE2100s of the Hercules maybe an overkill and will also be substantially more expensive. I am also not sure if the Avro airframe can handle that amount of excess power. Although this is only a gut feel!
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Post by Philip »

Sadly almost all our acquisitions are knee-jerk affairs,instead of perspective plans anticipating replacements for legacy eqpt. in a smooth,phased manner. We wait,and wait, and the MOD must take the greatest blame for its red-tapism, DPSUs next for inordinate delays,quality,cost-escalation,etc.,until aircraft and helos start falling from the skies before the familiar knee-jerk action takes place.Just a day ago a MIG-21 crashed. Its replacement Tejas is so slow coming off the line that first an SE fighter,now morphed into MMRCA 2.0, contest is on the cards.The announcement of the eventual winner may take as long as MMRCA 1.0, then excruciating negotiations like the Rafale taking years before an aircraft of the 4th-gen. starts appearing around 2030 or so.

How can the IAF achieve the chief's future focus, " persistant presence" without the required numbers? One sincerely hopes that the 80+ LCA Mk-1As come with much increased production rates so that within 4 to 5 years,say by 2025 the entire lot is delivered.

If legacy aircraft have airframe / engine life in them,then new uses must be found as they're being replaced.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18276
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

First batch of Tejas Mk1As can only be delivered in three years after contract signature. So if the contract is signed in Aero India 2021, the first batch will arrive only by Feb 2024.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Post by Prasad »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Indranil wrote:Vivek, you know there is no way that the C295s can replace the 32s in hot and high performance.

C295: MTOW 23,000 kgs, engine power: 2x1972 kW, wing area: 59 m^2.
An32: MTOW 27,000 kgs, engine power: 2x3812 kW, wing area: 75 m^2.

There is no comparison in hot and high conditions!!
I was baiting someone to show up with the numbers. And you did not disappoint! :)

So, there it is. The AN-32 will need its own replacement. But as I suggested previously, it may not need to be 1-to-1 replacement. A combination of C-130Js and C-295s might close the gap. The former for high altitudes and latter for the plains.
Given that we buried the MTA program, perhaps we could get the Embraer C-390 to replace the An-32?
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Post by nachiket »

Indranil wrote:C295 is not a replacement for the Avros either. The Avros hardly do anything! Their only proper use right now is in pilot training. When it is use for communications, most of the plane flies empty. T
What is the reason for the Avros not being used for routine transport duties? If they have lots of airframe life left after so many years, they must have been severely underused.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

ramana wrote:Indranil, Basically the Avros have airframe life you are saying. What new engines would you suggest? The C295/C-130 would be adequate? Reason is it could be used in Andamans
Most of them have 75-80% of their 100,000 hours of life left. HAL chose PW127E (or M?) as the upgrade. They fly on the ATR72-500s. I suspect the choice was driven by proven hotel-mode operations.

But nothing will move for now. Because everything will be perceived as a ploy to sabotage the C295. So, any proposals to use the Avros would have to wait till the C295 deal is done.
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Post by V_Raman »

so HAL cannot make it into a viable civil airliner with upgrades?
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Post by AkshaySG »

V_Raman wrote:so HAL cannot make it into a viable civil airliner with upgrades?
What about the other way 'round ... there's plenty of airlines going bankrupt or incurring losses , There could be some great deals available on used airliners which should be fine for peacetime troop/goods transports especially in plains/peninsula regions where the threat level is negligible .

It would also free up the Avros/An32s/C295 etc for duties exclusively in the Northern sectors around LAC/LOC and increase their service life .
We're already moving forward with A320( or 330) being converted to AWACS so engine commonality is also possible
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Post by nachiket »

V_Raman wrote:so HAL cannot make it into a viable civil airliner with upgrades?
Who will buy it when the ATR-72 and Q400 are available? These are really old airframes.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Post by Philip »

A point about the AVROs.The CABS AEWC prototype crashed due to the airframe being unable to take the stress of the rotodome. Therefore, if some AVROs have life left in them they should be utilised for transport/ logistic duties instead of tinkering with an old airframe. There are plenty of A-319/20s around and the ones in best condition could be converted to tankers,whatever by the OEM themselves.
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Post by V_Raman »

It crashed for the heavier rotodome. Will it not work for Netra style radar? I guess that is much lighter than the rotodome? Are there other issues like range that will make this not viable?
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 622
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Post by maitya »

Indranil wrote:<snip>
I hope the Avros are reengined and put back into service. They will make excellent MPAs. They weigh the same as the 295s and will have similarly powered engines. They were designed as airliners and are therefore more efficient than the 295s with a large ramp at the back. Consider the wing area: 77 m^2. Additionally, it has low wings, i.e. larger undercarriage and much higher ground clearance. This is very useful for maritime patrol radars and their radomes. You can fit larger arrays and the radomes don't get roughed up by the FOD kicked up by the front tyre(s).
Or maybe divert some airframes for installing a desi SAR/MTI radar (a la Sentinel etc) for some airborne ground surveillance and battle management platform - a poor man's JSTARS.
Service Ceiling may be an issue though ...
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

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

Post by jamwal »

Image
Has this image been posted before?
Philip wrote:A point about the AVROs.The CABS AEWC prototype crashed due to the airframe being unable to take the stress of the rotodome.
V_Raman wrote:It crashed for the heavier rotodome. Will it not work for Netra style radar? I guess that is much lighter than the rotodome? Are there other issues like range that will make this not viable?
Airavat crash was result of oversight related to flap settings at a certain speed, not weight of rotordome or anything related to it.
The pilots lowered flaps at a speed (180 knots?) which was not tested on ground or air. It led to change in aerodynamics of rotodome and it's rear brackets broke due to shift in center of pressure.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Post by Philip »

Tx.Jam. Terrific pic!
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Post by Khalsa »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Philip wrote:Isn't the MTA still alive, embers flickering?
Since I am on a roll making bold claims all over this forum, I will make one more: the MTA is dead and buried.

Nothing will come off it. When the time comes to replace the AN-32, it will be something off the shelf. Preferably a type that already exists in the IAF (C-130J, C-295, etc.).
Philip wrote:As for the AVROs, how much of life is left in the airframes of the inventory for it to continue in a useful role?
Avros are done. They are being flogged because there is no choice, but the IAF will drop them like hot potatoes the moment the C-295s start rolling off the production lines.
The past was
Dornier
Avros
An-12
An-32s
IL-76

The future will be
C295
C-130
C-17

expect to see a lot more of hercules being ordered to fill the space currently occupied by An-32 and Il-76.
I doubt it we will ever go for Ilushins anymore.
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Post by V_Raman »

It is sad that India keeps getting these production lines and then shuts them down after a small production run without any use for those after that. Avro, Dornier, Jaguar, HDW, - what else? and after all this - we have severe teething issues with LCA production standardization :-?
Locked