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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8291
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 12 Feb 2021 03:35

brar_w wrote:
Indranil wrote:I don't fully understand why they went for a turbojet. Wouldn't a sustainer rocket engine for example the ones seen in anti-armor, anti-ship missiles be cheaper and less cumbersome.


My guess is that the turbojet gives them better range and envelope considering that majority of the aircraft employing this munition (and needing the additional stand off range) will be altitude constrained in a heavily defended environment due to their RCS and survivability concerns. This will allow their F-16's and F-15 I's to stay low while still getting some of the stand off advantages that the glide Spice had when launched from altitude. They've basically followed the UK approach (Spear III) though had they primarily designed for their F-35I integration they would have probably preferred a faster weapon that could at the very least retain the traditional time-to-target at double or more the distance when launched from altitude. Not sure if this solution will get them that. Even with the turbojet the max range shots are going to take quite a long time to get to target which is not optimal for some of the target set on the 250 class weapon though it would make sense for the larger Spice family packages if they apply the same solution set there (like the JSOW for example).

I was thinking along similar lines. With better ISP they can go further. They were working with one other constraint: They couldn't change the dimensions, at least length and width. Otherwise, they wouldn't fit on the current quad launchers.

But how much further can they go using a turbojet over a sustainer rocket. There cannot be more than 10 kg of fuel involved. With the turbojets, they can go 10 kms more over a sustainer rocket motor? And if space is a consideration, wouldn't a nozzle-less solid rocket motor be even more lucrative?

There must be a good explanation. Just can't see it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9633
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 12 Feb 2021 04:08

Pure range yes. I’m the type of targets they they would want to attack say inside Iran could probably mean they the munition may have to climb from a lower altitude and then cruise. Not sure what else they would have needed to change to accommodate other propulsion solutions. So it may not be a pure range play as much as a broader envelope within different launch profiles. One would have thought that they would have started with the 1000+ category of Spice but then they probably have a lot of targets in their own operational need so the 250 with the larger magazine may make sense there.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 12 Feb 2021 19:22

Must watch!
Garuda in the Vayusena!

All three sessions are superb!
Please like, share and subscribe to CAPS!

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5362
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

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

Postby jamwal » 18 Feb 2021 13:21

Are there any plans to move or raise any air force units at Jammu airport? The runway is being lengthened from 6500 to 800 ft. It is an IAF base with a civil annexure/enclave. The expansion work is being undertaken by IAF too.
One major security risk is some old grave which has been converted in to a "shrine" by the faithfool only a few meters from the runway.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 18 Feb 2021 13:31

I doubt it. Udhampur is less than 40km away as the crow flies and has a 9000 ft runway. Plus no civilian traffic there either. Better place to permanently base a fighter unit if they wish to IMHO. Unless they ran out of space there of course. It is home to one or two helicopter units.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5362
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

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

Postby jamwal » 18 Feb 2021 13:45

There are some other birds too which I've heard and noticed since late 90s.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12619
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 18 Feb 2021 13:54

jamwal wrote:Are there any plans to move or raise any air force units at Jammu airport? The runway is being lengthened from 6500 to 800 ft. It is an IAF base with a civil annexure/enclave. The expansion work is being undertaken by IAF too.
One major security risk is some old grave which has been converted in to a "shrine" by the faithfool only a few meters from the runway.


As Nachiket says, highly unlikely but Jammu, Amritsar runways have an importance, being close to the Pak border, these runways will be first available for IAF aircraft with Fuel or emergencies to land.

They will not be permanent IAF bases but emergency bases for aircraft coming in.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12619
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 18 Feb 2021 14:20

Interesting looking at google maps, Srinagar AFB at 33°59'28.6"N 74°45'52.1"E (33.991279, 74.764458- digital) coordinates we seem to have SU-30MKI's there, previously it used to be a Mig 21 Bison base.

This has equal relevance to Chinese front as the Pakistanis, as being at 5500 feet , the flight distance is 320KM to DBO and 360 KM to Chushul.

50Km from LOC, 135km to Kahuta and 160Km to Chaklala AFB Rawalpindi.

Only thing is I am sure about the Hanger size, there about 8 aircraft out in the sun.

Another important airbase is Saraswa Airbase- UP, it on the plains and 340Km from Ngari Airbase, take off release a bunch SAAW's with mountains for cover and Ngari runway taken out of operations buying IAF crucial time.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 18 Feb 2021 15:00

Aditya_V wrote:Interesting looking at google maps, Srinagar AFB at 33°59'28.6"N 74°45'52.1"E (33.991279, 74.764458- digital) coordinates we seem to have SU-30MKI's there, previously it used to be a Mig 21 Bison base.

No. 51 Squadron (WingCo Abhinandan's unit) is permanently based in Srinagar. So the Mig-21's should still be there. Perhaps dispersed in shelters. The Su-30's must be a temporary detachment.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10633
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2021 07:12

https://twitter.com/IndianDefenceRA/sta ... 80586?s=20 ---> Air Marshal Amit Dev, AOC-in-C of EAC visited forward locations in Sikkim & interacted with Indian Army to synergize and support the efforts of Army. He also interacted with aircrew of Apache Unit, which has been deployed in eastern sector for the first time.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10633
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2021 21:07

The MiG 29 ‘Baaz’ Story By A Young Defence Enthusiast
https://airpowerasia.com/2021/02/19/the ... nthusiast/
By Shwetabh Singh Rajput

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2526
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 19 Feb 2021 21:44

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/IndianDefenceRA/status/1362386568787480586?s=20 ---> Air Marshal Amit Dev, AOC-in-C of EAC visited forward locations in Sikkim & interacted with Indian Army to synergize and support the efforts of Army. He also interacted with aircrew of Apache Unit, which has been deployed in eastern sector for the first time.


Nice.. so will they be called 'Apache Indians' with the motto 'Boom Shake-the-Yaks' :mrgreen:

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 354
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 23 Feb 2021 12:36

Hope this post is not considered as spam... :)
Having seen lot of discussions regarding projected Squadron Strength of Indian Air Force, I thought it will be good to tabulate the projections... However, as I started writing them down, it became obvious that the variables are just too many...
So, after much thinking, I prepared a simple Excel Sheet... The format I prepared is as follows:-

A) Input Data:-
I prepared two tables fir input data...
In Table 1, I entered the details of existing 'Old' jets... Old as in, all jets bought before Tejas...
The variables for each type are:-
1) No. of existing squadrons
2) year of retirement commencement and
3) rate of retirement...

In Table 2, I entered details of all New jets to be procured... New as in, all jets bought/to be bought after Tejas...
The variables for each type are:-
1) Year of signing of contract
2) No. of jets ordered
3) Rate of production of the jets
4) No. of jets per squadron
5) Rate of retirement (this input is not necessary for near future)

Sample Input Tables 1 & 2 are as shown below--->
Image
The cells highlighted in Yellow are the variables to be entered... All other values are fixed/filled automatically...
-
B) Output Data:-
Once the above data is entered, we come to the Output Table... In Ouput Table, we just have to enter the year (any year after 2021) and the squadron composition & numbers of the that particular year is tabulated automatically...

Sample Output Table is as shown below--->
Image
-
Since it is difficult to compare year on year changes with the above Output format, I prepared a modified version of the Excel Sheet... In the modified version, the squadron composition will be automatically filled for any six years you enter...
----
For general analysis and overall view of things, I considered three cases for calculating the variation in squadron numbers which I'm sharing below--->
-
1) With all currently planned/projected orders... (With MRFA, No Additional Rafale, No ORCA):-
Image
Some Assumptions considered:-
i) Nos. of Tejas Mk2, AMCA and MRFA based on recent news articles which gave numbers 170, 2+5 squadrons and 114 respectively...
ii) For year of signing of Contract, I considered it 2 years after the jet is ready for production to take care of bureaucratic complications... I took 'ready for production' year from Satheesh Reddy sir's recent presentation shared here before AeroIndia...
iii) Tejas Mk1 contract details were entered randomly...
iv) Existing Su30 MKI are only 12 squadrons, 13th will be raised this year or next... 14th may also be raised in future... However, fixed it as 13 squadrons to avoid complicating the sheet even more...
v) MMRCA 1.0 took 5 years from RFP in 2007 to declaring Rafale as winner in 2012... Further, commercial negotiations remained inconclusive... Considering the same timeline for MRFA, assuming RFP to be issued in 2022, Contract signing will be 2028...
vi) Rate of production of future jets is purely my assumption, which I felt is reasonable...
-
2) Without MRFA, 2 Sqdns Additional Rafale, 4 Sqdns ORCA:-
Image
The 3rd squadron of MRFA and 1st squadron of ORCA will be ready more or less at the sametime...
In ORCA, IAF will get the perfect Desi alternative to the expensive Rafale... So, if MRFA is cancelled and IAF goes for 2 Additional Rafale squadrons and 4 Squadrons of ORCA, the squadron numbers and overall composition will remain same... Also, ORCA can play the role of cheaper mud-mover to AMCA... It can also be used to replace earlier squadrons of Su30s... Additional numbers can be immediately ordered as and when required...
The only downside is that IAF will get an additional type of jet in its fleet... But then, if MRFA deal goes to someone other than Rafale, it will be even worse...
-
3) Without MRFA, 2 Sqdns Additional Rafale, 4 Additional Sqdns of Tejas Mk2:-
Image
If IAF don't want a new type of Jet, they can simply order Additional Tejas Mk2 apart from 2 additional squadrons of Rafale... After all, Tejas Mk2 is same class as Gripen E/F and F16, two of the contendors of MRFA... If the production rate of Tejas Mk2 is increased from 24 to 32, the timeline will also match the MRFA/ORCA dates:-
Image
----
I hope these tables will give a realistic idea of things as they stand...
My opinions and conclusions based on these tables is as follows:-
1) IAF strength will continue to remain between 31 to 35 for this entire decade. Tejas Mk2 is most crucial to shore up IAF numbers. Once Tejas Mk2 is productionized, the numbers will start going up and continue to increase in next decade to the sanctioned 42 squadrons.
However, I don't think Tejas Mk2 will see a production rate of 32 per year... 24 jets per year would be ideal for the considered timeline and speculated orders... IAF may even restrict it to 16 per year depending on orders & budget...
2) The only reason IAF need MRFA is if they are looking for any specific technologies. Otherwise, they should order 2-3 squadrons of Rafales and order ORCA/ additional Tejas Mk2 to fill up numbers... If creating a new assembly line in private sector is the only aim, they can consider creating one with one of the domestic programs rather than going for an imported new jet...
3) I haven't included CATS and other UAVs in these calculations as the numbers are neither firmed up nor speculated anywhere. But I feel these systems will also play a major role in future.
4) IAF and MOD should start planning for replacement of Su30s after 5-6 years. That will give them full 20 years to plan and replace Su30s, which are due for retirement starting 2045. Replacement may include any one or combinations of the following:-
a) Cleansheet 6th Gen aircraft, probably 30+Tonne Heavy Class jet.
b) 4.5 Gen (probably ORCA)
c) Additional AMCA
d) full-fledged CATS or UAV squadrons

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2151
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 23 Feb 2021 12:38

https://twitter.com/Suryakiran_IAF/stat ... 9181275140
The Flyby continue into Tamil Nadu tomorrow.
Tag @suryakiran_iaf
and post your pictures. Best photos get a personalised hamper from the team.

Note: Timings subject to change in case of enroute weather.
#tamilnadu #Pondicherry

Image

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2526
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 23 Feb 2021 13:26

LakshmanPST wrote:Hope this post is not considered as spam... :)
Having seen lot of discussions regarding projected Squadron Strength of Indian Air Force, I thought it will be good to tabulate the projections... However, as I started writing them down, it became obvious that the variables are just too many...
So, after much thinking, I prepared a simple Excel Sheet... The format I prepared is as follows:-


Awesome effort, sir. Request you to maintain (update, fine tune) this data sheet for future reference.

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 54
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 23 Feb 2021 14:52

The way squadrons are calculated is very odd..different planes and different numbers i suppose.
272 MkI would be making up mere 13 squadrons..at 21 fighters per squadron..
36 Rafales make up 2 squadrons at 18 per squadron.

Tejas again counted as 20 per squadron ..Jags and Mig21s differently

Some Uniformity is called for ..16+2 for all types

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2769
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 23 Feb 2021 15:21

Great effort, LakshmanPST! Please keep it updated and it will be very useful

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4819
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 23 Feb 2021 15:35

Now please update with the price tag for each of the option. That will provide a more realistic picture of what can be afforded.

chetonzz
BRFite
Posts: 111
Joined: 18 Mar 2019 11:11

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

Postby chetonzz » 23 Feb 2021 16:28

*please reply me*

all non Bison Mig-21 s are phased out "as of today"?

if yes why no ceremony? COVID?

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 354
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 23 Feb 2021 16:42

Anshuman.Kumar wrote:The way squadrons are calculated is very odd..different planes and different numbers i suppose.
272 MkI would be making up mere 13 squadrons..at 21 fighters per squadron..
36 Rafales make up 2 squadrons at 18 per squadron.

Tejas again counted as 20 per squadron ..Jags and Mig21s differently

Some Uniformity is called for ..16+2 for all types


16+2 is standard squadron composition... But more than 18 are generally ordered for attrition reserves, TACDE, availability, turn-around time etc.... The final squadron composition is decided by IAF taking all these factors into consideration...
Many ppl count the number of planes and simply divide it by 18, which is a wrong approach...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55223
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 24 Feb 2021 05:52

Thanks Lakshman. The table meets the requirement that I wanted.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55223
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 24 Feb 2021 05:53

Very interesting IAF quest for DPSA and the meandering path it took. Doesn't include Su-30MKI or Rafale.
And note how it gets jerked by political, supplier, geo-politics.

And IAF creates ASR based on available planes.

So how to fault them for Tejas!

https://airpowerasia.com/2021/02/19/the ... nthusiast/

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55223
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 24 Feb 2021 05:56

Indranil, KaranM,
Can the Tejas Mk1 be upgraded to Mk1A standards eventually?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4819
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 24 Feb 2021 06:57

Rakesh wrote:The MiG 29 ‘Baaz’ Story By A Young Defence Enthusiast
https://airpowerasia.com/2021/02/19/the ... nthusiast/
By Shwetabh Singh Rajput

1979 - Jaguar
1980-82 - MiG-23/27
1982 - Mirage-2000
1986 - MiG-29

Hindsight 20/20: if the GoI and IAF had focused on Mirage-2000 with license production (on offer) along with MiG-29 with license production (on offer), there would have been enough money to standardize the fleet with many more quantities of the two.

Having said that, the multi-role technology back then wasn’t mature like we see today. It was more of specialized aircraft for either strike or air defense.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10633
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 24 Feb 2021 07:03

ramana wrote:Indranil, KaranM,
Can the Tejas Mk1 be upgraded to Mk1A standards eventually?

Not IR or KaranM, but as per HAL Chief...yes.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4819
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 24 Feb 2021 07:23

^^^
Typically, some differences will remain given the build specs may have altered ever so slightly between the variants.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55223
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 24 Feb 2021 20:34

Sometime before the 83 Mk1A are completed and the Mk2 gets started it would be prudent to get the Mk1 upgrade going.
Radar, avionics, Astra etc.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19875
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 25 Feb 2021 03:42

ramana wrote:Indranil, KaranM,
Can the Tejas Mk1 be upgraded to Mk1A standards eventually?


Some avionics, yes. But there are structural differences that can't be retrofitted. MK1A is designed with production engineering improvements for easy serviceability. In terms of what matters to us, common radar, EW, armament, fuel tanks etc can be retrofitted.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55223
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 25 Feb 2021 04:03

Great. Need IAF to plan for that upgrade to get more flexibility.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 25 Feb 2021 10:00

ramana wrote:Great. Need IAF to plan for that upgrade to get more flexibility.


Plans already in place. Upgrades will happen over time. Present priority is getting and operationalising fighters as they become available. There is a lot of learning happening.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3305
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 28 Feb 2021 00:17

Pak went back on its F-16 promise to US. How India fixed the gaps with Rafale.

When the French President’s diplomatic advisor Emmanuel Bonne landed in India for a strategic dialogue on January 7, one of the key asks from the Indian Air Force was that the Rafale fighter’s technology, especially its missile capability, be kept away from Pakistan.

India conveyed to Bonne that even though Dassault Aviation, manufacturer of Rafale fighter, is selling the omni-role platform Rafale to Qatar, Paris should ensure that no Pakistani-origin person is given access to the plane by Doha.

Paris hasn’t just assured India that Rafale technology, specially that related to the Meteor air-to-air missile will be kept out of reach of Pakistan, but also that it will no longer upgrade the Mirage 3/5 fighters or Augusta 90 B submarines in Islamabad’s military inventory. India sought these iron clad guarantees after it burnt its fingers during Pakistani Air Force retaliation on February 27, 2019, a day after the Balakot strike.

On that day, Pakistan reneged on its promise to the Americans that it would only use F-16 aircraft in the war against terror and not against India. It was an 75-km range air-to-air AIM-120-C-5 missile, fired from a Pakistani F-16, that brought down Wing Commander Abhinandan’s Mig-21 Bison interceptor on the Line of Control in the Rajouri-Mendhar sector.

According to former Air Force Chiefs and Air Marshals, had the Indian Air Force not practised with the premise that Pakistan would use F-16 and beyond visual range missiles against India, more Indian fighters would have been knocked down on that day. “We were very clear that Pakistan would use the F-16 against us and hence we practised to keep IAF fighters beyond what is called dynamic attack zone 1 and 2 or D-Max 1 and 2 of the AIM-120C air to air missile,” said a top IAF official who asked not to be named. D-Max-1 refers to a range where a missile can “secure a kill” provided the opponent doesn’t engage in manoeuvring, and D-Max-2, a no escape zone from the incoming missile even after “all manoeuvring”, added this officer.

The Pentagon had previously assured India that Islamabad would not use the F-16 or the missiles against India. It conveyed the message to India after New Delhi requested Washington to put a software lock on the missile so that it cannot be used against India.

The Indian concern over the long range missile was raised by Air Marshal AK Gogoi as Director General (Air Operations) with the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen in Washington in September 2010. It was raised again during the visit of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar in August 2016 with US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter in no uncertain terms. But all this came to no avail two years ago. Not only did Pakistan use the missile (parts of which were recovered) against India on February 27, 2019, but it also glossed over the F-16 that Wing Commander Abhinandan shot down using a Russian R 73 missile.

Analysts say that the F-16 incident may have well forced the Indian Air Force to acquire the Meteor missile for Rafale. The no escape zone of this missile is way beyond the missiles carried by US or Chinese aircraft flown by the Pakistani air force.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4819
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 28 Feb 2021 01:55

^^^
So how is India punishing US for PAF use of F-16 and AMRAAM?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4704
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Feb 2021 06:29

LakshmanPST wrote:Hope this post is not considered as spam... :)
Having seen lot of discussions regarding projected Squadron Strength of Indian Air Force, I thought it will be good to tabulate the projections... However, as I started writing them down, it became obvious that the variables are just too many...
So, after much thinking, I prepared a simple Excel Sheet... The format I prepared is as follows:- snip

Take a bow Lakshmanji, that is one helluva effort!

vinod
BRFite
Posts: 752
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby vinod » 01 Mar 2021 05:27

Vips wrote:Pak went back on its F-16 promise to US. How India fixed the gaps with Rafale.

Analysts say that the F-16 incident may have well forced the Indian Air Force to acquire the Meteor missile for Rafale. The no escape zone of this missile is way beyond the missiles carried by US or Chinese aircraft flown by the Pakistani air force.


Isn't this incorrect statement? IAF always knew of the threat of AIM 120 missile but couldn't get one until meteor came along 2016. It was to be part of Rafale package deal which just got delayed.
Meanwhile, India put pressure to get assurances from US which Pakis made them look like fools. India knowing them well trained anyways to handle the threat.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

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

Postby Anujan » 01 Mar 2021 06:21

No country can give iron clad assurances on how its exports would be used. This is because

(a) If they enforce their assurances, they face a loss of weapons export market. LockMart will lose F16 contracts around the world, because countries will be suspicious about restrictions on how they'd be used

(b) When national interest comes into play, all assurances go out of the window

Our airforce knows this very well and would have trained accordinly.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4819
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 01 Mar 2021 12:14

^^^
It’s really a one-way street; exporters have all the leverage. Exporter makes the importer sign all sorts of “bi-lateral security” agreements drafted by them and have them signed into legally binding documents; whereas, all the importer gets in return is “assurances”, in other words a non-legally binding promises for buyer’s other strategic interests.

Are there any consequences for the exporter when “assurances” don’t pan out in reality? Nope. In-fact, opposite occurs—generates more business. Importers require even more powerful weapons to counter. Exporters get away with a gentle slap on the wrist and a new round of gentlemanly assurances are extracted.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 01 Mar 2021 15:48

According to another report,quoting a retd. sr.IAF officer, the PAF planned an attack on a military base in J & K with a large force of aircraft. 4 F-16s first launched 3 AMRAAMs at 2 SU-30s, of which all missed. A 4th. missile was fired. The Sukhois then counterattacked , but the F-16s after seeing all their missiles fail turned tail and fled in fear and were out of range. Had our MKIs pursued them into Paki airspace they dould'vd surely suffered casualties. The message of revenge had already been administeted at Balakot! The next time we strike terror targets using the IAF, it would be best for the Pakis to keep their birds firmly on terra firma!

mody
BRFite
Posts: 816
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 01 Mar 2021 16:06

The only way to get the number of aircrafts up in the 2024 to 2030 timeframe is by signing a G-To-G agreement for another 36 Rafael and additional 36-37 Tejas MK1A.
If the contracts are signed within the next 12 months, France can start the delivery of the Rafael from 2024 onwards and complete the delivery by end of 2027 or early 2028.
For Tejas MK1A, the mandate should be for HAL to increase the manufacturing capacity to 24 planes per year, from the the projected 16 (32 actually if exports are also factored in). This way all the 110 MK1A can manufactured in the same time frame that the current order of 73 MK1A single seat planes are to be manufacture in.
This way an additional 4 squadrons can be added by 2028, over and above what the current plan is.
Offcourse the current plan also wants 114 MRCA fighters to inducted. However, at the rate that it is progressing and the aircrafts under consideration, the contract will certainly not be signed in the next 12 months and with local assembly planned, I doubt we can get the 6 planned squadrons inducted by 2028 or even 2030.
Besides, the aircrafts under consideration are F-21, F18, Mig-35, F-15EX, Rafael, Eurofighter 2000 and Gripen NG. Out of these the F-21 stands no chance, also as the USAF chief recently said that the F-16 had reached an end and should not be considered for further upgrades. Same with the Mig-35, I don't think IAF is looking for an upgraded Mig-29. The Eurofighter couldn't beat the Rafael the last time around and I don't think, it will this time around either. the F-15EX is a heavy fighter in the same class as the Su-30MKI and won't find favour. The Gripen NG is essentially the same as the Tejas MK2. This leaves only the Rafael and the F-18. Both can find favour, especially if we consider the addition of the IN requirement as well.
But in any case, no matter which aircraft is chosen, there is simply no money for 114 planes from any of the above for the IAF.

Just go with a combo of additional Rafael and Tejas MK1A and add additional 72-73 aircrafts to IAF inventory by 2028.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55223
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 02 Mar 2021 02:15

Karan M wrote:
ramana wrote:Indranil, KaranM,
Can the Tejas Mk1 be upgraded to Mk1A standards eventually?


Some avionics, yes. But there are structural differences that can't be retrofitted. MK1A is designed with production engineering improvements for easy serviceability. In terms of what matters to us, common radar, EW, armament, fuel tanks etc can be retrofitted.


Good. Was assured that the plan.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12619
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Mar 2021 11:57

Philip wrote:According to another report,quoting a retd. sr.IAF officer, the PAF planned an attack on a military base in J & K with a large force of aircraft. 4 F-16s first launched 3 AMRAAMs at 2 SU-30s, of which all missed. A 4th. missile was fired. The Sukhois then counterattacked , but the F-16s after seeing all their missiles fail turned tail and fled in fear and were out of range. Had our MKIs pursued them into Paki airspace they dould'vd surely suffered casualties. The message of revenge had already been administeted at Balakot! The next time we strike terror targets using the IAF, it would be best for the Pakis to keep their birds firmly on terra firma!


I still strongly believe that the F-16 that was shot down and pilot who died saved the day for the Pakis, whom the PAF and the ungrateful nation have disowned. That F-16 was a strike aircraft was in the wrong position since it launched the LGB and altitude wise much lower at 9000 ft but engaged the Mig-21 Bisons since 2 other F-16 which were fleeing were very vulnerable and going to get shot.

Seeing the video and vapour trail going away from the F-16, it is most probably that this F-16 that launched the Amraam that got Abhinandan before it was hit by the r-73. This theory is corroborated by the IAF radar presentation, that why you the Mig21 Bisons cross the LOC in a North East to South West direction but suddenly truth right to engage the F-16 which climbing altitude.

Wing Commander Abhinandan did not cross the LOC to get shot down, he and Squandron Leader Vyas( I am not sure of both of them have been promoted in the last 2 years)- they went there cause 2 of F-16 which had launched Amraam's against Avenger Su-30 were in an extremely vulnerable position.

It was the F-16 which went down that day by losing a Pilot life at CMH Rawalpindi that saved they day for Pakis, otherwise it would have been all Bombs missed and 2-F-16;s down for the PAF. Wing Commander being captured alive was the bargaining chip the Pakis had and they played it. But it was only because 1 F-16 twin seater instead of doing what the rest of them did decided to take a risky engagement. Being at lower altitude it original mission was to launch LGB's at BHQ Naushera, it was probably not the primary target initially when the Bisons crossed the Pir Panjal.

Clearly there are a lot of details on 27-Feb-19 which are out of public domain. Wish we get a proper account from the IAF with launch positions on-what exactly happened on 26-Feb-19 and 27-Feb-19 (UAV shootdowns near Naliya airbase also) including the 2 Targets at Muzaffarabad and Chakoti- whose information went missing when the MEA decided to call an Airforce strike as "Non Miltary strike"



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests