Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 25 Mar 2018 01:47

This 'burdening' has also opened the aircraft to it's full potential. Our scientists and engineers have shown that they can deliver it and IAF has seen that we're capable of doing it. By limiting domestic products to low-end capabilities only we will forever be paying a heavy price for brochure specs of imported products.

Always aim high but remain vested in the process by taking delivery of early versions. As the Astra report by Livefist (missile dhaga) shows, this participation by services is key to success. You also need a political establishment that believes in this. This, IMHO, was the single biggest contribution of ex-RM MP. So many short-gestation projects have started bearing fruit. Hopefully, some of the longer projects can also be turned around.

titash · Post by **titash** » 25 Mar 2018 12:37

Cain Marko wrote:^ how is this different from say...this?

This is one area where the Mirages are leagues ahead of the mk1 tejas. Payload

The difference may not be as stark. The LCA has 6 wing hardpoints + 1 underbelly hardpoint + 1 dedicated Lightening Pod station. The upgraded M2K-5 has 4 wing hardpoints + 4 wing root hardpoints + 1 underbelly hardpoint. So 7 vs. 9 hardpoints, and frankly if a designator pod MUST be carried for a strike mission, then it's actually 7 vs. 8 hardpoints.

Assuming the aircraft are loaded fully:
Tejas = 2 R-73 CCM + 2 PGMs + 2 fuel tanks (on 6 wing stations) + 1 Lightening designator pod + 1 fuel tank (or LGB) on underbelly station
M2K-5 = 2 Mica/Magic + 2 big fuel tanks (on 4 wing stations) + 1 designator pod + 3 Mica (on 4 wing root stations) + twin LGB rack on underbelly station

So realistically the M2K-5 can carry 2 LGBs further into Pakistan due to higher fuel load and fight it's way out. But equally realistically, the Tejas can carry 2-3 LGBs into Pakistan and fight any local CAP fighters. Not a whole lot of difference in the effective payload of the aircraft, but more so for strike radius. As a MiG-21 replacement, the tejas does all that's asked and more. The M2K-5 is just a bigger plane that can do more (and costs a shit load more).

The Tejas MK2 will not be a M2K-5 because it's not increasing the effective payload capacity or number of hardpoints or strike radius, and is more of a aerodynamic refinement, T/W increase, better AESA radar i.e. a better point defence fighter, but still a point defence fighter.

The Tejas is limited to 5 large store stations (2 bombs + 3 fuel OR vice versa)

Essentially the M2K-5 appears to be limited to 3 large store stations (fuel tanks or LGBs). I haven't seen configs where the 4 wing root stations also carry LGBs or fuel

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Mar 2018 17:18

Indian air force on a strong wicket against China: IAF chief

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Mar 2018 18:03

tactical situations for laying CCIP bombs on target will still exist in a major war. nobody has the inventory of LGBs and standoff glided munitions to last for months of a continent scale war...and none have the swing role production rampup for that either.
it will be back to 500lb, 1000lb iron bombs are the initial show is over.

Nishn · Post by **Nishn** » 25 Mar 2018 21:31

The IAF should be looking at a stand-off Bomber concept in its inventory now, for induction in about a decade, that goes beyond the range and payload of the SU 30 truck. The munitions list is slowly but surely maturing, both in the powered and un-powered/glide area. But the platforms to carry then have to go beyond fighters. And where payloads and endurance are good enough to topple rogue regimes in the vicinity as well as for adversaries to think deep before having thoughts of foul play.
A Make in India with a foreign design would be the best option. And then graduate from there.

nam · Post by **nam** » 26 Mar 2018 00:47

4 SU30 can carry more than 24 tons of load out. Or 96 250 KG bombs!

And is more survivable than a bomber.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Mar 2018 04:05

titash wrote:The difference may not be as stark. ......Assuming the aircraft are loaded fully:
Tejas = 2 R-73 CCM + 2 PGMs + 2 fuel tanks (on 6 wing stations) + 1 Lightening designator pod + 1 fuel tank (or LGB) on underbelly station
M2K-5 = 2 Mica/Magic + 2 big fuel tanks (on 4 wing stations) + 1 designator pod + 3 Mica (on 4 wing root stations) + twin LGB rack on underbelly station
So realistically the M2K-5 can carry 2 LGBs further into Pakistan due to higher fuel load and fight it's way out.

That difference is not small...

But equally realistically, the Tejas can carry 2-3 LGBs into Pakistan and fight any local CAP fighters. Not a whole lot of difference in the effective payload of the aircraft, but more so for strike radius.

How is the effective payload not different? For the same range, the mirage will carry considerably more. For the same weapons load, it will carry it considerably further

As a MiG-21 replacement, the tejas does all that's asked and more. The M2K-5 is just a bigger plane that can do more (and costs a shit load more).

No doubt. but I was thinking more of the mk2 when I wrote that. My point, which I really didn't get across properly it seems, was that the only area where the mk1 is not equal/ahead and the mk2 should rectify is, payload. Oh and I just remembered, the internal ew system, which again the mk2 will rectify.
IOWs, the Tejas currently does a super job, equal to the mirage in many ways but a few, which of course is a result of the size difference.

The Tejas MK2 will not be a M2K-5 because it's not increasing the effective payload capacity or number of hardpoints or strike radius, and is more of a aerodynamic refinement, T/W increase, better AESA radar i.e. a better point defence fighter, but still a point defence fighter.

I was under the impression that the mk2 was aiming to carry more payload, and internal fuel along with airframe refinements including a 0.5 meter plug, which would probably take it into the mirage/gripen ng territory ~ 7.5 tons empty, hence the comment that payload would need to increase to complete at that empty weight.

I haven't seen configs where the 4 wing root stations also carry LGBs or fuel

It can carry up to 250kg bombs on those hps iirc.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Mar 2018 04:39

Nishn wrote:The IAF should be looking at a stand-off Bomber concept in its inventory now, for induction in about a decade, that goes beyond the range and payload of the SU 30 truck. The munitions list is slowly but surely maturing, both in the powered and un-powered/glide area. But the platforms to carry then have to go beyond fighters. And where payloads and endurance are good enough to topple rogue regimes in the vicinity as well as for adversaries to think deep before having thoughts of foul play.
A Make in India with a foreign design would be the best option. And then graduate from there.

Just buy a few late model backfires or blackjacks and join the pakda program in an early stage instead of after the first flight. The capability jump is massive although the mki upgrade might make the bird even more versatile.

If they really want to make a bomb truck out of the mki, a few pages from the su 34 might be in order. 12.5 ton internal fuel load, 12 ton external payload, ability to carry 3 massive drop tanks. Now this might be no backfire, but it sure comes close to an f111. Plus, it is extremely suicidal thanks to it's A2A capabilities.

Bah, just order a few... And make Philip happy.

Nishn · Post by **Nishn** » 26 Mar 2018 04:58

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulc ... B_Mk_2.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulc ... an2008.JPG
I was thinking more on the lines of the Vulcan, further developed and refined with 2 CFM-56 engines. Design specs and drawings available with BAE. All it takes is a 5 year design refinement exercise JV and getting the mothballed tools and jigs in place, for a Make in India (MIA) program.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Mar 2018 05:25

If it had to be something new, go with the Russians when the design is still on the board... No point hashing old stuff good as it was.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Mar 2018 06:11

None of vulcan victor valiant will survive todays ad networks and fighters not even close

Anything that enters service in 2030 plus either has to be speedy and well armed or VLO like pakda neuron etc preferably both

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Mar 2018 08:58

nam wrote:4 SU30 can carry more than 24 tons of load out. Or 96 250 KG bombs!

And is more survivable than a bomber.

How about fuel?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Mar 2018 15:49

It is incredible that the Sovs. foresaw a req. for the IAF vs China in the late '70s and offered us the Backfire then! Which we asininely turned down.Dozens of mothballed Backfires are still available and after upgrades would still be a great maritime strike aircraft as well as a strat. Bomber.12 for the IAF and 12 for the IN.Each equipped with around a doz. LRCMs would do the biz. very well.All 300 MKIs upgraded to SS std.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Mar 2018 15:56

Nishn wrote:The IAF should be looking at a stand-off Bomber concept in its inventory now, for induction in about a decade, that goes beyond the range and payload of the SU 30 truck. The munitions list is slowly but surely maturing, both in the powered and un-powered/glide area. But the platforms to carry then have to go beyond fighters. And where payloads and endurance are good enough to topple rogue regimes in the vicinity as well as for adversaries to think deep before having thoughts of foul play.
A Make in India with a foreign design would be the best option. And then graduate from there.

Let the IAF get the number of sanctioned sqdrons first. Before we start wet dreams about medium or heavy bomber.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Mar 2018 15:58

after many a moon saw a An124 flying low over blr today morn around 8am...east to west...a bit smoky but quiet engines.....
i wonder what they deliver to HAL.
usual livery of white and blue volga dnepr.

nam · Post by **nam** » 26 Mar 2018 16:01

srai wrote:
nam wrote:4 SU30 can carry more than 24 tons of load out. Or 96 250 KG bombs!

And is more survivable than a bomber.
How about fuel?

6 ton is a normal load for SU-30, just like 2.5 ton is for LCA.

Regarding fuel, you load up with light fuel on take off and refuel in air. You refuel again to give you 10 hours endurance.

I don't issue it as a major issue.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Mar 2018 16:02

word on street is a mk2 engine for the new build Tu160 due around 2020-22 will extend its range by another 1000km from its already very long legs.
while we are some ways off from PAKDA sized huge VLO platforms, a supersonic ER non-LO missile truck might have its uses..esp when we finish up nirbhay and small brahmos-M work..just saying.... 2 x rotary launchers with 12 seats total

Yelehanka should be our first heavy bomber regiment base obviously.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Mar 2018 16:48

Nirmala Sitharaman should explore American F35s, go beyond Russian S400 to bolster weak Indian Air Force

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Mar 2018 17:30

nam wrote:4 SU30 can carry more than 24 tons of load out. Or 96 250 KG bombs!

And is more survivable than a bomber.
srai wrote: How about fuel?
6 ton is a normal load for SU-30, just like 2.5 ton is for LCA.

Regarding fuel, you load up with light fuel on take off and refuel in air. You refuel again to give you 10 hours endurance.

I don't issue it as a major issue.

Ah, I see you meant 4 planes.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 26 Mar 2018 18:33

https://www.ndtv.com/video/news/news/a- ... ostpopular

Very upbeat on "Saras" aircraft

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2018 20:49

Austin wrote:Nirmala Sitharaman should explore American F35s, go beyond Russian S400 to bolster weak Indian Air Force

I think the author should explore his own musharraf with his thumb

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 26 Mar 2018 20:53

Singha wrote:word on street is a mk2 engine for the new build Tu160 due around 2020-22 will extend its range by another 1000km from its already very long legs.
while we are some ways off from PAKDA sized huge VLO platforms, a supersonic ER non-LO missile truck might have its uses..esp when we finish up nirbhay and small brahmos-M work..just saying.... 2 x rotary launchers with 12 seats total

Yelehanka should be our first heavy bomber regiment base obviously.

+160 * 12

srin · Post by **srin** » 26 Mar 2018 21:57

Singha wrote:word on street is a mk2 engine for the new build Tu160 due around 2020-22 will extend its range by another 1000km from its already very long legs.
while we are some ways off from PAKDA sized huge VLO platforms, a supersonic ER non-LO missile truck might have its uses..esp when we finish up nirbhay and small brahmos-M work..just saying.... 2 x rotary launchers with 12 seats total

Yelehanka should be our first heavy bomber regiment base obviously.

Singha-ji, while I love the larger point of having missile trucks, I don't understand the need for dedicated bomber platforms. Modify a dozen A330 MRTTs to carry rotary launchers and all the electronics gear, and manufacture hundreds of Nirbhays like there is no tomorrow, and the entire Indian ocean and other periphery will be in our strike range.

Because they are based on commercial platforms, spares would be available off the shelf and you don't have hanger queens.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 26 Mar 2018 23:13

We haven't bought either AWACS or refuellers. Strike platforms to operate from INS Rajali or Andamans is quite literally out of scope for us.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2018 23:15

buddy-buddy won't do?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Mar 2018 23:18

Austin wrote:Nirmala Sitharaman should explore American F35s, go beyond Russian S400 to bolster weak Indian Air Force

Firstpost is full of pro massa slaves.

Is F35 on offer? NO!! Its F16 which IAF does not want.

What is beyond S 400?

Patriot and THAAD?
Morons

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Mar 2018 23:21

Singha, In 1976, IAF decided on a fighter bomber force and all pilots have that training.
So they chose planes that beat the Canberra load out.

What you want is fantasy from Discovery channel.
Bomb trucks that come in after the air corridor is sanitized.
And drop bombs all over the place.

Vietnam had more bombs in total and per sq km dropped than in WWII.

What was the result?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Mar 2018 04:47

TBH I'm quite impressed with the capabilities of platypus. Should be much more serviceable than the backfire. Maximize commonality with the mki and get a couple of sqds. Range with efts is probably around 4500km allowing a nice brahmos along with 2x 2000 ltr efts plus 4-6 AAMS and even a couple of kh31s to be tossed into the equation. All with a very respectable radius of around 2000km. That's should allow complete coverage from SCS and North oz to Madagascar if one sqd is kept on either coast or AN islands.

A very survivable option considering it's not so funny a2a abilities.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 27 Mar 2018 05:11

ramana wrote:
Austin wrote:Nirmala Sitharaman should explore American F35s, go beyond Russian S400 to bolster weak Indian Air Force

Firstpost is full of pro massa slaves.

Is F35 on offer? NO!! Its F16 which IAF does not want.

What is beyond S 400?

Patriot and THAAD?
Morons

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 27 Mar 2018 06:22

ramana wrote:
Austin wrote:Nirmala Sitharaman should explore American F35s, go beyond Russian S400 to bolster weak Indian Air Force

Firstpost is full of pro massa slaves.

Is F35 on offer? NO!! Its F16 which IAF does not want.

What is beyond S 400?

Patriot and THAAD?
Morons

Ramana sir, I dug up this guy earlier on BRF too. Here's this guy's profile on TOIlet. He's a comedy writer and should be taken likewise only
https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.c ... kramvohra/

Or may be that was his intention in writing this defence article, weakened air force

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Mar 2018 08:29

F35 capable of downing BMs....!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 27 Mar 2018 10:27

Singha wrote:after many a moon saw a An124 flying low over blr today morn around 8am...east to west...a bit smoky but quiet engines.....
i wonder what they deliver to HAL.
usual livery of white and blue volga dnepr.

Usually comes to ship satellites to foreign launches. Don’t know what it came this time. GSAT is domestic I believe.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 27 Mar 2018 10:37

Philip wrote:F35 capable of downing BMs....!

Yes. With nuclear tipped Akash.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 27 Mar 2018 17:44

ramana wrote:Singha, In 1976, IAF decided on a fighter bomber force and all pilots have that training.
So they chose planes that beat the Canberra load out.

What you want is fantasy from Discovery channel.
Bomb trucks that come in after the air corridor is sanitized.
And drop bombs all over the place.

Vietnam had more bombs in total and per sq km dropped than in WWII.

What was the result?

Ramana garu, Tu 160 can be used entirely for maritime ASh roles. With their speed and range, they can carry BrahMos to far off places in IOR.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 27 Mar 2018 18:06

The US won the military campaign but lost the political one at home. Don’t forget, they beat the Tet offensive and the Vietcong was spent as a force when the American public got the politicians to order a withdrawal.

ramana wrote:Singha, In 1976, IAF decided on a fighter bomber force and all pilots have that training.
So they chose planes that beat the Canberra load out.

What you want is fantasy from Discovery channel.
Bomb trucks that come in after the air corridor is sanitized.
And drop bombs all over the place.

Vietnam had more bombs in total and per sq km dropped than in WWII.

What was the result?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Mar 2018 18:40

Both Backfires and more expensive Blackjacks,which may take sometime in coming our way as the RuAF have placed orders which will keep TU happy for a few years.BF's only need upgrades,faster,easier and cheaper.each bomber can carry approx 12 LRCMs,either BMos 900km or Birbhay 1500KM. Imagine a full sqd. of strat//maritime bombers,say 16-20,where a strike by 8 could carry a load of almost 100 missiles! Even if just 1/2 of them get through,it means at least 30-40 vessels sunk! It is this huge devastating capability that makes it incomprehensible why our strat. planners have such myopia.Even when the Russians have just displayed how their strat. bombers pasted ISIS again and again in Syria,flying from their far-off bases in Russia,thousands of Kms away.LR bombers in IAF and IN service could carry out ops right into Chin heartland as well as anywhere in Tibet and the ICS.

In comparison,the super-secret flying wing Ghatak,our UCAV which is expected to make its debut sometime in the middle of the next decade,can carry only two PGMs! Somehow the move into the era of "payload-centric" vs " platform-centric" warfare appears to have perhaps escaped the eye of our mil. planners.

srin · Post by **srin** » 27 Mar 2018 19:04

I'd posted this before and I can't resist posting this again: Why Boeing's Design For A 747 Full Of Cruise Missiles Makes Total Sense

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 27 Mar 2018 19:08

Gurus, I have been finding the sanctioned squadron strength for IAF to get the 39.5 number as quoted in multiple newspaper articles. Apart from googling I went through the MOD annual reports for last 10 years but couldnt find even a single MOD/IAF document in public domain that talks about this. Trying to understand how this number was arrived at, based on what threats, and own/adversary capabilities and what would be the mix.
Is this number an urban legend?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Mar 2018 19:36

nope, the number is real, just that it was arrived at sometime in the 70's
of course since then aviation technology has changed MASSIVELY
and the number is meaningless now

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 27 Mar 2018 19:39

Any source to that number?