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.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 27 Mar 2018 20:28

Arun.prabhu wrote: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?


58,220 U.S. military fatal casualties in Vietnam. The north ran over the south (US ally) as soon as the US made their exit. Can't call that winning.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 27 Mar 2018 21:06

Philip wrote: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.

Wouldn't be much point sending 40 ships then eh? If I was Chinese what i would do is use my String of Pearls bases in Myanmar, Chittagong, Hambantota, Maldives and Gwadar to mount a devastating air attack on Arakkonam or wherever the Backfires are based to keep them out the picture...

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6886
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 27 Mar 2018 21:18

Ballistic missile attack would be the only kind that we wouldn't have advance warning in that case. A bomb truck of a plane sounds good but like other HVA will need escorts to use any missile with a range of <1000km (Wild A$$ Guess). Otherwise you would get into the range of anti-air from a chinese carrier.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 27 Mar 2018 21:29

ArjunPandit wrote: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?


Oh God! It's not 39.5 but its 42. 40 effin 2. It is the answer to the question "How to confuse an idiot*?"

The source of my confidence is a recent video where I heard ACM Dhanoa say that last time IAF had 42 Sqn was in 2002. I am too lazy to go watching those interviews and identify the right one but I know for sure it is linked on this forum somewhere.

I have an educated guess on why phorty too but I don't want to be banning myself as a moderator.

Note: * - refers to Terroristanis in case you were wondering.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

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

Postby Arun.prabhu » 27 Mar 2018 21:38

What has casualty count got to do with winning or losing a war aside from the fact that truly massive, massive casualties prevent you from maintaining the army and economy to prosecute said war? And on that metric, 60000 wasn’t a drop in the bucket. The Soviet Union suffered better than a million military casualties in WWII and they won that war big. Bigger even than the Americans in terms of territory added to their polity!

And the fact that the south lost the war after America withdrew materiel, financial, political and moral support while the Vietcong enjoyed all of that from its communist allies is indicative of nothing.

America won the military campaign and lost the more important political one at home. Their press were enemies of their government then and remain enemies of their government now, and contributed massively to the bad press their army and the war got during that time. Their generals helped the press by thinking tactically - winning battles - and forgot that you could win all battles and still lose the campaign or the war.

srai wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote: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.



58,220 U.S. military fatal casualties in Vietnam. The north ran over the south (US ally) as soon as the US made their exit. Can't call that winning.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1285
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 27 Mar 2018 22:56

deejay wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote: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?


Oh God! It's not 39.5 but its 42. 40 effin 2. It is the answer to the question "How to confuse an idiot*?"

The source of my confidence is a recent video where I heard ACM Dhanoa say that last time IAF had 42 Sqn was in 2002. I am too lazy to go watching those interviews and identify the right one but I know for sure it is linked on this forum somewhere.

I have an educated guess on why phorty too but I don't want to be banning myself as a moderator.

Note: * - refers to Terroristanis in case you were wondering.

Thanks Deejay sir for responding, even though in a mocking/sarcastic way.
Not that I am the brightest bulb here, or I didnt do a great job in articulating this question, but I did some research before posting this question. I didnt want hit count of DDM articles to increase so didnt post it.
But just in case you want to know how did i come up with this 39.5 no. here are the links.
1. https://www.telegraphindia.com/1160311/ ... _73908.jsp
The sanctioned strength for the IAF at present is 39.5. The "authorised" strength of the air force is 44 fighter squadrons.

2. There is a scroll article mentioning the sanctioned sqdn no to 42.
https://scroll.in/article/842527/two-and-a-half-wars-the-indian-air-force-doesnt-have-the-squadron-strength-to-fight-even-one

I admit havent seen any videos, but thats simply because I am specifically looking for GOI/MOD documents.

Now, may I politely request you to please share your educated guess :) or do I need to put more effort to earn that

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 27 Mar 2018 23:18

No it is not sarcastic against you at all but the whole idea that 42 sqn or 39.5 sqn is some utopian answer to Indian air power woes is funny IMHO. I had made a similar post earlier on the same issue and I just continued from there. Kindly do not take offence.

Without reasoning for the 42 or 72, the sqn number has no meaning and I have never, ever heard of such a reasoning. Hence, I find the number -meaningless. The way I see it, 42 is too less a number. We are an aspiring world power. We were a very poor country. We are somewhere in between today. Our military needs and needs for force projection will evolve if they have not already evolved.

The number of fighter sqn will reflect such a need and will need constant revisions (say once in10 years?) to say the least. It will have to take into account political, strategic, defensive, offensive objectives plus must be in line with economic capabilities. Of course it cannot be in isolation of aircraft mix and/ or enemy capabilities. Wait there is more to factor-in but I am sure you understand a simplistic 42/39.5 cannot be the answer.

My guess is many decades ago, GOI sanctioned such a research and a number was reached. That exercise is long over due but in its absence the IAF uses that number to justify an increase in fighter count. It is my belief that while our ACMs are not saying it we are woefully short in our fighter fleet. 42 is just a number. 55 is more like where our fighter sqns numcount should be.

BTW, there IS a recent video of ACM Dhanoa stating 42 Sqns and that we had it in 2002. I have seen it. As for the GOI/MOD document - 1973 archives mein check karte hain. After '71, it is my guess, when they would have done this research.

Hope it helps.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5712
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 27 Mar 2018 23:22

deejay is correct. 42 is the bare minimum, as one air chief put it, to effectively engage in a "full spectrum" of operations. What full spectrum means, I have no clue. And yes, 55 would be a better number. MoD needs to loosen the purse strings for this.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1285
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 27 Mar 2018 23:31

Thanks sir, those who wish to learn dont have the luxury of taking offense from learned people.
Here are my initial thoughts for my further research
Does the sanctioned/desired squadron strength incorporates the following factors:
a. Two front war scenario
i. Active war with one and aggressive/defensive posturing with other,
ii. Active war on two fronts with coordinated efforts by the enemies,
iii. Active war on both fronts with significant synergy in resources/capability sharing, e.g.,
b. Evolution of the capabilities of Adversaries & our capabilities: SAM (Surface to Air Missiles), MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defence Systems), IADS (Integrated Air Defence Systems), force multipliers, e.g.. refuellers/AWACS, UAVs (Armed & reconnaissance), attack helicopters (ALH, AH-64Z)
c. Responsibilities:
i. Cold Start doctrine: Increased support to IA operations through heptors, fighters
ii. Enhanced maritime responsibilities: Ideally we should have some sqdns deployed full time at Andaman in addition to Navy's contingent

I am looking GDP v/s defense spending and the sqdns strenght for some major nations, e.g., US russia, japan, china, SG, Italy, France and UK.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5712
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 27 Mar 2018 23:31

ArjunPandit wrote:Thanks sir, those who wish to learn dont have the luxury of taking offense from learned people.

Is that really necessary?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6631
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 27 Mar 2018 23:38

ArjunPandit wrote:I am looking GDP v/s defense spending and the sqdns strenght for some major nations, e.g., US russia, japan, china, SG, Italy, France and UK.


Not the best way to do this analysis as any investment in "squadron strength" should be commensurate to the threat and not just GDP. Some nations require a larger share to go towards missile defense, or warships or nuclear weapons while others need an insane amount of support (tankers, ISR, Satellites) just to meet their NatSec obligations. There is often mismatch b/w the demand signal and the force provider with most nations, developed or developing, but better to look at what the demand signal is given the actual NatSec policy of each nation and see whether that demand is being met or not.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 27 Mar 2018 23:40

@ArjunPandit ji,

You are doing some great research though IMO, the primary factor will stem from objectives that a nation has. Is the nation defensive or offensive? Are we going to do our fighting over Indian Air space or enemy airspace will be the prime decider of force requirements.

Added later - Saw Brar sa'abs post after I hit submit button. He has more than a point.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12859
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Postby Lalmohan » 28 Mar 2018 00:05

btw - when looking at sqdn numbers... and comparing with others... how many aircraft in a squadron? do all airforces use squadrons to organise their air forces? what about an US air wing? or a Russian air brigade? do all airforces who use squadrons count the same number of aircraft in the squadrons? is it 12? or 16? or 16+4? or...?

the analysis should be about total numbers and capability versus threat perception

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 28 Mar 2018 02:17

There are differences when it’s your home country you are defending versus foreign deployment for some vague cause.

What was the mission of the US in Vietnam? Did they succeed in that? Nope.

Anyways, OT. Last post on this from me.
Arun.prabhu wrote:What has casualty count got to do with winning or losing a war aside from the fact that truly massive, massive casualties prevent you from maintaining the army and economy to prosecute said war? And on that metric, 60000 wasn’t a drop in the bucket. The Soviet Union suffered better than a million military casualties in WWII and they won that war big. Bigger even than the Americans in terms of territory added to their polity!

And the fact that the south lost the war after America withdrew materiel, financial, political and moral support while the Vietcong enjoyed all of that from its communist allies is indicative of nothing.

America won the military campaign and lost the more important political one at home. Their press were enemies of their government then and remain enemies of their government now, and contributed massively to the bad press their army and the war got during that time. Their generals helped the press by thinking tactically - winning battles - and forgot that you could win all battles and still lose the campaign or the war.

srai wrote:
58,220 U.S. military fatal casualties in Vietnam. The north ran over the south (US ally) as soon as the US made their exit. Can't call that winning.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2740
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 28 Mar 2018 03:20

Unless I am dreaming, in here a pdf of many pages was linked. It looked official enough (I cannot now find it). There the requirement (based on many calculations - targets, sortie, attrition, opposition capability etc etc) was 52-57 sq, with 55 being the right number.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1285
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 28 Mar 2018 04:35

fanne wrote:Unless I am dreaming, in here a pdf of many pages was linked. It looked official enough (I cannot now find it). There the requirement (based on many calculations - targets, sortie, attrition, opposition capability etc etc) was 52-57 sq, with 55 being the right number.

Fanne Sir thanks for your upon entering your key words it threw it as the first link. Will go through it over the weekend.
https://idsa.in/system/files/8_1_2014_I ... mentst.pdf

However, can we consider IDSA as official? Also, this focusses on how much we need rather than the official links. However, it is a very good document and would go through it first.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50409
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 28 Mar 2018 10:02

Very nice article. Long ago IDSA had a paper by R. Phadke which stated 65 squadrons for 2 front war.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 28 Mar 2018 14:07

Strat bomber bases would have an ABM system in place since they're part of the triad too The IAF need at least ond sqd. and the IN the other.

This is the point I'm making in the SL td. we have to be pro- active in our diplomacy backed up with mil muscle.In Mrs.G's time HTota or the Maldives would've never happened.Our castration of Pak seems to be z forgotten memory with our spineless diplomacy post the ABV period.

Despite so much of US support, Jayawardene did not let the US into Trinco for its VOA station.He was sh*t scared of Mrs.G .Mrs.G sent G.Parthasarathy, veteran diplomat and Narasimha Rao then FM to read the riot act to JRJ after the '83 riots. We never sent anyone to do the same to Colombo over HT or the Maldives! How the times have changed.Our wretched obsession with Pak and recent Himalayan aggro by the PRC as given our MEA blinkered vision.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21918
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 29 Mar 2018 14:26

Swarajya Conversations with Minister of Defence - Nirmala Sitharaman


Will
BRFite
Posts: 611
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

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

Postby Will » 29 Mar 2018 18:58

ramana wrote:Very nice article. Long ago IDSA had a paper by R. Phadke which stated 65 squadrons for 2 front war.


That looks like a more realistic number for a two front war. Especially keeping in mind that one of the opponents will be China.That number can never be met unless the major part of the IAF fleet in indigenised.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 611
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

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

Postby Will » 29 Mar 2018 19:00

Will wrote:
ramana wrote:Very nice article. Long ago IDSA had a paper by R. Phadke which stated 65 squadrons for 2 front war.


That looks like a more realistic number for a two front war. Especially keeping in mind that one of the opponents will be China.That number can never be met unless the major part of the IAF fleet is indigenised.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 29 Mar 2018 20:31

Yes the 60+ rq. was mentioned not too long ago as what was reall reqd. for the IAF.If they ask for 62 sqds to fight on two fronts they may get 40+.So why not go fof it and show the GOI a cost-effective procurement programme buying and building affordable aircraft and equipping them with PGMs, BVR AAMs , etc.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17491
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 29 Mar 2018 20:55

shiv wrote:
Philip wrote: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.

Wouldn't be much point sending 40 ships then eh? If I was Chinese what i would do is use my String of Pearls bases in Myanmar, Chittagong, Hambantota, Maldives and Gwadar to mount a devastating air attack on Arakkonam or wherever the Backfires are based to keep them out the picture...



and exactly what would the Indian Forces be doing while this devasting air attack is being prepared?? and that too from the hans string of pearls bases which is under constant watch by many countries??

Of course, all this is presuming that the Indian Forces haven't learned anything at all from the various wars that they have fought.

I would presume that you were being sarcastic onle.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2265
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Katare » 29 Mar 2018 23:12

Austin wrote:Swarajya Conversations with Minister of Defence - Nirmala Sitharaman



By the end of the interview i wanted to shoot both those jokers. What a waste of opportunity!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50409
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 29 Mar 2018 23:25

Could you write a short rebuttal?

Thanks.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2312
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 29 Mar 2018 23:40

Croatia is buying 10+2 old Israeli F-16 C/Ds.

Would have been an ideal opportunity to put together an aggressor sqn to train against.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1285
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 30 Mar 2018 00:02

JTull wrote:Croatia is buying 10+2 old Israeli F-16 C/Ds.

Would have been an ideal opportunity to put together an aggressor sqn to train against.

dont we get paid by singapore to train against them ;)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50409
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 30 Mar 2018 00:02

US won't sell them.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6631
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2018 00:08

I don't think the USDOD and DOS would have any problems as long as there are actual aircraft to sell in the first place given their own internal needs.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1930
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 Mar 2018 00:10

ArjunPandit wrote:
JTull wrote:Croatia is buying 10+2 old Israeli F-16 C/Ds.

Would have been an ideal opportunity to put together an aggressor sqn to train against.

dont we get paid by singapore to train against them ;)

Technically it is for the basing facilities and the range, iirc. The training with each other is, as the saying goes, sone pe suhaga..

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1285
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 30 Mar 2018 00:21

Just thinking should we buy some J20/JF17 with the new bonhomie that is coming up between China and India. We can test their uber cool technologies. Of course they are so advanced that CPC and Paki constitution wont allow their selling and our stuff is anyways bad so they wont be interested in it. I will be keen to see if JF17 can pass even half the tests that Tejas MK1 had to go through

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6876
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 30 Mar 2018 03:32

Austin wrote:Swarajya Conversations with Minister of Defence - Nirmala Sitharaman


Who are these condescending jokers? I don't know how many times she rolled her eyes! Wasted her time and ours.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2018 07:34

Indranil wrote:
Austin wrote:Swarajya Conversations with Minister of Defence - Nirmala Sitharaman

[ youtube]yPJLPxTDlI0[/youtube]

Who are these condescending jokers? I don't know how many times she rolled her eyes! Wasted her time and ours.

My problem with the video was zero post editing in which the voice volumes should have been modulated to correct the piss poor/variable recording volumes. This made the video very tedious to watch - apart from the fact that a whole lot of time is wasted in asking political non defence questions of zero interest to me. I could not get through the whole thing in the first 3 attempts but will keep trying. The volume issue is bad.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21918
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 30 Mar 2018 09:50

Yes bad interview they got one hour and wasted most of it with funny antiques and questions.

I saw half of the interview , from what I heard on Tejas Nirmala accepted that only 8 Tejas will be manufactured by HAL and hence looking for import to address squadron fall

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 30 Mar 2018 11:11

Katare wrote:
Austin wrote:Swarajya Conversations with Minister of Defence - Nirmala Sitharaman



By the end of the interview i wanted to shoot both those jokers. What a waste of opportunity!


This was a terrible interview. You can tell they didn't plan this through properly, wasted most of the hr on stupid political questions, no post shoot editing, etc. Just terrible.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7834
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 30 Mar 2018 14:02

Deejay, you need to go back to the post 62 defence review. That specifies a 50 squadron force.

This 42 or 39.5 squadron force I don't know where it comes from.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3900
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 30 Mar 2018 23:25

Russia offers to sell 21 MiG-29 Fulcrum jets to the IAF. Likely used MiG-29s that would be refurbished and upgraded through the UPG upgrade program.

link to article

New Delhi: Ahead of Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman's visit to Moscow, Russia has offered 21 MiG-29s to the Indian Air Force which is in desperate need of fighter planes. The offer has just come and a delegation from Moscow is in town for discussions and the Russians are hoping that the offer can be taken up during the Defence Minister's visit. At this point, the costs and other parts of the deal, including lifetime maintenance costs are yet to be discussed. The offer merits serious discussion, top government sources said, for three major reasons:

1. The MiG-29 is already in service with the IAF, meaning that pilots are familiar with it. The three squadrons of the fighter will be operational for a decade.

2. The IAF is looking at a serious fighter-crunch in the coming years. The IAF is projecting a demand for around 40 fighter squadrons and currently, unless new planes are bought, the numbers could drop from the current 32 to 29 in 2027 and less in the 2030s. This is despite the 36 Rafale fighters that the Modi government has bought and the 6 squadrons of the indigenous Tejas or Light Combat Aircraft that the IAF will have by 2032.

3. While the MiG-29 was first readied in the 1980s, it is still a fighter worth having. And the purchase costs are not likely to be prohibitive.

During the visit, the overhaul of the MiG-29s with the IAF could come up.

...

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 31 Mar 2018 01:24

That will be a good and quick buy! Can replace one mig-21 squadron within a year or so.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2265
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Katare » 31 Mar 2018 02:15

I shudder at prospects of adding anything with Mig name attached to it. Time to let glorious era of Migs fade away in peace and dignity. Just my thoughts, take them for whatever they are worth to you!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, Austin and 29 guests