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.
LakshmanPST
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 65
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 25 Jun 2019 20:47

Yagnasri wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong.

If we are talking about a two front war, then LCA will release most of the more capable and long legged :mrgreen: aircraft to the northern front by largely taking care of the needs in the west. From what I understand LCA is a multi role fighter. So I think it can do other jobs also. Most of the Paki land is very near to India and it is not that we are going to have a great need to bomb target near Peshavar or Beluchisthan. MK1A has mid air refueling capability. So range shall not be a problem as far as pakis are concerned.

In respect of China, are we really looking at deep airstrikes into mainland China with MRCAs which we want to buy? I am not sure of that. Dont we have Su30s for that? As I said LCA can largely take care of West and rest can take care of North in case of a two front war and if the war is only in the north also LCA should be useful to missions where long range is not a requirement.


Mine is also a mango opinion... Correct me if I'm wrong...
Mk2 has fuel capacity and range 1.5 times that of Mk1... It requires more no. of mid-air refuellings for the same mission... The tanker needs to travel longer distance as well...
This is definitely a disadvantage...

In recent Balakot strikes as well, M2ks did mid-air refuelling once before finally flying into Pak Airspace... MWF is comparable to M2k... Mk1 would have needed refuelling twice...
And tankers can't be taken into enemy space for longer missions...
Even in Pak, though major attacks will be limited to Pakjab, Sindh & PoK, we may need to attack targets in NWFP & Baluchistan...

Not only during Strike missions, even for CAPs, Mk1 would need to refuel multiple times...
-
Coming to China... From my understanding of how Air Force operate, I'm not sure Su30 MKIs can perform all kinds of Air-to-Ground missions (I might be wrong)... We may need other planes for some missions...
-
Anyways, I do not have any first hand knowledge of how IAF operates... What I wrote is just Mango understanding...
I wanted to understand from IAF point of view... From what I have read, range was common issue in all those opinions...

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2057
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 25 Jun 2019 21:36

I cannot find a link to the post now but tsarkarji had posted that the afterburning HF-24 was DOA. Here is a snippet from BRF

1. 10th January 1970 - HF-24 Mk 1R (HAL) flown by Gp Capt Suranjan Das (HAL). Prototype aircraft canopy open; right engine failure suspected.

Groupie Suranjan Das' crash was perhaps partially pilot error. He was the greatest supporter of the HF-24 Mk IR with reheated Orpheus engines. It had the prospect of being earlier and better than the Jaguar. Its performance was less than it would have been if the rear fuselage had not simply been enlarged by HAL to house the larger engines and their nozzles. The nice area rule of the original design had been vitiated badly. All the same, the performance of the aircraft was impressive. All it needed was to get the right avionics. According to me, the other design work should have been for the addition of a second hydraulic system, and of course streamlining the fuselage a lot better than the fat end.

While taxiing out to the take-off, Groupie Das used to keep the clam shell canopy unlocked and hold it up slightly to get some fresh air. There was no retaining lever. It seems that on the fateful day, he forgot to lock it prior to beginning the take-off run. The canopy opened during the ground roll. The hinges were too strong for it to fly off. Ejection through the canopy, as in all Maruts, would almost certainly have led to killing the pilot. Hence, the canopy had to be jettisoned. Ejection, till the canopy was not in the way, was prevented by a locking pin. This pin was pulled out by a lanyard which would be extracted during jettisoning of the canopy.

For Groupie Das, with the canopy already open, its jettisoning was no longer possible. Ejection was also impossible as the seat was not armed till the pin was pulled out. The drag from the canopy was large and the aircraft did not get airborne. There was a debatable possible failure of the reheat of one engine. In short Groupie Das had no options left and died in the crash.

What a story! IAF/HAL/GOI let the Group Captain die in vain. The 1R version should have been pursued and jaguars should not have been bought. Hopefully IAF/HAL/GOI will not repeat the same mistake with the LCA. Build Mk1A, 2, 2A, 3, 3A.........

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52767
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 26 Jun 2019 00:47

Hate to say this but there was a big import lobby in IAF which persists to this day.
It stems from Nehru penchant for buying any plane that suits the fancy without regard to its use case in India. its a great story of how the Gnat became a successful fighter with IAF.
Even now IAF has 38 types of planes and is proud of the fact that AVM Subramaniam writes about it.

In the Kargil LGB story no one is paying attention to the one liner by AM Nambiar that they lacked fuzes for the bombs.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2057
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 26 Jun 2019 08:18

Think of where we would have been if we had persisted with HF24 MK1R.

Perhaps we could then have paid attention to fuzes also! Sigh!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19918
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 28 Jun 2019 06:11

It's why the IAF should rationalise and limit its types in service.Concentrate upon LCAs and MKIs , SS upgrades too, with whatever MIG-29s and M2Ks can be picked up and upgraded at reasonable cost.Hard bargaining with Dassault for another Rafale sqd. and accelerate Jag upgrades.If this is done the need for another 120 of a new type would not be required with all the extra expensive accompanying infra. baggage that would come with it.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3581
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Jun 2019 09:33

RKumar wrote:I hope, we still remember the Aircraft carrier, how some people evaluated it but still costs ballooned. And in 3-4 years by the time, we will take delivery of these refurbished plane, there will be issues with older parts. I hope we dont end up paying defense inflation of 10% yearly.

I will bet on a safer choice of LCAs than these used super Mig-29.

Defence inflation of 10% will still keep the fulcrums affordable...

This idea of LCA vs. fulcrum is red herring. IAF needs every cheap 4+ gen fighter it can get as soon as possible.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3632
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 28 Jun 2019 09:42

Cain Marko wrote:
RKumar wrote:I hope, we still remember the Aircraft carrier, how some people evaluated it but still costs ballooned. And in 3-4 years by the time, we will take delivery of these refurbished plane, there will be issues with older parts. I hope we dont end up paying defense inflation of 10% yearly.

I will bet on a safer choice of LCAs than these used super Mig-29.

Defence inflation of 10% will still keep the fulcrums affordable...

This idea of LCA vs. fulcrum is red herring. IAF needs every cheap 4+ gen fighter it can get as soon as possible.


No, the nation needs to give every rupee possible to the LCA. Phoren jets feed someone else's MIC. The LCA feeds ours.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2057
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 28 Jun 2019 09:51

Cain Marko wrote:
RKumar wrote:I hope, we still remember the Aircraft carrier, how some people evaluated it but still costs ballooned. And in 3-4 years by the time, we will take delivery of these refurbished plane, there will be issues with older parts. I hope we dont end up paying defense inflation of 10% yearly.

I will bet on a safer choice of LCAs than these used super Mig-29.

Defence inflation of 10% will still keep the fulcrums affordable...

This idea of LCA vs. fulcrum is red herring. IAF needs every cheap 4+ gen fighter it can get as soon as possible.

The idea of cheap Mig-29s is a red herring. With miserable uptimes, uncertain delivery and uncertain quality of aircraft that have been sitting around these aircraft could be problematic. It is amazing that people here are ready to accept abandoned aircraft as if they were brand new. I would not buy an abandoned car, and these are high performance fighter aicraft with stringent quality requirements for each of their 1000s of parts. Can we afford to lose pilots to quality issues? Last I checked, we could not.

It is far better to buy new build aircraft. The LCA fits the bill. If fleet strength is the issue, expand production lines.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2451
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 28 Jun 2019 10:06

Lol true, I guess 10% inflation doesn't apply to rusting parts.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3581
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Jun 2019 16:06

Vivek K wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Defence inflation of 10% will still keep the fulcrums affordable...

This idea of LCA vs. fulcrum is red herring. IAF needs every cheap 4+ gen fighter it can get as soon as possible.

The idea of cheap Mig-29s is a red herring. With miserable uptimes, uncertain delivery and uncertain quality of aircraft that have been sitting around these aircraft could be problematic. It is amazing that people here are ready to accept abandoned aircraft as if they were brand new. I would not buy an abandoned car, and these are high performance fighter aicraft with stringent quality requirements for each of their 1000s of parts. Can we afford to lose pilots to quality issues? Last I checked, we could not.

It is far better to buy new build aircraft. The LCA fits the bill. If fleet strength is the issue, expand production lines.

Oh stop the rhetoric...Since when did IAF start losing pilots to quality issues related to a mig 29? And if that was the case, please tell us how different this is compared to a Western counterpart? Just answer the question.... The iaf stands at 31 sqds today, and is in a tight position. what sort of production numbers can we get for the LCA in the next 2-3 years to alleviate the issue? Can HAL do it? they need 42 sqds.... Or do you want them to continue to flog old fishbeds? I wonder what that does to your great concern over the safety of Indian pilots?

An inexpensive and practical way of getting high performance fighters is to get those SMTs, and perhaps some used mirages.

I suppose you'd rather shell out $20 billion for a Western mrca instead, which will neither be on time not cheap....

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3581
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Jun 2019 16:11

chola wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Defence inflation of 10% will still keep the fulcrums affordable...

This idea of LCA vs. fulcrum is red herring. IAF needs every cheap 4+ gen fighter it can get as soon as possible.


No, the nation needs to give every rupee possible to the LCA. Phoren jets feed someone else's MIC. The LCA feeds ours.

All that is fine, but there is a desperate need for larger numbers in the iaf inventory. If that was not the case, I don't think the IAF would even be looking....
Last edited by Cain Marko on 28 Jun 2019 16:20, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3581
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Jun 2019 16:15

abhik wrote:Lol true, I guess 10% inflation doesn't apply to rusting parts.

Yeah, it sure seems to apply to fancy Western toys, no? Oh and I suppose home grown products are totally free of cost escalations...

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1864
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 28 Jun 2019 17:32

They are not.

But unfortunately (for us) it is also a fact that a 10% escalation in dollar terms hits us much harder than even a 100% escalation in Rupee terms.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1081
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

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

Postby RKumar » 28 Jun 2019 17:35

If IAF is so desperate to induct newer planes, sign the dotted lines of 40 LCA MK1 FOC and 120 LCA MK1A. Who is stopping them, expecting that by ordering 20 planes will fill their shortage of 300 planes.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 28 Jun 2019 17:41

for sure the 114 SEF F16-blunder mk70 will take a lot more time than Tejas Mk1A unless we were to get 6 squadrons from USAF active line service or attrition reserve which is impossible and the usaf ones will have classified gear and not as 'advanced' as new build ones.

so if anyone is expecting F solahs to just start rolling in bunches not going to happen. nobody is buying f16 worldwide and any munna with cash is invested into JSF.

PAF will eventually pick up 50-100 F16 on the cheap from miscreants like turkey, EU, uae, qatar and so on.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4141
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 28 Jun 2019 18:21

RKumar wrote:If IAF is so desperate to induct newer planes, sign the dotted lines of 40 LCA MK1 FOC and 120 LCA MK1A. Who is stopping them, expecting that by ordering 20 planes will fill their shortage of 300 planes.

Meanwhile LCA production lines will sit idle after the 20 planes delivery. Any new orders require 36-month lead time to first lot delivery.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7643
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 28 Jun 2019 19:25

Vivek K wrote:Think of where we would have been if we had persisted with HF24 MK1R.
Perhaps we could then have paid attention to fuzes also! Sigh!


For that, you need to question HAL.

Go back to what you posted and re-read the bit about area rule being vitiated. GTRE developed an engine with reheat and HAL simply shoved that into HF-24 w/o bothering to look at the overall impact on the design and aircraft performance. HF-241R could've done much better if HAL had put some mind and resources into it. Instead, they blamed the GTRE!

In the end, the demise of HF-24 rests more with HAL than any other organization. They were happy proposing newer concepts w/o bothering to rectify issues in the older one. The same story repeated with HPT-32 and HTT-40.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2057
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 28 Jun 2019 19:58

I think rohitji you need to re-read what I posted and not use your intuitive bias to respond.

The post quotes from BRF's historical section. The article states that the performance increase would have been greater if the area rule was not vitiated. However, a performance increase was observed that the test pilot (probably better than your knowledgeable self and definitely more than I) was impressed with and believed in.

The aircraft failed for reasons other that either the area rule and thus with testing and feedback could have provided an opportunity to take it to the next step in iterative development.

Also if you read my post you will find that the blame was put on IAF/HAL/GOI. But disagreement is ok.

IAF replaced an underpowered aircraft with another underpowered one - the Jaguar with its much vaunted Deep Penetration Strike Capabilities. Yet when it came to Balakot, the IAF preferred to use M2ks. Are we then to take that the IAF does not consider Jags able to deliver precision munitions and be able to counter PAF defenders?
Last edited by Vivek K on 28 Jun 2019 20:08, edited 1 time in total.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2057
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 28 Jun 2019 20:07

Cain Marko wrote:Oh stop the rhetoric...Since when did IAF start losing pilots to quality issues related to a mig 29? And if that was the case, please tell us how different this is compared to a Western counterpart? Just answer the question.... The iaf stands at 31 sqds today, and is in a tight position. what sort of production numbers can we get for the LCA in the next 2-3 years to alleviate the issue? Can HAL do it? they need 42 sqds.... Or do you want them to continue to flog old fishbeds? I wonder what that does to your great concern over the safety of Indian pilots?

An inexpensive and practical way of getting high performance fighters is to get those SMTs, and perhaps some used mirages.

I suppose you'd rather shell out $20 billion for a Western mrca instead, which will neither be on time not cheap....


For some on the forum it is always a black or a white issue - if you're not supporting Russian aircraft then you must be supporting Western ones. Please re-read my post -where do I state that we should shell out $20 billion for western mrca? And can you provide a total price for the SMTs - last we checked we paid an additional $2 billion for the Gorshkov after signing a contract for $750 million. And I wonder what the Vikramaditya's availability is at.

I haven't seen a total cost for these aircraft - they will need a heavy investment in spares due to obvious reasons. And there is no delivery certainty either. What parts will fail during testing is yet unknown since the aircraft were sitting around. So till we have an idea about delivery time frames and costs, we are indulging in what the good doctor used to call intellectual masturbation. By the time the price is finalized and contracts written, who can guarantee how much time will have passed?

The only guarantee out there today is the LCA. Production is stabilizing and orders need to be released now so that all lines can produce at full capacity.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

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

Postby gaurav.p » 28 Jun 2019 20:40

36month lead time! 3 years from the date of order phew...so surely after 16FOC + 8 trainers (~2yr max till 2021) there will be a gap of 1+ yrs?

the baboons need to do something!!! But at the moment it seems that the dream of 36 more rafales is lower hanging fruit than 83mk1A. IMO the mothballed mig29 is a worse decision than investing in LCA. IAF already knows the shortcomings of the poor supply chain of spares etc yet we love to fallback on it. :(

So frustrating as an outsider to see the apathy towards desi stuff. The scientists of ADA need to be really thick skinned to keep working on in spite of such ignorance by the assembler, customer and its controlling master. The vacuum left by parikkar saheb is still haunting indigenization.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2057
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 29 Jun 2019 00:32

BTW CM, I am rabidly anti-Rafale and pro Qatari Mirages (even that is probably not a option anymore). I am only pro-LCA!

rags
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 26 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Bangalore

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

Postby rags » 29 Jun 2019 01:05

---Deleted---
Last edited by Rakesh on 29 Jun 2019 02:36, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Already posted and being discussed in the Military Flight Safety thread

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7473
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 29 Jun 2019 02:50

@ Cain-ji and Vivek K: Both of you have raised good points.

There has to be a combination of purchases - new & used 4th generation combat aircraft + additional Rafales + additional Tejas Mk1s. The goal is induct aircraft presently in service. Quicker turnaround in pilot training + other advantages.

No 9 Wolfpacks Sqn needs to be a full strength squadron. Get used M2Ks from anywhere, but get them. Also No 1 Tigers Sqn and No 7 Battle Axes Sqn also need more twin seater M2Ks. Two more Su-30MKI squadrons also need to be ordered. Those 21 MiG-29s would be a good stop gap as well. This can be done very quickly if the IAF and the MoD works together on them. The quick retirements of squadrons (mainly MiG-21s and the last two MiG-27UPG units) can be blunted with the above.

Additional Rafales are also required. At least two more squadrons worth due to the cost invested in base support infrastructure at Ambala and Hasimara. 36 - 54 aircraft more. But nothing more than this. However, if we do not order additional Rafales, India just wasted US $9 billion on the first 36 Rafales. And that would be a criminal waste of money. The Rafale is also very important in the IAF’s ORBAT. India needs a door crasher and the Rafale fits that bill perfectly. That Spectra EW suite is ooh la la! Barring the F-35 or the F-18 Growler, the Rafale is the next best thing. And the Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, MiG-29, Jaguar or Tejas Mk1 cannot play that role. Either the RCS will be quite huge or the aircraft will just not have the legs for it.

But the *REAL* clincher/deal closer/BIG Kahuna/or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it is the Tejas onlee. They need to continue production of the Tejas, even if it is the Mk1 variant. The Mk1 can be coverted into the Mk1A, whenever that will be ready. The Mk1 exceeds the capabilities of the MiG-21, an aircraft that it was designed to replace. From the 83 Mk1As on order right now, perhaps they can add order another 3 - 4 squadrons more. But please do not stop the production line from going idle after the 40 Mk1s are completed, on the pretext that Mk1A is not yet ready. That would be heart breaking.

And senior Air Marshals can add whatever wishlists they want on the Tejas. Thicker windscreen? Sure! AESA radar? Why not! But do not stop the production line for that. Continue with production and when a part has been cleared for active duty, then retrofit it onto the previous batches. But do NOT stop the production. Please! Learn from the Chinese Dragon.

India cannot and never will spawn an aviation industry from doing screwdrivergiri on somebody else's fighter aircraft. That is nonsense. If India wants to a be a serious player on the world stage, then she must have a strong MIC.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3581
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Jun 2019 04:54

Admiral Saar, I couldn't agree more. I'm mighty peeved that no additional mk1 orders were given during foc. IMHO the mk1A order of 83 should be converted to mk1. The orders should continue until mk2 is ready. And the mk2 can follow thereafter. They can always make the mk1A into mk1a with a CIP program.
My one concern here is the sanction prone engine on such a large fleet. Can the risk be mitigated somehow? Ordering chock-full of extra parts perhaps? Spare engines?

As far as imports go, yes additional fighter sqds that can be quickly injected such as fulcrums should be sought out. Although I don't think m2ks will be available at affordable prices. My guess is that they will land up getting 36 rafale instead. So, in the next 2-3 years we should get 2 sqds of SMTs + additional order for 36 rafale + 2 MKI/M2K? = 6 sqds. However, the mki order has been hanging for eons with only HAL making offers and trying to maintain production. I'm not sure this or the mirages will go through..... Just rafale and smt would be likely

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3581
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Jun 2019 05:13

Vivek K wrote:BTW CM, I am rabidly anti-Rafale and pro Qatari Mirages (even that is probably not a option anymore). I am only pro-LCA!

I think everyone here is pro LCA... we would all like to see them in the 100s and more.

Problem is that for all practical purposes, we can't get enough of them in the short term of say, 2 years.

About the smt, I try to address your concerns here....

1. The cost for brand new Mig 29Ks, which were ordered in 2010 was around 40 million per unit. And this is a brand new, much more advanced model compared to the smt in that it has better airframe and engines. The Egyptians who ordered the land based version of the K, also paid less than 50 million in 2015. The SMTs are neither brand new nor used, they are somewhat like open box, vanilla mig 29s but with additinak CFT and a sensor and electronics suite that will compare to the M or K. So I can't imagine the price being more than 40 million or thereabouts, which is as much as one can expect for that kind of performance

2. Quality issues. In recent times, touch wood, there have been few to no complaints from the IAF regarding it's upgraded 29s or even it's older fleet. BRD has done a bang up job of keeping these birds air worthy. I think MP during his Tenure, really stressed the spares issues. The complaints came from the Indian Navy's fulcrumK. But going by what the CNS recently said, that is no more an issue. So I don't see any uptime/quality issues here. The IAF has extensive experience with the logistics, maintenance and operations of this type and it makes loads of sense that they are sniffing at any available frames they can pick up. They wouldn't otherwise.

About Western purchases, I think the IAF sees the rafale as a silver bullet hedge against the Chinese, at least until stealth platforms become available. So, there is no going back here.

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

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

Postby Jay » 29 Jun 2019 05:54

Cain Marko wrote:
Vivek K wrote:BTW CM, I am rabidly anti-Rafale and pro Qatari Mirages (even that is probably not an option anymore). I am only pro-LCA!

I think everyone here is pro LCA... we would all like to see them in the 100s and more.

Problem is that for all practical purposes, we can't get enough of them in the short term of say, 2 years.



*Rant time..

Pardon me, but why do we need to get everything in the next 2 years? This looks like an artificial, self-imposed goal post without much thought or consideration, which will be detrimental to India's long term interests. If we want to import foreign maal with this kind of urgency, let us also import foreign pilots and technicians. If LCA, being a desi product is not good enough for the air force, then how can you IAF defend desi pilots to be good enough to defend the nation? It's understandable to have these state of the art(debatable) planes as a spearhead, but wanting them to be inducted in numbers to make the backbone of our airforce is stupendously stupid. I do not see this point getting into IAF/MoD's thick skulls.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3581
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Jun 2019 06:13

Jay wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I think everyone here is pro LCA... we would all like to see them in the 100s and more.

Problem is that for all practical purposes, we can't get enough of them in the short term of say, 2 years.



*Rant time..

Pardon me, but why do we need to get everything in the next 2 years? This looks like an artificial, self-imposed goal post without much thought or consideration, which will be detrimental to India's long term interests. If we want to import foreign maal with this kind of urgency, let us also import foreign pilots and technicians. If LCA, being a desi product is not good enough for the air force, then how can you IAF defend desi pilots to be good enough to defend the nation? It's understandable to have these state of the art(debatable) planes as a spearhead, but wanting them to be inducted in numbers to make the backbone of our airforce is stupendously stupid. I do not see this point getting into IAF/MoD's thick skulls.

You missed the context ...Two years is admittedly an adhoc time frame but not too far from how soon we can probly expect Hal/Mig to take to deliver upgraded airframes, it could be a bit longer or shorter. The emphasis here is to get them asap considering the falling numbers. And it is unlikely that there is any other faster way to induct airframes. If that were not the case, and there was no real urgency. the iaf would hardly be scouting and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And the SMTs are hardly some extravagant, uber imported type. These are relatively the cheapest and easiest to get inducted in a short time frame.

And who is talking about making them the backbone of the force? 2 sqds hardly constitute the bulk of IAF fleet, which is aimed at 42.5....

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3581
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Jun 2019 06:15

Note also the possibility that this pressure is a result of lessons learnt from the balakot episode... Although they were scouting for migs prior to said event.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4141
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 29 Jun 2019 06:47

LCA Mk1 FOC is ready and production underway. Production capacity has attained 8/year with 16/year increase in progress. Outsourcing and deliveries of major components (wings) from L&T has taken place. HAL has stated 25/year possible once components from outsourced sources fully establishes.

Now what’s missing are the follow-on orders for Mk1 FOC!!! At 16-25/year, the IAF will get one full squadron a year. Five years later (i.e. 2025), 5 new squadrons. But the orders need to be placed NOW :!:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 29 Jun 2019 08:26

problem is we have NEVER produced a domestic design in volume apart from Dhruv and babus/HAL do have a great idea what it takes to operate at LM kind of scale which at height of cold war produced 30 F16s a MONTH.

ALL of our licensed production of higher nos items - Mig21, Jaguar, Mig27, SU30 have been foreign product with many critical items imported and more importantly the VENDOR ECOSYSTEM/TOOLING/PEOPLE were all in place in the home country and we could just fork off that. in operations research terms it was a solved problem.

now for 1st time in a fighter (far complex than Dhruv) people are forced to think about the nose to tail problem and plan for every nut and bolt from 100s of vendors who are also new to this volume game.

they need to bring in a Feynman committee headed by people from the automotive & machine tools industry who know the ins and outs of such production problem to suggest remedies and funding patterns , given the constraints of each vendors financial situation, lead time and scale - how to solve the smooth volume delivery problem. there is no harm in hiring private consulting cos and experts also with experience in this domain.

this is a bigger problem that just using MS Project to create dependent tasks graph :mrgreen:

HAL may not be that equipped for this and MOD funding signoff babus most surely are not. Defmin needs to make them sit across one table and implement long term funding pipes.

any import pasand IAF air marshals can be banished as air defence chief of the chandigarh golf club with command over a squadron of 15 DJI drones :evil:

this is where a IIT trained engineer like Parrikar ji would have seen things the hoi polloi cannot.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

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

Postby gaurav.p » 29 Jun 2019 12:20

ahh the 16/yr number been hearing about it since soooo many years. The higher management needs to be realistic rather than shaming the battered reputation of HAL plus giving more ghee to the DDM.

Year-Over-Year Tejas Production

• 2015-16: One
• 2016: Two
• 2017: Three
• 2018: Six
• 2019: Eight [Projected]
• 2020: Sixteen [Vision]

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3632
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 29 Jun 2019 16:29

Cain Marko wrote:
chola wrote:
No, the nation needs to give every rupee possible to the LCA. Phoren jets feed someone else's MIC. The LCA feeds ours.

All that is fine, but there is a desperate need for larger numbers in the iaf inventory. If that was not the case, I don't think the IAF would even be looking....


The IAF will always be looking for aircraft. They are an air force. But is the 42 squadrons target actually needed? I don't think so IMO.

Look at the threats. We outnumber Pakiland three to one and far more than that in modern aircraft. They only have one capable platform in the F-Solah and those are around 50 airworthy at any given time against 230 SU-30MKI alone. Cheen can literally only muster a handful of aircraft on Tibet and what they put there are crippled by takeoff weapon and fuel loads that are a faction of ours taking off from lower altitude on our side of the border. that's just geological restrictions. Geopolitically, they are massed on their eastern coast where their life and death assets and objectives are.

We are not facing great military powers in Pakiland and Cheen. They are threats but in the form of terrorism from one and from relentless infrastructure building (OBOR, CPEC, etc.) from the other. 42 squadrons give us little protection in those areas.

The MIC is far more important than the IAF gaining a few more phoren fighters and the Tejas is one of the most important programs in the MIC.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4141
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 29 Jun 2019 18:20

gaurav.p wrote:ahh the 16/yr number been hearing about it since soooo many years. The higher management needs to be realistic rather than shaming the battered reputation of HAL plus giving more ghee to the DDM.

Year-Over-Year Tejas Production

• 2015-16: One
• 2016: Two
• 2017: Three
• 2018: Six
• 2019: Eight [Projected]
• 2020: Sixteen [Vision]


For 40 units on order, private companies wouldn’t even touch it :wink: ... especially tell them to build a capacity for 16/year for guaranteed order of only 40 units. Let’s see how many will step forward.

Lot more orders, then more options. Additional line(s) could be set up by private companies with partnership with HAL. Even this approach doesn’t necessarily mean production ramps up rapidly. Supporting aerospace industry ecosystem is still at an infancy. The whole chain (skilled labor, materials, suppliers, component manufacturers, etc) need to be scaled up. Takes time.

Put in the orders (a substantial one) and things will happen!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4141
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 30 Jun 2019 06:32

Cain Marko wrote:...
Just answer the question.... The iaf stands at 31 sqds today, and is in a tight position. what sort of production numbers can we get for the LCA in the next 2-3 years to alleviate the issue? Can HAL do it? they need 42 sqds.... Or do you want them to continue to flog old fishbeds?
...

Given 36-month (3-years) lead times required (for orders placed), only the things that are already in progress will be the ones that will happen in the next 2-3 years. That means
* lot deliveries of Rafales starting late this year or next year; plan is for all 36 by end of 2023
* last batch of Su-30MKI (18 or so units)
* LCA Mk.1 FOC (16 units)
* LCA Trainer FOC (8 units)

That’s all on the plate ... signed for.

Everything else like those 21 MiG-29s (needs to be negotiated and then upgraded), 83 LCA Mk1A (price negotiation stage still), 18 more Su-30MKI (talk only) are either just exploration of possibility or under the bureaucratic 11-step procurement process. None of these will make your 2-3 year “emergency” induction requirement.

Forget about MMRCA 2.0 crap. Those will drag on for a long while yet.

Without further concrete orders of “production ready” LCA Mk.1 FOC (not Mk1A - still R&D), you can’t just question production number. If you order only 40 units, that’s all you will get :wink:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18039
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 30 Jun 2019 07:09

https://sldinfo.com/2018/08/the-perspec ... way-ahead/

The Perspective of the Chief of Staff of the Indian Air Force: Shaping a Way Ahead
08/15/2018

Ex Gagan Shakti provided extremely valuable takeaways. It validated the capability to conduct sustained high tempo operations. This in turn validated our internal manpower and process optimisation. Joint operations took centre stage in the exercise. Our sister services provided exceptional support and we were able to refine various joint operation concepts.

As you are aware, the IAF’s airlift and heli-lift capabilities have been vastly expanded in recent years with the induction of C-17s, C-130Js and a large number of Mi-17 V5 Medium Lift helicopters. This entire capability was exercised and used to validate our ability to move forces on strategic and tactical levels.

It also brought home valuable lessons for combat support, which was rendered in an exceptional manner by various DPSUs and OEMs. This enabled the IAF to maintain and sustain extremely high rates of serviceability throughout the exercise period, and produce an unprecedented quantum of flying. The intense flying activity over extended periods also allowed the IAF to exercise its networked AD system. The system has now been extended in coverage and fine tuned and optimised.

How is the IAF planning to cope up with the increasing drawdown in its combat squadrons’ strength?

Air Chief.

The IAF sees itself as the guardian of the Indian skies and the first responder in all contingencies. We are therefore 24 x 7 ready to face any situation with our available resources. As far as the drawdown in the strength of fighter squadrons is concerned, it is being given due emphasis.

We are upgrading MiG-29, Jaguar and Mirage-2000 aircraft in a phased manner as a part of obsolescence management so that they remain relevant and contemporary.

Induction of 36 x Rafale aircraft will commence by September 2019 and will significantly enhance our operational capability.

Induction of the balance of 272 x Su-30 MKI aircraft from HAL is under process and will be completed by 2021. The induction of the 40 indigenous LCA is also ongoing.

Additionally, the RFP for procurement of 83 x LCA Mk 1A has been issued in December 2017. The Government of India plans to procure fighter aircraft under the ‘Make in India’ initiative for which RFI has been issued on April 6, 2018, and is also examining other suitable options.

Future inductions will include the LCA Mk-II, which is expected to form a bulk of the Air Force in the years to come, as the IAF proposes to replace its Mirage-2000, MiG-29 and Jaguar with this aircraft.

The IAF is also supporting DRDO in the D&D of indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). If all the inductions take place as planned, the IAF is expected to achieve its authorised strength of fighter squadrons by 2040.

When the IAF receives its full complement of the total order of 272 Su-30 MKI Jet fighters, would it have received its fair share of ‘Heavy’ fighters or would it consider additional acquisitions of these aircraft which are reportedly on offer from the Russian OEM?

In the same context, has the IAF worked out an optimum mix of the Heavy/ Medium/Light jet fighters for a balanced fleet of its fighter force? Please elucidate.


Air Chief.

The IAF seeks capabilities which are required to maintain its combat preparedness and operational edge over potential adversaries.

In that regard, once the deliveries of the license manufactured Su-30 MKI are complete, which is expected by 2021, the IAF will have 13 Squadrons of the Su-30 MKI.

As far as additional procurement is concerned, an RFI for 110 fighter aircraft has been hosted by the IAF to meet its operational requirements under Strategic Partnership route.

India Strategic. How does the IAF plan to steer the new Fighter ‘RFI’ to make good the time it lost due to MoD abandoning the earlier so-called single-engine fighter programme?

Air Chief. The RFI for 110 fighter aircraft was hosted on April 6, 2018 and six vendors responded to the RFI. The procurement process would be progressed under the provisions of DPP 2016.

The IAF intends to induct 15 percent of the aircraft in a direct fly away condition which would facilitate a relatively faster induction till the time production is commenced by the Strategic Partner.

India Strategic.

We heard that IAF was quite satisfied with the ‘Tejas’ performance during Gagan Shakti 2018, including the ‘Surge’ phase.

Your comments please.

Also, how is the Tejas induction programme unfolding and what is the latest on the Mk-IA version? Will the IAF be able to get the Op capabilities it is looking for in the Mk 1A? And, most importantly will it get the new version on time?


Air Chief.

LCA is a versatile platform and its efficacy in various roles has been validated during Ex-Gagan Shakti. Tejas is a potent platform in ground attack as well as air defence role. Performance of the aircraft in air-to-ground weapon delivery was observed to be exceptional.

For air defence role, aircraft has good AI radar capability and integration of BVR missile is in the final stage. [i]With active support of HAL the aircraft was found to be highly reliable during conduct of surge ops.


The commissioning of the first Squadron of LCA Tejas in July 2016 marks a significant step towards indigenous capability building. Currently, the squadron has nine aircraft and we expect the squadron to be fully equipped by March 2019.

The LCA Final Operational Clearance (FOC) contract of 2010 seeks Air-to-Air Refuelling, Operational Data Link (ODL) and better weapons. The FOC is expected in 2019. As far as the LCA Mk 1A is concerned, the first flight is expected by 2020.[/i]

The LCA Mk 1A apart from addressing obsolescence issues and maintainability improvements will have additional capabilities such as Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles, Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR) capability, Electronic Warfare (EW) suite and advanced avionics.

We are hopeful that ADA and HAL will ensure that the LCA Mk 1A is delivered to IAF on time.

India Strategic.

AD Weapons: The indigenous Akash SAM System reportedly worked well during the Gagan Shakti Exercise and is shaping up well. Will the IAF be inducting more of these systems? In this context, what is the latest on the Israeli Spyder systems which were expected to join operational service in the IAF and the Indo-Israeli joint venture of MR-SAM? Also, what is the latest on acquisition of S-400 Triumf systems from Russia?

Air Chief.

Akash Missile System performed well during exercise Gagan Shakti. A case has been initiated to procure seven more squadrons of Akash Missile Systems (AMS) from BEL. The first Squadron of SPYDER missile was raised on February 16, 2018. Delivery of equipment for the other three squadrons is under way.

The system was also successfully utilised during Exercise Gagan Shakti. The MRSAM programme involves joint development and delivery of Firing Units (FUs) by DRDO in collaboration with Israel Aerospace Industry (IAI), Israel.

The contract for joint development and supply of MRSAM was signed between DRDO and IAI, Israel on February 16, 2009. There has been delay in inducting the system, while the first MRSAM Squadron has already been resurrected in 2015, the equipment should be delivered in 2019.

The S-400 is in use by the Russian Armed Forces since the year 2007. It is a long range anti aircraft missile system capable of intercepting Ballistic missile and low RCS targets like UAVs and cruise missiles. This system would be a game changer in our context and would provide us the much needed layered Air Defence at long ranges. The acquisition process for the system is under way.

India Strategic.

IAF is reportedly in the process of revamping its AD surveillance systems with DAC having cleared acquisition of High Powered Radars. How is IAF moving forward in terms of modernising its entire inventory of high, medium and LL Radars? Your comments please.

Air Chief.

The AD framework of the IAF is indeed being revamped. This is on two counts namely, induction of new state-of-the-art systems, and their integration into a completely networked AD system. As far as the induction of new systems is concerned, the process is proceeding smoothly.

There has been a concerted effort to induct cutting edge technology & follow up with indigenous manufacture. The Medium Powered Radar (MPR), Low Level Transportable Radar (LLTR), Low Level Lightweight Radar (LLLWR) categories have all seen infusion of large numbers of indigenously developed and produced radars.


This has increased the sensor density manifold in all sectors, including the mountainous regions in the North and East. Acquisition of HPRs, Aerostats and mountain radars will further reinforce this.

The integration of these increased numbers of systems into a highly automated system was undertaken indigenously with BEL being the lead agency. I am happy to state that the system was tested extensively in the exercise and proved itself as a robust force multiplier. IAF has graduated from a point defence, to area defence and is now moving towards layered defence.

India Strategic.

Did the IAF feel the inadequacy in terms of sheer numbers where its vital force multipliers such as AWACS and Mid-air refuellers are concerned during the recent Pan-India Exercise? If, so what actions are being initiated by the IAF to augment their numbers?

Air Chief.

The deployment of AWACS during the exercise was as per the exercise setting. To overcome the inadequacy, one DRDO developed AEW&C aircraft on Embraer platform has been inducted and the second aircraft is likely to be developed in FoC configuration by the end of 2018.

The procurement case for two additional IL-76 based AWACS is presently with MoD and is at CFA approval stage. Indigenous AWACS (I) programme for up to six aircraft is being progressed by DRDO. As an immediate measure, to meet the urgent operational requirements, IAF is also exploring latest technology aircraft available globally which are operational and in use. :roll:

India Strategic.

What is the score on acquisition of armed UAV systems or UCAVs the IAF was reportedly working on? In the same context, how is the indigenous UCAV programme developing?

Air Chief.

The IAF is progressing the case of upgrading the existing UAV fleet. Also, the Medium Altitude Low Endurance (MALE) RPA TAPAS (earlier called Rustom-II) is being developed by with stealth features which can enter contested airspace. IAF is exploring various options.

India Strategic.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19918
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 30 Jun 2019 08:30

The Tejas programme has to be further accelerated by setting up at least one line in the pvt. sector to boost its capability for the future.This will give us around 30 to 36 aircraft/ year.Thus in a decade we would be able to build 300+ LCAs , including more advanced versions as they are developed, which would be the backbone of the light fighter fleet just as the MIG-21 was in the past. Remember that within a few years time even the 120 Bisons have to retire.Unless another line is started yet another firang type will complicate the composition of the fleet unless the aircraft chosen is the Rafale or MIG-35, an improved variant of the 29.There was a report not long ago about a MK-2 5th-gen Tejas variant.This could first fly within 3 to 4 years and be inducted in the next decade if work is taken up right now. I had some time ago said a Tejas-S could be a stepping stone to the AMCA which will take around 15 to 20 years to arrive.
With the plan to upgrade a large part of the MKI fleet to SS std. equipped with BMos and an LR BVR missile,the IAF can maintain its qualitative advantage over both Pak ( numerically too) and China.If a 5th-gen heavy bird is needed too to counter PLAAF stealth birds, at least 2 sqds. of SU-57 are always available.

LakshmanPST
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 65
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 30 Jun 2019 09:12

Karan M wrote:https://sldinfo.com/2018/08/the-perspective-of-the-chief-of-staff-of-the-indian-air-force-shaping-a-way-ahead/

The Perspective of the Chief of Staff of the Indian Air Force: Shaping a Way Ahead
08/15/2018


The current strength of 32 squadrons is more than enough for a 1-front war and can handle quite well on the 2nd front, if required... IAF needs 42 squadrons for complete dominance in a full-fledged 2 front war only...
So, IAF is willing to wait for better aircrafts... That is what I understood when I read about this issue... Yes there is some shortage of squadrons, but situation is not as desperate as what is projected in some sections...

IAF's immediate concern in near future is to get new squadrons, by the time the 8 squadrons of MIG 21s and 27s get retired (which will be around 2025)... For that, they have 2 Sq Rafales, 1 Sq Tejas Mk1 & 1 Sq Su30 MKI and are looking for additional MIG 29s and Su30 MKIs, not to mention the 4 squadrons of Mk1As...

The 'falling squadrons' narrative IMHO seems to be driven by Flight companies to push for procurement of additional jets... I believe some sections of IAF are also OK with it since they can bypass bureaucratic hassles claiming urgent requirement when need arises...

And MMRCA 2.0, I believe, is a back up plan for MWF in short-term to fill up numbers... It will supplement the MWF in the long term, as & when Jaguars, M2ks and MIG29s are retired, which is only around 2035...
Last edited by LakshmanPST on 01 Jul 2019 08:17, edited 1 time in total.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2950
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 30 Jun 2019 19:45

My understanding is that 42 SQ is just about enough from 1980s perspective when we have fought 1 full and 1/2 war on China front, where IAF probably did nothing much other than provide very shallow CAS and air dominance against non existent chicom air force so that transportation (planes and helicopter) can go unhindered.
What has changed since then is Chinese now have a legitimate air force of couple of sq and an airforce with many high performance fighter that they can be located in Tibet. In a hot war at least expect 100 Chinese air planes (against odd 30 as of now and almost 0 from 1980s/1990s). That will itself require, 200 high performance planes from IAF to counter (10 Sq). If anything we need additional 10+42=52 SQ air force. With TSPAF with 75-90 F-16s, some 100 odd JF-17 (and counting) and some another 200 other planes, we need 42 to dominate the air and be very effective on the ground and sea (unless IAF limits itself just to air dominance, then lower numbers are needed). With 150 or so Mig21/27 retiring in few years and 200 planes short at 42 sq (what to say about 52), we are short of 350 planes in the next decade (at least), no matter what you do, MMCRA-2, additional rafale, 2nd hand Mig 29, there is a scope of 200 LCAMK1/2/3 (and it will take 15 years for IAF/HAL/ADA/MOD to get there, it seams everyone is working against the LCA). There is no denying around that fact. that still leaves additional 150 to be filled- MMCRA-2, additional rafale, 2nd hand Mig 29 (SU30MKI is a bad choice, we have enough of it, we should spend money in upgrade, so that it can do what Rafale is supposed to do, good thing is it can, given the right upgrade)

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7643
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 01 Jul 2019 01:23

Vivek K wrote:I think rohitji you need to re-read what I posted and not use your intuitive bias to respond.


You talking about bias is mother of all ironies. Someone who's only contribution of this forum is to pour scorn on IAF and Services with respect to almost anything is talking about bias. Someone who's standard template for any argument is to prefix or suffix - 'IAF is import pasand'.

And the tragedy of the situation is that likes of you continue to flourish on this forum while most sensible people have left. Take out 3, maximum 4 handles from BRF, and for all practical purpose, it will become copy of Pakistani forums in terms of quality. Not that quality is great now, thanks to you and many like you.

But lets not waste too much bandwidth on this. Its already a lost cause.

The post quotes from BRF's historical section. The article states that the performance increase would have been greater if the area rule was not vitiated. However, a performance increase was observed that the test pilot (probably better than your knowledgeable self and definitely more than I) was impressed with and believed in.


So, you agree that aircraft performance was impacted due to area rule being vitiated. Remember, I'll hold you for this. Because what I'm going to share, talks exclusively about how this vitiation in area rule played out.

The aircraft failed for reasons other that either the area rule and thus with testing and feedback could have provided an opportunity to take it to the next step in iterative development. Also if you read my post you will find that the blame was put on IAF/HAL/GOI. But disagreement is ok.


You see, unlike you, who's quick to jump to conclusions when they can be used to bash Services, some of us actually do research and try to ascertain facts.

And this research will tell you that HF-24 Mk1R failed to reach its logical conclusion because designers at HAL, led by Kurt Tank and his Indian associates, steadfastly refused to work on improving or changing the design. That GTRE under AVM SNR Chowdhury made many attempts to get them to see the point but they did not budge. That GTRE was working on still more powerful reheat engines and HF-24 could've achieved a high percentage of its original ASR had the design been altered and reworked to accommodate the new engines.

And that Professor Kurt Tank wrote to MOD to shut down the reheat project at GTRE!!!

In the link below, I've posted pictures from the autobiography of AVM SNR Chowdhury. I did not want to paste the images here lest BRF run into copyright issues. If admins are OK, I can paste the pages here as well.

Read these pages to understand what was possible and why it did not reach its potential.

Link: https://vatsrohit.blogspot.com/2019/07/demise-of-hf-24-marut-was-lack-of.html

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19918
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 01 Jul 2019 11:07

Not having any inside knowledge of that time, the MOD should've looked for a new design or variant with Dr.T based upon what engines it could acquire from say the Sovs.or France if the Brits were unwilling to help us.At that time during the Cold War, when funds and tech. was tight, the offer of building MIG-21s in India was a v.attractive proposition, beibg a fully developed bird in service.However, did the IAF pension the HF too early? The Hunters soldiered on for quite a while. I wonder what would've happened if the Adour on the Jags was tried on the HF.

PS:.HALhave asked pvt. entities to manufacture the Dhruv for civilian purposes, in TOT deal.If so, why can't the LCA also be farmed out to the pvt. sector given the huge requirement in numbers- in the hundreds for at least a decade+.If we are able to build 30 to 36/yr., then around 300 to 400 could equip the IAF by 2030 replacing all legacy 21/27and 21 Bisons.More advanced variants could start replacing M2Ks, MIG-29s and Jags as they reach the end of their upgraded lifespans.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chiru, Google [Bot], Kakarat, mmasand, rohitvats and 56 guests