Visited ADVA this year, couldn't see any stall - might have been too well camouflaged thoughshiv wrote: The only IAF stalls calling for recruitment have been in th ADVA area - not the business area. Did not go that side this year.
You mean 5th Gen stealthy Stall..??vonkabra wrote:
Visited ADVA this year, couldn't see any stall - might have been too well camouflaged though
They were flying at 180 ktsrai wrote: HAL - Make in India
Srai, Thanks for compiling those pics!srai wrote:Aero India 2017 highlights:
NDTV: Vishnu Som Flies the Tejas
Most probably the idea posted on BRF that lots of people pay Rs 1500 to come to ADVA once in two years in Bengaluru for Air Force recruitment was discovered to be falsevonkabra wrote:Visited ADVA this year, couldn't see any stall - might have been too well camouflaged thoughshiv wrote: The only IAF stalls calling for recruitment have been in th ADVA area - not the business area. Did not go that side this year.
What about pics of the other type of models at the Israeli, Dassault, LM, Boeing stalls?srai wrote:Aero India 2017 highlights:
...
Until the next AeroIndia 2019!
Given the relatively less range of ERJ based system, it seems it will address a particular sector than be an all encompassing 'Eye-in-the-Sky' like larger birds which cover large swathe of territories.Karan M wrote:But I agree with you AF should order at least 3 more of these units and have them progressively improve the radar. A six AWACS (ERJ based fleet) for TSPAF vs 5 AWACS for PLAAF would give us ample coverage till AWACS-I comes.
Ironically there were more toilts this year than ever before. Question is - has this chick ever written anything about lack of toilets in cities?ranjan.rao wrote:^^nice article,
1. justifies her stint with TOIlet,
2. So in the aero india show, where she should be writing about planes or other things she chooses to write toilet paper rolls and soaps
3. And the only plane image she picks is a biplane which she would have seen in her school text books
4. this is not the first time she has dissed indian forces here is another masterpiece from her "http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.c ... tandards/"
5. So nice article that she's to put her pic before the article to induce if not seduce users to read it
6. Sorry for religious bigotry but the name wahab itself is reeks of wahabism
A valid question (IMO) that I have heard asked is "Where do our AWACS fit in when we have covered our borders with radars and ground based control systems?Cybaru wrote:I think range is not an issue. Time to station will hardly be anything if they are based 100 kms from the border. Once they take off they are on station. This also allows easy crew changes and refueling if they are so close to base. Being a civilian airliner, their uptimes will be far better than the Il-76 birds. It has an 9/10 hour airtime available to it without refueling and that is plenty. It would be nice if IAF ordered another 3 to beef up its units and to hedge any delays in A330-I units coming online.
They still provide early warning way more than any ground radar can especially Beyond The Horizon detection. Plus they do sigint analysis of all ground based radars that are emitting. If it has ground mapping modes like jstars, it can create interesting picture for analysis and spot any shift in men/material and perhaps even tactics.shiv wrote:A valid question (IMO) that I have heard asked is "Where do our AWACS fit in when we have covered our borders with radars and ground based control systems?Cybaru wrote:I think range is not an issue. Time to station will hardly be anything if they are based 100 kms from the border. Once they take off they are on station. This also allows easy crew changes and refueling if they are so close to base. Being a civilian airliner, their uptimes will be far better than the Il-76 birds. It has an 9/10 hour airtime available to it without refueling and that is plenty. It would be nice if IAF ordered another 3 to beef up its units and to hedge any delays in A330-I units coming online.
Shiv Saar,shiv wrote: Question is - has this chick ever written anything about lack of toilets in cities?
We should be proud of ToI(let). They have successfully indigenised the tech for drain inspections...shiv wrote:Ironically there were more toilts this year than ever before. Question is - has this chick ever written anything about lack of toilets in cities?ranjan.rao wrote:^^nice article,
1. justifies her stint with TOIlet,
2. So in the aero india show, where she should be writing about planes or other things she chooses to write toilet paper rolls and soaps
3. And the only plane image she picks is a biplane which she would have seen in her school text books
4. this is not the first time she has dissed indian forces here is another masterpiece from her "http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.c ... tandards/"
5. So nice article that she's to put her pic before the article to induce if not seduce users to read it
6. Sorry for religious bigotry but the name wahab itself is reeks of wahabism
Line of Sight, Doctor saar... Even if we have enough ground based radars, airborne, redeployable, long range radar systems have inherent advantages in terms of Radar SNR, the ability to look pretty much straight across into air rather than up (range resolutions are much higher than cross range resolutions), and dont have to deal with issues of occlusions due to geographical features.shiv wrote: A valid question (IMO) that I have heard asked is "Where do our AWACS fit in when we have covered our borders with radars and ground based control systems?
That is the theory. But I would like to argue against this just to bring out knowns and unknowns which I think exist in the idealized picture presented about the use of AWACS.k prasad wrote:
Line of Sight, Doctor saar.
+ 1Dileep wrote:Toilets WAS indeed a problem, like everywhere else in India. But, mind that it was way better than the previous years. I would also venture that the temporary facilities were as good as similar temporary facilities anywhere. The only issue was, they were a bit far to walk and a bit less in number (and because of that, a bit less clean).
My bigger complaint is, there was no hand wash at the Food court. There was only a temporary toilet with two wash basins, that ran out of water all the time.
UK and France usually will operate within NATO ambits, so they have US AWACS already. In many ways, we should count the US AWACS fleet withinthe UK/France force numbers, for most of their operations. When they have unkil ka lamborghini to play with, Why pay for their own? Also, in terms of area to protect, they have almost no threats like the ones we face (IOR + Western Border + North + East).shiv wrote: In the first place -even at the best of times they cannot fly within 50-100 km of a hostile border. This means that 75% of AWACS coverage is inside one's own territory (since AWACS eyes are circular - most of that circle remains inside one's own territory). Air forces and navies comparable in size to the IAF/IN like the UK and France do not operate AWACS in numbers that are disproportionately higher than what we have.
So why has the US gone apeshit and procured AWACS in such huge numbers? That is because they sit well outside US territory - monitoring large areas of ocean and faraway lands that do not have the capability to take down US fighters. The US has AWACS circling over Afghanistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Japan
Few points to this:shiv wrote: Our own AWACS are unlikely t be used for Amreeki ishtyle AWACS led attack formations over hostile territory. Our AWACS will most likely stay inside and monitor our airspace and help vector air defences against intruders. They will probably provide coverage where our land based radars lack coverage.
In fact balloon mounted radars or radars on mountaintops can provide (for us) the same depth of coverage into hostile terrain 24x7 at 1/10th cost (or less)
.Somehow the NATO argument does not seem to work for nuclear weapons - which they both own, ignoring the same NATO fact. They need those extra AWACS for US style NATO surveillance over distant oceans - not across their borders.k prasad wrote:
UK and France usually will operate within NATO ambits, so they have US AWACS already. In many ways, we should count the US AWACS fleet withinthe UK/France force numbers, for most of their operations. When they have unkil ka lamborghini to play with, Why pay for their own? Also, in terms of area to protect, they have almost no threats like the ones we face (IOR + Western Border + North + East).
Tibet is, on average at 12-14000 feet, and the Himalayas tower over Tibet at 18-22,000 feet. An AWACS flying in India would be completely blind to aircraft flying in the shadow of mountains that tower 1.5-2 km higher than the plateau. The populated areas of Tibet (South Tibet) fall in the shadow region even for an AWACS flying at 30,000 feet - it would have to cross the Himalayas to see what is happening in the areas that are hidden behind the mountains.k prasad wrote: 3) Another point about high altitude operation - Imagine what that does for your Line of Sight - at 5000 m *above ground*, LoS is 250 km. At 10,000 m, that increases to 357 km. But now, Imagine if your aerostat is above to tether only 2000 m above a 3000 m high base - LoS is now only 160 km. Barely useful for early detection of air targets flying nape-of-the-ground, or within valleys. So depth of coverage is vastly inferior to AWACS.
Correct, but well, when it comes to Nukes, no one trusts their own mothers. Recent news articles have talked about how most NATO partners are not pulling their weight, instead letting the US foot most of the burden. This AWACS business is just another example of that. But also, operational requirements for these countries are also different.shiv wrote: Somehow the NATO argument does not seem to work for nuclear weapons - which they both own, ignoring the same NATO fact. They need those extra AWACS for US style NATO surveillance over distant oceans - not across their borders.
Yes, and no. AWACS flying close to the mountains at 30k feet will still be able to peer over the 'fence' much better than ground based radars.shiv wrote: Tibet is, on average at 12-14000 feet, and the Himalayas tower over Tibet at 18-22,000 feet. An AWACS flying in India would be completely blind to aircraft flying in the shadow of mountains that tower 1.5-2 km higher than the plateau. The populated areas of Tibet (South Tibet) fall in the shadow region even for an AWACS flying at 30,000 feet - it would have to cross the Himalayas to see what is happening in the areas that are hidden behind the mountains.
Nap of earth invading aircraft would be nap of earth ant 14000 feet inside Tibet. To come to India that would have to rise about 25000 feet and be seen against clear sky by ground based radars
Well said, Cybaru! Time sensitive targetting is the right phrase for this.Cybaru wrote:It is indeed good to see your post K Prasad!
If you want to shape the battle once it starts and move the FEBA forward, you will need assets that give you that edge to be able to do that. They provide Time Sensitive Targeting which is what you will miss if you just have ground based radars.
This link is a bit obtuse, but read anyways.
http://www.ultra-prologic.com/capabilit ... ess/229-2/
The point I want to make is that reality is much more complex than line-of-sight over ocean which are NATO needs. There will certainly be "gaps" between peaks that our AWACS could use to peer into Tibet to get that extra 2 minutes. But the Chinese too would have marked those gaps as airspace to be avoided and also as spots to target snooping AWACS. That would represent time sensitive targeting to our detrimentk prasad wrote: This is precisely why a long range detection is needed, so these aircraft can be detected in the plateaus, 150-200 km before they enter our airspace. Else, our only hope, as you said, is when they cross the hump and get detected by ground radars... but thats typically too short a response time for scrambling intercept fighters. Instead, say the AWACS catches a glimpse of these aircraft 200 km inside tibet, before they go into the elevation blind spots close to the mountains. That gives a couple of minutes notice to scramble our fighters and get them on intercept paths. Its a very tight margin, but thats what war is like, I guess, and the AWACS is essential for providing this, even minimal level of situational awareness. Also, imagine what happens when the AWACS cruises at 35k ft instead of 30 - essentially, its about 15k feet above the top of the mountains, and easily 20k feet above the plateau.
you would not have asked this question had you seen her articlesshiv wrote:The lady wore heels to an airshow? Did she think that an airshow was about showing herself off?
Well it is "Farce" magazine that she writes for.ranjan.rao wrote:you would not have asked this question had you seen her articlesshiv wrote:The lady wore heels to an airshow? Did she think that an airshow was about showing herself off?
