Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

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.
Post Reply
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by ldev »

There is more than one way to skin a cat. You do not necessarily need a maritime strike aircraft, specially one supplied by a sanctioned, funding constrained Russian aircraft manufacturing complex and that too obtained in small numbers where maintenance will be an expensive proposition. The original push for the TU-160 in these online articles and tweets was as a strategic delivery platform for nuclear weapons. When that was shot down as impractical due to the inability of the TU-160 to penetrate the ever improving Chinese IADS network, it is now being touted as a maritime strike aircraft. How about following the Chinese model and perfecting something like a DF-21D or more recently their DF-26. Both are anti ship ballistic missiles with a range of 3000-5000 km. While there is some debate about whether they have actually been tested against a moving target, their deployment alone has caused the USN to deploy counter measures both to protect their CVN carrier groups, to keep these CVN groups at a distance from the Chinese coastline and to develop ABM and cruise missile defences for Guam. For India why can't the Agni P or any of the longer ranged Agni series missiles be adapted as AShBM? It will serve the same purpose to keep major PLAN surface combatants away from the IOR region as China hopes to achieve with it's AShBM deployments. And this will be an Indian solution to this maritime strike problem without involving imports.

Or does the epithet "import pasand" apply only when discussing western or US imports but somehow Russian imports are magically exempt from this? When it comes to MRFA the IAF knows nothing but when it comes to TU-160s is the IAF imbued with divine powers?
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by hnair »

John, please spare me the victim hood. I have clearly said Russian gear has outstanding issues and is suboptimal in that post you have partially quoted for your convenience, leaving that last line. Also I don’t run a constant anti-Russia (or pro-Russian) campaign like you seem to indulge in over at the Ukrainian threads. Everyday it is “Kremlin has fallen” posts and that is ok. But spilling that into this thread is not ok and you got upset when I pointed out?

Frankly, I don’t care any more about Russia than as a fading source of weapons that fulfill some of the Indian military needs. If you are planning to leave over this, then it is sad.

ldev stop with your trolling. Everyone here knows clearly what import pasand means in BRF context: importing a foreign weapon by ignoring an identical Indian system. In the case of a long range bomber or even an SSN at this point, there is no Indian substitute. Your other solutions have also been discussed before, when SMART and last Agni Prime got tested here in this forum. So you are not bringing some bright new idea here other than to troll around.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by John »

hnair wrote:John, please spare me the victim hood. I have clearly said Russian gear has outstanding issues and is suboptimal in that post you have partially quoted for your convenience, leaving that last line. Also I don’t run a constant anti-Russia (or pro-Russian) campaign like you seem to indulge in over at the Ukrainian threads. Everyday it is “Kremlin has fallen” posts and that is ok. But spilling that into this thread is not ok and you got upset when I pointed out?

Frankly, I don’t care any more about Russia than as a fading source of weapons that fulfill some of the Indian military needs. If you are planning to leave over this, then it is sad.

ldev stop with your trolling. Everyone here knows clearly what import pasand means in BRF context: importing a foreign weapon by ignoring an identical Indian system. In the case of a long range bomber or even an SSN at this point, there is no Indian substitute. Your other solutions have also been discussed before, when SMART and last Agni Prime got tested here in this forum. So you are not bringing some bright new idea here other than to troll around.
Show me one post I said as Kremlin as falling?? I even noted that Putin will survive this from day one. Anything that challenges Russian PR is considering anti Russia (Kyiv failure was actually faint, Snake island was a faint, Mariupol plant is defended by NATO soldiers let by a retired NATO general lmao, Ukraine east will collapse in June etc) . In other side have also challenged Ukrainian claims of Kherson counter offensives and I have posted combat news material from both sides.

Anyway that’s why Brar and others have left because of bullying by pro Russian crowd of anyone who has a neutral viewpoint is quickly attacked as anti Russian .

I am pretty sure if someone posts hey let’s get B-1b and arm them with Brahmos (about as likely as Tu-160M2) I will call them out as I did with latter but the same folks who are advocating Tu-160m2 super carrier killer mod will be foming from the mouths and bashing them for being pro western and how it is a ridiculous idea. I will take my leave.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by hnair »

Ok your choice. Everyone - Please use forum feedback thread for such posts. Let us not have thread disruptions
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Karan M »

John wrote:We have to deal with facts with what platform is capable of otherwise we quickly go down the rabbit hole of fantasy wishes. It is currently purely land attack platform that can carry Kh-55/AS-16 with currently only 18 available and only 1 new variant operational. Sure it will be great to have 18 Tu-160 M2 with rotary launchers modified (Brahmos is too big for current launcher) to carry Brahmos and integrated P-8s sound great but they don’t exist.
Fantasy and rabbit holes are what we here leave to gentlemen like you who think Indian service and engineering crew are limited in terms of basic capabilities which they have already demonstrated. Do you realize a ton of the stuff we have in our platforms today was added *after* we procured them in line with our customized wishes?

Its best that you dismiss yourself from topics where you don't bring anything to the discussion beyond cursory commentary, and then act as if you have it all completely mapped out.

India has added the Link-2 to the P-8I and its warships btw. They didn't wait for you to tell them it was impossible. They are adding the ODL to the Su-30, the Jaguar and the Tejas. The Harpoon to the Jaguar. In each case they didn't have you to explain to them was a rabbit hole. In each case they are figuring out the possibilities and adding them on their own.

Please don't make categorical assertions just because you can't understand the possibilities a platform offers and what India can and cannot do with it, if it puts its mind to it.

Is there a confirmed role in the anti-ship or even tactical arena for the Tu-160. No, clearly that's up to the IAF. But lets leave your posturing about rabbit holes and fantasy out of it, when you clearly lack the most cursory awareness about this and multiple topics, yet posture as an overarching authority on them.
It doesn’t mean it cannot be done but pointing out realistically what is possible especially given the prior track record for example it took more than a decade to just get Il-38s upgraded. We haven’t integrated those with P-8s or Brahmos.
What prior track record? The track record that has the IN operating its datalink on almost all its ships? That one? The one that has the IAF acquire SDRs a few years back and start deploying them en masse?

Sure, the Indian Navy just called you up and informed you that there is no coordination at all possible with the P-8I fleet whatsoever and no ability to communicate exists between these platforms.

And Brahmos? Are you even aware in the slightest of the number of air launched platforms being developed by India beyond the Brahmos.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by ldev »

hnair wrote: ldev stop with your trolling. Everyone here knows clearly what import pasand means in BRF context: importing a foreign weapon by ignoring an identical Indian system.
I disagree, import pasand in my vocabulary means importing a foreign weapon system by ignoring an indian solution to the imported system. It does not mean an identical Indian system
In the case of a long range bomber or even an SSN at this point, there is no Indian substitute.

But there is an Indian solution to long range maritime strike as I have stated.
Your other solutions have also been discussed before, when SMART and last Agni Prime got tested here in this forum. So you are not bringing some bright new idea here other than to troll around.
AFAIK, Agni Prime was discussed by me at least in the context of the proposed Indian Rocket Force to attack land targets and the fact that it has a very low CEP. It has not been discussed in the context of adapting it as an Anti Ship Ballistic Missile including the seeker, ISR and data links that will be required for this adaption. Will be happy if you point out to me where it was discussed as an anti ship ballistic missile. SMART does not even fall into the same ball park. I am talking about adapting various Agni series missiles with comparable ranges to China's DF-26 missile such that there is an area denial zone of 1800-2500 km from Indian shores
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Karan M »

John wrote:
hnair wrote:Karan M, nice :x John, please do take it easy, let us keep “one Ukrie flatulence = 100 Russians” in that other thread.

A numerically superior “fleet-in-being” like the one PLAN is building, cannot be out-build even by khan with his vast resources and knowledge base, because it is idiotic. But nullifying the threat of a fleet-in-being by a counterforce-in-being is a doable proposition for not only khan, but also India.
Where did I ever say anything such as that ? This place has gone down hill and quick to start bashing anyone who questions Russian PR . We have people talking about 16 Tu-160m2 (never officially even acknowledged as being pursued) magically appearing with 100% up time in few years with Brahmos with Asuw capability to take on Chinese there is not rationally given we can’t even get Vikramditya operational this is pure fantasy. If you going down that rabbit whole why not PAK-DA and plasma stealth. I will take my leave from this place as well.

So the Air Chief (rtd) on a public gathering and Indians who attended the topic talking about the Tu-160 is Russian PR? Which fantasy world are you inhabiting? Do you think the Russians are responsible for that too? Was there a FSB agent under the dias providing speaking points to the CAS (rtd) and the people talking about it? Whom are you trying to censor here and what for?

You seem to be extraordinarily concerned that India is evaluating a certain capability after using the forum for propaganda all so far about everything from Russian EW to SAMs and what not. And in most cases your understanding of the topic was totally inaccurate and you have kept peddling these claims.

This forum does not exist to pander to your Russophobia because you wish to exhibit some loyalty test to off forum individuals or societies.

Who is talking of 16 Tu-160 M2? Another claim you've pulled out of nowhere.

Let me explain something to you, which you seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding. India is a *sovereign* country. If that means it has to purchase stuff from Russia it will do so.

Irrespective of whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

Similarly, if India finds some Russian or any gear does not meet its requirements, it will not purchase it.

Your clear dislike of Russia and "Russian PR" has got little to do with what India will and will not do.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Karan M »

ldev wrote:You do not necessarily need a maritime strike aircraft, specially one supplied by a sanctioned, funding constrained Russian aircraft manufacturing complex and that too obtained in small numbers where maintenance will be an expensive proposition. The original push for the TU-160 in these online articles and tweets was as a strategic delivery platform for nuclear weapons. When that was shot down as impractical due to the inability of the TU-160 to penetrate the ever improving Chinese IADS network, it is now being touted as a maritime strike aircraft. How about following the Chinese model and perfecting something like a DF-21D or more recently their DF-26. Both are anti ship ballistic missiles with a range of 3000-5000 km.
First, nobody shot down the possibility of the Tu-160 being useful against the Chinese IADS network. Please dont use your lack of awareness around the topic to make dubious assertions. In fact, in my post, I clearly mentioned a small Tu-160 fleet can carry enough ASMs to actually saturate a S-400 class IADS network *if* the IAF chose to use it for a tactical role.

Second, why are you trying to constrain a discussion in terms of what India needs or does not need in terms of maritime strike or otherwise, please tell me? Is it your contention that we limit the discussion only to procurement from your favored side, the one imposing the sanctions and putting Indian security at risk?
Or does the epithet "import pasand" apply only when discussing western or US imports but somehow Russian imports are magically exempt from this? When it comes to MRFA the IAF knows nothing but when it comes to TU-160s is the IAF imbued with divine powers?
Import pasand applies to when there are local alternatives available, yet they are ignored and an import is sought. These are strategic systems which are not available elsewhere.

Only someone who hasnt researched the topic would compare anti-ship ballistic missiles, whose efficacy is yet to be proven with what is a more proven option for long range weapons delivery, strategic or tactical. Every country maintains a mix of capabilities. Why are you so upset about a discussion that explores India acquiring these capabilities and are trying to bring adjectives like "import pasand" into the mix?

Is the US, only relying on ASBMs or is it actually adding anti-ship capabilities to platforms like the B1B?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... ian-ships/
But it’s clear what the B-1s will be doing in their final years—hauling stealthy anti-ship missiles to threaten enemy fleets. Dramatic exercises over the Black Sea in recent years have underscored the swing-wing bomber’s new maritime strike role.
But somehow a mere discussion around this, has your gander up. Why are you so worried that India acquires this capability or a mere discussion ensues about it.

You could have made your case about low numbers and serviceability and left it at that. But no, you are pursuing it further. To what end.

Somehow, the Chinese don't buy into your logic either. They are making cruise missile carriers like the H-6 *and* their ASBMs. No reason why India shouldn't explore the former capability either. Why are you so concerned about India getting something like the Tu-160?

https://eurasiantimes.com/chinese-h-6-b ... oud-japan/
Chinese H-6 Bombers, Loaded With Powerful YJ-12 Missiles, ‘Cloud’ Japan As Beijing Demonstrates Navy-Airforce Compatibility
So the Chinese themselves have both ASBMs, and cruise missile carriers - for strategic and tactical targets. The US is adding AShW capabilities to its Tu-160 equivalent, the B1B.

But a mere discussion around acquiring this for India, makes BRF members "import pasand". Anything else?

Should we know our place and be limited to only toys our betters decide we must have.

Its hilarious that you wish to compare the procurement of over a hundred MRFA to a mere handful of strategic aircraft. What worries you so much about the latter? Why are you so insistent that BRF not even discuss India getting strategic capabilities from a source which you don't like.

If you can't handle the discussion, by all means don't participate. Don't try to throw around adjectives though. Doesnt pass muster.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Karan M »

hnair wrote:Karan M, nice :x John, please do take it easy, let us keep “one Ukrie flatulence = 100 Russians” in that other thread.

A numerically superior “fleet-in-being” like the one PLAN is building, cannot be out-build even by khan with his vast resources and knowledge base, because it is idiotic. But nullifying the threat of a fleet-in-being by a counterforce-in-being is a doable proposition for not only khan, but also India.

Khan has their superb and sizeable SSN fleet to deal with that in bulk while their CVNs and smaller flattops will provide the cover needed against PLAN ASW assets. India needs a lot of SSNs that can dash foreward at will and not restrained by bunkering but only for victualing. But unlike khan, India has another issue: IOR is vast and does not provide IN with robust allies who will pick up the gauntlet from a PLAN fleet at Sunda or Malacca. So a long range maritime strike aircraft provides a lot more flexibility, quicker response, faster reload than what the P15/17 magazines provide.

A combo of 6-12 SSN + 12-18 maritime strike bomber + p8I + ASW UAV + micro-SAR satellites would be a good combo of counterforce-in-being, by 2035 to shutdown IOR for PLAN. Also like a mentioned in a previous post, swing it landward for taking out Western Military District’s logistics bases in peak winter and let Himalayas finish the job.
Precisely. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the topic and not talking out of their hat would realize that in the real world, manned aircraft carrying long range weapons exist for a reason. They can do better target discrimination in crowded areas and are available for re-routing to take on maneuvering fleets, with their own sensors especially if the third party intel asset (UAV, P-8 etc) isnt available. With escorts, they can be lethal.

An ASBM once launched, is a done deal. Its very hard to reroute it, to datalink info to it is magnitudes harder than datalinking data to a much slower aircraft without the attendant plasma issues, and furthermore, you can't just start popping ASBMs into a crowded area. At best, they are an additional option, not *the* option. One may as well ask the IAF to disband its Su-30 and Jaguar AShM units because hey guys, lets just drop Agnis everyplace.

Furthermore, ships are defended by a mix of heavy SAM cover. The average PLAN flotilla will have to be taken out by a massed salvo of AShMs if its fully defended, the number of SAMs per ship playing a key role. Having a cruise missile platform that can carry 6 (let alone 12) missiles is a *huge* advantage.

This holds true for tactical and strategic missions too for land based targets. A fleet of Tu-160s can launch enough missiles and decoys to saturate an AD system. In contrast, a Su-30 can carry only one large payload at a significant cost to its range.

A Tu-160 fleet can take the naval route and attack PRC population centers on their coast. High risk missions but are we kidding that manned components of any triad are anything but that.

More importantly, if the IAF plays its cards right, it can add offensive power like anything with a Tu-160 fleet capable of both mission sets.
https://www.af.mil/News/Art.aspx?igphoto=2000266703
An assortment of 500-pound and 2,000-pound joint direct attack munitions are connected to a multiple ejector rack on a B-1B Lancer March 31, 2011, at a weapons load barn at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. If fielded, a 16-carry modified rotary launcher will increase the number of 500-pound JDAMs and laser-guided JDAMs carried by a B-1B from 15 to 48, a 320 percent increase in capability. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Shannon Hall)
Wiki
The B-1 was first used in combat in support of operations in Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, employing unguided GP weapons. B-1s have been subsequently used in Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) and, most notably, in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[37] The B-1 has deployed an array of conventional weapons in war zones, most notably the GBU-31, 2,000-pound (910 kg) JDAM.[37] In the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped almost 40 percent of aerial ordnance, including some 3,900 JDAMs.[106] JDAM munitions were heavily used by the B-1 over Iraq, notably on 7 April 2003 in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Saddam Hussein and his two sons.[120] During Operation Enduring Freedom, the B-1 was able to raise its mission capable rate to 79%.[88]
If the IAF plays its cards right, it can get a bunch of capabilities it did not have previously.

There is hence no real surprise that India would love to have such a capability provided it can afford it.
My only quibble is the Russian maal’s uptime. Particularly anything of Soviet vintage.
Very true. This is the only real concern apart from the costs involved.

However, some folks don't even want us to consider the possibilities of such a platform and what it brings to the table.

To what end, I wonder.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by ldev »

Karan M wrote:
First, nobody shot down the possibility of the Tu-160 being useful against the Chinese IADS network. Please dont use your lack of awareness around the topic to make dubious assertions. In fact, in my post, I clearly mentioned a small Tu-160 fleet can carry enough ASMs to actually saturate a S-400 class IADS network *if* the IAF chose to use it for a tactical role.
China's S-400 systems consist of 6 launchers with 4 missiles each, so they can fire off 24 missiles before they need to reload. Sometime ago reports were that China had based one S-400 battalion at Hotan and one at Nyingchi. AFAIK the TU-160 has 2 weapons bay with rotary launchers, each capable of housing 6 missiles, for a total of 12 missiles. Besides the S-400, China also has HQ-16 batteries along the LAC, numbers are unknown. So how exactly are you proposing to saturate a S-400 class network. How many TU-160s will you need for that. And how are you going to shield the 100m^2 RCS of the TU-160? It will be seen from 500 km away.
Karan M wrote:Second, who are you to constrain a discussion in terms of what India needs or does not need in terms of maritime strike or otherwise, please tell me? Is it your contention that we limit the discussion only to procurement from your favored side, the one imposing the sanctions and putting Indian security at risk?
Favored side??? You have probably forgotten that it was I who suggested way back when the IL-38s were being retired that they be kept as missile carriers for maritime strike with their exceptionally long range and endurance and that it was sunk cost. The only person on the forum unequivocally in favor of that was Philip. So don't pick up a strawman's argument about favored side.

Yes, and as i have pointed out this particular strategic system is past it's best buy date. It was great during the Cold War, it is vulnerable in this day and age.

The import pasand phrase appears to have struck a raw nerve. Maybe it should not be thrown around as much as it is on BRF. But clearly the US is worried about China's AShBMs, they are doing everything possible for developing significantly longer range fighters operating from their carriers to prepositioning equipment and S/VTOL F-35s on islands to mitigate the AShBM and hypersonic anti ship missiles such as the DF-ZF

Like the TU-160, the B-1s days are numbered. It will be out of US service in less than 10 years because like the TU-160 is is not survivable in contested airspace. It is great for bombing Iraq and Afghanistan after AD has been interdicted but it will be no match for future Chinese IADS.

The H-6 is a 50 year old design of the Soviet era TU-16. It is locally produced and cost is negligible for China. It's role has been changed from a carrier of dumb bombs to a missile carrier. By some accounts the cost of manufacture of an H-6 in China is less than $ 50 million. Sure, at that price it is worth buying for use as a stand off missile platform. And China has the CJ-10 and CJ-20 missiles with a range of ~1500-2000 Km. What will be the lease cost of a TU-160 charged by Russia to India? Say a 10 year lease, the Russians will begin by asking for $500-$750 million per plane for those 10 years. That is my guess. And where is the 2000 km range stand off missile that the IAF has to ensure that the TU-160 can stay out of the AD bubble of it's targets? And China is not content with the H-6. In all likelihood sometime in the next 2 years we will likely see the first flight of the H-20 stealth bomber.

If it was the IL-38 that was being adapted with it's sunk cost that would be a good deal, but to go for a vulnerable platform with probably a sky high lease cost is just not worth it.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by ldev »

Karan M wrote:
More importantly, if the IAF plays its cards right, it can add offensive power like anything with a Tu-160 fleet capable of both mission sets.
https://www.af.mil/News/Art.aspx?igphoto=2000266703
An assortment of 500-pound and 2,000-pound joint direct attack munitions are connected to a multiple ejector rack on a B-1B Lancer March 31, 2011, at a weapons load barn at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. If fielded, a 16-carry modified rotary launcher will increase the number of 500-pound JDAMs and laser-guided JDAMs carried by a B-1B from 15 to 48, a 320 percent increase in capability. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Shannon Hall)
Wiki
The B-1 was first used in combat in support of operations in Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, employing unguided GP weapons. B-1s have been subsequently used in Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) and, most notably, in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[37] The B-1 has deployed an array of conventional weapons in war zones, most notably the GBU-31, 2,000-pound (910 kg) JDAM.[37] In the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped almost 40 percent of aerial ordnance, including some 3,900 JDAMs.[106] JDAM munitions were heavily used by the B-1 over Iraq, notably on 7 April 2003 in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Saddam Hussein and his two sons.[120] During Operation Enduring Freedom, the B-1 was able to raise its mission capable rate to 79%.[88]
If the IAF plays its cards right, it can get a bunch of capabilities it did not have previously.

There is hence no real surprise that India would love to have such a capability provided it can afford it.
My only quibble is the Russian maal’s uptime. Particularly anything of Soviet vintage.
Very true. This is the only real concern apart from the costs involved.

However, some folks don't even want us to consider the possibilities of such a platform and what it brings to the table.

To what end, I wonder.
All of the above is fine and dandy against opponents whose AD has been softened and degraded before sending in the B-1s. The US does not expect such a playbook to work against China and hence the NGAD and F-35s and LREW and LRHW etc. I have no idea why you would expect that India will do better against the same opponent with the older set of weapons. And why would you need a TU-160 class of weapon against Pakistan.

Yes, yes, we all know that optionality exists with a manned system vs a missile in that it can be recalled or re-targeted. That is basic. But optionality at what cost? If lighter ASMs were developed like the SCALP or JASSM-ER, an SU-30 could carry 2 or even 3 of them. What they lose in terms of speed vs Brahmos, they will make up for in stealth.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Pratyush »

Everything that the TU 160 can do can also be done by a simple military transport plane. As a platform for rapid dragon type deployment system for cruise missile.

The pallet deployment system can be configured as a launcher for air launched Nirbhay, Brahmos and any other missile in the future.

You don't need a dedicated bomber for a stand off missile carier.

Where the military transport will be a multi application platform. As a cruise missile carier for one mission and a conventional air transportation platform in another.

Look for increasing the airlift capacity of the IAF and you kill multiple bird's with one stone.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Prasad »

There are quite a few questions that need to be solved.

1. All straits in the East are watched round the clock via surface, subsurface, airborne and space based assets. Past that it's tougher but not impossible.
2. In a conflict, PLAN assets would already be in the IOR.
3. When targeting is required, assumption is that their flotilla has already been under surveillance and tracking good enough to send in whatever vector is deemed suitable.
4. Here comes the what vector question - apart from the Andaman Sea, all 3 straits - Malacca, Sunda, Lombok are all too far for MKIs to carry enough missiles to do any realistic damage.
5. PLAN flotilla will not be individual ships. A Type 52D carries 64 VLS cells and a 24-cell SRSAM launcher. Assuming they carry a 50:50 mix of SSMs and SAMs on those UVLS cells, we're looking at 32+24 = 56 SAMs on a single destroyer. Assuming our sub situation is still bad and we have minimal subsurface attack capability, taking such a destroyer out will need 1.5 - 2x AShMs? We are talking launching a 100+ missiles at a destroyer. Nothing can match that capability but a full blown big bomber that can run like the wind.

6. Or you build your own VLO bomber that can carry a big load and send in a bunch of those. But you will need quite s few of those too. One for the East and one for the West. If PLAN bases a group in Djibouti and another from the East. So you can't buy a single bunch of 6 bombers and hope that you don't need them at 2 places on either side of the Indian Peninsula at the same time. That's why the 6-10 number makes no sense. A single White Swan can only carry 12 missiles. Anyone can do the math.

This is all idle talk. We can't buy 6 MRTTs in 15 years for $3bn but magically have billions more to buy/lease White Swans?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Pratyush »

Assuming that the long range bomber is for maritime strike against the PLAN in the Indian Ocean. What is the PLAF doing in the Tibetan theater of operations?

Because by the time such a bomber is purchased or designed within India. The PLAF can easily be expected to operate 180 inflight refueling tankers based on the Y20. How is the IAF handling a PLAF that can conduct 2400 to 3000 combat sorties per day all the while shooting 2000 cruise missiles per day?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Rakesh »

hnair wrote:Frankly, I don’t care any more about Russia than as a fading source of weapons that fulfill some of the Indian military needs. If you are planning to leave over this, then it is sad.
It is amazing how people get sad when India continues to import weapons from Russia. What emotions are triggered I wonder, when such purchases occur from Russia? What seems to be the takleef actually?

Apart from ACM Raha Sir mentioning a strategic bomber at a live discussion forum, Air HQ or the GOI has to confirm such an acquisition. But still vehement opposition exists on BRF to acquire said strategic bomber from Russia. Why?

Would this same opposition exist, if we got a strategic bomber from the US?

Posting on BRF is a personal choice. He wants to leave for this trivial issue, so be it.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Rakesh »

John wrote:Anyway that’s why Brar and others have left because of bullying by pro Russian crowd of anyone who has a neutral viewpoint is quickly attacked as anti Russian.
Brar left because someone posted a claim that American Generals were hiding in caves. What the point of that post was is still a mystery to me. But that post triggered brar and he left in a huff & puff, which was even more mysterious. Till that post however, brar continued to push back on what he felt was not accurate. You are not being factual in your claim above.
John wrote:I am pretty sure if someone posts hey let’s get B-1b and arm them with Brahmos (about as likely as Tu-160M2) I will call them out as I did with latter but the same folks who are advocating Tu-160m2 super carrier killer mod will be foming from the mouths and bashing them for being pro western and how it is a ridiculous idea. I will take my leave.
Above claims (in bold) are easy to make because such an offer has not been made by the US and will likely not occur either. The B1 is well on her way to retirement by this decade or the next, as the B-21 starts rolling off the production line. The B-2 will also make an exit as well in the future, as the B-21 is reportedly a replacement for both.

The Tu-160 on the other hand, as per Russian accounts, is restarting production. Now if the Russians are making that up, then we will soon find out. By the time that news disseminates to the open media, the GOI will already have been told. So no Tu-160s will come. Or perhaps, the Russians might restart production and they may deliver X airframes to India on lease. Or it could not even be a Tu-160 at all. It could be a whole other bomber.

Regardless, the only source for India to get a strategic bomber will be from Russia. No one will give India such a platform. That is a fact.

Another fact is that no strategic bombers are coming anytime soon, regardless of what Baba Banaras or anyone else on twitter states. This is a long term acquisition. Even ACM Raha Sir - when mentioning the strategic bomber - was speaking at an event titled, 2035: Aerospace Capability of Indian Armed Forces. So it will likely not even be the Tu-160 at all.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Rakesh »

ldev wrote:China's S-400 systems consist of 6 launchers with 4 missiles each, so they can fire off 24 missiles before they need to reload. Sometime ago reports were that China had based one S-400 battalion at Hotan and one at Nyingchi. AFAIK the TU-160 has 2 weapons bay with rotary launchers, each capable of housing 6 missiles, for a total of 12 missiles. Besides the S-400, China also has HQ-16 batteries along the LAC, numbers are unknown. So how exactly are you proposing to saturate a S-400 class network. How many TU-160s will you need for that. And how are you going to shield the 100m^2 RCS of the TU-160? It will be seen from 500 km away.
Amazing how a rumoured Tu-160 acquisition by India brings out the truth about the S-400 from you :)

Nearly 9 months ago, you were dismissive about the S-400 purchase by India. These are your own posts from Jan 2022;

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7848&start=720#p2529756

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7848&start=720#p2529890

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7848&start=720#p2530094

To quote your own words ---> "The presumption in this scenario is that the earth is flat, which it is not."

So which is it? Is the S-400 a potent system or is it not? Unless you want to make the claim that the Chinese S-400 system is indeed more potent that the Indian S-400. If you are going to make such a claim, please provide the evidence. Could the Chinese examples feature omnipotent capabilities (radars that can see through mountains and radars that make the earth flat) that are not there on the Indian examples? Although we are well aware of why you were against the S-400 purchase by India and why are you now similarly against a possible Tu-160 acquisition by India.

With regards to the claims in your post above, if such an acquisition was to take place do you really believe that the IAF would not know that the Tu-160 has a massive RCS? And they would not factor in this achilles heel of the Tu-160? And the maximum payload carrying capability of the Tu-160's rotary launcher? Or is it entirely out of the realm of possibility - for you - that Air HQ is actually aware of what the Chinese have in Tibet and could still likely advocate for such a purchase? I have not come across of a single IAF officer advocating Kamikaze missions against the enemy. Have you?

In spite of the robust Chinese IADS network, Air HQ is considering a strategic bomber. That is a fact confirmed by ACM Raha himself and a discussion that has been going on since ACM Browne's tenure (ACM Raha's immediate predecessor). It is Bharat Karnad that extrapolated that it could be the Tu-160. All this brouhaha and takleef over one comment from Bharat Karnad :roll:

India could very well not even end up with the Tu-160 and a whole other platform. So let the platform come first and then we can excoriate the lack of merits. This is a long term acquisition plan by Air HQ and is not coming anytime in the near future. The goal right now for Air HQ is the 114 MRFA contest. That in itself is in doubt, but that is another issue not directly related to this discussion.
ldev wrote:Favored side???
....
So don't pick up a strawman's argument about favored side.
You do have a favoured side. I also have a favoured side, which is India.

We are only human. Don't get offended over it.

@KaranM, you pushed the red button :lol:
ldev wrote:You have probably forgotten that it was I who suggested way back when the IL-38s were being retired that they be kept as missile carriers for maritime strike with their exceptionally long range and endurance and that it was sunk cost. The only person on the forum unequivocally in favor of that was Philip.
Please open the book titled, India's Most Fearless 1 by Shiv Aroor and Rahul Singh and refer to Chapter 9 in the book which starts at Page 179. That chapter is titled, Everything Was Against Us. Everything by Lieutenant Commander Niteen Anandrao Yadav.

Lieutenant Commander Yadav is an experienced naval aviator and more specifically an IL-38 pilot. After reading his harrowing account of his IL-38 mission, it is amazing that the Indian Navy had just one incident (a mid air collision in 2002 involving a pair of IL-38s) with this platform. It is good we got rid of that aircraft as soon as possible. The IL-38 is not an ideal platform for what you are suggesting.

Philip was removed from BRF for continuously peddling Russian maal when there was no need to do so. Philip is really not a crutch you should be using to support your argument. That is a bad strategy, so try again.
ldev wrote:Yes, and as i have pointed out this particular strategic system is past it's best buy date. It was great during the Cold War, it is vulnerable in this day and age.
And yet Air HQ could very well disagree with you, if the Tu-160 does come. Just like the S-400, which you have now admitted above is actually viable in a future conflict. If for whatever reason the Chinese stealth bomber does not come through and if the Chinese lease six Tu-160s as a stop gap measure, we will see an entirely different argument from you at that point.
ldev wrote:But clearly the US is worried about China's AShBMs, they are doing everything possible for developing significantly longer range fighters operating from their carriers to prepositioning equipment and S/VTOL F-35s on islands to mitigate the AShBM and hypersonic anti ship missiles such as the DF-ZF.
Stationing F-35 on islands? Really? :lol:

I thought the advantage of a carrier is that it was impossible to find in the vast open sea. Why would you station F-35 on islands when Chinese CJ-10 and CJ-20 missiles with ranges of 1500 to 2000 km would easily take them out? When it was suggested that to use the A&N islands to station assets, that was roundly mocked. India must have a super carrier. Nothing else would suffice. But stationing F-35s on islands is perfectly fine. Okay.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by John »

Rakesh wrote:
John wrote:Anyway that’s why Brar and others have left because of bullying by pro Russian crowd of anyone who has a neutral viewpoint is quickly attacked as anti Russian.
Brar left because someone posted a claim that American Generals were hiding in caves. What the point of that post was is still a mystery to me. But that post triggered brar and he left in a huff & puff, which was even more mysterious. Till that post however, brar continued to push back on what he felt was not accurate. You are not being factual in your claim above.
I wanted to make a post to set facts that incident of brar leaving is being spun to fit the narrative. Brar left after he was attacked by Ramana for being pro Ukrainian. This came after he was refuting the Russian PR of ex NATO generals hiding in Mariupol. If you refute what is outright BS propaganda you are quick to get slammed as Pro Ukrainian.
brar can you lay off the outright support for Ukraine. We don't have info yet you repeatedly rush to defend Ukraine.
The same is true with hnair who made claims and attacked that I said Kremlin will fall and how I said 1 Ukrainian = 100 Russian. While I never stated any of that heck I even predicted Putin will survive back in Feb.

Pro Russian sentiment isn’t bad but personally attacking anyone as Pro Ukrainian because they don’t believe in Tu-160 can be used for AshW purpose is new low.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Rakesh »

John wrote:I wanted to make a post to set facts that incident of brar leaving is being spun to fit the narrative. Brar left after he was attacked by Ramana for being pro Ukrainian. This came after he was refuting the Russian PR of ex NATO generals hiding in Mariupol. If you refute what is outright BS propaganda you are quick to get slammed as Pro Ukrainian.
John, that is only end result of the episode i.e. Ramana-ji's admonishment of him.

What was the precursor to that incident? You know it as well I do. I have known Ramana-ji since BRF's inception in 1997. He is not one to admonish posters just out of the blue. So when he was asked to refrain, it was brar who said that he will not post any more. And that is fine. As I indicated earlier, posting is each one's individual choice. I cannot force him, you or anyone else to post on BRF. Posters come and posters go. That comes with the territory when operating a forum.

The conflict in Ukraine has brought out everyone's biases out to the forefront. That includes me and you.

From my perspective, it is absolutely vital that Russia prevails in this conflict. Virtually all our foreign kit comes from there. So it is imperative that Russia wins in Ukraine. But that is *MY* perspective. You may have a different view. And that is fine. Posters will call you out for your view, just as other posters have called me out for mine. If someone calls me out for my view, I come back with evidence and supporting arguments. That is the point of this forum! Do you see me claiming that I will not post here anymore because of what someone else is accusing me of?

Because I am pro-Russian in this particular conflict and if someone calls me out for being pro-Russian, I don't care. Say it. No skin off my back. Why do the melodrama John if you are accused of being pro-Ukrainian? I will even say this ---> I am not in favour of India having a military alliance with the United States either. I am anti-American in that respect. I have zero trust in the US political system. But that is *MY* view and not necessarily the view of the GOI. Regardless, I am not going to stop posting because someone accuses me of being anti-American.

Come on man! :) Learn to adopt the below...it will serve you well...

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Rakesh »

Prasad wrote:There are quite a few questions that need to be solved.

1. All straits in the East are watched round the clock via surface, subsurface, airborne and space based assets. Past that it's tougher but not impossible.
2. In a conflict, PLAN assets would already be in the IOR.
China's bellicosity has resulted in a shoot-my-own-foot scenario.

Whichever ocean in the world a PLAN carrier battle group is sailing, there will be American assets that will provide real time tracking. No PLAN CBG will be allowed to sail unawares. Their CBGs are going to be facing a challenging time to be effective. They don't have the luxury of their CBGs operating with impunity in the wide open sea.

They created this scenario, so let them have fun with it. Their biggest challenge will be to prevail against SSNs, especially the Virginia and Astute Class vessels. They are in for a very rude shock. But it will be a nice firework show, that is for sure.

The rest of your points are equally valid. Well said.
Prasad wrote:This is all idle talk. We can't buy 6 MRTTs in 15 years for $3bn but magically have billions more to buy/lease White Swans?
Acquiring a strategic bomber is a long term purchase. Not coming anytime soon. In India, if you don't start the discussion now...it will not arrive. Approximately 10 years have already passed, since the idea was first mooted at Air HQ.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by ShauryaT »

Some Thoughts. The reported build cost of a new TU-160 is about $270 million for Russia. The Akula lease was $3 billion for 10 years, including cost to refit and also I believe part of the costs to train our Arihant crew so the actual cost of the lease would be less than the cost to build a new one. Cost to build a new Akula, I will round it to say $3billion for today. The cost to lease a fleet of 6 new TU-160 for 10 years, in my estimation would be around $2 billion by itself. It will be the weapons bought from Russia that will increase the costs to an additional $2-$5 billion depending on numbers and what is bought. A way to control the costs and to delink performance from Russian wares would be Indigenize the communications, sensors, weapons - presuming the avionics allow for it. Thoughts?
Last edited by ShauryaT on 22 Aug 2022 01:15, edited 1 time in total.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by basant »

Mods, could we move the bombers to a separate thread please? The actual news and discussion seems to have been lost in this thread. Just my thoughts...
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by hnair »

john, if you have any further feedback or comments not pertaining to IAF or bomber proposals, please use the Feedback thread

I have posted my response to your allegations there

Link

No more here please.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Rakesh »

basant wrote:Mods, could we move the bombers to a separate thread please? The actual news and discussion seems to have been lost in this thread. Just my thoughts...
I would love to, but in the absence of any official confirmation that the IAF is considering a strategic bomber...it would be awkward & pointless to create a new thread solely for that discussion. So for now it will have to stay here.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12060
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Vayutuvan »

Rakesh wrote:But that is *MY* view and not necessarily the view of the GOI. Regardless, I am not going to stop posting because someone accuses me of being anti-American.
...
Yes. It is all issue-based anti-<x> or pro-<x>. (substitute your favorite entity for <x>). On some issues, one can be pro-<x> but on some other issues, one can be anti-<x> (The same X). The only constant is that that position should help India/GoI/Indian citizens directly or indirectly.
Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8266
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Dilbu »

IAF sacks three officers for BrahMos misfire into Pakistan in March
Nearly six months after a BrahMos missile was accidentally fired into Pakistan, the central government sacked three Indian Air Force (IAF) officers for lapses that led to the March 9 incident, the IAF said on Tuesday. A court of inquiry held the IAF officers responsible for deviating from standard operating procedures.

“Three officers have primarily been held responsible for the incident. Their services have been terminated by the central government with immediate effect. Termination orders have been served upon the officers on 23 August 22,” an air force spokesperson said.

The IAF did not reveal the ranks of the three officers in the brief statement, but HT earlier reported that the roles of a group captain and a few other middle-rung officers (wing commander/squadron leader) were under scrutiny after the incident.
The ‘group captain’ was in charge of the BrahMos supersonic missile battery when the weapon was launched from a base in the western sector during routine inspection and maintenance of the system, as previously reported.

Union defence minister Rajnath Singh on March 15 expressed regret in Parliament over the incident, and said that standard operating procedures for “operations, maintenance, and inspection” of such systems were being reviewed.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by eklavya »

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheLegateIN/status/ ... yjMmbuMlHQ ---> All IAF S400 ADS deployment sites to be equipped with multispectral camouflage nets making it near impossible for them to be detected by enemy reconnaissance pods (Goodrich DB110 of PAF & various Chinese recce pods).
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Pratyush »

Are the IAF planning to make sure that the system never emits any radar signal.

As in modern warfare beyond the visible signature, the radar signature is the most significant identifiers for SAM systems.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12060
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Vayutuvan »

Pratyush wrote:Are the IAF planning to make sure that the system never emits any radar signal.
Technically not possible.
asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 373
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by asbchakri »

Rakesh wrote:
asbchakri wrote:Breaking News !!! US to lease 6 B-2 Spirit to India as part of Make India Great program (Amereekan version of Atmanirbhar).

Celebrating it with my own Spirit (Balvenie 12) :mrgreen:
I would have preferred the B-21 Raider :lol:
Admiral-saab you wish is coming true we are getting B-21 for our Raids on the dragon :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by ks_sachin »

Vayutuvan wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Are the IAF planning to make sure that the system never emits any radar signal.
Technically not possible.
I thought it was possible. Isn't there a cloaking device on all our mizziles and jahages?

I am binge-watching Star Wars....
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12060
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Vayutuvan »

ks_sachin wrote:Isn't there a cloaking device on all our mizziles and jahages?
One has to decloak to communicate or scan for incoming.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by ks_sachin »

Vayutuvan wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Isn't there a cloaking device on all our mizziles and jahages?
One has to decloak to communicate or scan for incoming.
But if we cloak everything then they wont know what to hit!!
asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 373
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by asbchakri »

ks_sachin wrote:
Vayutuvan wrote:
One has to decloak to communicate or scan for incoming.
But if we cloak everything then they wont know what to hit!!
If the jahages has the deflector shields (moving to Star Trek) then it can also stop the incoming mizzile
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by NRao »

Interesting thread on IAF:

Thread has 30 tweets, one per PowerPoint slide.

https://twitter.com/EkNashwar/status/15 ... 8050293763
20th Major General Samir Sinha Memorial Lecture #Highlights

Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by NRao »

And, 10 tweets in the Q/A session to the above presentation.

Starting with:

https://twitter.com/EkNashwar/status/15 ... 7272838145
Q&A:
Bharat Karnad: Long Range Manned Targeting Bomber Question?
CAS: Tuploves are the 60s designed and need escorting and no self-defense. We have better kinetic and non-kinetic means to handle long-range targets. Contactless warfare is preferred. Also, we have limited budgets
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by Rakesh »

MiG-21: Is the Indian Air Force ready for a transition? | The Probe Podumentary

Every few months, India wakes up to the news of a MiG-21 crash. Last month, again, a MiG-21 crashed in Rajasthan’s Barmer, claiming the lives of two Indian Air Force pilots. In 2012, former Defence Minister AK Antony told the Parliament that out of the 872 MiG aircraft purchased from Russia, more than half had crashed, claiming the lives of more than 200 persons, including 171 pilots. So, why is the Indian Air Force still flying the MiG 21s? Hear this Podumentary out!

Speakers:

* Air Marshal Anil Chopra (retd), Director General, Centre for Air Power Studies
* Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak (retd), Founding Additional Director, Centre for Air Power Studies
* Air Marshal Pranab Kumar Barbora (retd)
* Air Commodore Prashant Dikshit (retd)
* Group Captain Ravinder Singh Chhatwal (retd)
* Snehesh Alex Philip, Defence Journalist, Deputy Editor, The Print

vijayk
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8760
Joined: 22 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by vijayk »

Image
Tanishq Kumar Sah @SahTanishq

• 7 Squadron AMCA
• 6 Squadron Tejas MK-II
• 6 Squadron MRFA
• 4 Squadrons Tejas MK-IA
• 2 Squadron Tejas IOC & FOC
• 2 Squadron Rafale-F3
• 15 upgraded squadron of SU-30

In total 42 squadrons fighters .
Future of IAF as presented by Air Chief Marshal V.R Choudhary Sir
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 23 March 2021

Post by ramana »

Sorry but its a pedestrian presentation for a memorial lecture.
Someone should ask him about the IAF officers who were fired for Brahmos' mishap. How much was the training?
VRS is also responsible if not accountable.
Post Reply