Indian Military Aviation

[shiv]

^^^^

True. India has not acquired the missiles yet. Or have they?

Indian Jags have overwing missile pylons. I wonder if that fact would render some of the info in that article useless.

[Rahul M]

Well Dada,
its simply because we need the numbers and the flexibility this kind of setup provides...
In this type of situation the army does not need to depend entirely on the air force for transporting equipments and man power within a theatre, freeing the Airforce birds for carrying out inter theater transportation in case of a transport fleet.
In fighters, it frees majority, if not all, of the AF assets to concenterate on interidiction of the enemy logistics and taking out the enemy's Air infrastructure. The CAS role can be handled on the most part by their own flights.

bala, what exactly is the problem with the army depending on the AF for this particular need. going by this logic shouldn't the AF have its own army as well so that it doesn't have to depend on the IA ?
the solution to these problems is better co-ordination, perhaps by creating a CDS and giving him the requisite powers, not by duplicating every little resource.

if you divide the fighter fleet between the AF and army, you will see situations where the forces will fight over what falls under their jurisdiction and what doesn't. where do you draw the line between CAS and interdiction ? would you hobble multi-role fighters like the MRCA and LCA to CAS roles only, thus wasting much of their potential ?
or would you order a whole new fleet for the army ? can you imagine the unnecessary extra cost that means ?

With the situation that we face, the threat axis are on two different directions, along both North-South and West-East. So apart from the flexibility, the immediate advantage is the number that we'll have on our hands to handle a situation effectively and efficiently.
JMO

why can't the numbers be raised in the existing structure ? if it can't be done now, why do you think a duplicate air force would do any better ? I doubt the problem lies in how the aircraft are distributed among the forces.
it would be the exact opposite of efficient or flexible, it's like having two captains on a cricket field with overlapping responsibilities ! they would fight on every issue and no work will be done.

[Singha]

this Feb2010 article says the magic2 missiles on Jag/M2K would be replace with aim-132 asraam

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw ... 00218.aspx

so yes, we should be seeing asraam our fleet this year. seems to be a good missile though probably lacks the manouvering ability of iris-t/r72/aim9x going by the wiki entry if true. uses same hughes seeker as Aim9x. neither our Jag or m2k use helmet cueing, though our upgraded m2k when done will have it.

overall a far more potent vs magic2 and gives a better safety margin to Jags/M2k taking shots. The Mica+asraam+RDY3 radar+improved EW for M2K upg (albeit not as good as RDY2) should still make it a potent interceptor for next 15 yrs given its good climb rate and high sprinting speed. ofcourse due to lack of rafale TV+IRST it likely will not use the Mica IR as its stealthy capability cannot be exploited without these sensors. but Mica EM will be good vs the obsolete Matra 530D



The main improvement, which was also made on the latest version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder, is a new focal plane array FPA (128x128 resolution imaging infrared) seeker developed by Hughes before they were acquired by Raytheon. This seeker has a long acquisition range, high countermeasures resistance, approximately 90 degrees off-boresight lock-on capability, and the possibility to designate specific parts of the targeted aircraft (like cockpit, engines, etc.). The ASRAAM also has a LOAL (Lock-On After Launch) ability which is a distinct advantage when the missile is carried in an internal bay such as in the upcoming F-35 Lightning II.

[Kartik]

The deal hasn't been signed as yet has it ? This seems to be merely a MBDA advert talking about the advantages of the ASRAAM over the AIM-9M, IRIS-T and Python-V that were supposedly in the competition to arm the Jaguar.

[Singha]

you are right - no ink on paper yet. considering they have transferred Milan2 production to India, won the Maitri SRSAM consulting deal, known to be consulting on the Astra AAM (similar aerodynamic surfaces as mica?) and won the Mistral aam deal for WSI Dhruv...I'd say they have a strong chance of bagging this over aim9x/p5/iris-T. they would be the ones most capable of knowing the details of the Mirage200 and Jaguar and getting co-operation from dassault and british aerospace.

[jai]

" Indian Army Eyes Larger Aviation Corps "

This seems to be a good idea IMO - given the terrain Army operates in; given its biggest challenge in quick mobilization and deployment capability, and - very long border areas that it needs to defend. Times are changing and getting more wings is the way to go for IA. They need to look at their evolving role over a 20 - 30 year horizon and find quick ways to address its current limitations.

Therefore its a good idea for Army to have its own - a) Rotary Armoured Aviation regts based on LCH and Apache and Fixed Wing Armoured Aviation regts based on planes like SU 25KM and or A 10 Thunderbolts - made to Indian Specs and capable of operating from rough fields in forward locations. These would be ideal Against Paki and Panda armour, in battle fields like Laddakh, and in supporting our own armoured thrusts.
b) Air Artillary - AC 130 gunships. Would be able to support a wide battle field area quickly.
C) Infantry - Convert at least 30 % of current infantry into Airborne / Airmobile Units - Using Choppers
d) ASC - Induct helicopters like the CH 47 Chinook and fixed wing AC like C27 J for troop transport and supply requirements. could also include flying cranes like the CH 54/S 64 skycrane - given the mountains that we operate in, these would be ideal for quick placement of guns and equipment on high alt posts.
E) AMC - Field Ambulance units - Choppers for air ambulance needs
f) Air Op and Rece flights - UAV's
Given the imperatives of quick mobilization under Cold start, a robust induction of air assets is the way to go. Jointedness has its limitations and does not work seamlessly in all situations as the operational thinking of IAF and IA differs some times. Current assets in AF Inventory that can support these ops should gradually be completely transferred to IA.

IAF can focus on creating "Air Superiority", Complete situation awareness - Ground Radars, AWACS, Satellites, Aerostats etc, strategic airlift, Heavy and long range firepower, and Air and missile defence - Which by itself would be a handful given our need for defense against Panda and Paki combine.

[Bala Vignesh]

dada,
There's absolutely no problem in raising the numbers in the current set up. But what i feel and this purely my opinion, that a force the size of IA would require an integral transport wing to help with intra theatre movement of forces. This would leave the IAF concentrate on the strategic movement which is their niche.
Let me make it clear that i am not asking for strategic air lift capability. They have to depend on the IAF for that, period.
As for the CAS portion, as a learned professor once put it, its not a role that any Air force likes. Plus it would enhance the coordination simply by the fact that the guys calling the strike and the guys carrying out the strike are from the same force. Its purely psychological. Plus the aircrafts for this role need not be the super hifi MMRCA's. The simple Jingo fighter that was being designed in the design your fighter thread could do the job. And even here they are dependent on the IAF as its their responsibility to ensure air supremacy during combat without which the CAS aircraft will get knocked out of the skies like bugs.
As far as i see their are no overlaping of responsibilities here. The IAF is still charged with strategic air operations while only some of the tactical responsibilities are being transfered to the army. And even in that the army is only supplementing the IAF and not taking it on fully.

[Singha]

carrying forward Shiv's theorem of using stuff that suits our needs, funds and doctrine than satisfies the fanboys, would a modernized Su35 frogfoot CAS a/c in the hands of IA make sense? the design is available and doesnt need much changes, it was built to be tough...just a new glass cockpit, better countermeasures and some new munitions like helina.... heh heh. a more modern turbofan engine, increasing the cannon rounds from 250 to 750 and thats about it.

we wont be able to ever afford AH64 in large nos. so WSI Dhruv, LCH could use some fixed wing help @ $20 mil each

[KiranM]

The co-ordination required between ground troops and CAS pilots can be developed between IA and IAF. IA requiring CAS is a given. But how? What platforms can provide CAS? Fighter, Multi-role helicopters, attack helicopters, few specially modified aircraft like AC-130? Let us look at the issues pragmatically;

1) Platform - Fighters for CAS;
We have to depend on fighters like Tejas and Mig series (Jaguar I would term as interdiction strikers. Will be used for CAS only if desperate). Tejas will be taking over from the Mig series. India cannot afford to have CAS specific fighters like A-10. Too expensive, too many fronts to cover against air, ground and sea threats. This makes multi-role fighters like Tejas logical. Now if a Tejas squadron is available in a sector, it need not sit idle for point air interception alone. It can be broken into 2 flights; 1 flight on ORP for air interception, 2nd on alert for CAS on demand from IA.
Imagine a scenario where IA has dedicated fighters. We will need 2 squadrons - a squadron each for IA and IAF for operational prudence and efficiency.
2) Logistics -
While redundancy is desirable, redundancy can be built within same services in a cost effective manner. Redundancy being a reason for splitting aircrafts between IA and IAF will lead to clash of interests and duplication. This invariably leads to associated costs. Spread across the threat environments, terrain like we have, cost will be humongous. If training academies and other resources have to be shared we might as well not split between services.
3) Co-ordination -
IAF and IA hold exercises regularly. All that is needed is both exercising together more frequently and at smaller unit level like Companies/ Battalions with Flights/ Squadron strength to increase the co-ordination skills. And this has to be done in all terrain, all weather and at different times of the year.
4) Allocation of aircrafts -
Looking at the other side of fence, doesn't mean we remove all aircraft under IA AAC and handover to IAF. There was a reason for IAF to handover Maritime Reconnaissance to IN. The mandate and airframes requiring dedicated handling was not large enough. It was a very small pie compared to Air Defense, Interdiction and Transport responsibilities. besides MR aviators needed good co-ordination with ships and submarines. Applying same logic, we can say such force/ unit dedication from aviators is required in IA at platoon to Company strength. Hence, UAVs, multi-role and attack helicopters will need to flourish in IA AAC.
But here is where a line should be drawn. Any aircraft (Fighter/ Transport/ helicopter/ UAV) in support of Battalion or larger size ground force complement should come under IAF. Period. This will be the bell curve where the points I talked about above hold good.

My 2 naya paisas.

Regards,
Kiran

[P Chitkara]

Any aircraft (Fighter/ Transport/ helicopter/ UAV) in support of Battalion or larger size ground force complement should come under IAF. Period

So, essentially what you are saying is, if the size is an armoured regiment for example, the support, the attack helis should come from AF. Sorry sir, I do not agree.

Attack helis should be with the IA only; they are meant for armoured warfare after all. For that matter AF should not have any atatck helis - they are meant for a very specific role.

Whatever I said is meant for attack helis only for course.

[KiranM]

Any aircraft (Fighter/ Transport/ helicopter/ UAV) in support of Battalion or larger size ground force complement should come under IAF. Period

So, essentially what you are saying is, if the size is an armoured regiment for example, the support, the attack helis should come from AF. Sorry sir, I do not agree.

Attack helis should be with the IA only; they are meant for armoured warfare after all. For that matter AF should not have any atatck helis - they are meant for a very specific role.

Whatever I said is meant for attack helis only for course.

Chitkara, IMHO effect of an Armoured Regiment is equal to an Infantry Company is more than that of an Infantry Company but less than that of an Infantry Battalion, so by that logic attack helicopters that support/ oppose an Armoured thrust should come from IA AAC. However, I don't want to draw a distinction between aircrafts. Want to define only by the span of effect. If there happens to be a category of Attack Helicopter (or say something like AC-130) which will be to support a Battalion, Brigade or Division level force it has to be from IAF.

[srai]

carrying forward Shiv's theorem of using stuff that suits our needs, funds and doctrine than satisfies the fanboys, would a modernized Su35 frogfoot CAS a/c in the hands of IA make sense? the design is available and doesnt need much changes, it was built to be tough...just a new glass cockpit, better countermeasures and some new munitions like helina.... heh heh. a more modern turbofan engine, increasing the cannon rounds from 250 to 750 and thats about it. ...

With the advent of very capable MANPADS, the dedicated CAS-type of aircraft is no longer a valid concept. All major airforces have moved away from this concept. Tactics have changed and now high-performance combat aircrafts staying above MANPAD range strike with pinpoint accuracy (using advances in avionics and PGMs). Case in point is the Mirage-2000s striking Tiger Hill. The tactic developed was to stay above 5km at the lowest point when dropping their LGBs with a quick ingress and egress.

Attack Helicopters are the modern CAS. They are more survival in this role because they can mask their presence against the terrain much better (i.e. hide behind hills and trees and launch missiles illuminated by other units or by just exposing only their sensors or doing a quick popup launch from behind a terrain). This allows them to loiter around the battlefield for much longer periods of time.

And for low-intensity conflicts (with the adversary not having radars), armed UAVs (like Predator and Reaper) are effective as CAS. They can loiter over an airspace for many hours and are equipped to take out one vehicle or compound or one individual.

[jai]

[quote="KiranM"] But how? What platforms can provide CAS? Fighter, Multi-role helicopters, attack helicopters, few specially modified aircraft like AC-130? Let us look at the issues pragmatically;

Platform - CAS is a different animal and needs machines that can take a lot of punishment, operate from close to battle areas and fly slower (if required) for accurate targeting using their heavy guns/cannons. This is the domain of planes like SU25 KM and A 10 Thunderbolts. SU 25 has been reputed to operate from rough fields flying on petrol and diesel as well ! They can take a lot of fire (up to 23 mm) and are well defended with Titanium "tubs", ECM, Self sealing fuel tanks, triple redundancy in its flight systems, with mechanical systems to back up double-redundant hydraulic systems, capability to fly on single engine if one gets shot etc.

These platforms are extremely effective and hence would continue to be upgraded and in use - A 10C and SU 25 KM for ex.

US plan to use their A10's well into 2020's and beyond !

Duplication of platforms may not be needed at all if roles are clearly defined.

Basic training can be done using the same infrastructure by all services, which happens even now. I am not sure Navy and Army are using different facilities from IAF to train their helicopter pilots or navy and CG are using separate training academies for their fixed wing aircraft (basic flying training).

Coordination - Unless the operational command of the assets is not with the end user, you will always have gaps, so its best to let Army have what it needs. Why should IAF try to do everything and be everything to everybody in terms of its equipment and not be able to cater tp all requirements - given its stretched resources ?

[KiranM]

Jai, I dont see any point that strongly negates what I said. Your reasons can be worked out in existing structure and framework. Regarding CAS dedicated aircraft, please read srai's previous post. I remember reading shiv's post of a beauty regarding India's need/ lack of need for CAS type like A-10 in Design Your Fighter thread. Please go through that.

[srai]

quote Any aircraft (Fighter/ Transport/ helicopter/ UAV) in support of Battalion or larger size ground force complement should come under IAF. Period /quote

So, essentially what you are saying is, if the size is an armoured regiment for example, the support, the attack helis should come from AF. Sorry sir, I do not agree.

Attack helis should be with the IA only; they are meant for armoured warfare after all. For that matter AF should not have any atatck helis - they are meant for a very specific role.

Whatever I said is meant for attack helis only for course.

Chitkara, IMHO effect of an Armoured Regiment is equal to an Infantry Company is more than that of an Infantry Company but less than that of an Infantry Battalion, so by that logic attack helicopters that support/ oppose an Armoured thrust should come from IA AAC. However, I don't want to draw a distinction between aircrafts. Want to define only by the span of effect. If there happens to be a category of Attack Helicopter (or say something like AC-130) which will be to support a Battalion, Brigade or Division level force it has to be from IAF.

I think the criteria should be the following:

1. To be assigned to IAF: Does the aircraft require an airbase/airfield to operate and be effective?
2. To be assigned to IA: Does the aircraft require operating within battlefield (i.e. refuel, rearm, transport, reconnaissance within) without having to rely on an airbase/airfield?

Below is the breakdown of who gets what based on the answers to the above two questions:

• Combat aircrafts (all types) -> require airbase/airfields to operate and be effective. These should be with the IAF.
• Transport aircrafts (all types) -> require airbase/airfields to operate and be effective (as it requires the infrastructure to allow for massing of troops and equipment, which can then be transported to the frontline). These should be with the IAF.
• Heavy/Heavy-Medium Helicopters -> require airbase/airfields to be effective (as it requires the infrastructure to allow for massing of troops and equipment, which can then be transported to the frontline). These should be with the IAF.
• Light-Medium/Light Helicopters -> do not require airbase/airfields to be effective; instead they require support within the battlefield itself to be effective. These should be with the IA.
• Attack Helicopters -> do not require airbase/airfields to be effective; instead they require support within the battlefield itself to be effective. These should be with the IA.

Note: Some exceptions apply.

[Lalmohan]

one drawback of fixed wing army aviation assets (for CAS) is that they need decent operating strips or bases to fly from, or co-location with airforce and all the infrastructure that is needed. helicopters can for some periods at least operate forward and keep moving forward with the division/brigade

i think the mission requirements need to be looked at more carefully, and in line with the doctrine - as well as opposition. an attack helo is quite pakistan specific for us. what type of war are we expecting to fight with TSPA and in what terrain? how does the TSPA deploy? what are the most effective aerial means of attacking them? i am not sure that there is a good case for a fixed wing CAS aircraft any more - especially given the potential lethality of air defences.

a greater amount of artillery with helicopters operating further out and probing in a much tighter C4 environment might be the way to go

but then, TSPA is a much smaller threat than dragon

[D Roy]

though I don't see the IA operating gunships aka AC-130 derivative or gunship-lite aka C-27J derivative anytime soon, I do see the Army being pretty happy with loitering attack missiles, armed UAVs both fixed wing and rotary, WSI dhruvs and LCHs.

They will also likely get hold of the hypersonic reusable cruise missile that Kalam and co keep talking about once that becomes a reality, just like the US Army has its own prompt global strike baby dubbed the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon program.

the US army of course formally renounced the right to operate fixed wing tactical assets under the "Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966" which itself sort of built upon the Key West Agreement almost two decades earlier.

Interestingly enough before the agreement, the US Army backed a whole host of VTOL projects ostensibly for reconnaissance and medevac purposes only but the link to non-availability of airfields was clear.


the silver lining - if the Army is serious about getting its own airforce it has to cooperate with DRDO- on helos, on LAMs and on UAVs. And I think this is happening now.

Moreover as far as capex is concerned the army will increasingly lag behind the AF(which hogs the lions share year after year) and the Navy. In fact one of the reasons why the Navy backed indigenization to such a great degree was that it had a relatively small capex but needed capability which meant that a self-reliance culture germinated and blossomed.

I think Army-DRDO relations reached a Nadir on the Arjun tank project and things have started getting much better since then especially as new generations of soldiers enter the decision making fray.
Who knows following in the footsteps of the Navy it might just be the Army's turn to 'defect' to DRDO's side leaving the flyerboys to explain to media dumbasses what a fourth generation phyter truly means.

[Boreas]

" Indian Army Eyes Larger Aviation Corps "

Times are changing and getting more wings is the way to go for IA.

Agreed

b) Air Artillary - AC 130 gunships. Would be able to support a wide battle field area quickly.

AC-130 needs to be escorted. In Vietnam US used 3 Phantoms to escort each AC-130 in mission. Which in our case will again mean dependance of IA on IAF.

Also it is pretty vernable considering the fact a crew of 10-12 is on stake, one AC-130 was shot down by a "shoulder-fired" sterla in Iraq during first gulf war. Killing everyone on board.

Both Panda and TSP have much superior resources in there arsenal as compared to Vietcom and Iraqis.

[jai]

" Indian Army Eyes Larger Aviation Corps "

Times are changing and getting more wings is the way to go for IA.

Agreed

b) Air Artillary - AC 130 gunships. Would be able to support a wide battle field area quickly.

AC-130 needs to be escorted. In Vietnam US used 3 Phantoms to escort each AC-130 in mission. Which in our case will again mean dependance of IA on IAF.

Also it is pretty vernable considering the fact a crew of 10-12 is on stake, one AC-130 was shot down by a "shoulder-fired" sterla in Iraq during first gulf war. Killing everyone on board.

Both Panda and TSP have much superior resources in there arsenal as compared to Vietcom and Iraqis.

Some battle losses would always be there. The US coalition lost other regular fighters as well to Iraqi fire. The AC 130 was shot during early morning hours as it continued to circle overhead to cover some marines. I am not sure it would be an easy target at night when the most amount of fighting now takes place. I am sure the IAF can provide the required escorts.

What is remarkable however is that CAS aircraft - A10's in the first Gulf war had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict - destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 military vehicles, and 1,200 artillery pieces, along with two Iraqi helicopters, while loosing 7 aircraft totally. While as per Wiki, AC 130 destroyed over 10,000 vehicles.

These are aircraft designed for manpad heavy close quarter battles for all weather day/night operations from varying altitudes with excellent sensor packages and PGM capability. They can operate from rough fields and roads.

I am sure if inducted these would cause havoc in case of a war against the panda and pakis.

An interesting read here on A 10C's modernization -

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-h ... ram-03187/

[shiv]

Therefore its a good idea for Army to have its own - a) Rotary Armoured Aviation regts based on LCH and Apache and Fixed Wing Armoured Aviation regts based on planes like SU 25KM and or A 10 Thunderbolts - made to Indian Specs and capable of operating from rough fields in forward locations. These would be ideal Against Paki and Panda armour, in battle fields like Laddakh, and in supporting our own armoured thrusts.
b) Air Artillary - AC 130 gunships. Would be able to support a wide battle field area quickly.
C) Infantry - Convert at least 30 % of current infantry into Airborne / Airmobile Units - Using Choppers
d) ASC - Induct helicopters like the CH 47 Chinook and fixed wing AC like C27 J for troop transport and supply requirements. could also include flying cranes like the CH 54/S 64 skycrane - given the mountains that we operate in, these would be ideal for quick placement of guns and equipment on high alt posts.
E) AMC - Field Ambulance units - Choppers for air ambulance needs
f) Air Op and Rece flights - UAV's
Given the imperatives of quick mobilization under Cold start, a robust induction of air assets is the way to go. Jointedness has its limitations and does not work seamlessly in all situations as the operational thinking of IAF and IA differs some times. Current assets in AF Inventory that can support these ops should gradually be completely transferred to IA.

IAF can focus on creating "Air Superiority", Complete situation awareness - Ground Radars, AWACS, Satellites, Aerostats etc, strategic airlift, Heavy and long range firepower, and Air and missile defence - Which by itself would be a handful given our need for defense against Panda and Paki combine.

I have serious objections to this idea. Since there are a lot of elements I will have a lot of things to say. I need to organize my thoughts and will post in the "anticipating and countering future wars" thread.

[Singha]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ5JdYWo ... re=related

some interesting old footage of the jaguar...incl a amazing takeoff from a alternating bands of grass and tarmac...and a scary looking road landing at a very high sink rate.

[Pratyush]

Guys,

The thread has moved quite a bit for the Army aviation and the fixed wing component for the same. But still I will put in my own two bits on the topic.

1) The AAC needs to grow from its miniscule size.
2) Fixed wing aircraft need not be manned platforms
3) A very small rough field capable Air transporter An2 type will be useful for the IA specops but owned by the IAF. But am not very particular about it. As this can be done by a tilt rotor platform as well.
4) Assault Helos One regiment for every tank brigade.

I will leave out the transport helos as am not very clear on it.

[sumshyam]

IAF Jaguar Fleet To Be Upgraded With MBDA's ASRAAM

[VinodTK]

''Hercules'' to be inducted in IAF on Feb 5

[VinodTK]

Series of flight simulation contracts won by CAE

Among the contracts are: the design and manufacture of a C-130J weapon systems trainer and other training devices for Lockheed Martin; a contract from Boeing Training Systems and Services to build two M-346 full-mission simulators; an agreement with IGTEC to design and manufacture a C-130H full-mission simulator; a contract from Airbus Military to develop A400M maintenance trainers; a contract from Boeing to provide CAE’s magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) system for the Indian navy’s P-8I Poseidon aircraft; and a contract from the England’s Ministry of Defense to continue providing training support services for Royal Navy helicopter flight training systems.

[Dmurphy]

''Hercules'' to be inducted in IAF on Feb 5

Yet to see a pic of the Hercs in India. Has it landed here yet?

[karan_mc]

F-22 Raptor might be in Aero-India claims Indian express

I highly doubt it ,but if it is true then i am coming Aero India 2011 ,When is the last day to book online tickets for Aero India 2011 ? Aero India site shows 25th January 2011. is it for General visitors too ? please clarify soon

[nachiket]

Probably wet dreams of some journalist.

[sanjaykumar]

Have smelling salts ready for the Chinese military attache.

[Juggi G]

F-22 Raptor, 'Smartest Fighter' Likely at Aero India
The Indian Express

[prithvi]

is it true that no single engine fighter is allowed to participate in flypast during Republic day celebration in Delhi? Saw a poster posting the same in Livefist as why LCA is not allowed to participate in the same. Seems like a non-issue vis-a-vis some chance to display indigenous stuff and bring cheers to DRDO folks

[ramana]

Yesterday there was TV report on Times Now about some housing development (1500 flats) coming up near Lohegaon airfield and the reporter wondering how did this happen and what were the authorities: civil and military, doing while this was being built.

[shiv]

is it true that no single engine fighter is allowed to participate in flypast during Republic day celebration in Delhi? Saw a poster posting the same in Livefist as why LCA is not allowed to participate in the same. Seems like a non-issue vis-a-vis some chance to display indigenous stuff and bring cheers to DRDO folks

I am guessing that is why MiG 21s, Gnats, Mysteres and Hunters in earlier Republic day fly pasts had an extra engine slung on a pod

[saps]

[quote]I am guessing that is why MiG 21s, Gnats, Mysteres and Hunters in earlier Republic day fly pasts had an extra engine slung on a pod[/quote]

Well when one is strapped on in single engine fighter and manning position at 900 kmph at couple of feet away with only few 100 feet between the crowd and self and when mighty bird takes on the engine...i guess its not a healthy feeling..
The flypast has always been resisted as far as i know from my sources for single engined aircrafts over any heavily populated areas which cannot be sanitised for birds unlike aero shows where some sort of sanitisation can take place or at least observation and avoidance can happen. Dear shiv, i thought of a better reply from your side than the podded one..

[Lalmohan]

the PAF solved the single engine problem by using Djinn powered aircraft

[Bala Vignesh]

^^Sapsji...
It was just meant in humour. Don't take it to heart.

[nrshah]

I am sorry if I would be spoiling the republic mood, however differences in attitude of IAF and IN was visible even during Republic Parade...

Whereas Tejas Trainer was shown under DRDO (even though tejas achieved IOC recently although not for trainer but still...), Navy tableaux of INR Virat showed Tejas flying over it in addition to Mig 29K....This is even before first flight of NLCA is made....

[shiv]

I am guessing that is why MiG 21s, Gnats, Mysteres and Hunters in earlier Republic day fly pasts had an extra engine slung on a pod

Well when one is strapped on in single engine fighter and manning position at 900 kmph at couple of feet away with only few 100 feet between the crowd and self and when mighty bird takes on the engine...i guess its not a healthy feeling..
The flypast has always been resisted as far as i know from my sources for single engined aircrafts over any heavily populated areas which cannot be sanitised for birds unlike aero shows where some sort of sanitisation can take place or at least observation and avoidance can happen. Dear shiv, i thought of a better reply from your side than the podded one..

I am sorry if you are disappointed with the reply but I have some serious objections to the logic used by your "source". It is a no brainer to say that birds are a risk over populated areas. It is equally well known that single engines are more at risk from bird ingestion than twin engined aircraft.

Where the ludicrous logic of your "source" falls flat is the idea that the IAF would be willing to risk a bird hit on a twin engine aircraft in a situation where they are unwilling to risk a bird hit in a single engined aircraft. This line of seriously flawed thinking suggests that the IAF should not mind a few birds flying about because they are flying twin engined aircraft. There is no guarantee that a twin engine aircraft will not crash after a bird hit. The precautions that need to be taken to avoid bird hits when multi engined aircraft are flown are exactly the same and no less demanding than the precautions for single engined aircraft. You do not want a bird hit on ANY aircraft, single or multi engined. Period. There is no caste system that allows more birds for some aircraft. In other words if the environment is safe for twin engined aircraft it is also safe for single engined aircraft. No two ways about it.

It is another matter that people with paranoia about aircraft (most probably non aviators/babus worrying about netas) make up real or non existent rules to reduce their own fears and massage their paranoia.

[Indranil]

I am sorry if I would be spoiling the republic mood, however differences in attitude of IAF and IN was visible even during Republic Parade...

Whereas Tejas Trainer was shown under DRDO (even though tejas achieved IOC recently although not for trainer but still...), Navy tableaux of INR Virat showed Tejas flying over it in addition to Mig 29K....This is even before first flight of NLCA is made....

The plane shown taking off the ski-jump of Viraat was a Harrier.

[saip]

When there are two engines the probability of failure is twice that of a single engined aircraft. Flying a twin engined aircraft with one engine dead is not exactly a simple matter either. My two cents.