Indian Military Aviation

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 24 Feb 2011 22:49

shiv wrote:The Jaguar is a high wing loading aircraft that was meant to serve as a steady platform for accurate very low altitude single pass delivery of bums. It was never meant to be an agile fighter and I don;t think it's performance at high altitude is good. It was meant for the plains of Pakjab, not Kargil or Tibet.

Also for interdiction at sea.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Feb 2011 04:50

Austin ji,

Understand.

The estimates for the LCA are dated and perhaps based more on hope/expectation AT THAT time - that is the nature of that business. Do we have any recent claims for export and associated quantities? The only thing I have read is that some nations have shown interest. Let us see where that goes.

WRT the civilian effort, I really do not see anything wrong with that. They - as far as I can see - are still studying the situation. I cannot speak to what it brings for the Brazilians, but I would guess it is the Indian market. While the Chinese market will be large in terms of distances to cover, Indian will be far larger in terms of convenience since India will have the largest middle income population - more throw-away money. (Actually, as an ex-urban planner I am very scared of what it all means on the ground - India has great planning depts, execution is a diff matter. But let us see, that too may improve beyond my dreams.)

However, IMVVHO, these are not matters of IF India should do it or not. India will HAVE to do it. They (both) impact Indian policy making efforts. And no nation that wants to become a "power" (regional one too) can afford to lack such features. And, whether India likes it or not, with a eco that is supposedly growing at some 8-10%, India will be thrown into this ring called "power" - and she will HAVE to act as one. What I am suggesting is that India will be compelled to contribute greatly towards such efforts. No options there, IMHO. And, we can see that happening in the def fields. Slow for sure, but has to happen. Few years ago we heard of importing tank engine lines. Crap. Reverse flow of brains is not some happening. Just that Indians are not used to the situation and for the most part therefore are critical about it.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 25 Feb 2011 06:21

Next Three Lockheed Martin Super Hercs for India on Flight Test Sked

Click This Thumbnail to See the Larger Image

Guys Click the Frog to see the Image

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 25 Feb 2011 06:51

Juggi G wrote:Next Three Lockheed Martin Super Hercs for India on Flight Test Sked

is any problem with the image ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Feb 2011 07:29

I had no idea the super herc looks like a frog.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 25 Feb 2011 07:59

eager to see c17 for us.

here is better view
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedma ... /lightbox/

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 25 Feb 2011 08:03

imageshacks changed the way you could share images hosted there. You need to register the domain

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Feb 2011 00:14

VEGA'S INVOLVEMENT IN INDIAN AEW&C PROJECT
Author: Vladimir Verba/Military Parade 2010

Vladimir Verba - director general - designer general, JSC Vega Concern

Alirborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft are designed to control the air and ground situation, communicate with ground-based command posts, automated control systems (ACS) for the armed services and fighter direction onto aerial, surface and ground targets, provide radar support of air traffic control, and track critical (special) aircraft. The AEW&C systems significantly enhance the combat capabilities of the Air Force and Air Defense and allow domination of large territories. At one time, India's leadership decided to equip the national armed forces with modern AEW&C systems. As a result, a joint Russo-Israeli aircraft system based on IL-76TD military transport aircraft with PS-90A-76 engines was chosen. The aircraft carries the EL/M-2075 FALCON onboard radar from Israeli company ELTA, while Russia's Vega Concern was selected to supply the interception control and communications system.

The Vega-developed interception control and communications system comprises onboard interception control and communications subsystems and a ground data station. It assesses the threats to the AEW&C aircraft itself and to the fighters it directs from enemy aircraft, provides control and direction of the fighters onto targets, their route navigation, radio communications and data exchange between the AEW&C planes and the ground stations as well as the controlled fighters via a radio link, operating in interception control data transmission mode.

The interception control subsystem is capable of handling the traces of several hundreds of planes being in the air and data on a large number of aircraft on ground, as well as on thousands of point and extended defended objects. It can simultaneously direct several dozens of fighters onto targets and navigate even more of them along the specified routes. Therefore, in the development phase increased attention was given to optimizing the information models of operators dealing with the aviation control tasks and to completing the automated workstations. This helped lessen the load of operators and increase the number of channels controlled by them.

The developed communications subsystem consists of an onboard segment and a ground data receiving-and-processing point. It operates in three wavebands - VHF/UHF, C and Ku (via a satellite repeater) -and is automatically controlled by computer. The communications subsystem uses a modern concept of the AEW&C aircraft-to-ACS communication network architecture - a common IP network, based on the standard protocol stacks. Building the onboard and ground parts on the basis of universal networking technologies made it possible to combine the streams of data and digitized speech, and transmit them concurrently via the channels, while automatically reallocating the bandwidth of each of them. The modern physical and functional concept of the communication system gives an opportunity to further increase the number of data exchange channels and easily add new segments or replace some of them with other.

In May 2009, the first AEW&C aircraft with the installed interception control and communication system, as well as the ground communications subsystems were delivered to the Republic of India. In March 2010, the country received the second plane. The third aircraft is to be handed over to the Indian side in December of this year.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 26 Feb 2011 00:32

I often wonder why are we getting the globemaster rather the antonov 124, I still remember i was in my school when i saw the first SU 30 CKD's and Machines arriving in Nasik in AN124 (dont know whether 100 or 150 )... now i live in long beach,CA and have seen the c17 up close and i dont find it half as impressive as the AN124...

From what little info is online .. I found C17 Globe master is twice the cost and lifts half the payload as AN124 -150 and both have similar ranges...

I dont know if I am overlooking some key factors that I am not aware of.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 26 Feb 2011 08:33

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:I often wonder why are we getting the globemaster rather the antonov 124, I still remember i was in my school when i saw the first SU 30 CKD's and Machines arriving in Nasik in AN124 (dont know whether 100 or 150 )... now i live in long beach,CA and have seen the c17 up close and i dont find it half as impressive as the AN124...

From what little info is online .. I found C17 Globe master is twice the cost and lifts half the payload as AN124 -150 and both have similar ranges...

I dont know if I am overlooking some key factors that I am not aware of.

only key factor is an124 is not in production,and c17 is the only option with fastest delivery moreover an124 is more of extra heavy cargo transporter which lacks maneuverability of c17,il76

an124 is not a good option to deploy air troops or air drops, c5 never does these things too.

and once the c17 production line is closed and order is placed then it would take at least 5 years for aircraft to arrive so its good our govt has bought this aircraft.we should see c17 in india by end of this year.

just like A50 delivery took 5 years because it wasn't in production so they had to develop the aircraft anew just like redevelopment of mig29k,if our govt had placed 6 aircrafts instead then we would have getting 6 of them by end of 2012.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 26 Feb 2011 08:37

palash_kol wrote:

Govt to phase-out majority of MiG fighter aircraft by 2017

those returned su30 were better than migs,it would have been better that 100-110 mig21 would have been retired back then instead of returning su30ks.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Feb 2011 08:40

imho we are likely to see the AN124 line restart again for Russian AF needs, but first deliveries not before 2017-2020 timeframe. a plane is the union of thousands of specialized parts from 100s of sources - and all need to come together - if some of these suppliers have vanished or moved to other lines of business, takes a while to put the whole puzzle together again - EVEN if money is not a problem. they might redesign the AN124 in this second round in light of new requirements or developments - certainly new glass cockpit, blind nav, engines and perhaps improved cargo handling system with higher automation.

in 2017 we can take a call depending on how it shapes up...whether more C17 or An124v2. but this decade, C17 is the only game in town if you want a heavy airlifter brand new.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 26 Feb 2011 11:11

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:I often wonder why are we getting the globemaster rather the antonov 124, I still remember i was in my school when i saw the first SU 30 CKD's and Machines arriving in Nasik in AN124 (dont know whether 100 or 150 )... now i live in long beach,CA and have seen the c17 up close and i dont find it half as impressive as the AN124...

From what little info is online .. I found C17 Globe master is twice the cost and lifts half the payload as AN124 -150 and both have similar ranges...

I dont know if I am overlooking some key factors that I am not aware of.

Sandeep go to Oshkosh and watch the c17 copy the F16's flying routine and land like a cessna 172.

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 26 Feb 2011 11:17

The AN-124 is in the class of the C-5, while the IL-76 and C-17 lie in the same class, so I think that India should buy
24 An-124
60 IL-76 MF
120 MTA

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Feb 2011 12:10

well the IL-76 is not in current production right ?

iirc there are proposals to restart production of the stretched version in some russian plant after shifting the factory from tatarstan but no status report on it yet.

as for the MTA I am not sure if it will arrive in my lifetime...a decade has passed and nothing but talks. its not remotely funny.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 26 Feb 2011 12:49

Thanks baldev, vivek singha and aniket,

I read about an124 on wiki about having like ten more orders so it thought it still might be in production ... i was also not aware about maneuverability and its different class...

I wish we get to see more of An124's, it looks magnificent...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Feb 2011 13:37

No matter what the reality of the C-17 may seem to be - anyone who watches that machine in an airshow cannot come away unimpressed. Those huge flaps hanging into the jet exhaust give a slow speed performance that is incomparable - a feature that clearly acts akin to lift producing thrust vectoring that is a game changer for the high altitude airfields that the IAF uses.

i think the An 124 does not come anywhere near close to the C-17. I spend all my time cursing the Americans and their supplies to Pakistan - but I will give them credit where it is due. I think it is a fabulous aircraft.

Watch the C-17 float past - almost hovering from 2:25 onwards. Look at those huge opera house curtain flaps hanging down into the exhaust stream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quOwa58NeHE

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 26 Feb 2011 18:39

Singha wrote:well the IL-76 is not in current production right ?

iirc there are proposals to restart production of the stretched version in some russian plant after shifting the factory from tatarstan but no status report on it yet.

as for the MTA I am not sure if it will arrive in my lifetime...a decade has passed and nothing but talks. its not remotely funny.

US has many c17 so they don't need more of them immediately so the production is for foreign customers mainly thats why these aircrafts are delivered quickly like UAE got its c17 in less than a year.

it would have been better that the money going for mmrca was invested in heavy cargo aircraft and civil aircraft and make them in India.

as far as il76 being in production i would say its in production if they can deliver newly built A50 there should be no problem in delivery of less complex il76.tanker version il476 is in production.

there are picture of an124 and il467 assembly too once i find those will post them

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 26 Feb 2011 18:51

il476
http://russianplanes.net/images/to15000/014554.jpg
http://russianplanes.net/images/to15000/014553.jpg

an124 assembly
http://russianplanes.net/images/to15000/014544.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Feb 2011 19:18

Baldev those pix have been posted before. they seem to be old pics or of stuff stuck incomplete on production line.

the 3 A50 and Midas tankers we got were from unfinished airframes of soviet era in ilyushin factory. likewise china got 35 of those.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 26 Feb 2011 19:57

Singha wrote:Baldev those pix have been posted before. they seem to be old pics or of stuff stuck incomplete on production line.

the 3 A50 and Midas tankers we got were from unfinished airframes of soviet era in ilyushin factory. likewise china got 35 of those.

those A50 for india are new once thats why it took 5 years to deliver,there were 4 A50 of soviet era which china took,so there was no airframe for A50 otherwise it would have been delivered much earlier just like 6 tankers did not take long

and those pictures are for new aircrafts not the old once,an124 production line indeed started in 2009.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 27 Feb 2011 07:16

via ebay

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

102 Squadron patch showing Sukhoi-30s

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Feb 2011 07:24

^^Nice. But they'll have to change their name now. Trisonics may not cut it since the "trisonic" Mig-25 is no more.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Feb 2011 08:41

Baldev wrote:and those pictures are for new aircrafts not the old once,an124 production line indeed started in 2009.

The IL-476 pics are new ones , the an-124 prouction like are not started in the sense its not a new built baby , the Russian AF is refurbishing its An-124 fleet kind like complete overhaul these could be those.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 27 Feb 2011 18:43

a DARE brochure

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49638120/Indi ... ganisation

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 27 Feb 2011 19:28

New Stuff On The Indo-Russian Multirole Transport Aircraft

Images Copyright Ilyushin

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 27 Feb 2011 22:56

some brochures

CABS
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49648246/Indi ... stems-CABS

CEMILAC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49648218/Cent ... on-CEMILAC

ADE
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49648210/Aero ... -institute

ADRDE
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49648182/Aero ... -Institute

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 28 Feb 2011 04:03

Thanks Hiten. Great stuff.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 28 Feb 2011 05:19

New Stuff On The Indo-Russian Multirole Transport Aircraft

i couldn't get it what does this mean

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Feb 2011 11:02

Baldev wrote:
New Stuff On The Indo-Russian Multirole Transport Aircraft
i couldn't get it what does this mean

It just means Shiv got the shinny brochure on MTA that they were distributing at the stall during AeroIndia , thats the new part

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Feb 2011 11:32

Talking about the MTA, from the wing span shown in the pics on Livefist, the MTA will not be capable of very slow flight. That is a requirement for aircraft that need to refuel helis. the Embraer KC-390 has recently had a design change in relation to this, where the wing span was increased significantly to allow it to fly really slow while refuelling helis. Maybe this isn't an IAF requirement.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Feb 2011 11:38

that would affect landing speed as well ? in which case operability in the forward bases would be hit.

dipayan · Post by **dipayan** » 28 Feb 2011 11:40

Kartik wrote:Talking about the MTA, from the wing span shown in the pics on Livefist, the MTA will not be capable of very slow flight. That is a requirement for aircraft that need to refuel helis. the Embraer KC-390 has recently had a design change in relation to this, where the wing span was increased significantly to allow it to fly really slow while refuelling helis. Maybe this isn't an IAF requirement.

well...longer wings aren't the only solution for more lift at lower speeds...a number of lift generating devices can be used for low speed flights...

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Feb 2011 17:28

from my meagre understanding of such things, increase of wing span has little to do with flying slower, its the aerofoil cross sectional shape which determines that. adding flaps, slats, and boundary layer control devices permit the aircraft to fly slower by changing the fundamental lift/drag properties. longer wingspan (via increased aspect ratio) usually impacts range (increases) - i guess by reducing effective drag, but such wings are quite delicate also...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Feb 2011 23:47

It is difficult to speak about low speed performance of the wing, but 30-32 mtrs is actually on the lower side. However, I think that the mean chord length is higher than the other 20 Tonners. If I am wrong there, then that wing has to be extraordinarily meaty for good low speed lift, but then it will suffer from drag penalties.

They do show big slats in the front, and I am sure it will have big fowler flaps at the back for landing and refueling (is that role been envisioned?). A turboprop plane is much better solution for refueling helicopters. Our An-32s and the C-27J that the IAF is interested in will be excellent heli-refuellers for that matter.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 01 Mar 2011 00:14

Moreover looking into the MTA, it looks like it would not be able to accomodate (width wise) M777 Ultralightweight Field Howitzer.
Gun specs:--, width(towing mode) is 2770 mm whereas MTA's limit is 2438 mm.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/specs.html

In a worst case scenario(desi jugaad) they could tilt the gun side wise and then put it into the MTA.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Mar 2011 03:42

Indranil that's right actually it's a very IL76sque wing with thick camber and a wide chord; more than the SFC and drag the emphasis would be on ability to operate from austere air fields and take punishment from small/medium caliber weapons. Going by the IL-76 design template I won't be surprised if the wing loading figure would be on the lower side when compared to other ACs in its class.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Mar 2011 05:13

Avinandan wrote:Moreover looking into the MTA, it looks like it would not be able to accomodate (width wise) M777 Ultralightweight Field Howitzer.
Gun specs:--, width(towing mode) is 2770 mm whereas MTA's limit is 2438 mm.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/specs.html

In a worst case scenario(desi jugaad) they could tilt the gun side wise and then put it into the MTA.

Avinandan that is only the size of the pallets. The cabin cross section would be the same as the IL-76 (3.40 X 3.45 mtrs). The length would be half (~2560/2).

You can see that this "new" cross section of the cabin is almost the same as that on the IL-76

Anyways this is all I know about the MRTA
Aviation Week

With a 55-metric-ton takeoff weight, 18.5-metric-ton payload and a 2,500-km. (1,553-mi.) range, the fly-by-wire MTA is expected to replace the Russian air force’s aging Antonov An-12s, which will be retired in 2012-14. The Russian design team received technical requirements from both air forces. “The Indians have stricter requirements for deployment,” says Livanov.

The cabin will have the same cross section as the Ilyushin Il‑76—3.45 X 3.45 meters (11.3 X 11.3 ft.)—but will be half the length. It will enable the aircraft to carry loads as big as S-300 long-range surface-to-air missile systems. “We decided it’s not reasonable to make a wider compartment for a 20-ton aircraft, otherwise we could spoil the aerodynamics, as happened with the Il-112,” says Livanov.

The partners haven’t selected an engine, but the baseline choice is the 16,000-kg. (35,275-lb.)-thrust Perm PS-90A-76 turbofan. “This engine is a bit oversized, so we are discussing an alternative, the PS-14, and reviewing Western options,” he says. The 14,000-kg.-thrust PS-14 is being developed by Perm Motors for Russia’s future MS-21 airliner. But Livanov believes that the Indian air force will be interested in the PS-90 on the grounds of commonality with its A-50 airborne early warning aircraft and planned reengined Il-76s.

The first MTA could fly as soon as 2014, with development completed by 2015-16. According to preliminary plans, UAC will be responsible for the nose section, wings, engine nacelles and landing gear, while HAL will produce the vertical fin and central and rear fuselage. UAC will establish an assembly line at its Aviastar facility in Ulyanovsk, which will also produce the Il-476—a reengined, modernized Il-76 variant—and HAL will open an assembly line in India. The Russian air force will reportedly buy up to 100 MTAs. The Indian commitment is for 45 aircraft.

I actually don't want to comment much about the MRTA. The MRTA and the HTT-39/40 is moving so slowly that it hurts me. This when the IL-214 and the HTT-35 base designs have been present for such a long time!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Mar 2011 06:59

Lalmohan wrote:from my meagre understanding of such things, increase of wing span has little to do with flying slower, its the aerofoil cross sectional shape which determines that. adding flaps, slats, and boundary layer control devices permit the aircraft to fly slower by changing the fundamental lift/drag properties. longer wingspan (via increased aspect ratio) usually impacts range (increases) - i guess by reducing effective drag, but such wings are quite delicate also...

read this please. the obvious reference is to higher stability at lower speeds at which helicopters will be refuelled.

link to article

The Brazilian aircraft maker’s executive VP for defense, Orlando Neto, says the company has increased the wingspan to about 140 ft. Previously, the wingspan was reportedly set at 115 ft. He says the wingspan was increased “to allow for more stability, so the aircraft can refuel helicopters.”

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Mar 2011 07:05

why would we need to refuel helicopters in the air ? even the US might mount such a mission once a decade from JSOC.

if SF is the use, its better to modify some future MC-130J we acquire with pallet fuel tanks for the role - it already does that to MH60 and MH53 per pix.

we need MTA to replace the AN32 for cargo, not be a special ops platform or tanker.