Indian Military Aviation

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Mar 2011 00:53

I think given our long coastline and key military stations at AN, it would be a great idea to invest in Ground effect vehicles. I think it would be wonderful mode of fast transport (with some improvisation) in the Rann of Kutch area. We have read cases where it is diffcult to move through those marshy areas.

I am not speaking of the gazillion ton Berievs but something at the 600 kg to 2T range. From whatever I have read, it needs much lesser fuel than other forms of transport. Needs very little infrastructure and is a fast method of transportation.

for example look at this promotional video
flight ship FS-8

Is there any known initiative in this area? I know a guy who was planning to build a flying model of the same. After reading somewhat on these, I plan to join in on his effort.

It appeared to me that it might be quite pertinent to India!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Mar 2011 01:14

And especially given the fact that we are going for amphibians (I hope we choose the Be-200) now for both the IAF and the Navy, GEVs make a lot of sense to me.

astal · Post by **astal** » 09 Mar 2011 01:56

indranilroy,

Can GEV's to be used to transport people between Mumbai, Ratnagiri and Goa? The sea is a little rougher of the Koknan coast than around Cairns Au.

Details mentioned in the video are

Flightship FS8
$ 0.14 per passenger per knot
$ 0.0013 per kilogram per knot
Max 8 payload pax + pilot and 1 crew
or 840 KG + pilot and 1 crew.
300 Knot range (at max payload)

May be a good coastal carrier for short routes from 75 to 100 knots.

The concept is cool. Thanks for posting it.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Mar 2011 02:31

Astal,

These wave limits are for take off and landing. Even the Beriev 200 can take off and land in wave heights of less than 1.6 mtrs.

Once airborne, sea states do not matter as much (obviously not state level 10

).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Mar 2011 07:26

Between, one of my uncles worked for building military hovercrafts for India. He was explaining how there are limits of the hovercrafts wrt waves.

It is simple , with big hovercrafts, you could have two situations
1. your two ends are on the crest and trough lies under the centre.
2. the centre lies on the trough and the troughs lie under the ends.

In both cases the pressure can no longer be held in the skirting and the hovercraft just settles down. under this condition it can't move till skirt is inflated again.

A GEV will actually have much higher tolerance for wave height (generally upto the wing span) than an hovercraft while flying. We know the Coast Guard already employs 6 hovercrafts and is planning has ordered 12 more.

So I don't think that the waves would be that big a deal.

jai · Post by **jai** » 09 Mar 2011 12:49

indranilroy wrote:I think given our long coastline and key military stations at AN, it would be a great idea to invest in Ground effect vehicles. I think it would be wonderful mode of fast transport (with some improvisation) in the Rann of Kutch area. We have read cases where it is diffcult to move through those marshy areas.

It appeared to me that it might be quite pertinent to India!

[youtube]wvyXdcLRfFs&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]cFwCpTZn974&feature=related[/youtube]

Interesting documentary on the Soviet Ekranoplans which were once being considered for military use as troop and missile carriers. These can be very useful military vehicles with Coast guard, Navy, Army, BSF etc in various roles.

sum · Post by **sum** » 09 Mar 2011 13:58

More on the AI bribery case:

Deeper conspiracy in Aero India’s bribe-for-display case?

An Indian Air Force (IAF) officer who allegedly took bribes from one or more foreign aircraft companies to provide them favourable positions at last month's Aero India 2011 could be the prey in a conspiracy to oust a European firm in the race to bag the multi-billion dollar medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA).

Investigations by Deccan Herald indicate that the name of P V Rao, a representative of French Dassault Systemes, manufacturer of the Rafael fighter aircraft, which is one of the planes being considered by the Indian establishment for the MMRCA, emerged in the bribes-for-display scandal involving Wing Commander A K Thakur against whom the IAF has initiated a Court of Inquiry (CoI) here.

Wg Cdr Thakur allegedly took Rs 20,000 from Rao to give the Rafael a favourable position on the static display area at Yelahanka airbase where the Aero India 2011 show was conducted. When contacted, Rao said: “An inquiry is on and I will make no comments at this point. Let the inquiry be over and only then will I make any comment.”

According to top defence sources familiar with the complaint against Wg Cdr Thakur, neither Rao nor any other Dassault representative complained against the errant officer either with the IAF top brass in Delhi or in Bangalore.

The sources said senior IAF officers in Yelahanka received a "verbal" complaint from an official of the Department of Defence Production and Supplies, saying that Wg Cdr Thakur had taken a bribe of Rs 20,000 from Rao. Incidentally, officials belonging to the Defence Exhibitions Organisation (DEO), which is under the Department of Defence Production and Supplies, had set the trap on Wg Cdr Thakur, as reported by Deccan Herald on March 6.

In this context sources said that Wg Cdr Thakur could only have come under the scanner if had taken bribes in the days before he was actually caught. "There are blacksheep in every organisation. The sources said that Wg Cdr was not senior enough in the hierarchy to make any huge difference to foreign vendors at the static display area. Besides, they said, decisions on placement of individual vendors would have been taken by the MoD at least a month in advance. However, due action in accordance with the IAF's procedures are on and he will be punished if there is sufficient evidence against him," a top defence official requesting anonymity told Deccan Herald.

On the day the complaint was lodged against Wg Cdr Thakur by the Assistant Provost Marshal, a joint secretary rank officer of the Department of Defence Production and Supplies, Satyajeet Rajan, was present. When Deccan Herald asked department's secretary Raj Kumar Singh whether Wg Cdr Thakur was a victim of a more sinister move, he refused to comment, saying only that the MoD spokesman would respond to all queries. The New Delhi-based spokesman, when contacted over phone, said he has "not been given a brief" by the ministry on this issue.

However, knowledgeable sources in the MoD suspect while Wg Cdr Thakur did accept the bribe, there could be a move afoot to push the French company out of the race by throwing in its name in the scandal that has hit the IAF and thereby scuttle its chances of bagging the ambitious multi-billion dollar contract that six foreign companies are vying for.

And so once again, the MRCA deal is back in the news for the wrong reasons!!!

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 09 Mar 2011 14:29

Prima Facie, a very low level corrupt act, and conspiracy theories neednt run riot.

More concern is the low value one gives to his izzat. Its one's high valuation of his izzat that keeps one going in adverse circumstances. To sell izzat for Rs 20,000...

sum · Post by **sum** » 09 Mar 2011 14:33

^^ But the problem is that even these "low level" acts are enough for our MoD to completely scrap any mega tender ongoing from xx donkey years and restart the whole thing again causing the forces to lose a good 10 years before they get the eqpt they asked for...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2011 14:38

I think true amphibians are much better for india than GEV.

- less risk in confined or crowded waters
- more cruising speed at high alt , less predictable in its movement (even a trawler armed with manpad can ambush a GEV if its route is known)
- can cross directly over mountainous islands like A&N
- does not need good sea state except on takeoff landing

I think a mix of amphibians, good medium range LRMP, catamaran hull Ro-Ro ships , LPD with small-LCAC/LST is what we need not big GEV or ocean going hovercrafts.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Mar 2011 21:12

I was never contending GEVs against amphibians. I was always speaking of complementing them.

With respect to catamarans and hovercrafts, the GEV have much lesser fuel operating costs and generally higher range. Needless to say, a the order of magnitude higher speed.

Actually the ekranoplans where born out of hydrofoils. Rostislav Alexeyev who was building hydrofoils for the Russian navy realized that instead of having the foil inside the water (which increases drag a lot) why not have the wing outside. In GEVs the induced drag is decreased by 50% when flying at half the wingspan (it is not linear). However in smaller GEVs this advantage is somewhat out weighed by the increased skin drag of air at sea level. But even then GEVs till date are the fastest and cheapest way to transport at the surface of the water.

Fast, easy, cheap with minimalistic infrastructure. Can't get much better

. For example check the engines of the A-90. A 150 personnel carrier (28T) machine uses a single 150KN or 2 103 KN engine. and travels at 400 kmph. So you see the point.

Just an idea!

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 09 Mar 2011 21:33

an article and some pice of the MiG-29 UPG

Indian MiG-29 upgrade

The first Indian Air Force (IAF) upgraded MiG-29UPG fightermade its maiden flight on 4 February 2011 in Zhukovsky. The upgrade is being handled by the MiG corporation under the contract awarded in March 2008. The contract stipulates integrated upgrade of the whole MiG-29 fleet in service with IAF. Overall, 62 aircraft will be upgraded, including several two-seat combat trainers. They will be given the latest avionics and advanced weapons. In addition, airframe and powerplant improvements will extend their service life considerably, with the planes transitioning to on-condition maintenance.

The IAF MiG-29 upgrade concept complies with the one adopted by the Russian Air Force to its MiG-29SMTs that have been in service since 2009 and well-mastered by Russian military pilots. At the same time, the composition of the avionics and weapon suites of the upgraded IAF MiG-29s will have a high degree of commonality with the carrierborne MiG-29K/KUB fighters that have entered service with Indian Navy on 19 February 2010. Foreign-made avionics was integrated with the avionics suite of the MiG-29UPG at the customer’s request (the so-called ‘international avionics suite’). The manufacturer has already got such an experience that has proven itself under Russo-Indian contracts for upgrade of the MiG-21UPG Bison fighters as well as development and manufacture of the Su-30MKI and MiG-29K/KUB fighters.

The fire (flight??) control system of the MiG-29UPG is wrapped around the advanced slotted-array Zhuk-M2E radar from Phazotron-NIIR Corp. and OLS-UEM IRST sensor with the laser, thermal-imaging and television capabilities from NIIPP (similar radar and IRST are used in the MiG-29K/KUB). The cockpit management system is based on full-colour multifunction liquid-crystal displays. The international segment of the avionics suite comprises a Thales helmet-mounted target designator, a Sagem inertial/satellite navigation system, an Indian EW system and an Israeli ECM station, with the same system installed in the MiG-29K/KUB.

The basic weapons suite of the MiG-29UPG is the same as that of the MiG-29SMT and MiG-29K/KUB. Unlike the weapons suite of the standard MiG-29, it has RVV-AE air-to-air active radar homing missiles and air-to-surface precision-guided munitions, such as Kh-29T general-purpose TV-homing missiles, Kh-31A antiship active radar-homing missiles, Kh-31P antiradiation missiles, KAB-500Kr TV-homing smart bombs, etc.

The first six IAF MiG-29s are completing their upgrade and tests in Russia and will be back with IAF in the near future. The rest 56 aircraft will be upgraded on the premises of the IAF 11th Repair Base with the use of equipment kits supplied by Russia.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Mar 2011 22:55

Stunning range of products
T.S. Subramanian

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Mar 2011 01:16

Does anyone know if the MiG-29UB trainers of the IAF will be upgraded with radar or will they simply get newer avionics and the strap on dorsal tank?

The difference will be that a MiG-29UB (upgraded ones called MiG-29UPGB?) with a radar will be truly combat capable jet instead of being blind and only good for training pilots in activities that don't require radar to be used.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 10 Mar 2011 06:12

Kartik wrote:Does anyone know if the MiG-29UB trainers of the IAF will be upgraded with radar or will they simply get newer avionics and the strap on dorsal tank?

The difference will be that a MiG-29UB (upgraded ones called MiG-29UPGB?) with a radar will be truly combat capable jet instead of being blind and only good for training pilots in activities that don't require radar to be used.

Karthik saan I think they will be fully mission capable with the same radar and avionics suite as the single seater.

IIRC when they first envisaged the SMT upgrade they also looked at a UBT upgrade for the two seater the main objective of that was to make sure that the UBT was similar to the SMT in capability I think....could be wrong though.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -29ubt.htm

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 10 Mar 2011 07:13

andy B wrote:
Kartik wrote:Does anyone know if the MiG-29UB trainers of the IAF will be upgraded with radar or will they simply get newer avionics and the strap on dorsal tank?

The difference will be that a MiG-29UB (upgraded ones called MiG-29UPGB?) with a radar will be truly combat capable jet instead of being blind and only good for training pilots in activities that don't require radar to be used.
Karthik saan I think they will be fully mission capable with the same radar and avionics suite as the single seater.

IIRC when they first envisaged the SMT upgrade they also looked at a UBT upgrade for the two seater the main objective of that was to make sure that the UBT was similar to the SMT in capability I think....could be wrong though.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -29ubt.htm

same radar means zhuk me can't be fitted on UB trainer because of smaller nose but only kopyo m can be fitted which will give bvr capability better than that of bison.

if we see a bump on MIG 29 UB spine like

single seater sometime in future picture comes up this means its got radar in its nose as well.

http://www.aviation-militaire.com/Galer ... 19_11P.jpg
http://www.aviastar.org/air/cockpits/mig-29ubt.jpg
http://fpage.sweb.cz/foto/kab/mig29ubtrearcockpit01.jpg

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Mar 2011 07:34

thanks Andy..but that is one really tiny radar and really hardly useful except for maybe self-defence and training. The article claims that an Osa-2 radar was used and considering the size of the radome being so small, the antenna size must be terribly small. Not very useful for combat in reality.

Just see how ridiculously small that radome is on the MiG-29UBT

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Mar 2011 08:21

^^^ AARGH ... that's ugly ! I guess the guys on the aircraft recognition thread would not have any problems in identifying the Su-30 from the Mig-29 any more.

Anyways, getting back to Kartik's question.
Mig-29 BR Page

In March 2008, a contract for mid-life upgradation of 63 single seaters was undertaken with RAC-MIG, Russia , for a total value of USD 964 million. The MLU project will extend the life of the airframes by another 15 years or a 1000 hours. The new Total Technical Life of the MiG-29s will be 40 years / 3500 hours. The MLU will also involve upgradation of the avionics in the aircraft. The project is scheduled to be completed by March 2014. With the loss of one aircraft in late 2008, the number of fighters scheduled to be upgraded has been revised to 62.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2011 08:32

Excuse me folks, but I thought the purpose of a two-seat fighter trainer was mainly to familiarize pilots with the cockpit layout and the unique flying characteristics and capabilities and idiosyncrasies of that airframe and engine. The large radar etc does not need an instructor flying with a pllot. Once a pilot who has been through basic training (HPT 32?), jet flying (HJT-16), lead in fighter training (Hawk) he then familiarizes himself with the type on a two seat fighter trainer. After he is familiar with the type he does not need an instructor sitting in a second cockpit with him to use that big radar. So why on earth should the two seat trainer version of an aircraft also carry the definitive radar equipment? Ground simulation is all that is needed and as long as the pilot can fly the aircraft tactics using that radar is a job he learns flying solo.

Once the pilot is familiar with the works that second seat would be a massive waste of space that could otherwise carry fuel.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 10 Mar 2011 08:37

Kartik wrote:thanks Andy..but that is one really tiny radar and really hardly useful except for maybe self-defence and training. The article claims that an Osa-2 radar was used and considering the size of the radome being so small, the antenna size must be terribly small. Not very useful for combat in reality.

Just see how ridiculously small that radome is on the MiG-29UBT

True that onlee....however given what they have doen for the K and the KUB (agreed that the K and KUB was designed ground up with the same airframe with the rear seat being replaced with the additional fuel tank in the the single seater) I was just hoping that they might do some injuneering to get more capable avionics/radar suite than the OSA2. But dont think that will happen as these are new built airframes.

I looked up the aircrafts that were manufactured for Algeria which were "apparently" new but had the same small radar cone....

I guess we can almost be sure that our UBTs will have that little radar cone onlee...

Whats confusing me is time and again we have seen the erstwhile MIG 29 M2 two seaters with the full radar/avionics suite and others down the years

Shiv ji just saw your post...not trying to creat confusion here was just curious.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 10 Mar 2011 08:48

shiv wrote:Excuse me folks, but I thought the purpose of a two-seat fighter trainer was mainly to familiarize pilots with the cockpit layout and the unique flying characteristics and capabilities and idiosyncrasies of that airframe and engine

The 2-seater "trainer" versions can also be used for precision bombing missions if suitably kitted out - essentially radar and avionics...Division of pilot workload...IAF did that with 2-seater M2ks in Kargil..Which is why the follow-on order of 10 M2ks had 4 (or 6?) 2-seater versions..

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 10 Mar 2011 09:16

shiv wrote: So why on earth should the two seat trainer version of an aircraft also carry the definitive radar equipment?

Kartik wrote:thanks Andy..but that is one really tiny radar and really hardly useful except for maybe self-defence and training. The article claims that an Osa-2 radar was used and considering the size of the radome being so small, the antenna size must be terribly small. Not very useful for combat in reality.

shiv, why should it not have radar????

it is also costly affair not to have radar on these birds because the operational cost of singe seater and two are the same so why not have radar on it.its a flying machine which maneuvers as good as good as single seater can carry payload, fly 2000km.

kartik, well the nose cone of UB trainer is as big as bison nose cone which can house 500mm diameter radar antenna,

claimed range for OSA-2 is 85 km and 80 km for kopyo m which is better than kopyo on bison moreover ground detection ranges for kopyo21I,kopyo m,zhuk me are same only air to air search is less but it is way better than having no radar.

if bison is good in combat this means UB trainer fitted with radar is better in situation because it can carry 6 R77 at its disposal which is same as single seater 29.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Mar 2011 11:28

Baldev, it hardly seems like it can fit even a 500 mm dia radar antenna in that tiny radome. Remember, for the antenna to be able to swivel, the clearances required alone would need a radome more than 500 mm dia and that one just about seems to be around 500 mm or less. That data on the Osa-2 really seems not so reliable and I wouldn't put much faith into those figures.

Shiv, as others have clarified, with the MiG-29UPG being a multi-role fighter, if the MiG-29UB twin-seater wasn't so thoughtlessly designed to be non-combat capable (the front fuselage is designed such that the nose is smaller, which means that the OLS equipment and other avionics probably leaves very little room for a radar antenna and LRUs), then it might have made a useful twin seat fully combat capable trainer like the Mirage-2000TH and the F-16B/D/F.

Or else, they could have spent money on freeing up space in the nose for a real radar. But I guess the MiG-29 being an Air-Superiority fighter, never really needed a twin seater for anything except training back in the days when simulators were a lot less realistic.

It is actually quite a waste of money nowadays, what with high fidelity simulators around, to waste money on training pilots on a downgraded trainer like the MiG-29UB which cannot even simulate the radar functions fully. With a lot of hours of simulator use, it might well be possible to put new Fulcrum pilots directly onto single seat MiG-29s. Or maybe a few familiarisation flights on the UB and then thats enough for them to go on to the single seater.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 10 Mar 2011 16:00

Kartik wrote:Baldev, it hardly seems like it can fit even a 500 mm dia radar antenna in that tiny radome. Remember, for the antenna to be able to swivel, the clearances required alone would need a radome more than 500 mm dia and that one just about seems to be around 500 mm or less. That data on the Osa-2 really seems not so reliable and I wouldn't put much faith into those figures.

the nose cone can be made bigger without any problem just like adding extra fuel strap on spine,we will know only when a picture comes out

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Mar 2011 17:16

I recall, about 10 yearish ago or so, that there was either an idea or implemented solution, where for combat conversion the trainer lost its front seat to a proper, respectable radar. My recollection is that this was related to a smaller air craft (Hawk???? or the like). Have not googled for that info so far.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2011 17:20

Thanks for all the responses. Why should it not have a radar? Its good to share workload etc..

The two seat trainer version in most fighters takes space away from other things like avionics and fuel to accommodate that extra seat unless there is a design requirement to make a fully capable two seat trainer.

The USSR and later Russia were quite happy with the single seat MiG 29 and Su 27 which was designed for their air force. It was India that demanded two seats for the MKI and now likes it so much that we are asking for two seat PAKFA. But that apart Russia is designing single seat aircraft with less capable two seat trainers. The "reduced capability" is simply because mother Russia has not demanded a fully combat capable trainer the way we are demanding on here. That is why those trainers are less capable. They are so because they were designed that way. If the customer wanted it then the designers could have done something different.

I am certain a big nose can be added to the MiG 29 trainer. I am equally certain that it will have a blowback on aerodynamics and cockpit visibility requiring further testing and validation. If someone pays for that I can't see why it would not be attempted. But who wants that apart from a few on BRF?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Mar 2011 17:58

Indian Air force shifts 662 from snow hit Srinagar-Leh and Kupwara-Tangdhar

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Mar 2011 18:05

shiv wrote:I am certain a big nose can be added to the MiG 29 trainer. I am equally certain that it will have a blowback on aerodynamics and cockpit visibility requiring further testing and validation. If someone pays for that I can't see why it would not be attempted. But who wants that apart from a few on BRF?

IN paid for MiG29K/KUB that are essentially twin seaters with full-size nose and IAF may pay for MiG35, but those birds will be good for 6000 hours instead of 1500-2000 odd hours after upgrade on these birds. One pays based on the value one gets. Economics always scores above engineering! I remember an IIT Post Grad commander whose BCom wife was financial advisor from ministry to the Admiral

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Mar 2011 00:10

Baldev wrote:the nose cone can be made bigger without any problem just like adding extra fuel strap on spine,we will know only when a picture comes out

Its not that simple a task. The nose already probably holds avionics that were relocated due to the addition of a second cockpit in the trainer. Even if they do come up with a new radome (that requires testing and certification) it will only be for the few MiG-29UBs that the IAF has. I'm not sure how many the IAF has but estimating that each squadron has 2 trainers, that gives a figure of 6. For just 6 MiG-29UBs, they will not devise a new radome or spend money on relocating or pushing back avionics in the nose.

Most likely that the MiG-29UBs will be upgraded to the MiG-29UBT standard only. Limited use, but at least better than a Hawk AJT.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Mar 2011 00:12

NRao wrote:I recall, about 10 yearish ago or so, that there was either an idea or implemented solution, where for combat conversion the trainer lost its front seat to a proper, respectable radar. My recollection is that this was related to a smaller air craft (Hawk???? or the like). Have not googled for that info so far.

That was a Hawk 200 light fighter. They did modify the front fuselage, removing the front cockpit and adding a small and light radar. Was only bought by Indonesia, although BAe had big expectations from that model. It's been out of production for ages now and even the tools/jigs for that particular model must've been scrapped or retooled for the Hawk 100 series.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Mar 2011 00:28

tsarkar wrote:IN paid for MiG29K/KUB that are essentially twin seaters with full-size nose and IAF may pay for MiG35, but those birds will be good for 6000 hours instead of 1500-2000 odd hours after upgrade on these birds. One pays based on the value one gets. Economics always scores above engineering! I remember an IIT Post Grad commander whose BCom wife was financial advisor from ministry to the Admiral

Actually, the MiG-29K/KUB forward fuselage were based on the MiG-29M2 design that MiG was trying to sell to India when the MRCA competition was in the very early stages. If you recall, the original MiG-29K's forward fuselage was almost a replica of the MiG-29A/B/S. That one had less drag (since they didn't have the penalty of a longer canopy) and most likely was shorter than the new MiG-29K's fuselage by 100mm or so.

MiG decided early on that the front fuselage will be kept the same between the K and KUB to maximise commonality and keep costs of manufacturing down. I guess the reason was that the IN didn't want a trainer variant like the MiG-29UB, and so that left MiG with the choice of either standardising on a forward fuselage design for both single and twin seats or develop a new MiG-29KUB from the MiG-29UB which would be produced in very small numbers and would increase the costs of the trainer a lot.

So while India paid for the K and KUB versions, they didn't pay for the forward fuselage design that was already ready from MiG's side. IMO, a wise decision since the drag penalty may be very small and the MiG-29 has plenty of reserve power.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 11 Mar 2011 00:41

IAF sees China, Pakistan as challenges, not threats

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Mar 2011 12:42

Kartik, my understanding was a bulbous two seater canopy reduces drag through area ruling. This was discovered on F-16B model that was every bit as capable as the A model, and this understanding fuelled the spurt in two seaters.

The next requirement was for strike was deliberately two seater for better workload management and since it didn’t affect – or improved drag performance – over the single seater. Hence the strike version – F-16XL and F-15E were twin seaters and the the E model won. This was followed by F/A-18F, that Australia purchased and offered to India. The Israelis inducted large number of F-16I that are two seaters, IAF MKI story is known, IN went for fitted-for-but-not-with was because of known higher attrition in carrier operations and the extra workload on trainers to qualify and maintain the qualification. We lost Sea Harrier trainers in accidents earlier, and had to import extra trainers. In the MiG-29, the conversion from single to twin seater should be simpler. Even the Pakis ended up buying a higher ratio of Ds.

Having said that, since 11 BRD will carry out the upgrade, I believe 29UPG is limited in nature like the MiG-21/Harrier.

sum · Post by **sum** » 13 Mar 2011 10:21

^^ The latyest "Jai Hind with Rocky and Mayur" had a episode on the "Snow and Jungle survival school" of the IAF. The location of this unit/school was ever IDed. Does anyone know where this school is located ( had never heard of such a establishment before this show)?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Mar 2011 13:30

tsarkar wrote:Kartik, my understanding was a bulbous two seater canopy reduces drag through area ruling. This was discovered on F-16B model that was every bit as capable as the A model, and this understanding fuelled the spurt in two seaters.

How would a bulbous canopy surface area increase help in reducing drag through area ruling ?

In fact there was an interview with a Luftwaffe pilot who claimed that the twin seat Typhoon had slightly poorer performance in dogfights as compared to the single seater Typhoon, which he attributed to the increased drag due to the larger canopy.

But it is not only in the systems area that the single-seater differs from the trainer version. “It flies a lot better as well. As you accelerate or turn, you can feel that it has more thrust,” says Steiniger. The reason may well be the lower aerodynamic drag. “The big cockpit canopy on the two-seater has a negative impact on the aerodynamics.” Moreover, in the single-seater cockpit there is an excellent view to the rear which is lacking in the trainer version.

This was from an interview with a Luftwaffe pilot.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 14 Mar 2011 06:35

Kartik wrote:How would a bulbous canopy surface area increase help in reducing drag through area ruling ?

In fact there was an interview with a Luftwaffe pilot who claimed that the twin seat Typhoon had slightly poorer performance in dogfights as compared to the single seater Typhoon, which he attributed to the increased drag due to the larger canopy.

Well the aerodynamics are always specific to a particular plane, so what might help one might hurt another, but a larger canopy helping to reduce drag through area ruling is certainly plausible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule

One interesting outcome of the area rule is the shaping of the Boeing 747's upper deck. . . They were instead moved above the deck in a small "hump", which was designed to be as small as possible given normal streamlining principles. It was later realized that the drag could be reduced much more by lengthening the hump, using it to reduce wave drag offsetting the tail surface's contribution. The new design was introduced on the 747-300, improving its cruise speed and lowering drag.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 14 Mar 2011 08:17

sum wrote:^^ The latyest "Jai Hind with Rocky and Mayur" had a episode on the "Snow and Jungle survival school" of the IAF. The location of this unit/school was ever IDed. Does anyone know where this school is located ( had never heard of such a establishment before this show)?

Speculating that it was HAWS, Gulmarg?

sum · Post by **sum** » 14 Mar 2011 08:43

^^ Isnt HAWS a purely IA school?

This one seemed to be a purely IAF school and was exclusively for training pilots to survive if downed in hostile territory. Also, the landscape seemed more like Uttarakhand than J&K/Gulmarg!!

( Link for the show has been posted in the Multimedia thread)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Mar 2011 17:37

IAF air warriors to get 3G connectivity

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Mar 2011 17:39

pandyan wrote:Looks like there is a relatively simple technique to alert chopper pilots about the presence of high-voltage transmission lines. When driving near a airport, saw plenty of brightly coloured balls clipped to the power line. There were quite a few light planes and small choppers flying around....

yes, commonly done near airports
different ball game when strike missions are flying nap of the earth at high speed over undulating terrain