Indian Military Aviation

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 03 Dec 2011 13:42

CM sir, I believe the need for internal weapons carriage & long range invariably means a volume centric design. Thus necessitating big aircrafts, which invariably means more inertia which has to be over come to ensure agility. Thus wouldn't it be better to have one A2A, much lighter decent range and conformal AAM carriage. And a separate design which is volume centric internal bomb-bay etc, but relatively less agile. Even in the age of stealth, I believe that deep strike, would still entail low flying ingress to prevent detection. That means high wing loading. However, I guess to be capable of flying low at the altitudes on our eastern front plateau would actually require a medium wing-loading aircraft, which in those less dense air region would naturally become high wing-loading.

I guess the reason no-body is designing anything but multi-role these days, is because of the consolidation of the fighter industry. France has just one company Dassault, which cannot reasonably take on designing two aircrafts for different roles, because of the financial contraint. The same is the case with other european countries. In the US, with its financial muscle, it does has a dedicated A2A platform like F-22, as rightly pointed by you. F-35 on the other hand was always designing in the first place to a attacker with A2A capability, not the other way round. It was to complement the F-22. The USSR is not there and Russia is only now designing a fighter from scratch the PAK-FA, which is again mainly a A2A fighter.

As pointed out by you, it seems a far easier proposition to equip a a2a aircraft for a2g role, but I severly doubt the low-wingloading a2a crafts capability as far as low altitude high speed ingress is concerned.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Dec 2011 14:38

The main reason the "world" shifted to multirole long before AESA was cost. Compromise designs like MiG 23/27 for air defence/attack role were made, but the avionics were different in the days before AESA. Either the plane had an air interception radar or it did not.

When you look at the "cost" reason you find that the west, when it was the leading wealthy area, proliferated specialist single role designs, and as the money got tighter, they changed to multirole. But both the US and USSR persisted with some specialist single role desgns because that really is useful IMO

For India I see a boon in the economy. India should proliferate designs and make dedicated air defence/dominance or attack aircraft. Let the attack aircraft have an escort maybe with a dedicated ECM aircffat and fighters. With AESA all aircraft will have some cross platform capability anyway.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 03 Dec 2011 15:38

Actually I have a slightly different view: the future of aviation is in unmanned aircraft. The proliferation of drone aircraft and its use today is a sign where it is going. I would hazard that technically it is easier to create a unmanned bomber/attack as opposed to a unmanned fighter. Ergo, we should try for making better fighters and leave the ground attack part to the unmanned variety. Of course we will always have multiroles hanging around....

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 03 Dec 2011 16:44

Tanaji,

+1. I have been long advocate of mother ship full of drones, even before they made Armageddon.

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Dec 2011 20:00

X Posted from the Indian Naval Discussion thread.

Excerpt from CNS’ Admiral Nirmal Verma’s Navy Day 2011 speech dealing with what is happening on the Naval Aviation side:

Our maritime surveillance capability is a critical component of maritime security, both in times of peace and conflict, and plays a crucial role in the security of the Maritime Zones of India, as also of our vast coastline. The planned induction of twelve P-8I Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft to add more teeth to this capability, is on schedule. The first flight of the P-8I for the Indian Navy took place on the 28th of September this year and that signals that the programme is well on track. The first aircraft would arrive in India by Jan 13. Acquisition of Medium Range Maritime Reconnaissance aircraft is also being progressed concurrently.

The delivery of 16 carrier borne MiG 29K aircraft, as per the initial contract will be completed by the end of the year. We have also signed a contract for 29 more aircraft, the delivery of which is likely to commence from April next year. The Naval version of the LCA is under development and two main engine runs of the first prototype have been carried out. The Naval variant differs from the Air Force version due to its requirement to operate from the deck of the aircraft carrier. The prototype is expected to do the much delayed first flight by the first quarter of 2012. Once successful flight trials are completed, we intend to go ahead with a Limited Series Production (LSP) of the aircraft, in preparation for future inductions.

Further, the induction of Hawk AJT commencing 2013 would facilitate advanced training of our young pilots in developing requisite flying skills over sea prior to graduating to deck based fighter aircraft.

The Mid Life Upgrade of existing Seaking and Kamov helicopters, aimed at upgrading their weapon and sensor package would be undertaken in the XII Plan period. Further, efforts are in hand for acquiring Multirole helicopters, additional Air Early Warning helicopters and utility helicopters. The field evaluation for procurement of 16 Multirole helicopters was concluded recently and the contract negotiations should commence by early 2012.

The Full text of the speech is here:

Speech of CNS’ Admiral Nirmal Verma during Navy Day Press Conference – 2011

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 04 Dec 2011 04:12

shiv wrote: But for the future.. should we stick with mutirole? Or should we too take a leaf out of the gyan that aharam has posted and make dedicated small, agile interceptors and larger dedicated attack aircraft separately? Maybe this is a topic for the "Design your fighter" thread.

Dr. Shiv:

Isn't the LCA Mk1, with the a2g paraphanelia removed, the agile light interceptor that would be an ideal replacement for the Mig-21?

If so, we already have a design that should be productionized and deployed quickly, instead of trying to make it multirole.

aharam · Post by **aharam** » 04 Dec 2011 05:19

shiv wrote:Those are excellent insights aharam, but they set me off into a parallel stream of slightly philosophical thought - having followed the development of military aviation for decades.

The era from the end of WW2 right up to the 1970s was dominated by single role aircraft. The US had their F series fighters and B series bombers and similarly classified "the enemy" (USSR) with "Fishbed" (F for fighter) and "Bear" (B for bomber). Britain too had its own fighter and bomber classifications where the Hunter was "FGA" - Fighter - Ground attack. Unless I am mistaken, only France retained a semblance of a mixed role aircraft that could carry bombs but had guns for self defence.

The cost of aircraft and technology and the need to maintain multiple types led to the demand for "multi-role" or "swing role" aircraft. But it occurs to me that perhaps at least some Western developments were related to the needs of export markets. The USA for instance did continue to develop niche "single role" products for itself like F-15, B-1, B-2, F-117, F-22 while simultaneously developing "popular" stuff for export. Europe could not afford all this. They consolidated and cooperated to produce only multirole aircraft starting from the Tornado. Mirage 2000, EF and Rafale. Their "niche role" requirements were met by the US. Of course in the last decade "multi-ole" has been greatly aided by the development of AESA which is probably the single most important development that enables the "swing role" of sir defence and offence.

India is on a different footing. We have spent decades buying what others have to offer simply because whet we had was not considered good enough to match what Pakistan got. India got jets first (Vampires) but was son overtaken by Pakistan that got the "world's best fighter" the F-86 Sabre and the original widow maker the Mach 2 plus F-104 Starfighter. Byt the time we settled on the MiG 21 and Jaguar, Pakistan got F-16s making us scramble to get multiple types including the MiG 23, Mirage 2000 and later the MiG 29. Just goes to show how much a superpower like the US could make SDRE Indians do a lungi dance by throwing arms/alms at a nearby beggar-whore.

But for the future.. should we stick with mutirole? Or should we too take a leaf out of the gyan that aharam has posted and make dedicated small, agile interceptors and larger dedicated attack aircraft separately? Maybe this is a topic for the "Design your fighter" thread.

Shiv, continuing your philosophical strain, here are a few thoughts. The classification of fighter, interceptor, close air support and bomber was essentially a WWII construct that continued on through the 50s. Interceptors and fighter were the first to unify, although their wing loading characteristics are different. Interceptors were intended for straight line performance - climb rate, top speed, flight ceiling, since their essential purpose was defense against hordes of high altitude bombers. The primary threat in the 50s between the US and USSR was high altitude bombers and thus interceptors had a distinct role. Their agility and turning performance didn't really matter since they were supposed to go after bombers. The 21 was born out of this era with the Mig 25 being the canonical high altitude interceptor. With the advent of long range missiles as reliable delivery platforms, high altitude bombers were no longer needed and neither were interceptors. Aircraft designs that started in the 60s thus focussed more on fighters, where wing loading was lower and the designs had to be more nimble.

My 2 cents are that the current classification of light, medium and heavy fighters presents temptations too great to resist for air forces. Consider a light fighter in the 12 - 16000 lbs category empty weight. The aircraft designer wants to make it as nimble as possible. The problem is an air force wants to do more than A2A with the fighter - it wants some A2G, and pretty soon you need to be able to carry a heavier payload than the typical 4000 - 5000 lbs that such an aircraft is limited to. In a light class aircraft, you can always put a larger engine to carry the heavier payload and pretty soon your empty weight is 30000 lbs and you are no longer so nimble. Another direction here is folks ask for a second engine for safety, and you end up with a medium class aircraft. At this point, your payload is really not enough to act a bomb truck, but you can carry just about enough ground ordinance to be used selectively. Essentially, the medium category is fundamentally a compromise. It is not multi-role by design, it is multi-role by mission creep. Its payload is simply insufficient to be really useful in an A2G role against a determined and moderately resourceful enemy.

At the other extreme, you have the heavies. There you know that you cannot increase thrust easily and you already have two engines, and I don't think anyone is looking to add a third engine anytime soon. So your thrust is limited. If you start with a heavy design, you are much better positioned to handle mission creep, since there are hard limits on thrust and hence payload. It is the lack of this hard limit that makes mission creep such an insidious problem in the light and medium category.

Personally, I would prefer a light class and a heavy class, with all medium class aircraft belonging solely to deep penetration strike and close air support roles. If you want a bomb truck, the answer is a dedicated bomber, which is far cheaper to operate for a given payload. The light category can be used for CAS protection, with the heavies going after defended targets. Once initial air supremacy has been achieved, the CAS role will need minimal supporting air cover and can use most of its payload in the A2G role without worrying about A2A. The Jaguar or 27 with appropriate flank protection can still do this role as long as air supremacy has been achieved. Once air supremacy has been achieved, dedicated CAS aircraft are far more useful since their payload is high, they can loiter longer and they don't have to be built with much thought to any A2A compromises. It is hard to do what an AC-130 gunship can do with any multi-role fighter - it would simply be too expensive to use something as high-end as an MKI for this purpose.
Heavies are then the insurance where you do not have complete air supremacy, in that you get an aircraft that doesn't need any air cover to defend itself and yet has a sufficiently useful payload to be deadly.

Just my thoughts. Will add more on UCAV and stealth later - they really are the only future. My post has already gotten too long

Cheers
aharam

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Dec 2011 07:12

aharam wrote: Personally, I would prefer a light class and a heavy class, with all medium class aircraft belonging solely to deep penetration strike and close air support roles. If you want a bomb truck, the answer is a dedicated bomber, which is far cheaper to operate for a given payload. The light category can be used for CAS protection, with the heavies going after defended targets. Once initial air supremacy has been achieved, the CAS role will need minimal supporting air cover and can use most of its payload in the A2G role without worrying about A2A. The Jaguar or 27 with appropriate flank protection can still do this role as long as air supremacy has been achieved. Once air supremacy has been achieved, dedicated CAS aircraft are far more useful since their payload is high, they can loiter longer and they don't have to be built with much thought to any A2A compromises. It is hard to do what an AC-130 gunship can do with any multi-role fighter - it would simply be too expensive to use something as high-end as an MKI for this purpose.
Heavies are then the insurance where you do not have complete air supremacy, in that you get an aircraft that doesn't need any air cover to defend itself and yet has a sufficiently useful payload to be deadly.

Inteersting insights. The reason I have highlighted one sentence in red is because of a post made by another BRFite - also a retired IAF fighter pilot and senior commander who goes by the BRF handle Abhibhushan in another thread

Abhibhushan wrote:... I want to take a detour and come up with some thing that my pongo friends would love to see in the sky.

There is one huge battlefield that might one day call me in for offensive air support which I am unable to provide today. I need an aircraft that can operate over Wallong and Along and perhaps a hundred kilometres north of it for releasing weapons in marginal visibility and if possible even by night. I need an aircraft that will take off from Leh or Chshul with one and a half tons of ordnance and be able to operate comfortably with full load at 20000 feet or more. I want an aircraft that can have a radius of action of 200 km flying at 15000 feet above sea level.

Let me now design this beast.

Take a basic Kiran. Retain the wings/tail. Build it as light as possible using composites. Redesign the main body for a single pilot and lots of internal fuel. Give it an internal bay for carrying about 50 x 68mm or 57mm unguided rockets and four hard points fit for 350 kg class loads. Give it a light contour mapping / imaging radar slaved to an HMS. Replace the 2 machine guns of the Kiran Mk 2 with one GSh23. Give it a glass cockpit and a DARIN III fit. Give it an integral laser target designator. Power it with an unreheated Adour (as used in the Hawk). Play around with the wing structure a little to improve its low speed turning performance. See if the RCS can be reduced by tinkering with the intakes. If possible, give it one or two short range light air to air missiles carried over the wing like the Jaguar. Give it a self defence electronic suit. If the Adour is unable to lift all this load then make it really an overpowered beast by fitting an unreheated Kavery!

Produce it in 36 months. Test and certify it in the next 24 months. Produce it in large numbers. In 1962, we could not / did not use offensive air power. Let there not be a repeat of that situation.

PS. I do not foresee a dense air defence air presence in the projected hostile area. If one comes along, I shall need top cover by the air dominance fighters you all are designing.

I think Abhibhushan is talking about a sub-sub-set of the broad general outlines you wrote about, that is
1. CAS in a situation of air superiority
2. Good performance at high altitude.

In fact it appears that some Indian battlefield/air war conditions require a class of aircraft that no foreign designer is bothering to specifically design. Everyone designs an aircraft that will
1. Meet their own needs
2. Have compromises that make the plane attractive to export customers anywhere in the world by having "reasonable" (but not necessarily superlative) performance anywhere in the world.

All advertising for those aircraft is aimed at showing how good that multirole design is for meeting every single need. But clearly that is not true is it? Every mulitrole aircraft is a compromise and some of those compromises are hopelessly inadequate for the specific needs of the IAF.

Between you and Abhibhushan we already have a general guideline of what IAF fighter pilots might want/recommend.

1. Light/medium agile interceptors
2. Heavy bomb trucks
3. Light to Medium CAS aircraft with good hot and high performance.

It seems to me that there could be a light to medium class aircraft that is both an agile air combat aircraft as well as doubling up for hot and high CAS. Agility at high atltitude as well as the power to take off with a decent load would be the key attributes (as per my amateur guesswork).

Do you think this is a reasonable assessment?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Dec 2011 13:28

to me what he is describing sounds like the light attack version of the Hawk itself...with minor mods like fitting the honeywell engine that Jag will get and deleting the 2nd cockpit in exchange for perhaps a OBOGS and extra fuel.

that route is open to us. we can easily get that version and have HAL license make 150-200 of them brand new with guaranteed 30 yr lifecycle if the IAF so wants.

It seems to me that there could be a light to medium class aircraft that is both an agile air combat aircraft as well as doubling up for hot and high CAS. Agility at high atltitude as well as the power to take off with a decent load would be the key attributes (as per my amateur guesswork).

that would the Tejas. delta wing and low wingloading for good high alt perf.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 04 Dec 2011 15:01

shiv wrote:
Between you and Abhibhushan we already have a general guideline of what IAF fighter pilots might want/recommend.

1. Light/medium agile interceptors
2. Heavy bomb trucks
3. Light to Medium CAS aircraft with good hot and high performance.

It seems to me that there could be a light to medium class aircraft that is both an agile air combat aircraft as well as doubling up for hot and high CAS. Agility at high atltitude as well as the power to take off with a decent load would be the key attributes (as per my amateur guesswork).

Do you think this is a reasonable assessment?

Wouldn't an Ajeet, upengined with either the Jag's current engine or the Hawk's engine, also suit this role?? Its lineage from the Gnat makes it quite agile while the additional hardpoints enable it to carry higher payloads.

It may also be the easiest to operationalise as the airframe is already certified and only a small amount of flight testing may be required to certify the engine and a new avionics suite.
JMO.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 04 Dec 2011 15:19

BRF Docs take note

New-Age Vision Might Cure IAF of its Myopia

New-Age Vision Might Cure IAF of its Myopia
By Niranjan Kaggere & Kannaki Deka
Posted On Friday, December 02, 2011

US and Israeli Air Forces allow fighter pilots with fading sight to continue flying after an intra-ocular lens implant. Aerospace researchers in the city are hoping the IAF too will follow suit, thus conserving its precious, highly-trained human capital

They are in the very frontline of the country’s defence preparedness, keeping a vigil on its airspace and being the first to engage airborne intruders. Their training costs a bomb — defence minister A K Antony told Parliament last year that the cost of training a single fighter pilot is around Rs. 14 crore — but all that precious human capital of the Indian Air Force goes waste if they develop work-related or age-related eye problems.

Now, if a growing consensus among aerospace researchers finds itself reflected in government policy, fighter pilots with vision problems, who would otherwise be grounded, will be able to continue flying their jets after an intra-ocular lens implant.

A detailed paper to this effect, including case studies of IOL-implanted fighter pilots across the world, was presented at a recent conference on aerospace medicine in the city. The paper by aerospace ophthalmologists from the city-based Institute of Aerospace Medicine (IAM) has analysed case studies of air force pilots in the US and Israel continuing to fly after an IOL implant.

The researchers feel the time is not too far off when the IAF will bring in a policy change to enable IOL-implanted fighter pilots to continue flying.

According to the researchers, there is a growing incidence of air force pilots as young as in their early 30s being diagnosed with cataracts. Five to six cases from this age group are reported in the IAF every year, and they could be because of UV radiation or other factors.

Speaking to Bangalore Mirror, a senior aerospace ophthalmologist said, “Currently, the IAF does not allow pilots with cataracts to fly mainstream fighter jets. Once they are diagnosed with a cataract, they are grounded. Post-surgery, they are re-streamed to fly cargo planes and choppers which have a multiple crew. Wearing of contact lens or any other type of lens is not allowed in the IAF. Pilots with minor variations in eyesight are allowed to wear goggles and fly fighter jets, but contact lenses are banned as they might dislocate at higher G-levels or from exposure to dust, floating particles in the atmosphere and wind blast.”

Another expert, a wing commander, said, “An intra-ocular lens is a plastic lens that positions itself firmly when implanted and is capable of withstanding cockpit vibrations at high G-levels. IOLs made of hydrophobic acrylic material are best-suited. Lying in the capsular bag of the eye, these lenses are not only clear but stay intact.” Citing an Israeli case study, another wing commander said, “IOLs were tested on a cataract-affected F-15 pilot of the Israeli air force. He was observed for three years, till the completion of 100 hours of flying, of which 15 hours were at high G-levels. The IOLs did not dislocate and no complications were observed. This, despite factors like vibration, acceleration, high G-levels and hypoxia.”

The researchers said the IOLs were tested up to 6 Gs in the Israeli study and only a tiny shift in the lenses was found, which hardly interfered with the vision of the pilot. In fact, the IOLs were tested on monkeys at as high as 9 Gs and showed no signs of dislocation.

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 04 Dec 2011 16:03

Bala Vignesh wrote:
shiv wrote:
Between you and Abhibhushan we already have a general guideline of what IAF fighter pilots might want/recommend.

1. Light/medium agile interceptors
2. Heavy bomb trucks
3. Light to Medium CAS aircraft with good hot and high performance.

It seems to me that there could be a light to medium class aircraft that is both an agile air combat aircraft as well as doubling up for hot and high CAS. Agility at high atltitude as well as the power to take off with a decent load would be the key attributes (as per my amateur guesswork).

Do you think this is a reasonable assessment?
Wouldn't an Ajeet, upengined with either the Jag's current engine or the Hawk's engine, also suit this role?? Its lineage from the Gnat makes it quite agile while the additional hardpoints enable it to carry higher payloads.

It may also be the easiest to operationalise as the airframe is already certified and only a small amount of flight testing may be required to certify the engine and a new avionics suite.
JMO.

bala saheb only if the big IF our babus would have an innovative common sense atleast a try today it would have been a totally different picture

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Dec 2011 16:36

here is the Hawk200 I was referring to. with honeywell engine its payload, high alt perf and a2a will surely improve. you can put a bison kopyo radar, rwr and 2xr73 combo...nothing fancy.

but I guess IAF wants much more survivable ac and does not assume total air superiority, hence the minimum bar is the Bison/Tejasmk1 level.

Hawk 200

The Hawk 200 is a single-seat, lightweight multirole combat fighter with emphasis on air defence, air superiority, anti-shipping, air-denial, long-range interdiction, short-range close air support and ground attack. The aircraft is fitted with the AN/APG-66H, an advanced version of the F-16A APG-66 radar with multimode systems. The aircraft is able to be equipped with the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AGM-65 Maverick. The Malaysian aircraft has the most extensive modification to the aircraft with illumination "slime" lights, wingtip AAMs and inflight refuelling. Its aircraft have been involved in major long-range deployments to areas such as Sabah and the Spratly Islands. Indonesia, Malaysia and Oman have ordered 62 aircraft. Brunei have been interested in acquiring this model (and the Hawk 100), but any prospective order has been continually delayed since the mid-1980s.[36]

Hawk 203 – Export version for the Royal Air Force of Oman.
Hawk 205 – Proposed export version for the Royal Saudi Air Force.
Hawk 208 – Export version for the Royal Malaysian Air Force. (18)
Hawk 209 – Export version for the Indonesian Air Force. (32)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Dec 2011 23:56

In 1965 the IAF sent in Vampires to stop the Paki army forces in Kashmir. Four of them were shot down. After that we never see them in combat or used in anger.

Was there a postmortem/after action report on the decision to send such lightly armed obsolete fighters? How were they shot down?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 05 Dec 2011 00:20

There is one huge battlefield that might one day call me in for offensive air support which I am unable to provide today. I need an aircraft that can operate over Wallong and Along and perhaps a hundred kilometres north of it for releasing weapons in marginal visibility and if possible even by night. I need an aircraft that will take off from Leh or Chshul with one and a half tons of ordnance and be able to operate comfortably with full load at 20000 feet or more. I want an aircraft that can have a radius of action of 200 km flying at 15000 feet above sea level.

To my untrained eye, it seems that the LCA Mk1 can easily fulfill these requirements. What is the need for designing another fighter?

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 05 Dec 2011 00:21

^^3 by sabres, one by ground forces

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 05 Dec 2011 00:43

Arent CAS aircraft supposed to be

Offer decent amount of protection against small arms and slightly heavier fire? I am not saying that we build a Sturmovik or A10, but there should be at least some protection
Have high offset intakes to prevent FOD damage
Optimized for low level flying

How does the Hawk fit to these parameters?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Dec 2011 04:30

Thanks Boreas.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 05 Dec 2011 06:20

IAF’s ‘Heli-Teli’ to track terror over Delhi and Mumbai

sum · Post by **sum** » 05 Dec 2011 09:42

A Sharma wrote:IAF’s ‘Heli-Teli’ to track terror over Delhi and Mumbai

^^This must be similar to what they show in the movie, "Green Zone" where 160 SOAR Blackhawks seem to have this real-time display units( and other TFTA stuff) wherein they track the targets running on the ground real time and pass coordinates to the Delta folks lurking on the ground.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2011 10:06

I saw a iaf Mi17 today morning and it struck me that not withstanding khan posturing, it really is a better design for a army helicopter than the SH60. my reasons.

- using the rear ramp you can load a jeep or 105mm gun, the Sh60 can only sling a load which may not be possible in high winds and surely restricts its movement for instance in evasive action.
- the interior can be heated or cooled if needed being sealed , it can also be NBC protected if needed
- the Sh60 has zero protection from the sides , many have no doors at all, just a gaping hole...a good burst of MG fire at low alt will put down half the people inside , and maybe the pilots as well, the Mi17 type design can add additional armour wherever its needed on the sides ..while retaining portholes for rifles to fire from.
- Mi17 can drop off parachute packets down the rear
- it has a higher operating ceiling
- is proven across more users and more hostile conditions around the world, incl in UN ops
- better interior room as a battlefield ambulance/CSAR bird.
- can handle pallets on wheeled trolleys which can be pushed up the ramp rather than manhandled into the doors of sh60

about the only three 'advantages' I can think of for SH60 are
- people can stream out both sides , hence maybe a little better as a assault SF helo where quick deployment is needed
- looks more menaching with two miniguns sticking out of the side, though the Mi17 actually carries more ordnance like vikhr and gun/rocket pods.
- probably a bit more manouverable ... atleast in hollywood footage

avionics I am not considering as its all a question of money what you want. the KA31 for instance has a full glass cockpit we paid for it.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 05 Dec 2011 10:12

A Sharma wrote:IAF’s ‘Heli-Teli’ to track terror over Delhi and Mumbai

Why cannot a UAV be used for the same purpose. As per the news the helicopter has "advanced FLIR (forward-looking infrared) imaging systems and CCD (charge-coupled device) sensors to enable "live streaming video footage'' from the scene of an incident to "command and control centres'' on the ground". A UAV can do just that, with better loiter times, much smaller foot print and being cheaper to operate. What extra equipment needs to be carried that cannot be put on a UAV.

Such heli-teli have existed for decades in other countries, but during those times they used a helicopter , because UAV tech had not matured enough. But now with UAV tech being so matured why still go by what was being done, rather than using today's matured tech to solve the problem. I guess the Heli provides fixed hover capability, but such a capability is also provided by much smaller VTOL UAV's too.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 05 Dec 2011 10:17

Singha wrote:I saw a iaf Mi17 today morning and it struck me that not withstanding khan posturing, it really is a better design for a army helicopter than the SH60. my reasons.

- using the rear ramp you can load a jeep or 105mm gun, the Sh60 can only sling a load which may not be possible in high winds and surely restricts its movement for instance in evasive action.
- the interior can be heated or cooled if needed being sealed , it can also be NBC protected if needed
- the Sh60 has zero protection from the sides , many have no doors at all, just a gaping hole...a good burst of MG fire at low alt will put down half the people inside , and maybe the pilots as well, the Mi17 type design can add additional armour wherever its needed on the sides ..while retaining portholes for rifles to fire from.
- Mi17 can drop off parachute packets down the rear
- it has a higher operating ceiling
- is proven across more users and more hostile conditions around the world, incl in UN ops
- better interior room as a battlefield ambulance/CSAR bird.
- can handle pallets on wheeled trolleys which can be pushed up the ramp rather than manhandled into the doors of sh60

about the only three 'advantages' I can think of for SH60 are
- people can stream out both sides , hence maybe a little better as a assault SF helo where quick deployment is needed
- looks more menaching with two miniguns sticking out of the side, though the Mi17 actually carries more ordnance like vikhr and gun/rocket pods.
- probably a bit more manouverable ... atleast in hollywood footage

avionics I am not considering as its all a question of money what you want. the KA31 for instance has a full glass cockpit we paid for it.

All the advantages mentioned by you Singha sir, can easily be incorporated on the Mi17.
- The huge rear ramp + two doors on the side of Mi17 should provide more exit area compared to Sh60.
- I guess we should be able to add miniguns on the side doors/windows.
- Last can't say much on that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2011 10:19

^miniguns are only needed if there are no proper escort helis and this thing has to drop troops off and assume the standoff support role orbiting the target and laying down covering fire both sides from low level(miniguns with naked eye targeting are likely ok upto max 500m only in congested urban ops). quite vulnerable to manpad/rpg/HMG any transport heli is at that level...if the attackers creep down the alleys to get behind and below the heli (as in Blackhawk down).

better to let a gunship heli accompany and do this, while Mi17 withdraws to safe place until pickup time.

Predators were known to be in use over some east coast US metro areas for a while during the bush2 era, though it was not clear why.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2011 10:34

Pratt & whitney has a TOI ad today about a new family of engines P1500G which is 'geared turbofan' - the ad claims 50% reduction in noise and double digit (which I guess means 10% in marketing speak) reduction in fuel burn and emissions.
the pic of the engine on a commercial a/c seemed to have a fatter rear end cowl vs the taper of current engines.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 05 Dec 2011 13:18

Tanaji wrote:Arent CAS aircraft supposed to be
Offer decent amount of protection against small arms and slightly heavier fire? I am not saying that we build a Sturmovik or A10, but there should be at least some protection
Have high offset intakes to prevent FOD damage
Optimized for low level flying
How does the Hawk fit to these parameters?

You want to re-design a MiG 27 ? It seems to meet the above requirements

K

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 05 Dec 2011 13:22

bmallick wrote:
A Sharma wrote:IAF’s ‘Heli-Teli’ to track terror over Delhi and Mumbai

Why cannot a UAV be used for the same purpose. As per the news the helicopter has "advanced FLIR (forward-looking infrared) imaging systems and CCD (charge-coupled device) sensors to enable "live streaming video footage'' from the scene of an incident to "command and control centres'' on the ground". A UAV can do just that, with better loiter times, much smaller foot print and being cheaper to operate. What extra equipment needs to be carried that cannot be put on a UAV.

Such heli-teli have existed for decades in other countries, but during those times they used a helicopter , because UAV tech had not matured enough. But now with UAV tech being so matured why still go by what was being done, rather than using today's matured tech to solve the problem. I guess the Heli provides fixed hover capability, but such a capability is also provided by much smaller VTOL UAV's too.

Wow

During the next terrorist, Ms Barkha Dutta will get orgasms working with this toy

K

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Dec 2011 16:29

bmallick wrote: - I guess we should be able to add miniguns on the side doors/windows.

Already exists. There was a video showing this after the last Vayu Shakti. I downloaded all the videos - there must be one online. Will search and post.

Here it is - from 2min 25 sec onwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE7DOIuM3ck

Saw an armed Dhruv today trailing a long shiny/silver cord and something attached to the end of it. Can't for the life of me guess what it was.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 05 Dec 2011 16:42

^^
Something like this?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Dec 2011 16:47

Singha wrote:Pratt & whitney has a TOI ad today about a new family of engines P1500G which is 'geared turbofan' - the ad claims 50% reduction in noise and double digit (which I guess means 10% in marketing speak) reduction in fuel burn and emissions.
the pic of the engine on a commercial a/c seemed to have a fatter rear end cowl vs the taper of current engines.

If you follow civilan aircraft world then PW1500G Geared Turbofan GTF is a very known engine , It offers 15 % fuel reduction over currently used engine and -20db lower noise over ICAO Stage 4 noise standards.

Its pretty good and is being used to reengine B737/A320 class type aircraft and used on new types like Irkut MS-21.

GTF is a very promising area for future applications in engine and other engine manufacurer like Rolls-Royce and Perm Engine are using it in their future engine.

Its closest competitor is CFM Leap X offering similar performance parameter.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Dec 2011 16:52

Chinese Air Force way ahead of IAF - Air Marshal Narayan Menon

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2011 17:02

and the neat conformal arrangement of the external fuel tanks on Mi17 offers free fields of fire out of the portholes vs the clunky outrigger tanks on the blackhawk because they cannot be fitted conformally due to low floor and would block the entrance.
http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/ ... review.jpg

try firing a minigun with that huge tank right in front!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Dec 2011 17:18

I think they must be using the fuel from drop tank before using internal fuel and when they enter battle zone they can afford to drop it if they dont want to lug the dead weight , I have not seen many Blackhawk with drop tanks.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 05 Dec 2011 17:22

^^ Singhaji,
I believe the minigun mounted on the front window will have clean field of fire in the frontal arc of the MH 60 both above and below the horizon. The tanks blocks the lateral and rear fields of fire only when the gun has to fire at the same horizontal plane it is mounted in.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Dec 2011 17:24

Gaur wrote:^^
Something like this?
http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/ ... oGallary=p

No. It was not a slung load. It was more like a shiny wire 4 times as long as that with an object the size of a sonobuoy at the end. Why it would dangle from an Indian army colors armed Dhruv I have no idea. There was something on each wing - too far to see, but maybe dummy munitions. The target designation pod was there. No gun that I could see.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 05 Dec 2011 17:38

Shiv Sir,
IIRC, a few months ago someone from Nashik had reported the same thing that you just spotted over bangalore. I tried to search the post but i couldn't find it. Will post the link to the post when i find it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Dec 2011 18:15

Someone had reported on BRF that he saw a dhruv carrying a huge ring. In fact he posted a cellphone video which did not have the resolution. Later there was a news item that some kind of magnetic/geologic detector ring was test flown. I vaguely recall the name "Hosur" in that news.

But this was not a ring. Just a small dangling thing at the end of a visibly shiny wire.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 05 Dec 2011 18:59

Geology brought back old memories...

Airborne Mineral Survey & Exploration, Geological Survey of India, has a Dhruv on order.

They used to have a Twin Otter when my father headed it in the late 70's early 80's just before retirement. If memory serves right, there was a Dakota before that. The civilian Dakota and Twin Otter had more sensors loaded than any military aircraft of that time. Ofcourse, came with strict caveats from Uncle on usage.

These were the first ground mapping systems in India, before the Searcher/Heron/Litening/EL-2060/20600 pods.

The GSI Dhruv, if it is designed to carry sensors, will be fiendishly more complex to develop & integrate than the failed iteration of Naval Dhruv. Unless its being built as a utility bird only.

More here http://www.portal.gsi.gov.in/portal/pag ... ema=PORTAL

It has carried out aero-magnetic and multi sensor surveys over an area of 1978142 km2 in selected blocks in India.

Ofcourse, no geological instrument looks like sonobuoy and no GSI birds are painted in camouflage.

There were reports of Saab offering its sensors on Dhruv for anti-naxal operations http://www.saabgroup.com/Air/Sensor_Sys ... s/CARABAS/

Edited later - Found my old pal, she looks just as good as yesterday. Note the MAD boom, it was better than the Navy planes. http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_P ... ?id=098416

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 05 Dec 2011 22:17

Singha wrote:and the neat conformal arrangement of the external fuel tanks on Mi17 offers free fields of fire out of the portholes vs the clunky outrigger tanks on the blackhawk because they cannot be fitted conformally due to low floor and would block the entrance.
http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/ ... review.jpg

try firing a minigun with that huge tank right in front!

say the idea is for an escorted Mi-17 is to carry large guided rockets in quad launchers, currently 127mm rockets are said to be carried by Cobra gunships, to balance such change in lateral loads, one may have to use outrigged drop tanks and/or CFTs with fuel distribution

large rockets translate to better standoff ranges, one could wish for an all CL-20 based light weight Pinaka rocket that can be air launched so that basing the launch platform at the right location as needed especially in the mountainous regions doesn't become an issue, since the heli is not a stable platform like a launch truck, the rockets would have to be GPS enabled for retaining the terminal accuracy

Added Later: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rocket.jpg

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 05 Dec 2011 22:21

tsarkar wrote:Geology brought back old memories...

Airborne Mineral Survey & Exploration, Geological Survey of India, has a Dhruv on order.

They used to have a Twin Otter when my father headed it in the late 70's early 80's just before retirement. If memory serves right, there was a Dakota before that. The civilian Dakota and Twin Otter had more sensors loaded than any military aircraft of that time. Ofcourse, came with strict caveats from Uncle on usage.

These were the first ground mapping systems in India, before the Searcher/Heron/Litening/EL-2060/20600 pods.

The GSI Dhruv, if it is designed to carry sensors, will be fiendishly more complex to develop & integrate than the failed iteration of Naval Dhruv. Unless its being built as a utility bird only.

More here http://www.portal.gsi.gov.in/portal/pag ... ema=PORTAL
It has carried out aero-magnetic and multi sensor surveys over an area of 1978142 km2 in selected blocks in India.
Ofcourse, no geological instrument looks like sonobuoy and no GSI birds are painted in camouflage.

There were reports of Saab offering its sensors on Dhruv for anti-naxal operations http://www.saabgroup.com/Air/Sensor_Sys ... s/CARABAS/

Edited later - Found my old pal, she looks just as good as yesterday. Note the MAD boom, it was better than the Navy planes. http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_P ... ?id=098416

I saw the twin Otter taking off from Begumpet Airport in the 70's when I used to hang out there. Different colours though, if memory serves me right.