Indian Military Aviation

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 23 Dec 2011 08:16

marut was an impressive aircraft indeed. Pity we never had the gumption to follow through to the logical end and get an engine to match the airframe. This is still biting us in the a$$. I hope the folks who make decisions keep the long term view in mind..

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 23 Dec 2011 13:07

shiv wrote:
"I cannot end this narrative without relating an incident during one of our farewell functions in the UK. An elderly gentleman from British Aerospace asked whether the Marut was still operational. He touched a sensitive nerve in me and sensed it! He went on to say that if the Marut had succeeded in getting better engines theer would have been little possibility for the sale of Jaguars to the IAF"
Now let us all curse the loser veggie surrender monkeys working on the Kaveri for their pathetic ineptitude.

And guess what, now the Jag itself needs better engines !

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Dec 2011 13:27

Anthony Hines wrote:marut was an impressive aircraft indeed. Pity we never had the gumption to follow through to the logical end and get an engine to match the airframe. This is still biting us in the a$$. I hope the folks who make decisions keep the long term view in mind..

the technology was denied to us
the egyptians who were working on related stuff with us got cut off too
it wasn't so simple as ishtoopid yindoos goof again

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 23 Dec 2011 14:05

Lalmohan wrote:
Anthony Hines wrote:marut was an impressive aircraft indeed. Pity we never had the gumption to follow through to the logical end and get an engine to match the airframe. This is still biting us in the a$$. I hope the folks who make decisions keep the long term view in mind..
the technology was denied to us
the egyptians who were working on related stuff with us got cut off too
it wasn't so simple as ishtoopid yindoos goof again

there is also info in wiki that egypt actually installed Brandner E-300 engine in a HAL HF-24 Marut for high speed testing, in which form it flew on 29 March 1967

more info

Messerschmitt's HA-300 and its Indian Connection

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Dec 2011 14:59

as recently as 1970 I believe UK told us off when we asked for submarines, so we went foxtrot.
IAF asked for Tornado and got the Jaguar because the UK told us tornado was too sophisticated for turd world.

so where could we have got an engine in the atmosphere of tech denial and sanctions post the 1st nuclear blast and after slapping munna TSP around in 1971? those days we did not have any collaborative project model with Russia - they would simply ask us to buy one of their planes.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Dec 2011 16:27

^^^ UK wanted to sell us Lightning, Unkil said no, UK wanted to sell us Tornado, Unkil said no, Sweden wanted to sell us Viggen, Unkil said no...

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Dec 2011 16:49

^^^ not sure about that

India approached US for F-104 starfighter and US arranged for us Lightening with some payment terms. Instead we went for Mig-21. Jags were chosen against Tornadoes (correct me). Viggen we rejected.

Submarine was purchased from Russians because Foxtrots were more sturdy design ad a friendship price. UK threatened that it will effect the existing purchases and support as they did not want technology to fall in Soviet hands. Indians prevailed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Dec 2011 16:55

chackojoseph wrote:^^^ not sure about that

Indian approached US for F-104 starfighter and US arranged for us Lightening with some payment terms. Instead we went for Mig-21. Jags were chosen against Tornadoes (correct me). Viggen we rejected.

Good god no Chacko mone. The Jaguar competition was between Jag, Viggen and Mirage F1. Tornado was not yet there in those days.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Dec 2011 16:59

^^^ correct abt Tornado. Anyway, I was replying to Lalmohan's post. Hew as saying Lightning, viggen etc were not purchased because of US pressure.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Dec 2011 17:03

UK refused subs to us because they would 'upset the balance' in south asia while pak got them from US.

I think UK had asked $ 1 mn to fund an engine project for marut, which we refused.

while we did not choose viggen, it was vetoed by US.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Dec 2011 17:15

Rahul M wrote:UK refused subs to us because they would 'upset the balance' in south asia while pak got them from US.

India wanted Oberon or Porpoise class submarines and brits were ready to supply only "A' Class. So technically they were not rejected. meanwhile Pakis were being trained in Turkish Sub and Chinese were also confirmed acquiring subs. So, when the talks broke off, India turned Soviet Union and it marked a major turn in Indian naval purchase history.

One should understand the situation that time. We were being helped by the Brits with cheaper ships and they were technically planning Indian fleet with the Indian navy. INS Vikrant wouldn't have been sold to India if Brits wanted not to "'upset the balance' in south asia while pak got them from US."

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Dec 2011 17:18

you have to understand that UK policy was being dictated out of washington... (still is)

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Dec 2011 17:20

Lalmohan wrote:you have to understand that UK policy was being dictated out of washington... (still is)

Not entirely wrong when you say that. Lightning was offered as per US insistence. You had said it was rejected.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Dec 2011 18:08

chacko, subs were vetoed because they were considered a potential threat to US/UK shipping. vikrant was allowed because it was not a threat. I am not saying there weren't british officers sympathetic to India but overall policy was not.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Dec 2011 18:24

US delivers last Super Hercules cargo plane this weekend

This aircraft, like its five predecessors, was delivered ahead of schedule and under budget, a Lockheed Martin official told IANS

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Dec 2011 19:01

Rahul M wrote:chacko, subs were vetoed because they were considered a potential threat to US/UK shipping. vikrant was allowed because it was not a threat. I am not saying there weren't british officers sympathetic to India but overall policy was not.

I am willing to learn if you show. Of what I have read and understood, there was joint planning for 'dominion' Navies. since UK was giving us trash at high prices (cheap for us then), they wanted to pass off A class. The talks broke down. Then they went in for Soviet subs. There is no mention of it being a threat to shipping etc.

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Dec 2011 19:08

Pls do not ignore the elephant in the room. The closeness of IG to SU and Moraji to Uncle Sam

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Dec 2011 21:08

chackojoseph wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:you have to understand that UK policy was being dictated out of washington... (still is)
Not entirely wrong when you say that. Lightning was offered as per US insistence. You had said it was rejected.

from what i have read, lightening was being discussed, US vetoed, gave starfighter to paf, we had no option other than to get Mig21

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Dec 2011 22:11

exercising choice for more C-130J-30 is one khan deal I would strongly support. rebadge it the MTA and get on with life...

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Dec 2011 09:19

Lalmohan wrote:from what i have read, lightening was being discussed, US vetoed, gave starfighter to paf, we had no option other than to get Mig21

The version I have read is that We approached for Star fighter (it was in PAF service since 1961) and US directed us to Lightning with some finance terms. Soviets had agreed for Mg-21 production facilities along with rupee - rouble trade. So, India went for the Mig-21. IMO, even Air marshal PC lal's "My years with IAF" also states that?

Can you kindly show me the version you have mentioned?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Dec 2011 12:17

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

to me the Lightning seems like a more complex and tfta beast compared to the Mig21FLs we got - with the similar kind of raw speed and race horse genes but same weakness of range. good for a all-out climb to altitude to target supersonic hi-hi-hi bombers but not a whole lot else. we had to slog and fight it out to make the -21 somewhat useful as a ground attack role.

the Mirage-III/V from same era probably was the most versatile design and it shows in its longevity around the world and offshoots (Cheetah in SA, Kfir in Israel).

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 24 Dec 2011 12:37

Lalmohan wrote:from what i have read, lightening was being discussed, US vetoed, gave starfighter to paf, we had no option other than to get Mig21

chackojoseph wrote:The version I have read is that We approached for Star fighter (it was in PAF service since 1961) and US directed us to Lightning with some finance terms. Soviets had agreed for Mg-21 production facilities along with rupee - rouble trade. So, India went for the Mig-21. IMO, even Air marshal PC lal's "My years with IAF" also states that?

Larger cold war imperatives often came into play. Soviet nuclear and rocket facilities were at Central Asian Republics, and US used to launch U2 reconnaissance missions from Peshawar. To defend Pakistan against Soviet bomber retaliation, Starfighter interceptors were provided to Pakistan.

Indian intervention at Goa was not viewed favourably in US. While there was an anti-communist lobby that worked with Indian and Tibetan irregulars, on the other hand, some in US viewed bombastic Nehruvian policy to blame, and their PoV was supported by Chinese withdrawal. Hence the US didnt supply fighters to India. In hindsight, it was good because their exorbitant cost would have ruined the economy, and they were sanction prone. As Chacko correctly states, the clinching factor of the MiG-21 deal were the financial terms. The best fighter of the times - Mirage 3 - was not mature during the Indian decision and by the time it was, India had heavily invested in MiG21. Again, given the cost of the Mirage, Pakistan was able to buy only 24 whereas India was able to buy 100+ MiG-21 by 1971.

Cost is the reason why Pakistan went for F-6 whose engines required overhaul between double digit flight hours. Cost is the reason why Pakistan bought F-7 (Chinese MiG-21 clone) AFTER they purchased the F-16.

chackojoseph wrote:India wanted Oberon or Porpoise class submarines and brits were ready to supply only "A' Class. So technically they were not rejected. meanwhile Pakis were being trained in Turkish Sub and Chinese were also confirmed acquiring subs. So, when the talks broke off, India turned Soviet Union and it marked a major turn in Indian naval purchase history. One should understand the situation that time. We were being helped by the Brits with cheaper ships and they were technically planning Indian fleet with the Indian navy. INS Vikrant wouldn't have been sold to India if Brits wanted not to "'upset the balance' in south asia while pak got them from US."

Rahul M wrote:chacko, subs were vetoed because they were considered a potential threat to US/UK shipping.

chackojoseph wrote:Of what I have read and understood, there was joint planning for 'dominion' Navies. since UK was giving us trash at high prices (cheap for us then), they wanted to pass off A class. The talks broke down. Then they went in for Soviet subs. There is no mention of it being a threat to shipping etc.

Pakistan had been given a US WW2 design to enable it withstand Soviet blockade. India was offered A Class of WW2 vintage. The P and O classes, based on the newer & better German Type 21 designs were not offered to India, since they were just entering service, and the policy was to give Indians and Pakistanis second class stuff. Soviet Foxtrot was based on German Type 21 and a better design than the British ones, so procured. As earlier, financial terms too were better.

Soviet weapons helped in the sense they didnt impose much strain on our economy those days. Unlike Pakistan, which couldnt invest any money elsewhere other than arms.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Dec 2011 12:48

chacko, look at this http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showth ... p?t=112661 and the links given in the first post. it's a treasure trove of info.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Dec 2011 14:51

tsarkar,

The finance terms + willingness to transfer production + ease of dealing + better technology tilted the deals in soviet favour.

RahulM,

Thanks. very new information.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Dec 2011 15:15

On EE Lightning

The President was opposed to subsidizing the sale of two Lightning Mark II squadrons to India for rupees, at a likely cost of around $60 million.

Instead he approved telling Prime Minister Macmillan that we would be willing to share 50/50 the hard currency cost of one Lightning squadron. We would also finance 75 per cent of the further development cost of the Orpheus engine, if the Indians accepted the UK offer. To complete the package, he approved a simultaneous US offer to sell India nine C-130 transports for rupees. All of the above are contingent upon the Indians not buying the MIG-21.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Dec 2011 15:40

It appears Menon shot down Lightning, nehru Shot Down Mirages. F-104 was finally on table , but, not on rupee terms.

I have asked for this thing to be archived in FIF, its in progress for those who want to read it up.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Dec 2011 16:12

Rahul M wrote:chacko, subs were vetoed because they were considered a potential threat to US/UK shipping. vikrant was allowed because it was not a threat. I am not saying there weren't british officers sympathetic to India but overall policy was not.

Again replying to this......

If you search the US History archives, it mentions that UK couldn't sell subs to India (n Pajis) because they were being sold without considering the requirements. They were being sold based on what UK wanted to sell.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Dec 2011 20:16

BTW, while LCA was about to commence in early 1980s, some within the LCA team had proposed to a rep of the UK that India participate in the development of the Tornado. It was politely declined without reason.

venkat_r · Post by **venkat_r** » 25 Dec 2011 00:18

It was also a common knowledge I believe that we got the aircraft carriers that way. England wanted to clear off the forex situation by selling it to India - always made me wonder why AC was required?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Dec 2011 09:35

Two weapons from Israel on offer:

MPR 500

and

IFB 500

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Dec 2011 17:51

HF-24 Engine Options This has been dug up and presented in a thread.

Mig-21 engine was considered for HF-24.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Dec 2011 18:19

Defence ministry constitutes panel to look at IAF safety suggestions

The defence ministry has constituted a committee to take stock of follow up actions on suggestions made by the Indian Air Force with regard to improving its flight safety record.

The suggestions are meant for all stakeholders, including Hindustan Aeronautics Limited - from whom the IAF derives its fleet strength.

A spate of accidents in recent months, including the one involving the frontline fighter jet Sukhoi-30 MKI, has brought focus on a number of critical issues ranging from manufacturing to design, training and maintenance of aircraft.

HAL assembles the aircraft under transfer of technology agreements with original manufacturers. After an accident, there is a tendency to indulge in blame game by the manufacturer and users of the aircraft. The IAF has often held that maintenance of older aircraft is one of the biggest problems it has to deal with.

The ageing aircraft have problems of wear and tear and are susceptible to stress cracking and corrosion.

The wide range of aircraft - from the Russian MiGs to French Mirages - operated by the IAF - also adds to the maintenance challenges.

Apart from the IAF which operates these aircraft, HAL and the original equipment manufacturers also play key role in avoiding accidents. Though the IAF has flagged problems with HAL on a number of occasions, very little has been done to rectify the errors. The Sukhoi that crashed recently was assembled by HAL. Preliminary investigation has pointed out failure of the fly by wire system of the aircraft as the possible reason for the crash.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pane ... 65795.html

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 25 Dec 2011 20:45

Shiv had produced a nice visual on a dog fight over KKD based on a description by a BRFite. That vidio has now triggered a response from an air marshal in an air force thread.

It was a lazy morning on 7th September. Late Rusty(AVM Subhash Chandra Rastogy) and I were at the Kalaikunda ATC building. He had the 'ENREP' or 'enemy raid report' to look after while I had the register of IAF raids to maintain. Raghu was the only one among us (91/92-25th NDA) to have flown an offensive mission in that war While Rusty and I were having our morning cups of tea, we heard a strange vibrating/resonating sound from outside the ATC. We rushed out to see 6 Sabres having a field day attacking Kalaikunda airbase. Not one ack-ack gun opened up. They destroyed 4 Vampires and 2 Canberras. The Vamps which were loaded and kept ready for a strike mission were, fortunately facing away from the hangars ,towards the runway. Them burning and all their rockets and gun ammo exploding was a morale depressing sight. All 6 Sabres went away unscathed. When Wg Cdr LaFontaine and his No2, on the patrol from KKD to Calcutta(asit was known then), came screaming overhead, all the ack-ack guns opened up and they had to do a steep puul-up to avoid being hit.

Some time later, another wave of Sabres came for a strike at KKD. They again got 2 Canberras. It was then the dog-fight took place. I am not certain of the authenticity of the You-tube video, because it is highly unlikely any one had their cameras at the ready, especially at the IIT, which is at Kharagpur at some distance from KKD. But the commentary is close to what really happened. The Sabre jettisoned its tanks, but only one went, making his life more difficult. Clarke and Mamgain were the pilots of the Hunters, but only Clarke was involved in the dog-fight. Richard Clarke was a good pilot and he proved it on that day. The video/commentary would have been convincing if the protagonist had mentioned that the PAF pilots body was found with his head missing. It was later found, still in the flying helmet, which I thought was a courageous way for a fighter pilot to go!

Enjoy the response!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Dec 2011 21:20

Abhibhushan wrote:
Some time later, another wave of Sabres came for a strike at KKD. They again got 2 Canberras. It was then the dog-fight took place. I am not certain of the authenticity of the You-tube video, because it is highly unlikely any one had their cameras at the ready, especially at the IIT, which is at Kharagpur at some distance from KKD. But the commentary is close to what really happened. The Sabre jettisoned its tanks, but only one went, making his life more difficult. Clarke and Mamgain were the pilots of the Hunters, but only Clarke was involved in the dog-fight. Richard Clarke was a good pilot and he proved it on that day. The video/commentary would have been convincing if the protagonist had mentioned that the PAF pilots body was found with his head missing. It was later found, still in the flying helmet, which I thought was a courageous way for a fighter pilot to go!
Enjoy the response!

Please tell the Air Marshal that the videos are all fake, but YouTube does allow me to add a comment about the pilot's helmet. I will do that in an appropriate fashion.

Indrajit · Post by **Indrajit** » 25 Dec 2011 21:28

Richard Clarke! what 'bout Al Cooke? but definitely the AVM has aged quite a bit.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Dec 2011 08:12

If India had the money the best option for HF-24 would have been to buy up the E-300 engine rights once the Egyptians lost interest in it in 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandner_E-300

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 26 Dec 2011 10:06

Please tell the Air Marshal that the videos are all fake, but YouTube does allow me to add a comment about the pilot's helmet. I will do that in an appropriate fashion.

Shiv/Abhibhushan,

The 6 + 2 a/c confirms what I heard the next week after the attack.

There was no external fuel tank, of that I am sure.

The head we did not see, but the helmet was there with a bit of skull bone attached to it.

The torso was separate from the legs.

His wallet had slipped out of his pocket and there was, what we assumed, a photo of him, his wife and a child of about 3 years. Did not want to describe the gory part in the narrative I had posted. At that time, and remember we were earlier all hurling the choicest ephithets at him, it was a moment of his life having ended. No longer an earth bound entity. None of us threw up and I assume that the rest were also as cold as ice to the sight that greeted us.

But our feeling was better him than one of ours. In fact, lot of "hims" and none of ours is what we kids wanted!

There were three Hunters. One which landed with his engine flamed out.

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 26 Dec 2011 15:23

ramana wrote:If India had the money the best option for HF-24 would have been to buy up the E-300 engine rights once the Egyptians lost interest in it in 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandner_E-300

ramana sir after reading this and the article posted in BR the "Indian connection" i wonder today we would have been testing AMCA instead of LCA

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Dec 2011 04:51

Bingo. From what I can mae out of it, India had awesome aerodynamicsts, test pilots and Air Force. The only thing lacking was the engine technology.

Imagine our test pilot giving design feedback to Willi Messerschmidt and getting it incorporated! We never heard of such a thing in college.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Dec 2011 05:10

VinayG wrote:
ramana wrote:If India had the money the best option for HF-24 would have been to buy up the E-300 engine rights once the Egyptians lost interest in it in 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandner_E-300
ramana sir after reading this and the article posted in BR the "Indian connection" i wonder today we would have been testing AMCA instead of LCA

India has been under watch since 1955 with which country it collaborate. Other powers have made sure that India does not get into any deep relations for Industrial and tech collab.
This has been a covert plan and the way the NSG, and MTCR regime came in - this is due to carefull monitoering of the Indian capability.