Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[Viv S]

But can't it would be possible for missile Like R-77,Astra,MICA-RF.
They have dual mode guidance, one is for homing where we don't need radar at all and another is mid course update where INS used.
For INS basically we need a computer and Motion sensing devices.Motion senser take the data regarding target and feed it to computer and then it will update Missile accordingly,currently it is done by Radar.But can't it will be possible by IRST because there also IRST can detect Target position and can be processed and feed to AAM.

The IRST can give you target's bearing, but you cannot carry out a BVR launch without a ranging operation, which in the absence of radar will be done by a laser rangefinder. TV guidance may suffice for near WVR ranges.

Problem with this is two-fold.

One, the ranges stated for even the best of IRST systems are far far in excess of what should ideally be expected. Sure it is possible to get your foe facing away from you with an exposed exhaust, at night-time, in perfect weather conditions, within the IRST's relatively narrow field of vision, painted against the cold sky from below, but its not a very likely scenario. IMO 50km would be a very optimistic range, with anything over that simple sales talk. The main use for an IRST would be to improve situational awareness while flying silent, as well as supplementing an on-board or off-board radar feed. Point is, an IRST is no substitude for a fire control radar.

Two, most recent jets (well... the EF and Rafale anyway, probably the J-10B or J-11B too) come equipped with a laser warning system, which not only nullifies the objective of a discrete launch but may also jeopardize the launch aircraft's position.

[Viv S]

BTW does anyone know if the IAF's current or future Su-30MKIs are equipped or scheduled to be upgraded with a laser warning receiver? I know the Su-30MKMs are, so I'm assuming the IAF has at least considered employing it.

[Indranil]

Viv, Tejas and almost all IAF helis have an indigenous laser warning receiver developed by BEL.

[Kartik]

The MiG-29’s good operational record prompted India to sign a deal with Russia in 2005—2006 to upgrade all of its MiG-29s for US$888 million. Under the deal, the Indian MiGs were modified to be capable of deploying the R-77RVV-AE (AA-12 'Adder') air-to-air missile, also known as the Amraamski. The missiles had been successfully tested in October 1998 and were integrated into IAF's MiG-29s. IAF has also awarded the MiG Corporation another US$900 million contract to upgrade all of its 69 operational MiG-29s. These upgrades will include a new avionics fit, with the N-109 radar being replaced by a Phazatron Zhuk-M radar. The aircraft is also being equipped to enhance beyond-visual-range combat ability and for air-to-air refuelling to increase endurance.[31] In 2007, Russia also gave India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) a licence to manufacture 120 RD-33 series 3 turbofan engines for the upgrade.[32] The upgrade will also include a new weapon control system, cockpit ergonomics, air-to-air missiles, high-accuracy air-to-ground missiles and "smart" aerial bombs. The first six MiG-29s will be upgraded in Russia while the remaining 63 MiGs will be upgraded at the HAL facility in India. India also awarded a multi-million dollar contract to Israel Aircraft Industries to provide avionics and subsystems for the upgrade.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

was just going thro' this page. can somebody confirm the bolded part?? if true, the total upgrade cost would come to US$888M+964M+250M no?? besides what about the indian/israeli/french stuff which are part of the upgrade?? who is paying for them?? India pays separately or the russians pay themselves by procuring and integrating them??
how come french are asking for more for the M2K upgrade if the above is true??

one is piecemeal and another is one go upgrade only.

Wikipedia at times is not a good source for information. This is one such case. the $888 million deal is bogus, nothing of that sort ever happened.

[nachiket]

BTW does anyone know if the IAF's current or future Su-30MKIs are equipped or scheduled to be upgraded with a laser warning receiver? I know the Su-30MKMs are, so I'm assuming the IAF has at least considered employing it.

The MKMs also have a MAWS mounted behind the cockpit AFAIK, which the MKIs lack. I'm hoping the MKI gets it with the Super-30 upgrade. It is really a must have for the IAF's premier Air-dominance fighter.

[Kartik]

Looks like India is looking at the V-22 Osprey with quite a bit of interest..

Flight Global article

India has shown interest in the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, although it has not stated a formal requirement for the tiltrotor aircraft.

Boeing confirmed that it was "invited in-country to provide more information" on the V-22, but that it has not received "an official, written [request for information] from India".

In addition, Indian officials visited the V-22 aircraft during the Dubai air show in November 2011, where they asked questions about the aircraft.

The V-22 would be well suited to operations along India's vast Himalayan frontier, where high altitudes and long distances hinder helicopter operations.

At last year's Paris and Dubai air shows, Osprey representatives made much of a mountain rescue mission in June 2010 conducted by two US Air Force CV-22s. The aircraft flew a 1,290km (700nm) round-trip at 15,000ft (4,570m), landed amid mountainous terrain in dust storm conditions, collected 32 personnel and returned to base.

In response to a query about whether the V-22 could be fitted with a radar array for use on Indian aircraft carriers, Boeing said: "While AEW&C [airborne early warning and control] has been identified as a future mission well suited to the Osprey's performance profile and specifications, it is not a mission performed by current customers and it would be premature to speculate on what specific equipment would be utilised for that mission."

In 2010, the Indian navy requested information from Northrop Grumman on the E-2D Hawkeye AEW&C aircraft, which is capable of operating from aircraft carriers using steam catapults. This aircraft may not be suitable for current and planned Indian carriers, which rely on "ski-ramps" to launch aircraft. This restricts them to using airborne early warning helicopters, which are far less capable than their fixed-wing counterparts.

In the meantime, the V-22 Osprey's readiness levels are not that great. We ought to be very careful about purchasing a mega-expensive aircraft that may end up being a hangar-queen.

Osprey reliability improves in Pentagon testing

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The Marine Corps V-22 Osprey’s safety, combat effectiveness and reliability have improved in the past year, according to the Pentagon’s test office.

New aircraft software evaluated in tests from August through early November “performed largely as expected,” the test office found. The improvement gives Osprey pilots greater capability to track, monitor and communicate from their cockpit with U.S. ground forces and to avoid bad weather.

“Software enhancements were modest but provided new piloting options and power margins” during flying operations, “increasing safety and reducing pilot workload,” Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation said in a report released today.

.....

Development Recommendation

“Across the fleet, the V-22 generally meets reliability and maintainability requirements,” Gilmore wrote. Still, the V- 22 in its most recent testing was available only 53 percent of the time it was required, rather than the specification of 82 percent, according to Gilmore.

The Navy should continue “development and testing to improve overall reliability and availability,” he wrote.

....

Each Osprey costs about $65 million in basic “flyaway” assembly costs. A more complete measure is a current-year program unit cost of about $116.2 million apiece that includes past expenditures for research and development, according to program office data.

[kmkraoind]

S.Korean company objects to India's basic trainer bidding process - TOI

KAI said that the Swiss company submitted the lowest bid, so it had the lead over its rivals. It said the KT-1 came in second in terms of the price with the U.S. aircraft coming in third, Yonhap reported in its story.

"One of our employees confirmed that Pilatus did not give the MTOT cost assessment, which is a critical lapse since these planes must be operated for at least 30 years," the company based in Sacheon, 430 kilometers southeast of Seoul, said.

It said such a mistake should disqualify the Swiss company from the bid, and it sent several formal letters pointing this out, although it got no response.

KAI, meanwhile, also pointed out that the PC-7 plane's platform was first developed in the 1970s, while the KT-1 is effectively brand new and has the latest equipment to train military pilots, even though it is a bit more expensive.

The KT-1 started entering service in 2000 and is currently in operation for the air forces of South Korea and Indonesia and is being built in Turkey. There are more than 170 of the planes in use at present.

[sum]

^^Oh, boy, here we go.This will now again stall the trainer deal and we will re-start from scratch.

Our procurement process must be a dream come true for any enemy agency wanting to sabotage new procurements for our country!!

[member_20067]

^^Oh, boy, here we go.This will now again stall the trainer deal and we will re-start from scratch.

Our procurement process must be a dream come true for any enemy agency wanting to sabotage new procurements for our country!!

Shiv Aroor tweeted 8 hours back that deal will be cleared today... by CCS..

[arunsrinivasan]

Any update on the CCS meeting yday - did it happen at all?

[SagarAg]

IAF to run sorties for stranded passengers in Jammu and Kashmir
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 575787.cms

[abhik]

...Two, most recent jets (well... the EF and Rafale anyway, probably the J-10B or J-11B too) come equipped with a laser warning system, which not only nullifies the objective of a discrete launch but may also jeopardize the launch aircraft's position.

I thought that these laser warning systems can only detect illumination by a laser beam riding type of weapon system(where the entire or at least large chunk of the aircraft will be under the laser "flash light") and not a pinpoint laser beam that a range finder (or a Hellfire type missile) would use (or need).

[Badar]

I thought that these laser warning systems can only detect illumination by a laser beam riding type of weapon system(where the entire or at least large chunk of the aircraft will be under the laser "flash light") and not a pinpoint laser beam that a range finder (or a Hellfire type missile) would use (or need).

They can detect ranging lasers.

[Kakkaji]

Any update on the CCS meeting yday - did it happen at all?

Even if the meeting did happen, they would have been occupied with discussions on how to deal with COAS Gen. VKS. They are not going to approve any major procurement deals at this time.

[aharam]

I thought that these laser warning systems can only detect illumination by a laser beam riding type of weapon system(where the entire or at least large chunk of the aircraft will be under the laser "flash light") and not a pinpoint laser beam that a range finder (or a Hellfire type missile) would use (or need).

They can detect ranging lasers.

Are you absolutely sure Badar. I deal with laser range finders and they use a spot beam that is pulsed for a few milliseconds. They should be nearly impossible to detect. A range finders beam is quite different from a radar painting a target. Unless you are in actual LOS of the beam it is invisible. Think red dot of a sniper scope except instead of staying on, the beam sends very short pulses and turns off.

Cheers
Aharam

[aharam]

IAF against Army aviation brigades

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has staunchly opposed the Army’s move to constitute aviation brigades, that will comprise a squadron each of attack helicopters, in its various Army corps, saying the move is a violation of the current government policy dating back to 1986.

Well-placed sources told this newspaper, “A government policy document of 1986 clearly lays down the equipment that each service will have. The Army move to constitute aviation brigades with attack helicopters is neither feasible nor in line with current policy. When the IAF is providing all support in terms of attack helicopters, where is the need for this? Besides, the costs are prohibitive. Where is the money for all this?” Sources further added, “If the Army feels that it wants to go ahead with this plan, it should approach the government (for a change in policy). Otherwise, even some of the paramilitary organisations in future can come up with their own wish lists for attack helicopters and other equipment.” The IAF, however, has supported the Navy’s plans for enhancement of its aviation assets, saying the Navy’s case is “justified since it has off-shore assets to guard”. The IAF’s objections to the Army’s move show that the Army-IAF turf war over aviation assets is far from over. It also shows that amid talk of synergy, the Army and IAF are not on the same page on such an important issue which has strategic implications. It may be recalled that the Indian Army had recently validated the concept of “aviation brigades” in its latest battlefield exercise and now wants attack helicopters of its own to provide aerial support to its tanks and advancing troops in a battle scenario. The Army concept of aviation brigades was validated in the recently-held exercise Sudarshan Shakti. As per the Army’s plans, each aviation brigade in future is to constitute three squadrons of helicopters. One squadron will comprise helicopters used for air-lifting heavy equipment, the second will be used for recce purposes while the third squadron in will perform the most crucial task of providing air support to the advancing battle-tanks.

Army Aviation doctrine all over again . Unfortunately for us, both sides have a valid point. It is a command and control issue over air assets and each side has different priorities.

Cheers
Aharam

[shiv]

They can detect ranging lasers.

Are you absolutely sure Badar. I deal with laser range finders and they use a spot beam that is pulsed for a few milliseconds. They should be nearly impossible to detect. A range finders beam is quite different from a radar painting a target. Unless you are in actual LOS of the beam it is invisible. Think red dot of a sniper scope except instead of staying on, the beam sends very short pulses and turns off.

Cheers
Aharam

I have zero technical knowledge here. Are laser detectors wavelength sensitive? Or can you have something like "eyes" which can detect a broad range of laser wavelengths? If the latter, then it should not be difficult to have a detector "staring" at say a hemisphere or a 60 degree cone that gets triggered the moment it detects something intense. What is the technological difficulty here?

[Prem Kumar]

Shiv: I am speculating here. But unlike a radar which can cover a hemispherical region or greater, laser detectors are different in 2 ways:
a) they are passive
b) they need to detect light coming in a very narrow beam

So, the job is much harder. If a professor shines a laser pointer at a blackboard, the students can see it (because it gets reflected in many directions). But if you are the blackboard, then you can see the laser light being pointed at you only if your eyes are located at the exact spot where the laser light hits. So, unless you have eyes all over your skin or your receiver is so sensitive that it can even detect and classify the weak rays of light that fall in a cone outside the narrow laser beam, it will be very difficult to know that you are being lased

[shiv]

Shiv: I am speculating here. But unlike a radar which can cover a hemispherical region or greater, laser detectors are different in 2 ways:
a) they are passive
b) they need to detect light coming in a very narrow beam

So, the job is much harder. If a professor shines a laser pointer at a blackboard, the students can see it (because it gets reflected in many directions). But if you are the blackboard, then you can see the laser light being pointed at you only if your eyes are located at the exact spot where the laser light hits. So, unless you have eyes all over your skin or your receiver is so sensitive that it can even detect and classify the weak rays of light that fall in a cone outside the narrow laser beam, it will be very difficult to know that you are being lased

I accept this and I may be mistaken in what I say further. But I recall playing with a laser pointer a few years ago. The pointer shines a 2mm spot of light at about 2 meters. Early one morning, before dawn, I shone the pointer at a high rise apt maybe 2 km away and saw a red spot that was almost as big as a window. I did that only for brief moments because I was afraid anyone at the window looking out at that early hour could still be blinded. But the point is that laser too spreads. with distance and that is unavoidable. A pinpoint laser source may actually be producing an aircraft sized patch of light at 20 km making it possible for one of 2 or 3 detectors on the aircraft to pick it up. If you distribute 2 or 3 "eyes" that use a lens/mirror to pick up light from anywhere in an arc of 60-90 degrees and focus it on a detector then even short pulses can cause an alert.

The other question I have is how on earth can a laser detect anything? I mean that for laser to detect anything it has to fall on it first and a pinpoint beam is hardly likely to accidentally fall on an aircraft 25 kn away, or even 6 km away. The aircraft should have been detected by other means and then the laser pointed at it. Is that correct or am I way waaay off?

I can understand how I can use a laser to map any object. I just shine the light over it rapidly at different spots and measure distances to generate an image. But if I shine the light at empty sky, how likely am I to pick up an intruding aircraft?

[bharath_a]

laser detectors have a convex lens which focus received energy onto detector similar to photodiode/IR diode which then processed. most receivers use integrating system which integrate the received intensity over a predefined time. now if the single pulse has enough energy to trip the threshold it will detect else no. when target is lased then the detectors received intensity increases which indicated being targeted.

[shiv]

laser detectors have a convex lens which focus received energy onto detector similar to photodiode/IR diode which then processed. most receivers use integrating system which integrate the received intensity over a predefined time. now if the single pulse has enough energy to trip the threshold it will detect else no. when target is lased then the detectors received intensity increases which indicated being targeted.

Lovely information. The interesting bit here to me is as follows. The "friendly" laser is directed at a hostile target for say a few microseconds. The light loses intensity to such a degree that it does not trip the detector on the hostile aircraft. But after that a small amount of reflected laser goes all the way back to the original, or some other friendly receiver, losing energy all the time. That friendly detector now has to be sensitive enough to pick up that vastly degraded reflected laser. The friendly receiver will know what wavelength to expect and the duration of pulse, but will have no idea when the pulse might arrive because the range is not known.

What this means is that if the "friendly" detector can detect that vastly degraded signal. it should be easy for the hostile aircraft to have a detector to be tripped by the laser which will be far more intense when it hits the hostile aircraft.

Also reflected laser will spread in all directions - so detectors other than the source of laser can detect the light but the intensity of that light will be vastly degraded. That means that the minute a laser lights up any target - any number of detectors all around, friendly or hostile, should be able to sense that there is a laser being used? Is that correct?

[Badar]

They can detect ranging lasers.

Are you absolutely sure Badar. I deal with laser range finders and they use a spot beam that is pulsed for a few milliseconds. They should be nearly impossible to detect. A range finders beam is quite different from a radar painting a target. Unless you are in actual LOS of the beam it is invisible. Think red dot of a sniper scope except instead of staying on, the beam sends very short pulses and turns off.

Cheers
Aharam

Aharam, I have no first hand knowledge of these systems, and will gladly defer to your professional expertise. But LWR have claimed for decades to be able to detect and categories Laser Rangers, not just designators and beam rider illuminations.

See for instance http://articles.janes.com/articles/Jane ... tates.html

[Rahul M]

here's an example of an aircraft mounted LWS. http://www.goodrich.com/gr-ext-templati ... System.pdf
it used on helos.

Goodrich laser warning systems detect rangefinders, target
designators and beam rider laser-aided weapons systems to
trigger evasive actions and save lives.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -avr-2.htm

Consisting of four sensor units and a central interface unit, the system detects, identifies, and characterizes laser-aided weapons 360 degrees around and +/- 45 degrees in elevation about the aircraft. The system also functions as a laser receiver for MILES/AGES training operations.

usually 2 or more sensors are spread throughout the fuselage which between them cover a large part of the sectors.

[Rahul M]

aharam ji, laser does spread, less so than ordinary light but at distance it is considerably more than a pencil beam.

[Badar]

The other question I have is how on earth can a laser detect anything? I mean that for laser to detect anything it has to fall on it first and a pinpoint beam is hardly likely to accidentally fall on an aircraft 25 kn away, or even 6 km away. The aircraft should have been detected by other means and then the laser pointed at it. Is that correct or am I way waaay off?

shiv, as you have guessed the laser ranger has to be cued by some other detection system (typically the IROST). Depending on the IROST's angular discrimination the laser ranger could use a single pulse to range the target or a series of pulses in a pattern until the laser impacts the target and a solid return is received.

LADAR or LIDAR are lasers systems that "search" for their own target and not just range it, i.e. operate in a manner just like a radar. They are typically very short ranged compared to radars, and find specialist use in some missile seekers which desire extremely specific aimpoints. We might get some Ladars if we ever purchase the MH-60S knighthawks for MCM.

What this means is that if the "friendly" detector can detect that vastly degraded signal. it should be easy for the hostile aircraft to have a detector to be tripped by the laser which will be far more intense when it hits the hostile aircraft.

You are correct again. Your comment prompts another question - does airframe shaping which helps in reflecting incident radar energy away from the radiator also impact laser location methods? It should in theory but does it do so in practice?

It is a command and control issue over air assets and each side has different priorities.

aharam, indeed. Specifically, its a matter of air control and deconfliction, viz how to ensure that air tasking orders are generated by the IA but IAF remains in general control of air-operations.

The first hurdle is service parochialism. The IAF will never dedicate funds in sufficient quantity to satisfy the IA CAS/battlefield utility/casevac/recon/overwatch needs, prompting the IA to raise its own units to satisfy these needs. Nor will the IAF allow the IA to field significant number of fixed wing and rotary assets, which will be seen by the IAF as dilution of its core mission. While I empathize with the IAF, the aviation brigade accords the IA such a major jump in capability that for better or for worse the Aviation Bde's will come, however much they are resisted.

The second is a real technical problem. It is currently not easy for the army to execute air missions near or past the FEBA without a significant risk of blue-on-blue interdiction by the air force. This is a real problem and I can certainly see the IAF reticent about a large number of IA frontal aviation assets operating back and forth over the frontlines. (How would the IA feel is IAF deployed small mobile mechanized formations, which darted to and fro across the FEBA without its oversight or jurisdiction?)

The army will increasingly bypass this IAF resistance by fielding larger and larger number of UAV and UCAV that fly under the IAF's prohibitory radar, which leads anyway to the second technical problem. A solution will need to be found and it will be as applicable for UAVs as it will for rotarcraft and STOL fixed wing assets. And the solution is almost within reach, with the new digitized and centralized AFNet which feeds data to the new IAF's new integrated C4I systems. This system already allows for input from the navy. Why could not the IA also plug in the air control squadrons of the Aviation Bde into this net to allow for IAF oversight over the IA aviation element? IA could generate sorties as it needs within pre-agreed zones across the FEBA , while the IAF will be fully in the loop about IA air activities?

I don't see a technically insurmountable problem, only institutional ones. Some defense minister/defense secretary needs to crack some skulls and make this happen.

[NRao]

.......................

I don't see a technically insurmountable problem, only institutional ones. Some defense minister/defense secretary needs to crack some skulls and make this happen.

(Meaningful post.)

This issue should be solved, to a very, very great extent, by a good network-centric solution, wherein the pertinent information is transmitted to the right entity. In real-time (audio, video, etc) (bandwidth is not an issue).

[Austin]

Samtel poised to take off with air force fighter fleet

I wonder by which logic does Ajai see the picture on left as old MKI cockpit ?

[George J]

You kids were supposed to have answers to MAWS (and desi DataLink) by AI 2009 and definitely by AI 2011. Jingos are great at bashing babus/netas but not with following up on real jingo stuff.

What happened to the AN/AAR-60 for rotary and wide body transport that DARE was developing with EADS (reported by Frontier India News Network back in 2008? Where is the follow on fighter MAWS?

The system is based on the proven MILDS Missile Launch Detection System provided by Defence Electronics, an integrated Business Unit of EADS Defence & Security. During the flight trials onboard an Indian Air Force test platform (AVRO 748) which were supported by Alpha Technologies, Bangalore and EADS Defence Security, the system with six sensors fulfilled all the requirements in terms of detection probability, accuracy, false alarms and reliability.

Due to this success, the missile warning system has been accepted as “indigenious equipment” by the Indian authorities. It is planned to equip several hundred rotary wing and wide body aircraft of various types. After initial production in cooperation of Defence Electronics and Alpha Technologies which already has been started, the transition to series production at the Alpha site in Bangalore is foreseen in the near future.

Laser range finders are DETECTABLE by most LWS. It's just a google search away. Jeez we have been at this long before there was a Facebook and Twitter and you kids still don't know how to google?

All of BAE Systems’ LWS solutions detect and report laser-guided and aided threats well outside of their lethal range. These threats include laser range finders and designators in all of the company’s solutions, and laser beam rider missile systems in its more advanced systems.

I am getting too old for this..............

[shiv]

I am getting too old for this..............

Rubbish. At 290 odd posts you are a newbie and will remain that way for a long time to come. Wisdom comes only from post count.

[Viv S]

The second is a real technical problem. It is currently not easy for the army to execute air missions near or past the FEBA without a significant risk of blue-on-blue interdiction by the air force. This is a real problem and I can certainly see the IAF reticent about a large number of IA frontal aviation assets operating back and forth over the frontlines. (How would the IA feel is IAF deployed small mobile mechanized formations, which darted to and fro across the FEBA without its oversight or jurisdiction?)

The possibility of blue-on-blue is certainly a valid concern. Every aviation asset should ideally be hooked into the AFNET and monitored by the IAF brass in real time. Also there's fair bit of overlap with other CAS aircraft in the IAF's inventory.

But that works the other way round too. While its true that army aviation units may end up being engaged by the IAF, the IAF's CAS assets too may come under fire from the Army's mobile units and vice-versa. The NATO and US military address that by having an outstanding C4I network, and by assigning all theatre assets to a centralized joint command structure staffed and headed by individuals from all services.

Overall since most attack helicopters may end up flying from forward/temporary bases, its logistically simpler for them to be operated solely by the army. The IAF's contention that the army lack 'air-mindedness' is certainly nonsensical.

[bmallick]

Its really quite strange that the IAF is crying out loud when the IA is asking for its own Attack Helicopter & Tactical Transport helicopters. The IAF is complaining that the IA lacks "air-mindedness". Wonder why they did not think that they lacked "land-mindedness" when the started their own special force Garud. Also with IA having loads of Special Forces of its own, teams from the said IA assets could have been assigned to the IAF, for the special operations/roles that IAF needed during war. If IAF felt a need for a dedicated force of its own, for its special needs, in siilar vein, it should appreciate the IA's special needs rather than whine about it. You cannot have your cake and it it too.

[Badar]

The possibility of blue-on-blue is certainly a valid concern. Every aviation asset should ideally be hooked into the AFNET and monitored by the IAF brass in real time. Also there's fair bit of overlap with other CAS aircraft in the IAF's inventory.

But that works the other way round too. While its true that army aviation units may end up being engaged by the IAF, the IAF's CAS assets too may come under fire from the Army's mobile units and vice-versa. The NATO and US military address that by having an outstanding C4I network, and by assigning all theatre assets to a centralized joint command structure staffed and headed by individuals from all services.

Overall since most attack helicopters may end up flying from forward/temporary bases, its logistically simpler for them to be operated solely by the army. The IAF's contention that the army lack 'air-mindedness' is certainly nonsensical.

Vis S, NRao and you have mentioned, part of the key lies in integrated C4I systems.

Viv, The IA AAA vs IAF a/c issue can be solved "relatively easily" with IFF's, though an integrated net remains the ideal solution. Since the IA AAA has the limited objective of self defense it can afford to wait for a threat to develop, ID it and engage if necessary. The IAF on the other hand aims to have a complete picture of every thing in the air, a situation of "parinda par nahi maar sakta" (bird can't flutter a wing without IAF knowing of it). What works satisfactorily to IA's needs (IFF) wont according to IAF's.

What the US has achieved has a lot more to do with reformation of its services than just technical integration. There has been a steady and sustained trend in US forces where the services have their interminable bickering and squabbling for funds/fiefdoms while in parade uniforms, but they 'magically' operate as a single "joint service" while in camo. That they have managed to do this fairly well while also retaining the flavor, color and ethos of individual servicse is what I find more impressive than just the C4I technowizbangary.

Mountains of stuff from Cisco won't solve the fundamental problem of IA/IAF disengagement. Interestingly the IAF finds it easier to accommodate the IN (perhaps bonding of two red-headed step children?)

[Kailash]

Plan panel to allocate Rs 5K crore to develop civilian plane

[Rahul M]

Samtel poised to take off with air force fighter fleet

I wonder by which logic does Ajai see the picture on left as old MKI cockpit ?

looks like a mig-15 or mig-17 cockpit. no radar display AFA I can see.

[Austin]

Samtel poised to take off with air force fighter fleet

I wonder by which logic does Ajai see the picture on left as old MKI cockpit ?

looks like a mig-15 or mig-17 cockpit. no radar display AFA I can see.

Thats the old MKI cockpit FYI.....

[nachiket]

Samtel poised to take off with air force fighter fleet

I wonder by which logic does Ajai see the picture on left as old MKI cockpit ?

looks like a mig-15 or mig-17 cockpit. no radar display AFA I can see.

Forget the display, the canopy frame itself is all wrong. No flanker has a view like that from the front AFAIK.

EDIT: Big LOL! Shukla ji has taken the pic from the game Lock On: Modern Air Combat. Lookee here: http://www.avsim.com/pages/0803/lomac_p ... lomac.html

Scroll down a bit for the pic. Don't know which aircraft it is though.

[Rahul M]

stop pulling my leg Austin !

nachiket, it's the frame that tells you it's an aircraft of the mig-15 generation.

edit : going through a few images I think the mig-19 is the best bet. next best mig-23.

[K_Rohit]

stop pulling my leg Austin !

nachiket, it's the frame that tells you it's an aircraft of the mig-15 generation.

edit : going through a few images I think the mig-19 is the best bet. next best mig-23.

Rahul- sure this is not the old SU 30 MKI (REAR SEAT)?

[Purush]

^ Maybe Su-25, guessing from the triangular central/front section of the canopy?

[Singha]

pix on web confirm its a frogfoot.