Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2012 14:21

nobody has publicly demoed yet a UCAV taking on a manned AC in ACM which is what a air defence unmanned Tejas as you suggested would need to go.
UCAVs are so far focussed on strikes (mostly on static known targets) and intel gathering. when UCAVs take on strikes on moving tactical targets without ground operator input, it will be next step towards taking on air defence role and engaging in ACM.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 07 Feb 2012 14:40

I felt all our strategic projects had three fronts

1.Buy and make locally
2.Collaborate and make specific changes to our needs
3.Build and make locally.

All these three would go hand in hand so that we would not lack any tech any time.I beleive our force haven't come to a matured force where a doctrine would drive the hardware to that

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 07 Feb 2012 14:41

Nihat wrote:I was implying that since LCA was intended as a light easily deploy-able front line fighter taking on the interceptor role from Mig-21 and providing limited CAS capability, it is naturally the first line of defense against the enemy's strike aircraft and so the IAF was not wrong to expect more and more from this aircraft as the strike capabilities of the PAF and PLAAAF advanced. It's basically nobody's fault if the LCA program has not exactly turned out as planned. It faced amazing obstacles from the beginning ad we've done well to get this far.

OK I see what you are getting at. I would agree with you. I would go so far as to say that the LCA program can be deemed a half success even if zero operational Tejas manage to reach the services, as long as we keep development alive with a realistic follow on program. LCA had a two part goal - boot strap local aviation industry as much as field fighters. In the larger interests LCA must be inducted in some numbers to get full service feedback to ADA/HAL. We showed patience and inducted low capability liquid fueled Prithvi, and are now seeing excellent Prahaars/Shauryas. If necessary IAF can supplement the light force with Gripens, but LCA must be inducted by the IAF. There is a weaker case to be made for IN service for the Teja.

From what I can see, the LCA is not the first line of defense but the penultimate - just before the SAM/AAA layer. The Rafale pounding the airbases, MKI seeking air control, Fulcrums providing forward barrier will be supplemented by cheap and plentiful LCAs.

Second, As long as LCA can climb, dash, use their BVR missiles at a good range, be cheap to own and operate it is fine. The LCA will be supported by the brand new air defense surveillance network we are building from the ground up which will cover up most of the LCA deficiencies.

But it definitely has application as an UN-manned bird , the Kaveri would be sufficient for such a task and we could freely deploy Tejas along even ALG's turned airbases without having to worry about a whole lot of factors otherwise involved with a manned combat aircraft.

I don't know if I agree with that. Use subsystems from LCA sure - but better off to start with a clean slate for a very different aircraft rather than shoehorn the LCA into a UCAV. Asking for an UCAV is something we shouldn't do - we need a less ambitious product industry can deliver, not another super futuristic product again that might or might not work.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 07 Feb 2012 14:45

nobody has publicly demoed yet a UCAV taking on a manned AC in ACM which is what a air defence unmanned Tejas as you suggested would need to go.
UCAVs are so far focussed on strikes (mostly on static known targets) and intel gathering. when UCAVs take on strikes on moving tactical targets without ground operator input, it will be next step towards taking on air defence role and engaging in ACM.

that will be the judgement day - when skynet takes over humanity.

Needless to say, the concept of minimizing pilot casuality (by using UCAVs) is only "tolerated" because there still is job security and control in exercising that option. When we talk about thinking-UAVs deciding for themselves, they will turn into a hazard, competition and hence the whole idea is a non-starter.

But we can still do plenty of experiments with an unmanned LCA. Control systems and communication in high clutter environments could be tested out. Whatever critical upgrades are planned for the manned version could be initially tested in the unmanned variant. Infact, the whole idea of having a manned and unmanned variant could be extended to every aircraft we produce - but control and decision making should still be with the ground operator or pilot.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 07 Feb 2012 14:49

Singha wrote:nobody has publicly demoed yet a UCAV taking on a manned AC in ACM which is what a air defence unmanned Tejas as you suggested would need to go.
UCAVs are so far focussed on strikes (mostly on static known targets) and intel gathering. when UCAVs take on strikes on moving tactical targets without ground operator input, it will be next step towards taking on air defence role and engaging in ACM.

Hell I would go one further step. No body has demo'ed a UCAV that can operate in medium threat environment (and if they did they are not telling

)

Control systems and communication in high clutter environments could be tested out. Whatever critical upgrades are planned for the manned version could be initially tested in the unmanned variant.

Don't know about the control systems bit, but everything else can be tested cheaper, faster and with less risk on an Do-228 or an An-32. Having a UAV version merely to test will help neither costs nor development timeframe.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2012 21:29

we already test control systems and video links everyday in the 100+ UAVs in the inventory. if the issue is autonomous extreme deep invader type UCAV it will have to be unleashed and let go rather than a kid with a gaming console trying to do ACM from a bunker somewhere....unleash the hound and let it bite where it may.

probably the easiest use in that scenario is a VVLO high flying ucav that passively feeds on sweeps from manned awacs platforms, slides closer without detection and then unleashes meteor type AAMs from its perch before cloaking again...all the strike oriented ucavs being developed could do it with right kit.

some sort of high level AI would be needed if UCAVs are expected to mix it up and do WVR combat with manned planes.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 07 Feb 2012 21:46

Singha, Predator/Avenger type toys are good for LRMP and peacetime SLAR work etc. In a hot shooting war - I don't know how survivable they will prove to be. The current technology level UAV, specially the smaller cheaper versions for use by battalions, brigades and divisions will probably flourish. But UAV/UCAV suitable for demanding AF use will quickly grow in cost, weight and complexity which will begin to rival manned systems. For people (you know who they are) who fight wars of choice and are uber sensitive to casualties they will be worth the admission price. For serious players facing serious foes the options are less well defined.

Also we are likely to see semi/full autonomous strike systems (the US X-plane types) before we see ones that can do ACM. I think that is an easier nut to crack. (edit: Just noticed you said the same thing in the top post on the page).

And VVLO is the hard part in the "VVLO UCAV". Certainly DRDO doesn't inspire confidence in its ability to build a VVLO airframe does it?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Feb 2012 22:04

I think we are going OT here. Even 200 UCAVs will be no use fighting a force of 200,000 guerillas. The more you try and save your own lives in while killing more of the other guy, the other guy will respond by accepting more losses and still fighting till your money and will power runs out.

The future will have asymmetric warfare toppling technology as Afghanistan has shown, and as Vietnam did. By all means have tech but don't go apeshit. Manned flight ain't going away soon, and by the time we get to the future we will have to look for some fuel other than the current mineral oils.

JMT

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2012 22:05

they can always copy what the big boys are doing - a deeply shrouded single inlet where the cockpit was...a flattened tail exhaust area, hidden from ground sensors , a flying wing shape with a blended wing body for internal bay....we have composite tech grafted from tejas proj.

all of the khan x-planes, neuron, mikoyan skat proposal, bae taranis etc are following that basic template

a basic strike oriented ucav is certainly doable with current level of tech...it would navigate via glonass waypoints to a target, released glonass guided desi JDAMs and then fly home. using internal RWR etc could do some tricks like choosing alternate least threat routes or accept midcourse updates about threats that suddenly went active ...

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 07 Feb 2012 22:45

Singha wrote:they can always copy what the big boys are doing - a deeply shrouded single inlet where the cockpit was...a flattened tail exhaust area, hidden from ground sensors , a flying wing shape with a blended wing body for internal bay....we have composite tech grafted from tejas proj.
all of the khan x-planes, neuron, mikoyan skat proposal, bae taranis etc are following that basic template

LCA too followed a fairly classic basic template for an fighter aircraft.

Let's see what DRDO makes of the Rustum before we can work up expectations of the AURA.

a basic strike oriented ucav is certainly doable with current level of tech...it would navigate via glonass waypoints to a target, released glonass guided desi JDAMs and then fly home. using internal RWR etc could do some tricks like choosing alternate least threat routes or accept midcourse updates about threats that suddenly went active ...

Now one has to compare the cost/benefit of the above system wrt a simpler ground or air launched single use stealthy cruise missile using way-points plus rudimentary autonomous navigation to minimize profile/detection. Maybe the UCAV program will work out cheaper, perhaps the missile one will. I am only saying that UCAV need not necessarily be a happy mean between smart missiles and smarter manned aircraft. It still remains to be proven.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 07 Feb 2012 22:51

A well written article!

Where is India’s light fighter?

http://www.ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/ ... ghter.html

The Rafale does not meet India's requirement for a light fighter. It is time to commit the money, manpower and planning resources needed for making the Tejas (pictured here) a success

by Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 7th Feb 12

Kudos to the government for selecting a fighter aircraft for a depleted Indian Air Force, which currently fields barely 34 fighter squadrons (21 aircraft per squadron) against an assessed requirement of 45. While zeroing in on the French Rafale, New Delhi has said “no thanks” to arms supply heavyweights whose political and technological clout often bludgeons procurement decisions in their favour. This was helped, admittedly, by India’s ability to soothe the losers with alternative largesse --- Washington with contracts for transport and maritime aircraft; Moscow with deals for helicopters, fighters and warships; London with trainer jets; and Stockholm with the hope of mammoth deals for artillery guns and conventional submarines. But that should not detract from the IAF’s credit for running a fair, transparent and relatively quick contest in which, for the first time in India, a detailed “life cycle” evaluation looked beyond the fighter’s ticker price at the cost of operating it through a service life of four decades.

The difficulty in conducting such an exercise is illustrated in Brazil, where competing pulls and pressures have stymied a simpler decision between the Boeing F/A-18, the Rafale and the Gripen NG fighters.

India’s decision stemmed from Defence Minister AK Antony’s insistence on letting the IAF determine which aircraft best met its needs. But, sadly, this unwise reliance on the views of fighter pilots alone has twisted the rationale for buying a fighter. Instead of the cheap, single-engine, light fighter that the IAF set out to buy in the 1990s to replace India’s ageing MiG-21 fleet, the IAF will have 126 heavy, twin-engine and enormously expensive Rafales.

These 6 squadrons of Rafales could go up to 9 squadrons through a follow-on order, say IAF planners. Add to those 12 squadrons of Sukhoi-30MKI, and another 12 squadrons of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) that India is co-developing with Russia, and the IAF will field 33 squadrons of heavy, high-performance fighters by 2022, i.e. 75% of its 45-squadron fighter fleet. This might gladden the heart of a young fighter pilot, just as a fleet of Ferraris would gladden the heart of a college-going youngster, even if his commute were two kilometres through crowded traffic. But it is worrisome to a defence planner who seeks a balanced force for performing a multitude of tasks economically.

Light fighters are affordable, and cheaper to buy and to fly. Being smaller, they are inherently more stealthy, or less observable on enemy radars. A top-class light fighter is one-third the cost of a Rafale. Even though the Rafale is a powerful, high-quality brute of a combat machine, it will almost always lose in a contest with three modern light fighters. “Quality is fine,” said Stalin, always the pragmatist; “But quantity has a quality of its own.”

That is why the USAF and the Israeli air forces have large fleets of single-engine F-16 fighters. That is also the logic for India’s MiG-21 fleet and for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) that will replace it. In the late 1990s, whilst justifying the procurement of fighters from abroad, the IAF cited delays in the Tejas programme and suggested that the Mirage-2000 production line be bought from Dassault, and the single-engine fighter be built in India. But when the MoD, still smarting from the Tehelka exposes, insisted on a multi-vendor global tender, the IAF reframed its requirements. The term became MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) and the specifications favoured a twin-engine, heavy fighter. Astonishingly nobody in the MoD seemed to notice the turnabout or object to the contradiction.

Today, India’s light fighter hangars are emptying fast with replacements lagging. By 2013-14, seven squadrons of Mig-21s must retire; another six squadrons will be phased out by 2017, as will four squadrons of MiG-27s. It is vital, therefore, to drive home the indigenous Tejas programme, committing the money, resources and organisational effort needed for developing and manufacturing at least 10-12 squadrons of progressively improved Tejas light fighters.

Compared to the estimated Rs 75,000 crore for just 126 Rafale, the Tejas’s budget has been a pittance. Since 1983, Rs 9,690 crore has gone into aerospace infrastructure --- R&D laboratories, defence factories, private industry, academic institutions, and a world-class test facility, the National Flight Testing Centre (NFTC) --- and into building and flight-testing some twenty Tejas prototypes. Rs 4,353 crore more are earmarked for the Tejas Mark II. Boosted allocations must now expand R&D facilities and up-skill the manpower that drives the Tejas programme.

Simultaneously, a world-class Tejas assembly facility must be built, incorporating the manufacturing practices and quality control measures that characterise aircraft production worldwide. Currently Tejas manufacture is the responsibility of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which has been without a CEO since Ashok Nayak retired last October. With HAL’s focus on ongoing production lines like the Sukhoi-30MKI, Tejas assembly is hardly a priority. Nor is there emphasis on reducing manufacturing cost, which is currently too high at Rs 180-200 crore ($36-40 million) per Tejas Mark I. That must be brought down to Rs 125-150 crore ($25-30 million) to make the LCA a compelling buy on the international market. Export orders would allow scale manufacturing, driving down prices further.

Paying Rs 75,000 crore for the Rafale will indeed boost national defence. But a far smaller expenditure on the Indian aerospace establishment, and the squeezing of key technologies from Dassault and Thales during contract negotiations, will ensure that the Rafale is the last fighter that India buys abroad.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 07 Feb 2012 22:57

Russian Fighter Aircrafts - Weapon loadout & important systems [Graphic Illustration] - UPDATED [2012.02.07]

the IAF-related illustration: System layout: MiG-29 & MiG-29UB

click on the pic for the full-sized version

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is India’s light fighter?

http://www.ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/ ... ghter.html

The good Colonel wanted India to buy the F-35s as MMRCA. Suddenly now he finds the current purchase too expensive, with no consideration given for the ToTs & its potential benefits in indigenous programs, not to mention the geo-political relation such a deal with the French can bring about. Intellectually dishonest

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Feb 2012 02:54

Badar wrote: That's why aircraft (and ship/tank) designs have weight growth margins factored in them right from the start. The fact they weren't in the LCA case is not an excuse. You might blame the IAF or ADA, but the net result is such rank amateurism that I have a hard time believing it.

Weight growth margins ?! Airplanes today aren't built with weight growth margins, the aim is to keep those margins of safety as close to zero as possible, since the 1.5 safety factor accounts for the additional loads that you might have not covered in your loads analysis. What you're telling me is that the designers deliberately build a heavier than needed fighter at the beginning in the hopes that it somehow compensates for increased payloads carried in the future- which is not the case, not today at least.

That was apparently true back in the 1960s, 1970s when they didn't have sophisticated computer models to predict loads, and had to do by hand. Stress analysts at times guessed how much the loads were on the basis of much simpler mathematical models. Apparently the F-15 was designed in that fashion with an additional 25% margin applied, especially to cater for fatigue which was notoriously difficult to calculate. That is the reason that the F-15s (which BTW were designed to 7.66Gs and not 9Gs as today's fighters are) are actually so robust and able to go on way past the manufacturer's original service life of 8000 hours. Conversely, the F-15 is notorious as being one of the most difficult to manufacture and assemble fighters today in the US, a far cry from the Shornet for example.

As a layman could I summarize it as "Stations near the wing tip are very sensitive to weight as they put a bigger strain on the whole wing, specially during hi-g maneuvers"?

The farther away from the wing root that you go and apply loads at, the worse the bending moment at the wing root becomes. Which will necessitate at the very least, a re-analysis along with a relook at the loads that were used to design the wing attachment bolts and fittings, as well as the wing spars, ribs and stringers. (and if you find that its within the margins then you're golden) or in the worse case, a re-design of those parts.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Feb 2012 03:13

Suddenly now he finds the current purchase too expensive, with no consideration given for the ToTs & its potential benefits in indigenous programs, not to mention the geo-political relation such a deal with the French can bring about. Intellectually dishonest

no he is just saying compared to MMRCA we are spending much less on LCA and lets spend more on it especially when we need to fill a yawning gap and build up local infra.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 08 Feb 2012 03:15

Israel Aerospace Industries secures $150m. foreign deal

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) scored another large defense contract on Tuesday to supply radar systems to a foreign customer for $150 million.

The deal comes just a month after IAI announced that it had signed a $1.1 billion deal with an unnamed Asian country which will include the sale of aircraft, missiles and intelligence systems. It is the company’s most lucrative deal since the Indian navy bought an aerial defense system for $1.1 billion in 2009.

Due to some countries’ sensitivity for doing business with Israel, both customers have asked that their names not be disclosed.

Under the deal announced Tuesday, IAI will provide fire control radars to be installed on the foreign customer's fighter aircraft.

Using advanced technology, the ELM 2032 radar enhances surveillance and fire control capabilities in air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea operations. It can detect and track targets while employing advanced techniques to lock on to them.

What are the chances, the country that does not want be named is India!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Feb 2012 05:08

Not really. That article names Indian Navy.

Most likely its Malaysia.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Feb 2012 05:11

malaysia is quite unlikely. my guess would be taiwan, they have a lot of fighters lying around waiting to be upgraded but no wants to irk the lizard. with US creating its own string of pearls for china, a go ahead from US to israel seems quite possible.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 08 Feb 2012 05:32

Indian Air Force's biggest ever wargame deferred
Economic Times

The IAF was planning to deploy all its frontline aircraft, including the Su-30MKI, Jaguar, Mirage 2000 and the AWACs, at the exercise earlier planned be held between March 24 and April 15. "The exercise was deferred after we realised that we needed to integrate our new assets with the existing sensors and systems," IAF officials said here, adding new dates and schedule for holding the exercise has not been decided yet. As per IAF's plans, the exercise would have involved the assets of IAF's main operational formations including the Delhi-based Western Command and Gandhinagar-based South Western Command

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 08 Feb 2012 05:35

India has been fairly open as far as dealings with Israel are concerned and LUSH and LCA already use 2032 (LCA is a hybrid). Mig29, M2000 already have their upg programs. I don't think Mig21, 27 will get any more updates. That leaves Jag (DARIN III maybe ?).

How much could a 2032 cost? That should give some idea on number of radars on order.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2012 05:41

shukla wrote:Indian Air Force's biggest ever wargame deferred
Economic Times

The IAF was planning to deploy all its frontline aircraft, including the Su-30MKI, Jaguar, Mirage 2000 and the AWACs, at the exercise earlier planned be held between March 24 and April 15. "The exercise was deferred after we realised that we needed to integrate our new assets with the existing sensors and systems," IAF officials said here, adding new dates and schedule for holding the exercise has not been decided yet. As per IAF's plans, the exercise would have involved the assets of IAF's main operational formations including the Delhi-based Western Command and Gandhinagar-based South Western Command

^^ Did IAF realized during the preparation for exercise that it needs to integrate the new assets i.e. they were unaware of the fact that they need to integrate all the assets or it was due and they were doing it

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 08 Feb 2012 06:24

The exercise was deferred after we realised that we needed to integrate our new assets with the existing sensors and systems [to take full advantage of our biggest ever wargame. We could have conducted the exercise without the newer assets as well but it wouldn't be as kick-ass.]

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 08 Feb 2012 06:41

X-post

India to share its $10 bn fighter selection experience with Brazil
TOI

In an unusual bilateral tie-up, India has agreed to share with Brazil some of its experiences of carrying out an open tender evaluation to select a fighter for the over $10 billion MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) contract. Brazil is presently in the process of selecting a fighter for its air force. India conveyed its willingness to share some of its documentation on the MMRCA contract during a meeting between defence minister AK Antony and his Brazilian counterpart Celso Amorim. "Brazil is in the process of buying a fighter jet. You have already reached the final stages of the fighter selection for the air force. They have promised to give us some documents on the selection process, such as basic rules on the tender process that we could compare to ours," Amorim told TOI.

Amorim met Antony and national security advisor Shiv Shankar Menon on Monday in New Delhi, and the two sides held bilateral defence consultations at various levels. Amorim said Brazil was eager to learn from India's process of finalizing Rafale, the French fighter, for the over $10 billion MMRCA contract. It is one of the world's biggest defence tenders right now. Brazil is looking to buy 36 new fighters for its air force. The tender had left it open to the possibility of the number of fighters going up to 120. The tender could run into several billion dollars, though the initial estimate was just $2.2 billion. Brazil has already made a pre-selection of three fighters - Rafale, F-18 and Gripen-NG and one will finally be selected. "Wherever there is a possibility we should always look for sharing of experience, of course while respecting confidentiality," Amorim said. "Sharing of experience doesn't mean we follow your decision," he added. The minister also said they would be looking at discussing Indian experience of building a fifth generation fighter with Russia. Brazil is also providing India an exclusively developed catalogue of NATO military equipment, in which India was interested, he said.

aharam · Post by **aharam** » 08 Feb 2012 06:52

Nihat wrote:
Badar wrote: Let's take this to the logical conclusion. The MiG-29 also cannot hold its own against the J-20. Neither can the Mirage 2000. Obviously Su-30 is too old. Rafale also half a generation behind. So can we just buy 800 FGFA and be done with it?

You got me wrong there Badar. Of course I don't advocate packing IAF with FGFA's but the point was in a whole other context.

I was implying that since LCA was intended as a light easily deploy-able front line fighter taking on the interceptor role from Mig-21 and providing limited CAS capability, it is naturally the first line of defense against the enemy's strike aircraft and so the IAF was not wrong to expect more and more from this aircraft as the strike capabilities of the PAF and PLAAAF advanced. It's basically nobody's fault if the LCA program has not exactly turned out as planned. It faced amazing obstacles from the beginning ad we've done well to get this far.

But it definitely has application as an UN-manned bird , the Kaveri would be sufficient for such a task and we could freely deploy Tejas along even ALG's turned airbases without having to worry about a whole lot of factors otherwise involved with a manned combat aircraft.

Hi Nihat,
I strongly disagree that that an LCA that can't handle all A2A threats is useless. The whole point of having multiple classes of aircraft is to develop a pyramid of capabilities. In an airspace that has a lot of flanker class aircraft, sending in an LCA would be tantamount to suicide. And this statement is true for any light class aircraft such as a Gripen or an F-16. A heavy has a lot more in terms of hard points and a considerable advantage in fuel. These are not advantages you can easily overcome with a light class fighter. Does that mean that a light class aircraft is useless. No - they form the heavy base of the pyramid. Let your dedicated A2A aircraft deal with their heavies - this means pit the MKI and the Rafale against the enemy flanker force. And then use the numbers that you have in your lights to go after their light aircraft. There you have a distinct advantage. The LCA is many generations ahead of the enemy MiG-21 clones. This model of threat negation is not just true for the air force. It comes from cavalry 3000 years ago. Just because heavy cavalry can handle almost any threat does not mean you build an entire army of just heavy cavalry.

Your second point that the LCA feature set should match multiple classes of enemy aircraft simply because their capabilities are growing is fundamentally flawed. This is exactly what causes light aircraft to get heavier, gain another engine, become porky and become another medium aircraft that was never designed to be one, but became one from feature accretion. A light aircraft does not have to be everything to everyone, with A2G capabilities matching a heavy. It will never be that. A light aircraft should fundamentally be a point defense or A2A bird - everything else should be dedicated aircraft not jack of all trade multi-role birds. Anything more is mission creep. For a great example see the original F-86, or F-16 Block A for canonical examples of what a light aircraft out be capable of doing and the numbers you need them in.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers
aharam

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2012 07:19

PratikDas wrote:The exercise was deferred after we realised that we needed to integrate our new assets with the existing sensors and systems [to take full advantage of our biggest ever wargame. We could have conducted the exercise without the newer assets as well but it wouldn't be as kick-ass.]

Yar!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2012 07:26

SagarAg wrote: ^^ Did IAF realized during the preparation for exercise that it needs to integrate the new assets i.e. they were unaware of the fact that they need to integrate all the assets or it was due and they were doing it

The news item sounds like that was the case

More likely I think the date of the exercise was decided well in advance, but as the date got closer the IAF probably found units not totally ready for the exercise. Could be unspecified delays in fitting equipment and training. Hence the announcement.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2012 07:35

If you look at history, people have continuously came up with aircraft that are supposed to be able to shoot the competition out of the sky, but because they really can't test it against all opposing types, the equipment does not work as anticipated. It may be better or worse. The F-86 Sabre was the best thing since Apple pie but got shot up by the humble Gnat.

So an aircraft can be designed to have certain desirable characteristics that will make it work well under most conditions within a specific range. The aircraft may well turn out to be the best aircraft within those parameters.

So how do I judge whether an aircraft is good or not? Discovery channel/History channel says one thing and pilots say another thing. I have generally chosen pilots views over Discovery. But maybe I am biased ..

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Feb 2012 07:44

ramana wrote:Not really. That article names Indian Navy.

Most likely its Malaysia.

Might actually be Singapore. iirc, they had some Israeli inputs in one of their a/c. Btw, the only one to scream/whine about Israel sourcing other countries is the US, so I can see why they'd want to keep it hush hush if the RSAF is trying to get some Israeli h/w on their birds.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 08 Feb 2012 11:11

What you're telling me is that the designers deliberately build a heavier than needed fighter at the beginning in the hopes that it somehow compensates for increased payloads carried in the future

Yes I am. With aircraft service lives approaching 50 years keeping healthy payload margins is sound flexible design. And yes munitions are growing smaller as well as larger and heavier. See the MKI for an example - it could carry from SDB types to Brahmos without any structural changes needed.

If you don't keep some margins you end up with a farce - for instance necessitating a new wing being designed because the new short-ranges AAM is heavier than the previous one. We just got lucky the requirement switch to a heavier AAM came during the prolonged development. Otherwise we might have had a fleet of 250 aircraft that could only carry obsolete missiles on outboard pylons or none at all.

As a layman could I summarize it as "Stations near the wing tip are very sensitive to weight as they put a bigger strain on the whole wing, specially during hi-g maneuvers"?
The farther away from the wing root that you go and apply loads at, the worse the bending moment at the wing root becomes. Which will necessitate at the very least, a re-analysis along with a relook at the loads that were used to design the wing attachment bolts and fittings, as well as the wing spars, ribs and stringers. (and if you find that its within the margins then you're golden) or in the worse case, a re-design of those parts.

Those added loads are usually fairly easy to calculate and compensate - if I may say so as a layman - lead to fairly modest weight increases in the larger scheme of things. The wing flex tolerances and what the increased outboard weight does to them are the interesting and harder part. The wings wont break off or anything drastic like that, but service life takes a drastic hit.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2012 12:58

Badar sahab ... who told you that the Su-30s don't need any change for carrying Brahmos?

Ofcourse fighters are designed to give some leeway in terms of payload ... but the more leeway you give the less optimized you become ... Also for a ball-park percentage, amount of leeway goes down for a light fighter.

I am not absolving ADA/HAL for oversights, but what you and I are suggesting here is LKG stuff for fighter designers ... Please don't underestimate the designers to this extent.

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 08 Feb 2012 13:18

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 08 Feb 2012 13:22

If you look at history, people have continuously came up with aircraft that are supposed to be able to shoot the competition out of the sky, but because they really can't test it against all opposing types, the equipment does not work as anticipated.

Funniest case was when the Sri Lankan airforce F-7 had a LTTE cessna in its sights, missile locked on and missile wudnt phayrrrrr!!!! The Lankans, expectedly were pretty upset.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 08 Feb 2012 13:32

indranilroy wrote:Badar sahab ... who told you that the Su-30s don't need any change for carrying Brahmos?

Not "any changes" indranil saab, just no "structural changes".

http://aeroindia.org/reports-4489
" An expert committee from the DRDO and the Indian Air Force (IAF) has ruled out any structural modification to the advanced Su-30MKI if it is to be fitted with the supersonic BrahMos. January 10, 2009 it was reported that two Indian Air Force (IAF) Sukhoi-30MKI fighter jets have been sent to Russia for a retrofit program that would enable them to launch the aerial version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile."

I assume the modifications would be low impact ones like strengthening the pylons etc as well as the fire control integration.
.

Ofcourse fighters are designed to give some leeway in terms of payload ... but the more leeway you give the less optimized you become ... Also for a ball-park percentage, amount of leeway goes down for a light fighter.

I can understand a light fighter not being able to carry and fire new heavy LGB or the like due to its small size. But a short range AAM, one of the lightest and butter and butter munition not weight compatible with a quarter of the pylons is a fail.

I am not absolving ADA/HAL for oversights, but what you and I are suggesting here is LKG stuff for fighter designers ... Please don't underestimate the designers to this extent.

I agree. Hence my astonishment.

PS: I don't wish to convey the impression that I think this is purely a design flub. IAF needs to take the share of blame as well for not providing reasonable specifications.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2012 13:52

That is because the Su-30 is going to carry the Brahmos only on the central pylon. Also you might have equally found it interesting that the 'non-structural' changes in the Su-30s are taking 2 years.

I am sure that you are aware that wings are incredibly complex to build ... there are just so many choices and constraints ... I was once trying to play around with one design for one of my balsa aeromodels ... didn't get anywhere

... Had to go straight back to the standard drawing ... So without knowing why ADA made whatever choices it made would be very difficult to analyze without knowing the details. Who knows they figured out a better wing design and the SRAAM was just the flashpoint for the change.

P.S. Please drop the sahab/saab/sir for me. I wish I was worthy of that respect.

marimuthu · Post by **marimuthu** » 08 Feb 2012 14:04

Regarding LCA Wing design,the change of CCM from R-60 to R-73 required some modification in the wing. The modification was mainly for torsion, since the R-73 was about 3 feet longer than the R-60, the C.G of the missile shifted forward and hence caused increased torsion.Per se this is no problem, the wing is capable of withstanding this. But from flutter point, the convergence of the bending and torsion mode got a little close to comfort.Hence the wing was strengthened from the torsion point of view so that the torsion frequency was bit increased and hence bending and torsion mode separated.For initial set of wings,the additional layer was fabricated and bolted on.Now the wing designed has been optimized with extra layer in the wing tip.The total additional weight for the wing is 5kg.Hope this clears some issue

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Feb 2012 14:14

marimuthu sir thanks that was enlightening, can you share more nuggets w.r.t inlet design of the lca and its implications on the stall speed and AoA

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2012 14:19

Thank you Marimuthu sir.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 08 Feb 2012 14:20

indranilroy wrote:That is because the Su-30 is going to carry the Brahmos only on the central pylon. Also you might have equally found it interesting that the 'non-structural' changes in the Su-30s are taking 2 years.

They did drop the twin carriage plan because of wing structural limitations. But don' tell Kartik

As for delays - It's Russia.

I am sure that you are aware that wings are incredibly complex to build ... there are just so many choices and constraints ... I was once trying to play around with one design for one of my balsa aeromodels ... didn't get anywhere ... Had to go straight back to the standard drawing ... So without knowing why ADA made whatever choices it made would be very difficult to analyze without knowing the details. Who knows they figured out a better wing design and the SRAAM was just the flashpoint for the change.

I'll defer to your superior practical experience - mine is limited to paper aircraft

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 08 Feb 2012 14:25

Thanks for the insight marimuthu.

So it wasn't a simple issue of weight at all!

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Feb 2012 14:36

marimuthu wrote:Regarding LCA Wing design,the change of CCM from R-60 to R-73 required some modification in the wing. The modification was mainly for torsion, since the R-73 was about 3 feet longer than the R-60, the C.G of the missile shifted forward and hence caused increased torsion.Per se this is no problem, the wing is capable of withstanding this. But from flutter point, the convergence of the bending and torsion mode got a little close to comfort.Hence the wing was strengthened from the torsion point of view so that the torsion frequency was bit increased and hence bending and torsion mode separated.For initial set of wings,the additional layer was fabricated and bolted on.Now the wing designed has been optimized with extra layer in the wing tip.The total additional weight for the wing is 5kg.Hope this clears some issue

So not really a redesign, merely some tweaks? If correct, this would not have added a large amount of time, correct?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Feb 2012 14:38

I think the time they are taking for Brahmos/Su-30 integration even say it does not involve major structural changes is they might have to validate the flight envelop with a 2.5 T missile in centerline and what ever will go into flight certifying Brahmos on MKI.