Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[ShauryaT]

Next Generation Missiles like Shourya & Agni 4 are for cost effective conventional strike.

A4 and K15 / K4 are for conventional strike? Can you elaborate on how did you get to this view? Thanks.

[vsunder]

tsarkar: And why do you forget one legendary Peter Maynard Wilson
of 16 squadron and his legendary raid of Badin SU in 1965 in
a lone Canberra? He was also a "Ganesha Flyboy".

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... son01.html


http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_325.shtml

Sree: Happy New Year, yes long time no communicate, who
listens to old fogeys like me. Just letting these spring chickens
know about your beautiful article linked above.

I think there is another one by Kukke Suresh on P. M. Wilson.

[prashanth]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 063447.cms

India mulls huge rise in French Rafale combat jet order, may buy up to 189 jets in multi-billion dollar deal

One hopes that Kaveri engine will get some help, considering this news.

[Manish_Sharma]

I was thinking later 63 will be with conformal fuel tanks and more powerful engines, but I guess babus negotiated hard and had to place order for whole 189. Good! That means news about Rafale on verge of being cancelled due to deadlock was just a rumour like we had couple of years ago of Rafale being out of MMRCA race.

[srin]

I was thinking later 63 will be with conformal fuel tanks and more powerful engines, but I guess babus negotiated hard and had to place order for whole 189. Good! That means news about Rafale on verge of being cancelled due to deadlock was just a rumour like we had couple of years ago of Rafale being out of MMRCA race.

The rumours would probably be deliberate leaks to put pressure on the french. They want the deal desperately too - so by pretending to be considering alternatives, you get them to back down. And to ensure they have some face-saving thing to take back (saving face and maintaining the illusion of win is very important in such negotiations), we confirmed that we'd order additional planes.

[srin]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 063447.cms

India mulls huge rise in French Rafale combat jet order, may buy up to 189 jets in multi-billion dollar deal

One hopes that Kaveri engine will get some help, considering this news.

I don't think there is any hope for that by now. I'm glad to be proved wrong that though.

[shiv]

I do not believe that anyone can help with Kaveri. The way i understand the technological issues is that anyone who "helps" will have to give away his own secrets which are making good bucks for him - so it will be an own goal. Kaveri will have to come out of our own blood, sweat and tears.

[prashanth]

You are probably right. Somehow, it appears that the engine (both aircraft and rocket) designers have formed a secret cartel, and strive to keep their technology to themselves. What happened with cryogenic engine two decades back repeated with Kaveri now. This cartel seems to be far stronger in safeguarding the engine tech than the sham NPA which has basically allowed nuclear walmart. I have confidence that our scientists will overcome the technological barrier w.r.t Kaveri, just as they did with cryo engine. Time will tell.

[Sree]

tsarkar: And why do you forget one legendary Peter Maynard Wilson
of 16 squadron and his legendary raid of Badin SU in 1965 in
a lone Canberra? He was also a "Ganesha Flyboy". ...


Sree: Happy New Year, yes long time no communicate, who
listens to old fogeys like me. Just letting these spring chickens
know about your beautiful article linked above.

I think there is another one by Kukke Suresh on P. M. Wilson.

vsunder, thanks for the shout-out . There is indeed another article on Air Commodore Wilson by Wg Cdr Kukke Suresh - right here: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... son02.html

Wg Cdr Suresh's article actually originated as an enthusiastic one-on-one e-mail from him, in direct response to my article which you linked above. His e-mail was so informative (and of course so authoritative, coming from another VrC-wearing Indian flyboy!!) that Jagan promptly turned his e-mail into another article. I couldn't have asked for a better reaction!!

Take care and keep publicizing the stories of these old desi warriors - they are special, every one of 'em!!

[member_20036]

Suspected Maoists fire at helicopter

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 077543.cms

RAIPUR: Suspected Naxalites fired at an IAF helicopter injuring a security man in Maoist hotbed of Dantewada in Chhattisgarh .
According to preliminary reports, thehelicopter was on a mission to airlift a few CRPF troopers when it was fired upon.
"The helicopter has been force landed at Teliwara in Sukma district .One IAF man has been hit and the chopper has been cordoned off," a senior security official said.
The helicopter had flown from the state capital and it had gone off the radar for sometime, they said.

[Brando]

Sad but not surprising. It's actually surprising that there have been so few incidents of this kind considering how long the IAF has been providing helicopter support to the CRPF. Sooner or later some Maoist is going to get his hands on a SL-SAM and blow one of these helicopters out of the sky if they aren't careful.

Properly securing the Landing Zones and rapid insertion/extraction are somethings than can prevent these sorts of incidents from happening. Also employing Drones to provide over-watch with Foliage Penetrating Radars would be another possible step to prevent more of the same.

[tsarkar]

tsarkar: And why do you forget one legendary Peter Maynard Wilson

My post was not a reminiscence of the stalwarts, but explaining the point that IAF use of transport aircraft as bomber and Canberra was that of interdiction & strike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdictor

We never did classic bombing missions since none were required in any of our wars. Pete Wilson too used guns & rockets at Badin

Next Generation Missiles like Shourya & Agni 4 are for cost effective conventional strike.

A4 and K15 / K4 are for conventional strike? Can you elaborate on how did you get to this view? Thanks.

IN always had requirement for conventional strike at shore infrastructure. P3, Klub & Brahmos fulfill that role today and Shourya will complement & eventually supplement P3.

A4 is a TD, and the significant efforts made to impart accuracy to Shourya & A4, indicate a conventional strike role. A nuclear armed missile can have CEP in three digit meters since the warhead has sufficient blast radius. A conventional armed missile needs CEP in double digit meters.

My post does not mention K4.

[ShauryaT]

A4 is a TD, and the significant efforts made to impart accuracy to Shourya & A4, indicate a conventional strike role. A nuclear armed missile can have CEP in three digit meters since the warhead has sufficient blast radius. A conventional armed missile needs CEP in double digit meters.

My post does not mention K4.

You are right, you did not mention K4, I clubbed it with K15. My understanding is A4's technological improvisations have been incorporated in the A5, reserved for nuclear strike. So CEP, which to my understanding is now in low double digits of <30 meters for A5's range (cannot be confirmed) alone would not be an indicator for conventional strike. For ballistic missile profiles, my understanding is only Prithvi and Prahaar are for conventional strike.

So, far except for Prithvi (which come online early) none of the India's other BM or CM are for dual roles. So, your assertion of A4 and K15 as having conventional strike profiles surprised me. If A4 is moved from TD to more tests and of course, if it is deployed outside of SFC, then the implication would be clear. Let us watch. Thanks.

[VinodTK]

Indian air force chief arrives in Israel for military talks

JERUSALEM, Jan. 20 — The commander of the Indian Air Force arrived in Israel on Saturday to hold talks with top security officials here, said a military statement released Sunday.

Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne, who is also Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee of the Indian Armed Forces, was received on Sunday by an honor guard at the nation’s military headquarters in Tel Aviv.

The Indian general is currently visiting Israel for the first time in his current post. Browne served from 1997 to 2000 as his country’s first defense attache to Israel, where he set up the defense wing in the Indian embassy in Tel Aviv.

During the visit, Browne is expected to meet his Israeli counterparts Air Force chief Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz along with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak to discuss military cooperation between the two countries, the statement read.

According to the statement, he will also be touring Israeli air bases and squadrons, where he will be briefed on operational procedures.

[Kakarat]

Boeing Delivers Indian Air Force's 1st C-17 to Flight Test - Livefist

[Kakarat]

Indian Air Force (IAF) takes delivery of its first C-17A

[Sagar G]

Start checking for bugs.

[Shrinivasan]

Start checking for bugs.

That'll happen once the bird lands in desh...

[vasu raya]

With the pressurized fuel tank filling feature added to LSP-8, can this be used in the case of Kiran aircraft, one of which crashed when the engine stalled due to fuel (was already low) being cut off in a maneuver flight?

[rajanb]

Ironfist is on 22nd February. And if there is going to be some sort of video coverage would you be kind to broadcast it please?

TIA

[Singha]

there was live coverage of vayu shakti on DD iirc. I recall watching it on TV on some channel live.

[Anurag]

Indian Air Force (IAF) takes delivery of its first C-17A

The Indian Air Force (IAF) took delivery of its first C-17A (F-253) CB-8001 today at Long Beach Airport (LGB/KLGB). This is the first of 10 aircraft ordered by the IAF who are currently in talks with Boeing for possibly another 6 aircraft

[Shrinivasan]

The Indian Air Force (IAF) took delivery of its first C-17A (F-253) CB-8001 today at Long Beach Airport (LGB/KLGB). This is the first of 10 aircraft ordered by the IAF who are currently in talks with Boeing for possibly another 6 aircraft

I hope they complete these quickly talks quickly... I wonder what levels of Offsets apply for these birds? we should get some engine tech via these deals... but then I can dream...

[Lalmohan]

no offsets, they are direct military sales approved by USG

[srin]

no offsets, they are direct military sales approved by USG

FMS deals also have offsets. We pay a little more to adjust for the offsets. The CAG report lists the offsets for the C-130J and P-8I (and the unnecessary items as offsets that India agreed to).

[NRao]

FMS deals do NOT have off-sets, because the deal is between the governments and the GotUS does not participate in off-sets - it cannot since they are just a conduit.

However, in all FMS cases the vendors have decided on their own to participate in the offset program, but are not obligated to do so.

[shiv]

there was live coverage of vayu shakti on DD iirc. I recall watching it on TV on some channel live.

The IAF put the whole thing online last time. I hope they do that again.

[Singha]

For just 16 planes no point in making parts here. Better to get some other things like test and design facilities.

[sum]

FMS deals do NOT have off-sets, because the deal is between the governments and the GotUS does not participate in off-sets - it cannot since they are just a conduit.

However, in all FMS cases the vendors have decided on their own to participate in the offset program, but are not obligated to do so.

I thought one of the "offsets" for the C-17 deal was the help in setting up of a aero-engine testing facility somewhere in Desh?

From a older report:

Commenting on the development, Boeing's India head Dinesh Keskar said, "With its strategic capabilities, the C-17 fulfills India's needs for military and humanitarian airlift. The important transaction reaffirms our close relationship of several decades with India and also highlights our commitment to the strategic partnership between the two countries."

As per the agreement, the US defence major will invest 30 per cent of the contract amount for setting up defence facilities in India, officials said.

The procurement involves offsets clause, under which a vendor bagging a defence deal worth over Rs 300 crore has to reinvest at least 30 per cent of the deal amount in Indian defence, homeland security or civilian aerospace sectors.

Under the offsets, Boeing will establish a High Altitude Engine Test Facility at DRDO, which will allow the research organisation to test engines indigenously, officials said.

Boeing will also set up a Trisonic Test Tunnel facility at the DRDO to enable testing, research and development of various aircraft.

[Singha]

I think all these are going into new jointness campus in chitradurga. No more space in blr and hyd for big new things.

[aharam]

Hi Shiv
This is probably a derailed thread, but I don't get enough time to argue, so I will try to refute

There are two distinct problems here and a third strategic calculation that changes perspectives. The first issue is a strike package composition. Today our strike packages are mixed, with a strike package backed by fighter escort. This is similar in principle to Vietnam, where thuds were escorted in by phantoms, and fundamentally no different from WWII. With a strike package based on a fast bomber such as a b1 or the mythical PakDA, the dynamics change quite a bit. When the platform you are escorting is capable of fighter speeds by derating its range, then it is a lot more potent since the escort no longer has to derate its range to match the package and you get good medium range coverage.

Second, when you look at longer range penetration strikes, the defense of the bomber platform becomes an issue, since fighter escort is no longer feasible. Here, the assumption that a fast bomber is defenseless is not quite true. If we take modern air combat for what it really is, it is a BVR game, where the aircraft is merely a weapons platform. Close air combat is not fashionable anymore, and missiles in the BVR regime are getting very effective. There is no cardinal rule really that bombers such as a B1 or a PAKDA cannot be a BVR platform. Given the massive payloads they can carry, they can do their own air to air defense quite effectively as long as they are not subject to close air combat, in which case they have the speed and early radar warning to avoid an engagement that is not on their terms.

This brings up the third point. As long as missiles are effective, why not ignore the aircraft platform and just use missiles. After all, there is no risk of life and they can go after the most heavily defended targets. The problem is the nuclear overhang. When you consider a conventional war under a nuclear overhang, missiles are bloody confusing. No one knows the payload till it detonates. That's why my belief is that a missile exchange will not occur in a conventional war under nuclear overhang because of payload ambiguity - unless we are talking real short range < 100 km. If the same platform can carry a nuclear load out, then the target of the exchange has to assume the worst and will retaliate with deadly consequences. Missiles here are just as useless as nuclear weapons and the war will have to be limited in time, space, munitions and delivery mechanisms. A bomber, while it can carry nuclear weapons, has greater benefit of doubt since it would never have been the first choice of delivery platform, ipso facto, its load out is conventional.

Apologies for the long response, but this is a matter that I have given some thought over the years. Also, given China's current focus on strategic delivery platforms including their new transport, I keep getting the feeling that they are going down exactly this road for strategic power projection.

Thoughts?

Aharam

But precision munitions have changed this game. You can place a JDAM pretty close to target. The way I envisioned the usage was along the lines of the US - this is not a carpet bombing machine. This is a platform for surgical destruction of a large number of targets in a single sortie.

I believe this is easier said than done, attractive as the idea might be.

The JDAM equipped heavy bombers are only the central bride and groom of this party. But we need marriage hall, family, priest and cook as well. I mean that we also need:

• A set of satellites and a recce system in place to accurately map within less than 10 meter accuracy the targets we want to hit
• A seat of satellites/target markers to aid final guidance
• SEAD aircraft, preferably stealthy to suppress/take out defences before lumbering bombers go in
• A slew of PGMs that can be carried on any bomber we design/build/buy

With all this, this kind of system has only been tested by USA against Iraq and Afghanistan. In no case has the job requirement involved overflying 2500 km of hostile enemy territory.

The question to my mind is what do we hope to achieve on the battlefront by bombing targets 1500 to 2000 km inside China?

If we are looking at making a difference to the immediate battle zone, then SEAD, airfield and radar neutralization and supply line targeting within 500 km of the battle front would do the job.

It we are aiming to fight a wishy-washy "strategic war" where we want to degrade military and industrial assets of China in a prolonged world war 2 like conflict, I don't think heavy bombers with conventional munitions would be able to do the job even if I ignore the tremendous costs of mounting such an effort. History just does not support the idea that this is possible.

If we are looking simply at power projection 5,000 or 10,000 km away, then what we need is naval air power and foreign bases. Not heavy bombers.

[GeorgeWelch]

This brings up the third point. As long as missiles are effective, why not ignore the aircraft platform and just use missiles. After all, there is no risk of life and they can go after the most heavily defended targets.

Cost

Long-range precision missiles are costly, JDAMs are cheap.

Sure you can use missiles against certain high-value targets, but for the day-in, day-out work of suppressing enemy forces, you simply can't afford enough missiles.

[aharam]

Hi George
Pleasure to meet virtually . I argued the same point about JDAMs a few pages ago. I rarely find enough time, so my post responses are horribly outdated in a fast moving thread such as this.

I fully concur, JDAMs or any other aircraft delivered precision weapons are cheap, effective and a large number of them can be dropped in a single bomber sortie. The counter I got was missiles, hence my tongue in cheek line you responded to

Cheers
Aharam

This brings up the third point. As long as missiles are effective, why not ignore the aircraft platform and just use missiles. After all, there is no risk of life and they can go after the most heavily defended targets.

Cost

Long-range precision missiles are costly, JDAMs are cheap.

Sure you can use missiles against certain high-value targets, but for the day-in, day-out work of suppressing enemy forces, you simply can't afford enough missiles.

[aharam]

Forgot to mention another point. Missiles that can carry nuclear load outs are limited as well as expensive. Wasting them on conventional strikes where they have a mere 1 ton payload is highly ineffective - basically you are spending an expensive hard to replace resource for something that is three orders of magnitude or more cheaper.

Cheers
Aharam

This brings up the third point. As long as missiles are effective, why not ignore the aircraft platform and just use missiles. After all, there is no risk of life and they can go after the most heavily defended targets.

Cost

Long-range precision missiles are costly, JDAMs are cheap.

Sure you can use missiles against certain high-value targets, but for the day-in, day-out work of suppressing enemy forces, you simply can't afford enough missiles.

[srin]

This brings up the third point. As long as missiles are effective, why not ignore the aircraft platform and just use missiles. After all, there is no risk of life and they can go after the most heavily defended targets. The problem is the nuclear overhang. When you consider a conventional war under a nuclear overhang, missiles are bloody confusing. No one knows the payload till it detonates. That's why my belief is that a missile exchange will not occur in a conventional war under nuclear overhang because of payload ambiguity - unless we are talking real short range < 100 km. If the same platform can carry a nuclear load out, then the target of the exchange has to assume the worst and will retaliate with deadly consequences. Missiles here are just as useless as nuclear weapons and the war will have to be limited in time, space, munitions and delivery mechanisms. A bomber, while it can carry nuclear weapons, has greater benefit of doubt since it would never have been the first choice of delivery platform, ipso facto, its load out is conventional.

Probably true for ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles are the jokers in the pack. For a cruise missile, no one knows the target until the missile reaches there.

[putnanja]

IAF's first Swiss Pilatus trainer aircraft arrives in India

NEW DELHI: The first of the 75 Swiss Pilatus trainer aircraft procured by the IAF under a Rs 2,800 crore deal to train its rookie pilots today landed at Jamnagar in Gujarat.

The fleet of 75 aircraft will help in replacing the fleet of HPT-32 basic trainers which were grounded after a fatal crash in 2009, senior IAF officials said here today. The Pilatus plane flew in from the firm's headquarters in Stans in Switzerland for its maiden flight.
...
...
The IAF is also planning to seek more Pilatus trainer aircraft from the Swiss firm which could see another 100 aircraft being procured from there.

According to the contract, Pilatus will also do a transfer of technology to the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for maintenance of the fleet for the next 30 years.
...

[shiv]

There are two distinct problems here and a third strategic calculation that changes perspectives. The first issue is a strike package composition. Today our strike packages are mixed, with a strike package backed by fighter escort. This is similar in principle to Vietnam, where thuds were escorted in by phantoms, and fundamentally no different from WWII. With a strike package based on a fast bomber such as a b1 or the mythical PakDA, the dynamics change quite a bit. When the platform you are escorting is capable of fighter speeds by derating its range, then it is a lot more potent since the escort no longer has to derate its range to match the package and you get good medium range coverage.

Second, when you look at longer range penetration strikes, the defense of the bomber platform becomes an issue, since fighter escort is no longer feasible. Here, the assumption that a fast bomber is defenseless is not quite true. If we take modern air combat for what it really is, it is a BVR game, where the aircraft is merely a weapons platform. Close air combat is not fashionable anymore, and missiles in the BVR regime are getting very effective. There is no cardinal rule really that bombers such as a B1 or a PAKDA cannot be a BVR platform. Given the massive payloads they can carry, they can do their own air to air defense quite effectively as long as they are not subject to close air combat, in which case they have the speed and early radar warning to avoid an engagement that is not on their terms.

This brings up the third point. As long as missiles are effective, why not ignore the aircraft platform and just use missiles. After all, there is no risk of life and they can go after the most heavily defended targets. The problem is the nuclear overhang.
<snip>
A bomber, while it can carry nuclear weapons, has greater benefit of doubt since it would never have been the first choice of delivery platform, ipso facto, its load out is conventional.

Thanks for the detailed response. I thought I would wait till I had a little time to type out my thoughts.

I was given to understand that any aircraft, dedicated heavy bomber or not, will be sluggish when it is penetrating into enemy territory because it is full of fuel and munitions. As you pointed out - a short to medium range mission can probably have some escort cover, but neither attack aircraft nor escort can escape BVRAAM defence or ground based defences if they happen to be in range. However even in such a scenario the presence of multiple aircraft such as 2+2 or 4+2 in a mixed strike package puts more stress on defences because a single large bomber may require 1 or 2 BVRAAMs. 4 or 6 aircraft creates a dilemma for the defender who has to put up a really robust response without knowing which is which. If he engages the escorts he gets attacked so he has to find out which is attacker and which is escort. If the sky is full of his own fighters returning from a raid, or his own interceptors, BVR targeting gets complicated by the problem of IFF. The US/NATO almost never had this problem (to a great extent) over Iraq or Afghanistan.

But I do agree that a heavy bomber can technically put a lot more TNT (or whatever) on a target. But here again if a bomber is loaded with PGMs, each one will require separate targeting and a "rain of bombs" and a quick getaway is not going to happen. Since PGMs are accurate the actual mode of attack - i.e the way in which a heavy bomber loaded with PGMs is employed will be crucial to its success. If it is a lo entry under radar it may penetrate a long way but may have to climb high and loiter to target separate targets - for example a couple of runway busters, one for a radar installation and a couple for hangars or defences. If the bomber enters high and fast it is likely to be seen early by enemy radar unless it has at least frontal stealth. This is where a J-20 may be more useful than a Tu-16, but the J-20 is not really a "heavy" bomber in the B-1 or B 2 mould. In fact nobody knows what a J-20 is right now. If a high flying bomber faces interception, it is unlikely to be able to make as quick a getaway unless it jettisons its load and jettisoning a huge load of PGMs can't be cheap, although the pilots and bomber are more precious.

Ultimately in a war there will be attrition. An attacking force has to accept some attrition in the early stages with the plan being that the attrition be kept down to manageable levels combined with effective suppression of enemy air defences and C&C. Unless a heavy bomber with a full load is able to loiter for some time to target his weapons selectively, early SEAD raids will either have to be done with extreme stealth, or overwhelming force and possibly painful early attrition. If air dominance is achieved even Dakotas can be sent in.

It is different if 75 to 80% of the range is covered over water. If you send a heavy bomber over 3000 km of water and then a short 200 km in and out attack into enemy territory where he least expects to be hit you can scare him out of his pants. Even better if standoff missiles take out valuable assets - nothing like a long range heavy bomber to do that.

[Sagar G]

Ex-IAF chief Tipnis blames Nehru for defeat in 1962 China war

NEW DELHI: A former IAF Chief Air Chief Marshal (retd) A Y Tipnis has sought to blame former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru for India's defeat in the 1962 war with China, amid a continuing debate on why air power was not used during the conflict.

Speaking at a seminar 'India and China: After five decades of 1962 war' here, Tipnis also alleged that Nehru had surrendered national security interests to realise his "ambition" to be a world leader.

"It was more or less universally accepted perhaps grudgingly not openly in some Indian quarters that to serve the dubious purpose of political survival that Pandit Nehru with his grandiose vision of a conflict free non-alligned world surrendered vital national security interest to the ambition of being a world leader," he said.

The remarks made yesterday came against the backdrop of the recent comments by the current Indian Air Force Chief Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne that the outcome of the 1962 war with China would have been different had the IAF been used in an offensive role.

Asked to expand on his remarks, Tipnis today said Nehru was the "major contributor" for India's debacle.

72-year-old Tipnis, who had a three-year tenure as IAF Chief from December 31, 1998 was commissioned as a fighter pilot in 1960, two years before the hostilities broke out between India and China.

Tipnis said he had also seen an Army Chief in those days being "ticked off" like a school-boy by Prime Minister Nehru for his alleged petulance.

The issue of IAF not being used in the 1962 hostilities is still debated by military historians and experts and there is no clarity as to why the air force was not used.

Browne had said the IAF was not allowed to be used in an offensive role and confined only to provide transport support to the Army. "These are open and glaring lessons we should have imbibed," he added.

For the first time in last 50 years, India celebrated the anniversary of the 1962 war with China on October 20 where Defence Minister A K Antony along with the three Services chiefs laid wreaths on the Amar Jawan Jyoti to pay tributes to the martyrs and participants of the war.

Anybody here surprised ???

[Surya]

now watch for the hatchet jobs on Tipnis

IT and its great investigative reporter will soon have an article on irregular purchase of grey paint!!!!

[nachiket]

The ACM's statement was made in November, and it was posted then I believe.