Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2014 07:24

I wonder if L shaped pylon could be fitted on the fuselage for a couple harpoons/LWT on each side ?
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/il-38-4.jpg

the OEM could also fit a sonobuoy launcher inside near the tail section.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 08:01

AoA, all this can be done by sneaky Indoos without OEM assistance me thinks, as they'd be against arming the aircraft. Gun/rocket pods at least should be ok (our dorniers have those) and as a dharmic non violent yindoo, i think all our aircraft should be armed to show the futility of violence.

Has TFTA cockpit though.
http://www.uraken.net/military/sky/us2a.jpg

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Feb 2014 08:03

First we purchased weaponless PC-7s and Now we want to purchase another white elephant from a hypocrite nation. Japan stabbed India in the back during Kargill and is now playing US agenda in nuke talks. We need to see what Japan is and not what we would like it to be!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 08:17

PC-7s with weapons would be easy meat during any conflict. Too slow, limited avionics. In fact even HJT-16s (even when they arrive) or Hawks would not be liable to be used in any conflict.

As regards Japan & politics, if we can buy a dozen billion & counting from the US, a couple towards Japan for a niche product wont break us. Plus, they are the largest (IIRC) investor in India now & are investing heavily in Indian infra. With the rise of PRC, mutual interests.

Anyways, US-2 specs from Brochure-gupta. Same engine as our C-130Js apparently. Labeled as SS-3 in these posters.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-irPy9qml-Xk/U ... bian-1.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h02hasJCLUQ/U ... bian-2.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N48b9McKWEw/U ... bian-3.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MXmgMnglyk4/U ... bian-4.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ODmBDk1jCAk/U ... bian-5.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oH9ZG4XcrKw/U ... bian-6.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yTMWWMj5VDc/U ... bian-7.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D5mXkaH-B1U/U ... bian-8.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ka7l1LHnpkE/U ... ian-10.jpg

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 08:22

These are current Japanese aviation programs. Explore the links for programs of mutual interest. However language may be a barrier for JVs. Dont know how common english usage is in Japan..

http://www.mod.go.jp/trdi/en/programs/air/air.html

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 08:38

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Feb 2014 08:46

We required we should buy 1.6 Billion worth of technology from Japan rather than non urgent inessential purchase. We start by asking them to sell technology for tank engines!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Feb 2014 09:09

Unlikely to happen until and unless we build up some sort of relationship (IMHO), this purchase may be an important first step.

Japan IMHO is caught between two stands - enforced (partly self) pacifism, with a heavy reliance on the US to keep the peace & a proud militaristic past & self independent streak. A mix of both has meant that they completely ignored defence exports and minimized JVs (bar some high profile ones like the F-2 with US), and depend on their own technological prowess. But a somewhat stagnant overall economic base, need for new markets for their large firms (in an era of South Korean expertise in mass manufacture, US dominance in high end software driven products, and Taiwanese ODMs) has meant a renewed look at places like India & China. China is now throwing its weight around, so India is a new frontier. With Abe, I think we may see a slow but steady movement towards a more independent foreign policy than one dictated (mostly) by pacifism and US real politik.

The last year we saw DRDO & Indian industry go to SoKo, and present at its ADEX. DRDO then displayed the AEW&C at Bahrain. I guess we are finally seeing more self confident steps by India as well.

What we need from Japan is access to their manufacturing and other tech and we can make our own stuff much better. Even Russia imports LCDs for their fighters from Japan. Japan can assemble its stuff in India & we can reexport, giving Japanese firms a royalty, and avoiding a lot of the arms control stuff they have saddled themselves with.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Feb 2014 09:11

Some of the conversion for Mi-17 IV/V5 .....prolly the VIP version is what the elite would get .... Does IAF or IA uses permenant Flying Hospital for any of the chopper we use ?

http://www.indiamart.com/fiaagency/mi-1 ... opter.html

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 01 Feb 2014 09:48

Current edition of Vayu magazine ran the interview with ShinMaywa India head, his answers on the ToT, DPP and Indian partner are bit more elaborate than those online links posted earlier. Posting a scan of the page here:

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Feb 2014 10:23

Air vectors has a nice write up on US 2.

http://www.airvectors.net/avps1.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Feb 2014 15:26

Interview: AIR CHIEF MARSHAL ARUP RAHA, CHIEF OF THE AIR STAFF

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Feb 2014 16:11

Both BE-200 and the Shinmaywa can do the business MRMP/SAR .There is a need for both the CG and IN for amphibs.in the Maldives,there a are dozens of smaller amphibs for civilian use.A nation like India with a vast coastline,inland waterways,rivers,lakes,etc.,plus island territories,should actually have about 100+ amphibs of various sizes.For the Japanese getting over the export of weapon systems is a problem.Perhaps one could buy one type for the CG and another for the IN.At least 12 of each.The IN's version will have to be weaponised at some point,possessing ASW potential.

Here is an interesting report on Boeing's AEWC for Turkey.Worth comapring it with India's AEW dev. with Emb.
<del>[/quote]

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 05 Feb 2014 16:45

Indian Air Force MI-17 V5 deployed to fight forest fire in Nagaland

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Feb 2014 17:00

This is where we must acquire BE-200/equiv amphibs for firefighting and other uses.Worldwide amphibs are being acquired in large number to fight forest fores.A mystery why we haven't done so.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Feb 2014 19:55

Philip wrote:Both BE-200 and the Shinmaywa can do the business MRMP/SAR .There is a need for both the CG and IN for amphibs.in the Maldives,there a are dozens of smaller amphibs for civilian use.A nation like India with a vast coastline,inland waterways,rivers,lakes,etc.,plus island territories,should actually have about 100+ amphibs of various sizes.For the Japanese getting over the export of weapon systems is a problem.Perhaps one could buy one type for the CG and another for the IN.At least 12 of each.The IN's version will have to be weaponised at some point,possessing ASW potential.

Why would you want to acquire two platforms (with double the maintenance load and support investment) for the same job?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 06 Feb 2014 16:54

15:52 Govt probing complaints in mega combat aircraft deal: The government is looking into the complaints against the procedure to determine the winner of multi-billion dollar combat aircraft deal, Defence Minister A K Antony today said while admitting that there was no money to sign such a big deal in this fiscal.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 06 Feb 2014 17:40

Bye, Bye Katrina!

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 06 Feb 2014 18:22

Viv S wrote:
Why would you want to acquire two platforms (with double the maintenance load and support investment) for the same job?

Thats because one is Russian.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Feb 2014 18:44

Karan M wrote:These are current Japanese aviation programs. Explore the links for programs of mutual interest. However language may be a barrier for JVs. Dont know how common english usage is in Japan..

http://www.mod.go.jp/trdi/en/programs/air/air.html

people with STEM background usually speak at least passable english, better than the russis certainly.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Feb 2014 19:57

It's because here are significant differences between the two.Key diff.,engines,turbofans vs props.A US co. has already signed up to buy 12 BE-200s for firefighting purposes.The BE has been used extensively in Europe for firefighting as well as in Indonesia (45 days).

In October 2006, two Be-200ES (RF-32765 and RF-32768) were leased to Indonesia by EMERCOM, fighting fires[19] for 45 days.[20] This reportedly cost Indonesia around US$5.2 million.[21] These operations prompted press reports that the Indonesian government had agreed to purchase two Be-200s, each with a projected price of US$40 million.[22] Beriev, however has not confirmed these reports.

Such was the success of the first campaign that two Be-200ES were again leased by Portugal from July 10 to September 30, 2007. During this period 58 fire-fighting flights were conducted with a total flying time of over 167 hours. 2,322 tonnes (2,560 tons) of water was dropped. Beriev claims that representatives of the newly formed Portuguese government enterprise EMA (Empresa de Meios Aéreos) have expressed their interest in a long-term cooperation with Beriev and the Be-200 in Portugal.[23]

The significant differences can be seen in the specs/performance stats from Wik.Though the size are approx. the same,the BE-200/210 (9 built,18+ on order) has some better performance stats,passengers,speed,etc.One interesting stat is that the BE requires a crew of only 2,unlike the SM which requires a crew of 11! In fact,the '60s era BE-12 twin-engined turboprop (140+ built) is closer in design.capabilities to the 4 engined SM US-2.The US-2 (14 built ) is derived from the earlier US-1 variants (40+ built).
Where the US-2 scores is a much shorter TO run ,to/landings in 3m height waves and extra range.Comparisons of the 3 principal amphibs is given at the end.from this one can see that there are signfiicant differences in performance which could suit the differing IN and CG needs .The US-2 is principally an SAR aircraft,whereas the BE-200 is fully multi-role with ASW capability. having an ASW variant for the IN would be especially useful given our vast island territories,where the number of airstrips is limited for ops by dedicated ASW aircraft.

Beriev BE-200/210

The multirole Be-200 can be configured as an amphibious water drop fire-fighting aircraft, a freighter, or as a passenger aircraft — the pressurised and air conditioned cabin allowing transportation of up to 72 passengers. The Be-200 can also be equipped for special missions. When configured as an air ambulance, the aircraft can carry up to 30 stretcher patients and seven seated patients or medical crew. In the search and rescue role, the aircraft can be equipped with searchlights and sensors, an inflatable boat, thermal and optical surveillance systems, and medical equipment. The search and rescue variant can accommodate up to 45 persons. The aircraft is also capable of being configured for anti-submarine warfare duties.[1][10

General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 32.0 m (105 ft 0 in)
Wingspan: 32.8 m (107 ft 7 in)
Height: 8.9 m (29 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 117.4 m² (1,264 ft²)
Empty weight: 27,600 kg (60,850 lb)
Max Take Off Weight (Land): 41,000 kg (90,390 lb)
Max Take Off Weight (Water): 37,900 kg (83,550 lb)
Max Capacity (Water or Retardant): 12,000 kg (26,450 lb)
Max Capacity (Cargo): 7,500 kg (16,530 lb)
Max Capacity (Passengers): 44 (Be-200ES) 72 (Be-210)
Powerplant: 2 × Progress D-436TP turbofans, 7,500 kgf (16,534 lbf) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 700 km/h (435 mph)
Cruise speed: 560 km/h (348 mph)
Economy speed: 550 km/h (342 mph)
Landing speed: 200 km/h (124 mph)
Takeoff speed: 220 km/h (137 mph)
Minimum speed (Flaps 38°): 157 km/h (98 mph)
Range: 2,100 km (1,305 mi)
Ferry range (One Hour Reserve): 3,300 km (2,051 mi)
Service ceiling: 8,000 m (26,246 ft)
Rate of climb: 13 m/s (2,600 ft/min) (At Sea Level and MTOW — Flaps 20°)
Rate of climb: 17 m/s (3,350 ft/min) (At Sea Level and MTOW — Flaps 0°)

Shinmaywa US-2:

General characteristics

Crew: 11
Capacity: 20 passengers or 12 stretchers
Length: 33.46 m (109 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 33.15 m (108 ft 9 in)
Height: 9.8 m (32 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 135.8m² (1,462 sq ft)
Empty weight: 25,630 kg (56,504 lb)
Loaded weight: 43,000 kg (94,797 lb) (water take-off)
Max. takeoff weight: 47,700 kg (105,160 lb) (land take-off)
Powerplant: 4 × Rolls-Royce AE 2100J turboprop, 3,424 kW (4,591 shp) each
Propellers: Dowty R414 6 bladed propeller, 1 per engine
Boundary layer enhancement provided by 1,015 kW (1,360 shp) LHTEC T800

Performance

Maximum speed: 560 km/h (302 knots, 348 mph)
Cruise speed: 480 km/h (259 knots, 298 mph)
Range: 4,700 km[5] (2,538 nmi, 2,919 mi)
Service ceiling: 7,195 m (23,606 ft)
Takeoff distance on ground at MTOW: 490 m (1,608 ft)
Landing distance on ground at MTOW: 1,500 m (4,921 ft)
Takeoff distance on water at Loaded weigh: 280m (919 ft)
Landing distance on water at Loaded weigh: 330m (1,083 ft)

Major Specifications Comparison
Dimensions & Performances US-2
(ShinMaywa) CL-415
(Bombardier) Be-200
(Beriev)
Power Plant (SM) Four-turboprop (BOM)Twin-turboprop (BE)Twin-turbofan
Length 33.3m 19.8m 31.4m
Wing Span 33.2m 28.6m 32.8m
Max Take-Off Weight 47.7t 19.9t 41.0t
Range over 4,500km 2,426km 3,300km
Cruise Altitude over 6,000m 3,048m 7,986m
Cruise Speed 480km/h 278km/h 5 60km/h
Take-Off Distance
(on water) 280m 808m 1,000m
Landing Distance
(on water) 330m 665m 1,300m
Wave Height up to 3m up to 1.8m up to 1.2m
Source: Jane's encyclopedia of Aviation

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 06 Feb 2014 20:20

^^ What difference does it really make if one is travelling in a US-2 at 480 km/h or in Beriev at 560 km/ hr ? Getting someplace 10-20 mins earlier is a of negligible importance.

Also, the more IMPORTANT parameter is that the Beriev has a range of only 2100 kms while the US-2 has a range of 4700 kms (more than double!). A US-2 can take off from Kerala and reach anywhere in the Indian Ocean non-stop. The Beriev can't do that. Also the ability to operate in adverse weather conditions like Sea State 3 or+ is of more operational significance than "top speed" or "passenger capacity" in a SAR role.

Finally :

http://www.airvectors.net/avps1.html
The US-1 had a crew of eight, including pilot; copilot; flight engineer; navigator; radio operator; radar operator; and two observers. Up to five medics or rescue divers could be carried as well. The aircraft could accommodate 12 stretchers and three sitting passengers, or 36 sitting passengers. In principle, the SAR gear could also be removed to allow conversion of the US-1 into a troop transport with seating for 100.

From the specs available it would appear the Chinese Harbin SH-5 is the only true "competition" for the US-2 though it's not exactly STOL.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 07 Feb 2014 06:45

Strategic Bomber for IAF

By Bharat Karnad

A trick question: What was the most decisive weapon of the Second World War? If your answer, as expected, is the atom bomb, you are wrong. It was the B-29 Superfortress bomber that delivered it. Without the plane, the A-Bomb would have been only a novelty. The flip side of this question is: What was the most egregious policy failure of Imperial Japan (besides the surprise raid on Pearl Harbour)? It was the delay in developing its Nakajima G10N Fugaku strategic bomber with the range to hit American island bases in the western Pacific and the US west coast early enough in the war to make some difference. Often, the means of delivery are as important as what’s delivered.

These historical thoughts were prompted by the statement of the new Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Arup Saha, who talked of his service achieving a “strategic” profile in terms of its ability to pull “expeditionary” missions. While the growing numbers in the inventory of C-17 and C-130J transport planes, and of aerial tankers able to extend the range of combat aircraft, make expeditionary actions easier to mount, such tasks in the past (Operation Cactus in the Maldives, Operation Pawan in Sri Lanka) were adequately managed with the old An-32s. The Saha statement revealed an eagerness to sidestep the traditional criterion — a fleet of bombers capable of long range attack — that distinguishes a strategic air force from a theatre-oriented one, such as the IAF.

How and why did the IAF, despite a palpable need, not become strategic? The fault lies in the natural shrivelling of missions beginning in the 1950s that accompanied the dimming of the strategic vision and the narrowing of the military focus, laughably, to Pakistan as main threat, and the quality of leaders helming the air force. The 1947 era of service brass, mostly Group Captain-Air Commodore rank officers fast-forwarded to the top, having loyally served the Raj and imbibed British ways of thinking, configured the service in the manner their old bosses had planned. It resulted in the IAF emerging as a creditable tactical force.

Short-legged fighter aircraft with a leavening of fighter-bombers became its calling card with the UK-built Lysanders, Tempests, and Spitfires of the 1940s replaced by the French Dassault Ouragans and Mystere-IVs, and the Hawker-Siddeley Hunters which, in turn, were succeeded by the Russian Mig-21s, MiG-23s, MiG-27s, MiG-29s, and the Su-30MKIs. The odd Western import during this latter phase — the Jaguar and Mirage 2000, were also only short to medium range aircraft. The only dedicated bomber the IAF ever acquired was the medium-range Canberra in the Sixties. But highlighting its limited operational mindset was the air force’s choice of the Folland Gnat, a local area air defence aircraft, for licence-production in the country.

It was different early on. When Jawaharlal Nehru’s government first approached the United States for arms aid in 1948, it was the war-tested B-25 Mitchell bomber which topped the procurement list. During the Second World War the Walchandnagar aircraft company (precursor to the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd), among other planes, built the Avro Lancaster bombers in Bangalore. Most of these aircraft were shipped back to Britain. But a significant number, which could have constituted an embryonic bomber component of the IAF, was deemed “surplus to the need” and deliberately destroyed by the departing British at the Maintenance Command in Kanpur by hoisting these aircraft, one by one, up by their tails to considerable height and dropping them nose down on the hard ground.

The IAF brass at the time — Subroto Mukherjee, M.M. Engineer, Arjan Singh, et al — did not protest against this dastardly deed by the British, apprise Nehru and the Indian government of the strategic cost of the loss of long range air power, and otherwise failed to prevent these wanton acts of sabotage. True to form, after the 1962 Himalayan military fiasco, the IAF sought not bombers able to reach distant Chinese targets as deterrent but the US F-104 for air defence, before settling on the MiG-21.

What showcased the IAF’s apparent institutional reluctance against transforming itself into a strategic force, however, was the decision by the Air Chief Marshal P.C. Lal-led regime to reject in mid-1971 the Soviet offer of the Tu-22 Backfire strategic bomber. The reasons trotted out verged on the farcical.

As Wing Commander (later Air Marshal) C. V. Gole, member of the Air Marshal Sheodeo Singh Mission to Moscow and test pilot, who flew the Tu-22 informed me, he was appalled by the fact that he had to be winched up into the cockpit, and that the plane would have to takeoff from as far east as Bareilly to reach cruising altitude over Pakistan! (This and other episodes are detailed in my book ‘Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security’.) Evidently China didn’t figure in the threat perceptions of the Air Headquarters at the time, nor has it done so since then.

IAF’s doggedly defensive-tactical thinking married to theatre-level capabilities have ensured its minimal usefulness in crises and conflicts.

Forty years on, while China is bolstering its already strong strategic bomber fleet (of Xian H-6K aircraft) by buying off the production line of the most advanced Backfire, the Tu-22 M3, and prioritising the indigenous development of the four-engined, wing-shaped, H-18 strategic stealth bomber, IAF hopes its Su-30s assisted by aerial tankers will be a credible deterrent and counter against the Chinese bomber armada.

It will be prudent for the IAF, even at this late stage, to constitute a Bomber Command and cadre, lease ten or so Tu-160 Blackjacks from Moscow and, rather than the fifth-generation fighter, invest the Rs 35,000 crores in a programme jointly to design and produce with Russia the successor aircraft to the Blackjack — the PAK DA, which is expected to fly by 2025. I have long advocated acquisition of a bomber because, compared to strike fighters and ballistic and cruise missiles it has far more strategic utility, including in nuclear signalling, crisis stability, and escalation control. It is a conclusion also reached by a recent RAND report extolling the virtues of a new “penetrative bomber”.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Feb 2014 06:56

BE's range is 3000+km,stats given.The ASW capability is what I'm emphasising.No doubt as I've pointed out the US-2's plus points are impressive.However the IN and CG needs differ.generaly,the CG is tasked with SAR roles around the world with offensive roles for navies.

Bharat Karnad in today's New Ind. Exp. makes out a strong case for the IAF acquiring a strategic bomber.This issue has for many years been debated and advocated on BR,as the IAF lacks a strategic bomber ,China specific which can hit targets deep inside China.Karnad traces the history of the IAF's fighter/aircraft acquisitions,shameful deliberate destruction of surplus WW2 bombers in India by the Brits at Independence and peculiar attitude of the IAF when offered s a long time ago TU-22 Backfires by the Soviets.He draws attention to reports about China picking up the Backfire production line on the cheap and recommends a lease of about 10 TU-160 Bkackjacks.

The IAF has nothing in the bag that can destroy the Tibetan railway at key locations deep inside China,which will take years to repair.Neither has it any bomber that can reach Beijing,whereas the Chinese have dozens of strategic bombers that can reach any part of India when located in Tibet.Imagine the scenario if the Chinese do acquire Backfires and station them in Tibet.They could flying over BDesh,or even over Burma during a crisis from Chinese bases,and cause mayhem in the Bay of Bengal against the IN's assets and establishments in the A&N islands.The key point being that we need to have a strategic offensive capability where either LR tactical PGM ASMs like BMos,Nirbhay,etc.,plus N-tipped missiles can be used as deterrent against China.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/opinion ... 042008.ece

[quote]
Strategic Bomber for IAF

Rony has already posted the article,so deleting the same.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 07 Feb 2014 07:50

Apparently the Russians did not sell the Backfire line to China and the report was bogus, so if it is still available, we should try to pick it up. The Backfire or Blackjack may be called "bombers" but they are actually missile carriers and would make the perfect platform for the Brahmos, specially over Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. The Tibet railway is well withing Brahmos range from land bases in the Northeast even without bombers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2014 08:00

Russia itself has a grand total of 15 blackjacks or so in Engels saratov base. and its out of production.
the Backfire has not received much upg and is vulnerable if caught by fighters.

imo the Blackjack parts chain must be fully operational as they are the prime strategic manned assets for Russia.

we need to restart the production line and get us a fleet of around 30. they should be able to carry all missiles including nirbhay internally and attack targets in the south china sea or north of tibet quite easily even flying from peninsular india. maybe lease 5 of the blackjacks until production starts delivering new airframes. due to long missions and less number of landing cycles, these airframes will last for decades.

also abandon the pakfa and fund pakda and amca.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Feb 2014 08:02

Philip wrote:It's because here are significant differences between the two.Key diff.,engines,turbofans vs props.A US co. has already signed up to buy 12 BE-200s for firefighting purposes.The BE has been used extensively in Europe for firefighting as well as in Indonesia (45 days).

We're already buying the US-2. If we require additional aircraft for firefighting, the intelligent thing to do would be to acquire a fire-fighting variant of US-2 rather than induct an entirely new platform.

The significant differences can be seen in the specs/performance stats from Wik.Though the size are approx. the same,the BE-200/210 (9 built,18+ on order) has some better performance stats,passengers,speed,etc.

It can't land in even moderately rough seas (go through the recent posts on this thread). It has no STOL capability and the marginally higher top speed will offset by its higher operating cost (turboprops are more efficient at mid to low altitudes). There's no question of 'better performance'.

One interesting stat is that the BE requires a crew of only 2,unlike the SM which requires a crew of 11!

It takes only two pilots to fly the US-2. The crew of 11 is for the JMSDF which includes an SAR team.

The US-2 is principally an SAR aircraft,whereas the BE-200 is fully multi-role with ASW capability. having an ASW variant for the IN would be especially useful given our vast island territories,where the number of airstrips is limited for ops by dedicated ASW aircraft.

The Be-200 doesn't have an ASW variant as yet. And if the IN was determined to field a amphibious ASW aircraft, it could get a modified US-2 just as easily.

Also the Be-200's limitations in operating on the high seas don't help its case, as far as 'our vast island territories' are concerned.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2014 16:23

A sensible decision! One pod & significant numbers!

http://www.air-cosmos.com/defexpo-2014- ... -deal.html

Rafael scores pod mega-deal
Le 07/02/2014 à 16:56 | Par Guillaume Steuer
Crédit: Northrop Grumman
Rafael says it has been selected to supply the IAF with 164 Litening G4s.

It looks as though Indian combat aircraft are going to continue flying for many years to come with Israeli designator pods. A Rafael official confirmed to Air&Cosmos during the Defexpo Show that the company’s Litening G4 had been selected last year following an IAF call for tenders for 164 pods to equip its entire fleet of fighter-bombers. Deliveries under this huge order (the largest ever recorded outside the US, according to Rafael) are expected to get under way by the end of this year. When completed, they will bring the total number of Litening pods in IAF service to approximately 220.

The official indicated that the IAF plans to fit the new Litening G4 to its Jaguars, MiG-27s, Su-30MKIs and Mirage 2000s, the latter having been equipped several years ago with the earlier-generation Litening. This seems to extinguish any IAF prospects for Thales and its Damocles pod. Rafael also says it has had “several preliminary discussions with Dassault” concerning a possible integration of Litening on the Rafale.

The Rafael stand also featured the Reccelite reconnaissance pod, which retains the outer casing of the Litening but replaces certain components (including the laser designator) with higher-performance sensor and optics. Reccelite is believed to have entered service on IAF Jaguars several years ago.

Finally, the Israeli firm indicates that integration of the Derby and Python 5 missiles on India’s LCA Tejas combat aircraft should be complete by the year-end.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Feb 2014 03:34

^^^

That comes to roughly around 6 Litening pods per squadron.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 10 Feb 2014 12:18

So atleast in full AA mode the Tejas will be armed and ready at the end of this year with good WVR and BVR weapons. Nice.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 10 Feb 2014 20:50

IAF to buy 14 Tejas squadrons
Indian fighter well placed for global market for 3,500 light fighters

India’s own fighter, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), is playing a growing role in protecting Indian airspace. On December 20, when the Tejas was cleared for operational service in the Indian Air Force (IAF), Defence Minister A K Antony declared that 200 Tejas fighters would eventually enter combat service. Today, that figure quietly swelled to well above 300, with the government indicating that the IAF would have at least 14 Tejas squadrons.

Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add up to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 fighters include 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, 2 twin-seat trainers and 3 reserve aircraft to make up losses in war.

In a written statement tabled in the Lok Sabha today, Antony’s deputy Jitendra Singh stated, “The MiG-21 and MiG-27 aircrafts of the IAF have already been upgraded and currently equip 14 combat squadrons. These aircraft, however, are planned for being phased out over the next few years and will be replaced by the LCA.”

So far, the IAF has committed to inducting just 6 Tejas squadrons --- 2 squadrons of the current Tejas Mark I, and 4 squadrons of the improved Tejas Mark II. In addition, the navy plans to buy some 40-50 Tejas for its future aircraft carriers.

Since the Tejas programme began in 1985, about Rs 7,000 crore have been spent on the Tejas Mark I, which obtained Initial Operational Clearance in December, allowing regular IAF pilots to fly it. By the end of this year, when it obtains Final Operational Clearance, it would have consumed a budget of Rs 7,965 crore.

An additional Rs 2,432 crore has been allocated for the Tejas Mark II, which takes the total development cost of the IAF variant to Rs 10,397 crore.

Separately, Rs 3,650 crore were sanctioned for developing the naval Tejas, which is ongoing. That means the Aeronautical Development Agency will spend Rs 14,047 crore on the entire Tejas programme, including the IAF, naval and trainer variants.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which manufactures the Tejas, has quoted Rs 162 crore per fighter as its latest price. Amortising the entire development cost on the envisioned 344 fighters (IAF: 294; Navy: 50), the Tejas would cost Rs 209 crore ($33.5 million) per fighter.

In comparison, the IAF’s Mirage 2000 fighters, which were bought in the 1980s, are currently being upgraded for $45 million per aircraft. IAF pilots that test-fly the Tejas Mark I find it qualitatively superior to the Mirage 2000.

The heavier Sukhoi-30MKI costs more than Rs 400 crore ($65 million) each. And the Rafale, which is currently being negotiated with Dassault, is pegged at Rs 750-850 crore ($120-140 million) per fighter.

Aerospace expert and historian, Pushpindar Singh, points out that ordering more Tejas would bring down the price further, making it enormously attractive for air forces across the world that are replacing some 3,500 MiG-21, Mirage-III, early model F-16 and F-5 fighters that are completing their service lives.

“With these air forces facing severe budget pressures, the Tejas has only one rival in this market --- the JF-17 Thunder, being built by China in partnership with Pakistan. They are marketing the JF-17 aggressively in every global air show, but India is completely ignoring the Tejas’ potential,” notes Singh.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 10 Feb 2014 23:14

SanjayC wrote:
IAF to buy 14 Tejas squadrons
Indian fighter well placed for global market for 3,500 light fighters

India’s own fighter, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), is playing a growing role in protecting Indian airspace. On December 20, when the Tejas was cleared for operational service in the Indian Air Force (IAF), Defence Minister A K Antony declared that 200 Tejas fighters would eventually enter combat service. Today, that figure quietly swelled to well above 300, with the government indicating that the IAF would have at least 14 Tejas squadrons.

Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add up to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 fighters include 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, 2 twin-seat trainers and 3 reserve aircraft to make up losses in war.

This is exactly what we have been predicting will happen now that the Rafale deal is being effectively scrapped. Awesome news!

However, we need to scale up production lines for the LCA to ever reach this number in a reasonable timeframe.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2014 02:56

Vivek and Srai, The Litening podded plane can use ordnance carried by other planes in the group right?

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 11 Feb 2014 03:09

ramana wrote:Vivek and Srai, The Litening podded plane can use ordnance carried by other planes in the group right?

Right. That's why the standardization on the pod with about half-a-dozen per squadron makes so much sense. One aircraft (twin-seater?) designates and the others haul the payload.

During the Afghanistan A-10 operations by the USAF, they often encountered situations where one of the pilots in a pair of A-10s would spot the target and despite an hour or so of trying to get the other pilot to "see" it, the other pilot might still not see it during an attack run. So they also used the idea of one pilot keeping his eyes constantly on the target while the other does the release operation for the munition. The munition would use the lasing from the aircraft whose pilots keeps it focused on target while the other aircraft drops flares and evades after the drop. In the Himalayan context, this is especially important IMO.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2014 03:22

You know what this means to IAF doctrine! They are moving to precision, point target destruction. I once figured that in four days there would be no worthwhile point targets in TSP even with limited old style single plane -single pod situation.
This is IAF Cold Start capability.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Feb 2014 03:22

ramana wrote:Vivek and Srai, The Litening podded plane can use ordnance carried by other planes in the group right?

AN/AAQ-28(V) LITENING - Next Generation Targeting and Sensor System

...
Following on LITENING’s groundbreaking Plug and Play I and II data-links, the advanced Plug and Play III data link capability offers warfighters increased range, state-of-the-art two way, multi-band, digi- tal data recording and an option to incorporate secure, two-way communications over multiple frequency bands without the need for aircraft modifications.

LITENING’s unique plug and play technology en- ables the warfighters to have many options to customize their data link, including incorporation of advanced data recording for intelligence surveil- lance and reconnaissance, increased on-board computing to host user-defined networking appli- cations, and the ability to enable secure commu- nication of data and imagery through the addition of user-selected radios operating in C, L, S, Ku and UHF frequency bands.
...

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 11 Feb 2014 03:24

ramana wrote:You know what this means to IAF doctrine! They are moving to precision, point target destruction. I once figured that in four days there would be no worthwhile point targets in TSP even with limited old style single plane -single pod situation.
This is IAF Cold Start capability.

Agreed. About time and a welcome aggressive mindset coming into play here!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2014 03:40

srai, Can the Litening be used as a range finder and aircraft computer control the weapon release in toss bomb mode?

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Feb 2014 04:58

ramana wrote:srai, Can the Litening be used as a range finder and aircraft computer control the weapon release in toss bomb mode?

I would think yes in CCRP mode.

(CCIP) Continuously Computed Impact Point
(CCRP) Continuously Computed Release Point

Here's a good definition of CCIP vs CCRP:

CCIP vs CCRP is generally a question of situation: the former gives you better accuracy but requires that you start from altitude such that you can dive on the target. (This can be a problem if the area has enemy SAM coverage or enemy fighter patrols, or if the terrain is such that recovery from dive is dangerous.) CCRP allows you to make low-level bombing runs on a designated target, and is in this case best used with what is called "retarded bombs" (bombs that release an airbrake after release, to make sure you don't blow yourself up).

CCRP can also be used with altitude dumb bomb delivery if the situation is such that diving for CCIP delivery would cause you to enter the WEZ (Weapon Engagement Zone) of AAA or MANPAD assets, but are then subject to wind and other factors that will severly reduce accuracy. However, this disadvantage is voided in the cases of Laser guided weapons (LGB's) and GPS guided weapons (JDAM), in which case there really is no reason at all to deliver with CCIP. Unguided cluster weapons (CBU's) might also have a sufficiently large footprint that CCRP becomes advantageous in order to keep yourself out of harms way.

In the LCA brochure released at IOC-2 mentions CCIP and CCRP along with Litening tests on page 4:
Tejas IOC Brochure.

...
• Operational Air Support Missions with 1200/800 Ltr Drop tank & 1000 LB bombs in CCRP/CCIP modes completed.
• Laser guided missions with Litening POD demonstrated for IOC envelope.
...

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Feb 2014 05:17

ramana wrote:srai, Can the Litening be used as a range finder and aircraft computer control the weapon release in toss bomb mode?

As a range finder, that is what it does essentially .The toss bomb mode is software IT/Vity that can be easily programmed in to the mission computer. It is just another mode I would think.

Also , the CCIP/CCRP thing is what enabled the IAF Mirage 2000s to deliver those large number of conventional dumb bombs on the Musharraf on the Pakistanis who were desperately seeking their 72 and helped them in their quest for houris in the thereafter , despite sitting on razor like ledges (they thought they didn't want to get the houris, but the IAF granted them their deepest wishes) that would have made strikes without such things impossible. The Jaguars didn't have the altitude clearance for strikes at that altitude (the Pakis probably knew it) and the Mig 27s were simply inadequate for that as well (maybe the avionics upgraded ones are a different beast).

With the IAF strike fleet already upgraded with the avionics and systems derived from the LCA program etc, a repeat of Kargil will see the entire IAF fleet dropping dispatch orders to Houristan to the Pakis.