Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

[srai]

Here's a great video on how Litening pod is used:

[John]

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.

Singha would be you be starting kickstarter campaign to pay for the Blackjack's? Each of them cost well over 200 million along with cost to maintain it. They won't survive an hour into chinese airspace considering how many S-300 clones they have stockpiled and not to mention the Flankers. They are in the same ship as B-1s too expensive to be used as dump trucks and practically useless against any foe with decent air defense system. They are obsolete cold war relics and lets leave it at that.

[vivek_ahuja]

Indian military aviation going broke...

The mood turned sombre at the Defexpo 2014 here following Defence Ministry A K Antony’s announcement that India has no funds to do defence business anymore. Speaking at the event, Antony said India had no funds for new defence acquisitions this fiscal after Rs 7,870 crore from the capital budget was transferred to the revenue budget.

The statement has resulted in major confabulations within defence companies, both foreign and domestic private sector, on going slow till “business prospects show up” in India.

The Defence Minister also said India has not yet made down payment (about Rs 600 crore) toward a Rs 4,000-crore contract for six more C-130J special forces planes, though it was signed in December 2013, due to lack of funds.

Industry sources said US firm Boeing will now focus on “deliveries” of planes and missiles that it has signed contracts for over the next six months, instead of signing new contracts.

Boeing is currently supplying eight P-8I maritime patrol planes and the anti-submarine warfare Harpoon weapon systems, apart from 10 C-17 strategic transport planes. Its Chinook helicopter is the winner of the tender for 15 heavy lift helicopters and its Apache has been chosen by Indian Air Force as the attack helicopter it wants to meet the requirement of 22 gunships.

United States firm Raytheon’s expansion plans also may not go through, sources said. It would, however, continue to have a liaison office in New Delhi to pursue business. Raytheon has over the years pushed for sale of its Patriot missile defence system, Javelin anti-tank guided missile and Stinger man-portable air defence missile system, but has had no success.

In the case of BAE Systems, will focus on deliveries of 57 more Hawks, of which 17 would go to the Indian Navy and the rest 40 to the IAF. The company is waiting for the last two years to get the orders for supplying additional 20 Hawks for the IAF’s Surya Kiran aerobatics team.

BAE Systems had in the 2011 decided not to bid for the 155mm 52 calibre towed artillery gun tender after Indian Defence Ministry had tweaked the original parameters. BAE Systems then felt that its gun was superior to the specifications sought by the Indian tender and decided to keep away. In November 2013, the UK firm again decided not to bid in the tender for naval 127mm guns for integration on board its 13 mainline warships.

European firm Airbus too is waiting to sign a Rs 6,000 crore contract for supplying six A300 MRTT midair refueller to the IAF for the last two years. It is also waiting for a decision from the Defence Ministry on the tender for 197 light utility helicopters worth Rs 7,500 crore for the Army and Air Force.

This tender is stuck due to investigation into complaints against a Brigadier demanding a bribe of Rs 25 crore from Italian major AgustaWestland.

[NRao]

And, what of the FGFA? Now?

[Singha]

>> Each of them cost well over 200 million along with cost to maintain it.

that makes them far cheaper than C17 and in the league of a A330 price perhaps.

>>They won't survive an hour into chinese airspace considering how many S-300 clones they have stockpiled and not to mention the Flankers.

its a myth that china has its airspace all covered up with S300+ systems , its a giant of a country + tibet + sinkiang and nobody not even khan can pay the bill to cover such a space. they will have SAMs around prime targets and along some expected axis of attack and thats it. and as you know the efficacy of SAMs falls off steeply as their range increases to max of slant range. syria etc have had them for years and yet the IDF sneaks in and beats them up whenever they want. same for the flankers..how many they can deploy and sustain is tibet is of importance to us, not how many come for parade. the B-1 carries 2 tons of EW gear to defeat SAMs and their radars.

secondly the blackjacks will be delivering not just brahmos, but also brahmos2 , brahmos-A and nirbhay from long range. over the ocean their deadliness increases as SAM coverage and air threat levels fall off steeply. throw in air launched decoys and LR-ARMs too, perhaps a version of Astra2/KH31. imo blackjacks will be more survivable over tibet than the 100s of jaguars, Mig27, mirages that will be thrown into the fight. higher top speed, better room for EW gear, longer sustained supersonic for sure.

a single blackjack flying out of hyderabad could cripple a major airbase for a week with a mix of KH31(underwing) and brahmos & nirbhay internally.

a bomb truck imparts decisive advantages over the ocean and also over land(with LR missiles), in terms of less tanker sorties and can fly away into hinterland, keeping fwd bases free for fighter interceptors. Flankers cannot begin to touch the set of targets a unrefuelled blackjack could. this will also force dispersal of chinese SAM assets into depth positions lest a couple of blackjacks show up over a undefended fat target and savage it.

[Philip]

300 LCAs is what many on BR have been advocating.This would nicely replace the MIG-21s and MIG-27s bird for bird.The Litening deal is one of the best decisions taken for some time.AS far as the strategic bomber option goes,the Russians have a large number of mothballed Backfires,more readily available,but which need large scale upgrading .These costs would have to be worked out to see whether they would be economical to acquire and operate.As an interim measure,the SU-34 dedicated side-by-side two-seat bomber version of the Flanker would be a good acquisition.Whether the new Russian PAK-DA stealth bomber under development would be available to us is a moot point.

Key differences of the SU-34 compared with std. Flanker variants

The Su-34's most distinctive feature is the unusually large flight deck. Much of the design work went into crew comfort. The two crew members sit side by side in a large cabin, with the pilot-commander to the left and navigator/operator of weapons to the right in NPP Zvezda K-36dm ejection seats. An advantage of the side by side cockpit is that duplicate instruments are not required for each pilot. Since long missions require comfort, the pressurization system allows operation up to 10,000 metres (32,800 ft) without oxygen masks, which are available for emergencies and combat situations.[29] The crew members have room to stand and move about the cabin during long missions.[30][31] The space between the seats allows them to lie down in the corridor, if necessary.[29] A toilet and a galley are located behind the crew seats.[29][30]

[vic]

Kill the Rafale deal and instead of 126 Rafales, order additional 100 LCA, 100 new Jags, 50 Su-30 MKI by HAL and 50 Russian version of PAKFA which can start arriving from 2017 onwards till we perfect the FGFA around 2022.

[NRao]

They are claiming they have no funds for the Rafale, so where will they find the money for all of these pups?

[vivek_ahuja]

They are claiming they have no funds for the Rafale, so where will they find the money for all of these pups?

The article says they haven't been able to pay even for the C-130Js we have already bought!

I hope this is simply for this fiscal year and not a sign of the times...

[Viv S]

that makes them far cheaper than C17 and in the league of a A330 price perhaps.

Heavy airlift and aerial refueling are essential functions. A long range supersonic strategic bomber on the other hand has never been identified as a requirement.

its a myth that china has its airspace all covered up with S300+ systems , its a giant of a country + tibet + sinkiang and nobody not even khan can pay the bill to cover such a space. they will have SAMs around prime targets and along some expected axis of attack and thats it.

They've indigenized the design and even though the coverage isn't 100%, its still fair to assume that very substantial numbers of the HQ-9 and HQ-12 are in service, the number and quality of which will continue to grow.

syria etc have had them for years and yet the IDF sneaks in and beats them up whenever they want.

The Syrians don't yet field the S-300, despite having signed a contract with Russia for the same. And the recent Israeli air strike is widely believed to have targeted S-300 components being delivered to the Syrian military.

same for the flankers..how many they can deploy and sustain is tibet is of importance to us, not how many come for parade. the B-1 carries 2 tons of EW gear to defeat SAMs and their radars.

The true supersonic analogue was the B-1A which was cancelled in the 70s itself. The B-1B is optimized for subsonic flight and unlike the Tupolevs features a very low RCS for an aircraft of its type. Also, the PLAAF may not be able to immediately deploy the bulk of its Flanker force to the south, but it will to be able to generate sustained AEW&C coverage (supported by aerial refueling) on a wide frontage fairly soon.

secondly the blackjacks will be delivering not just brahmos, but also brahmos2 , brahmos-A and nirbhay from long range. over the ocean their deadliness increases as SAM coverage and air threat levels fall off steeply. throw in air launched decoys and LR-ARMs too, perhaps a version of Astra2/KH31. imo blackjacks will be more survivable over tibet than the 100s of jaguars, Mig27, mirages that will be thrown into the fight. higher top speed, better room for EW gear, longer sustained supersonic for sure.

I believe the offer here was for the Backfire, not the Blackjack. In either case, fact is we don't need it as a platform for any of the missiles in question. The Nirbhay with a range of 1000km plus can easily hit most targets of interest even when ground launched. The Brahmos-A can only be carried externally, in which case we may as well use a Su-30MKIfor the job. Same for the BrahMos-M - best employed from a stealth fighter.

a bomb truck imparts decisive advantages over the ocean and also over land(with LR missiles), in terms of less tanker sorties and can fly away into hinterland, keeping fwd bases free for fighter interceptors. Flankers cannot begin to touch the set of targets a unrefuelled blackjack could. this will also force dispersal of chinese SAM assets into depth positions lest a couple of blackjacks show up over a undefended fat target and savage it.

Hitting a target that deep in Chinese space is unlikely to be a priority and is not feasible in the first place. Unlike the US and Russia, operating near-transcontinental ranges is not a requirement for us.

All the same, if we do want to hit them, for the cost of half a dozen Tu-22Ms, we could buy 750-1000 Nirbhay LRCMs. With a range of 1000km+, they can cover all of Tibet, Sichuan, Yunnan and most of Xinjiang. Improved variants (Nirbhay II) will bring most of China except for the coastal areas within range.

[John]

that makes them far cheaper than C17 and in the league of a A330 price perhaps.

Those aircraft are far better force multiplier and not to mention can be used to ferry relief/peace keeping operations former saving lives. Their maintenance cost is no where next to Blackjack.

its a myth that china has its airspace all covered up with S300+ systems , its a giant of a country + tibet + sinkiang and nobody not even khan can pay the bill to cover such a space. they will have SAMs around prime targets and along some expected axis of attack and thats it. and as you know the efficacy of SAMs falls off steeply as their range increases to max of slant range. syria etc have had them for years and yet the IDF sneaks in and beats them up whenever they want. same for the flankers..how many they can deploy and sustain is tibet is of importance to us, not how many come for parade. the B-1 carries 2 tons of EW gear to defeat SAMs and their radars.

You are Comparing B-1 with Blackjack which is generation behind in that category not to mention America has excellant surv capability to map out most of china's radar installation to fly around them which we lack. Simply flying them blindly into combat is suicide, Tu-22MR fitted with similar EW was shot down by Georgians in its first sortie. Yes China is large but each S-300 battery radius over 10,000 Sq Km. They are obsolete there is reason even China has turned down russian attempts to sell Backfire or didn't even bother trying to reverse engineer them with help from Ukraine and rather focusing on stealth bomber of their own.

All said and done Russia currently doesn't have the capability to build any of them and can barely even maintain the 11 or so that is flying around. So we should spend the billions the Russians would require to rebuild their facilities and reverse engineer this, i doubt after Vikramaditya anyone would ever do that.

As Viv already mentioned IMO the best method is mass producing cheap Nirbhay with 2K Km range and perhaps in future UCAVs that can deliver them even further. Even if china shoots them they would spend tens of millions in wasted air defense missiles where as they would cost far less for IAF.

[NRao]

They are claiming they have no funds for the Rafale, so where will they find the money for all of these pups?

The article says they haven't been able to pay even for the C-130Js we have already bought!

I hope this is simply for this fiscal year and not a sign of the times...

It may ............

Nov, 2013 :: PM hints at trimming defence budget, says need to 'cut our coat according to our cloth'

[Viv S]

But negotiations to buy 18 planes off-the-shelf and build the rest in India have slowed and will stretch into the following fiscal year, Defence Minister A.K. Antony told a news conference at a defence sector trade fair.

The military, the world's biggest arms importer for three years running, has already spent 92 percent of its defence capital budget for this year, he said.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/0 ... 3Z20140206


Assuming this refers to the revised capital outlay of Rs 78,871 crore, with two months left in FY 2013-14, we're left with Rs 6300 crore or about $1 billion. They may be looking to push the C-130J payment over to the next financial year, but if they had to I believe they could have done it this year as well.

[Lalmohan]

they obviously realised the deal was too far away to conclude, so the funds were spent with unkil on the other goodies

[Kartik]

Boeing believes it is close enough to signing the AH-64E Apache and CH-47F Chinook deal with India

Boeing closes in on Apache and CHinook deals

Boeing expects to sign contracts soon covering India’s planned purchase of its AH-64E Apache and CH-47F Chinook helicopters, while global interest in the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor produced with partner Bell has reached a new high.
India is currently in “final signature routing with the Ministry of Defence” for both its planned acquisitions, says Leanne Caret, Boeing’s vice-president, vertical lift. “We anticipate a contract for the Chinooks in the first half of the year, and the Apaches in the second half,” she adds.

Boeing has held its prices for the planned 22-aircraft Apache buy and 15-unit Chinook sale since submitting final offers in 2010 and 2009, respectively, Caret says.
Elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region, Indonesia moved to acquire the AH-64E last year, while Boeing has an active campaign to offer the type to Malaysia.
And Caret hints at further likely developments for the AH-64 programme, which in 2013 delivered its 2,000th production aircraft. Referring to long-term plans for an “Advanced Apache”, she notes: “there will be more technologies that will come.”
..

[Brando]

While the AH-64 can be seen as a credible purchase due to its superlative capabilities, I've always questioned the rational behind the Chinook purchase. The IA and IAF have been operating Russian helicopters for nearly 3-4 decades now, the Russian supply lines run deep and Indian AirForce engineers and technicians are familiar with the maintenance requirements and characteristics of Russian helo as are the Indian pilots who swear by them. For a marginal improvement in lift capacity at a significant increase in cost and complexity the Chinook does not seem ideally suited to the austere nature of Indian Military helo operations. Is it really a VFM buy that fills a practical role ? IMO at 15 units it would be too few and too little to offer any significant logistical or maneuver advantages especially when it offers nothing significant over what the Mi-17 and Mi-26 don't already provide in terms of capability.

[Singha]

the claim is the chinooks can lift the M777 while the Mi-17 cannot!!

[srin]

I don't know if - esp when we are really strapped for cash, having $50M+ Apache (and that too not all of them having Longbow) makes sense. Too expensive - more expensive than many fixed wing aircraft. LCH isn't yet IOC, but I'd be happier if hadn't gone the Apache way.

[Brando]

Thats true but then why buy only 15 ? They ought to be looking at 50 or more shouldnt they if they want to maneuver 145 M777 guns with any speed ? The purchase of 15 just doesnt' make sense to me. Too little to make much of a difference operationally IMO.

[Philip]

The MI-26 has proved itself in its years of service and during the Ukhand disaster too.The best argument for it is the pic of an MI-26 carrying a downed Chinook in Afghanistan! The helo is in production in upgraded version and what we could've worked out was a return of old MI-26s to be replaced with new ones.Even if Chinooks are acquired,maintaining the fleet of about 6 MI-28 will be vital to airlift larger payloads that Chinooks cannot.The cargo hold of the MI-26 is as large as the erstwhile AN-12 mil. transport.

One would prefer the IAF to accelerate the acquisition of the desi attack helos LCH/LAH in large numbers ,Possessing a small qty. of Apaches isn't going to alter events on the battlefield with a border of a few thousand kms! Tactical missiles like Prithvi,being replaced by BMos, Prahaar,SMERCH and Pinaka ER MBRLs ,will have a greater effect in the land

[merlin]

15 might be the thin edge of the wedge here. Follow on orders, in the Indian context, are always easier even if those aren't options but actual follow on orders with an increased price.

So I would expect more to be bought. Pity.

[Singha]

the usual saazish to control and downsize (cap, rollback, eliminate) potential LCH buy.

we may not have signed the CTBT but we are founder member of CBDT (comprehensive domestic ban treaty).

[Kersi D]

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

Inshah Allah

God Willing

Amen

[rohitvats]

the claim is the chinooks can lift the M777 while the Mi-17 cannot!!

Which is patently idiotic statement considering we're buying (or hope to) 145 guns and 15 helicopters; and the guns will further be distributed across different formations and Chinooks might not be in the sector at all...

[Singha]

I know. but that was the official line trotted out. when all else fails, it is also claimed will be useful for SF ops. precisely why it is superior to the 100+ mi17 we have signed up for is unknown. it can carry more people for sure. maybe a larger volume pallets internally. but thats about it.

maybe all the M777 and chinooks will be assigned to the MSC at panagarh and thats it.

[Viv S]

While the AH-64 can be seen as a credible purchase due to its superlative capabilities, I've always questioned the rational behind the Chinook purchase. The IA and IAF have been operating Russian helicopters for nearly 3-4 decades now, the Russian supply lines run deep and Indian AirForce engineers and technicians are familiar with the maintenance requirements and characteristics of Russian helo as are the Indian pilots who swear by them. For a marginal improvement in lift capacity at a significant increase in cost and complexity the Chinook does not seem ideally suited to the austere nature of Indian Military helo operations. Is it really a VFM buy that fills a practical role ?

The Chinook is quite simply a replacement for the Mi-26. Its not supposed to provide any new capability. The rationale behind the heavy lift requirement remains unchanged from the IAF's original requirement which lead to the Mi-26 purchase.

Also for the record, while the the IAF is very satisfied with its Mi-17, its experience with the Mi-26 in terms of serviceability has been awful. The Mi-26T was bound to be more expensive to operate and maintain, but I wouldn't be surprised if the IAF's experience factored into rejecting it for the heavy lift contract.

IMO at 15 units it would be too few and too little to offer any significant logistical or maneuver advantages especially when it offers nothing significant over what the Mi-17 and Mi-26 don't already provide in terms of capability.

The Mi-26 is barely in production, operated by a handful of countries, with most current units being decades old relics. The Chinook on the other hand has hundreds of units in active service and has 20 different operators employing it in all sort of environments, backed by a solid after-sales support system that spans the globe.

[Viv S]

The best argument for it is the pic of an MI-26 carrying a downed Chinook in Afghanistan!

That is a pointless argument. Here's the Chinook lifting another Chinook : Pic 1. Pic 2.

[Philip]

Stripped down? Anyway,the two are really of different classes.It is upto the IAF to decide what they want.There are tasks which the Chinook simply cannot perform compared with the MI-26.

AKA: Hope for the LUH contract which has been frozen in time for almost a year.AKA says that the contract has not been cancelled .Only two contenders,the Fennec and Sergei.truly past time for decision making on this front. AKA in answer to a parliamentary Q ,gave out the details of 4 delayed projects,LCA MK-2,naval LR SAM,etc. ranging from 7-4 years.

PS:.Ask the Chinook to carry an MI-26!

[Philip]

.!

[Viv S]

Stripped down? Anyway,the two are really of different classes.

Even if it wasn't it would still be able to lift the Chinook, albeit with limited reserve power.

It is upto the IAF to decide what they want.There are tasks which the Chinook simply cannot perform compared with the MI-26.

The IAF did decide what it wanted and that was reflected in the RFP. And Chinook was found to be L1 on a lifecycle cost basis.

[SanjayC]

Strategic Bomber for IAF

By Bharat Karnad

Published: 07th February 2014 02:00 AM

Last Updated: 07th February 2014 01:23 AM

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”.

Bharat Karnad is Professor at Centre for Policy Research and blogs at www.bharatkarnad.com

[abhik]

the claim is the chinooks can lift the M777 while the Mi-17 cannot!!

The M777 failed the air transportability part of the in trials held by the IA.

[member_22539]

^Yet they were ordered. Imagine if this were a indigenous gun. Think of the indignation and hostility DRDO etc. would have faced.

[Pratyush]

The M777 failed the air transportability part of the in trials held by the IA.

when and where such trials took place. which was the helo, that was used for the trials. we need to have the jucy details.

[abhik]

^Yet they were ordered. Imagine if this were a indigenous gun. Think of the indignation and hostility DRDO etc. would have faced.

Not yet.

The M777 failed the air transportability part of the in trials held by the IA.

when and where such trials took place. which was the helo, that was used for the trials. we need to have the jucy details.

I'm not sure if the juicy details are in the public domain, but here is the news report(2011)
Army seeks relaxation to procure 'failed' gun

In the Air Portability Trials, the BAE gun scored a zero on transportability by air. Transport by cargo, Para dropping the gun and a Heli Transport in a slung mode all showed up a 'Fail'.

I would speculate the helicopter was a Mi-8/17. The only other possible helicopter is the Mi-26 but we have so few that I don't imagine it was considered.

[Lalmohan]

given that there is film of the gun doing all three in unkil colours, one needs to understand the nature of the testing and the pass criteria before coming to any conclusions one way or the other

[vic]

So what happens to arguments of some v very eminent BRFites that whole point of M777 is air transportability and it must be acquired for this and this reason alone.

[chackojoseph]

I need info if available here. I require CAP time and Turn Around Time (TAT) of Indian Air Force fighter aircraft's.

MiG-21
MiG-21 Bison
MiG - 29
Su-30 MKI
Mirage 2000

TAT means aircraft lands, services, arms and then gets ready for take off.

[abhik]

given that there is film of the gun doing all three in unkil colours, one needs to understand the nature of the testing and the pass criteria before coming to any conclusions one way or the other

Those tests were conducted by Indian Army in Indian conditions, with IA/IAF infrastructure/equipment and with our operational requirements in mind. And it failed. What works for unkil does not automatically work for us. What really raises the stink level is that post the trials the Army wanted to reduce the requirements so that the gun can be passed. How often does it do that for indigenous maal? Anyway OT for this thread.

[Philip]

What else can one expect from the "Snake-oil" regime? It has been consistent one has to admit,giving the equiv. of mil. "bl*w j*bs" to Uncle Sam through the FMS route,where many acquisitions plucked out of a conjuror's hat,have been completed in indecent haste while other more essential priorities still languish year after year.