Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Jul 2015 20:02

Ideally ADA should have run point on design issues. HAL should have hired ADA since its their expertise. Perhaps IAF just wants to fault and has written up reqs to exclude them out of any race.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 Jul 2015 21:40

Singha wrote:I wonder why takeoff distance is concern
For a land based ijt.

I am not sure on the 'exactness' of this but the concern is vis design specifications. Also, presently this is just in the realms of 'rumors' and it is best to wait.

I searched and found this piece on BRF on what was being attempted. I am not aware on exactly where we are.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircr ... uresh.html

Performance.

The performance of IJT would be the same as that of Kiran. However, a major advantage of IJT is the enhancement of training value, with more repetition per unit time. This has been made possible due to low Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) of Larzac engine (SFC: 0.76 kg/kg/hr: Bypass ratio: 1.04) and resultant fuel economy. Pilots will also have a good feel of high speed as the aircraft has a maximum speed of 750 kmph, and maximum Mach No of 0.75. Take-off and landing distances would be within 1000 mtrs in clean configuration. Stalling speed in clean configuration is expected to be around 175 kmph and in landing configuration 155 kmph. IJT would be cleared to +7g and –2.5g. It would have a range in excess of 1200 kms and endurance in excess of 2.5 hours. The rate of climb at sea level is expected be in excess of 1200 mtrs/min.

As far as Take off distance is concerned, Tambram is little short but all other runways are adequate in length. Plus did we operate Kiran from Tambram ever?

So, me thinks that Take Off Distance shortfall (if any!) is indicative of maybe a larger problem in the design itself.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 30 Jul 2015 22:05

MTA only exists on paper and there is no guarantee any will be built. The C-295 has an assured order of 56 and any additional order from IN will only reduce cost. Anyway MTA was only designed for 18 tonnes payload. Since IAF will not have more than 16 C-17's the MTA if it ever comes through can be used there.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jul 2015 07:40

deejay wrote:
I searched and found this piece on BRF on what was being attempted. I am not aware on exactly where we are.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircr ... uresh.html

Performance.

The performance of IJT would be the same as that of Kiran. However, a major advantage of IJT is the enhancement of training value, with more repetition per unit time. This has been made possible due to low Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) of Larzac engine (SFC: 0.76 kg/kg/hr: Bypass ratio: 1.04) and resultant fuel economy. Pilots will also have a good feel of high speed as the aircraft has a maximum speed of 750 kmph, and maximum Mach No of 0.75. Take-off and landing distances would be within 1000 mtrs in clean configuration. Stalling speed in clean configuration is expected to be around 175 kmph and in landing configuration 155 kmph. IJT would be cleared to +7g and –2.5g. It would have a range in excess of 1200 kms and endurance in excess of 2.5 hours. The rate of climb at sea level is expected be in excess of 1200 mtrs/min.

Suresh was very positive about this in the years before he died - and it is now 11-12 years since he died.

I note than he has said "Larzac engine". IIRC problems started from that point. I think Larzac had some issues - (was it underpowered - does anyone recall?) That is when the Russian AL 55 engine was brought in. I seem to recall that this engine had reliability issues and required inspections after every 100 hours or so.If I remember right it was a new engine and the Russians insisted that it be given to them for inspection and when they passed it the engine could be used . It took several years to sort out - at least I think it was sorted out.

Then came the crash - which was rumoured to have an engine component in its causation. I am not sure if it was a stall/spin issue that led to an engine flameout - the two could be related. My information may not be accurate. That really kicked the program back by about 2-3 years more. then we started hearing about stall and spin problems. Still a third prototype was built Somewhere along the way we saw a single photograph of an IJT with a stall/spin chute on its tail.

We now have persistent rumours and/or reports
1. "All problems sorted out"
2. Stalling done, spin to be tested
3. IJT program cancelled
4. Take off run issues.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 31 Jul 2015 09:13

A recent conversation mentioned the following - that the IJT was sluggish in rolls which made it unsuitable for induction into training. it took ages to figure out why it was so sluggish. turned out the wing was 'flexing' . strengthening the wings to make them more rigid it increased its weight. .. this saga itself took two to three years to resolve?

please tell me this is not the first time this story was heard?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jul 2015 09:46

Atleast I heard the story for the first time . What about those skates near the nose , so called anti-spin thingie

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jul 2015 11:16

We have to take a hard look at where we right now with the IJT,when we started and what other nations have been doing in the same arena,jet trainers.Italy has an excellent M-346/326 JT (flown at Aero-India),Russia has the new Yak. which an IAF pilot who flew it said in an old Vayu was superb,Pilatus has its PC-21,which can replace the need for an IJT,SoKo its "Golden Eagle",Japan its Kawasaki IJT.
Brazil interestingly,despite its excellent Tucano trainer/light attack t-prop and Embraer's experience,may partner Russia in a JV for the same.Ideally,we too could've used the JV route,strongly recommended by Dr.Pillai,who wrote how BMos was a JV that was recommended/promoted strongly by APJAK. Any of the above mentioned aircraft would've been ideal for the IAF.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/ ... 3Y20150410

Fri Apr 10, 2015
Russia's Rostec eyes Brazilian partnership on trainer jet

SAO PAULO | By Brad Haynes
Russian state company Rostec could use equipment from Brazilian defense contractor Mectron in the YAK-130 jet trainer, a senior executive told Reuters, as Russia turns to Latin America to offset sanctions imposed by the West over the crisis in Ukraine.

The statement by Sergei Goreslavsky, deputy head of Rostec unit Rosoboronexport, is the first confirmation of negotiations on a possible deal that could see Moscow buy equipment from Mectron if Brazil buys Russia's Pantsir-S1 air defense system.

Responding to written questions from Reuters, Goreslavsky added he hoped the Pantsir deal, worth an estimated $1 billion, would be signed this year.

The surface-to-air missile batteries would bolster Brazil's defenses ahead of the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro and cement a strategic defense partnership with Russia, in defiance of Western sanctions.

"The sanctions against Russia have led us down new paths and opened new opportunities," Goreslavsky said. "We consider Brazil one of the countries with the best perspectives."

He added the sanctions had not hurt Russian arms exports, which totaled 13 billion euros ($14 billion) in 2014, second only to the United States.

Rostec has stepped up its presence in Latin America in recent years, selling Lada cars in Venezuela, working on a deal to make Kamaz trucks in Argentina and delivering Mi-171 helicopters to Peru and Brazil.

The Russians are also in talks with Odebrecht Defense and Technology - the industrial group that controls Mectron - on a joint venture to maintain or even produce helicopters from the Mi family in Brazil, according to Goreslavsky.

He suggested there could be progress on the deal at the LAAD defense fair in Rio next week.

"For now it's a memorandum of cooperation on technology," he said. "Perhaps it could lead to an assembly line with machines produced in Brazil and, afterwards, you could expand production and transfer certain technologies."

He added there was "some hope for a more concrete response during LAAD from officials from Brasilia regarding our offer of joint production."

A press representative for Odebrecht had no comment on supplying equipment for the YAK-130. News reports in the past have suggested that Mectron could supply its Scipio-01 radar for the Russian jet.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Jul 2015 11:42

The IJT was basically HALs leadership at the time saying a "nyah nyah" to ADA saying "see see even we can dijjin planes and we don't need no ADA" etc etc. Hence it was prioritized over LCA as well. HAL would have prezzos where IJT would be pride of place with multiple details, slide 4 would have a mention of LCA in a cursory fashion. In the process, IJT went nowhere since it didn't take into account the hard won aero experience LCA program had gathered and just became a melange of imported systems and technology unavailability issues (with HAL taking the high risk options).

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 31 Jul 2015 12:54

HAL could add some composities to reduce IJT weight. Even SARAS seems to be dead? Pimp Empire strikes back?

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 01 Aug 2015 07:45

IIRC, the IJT was designed around the Larzac engine, and had its first few flights on it, but was found to be too overweight for the engine. So, a more powerful engine was needed. The Russians offered to design and develop a new engine which was to be a smaller version of the AL-31 that was being used on the SU-30, and for which India was getting the full TOT to manufacture and maintain.

It was to be a win-win all around - India would get a more powerful engine, at a lower cost than the French, that was based on one that India was using in numbers already. Since it was to be a derivative of the AL-31, the Russians promised it will be ready in double-quick time.

So, the French were booted out, the order was placed on the Russians - and things have gone downhill since.

In IJT's case, we cannot blame the IAF either, as the IAF had placed advance orders for 100s of units, unlike what they are doing with the LCA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Aug 2015 12:51

IJT is a design issue that HAL could not fix not an engine issue be it french or russian , The issue came up as the envelop started opening up and then the real issue that came up could not be fixed.

I think a fundamental design flaw is very difficult to fix with patches here and there unless they go back to the drawing board based on experience and redesign it. They should rather do that and learn from mistakes rather than close the project else we may not learn at all. Call it IJT Mk2 and fix the issue even if Mk2 comes at 2020 it would be worth every penny in terms of exprienced gain and lessons learnt.

Imagine if some one dropped Tejas program just because it did not meet ASR and didnt do a Mk2 or if Sukhoi dropped the first varient of flanker the T-10 which had fundamental design issue and didnt go to drawing board and redesigned the flanker.

John · Post by **John** » 01 Aug 2015 17:21

Kakkaji wrote:IIRC, the IJT was designed around the Larzac engine, and had its first few flights on it, but was found to be too overweight for the engine. So, a more powerful engine was needed. The Russians offered to design and develop a new engine which was to be a smaller version of the AL-31 that was being used on the SU-30, and for which India was getting the full TOT to manufacture and maintain.

Based on my recollection of discussion at that time Turbomeca offered to develop a new engine to fit HAL's requirement but the Russians underbid them on price hence HAL went with the latter. Even though IAF even expressed concerns.

^ Austin somewhere HAL need to hold people responsible and pull the plug and focus how to improve the process so it doesn't happen again. Rather than just continue throwing more money and hoping somehow outside consultants can solve their problem. Even in your example Sukhoi was willing to admit T-10 had flaws and was quick go back and redesign in the case with IJT, HAL hasn't taken any responsibility or willing to go back to drawing board.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Aug 2015 18:28

John wrote:^ Austin somewhere HAL need to hold people responsible and pull the plug and focus how to improve the process so it doesn't happen again. Rather than just continue throwing more money and hoping somehow outside consultants can solve their problem. Even in your example Sukhoi was willing to admit T-10 had flaws and was quick go back and redesign in the case with IJT, HAL hasn't taken any responsibility or willing to go back to drawing board.

I could be wrong but I have yet to come across any one being pulled in GOI for not doing the right thing or being held accountable in any way, these people just fade away or the projects run so long that there are many top bosses who come in go in between , PM changes etc then who will you hold accountable the last person who over saw it or the first one under whose leadership the project started...its not that their life or reputation depends on it and IAF would simply go for import route if it fails , GoI will accept that.

Heavens wont fall if IJT fails , IAF would just put across requirement of necessity say its critical cant wait much longer , GOI will have to accept it , DRDO/HAL or similar orginisation will give its concurrence then they will import , Once the import window opens then there is little appetite to support similar indiginous project which could not meet the deadline earlier.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Aug 2015 19:43

Austin wrote:I could be wrong but I have yet to come across any one being pulled in GOI for not doing the right thing or being held accountable in any way, these people just fade away or the projects run so long that there are many top bosses who come in go in between , PM changes etc then who will you hold accountable the last person who over saw it or the first one under whose leadership the project started...its not that their life or reputation depends on it and IAF would simply go for import route if it fails , GoI will accept that.

GOI is 10x more political than any pvt job. In many orgs people run for cover or do anything necessary (or do nothing) for fear of a bad report from their superiors. HAL has in the past sacked people for bad maintenance - eg MiG-21 crashes.
But a lot depends on the kind of person running the shop/organization.

Heavens wont fall if IJT fails , IAF would just put across requirement of necessity say its critical cant wait much longer , GOI will have to accept it , DRDO/HAL or similar orginisation will give its concurrence then they will import , Once the import window opens then there is little appetite to support similar indiginous project which could not meet the deadline earlier.

I still don't get why we can supplant the IJT with more Hawks and Pilatus. The IAFs complex staged training should be able to be modified to operate with more Pilatus and Hawks and no IJT.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Aug 2015 20:28

Karan M wrote:I still don't get why we can supplant the IJT with more Hawks and Pilatus. The IAFs complex staged training should be able to be modified to operate with more Pilatus and Hawks and no IJT.

Yes they can shorten the training cycle thats a professional decision IAF has to take what ever be the merits/demerits of skipping IJT but that apart it wont fix the IJT issue , IAF along with HAL should persist with IJT to something like Mk2 even if they have to go back to the drawing board and redesign it , there is no shame in accepting this is deign flaw and an Mk2 would fix most of the issues if not all ( thats how our SLV program survived ) but it would be monumental loss if they just make IJT into another Trishul project and get some xyz IJT from abc country and give IJT a silent burial.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Aug 2015 13:15

If our DPSUs want to go ahead with their pet projects,then they should design it,develop it and perfect it before offering it to the end user,the armed forces. The IAF has for far too long waited in vain for the results to arrive on time,fitting in with its re-equipment programme. The first decade of LCA delay saw the Bison being developed.Now even the Bison is long in the tooth,but is being nursed to stay until 2025!The second decade of LCA delay saw the MMRCA demand arise,but even this is nowhere near resolved.If the deal is signed this year,it will still take at least 3 years,2018+ before the first Rafales arrive.Egypt,etc. have beaten us in the queue. If the Rafale is too expensive there are only two options to replace retiring MIG-21s,the MIG-29UG/K standard or the MKI. The LCA MK-1 is being developed/produced/inducted so slowly that even two years production (a max of 16 aircraft) won't make any significant difference to our capability,as the first sqd. will have to be put through its paces before it is combat ready.

I doubt that the IN is going to order more carrier strike aircraft for a few years ,as it will have enough 29Ks to equip both the Vik-A and the new Vikrant. The handful, of SH's (11) too can be used aboard any one of them,or kept in the reserves. If the IN decides to expand its sphere of air operations by basing aircraft at its naval air stations,such as Car Nic.,then more 29Ks may be needed. If a naval Rafale is anywhere from $150-$200M,then one would be able to get at least 4+ 29Ks for the price of one Rafale! Our first 29Ks came at a cost of $32M,and even factoring in inflation to a current fig. of between $40-45M,you can see the merits of such an option compared to a naval variant of the Rafale, which would be even more expensive than the IAF version. If the Rafale is unaffordable for the IAF,then it would be even more unaffordable for the IN which is a very pragmatic service. The advent of BMos-M and other BVR AAMs like Astra on the 29K is going to give it a quantum leap in capability.Ultimately,it is the ordnance carried which "does the business" that matters.

Until the FGFA arrives in IAF colours,or once a deal is signed on the dotted line for the execution of production for the IAF,there's little point in dreaming about it for a future large carrier which will arrive only by 2030. In any case,the CVs deck lifts can be made large enough to accommodate any existing/planned large strike aircraft,so by 2020+,after the FGFA/T-50 has made its arrival,the IN can evaluate it and decide whether it wants it. What the price of a naval FGFA,JSF,alternatiives will be by 2025 or so (when the decision on aircraft should be pursued if the carrier is expected by 2030),is anyone's guess.By then,we may have also developed our very own NUCAV.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 02 Aug 2015 13:45

I believe this is a great future direction. => says instead of.

HTTxx ==> PC-xx
HJTxx ==> Scorpion
LCA-Mkxx ==> Gripen
AMCA, Mig29, M2000 ==> F35
HCA,Su30,etc ==> heap of scrap

UAVs
Netra, man portable,..==> Raven
Nishant, short range ==> Searcher
Rustom-1(already a kit), etc medium range ==> Heron, other imports
Rustom-2,Male ==>Heron
UCAV ==>Harpee, and heaps of scrap

Helicopters
Dhruv, Mi class, Ka class, seaking ==>Exclusively boeing and sikorsky
Just Boeing and Sikorsky. That is all.

Fixed wing transport
748 ==>295, US doesnt make anything that fits.
Dornier ==>heap of scrap
Tu,IL==>P8, heaps of scrap
IL transport ==>Boeing something or the other, if not more C17, heaps of scrap.
MTA==>RIP.

Screwdrivers==>Import from china.

Replace one four father with another more promiscous four father who is already the illegitimate father of the rotten son next door. And like all manhole covers the world over doors and harnesses for all planes will be made in india.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 02 Aug 2015 15:53

The best way to deal with IJT problems is to double down and try harder, not only with IJT itself but chart additional lines of action. HAL HTT-40 can take over low end role of IJT. We should also sanction both LCA-AJT Variant and also CAT-AJT variant to have a fall back option to IJT as also future replacement to Hawk.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Aug 2015 22:14

A shame for India - Narendra Modi / Parrikar are resurrecting the full Rafale purchase - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 318408.cms. Narendra Modi is perpetrating farce on the country in the name of "Make in India". The babus/Generals continue to plunder national wealth and are probably laughing right now at continuing their loot!

It is clear what the Indian Armed Forces want - keep the Pakistani bogey alive so that imports and with them, the bribes keep rolling in. That is why Indian efforts are put on the test track and on a path to fail - aka Marut / Arjun. India has produced game changers - Marut, Arjun, LCA, Akash, Shivaliks, Kolkata Class, Delhi class, Vikrant, Arihant and so on. Upgrades, mods to these weapons would not require years (aka M2k upgrade), and billions more (again M2K upgrade/ Mig-29 upg). Tech transfer on these is laughable (T-90 barrels) when we need vendor's permission even to use Indian tyres on these purchases forget about integrating Astra on the M2K/Mig29.

Small wonder then that a country as small as Pakistan (and desperately short on resources) can be such a nuisance without a befitting response from India - GOI needs to beg - Russia, France, Israel, UK and the US for permission to respond. Terrorists continue to attack India and kill countless innocent civilians.

We never became independent it seems. We like to have masters.

RIP LCA, ARJUN, MARUT!!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Aug 2015 01:34

Vivek: Before you criticize the Prime Minister or the Defence Minister, I would suggest you determine if the news is really true. I am not saying our elected officials are above criticism, but determine what the facts are first. Secondly, criticize the policies not the individual. Mud slinging will get you no where.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 03 Aug 2015 05:58

Rakesh, I am a NaMo supporter but of late the stuff that is coming out from MOD is very disappointing. Now it seems that with the Arjun knocked out, to the delight of some on this forum, the knives are out for the LCA. The armed forces procurement mafia (with the politicos in their pockets) are going after the LCA with non-issues like the SPJ etc.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Aug 2015 09:53

The last one read in the media is that the IAF have asked for "one more sqd." of Rafales.Which would mean around 54+ One hasn't read anything else about local manufacture as yet. But the current dispensation owes an explanation to the taxpayer on the cost issue as there are cost-effective alternatives.

MK-2 had virtually completed all its trials well. LCA MK-1 still is in the "hatching" stage.Until FOC is obtained,there will be little forward momentum .The entire effort of HAL should be on this ,the most important programme instead of it wasting time on the BT,IJT,etc. which are flop shows.

There was another report in the media today ,saying that the IAF has asked HAL "to go back to the drawing board" on the IJT as it has fundamental design flaws that cannot be overcome. Calls for a firang IJT or scrapping the 3-tier trg. regime as many other air forces have only a 2-stage regime. The Pilatus trg. experience is also sufficient for rookies to graduate to the AJT,says a retd. AM (quoted). If the IAF also obtain the more sophisticated PC-21,which is a most popular BT abroad,simulating even the performance/characteristics of jet aircraft,the matter/requirement may be resolved.

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 03 Aug 2015 11:57

Vivek K wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 318408.cms

Expected to be one of the biggest projects under the Make in India campaign, the cost of the programme is expected to be around $30 million, the sources said.

Are we buying scaled models??

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 05 Aug 2015 04:40

IAF’s Second Largest Base for Super Hercules in Bengal

PANAGARH (BENGAL): The IAF on Tuesday enhanced its strategic capability with the second-largest base for C-130J Super Hercules here in Burdwan district,which will strengthen its might against China. Air Marshal S B Deo, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Air Command said, “(The) Availability of Panagarh airfield will definitely enhance strategic capability of IAF in the Eastern Area of Responsibility (AOR) and will also augment the mobility of Mountain Strike Corps which will be stationed at Panagarh in the near future.”

“Panagarh is being developed as a base for C-130J. It is a special forces aircraft and that is why it is designated J. There are also plans for a larger aircraft, a tanker variety aircraft to be based here,” he added.

Earlier, Air Marshal Deo inaugurated the newly resurfaced runway at the IAF station here, which is the second designated hub for the second batch of C-130J Super Hercules aircraft after Hindon in Uttar Pradesh “The presence of the C-130J will also help in humanitarian and disaster relief operations in West Bengal and neighbouring regions,” he said, outlining the various utilities of the aircraft, besides its primary role.

The heavy-lift Super Hercules military cargo aircraft can carry about 20 tonnes on a single flight and is used to move troops, equipment and other supplies. It can land on a very small airstrip and even on unpaved surfaces which will provide a major advantage for the IAF to move troops and equipment to the hills in Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh which has borders with China.

Initially, it was decided that the C-130J would be stationed at Charbatia in Odisha. But since the headquarters of the Mountain Strike Corps is now located here, the Ministry of Defence opted for this airfield. An IAF official said, “With its ability to land almost anywhere, the C-130J will be give the Mountain Strike Corps the necessary support to rush troops and reinforcements at very short notice.”

India has been consistently strengthening its defence preparedness in the Eastern and NorthEast sectors to combat threats from the Chinese dragon. “It is a strategic decision by the Indian government and the primary role for the C-130J will be to work as special operations aircraft,” the official explained.

The C-130J Super Hercules aircraft were used extensively by the IAF for carrying out the relief and rescue operations during the Uttarakhand flood and earthquake in 2013 and 2014 and during the earthquake in Sikkim in 2011. India had recently deployed this aircraft in the search and rescue operations for the missing Malaysian MH370 flight.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Aug 2015 20:07

Indian Air Force makes first staging visit to Saudi Arabia

Indian Air Force fighter contingent makes maiden visit to Saudi Arabia

wig · Post by **wig** » 08 Aug 2015 18:58

the IAF appears to have made a daring rescue of stranded mountaineers, but there is no coverage in the media
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=0
Challenging Rescue of Twenty One British and a French National by Siachen Pioneers

Braving adverse weather, IAF Helicopters from Leh rescued 21 British Nationals and 01 French national on 6th and 7th August in a challenging Casualty Evacuation from high altitude. After five days of continuous downpour, all major rivers like Indus, Nubra, Shyok and their tributaries in Ladakh region were flowing beyond their danger mark. The road & telephone communication was cut-off along most major roads. Like always, ‘Siachen Pioneers’, the premier IAF helicopter unit at Leh was pressed into service.

On 06 Aug 15 at 1600h, AF Stn Leh received a SOS message to rescue a group of British citizens who were stranded in the Markha Valley with some members suffering from asthma. Information on exact location and injuries sustained by the trekkers was ambiguous. Even the coordinates and the place given by civil agency were off the actual one by 50 Nautical Miles. Marginal weather and time of the day necessitated a search and rescue to be launched immediately. Two aircraft were launched, led by Commanding Officer Wg Cdr BS Sehrawat VM with Flt Lt Cirag as formation leader and Wg Cdr KS Negi with Sqn Ldr V Chauhan as his number two. Sortie planning was in progress when the crew realised that available window for successful SAR was narrowing owing to deteriorating weather and the approaching sunset.

The mission was airborne at 1645h and keeping in mind the general knowhow of the Markha valley and previous knowledge of the terrain, the formation reached the probable SAR area and commenced intense search in the narrow valley which by now was under cover of hill shadows. After 10 minutes of search, the pilots located the trekkers close to Thinlespa village on the bank of the river. Thankfully, the trekkers had made a temporary “SOS” sign near the rivulet; this distress signal on ground was instrumental in correctly identifying the location. However, the treacherous terrain and vertical slope of more than 70° made landing of the helicopter near the camp of trekkers impossible. The marginal weather and the approaching sunset added to the difficulty and criticality of the mission. At this point No 1 identified a small clear area near the camp on the river bank at 12000 feet around 200 feet North West of the location of the camp, just enough for the skid of the helicopter to be accommodated. For a landing, light contact with ground and holding on the partial power was essential. The weather was deteriorating with turbulence, winds and the sun shadow engulfing the landing site in the narrow valley making the situation near critical.

The approach to the selected landing point itself was restricted and with limited power margin and manoeuvring space, there was no margin for error. The landing area was undulating and rocky and with steep gradient leaving a restricted space for landing take-off and for a go- around. The crew realised that for any chance of rescue they would not get a hold time of more than 1 min on the landing spot because of turbulent winds in the narrow valley and apprehension of helicopter going into a ground-resonance. After landing at the site the leader instructed his No 2 to carry out a landing at the same spot. Thereafter, No 2 carried out an approach and hovered next to the selected landing site. The formation carried out one more shuttle and successfully evacuated a total of 10 British nationals.

By the time the helicopters completed their task, it was nearing sunset. In best tradition of the IAF, Siachen Pioneers once again beat the odds; fighting against time and weather/ environmental elements to rise to the occasion.

Once again on 07th Aug, two sets of two Cheetal helicopters each, took-off at sunrise. In a matter of a few hours the balance 11 Britishers were rescued. Meanwhile, another request for causality evacuation of one French lady, who was badly injured, was received. Even though she had severe spinal injury and broken ribs, she was evacuated to Leh airfield and promptly moved to the hospital. “For a unit engaged in military operations for more than 30 years continuously, beating the odds is an essential character ingrained in every crew”, remarked the Commanding Officer, on completion of the mission.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 11 Aug 2015 08:52

.

From Thakur

MiG-29 upgrade.

HAL makes tortured progress at 11 BRD.
Was to roll out 14 ac/year.
Only 5 upgraded in over a year,
2 in flight test program

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Aug 2015 08:58

RAC MiG: Russia delivered more than ten upgrade kits for MiG-29 fighters to India

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2015/8/10/3398/

RAC MiG CEO Sergey Korotkov. “RAC MiG has already delivered over 10 upgrade kits and five of them has already been used by HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) to upgrade the aircraft. Two out of five upgraded fighters are already performing flights. Three more jets are being prepared for the flight tests,” Korotkov said.

A total of 63 jets of the type should be upgraded to MiG-29UPG version. It was reported earlier that four aircraft would be upgraded this year. Earlier India took delivery of six jets upgraded by the RAC MiG.

As for deliveries of MiG-29K carrier-based fighters to Indian navy, the corporation is going to deliver six jets of the type this year and six more – in 2016. “These deliveries will have the contract fulfilled,” Korotkov explained.

According to him, the program for establishing an MRO center for MiG-29K/KUB fighters in India is on schedule. “The building has been constructed by the Indian party, we are delivering equipment, specified in an offset agreement signed at MAKS-2013 airshow. Indian specialists are being trained and soon the center will start repairing accessories and units,” he said.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 15 Aug 2015 02:10

Chumar Intrusion: Chopper pilot who supplied troops to avoid retreat to receive honour

NEW DELHI: India treated the Chinese incursion that coincided with president XI Jinping's visit to the country in September last year as `very volatile' and feared that there could be an escalation in the border standoff with Chinese troops, the first official account of the incident has revealed.

The intrusion in Chumar was one of the tensest in recent years with over 1,500 troops involved in a face off for several days.

Though the border situation was downplayed, as it occurred as it occurred during Jinping's first visit to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi and an in-depth account was not shared, several details have now emerged on the miniconflict in the citation for a gallantry award announced for an air force pilot who braved the odds to ensure that Indian troops in the stand-off were well supplied.

The Vayu Sena medal citation of Flight Lieutanant G Jagan Mohan has also revealed that the intrusion took place at a point that was vital to control the entire .......
:
:
:
Appreciating the pilot's courage in flying repeated missions on his Cheetal chopper to supply troops at the forward position, it goes on to say that tensions went on for four days before aerial support was brought in as the military feared a retreat due to a lack of supplies.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Aug 2015 16:59

eklavya wrote:Thou shalt not doubt the JSF; thou shalt speak of it with awe and wonder; agar JSF ka naam mitti me mila diya, iski sazaa milegi, zaroor milegi

On the contrary, its not that great an aircraft. Its just that.. everything else is much worse.

- The Rafale costs at least $200 million. No stealth. (Likely same applies to the EF.)

- A mature PAK FA won't be available until 2025, especially given recent scale backs in the program.

- The Su-30MKI has tremendous endurance but very limited penetrative capability.

- The Tejas is very well suited to low-to-medium-end workhorse tasks (like air defence and CAS). Not suitable or intended for high risk missions.

Keeping in mind the need for diversification, what are our options really?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 22 Aug 2015 17:38

To those wishing XYZ in the fleet , consider the realities:

30MKI-MkXX: 300+
29UPG+29k: 100+
2000Upg: 50+

These 500ish are going to be the fighter fleet for our lifetimes unless you are secretly a young buck in your 20s. Going by newly obtained understanding of Indian youth not too many will read this here.

A few LCAs wont hurt. But the changes in our times will be in the rotary fleet (much higher attrition, new types not present today), and light transport. Thats about it. All the hoohaa about 20B here and 50B there are merely meant to spend excess money lying around to spread it around. The need is maintenance, sensors (early warning included), and weapons. Platforms are plenty by any count.

Before anyone points to the fleet revitalization thread, take a peak at the 21 saga. These craft arent like 21 either, they will be flogged longer than 21 is/was.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Aug 2015 18:38

Shreeman wrote:Platforms are plenty by any count.

They're really not. The Chinese are inducting well over 60 fighters every year. And if we're concerned about a two-front war, we might add to that the output of the Pakistani JF-17 assembly line, which has reportedly been expanded to 25/yr.

Our production rate on the other hand, stands at a measly 16 Su-30MKIs annually (possibly increasing to 18 this year), plus a handful of Tejas and MiG-29Ks.

Of course given that modern militaries fight as a system, the outcome of war isn't solely derermined by the balance of numbers but the contrast is still obviously very glaring and very worrying.

It is very much possible that our numbers don't increase greatly in the near future. But that'll be a failure of the system rather than something achieved by design.

Also, our budgets are limited which is why the Tejas program is so crucial. And why we need to be snapping every second hand Mirage that we can. The F-35 is an entirely different business; its true utility is as an ISTAR-cum-SEAD/DEAD platform. Necessated by very rapid improvements in the Chinese ADGE and its C4I systems.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Aug 2015 19:59

The Su-30MKI has tremendous endurance but very limited penetrative capability.

The Brahmos + MKI combo will certainly help here.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Aug 2015 20:16

Cain Marko wrote:The Brahmos + MKI combo will certainly help here.

Weelll... the objective would still be to launch at stand-off ranges. An airborne launch should allow for a greater range, though the real challenge here would be to get in close and generate a picture of all mobile Chinese assets (including air defence systems) in real-time. The BrahMos would be very useful as a long range DEAD weapon (minimal time-on-target) with third party cueing, but I suspect its primary role will continue to be against maritime targets.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Aug 2015 21:01

The problem with DEAD using an expensive option is that the Chinese are designing their A2AD network to actually survive a salvo of expensive weapons, so expect a ton of decoying with full RF spectrum coverage even for the decoys, leaving discrimination a primary concern..Would an opponent use up multi-million dollar missiles at targets when only 1 in three may actually be contributing the A2AD setup? On top of that they are moving some of their networks into the mobile category further complicating the ARM side of the equation...There aren't many very good ARM's that can attack moving targets with high accuracy..and definitely none that have costs that can fully allow for huge salvos against targets where the SA from a discrimination perspective may be moderate if not quite poor...India is not the only nation that would have to design its anti-A2AD strategy around that, the US and Japan have a similar headache as well...Multi Million dollar missiles are great if you have a very high probability of target destruction so you can overcome the deception and decoying the enemy throws at you. If not, you must design a weapon or a targeting system that either negates all these tactics or uses cheap enough munitions to stay on the right side of the cost-equation. Its not about a weapon or the shooter as much as it is about the sensor-shooter combination..This problem is what is leading many to speculate that the LRS-B for the USAF is in reality going to be a LRS-S (System instead of a bomber) with a highly stealthy sensor package int he RQ-180, a RAQ for EW/SEAD and the strike bomber that is the shooter. Until and unless you can overcome the sensor-shooter problems associated with a couplex, integrated air defense system you will not be able to project power inside of Chinese interests with any sort of accuracy or potency in the long term..It doesn't matter if you have the PAKFA, Su-30 MKI or the F-22 and B-2..However,the Chinese A2AD at the moment will take at least 10 years to be fully put into place leaving some time for technology to be leveraged to negate the setup over time.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 23 Aug 2015 06:07

Against China, large number of LCAs will be needed for point defense of targets in north and northeast India from PLAAF air strikes launched from Tibet. A few super-sophisticated Rafales are not going to cut it.

The Chinese homeland is out of reach for the IAF. It can only be attacked by long-range missiles. Neither the Rafale nor the SU-30MKI is going to be able to penetrate to Shanghai.

Numbers are crucial against China. Those numbers can only be built with the LCAs (for defense) and long-range missiles (for offense).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2015 14:45

Why we need LR bombers! For the umpteenth time.....

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 23 Aug 2015 15:04

Dear All,
I didn't know the Relevant Forum to post this video ,
So pardon me for the same.
Indian Army : A life Less ordinary.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t5M10gBVCc[/youtube]

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Aug 2015 18:23

Viv S wrote:
Shreeman wrote:Platforms are plenty by any count.
They're really not. The Chinese are inducting well over 60 fighters every year. And if we're concerned about a two-front war, we might add to that the output of the Pakistani JF-17 assembly line, which has reportedly been expanded to 25/yr.

Our production rate on the other hand, stands at a measly 16 Su-30MKIs annually (possibly increasing to 18 this year), plus a handful of Tejas and MiG-29Ks.

Of course given that modern militaries fight as a system, the outcome of war isn't solely derermined by the balance of numbers but the contrast is still obviously very glaring and very worrying.

It is very much possible that our numbers don't increase greatly in the near future. But that'll be a failure of the system rather than something achieved by design. It's easier to do that when there are active production lines that can be ramped up when needed.

Also, our budgets are limited which is why the Tejas program is so crucial. And why we need to be snapping every second hand Mirage that we can. The F-35 is an entirely different business; its true utility is as an ISTAR-cum-SEAD/DEAD platform. Necessated by very rapid improvements in the Chinese ADGE and its C4I systems.

Indian military needs to keep indigenous production lines going even if it is at low production rate. This is crucial during major wars where attrition need to be replenished.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 23 Aug 2015 19:45

Philip wrote:Why we need LR bombers! For the umpteenth time.....

To the point answer:
- To defend the far flung islands
- Base some bombers on the islands to expand the reach into Indian ocean
- Pose a threat to carrier groups that can move freely between Pacific to Inian Ocean
- Reach deep into enemy territory (wars are not won by missile strikes)
- To destroy long distance rail lines and highways you need bombers
- Will add a true third leg to the nuclear triad
- And the list can go on ..........