Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

[Shreeman]

quote="Shreeman"Platforms are plenty by any count./quote

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.

Viv, srai,

All valid arguments. Still given that numbers have stood where they are for well over 30 years, there are numerous hurdles which dont seem to be scalable anytime soon.

the second best thing would then be to add capabilities instead of 1:1 substitution -- Unmanned+ upgrades. Wont gove you aggressive posture, but wont hold back robust defense. In the time of various "red lines of exports" neither ultra long range unmanned nor sensors nor projectiles are expected to be available off the shelf. Thus, not as big a lobby to oppose. Probably way more feasible than say adding 200+ LCAs to the mix.

But no, buying second and third hand platforms ought to be rejected outright. The days of buying used cars, buses, TVs, radios, mobiles, bicycles, sewing machines, kerosene stoves are all long gone.

[brar_w]

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

Long range bombers are useless without the sort of ISR assets required for them to be effectively employed..Against a non-permissive threat especially one that has flooded the RF and IR spectrum do not expect to have your traditional early warning, targeting or ISR assets to be survivable. Missiles like the K100, F2000, IZD810 and future weapons in this category (US experimented with NCADE and ALHTK as well) that will surely be coming down the road from China have for all practical purposes killed the AEW, AWACS, JSTARS like aircraft with those largely now good ONLY against enemies that can't threaten them beyond a certain threshold. Those capabilities have to be built up organically to systematically eliminate single points of failure (Such as a large airliner flying around with the humongous radar managing the battle) before you go down the road of developing a continental or intercontinental strike bomber to project force. Doing the other way around will add little to the strategic capability to actually go into these areas, fight, survive and do it all over again. The AWACS renaissance will happen when it can be successfully designed to defeat kinetic threats launched against it ( using kinetic or DEW based measures)..until then it will not be able to support any force-projecting Anti-A2AD strategies unless you are basically willing to loose that capability rather quickly .

As per some analysts the role of the J-20 is to primarily use supersonic speed, low RCS and a long range weapon to take out AEW/AWACS and Tankers. Its the airborne leg of china's overall A2AD strategy.

NATO or the US are basically upgrading their E3 (rather than actually starting a program to replace it) for this particular reason and are looking for a rather cheap and quick solution for the JSTAR replacement..Until the SACM concept of operation is developed and fielded they aren't going to be procuring many of very expensive or hard to develop sensor-aircraft for AEW tasks. The IAF is up against the same A2AD strategy if it wishes to have a penetrating power projection capability as a response..

http://i62.tinypic.com/nsw7l.png

If its just about attacking fixed, known targets then you do not need a penetrating capability but a stand off capability. The question that needs to be asked is WHAT IS A POTENTIAL BOMBER GOING TO DO ONCE IT HAS PENETRATED THE A2AD NET?? If the answer is attack C2C then you can do that from SO ranges and just use the same money that you would have used to develop the bomber in procuring Nirbhay like missiles for airborne applications..However having seen the Tomahawk do its business over the last 2+ decades I doubt China will worry much about that capability. So the question about the bomber needs to be addressed first and foremost and if its an access issue, then you have to go through the entire Find--Fix--Attack chain and figure out how to Find and Fix targets in a very dense IAD environment where the cost equation for now heavily favors the defender and where the defender only needs to neutralize your FIND and FIX ability and the attack ability totally goes out..Unless you can design a bomber that has an extremely low RCS and is basically decades ahead of everyone else working on stealth you can't continue to operate in a denied or contested airspace while at the same time looking for and fixing targets to bomb..You have to get SA from somewhere else using some other way...Thats the $80 Billion dollar question and why unless the IAF is willing to totally committee itself to having a strategic air-force its unwise to develop a bomber for this sort of a mission. Other missions obviously would be ripe for such a role such as martime or permissive environment attack perhaps against Pakistan using long loiter..but to produce a bomber capable of surviving, penetrating and conducting attack against a chinese A2AD network will require answering a ton of questions, and developing a ton of capability before the vehicle itself is designed or requested.

[Cosmo_R]

^^ A basic question: what is it that a LRB can do that an intrinsically stealthy SSGN with cruise missiles can't?

[brar_w]

The answer to that is well...pretty much everything . The sub- cruise missile combo is extremely limited in what it can do especially given that it does not eliminate the Find and Fix problem, and on top of that it still has a very long time of weapons on target where you can (and will) loose SA quality in a dense and contested environment especially if the enemy knows what to do and is a "near peer".. The only mission where you may be able to cost-effectively substitute a submarine for a bomber is for strategic nuclear strike but even then most large powers want to (and do end up) investing in a credible triad.

Ever since Vietnam the role of the Continental or Intercontinental bomber at least, in the US has been that of an extremely flexible asset that routinely PIVOTS between being a strategic asset and a tactical assets and does so very well and at a theater combat level does strike at a lower cost per target than any other tactical asset..A submarine with a long range cruise missile can only attack targets that are moderately well defended, are fixed, have an excellent SA available for strike (largely fixed) and are not contested. If you have to have a weapon fight its way to get to a target you have to really design one for it. Hypersonic? Sure..that will add a layer of flexibility, but good luck developing a mach 6 hypersonic weapon that can pick out moving targets...Not going to happen and even if it could you couldn't afford large number of those weapons because of cost per target and the overall cost equation whereas a $250,000 Jammer (GPS) on the ground can create a ton of A2AD and may require you take it out under heavy defensive cover...If you are going to trade multi-million dollar missiles for those targets the enemy wins by just out producing you (classic war of attrition)..

All one needs to do is look at the target sets for the Gulf War, and the Balkan conflict and then find an appropriate multiplication factor because a near peer will field all sorts of twists, and decoys for you to discriminate and overcome, and then factor in that against a near peer your weapon probability of success will become significantly lower due to the simple fact that you will be contested in the RF spectrum, will be contested in the cyber domain, will be contested in space and will be contested when it comes to getting good PNT ability..all of this lowers the ability just as a standard Chinese anti-ship missile launched at a average pacific naval ship is a lot different form a Probability of success pov. than it being launched at a US DDG with all the soft kills and EW tools available to it..In that context calculate the cost of shooting everything down from 1000's of miles away using a sub-launched weapon and factor in the cost of a command level conflict..China and Russia have seen what the USAF could do in the early 1990's and beyond using stand off weapons and the entire A2AD strategy has been designed to prohibit them or anyone else form doing so. IAD's are better protected with much cheaper weapons, a large component of this is MOBILE, even C2C is distributed and de-centralized to a point and there has been a lot of investment in decoys (ONI reports from a few years point to that)..Therefore developing a strategy similar to what the US practiced or practiced in the 90's and 2000's is a poor allocation of resources for the threat has had decades to counter that and has effectively done so...

How will you attack a deployed SRBM, IRBM setup inside the border well protected by a dense IAD when there are decoys mixed in and the entire package is mobile? And decoys are just not decoy missiles, but also decoy radars, decoy SAM batteries and all the good stuff.. ..If I were to guess I would guess that the LRS-B (or rather LRS-S) will be more tactical than strategic and compared to the B-2, would carry around 70% of the payload with about 80% of the range ( And the good old Ben Rich will be cursing through his grave saying this is what I designedthe last time around)..All in all a smaller aircraft with a larger payload for sensors than munitions and of course the system to help it both find and discriminate targets and suppress air defenses (RAQ) so that it can operate in a contested environment for prolonged times..The A2AD strategy and the deference value is different from those days of the cold war when the primary threat and mission was to support the SAC in its strategic mission. Today the B-1 does CAS..and the problem is not of launching a nuclear salvo against a threat (that is treaty limited anyway) but to fight your way into a contested environment, once there figure out and discriminate targets, pick them, hang around and do strike..from an A2AD environment quite a bit different and significantly more complicated to the B-2 problem which had a primary mission of going in and going out..while the LRS-BOMBER may do that the support vehicles will most likely have to stay in the contested environment for longer and hence unmanned and optionally manned assets.

Therefore based on all this a blanket statement that the IAF should get bombers is of limited value. First and foremost one needs to come up with what those bombers will be doing. The most logical answer for me is MARITIME STRIKE using stand-off weapons. That makes sense but if there is a mission to penetrate deep into the eastern border to inhibit the offensive capability of China during war, then that will be a much larger task and will require a lot of support capability before the strike bomber is even conceived. China is developing something to keep the USAF, USN and Japanese forces out of its A2AD network (of course those forces aren't going to invade china but here it is keep them out of its sphere of influence and the way China is doing this is by having a large maneuverable A2AD that it can quickly setup and impose a very very heavy cost to any force that wants to operate within that area of concern) so outside of deploying nukes the IAF would have to come up with novel strategies to develop some sort of capability to take the fight and begin to destroy some of the offensive capability...T

[shiv]

Please note that this is the Indian military aviation thread, not US military aviation. Could we stick to Indian mil on this thread please? As it is BRF has reached that stage of nirvana where anything military, be it strategy, tactics or weapons, US sources are quoted as right. US generals and industry cant be wrong, while we cheerfully curse our own air marshals. Admins are you guys really interested in BRF or are you all too busy now?

[brar_w]

Shiv Ji, the advantages and shortcomings of deploying a bomber do not change if you are the USAF, RuAF, PLAF, IAF or anyone that has something available. Similarly the difference or mission flexibility of using a tactical bomber compared to a sub launched cruise missile salvo also do not change depending upon the user. Furthermore, the problems of actually deploying a bomber, and the mission being allocated to it also does not change with the user. Of course US industry and generals can and have been wrong adnwill also be wrong in the future, however from a deployment perspective the advantages and disadvantages of a tactical or strategic bomber have absolutely nothing to do with the US generals or industry. Others use the bomber as well, and deploy it in similar and different fashion. However the threat is the same and the intensity and capability it is fielding is the same..therefore the challenges that a US bomber would require to overcome in terms of access are going to be similar to what a Japanese, Korean, or Indian bomber would require..That was my point..Developing an "access" bomber for the IAF at this stage is not a wise decision..Better to develop something that is useful in areas such as maritime strike and the likes..trying to get access at this stage will require too much of an investment commitment from a time or capital expenditure and it would have to happen fast or else the IADS will catch up by the time the capability is fielded.

When it comes to fighting china the conventional wisdom of the 90's concept of operation of a centralized command and control and air-ground-battle management using JSTARS (or something similar) and AWACS (or something similar) does not apply and is something that has a very heavy price that they can impose. Same with Russia..missiles that can knock these aircraft out exist and will only get better and more deadly. What worked in the 90's will not work in 2030 unless capability could be developed to neutralize the kinetic threat posed to these aircraft. This also does not change if you are a USAF squadron or an IAF squadron. In the absence of battle management, and situational awareness tools situational awareness, ISR data and target discrimination would have to come form somewhere. No one is suggesting adopting a US approach..because know one knows what the uS approach is..

Its much easier to say, the IAF should develop or acquire a bomber..But what kind, for what purpose and how exactly are those folks suggesting it be deployed is a very complex topic especially in light the sort of capability China is looking to acquire, develop and field and they are doing it at an alarming pace given the rise in their defense budget every year.

First and foremost define what a bomber is to do over and above the capability. Go deep into china? Go deep HOW and to do what. What is the sort of threat that will require that sort of capability. Definitely not going deep to bomb Shanghai as was mentioned earlier..What sort of threat will warrant a long range strike deep inside chinese territory..once you define that then you move into seeing what sort of capability is required to both gain access to get the job done (and return) and how best to execute the mission objective. Otherwise its just saying something just for the sake of saying it.

while we cheerfully curse our own air marshals

And where is that being done??

[wig]

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 23577.html

IAF focuses on night ops by copters

The Indian Air Force is expanding the night operating capabilities of its helicopter fleet. In a significant departure from operating helicopters in the mountains at night, the IAF is now looking at undertaking night operations by helicopters to remote helipads.
According to sources, the IAF has started the process to procure at least 50 sets of helipad lighting systems that are compatible with night vision goggles used by the aircrew. These can be used for both, regular helipads as well as creating temporary landing zones where required during military operations or undertaking rescue missions while rendering aid to civilian authorities.
The ability to fly to remote areas assumes significance in the backdrop of more capable variants of the Russian MI-17 being inducted into fleet and the proposed procurement of US Chinook heavy-lift helicopters and new light utility helicopters.
The IAF has been operating helicopters since 1960s, but night flying is a recent phenomenon and that to from fixed airbases where adequate navigation and support facilities exist. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft, night flying by helicopters in the hills was completely forbidden, apparently due to lack of navigation facilities and other aids. The IAF began night flying by fixed wing transport aircraft in the mountains only in the late 1990s.
A request for information issued by the IAF states that the proposed helipad lighting systems should be able to function in temperatures ranging from minus 40°C to 50°C, indicating that the IAF intended to undertake heli-borne night operations in mountains as well as deserts.
Night flying by helicopters in remote mountainous areas would give the IAF a shot in the arm for undertaking special operations, airlifting troops in and out of tactical battle zones, ferrying in supplies, evacuating casualties and undertaking other time-bound missions.
Besides marking the landing zone, other features required in the lighting system include the ability to indicate the approach path and glide slope, all weather capability and being operated by remote control from a distance of about 5 km.

[Austin]

Israel and Russia started building two aircraft for long-range radar in India

Israel and Russia started building two aircraft airborne early warning and control for India, according to Tass, citing a source in the Russian defense industry

India in 2004 signed a contract to supply three of Falcon aircraft based on the Il-76, the first was passed in 2009. Work on the creation of two new aircraft performed under the option provided for this contract.

According to the source, Israel bought from Uzbekistan gliders two IL-76. Russia, in turn, acquired two most ready platform IL-76 at the Tashkent Aircraft Production Association named after Chkalov (now Tashkent Mechanical Plant). Airborne Corps were brought from Tashkent to the Taganrog Aviation Scientific-Technical Complex named after Beriev where they finalize on request of Israel and establish Israel's aerial Falcon.

The source did not disclose financial details of the deal with Israel and did not inform, you will participate in the work of Radio Engineering Corporation "Vega" which is equipped with equipment supplied India's first three aircraft Falcon.

[Indranil]

Please note that this is the Indian military aviation thread, not US military aviation. Could we stick to Indian mil on this thread please? As it is BRF has reached that stage of nirvana where anything military, be it strategy, tactics or weapons, US sources are quoted as right. US generals and industry cant be wrong, while we cheerfully curse our own air marshals. Admins are you guys really interested in BRF or are you all too busy now?

This is tricky sirjee. I agree with you on a few things:
1. Fact: Quality of posts at BRF has nose-dived. Too many people think that they know better.
Reason (my views): In todays ever-expanding reach of the internet, this is inevitable. Ten years back, only those who were seriously interested in defense, had serving family member etc. joined BRF. Now, every Ram and Shyam who knows the full-form of DRDO does.
Effect: Pros: Increased volume is increased awareness, which is also one of BRF's goals. Cons: When everybody opines, the quality suffers. I hate to admit that I now read less than 5% of the posts.
Options: The floor is open for suggestions on how to maintain the quality while encouraging volume. One suggestion is to decouple both. Have a separate discussion thread and gyan thread for all major topics. Posting on gyan threads would be like good-old BRF days, where moderators are strict, but they are not needed. Fellow posters will roast you alive for a bad post. Where people lurk for 3-4 years, learning, before writing their first but useful post. Discussion thread is open to the masses. Posters have to adhere to BRF rules for all threads.
2. Calling the Indian Air Force as Imported Air Force on this forum is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. Posters will be warned henceforth.
3. On similar lines, calling indigenous programs names, will also earn you an easy warning!

I don't agree with you that we have allowed US military enthusiasts to muddy our generals. With all due respect, there are fans from everywhere here. It is up to the readers to make up there minds. Also, if somebody insinuates one party of something, it is very likely that the fans of that party will reply, and we should allow that for fairness. To contain that to the right thread is our responsibility, and you are right that we are probably lacking in that effort. On the other hand, moderators can't read every post. Please report if you see too much off-topic posting on a thread. If found guilty the poster will be warned for derailing a thread.

[Viv S]

Israel and Russia started building two aircraft for long-range radar in India

According to the source, Israel bought from Uzbekistan gliders two IL-76. Russia, in turn, acquired two most ready platform IL-76 at the Tashkent Aircraft Production Association named after Chkalov (now Tashkent Mechanical Plant). Airborne Corps were brought from Tashkent to the Taganrog Aviation Scientific-Technical Complex named after Beriev where they finalize on request of Israel and establish Israel's aerial Falcon.

Colour me sceptical. We're talking of a major deal worth well over $1 billion. I can't see any reason why the MoD would proceed covertly in this case, when most of its other affairs are above the board, so to speak. Plus UAC/Ilyushin wouldn't have sat out the DRDO AWACS competition if it were already delivering a similar system to the IAF.

[Aditya G]

We have been doing night flying with Special Forces. In J&K to boot.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 23577.html

IAF focuses on night ops by copters

The Indian Air Force is expanding the night operating capabilities of its helicopter fleet. In a significant departure from operating helicopters in the mountains at night, the IAF is now looking at undertaking night operations by helicopters to remote helipads.
According to sources, the IAF has started the process to procure at least 50 sets of helipad lighting systems that are compatible with night vision goggles used by the aircrew. These can be used for both, regular helipads as well as creating temporary landing zones where required during military operations or undertaking rescue missions while rendering aid to civilian authorities.
The ability to fly to remote areas assumes significance in the backdrop of more capable variants of the Russian MI-17 being inducted into fleet and the proposed procurement of US Chinook heavy-lift helicopters and new light utility helicopters.
The IAF has been operating helicopters since 1960s, but night flying is a recent phenomenon and that to from fixed airbases where adequate navigation and support facilities exist. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft, night flying by helicopters in the hills was completely forbidden, apparently due to lack of navigation facilities and other aids. The IAF began night flying by fixed wing transport aircraft in the mountains only in the late 1990s.
A request for information issued by the IAF states that the proposed helipad lighting systems should be able to function in temperatures ranging from minus 40°C to 50°C, indicating that the IAF intended to undertake heli-borne night operations in mountains as well as deserts.
Night flying by helicopters in remote mountainous areas would give the IAF a shot in the arm for undertaking special operations, airlifting troops in and out of tactical battle zones, ferrying in supplies, evacuating casualties and undertaking other time-bound missions.
Besides marking the landing zone, other features required in the lighting system include the ability to indicate the approach path and glide slope, all weather capability and being operated by remote control from a distance of about 5 km.

[shiv]

I don't agree with you that we have allowed US military enthusiasts to muddy our generals. With all due respect, there are fans from everywhere here. It is up to the readers to make up there minds. Also, if somebody insinuates one party of something, it is very likely that the fans of that party will reply, and we should allow that for fairness. To contain that to the right thread is our responsibility, and you are right that we are probably lacking in that effort. On the other hand, moderators can't read every post. Please report if you see too much off-topic posting on a thread. If found guilty the poster will be warned for derailing a thread.

Indranil one of the curses that moderators suffer from is the inability to put anyone on their ignore list - a luxury that only non mods can have.

Unfortunately with a huge volume of posts and an inability to read the crap that represents 75% of posts results in a situation where two types of posts coexist side by side on a given thread. One type of post demonstrates how the US does it. The other post shows how something is not being done in India by Air Marshals accused of having some sort of bias. When such posts coexist we have a thread in which a random visitor discovers the efficient way in which the US does something, and the accursed way in which IAF air marshals are letting us down. And while no one is actively encouraging anything here the net effect of not noticing the number of "How well the US does it" posts and another sprinkling of "How bad is the IAF" shape the narrative of the discussion in a manner that puts the IAF in a bad light while suggesting that the US way is the right way. Admins cannot escape responsibility here by saying that they can't monitor every post. That is their job.

Apart from cracking down on the negative comments I have suggested that the competence and clout of the US is acknowledged and recognized and I have started a separate thread which I hope will be used to show how the US does it. We need to give space for those who genuinely admire the competence and efficiency of the US so they don't have to "follow their heart" on a thread meant for the Indian armed forces. Once an Indian focused thread fills up with US arms references and the only refs to India are about inefficiency corruption and love of phoren, we are creating an environment for the continuation of that.

Unfortunately if 10 admins cannot attend to 100% of posts then we need ten more new admins while we ask those who cannot fulfil their mandate to step aside. But we need dedication to the Indian Armed forces and not simply a love of military and technology. There is at least one admin who qualifies as the latter.

[Indranil]

Valid points. My reply here.

[Indranil]

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?

This is news to me. If true, HJAl needs to introspect how can such a thing is not caught during ground testing.

Anyways, it seems like they have achieved the desired spin characteristics by increasing the roll-inertia. They are doing that by adding weights to the wingtips. Therefore, the increase in wing-weight, you mentioned, is not that bad a thing.

[member_28397]

Well I am noob in military stuff but here is my dream projections for Fighter aircrafts for IAF/Navy for 2020, 2025, 2030 & 2035

IAF 2020

• PAK FA(1 seater) - 5+
  Rafale - 20+
  MKI - 272 (MLU started)
  Tejas MK1 - 30+
  
  Mig 29UPG - 60+
  Mirage2K Upg - 50
  Jaguar Upg - 80+

Tejas MK2 Prototype ready

IAF 2025

• PAK FA(1 seater) - 40
  FGFA - 5+
  Rafale - 54
  MKI - 272
  Tejas MK1 - 60
  Tejas Mk2 - 20+
  
  Mig 29UPG - 60
  Mirage2K Upg - 50
  Jaguar Upg - 80
  
  AMCA Prototype Ready
  Aura Prototype Ready

IAF 2030

• PAK FA(1 seater) - 40
  FGFA - 60+
  AMCA - 20+
  Rafale - 54
  MKI - 272
  Tejas MK1 - 60
  Tejas Mk2 - 80+
  Aura Mk1 - 30+
  
  Mig 29UPG - 60(Phase out started)
  Mirage2K Upg - 50(Phase out started)
  Jaguar Upg - 80(Phase out started)
  
  Aura MK2 Prototype Ready

IAF 2035

• PAK FA(1 seater) - 40
  FGFA - 150+
  AMCA - 100+
  Rafale - 54
  MKI - 272
  Tejas MK1 - 60
  Tejas Mk2 - 150+
  Aura Mk1 - 100
  Aura Mk2 - 20+

INA 2035

• F - 35 - 45
  N AMCA- 20+
  N Tejas MK2 - 45
  N Tejas Mk1 - 20
  Mig - 29K Upg - 60
  N Aura Mk2 - 30+

IAF Special Mission/Transport Fleet 2035

• AWACS
  Phalcon - 5
  Embraer MK1/MK2 - 25
  DRDO AWACS MK1/MK2 - 20+
  
  Transport
  C-17 - 11
  IL- 76 UPG - 15 (In Phase Out)
  C - 130 - 30
  C-295 - 100+
  MTA - 60+
  Dornier - 50(In Phase Out)
  
  Refueling
  IL-78 MKI - 7(In Phase Out)
  Airbus 330 MRTT - 20+

* + in production

[Austin]

IAF's mission to build modern, credible aerospace power: Arup Raha

[Singha]

replace build with 'buy'

[member_22539]

^Instead of boasting about being a training academy for pilots (who are all that seems to matter for some in the IAF) in India, maybe he should have focused on what the IAF will do to turn India into an aerospace R&D and manufacturing power.

[eklavya]

^Instead of boasting about being a training academy for pilots (who are all that seems to matter for some in the IAF) in India, maybe he should have focused on what the IAF will do to turn India into an aerospace R&D and manufacturing power.

The lecture was delivered at a conference of the Indian Society of Aerospace Medicine and the theme of the conference is Women in Aviation.

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=126453

Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
29-August-2015 13:35 IST
Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha Delivers a Lecture at the 55th Conference of the Indian Society of Aerospace Medicine (ISAM) At Bengaluru

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) and Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) has proceeded on a visit to Bengaluru, today.

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha delivered an inaugural address on the occasion of Air Marshal Subroto Memorial Oration organised at Institute of Aeronautical Medicines (IAM). In his address, the Air Chief highlighted the important components of IAF transformation in ‘HR development’. Earlier the Air Chief had addressed this forum on technological advances and the role of aero space medicines specialists in enhancing operational efficiency and flight safety. He found it heartening to know the field trials on various counter measures are under way and active work is being undertaken to find out objective methods of detecting and combating fatigue.

Since this year’s theme is on Women in Aviation, Air Chief Marshal Raha said “women have already made significant contribution across the aerospace spectrum be it commercial, military or space related. Women aviators like Kalpana Chawla, Sunita William have left their mark in the history of aviation and are an inspiration to many. Going back in history he said – Flight Cadet Harita Kaur Deol was the country’s first women military pilot to do a solo. History was made then and it was a momentous occasion for women of India and the Indian Air Force. Ever since then we have come to a long way and today we have over 1500 women officers in the IAF and nearly 100 women pilots in the helicopter and transport fleet. They have flown IL-76, Mi-8 and one of them is a member of Sarang Aerobatic Team. All the other branches are closely associated with flying. All these officers have served the IAF with courage, professionalism, pride and enthusiasm that has made them very valuable members of ‘Team IAF’. In his concluding address to the distinguished audience of professionals from the field of medicine and aviation. He said that IAF’s mission is to build a modern, flexible and credible aerospace power with full spectrum capability to safeguard our national interest.

RCD/MKS

I don't see where there is any boasting about being a training academy for pilots? Mindless attacks on the armed forces leadership serve no purpose on a forum like BRF.

[eklavya]

replace build with 'buy'

As a moderator, one would typically expect better from you. But you are inciting the mob.

[member_22539]

Mindless attacks on the armed forces leadership serve no purpose on a forum like BRF.

No one is attacking anyone, at least not me. I am merely expressing my disappointment at the IAF leadership not showing similar enthusiasm for the indigenous aerospace industry (or at least in developing one). If the Navy can do it, why cant the IA or the IAF? Maybe not to the same extent, but not even a faint effort or acceptance for the need of such an indegenous aerospace industry and products is seen from the IAF through its actions.

Let them accept indegenous fighters like the LCA in real numbers, then claim to build a "modern, credible aerospace power."

On second thought, maybe they are, in france.

[eklavya]

Mindless attacks on the armed forces leadership serve no purpose on a forum like BRF.

No one is attacking anyone, at least not me. I am merely expressing my disappointment at the IAF leadership not showing similar enthusiasm for the indigenous aerospace industry (or at least in developing one). If the Navy can do it, why cant the IA or the IAF? Maybe not to the same extent, but not even a faint effort or acceptance for the need of such an indegenous aerospace industry and products is seen from the IAF through its actions.

Let them accept indegenous fighters like the LCA in real numbers, then claim to build a "modern, credible aerospace power."

On second thought, maybe they are, in france.

You are questioning the Chief's right to speak on a topic of his choice at an Aviation Medicine conference. This is mindless.

You are talking about LCA in response to the Chief's lecture at an Aviation Medicine conference. This is obsessive.

The Chief was in Bangalore when he made his comments. Where are you writing from? Your comment about France is non sequitur. It bears no relation to the topic of the Chief's lecture. Of course, you are alluding to the Rafale, but in the context of this lecture such a reference is bizarre.

Every single one of HAL's various programmes have IAF as their main if not only customer. Your "faint acceptance" comment above is downright ridiculous and highly ignorant to boot.

In short, mindless attacks like yours on the armed forces leadership should have no place on BRF.

[member_22539]

^Let me see, mindless, obsessive, bizarre and ignorant. You sure are making me take you seriously with that set of wonderful adjectives. Is this the quality of those who defend the IAF?

No one exists just at one place and at one point in time (the converse can also be said, but that is your prerogative). If the IAF wants to come off as non-hypocritical (maybe not in your viewpoint and you are welcome to that), they better balance their attitudes and broaden their horizons beyond just pilots.

Now you may jump into another tirade full of abuses, but that is up to you. Just remember that you are not making yourself more sensible. Such lines of argument also don't have any place on BRF, IMHO.

[eklavya]

If the IAF wants to come off as non-hypocritical (maybe not in your viewpoint and you are welcome to that), they better balance their attitudes and broaden their horizons beyond just pilots.

God forbid that the Air Force chief makes a reference to pilots

This is what he actually said:

Going back in history he said – Flight Cadet Harita Kaur Deol was the country’s first women military pilot to do a solo. History was made then and it was a momentous occasion for women of India and the Indian Air Force. Ever since then we have come to a long way and today we have over 1500 women officers in the IAF and nearly 100 women pilots in the helicopter and transport fleet. They have flown IL-76, Mi-8 and one of them is a member of Sarang Aerobatic Team. All the other branches are closely associated with flying. All these officers have served the IAF with courage, professionalism, pride and enthusiasm that has made them very valuable members of ‘Team IAF’. In his concluding address to the distinguished audience of professionals from the field of medicine and aviation. He said that IAF’s mission is to build a modern, flexible and credible aerospace power with full spectrum capability to safeguard our national interest.

On what basis are you calling the Chief "hypocritical"? The Chief specifically acknowledges the contribution of women officers to all branches of the service.

It's time you stopped your mindless attacks on the Armed Forces leadership.

[deejay]

^Let me see, mindless, obsessive, bizarre and ignorant. You sure are making me take you seriously with that set of wonderful adjectives. Is this the quality of those who defend the IAF?

No one exists just at one place and at one point in time (the converse can also be said, but that is your prerogative). If the IAF wants to come off as non-hypocritical (maybe not in your viewpoint and you are welcome to that), they better balance their attitudes and broaden their horizons beyond just pilots.

Now you may jump into another tirade full of abuses, but that is up to you. Just remember that you are not making yourself more sensible. Such lines of argument also don't have any place on BRF, IMHO.

Who needs to defend the IAF?

$hite and tripe. Hope this uni dimensional hatred has an end somewhere. I think you need to relook at your own comments and posts and see where you are going with this.

[member_22539]

^Who is hating the IAF? I have said this time and again: I am disappointed in the IAF leadership (not the rank and file). To assume I am some kind of hater, just because I criticize what is obvious, is totally killing the messenger.

Anyway, such ways of arguing the point are quite pointless. We are not here to throw stones at each other after all (at least not me).

I will eat my words once the IAF orders the LCA, etc. in real numbers and shows the same enthusiasm for them as the do for some foreign toys. I happily look forward to that day and am sure that it will come one day.

[deejay]

^Who is hating the IAF? I have said this time and again: I am disappointed

Did you read the article and then the post you made? It is absolutely disconnected Arun Ji.

[member_22539]

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha today said Indian Air Force's mission was to build a modern, flexible and credible aerospace power with full spectrum capability to safeguard the national interest.

This is what came across as hypocritical, as there is more to aerospace power than just pilots. But now that I look at it, it seems to have no quotes, so it might be the presstitute pulling things out of his ass. Anyway, now you know the context of my comments.

[Karan M]

On that Page about CAS Rahas conference did anyone check the slideshow on the Mirage 2000 ops on the Yamuna expressway? Can't seem to link it. Very interesting, the IAF has jury rigged a workable ATC on a truck. Great example of innovation.

[eklavya]

^Who is hating the IAF? I have said this time and again: I am disappointed in the IAF leadership (not the rank and file). To assume I am some kind of hater, just because I criticize what is obvious, is totally killing the messenger.

Anyway, such ways of arguing the point are quite pointless. We are not here to throw stones at each other after all (at least not me).

I will eat my words once the IAF orders the LCA, etc. in real numbers and shows the same enthusiasm for them as the do for some foreign toys. I happily look forward to that day and am sure that it will come one day.

Don't draw a false distinction between the IAF leadership and its rank and file. They are one and the same. Pilot Officer Raha was an outstanding officer, Air Chief Marshal Raha is an outstanding officer and leader of the IAF. You make mindless and disrespectful comments about the IAF leadership, means you attack the service, and every single person wearing the uniform today, and who has previously worn the uniform.

Bringing the LCA and Rafale into every single post is not a sign of maturity or common sense.

[eklavya]

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha today said Indian Air Force's mission was to build a modern, flexible and credible aerospace power with full spectrum capability to safeguard the national interest.

This is what came across as hypocritical, as there is more to aerospace power than just pilots. But now that I look at it, it seems to have no quotes, so it might be the presstitute pulling things out of his ass. Anyway, now you know the context of my comments.

Where does the IAF Chief state that aerospace power is synonymous with pilots? Don't blame the press article, they reported his comments faithfully. The only person "pulling things out of his ass" is you.

[Shreeman]

On that Page about CAS Rahas conference did anyone check the slideshow on the Mirage 2000 ops on the Yamuna expressway? Can't seem to link it. Very interesting, the IAF has jury rigged a workable ATC on a truck. Great example of innovation.

Karan,

This (the ATC bit) isnt something to proud of or innovative. Sorry, I dont support the road runway idea itself either but the whole jury rigging bit is a stretch given available technology these days. There isnothing magical here. But I do hope they have something wired into the road lights to do the right thing both via the truck and remotely from the plane if they are building/using these things.

[Karan M]

Shreeman, with all due respect you are talking patronizing rubbish. The IAF have a lot of equipment which is meant for a certain deployment method and they repurposed it for something else. Its innovative and a useful application and saves critical forex as versus buying expensive solutions off the shelf. The IAF (and for that matter even I) doesn't really care for your disapproval of their road runway idea either, given its practical applications in the Indian context, which you seem to be completely clueless about. Anyone who looked at the images would have also seen the clear differences between an expensive, made for the purpose solution as some of the dedicated C3I gear the IAF fields as versus an inexpensive, "jury rigged" yet functionally capable system the IAF deployed.

That's innovation in its own way, and the more the IAF does iterative things of this type, the more it adds to their and national capability. Good on them.

[Shreeman]

Karan,

With due respect, I am not. I know *most* folks here dont agree with my opinion of the roadway/runway. You can disagree, but there is no cluelessness here.

A services that aims for $200M per machine CAN do anything it wants. Why the jugaad mentality? And since this is in publicly released images, perhaps you might actually want to highlight what aspect is it that you feel is so innovative?

There are genuine questions about roadway runways-- sorties can be run just about as well from an unpaved runway as a roadway. Both are ill-advised, ad hoc, costly and irregular operations. The alternative of sufficient advanced landing grounds is far superior.

If you go back to the previous debate on this very subject where I upset shiv, you will find that a theme of emergency recovery is central to the arguments put forward by proponents. Perhaps Abhibhushan and deejay could advise if there can be detachments within squadrons to manage that sort of thing or better. So the techniques can be honed, and operationalized. Would it be meaningful use of the continually lowering number of squadrons/planes/resources. What is the likelihood of that happening? This isnt about a PR excercise.

As regards the innovation, arent you praising another hunky and tuffy? Would an off the shelf solution be better? The whole lot of airfields are being upgraded, and all clearly have contingency equipment for tower and runway failures. What is so great *specifically* that is so visible in pictures that I am missing? Would you mind actually noting it instead of composing "anyone who has looked..." essays? Or is this a secret handshake only you know about?

And for your reference, all pilots on all flights have to plan for both diversions and emergency landings. Without any aids. There is nothing applause worthy of landing on a straight pitch in daylight in clear weather.

[member_22539]

Where does the IAF Chief state that aerospace power is synonymous with pilots? Don't blame the press article, they reported his comments faithfully. The only person "pulling things out of his ass" is you.

Is there something wrong with you? It seems you are incapable of decent behavior. I try to discuss things in the proper way and you hurl abuses nonstop.

Did you even bother to notice that he didn't say one word about R&D and manufacturing before assaulting the keyboard? The only thing that is talked about is the training of pilots and that is not the only factor in making India an aerospace power. This careful neglect of one factor is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the current crop of IAF leadership. Is this so difficult for you to understand? Maybe you need to pull your head out of your ass.

[shiv]

I try to discuss things in the proper way and you hurl abuses nonstop.

Did you even bother to notice that he didn't say one word about R&D and manufacturing before assaulting the keyboard? The only thing that is talked about is the training of pilots and that is not the only factor in making India an aerospace power.

I re read the article about which this animated discussion is taking place.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... d=11001094

Your first comment was:

Instead of boasting about being a training academy for pilots (who are all that seems to matter for some in the IAF) in India, maybe he should have focused on what the IAF will do to turn India into an aerospace R&D and manufacturing power.

I am unable to find any boast about training. In fact I have been unable to find the word "training" in the article. Could you please point me to the article in which the CAS boasts about traaining?

[shiv]

replace build with 'buy'

As a moderator, one would typically expect better from you. But you are inciting the mob.

Eklavya, the reason I did not get into a discussion about later posts was that this post by a moderator preceded it. When a Bharat-Rakshak moderator leads the pack in taking pot shots at the Chief of Air staff there is no use picking out individual posts by others.

I reported the post by Singha. I think it is both unnecessary and shameful. Shows how far BRF has sunk.

The least I would expect is a deletion of that post and our posts.

Ironically if I curse you on BRF that would be called flaming and ad hominem. But I can say the same thing about an army or air force chief and it is tolerated on Bharat Rakshak as "Freedom of expression"

[eklavya]

^^^^
Agreed. Your intervention on this issue is timely and much needed. First and foremost, the moderators (esp. Ramana) need to reflect on the purpose of BRF, it's symbiotic relationship with the Indian armed forces, and the behaviours they wish to encourage / tolerate. A lot of the carping here is from associates (in one form or another) of organisations (domestic and foreign) that want to sell their wares to the armed forces. The moderator's bias (what they call "the benefit of the doubt") on a forum like BRF should be with the real Bharat rakshaks (i.e. the armed forces) and not the " lobbyists" (to put it politely).

[Raja Bose]

hmm....BRF has truly sunk to new depths if members who should know better first get into knock down drag out fights and once they get dirty they expect mods to miraculously wash them clean. mods are not moms in case you didn't notice. Before posting this, I looked at the history sheets of Arun Menon, eklavya and shiv. Not surprisingly, none of you are lily white clean.

@Arun Menon, you seem to have a long history of dissing our armed forces on BRF sometimes with abusive rants. Cease and desist otherwise I will ban you without warning.

@eklavya, you are not far behind Senor Menon in your infractions. Hence, cease and desist otherwise you can join Arun Menon in vanavaas.

@shiv, if BRF has sunk so low in your opinion, what are you doing here? Nobody forces you to be here so please spare the rest of us your sanctimonious BS lecture of the good old days and whining how the forum has sunk to low levels not worthy of you. As you are a long time member and former mod, I will give you a little more leeway than your tag team partner eklavya here but not by much.

----
TLDR; Guys, Stop this school boy fight or get banned.

[A Sharma]

Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft to be upgraded with multi-function displays