Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4440
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 30 Nov 2015 07:10

Karan M wrote:... In the STUFF below for instance, there is not even a basic understanding of how & what the Akash's architecture is set up for. Its a different thing if he had cribbed about how the Strike Corps or X unit requires a true fire on the move, much smaller system which will have to be developed from scratch!

Taking a look at what he has written would make you think that every SAM the IA can get is some sort of uber mobile system. Anything but.

So far the Russians are testing the latest version of Pantsir to fire on the move. How mobile is it exactly? It will move slowly and carefully when it does so (no charge across the desert sands in a "mobile role").

So why is the Akash non mobile and static when required to be deployed? Its because of the high power radar units which far outperform those on the Pantsir and other systems. There is a 150km - 200 km ranged 3D CAR (outranging every radar that IA has had in service so far), and a 100km+ ranged BLR Rajendra, which is a massive phased array system, deliberately chosen to ensure its very hard to jam and enables true multitarget tracking. These are significant challenges to stabilize - do so, as was done with the Revathi and you suddenly need bigger and larger vehicles. Good luck managing all that with a T-72 based compact platform.

These high power radar choices were made keeping both IA & IAF in mind & the fact that lack of other sensor assets in both services meant that the SAM system itself would act like a quasi sensor net with a huge coverage. It also means the Akash has significant growth potential, since the missile at 25km is far outranged by its sensor support system.

And he is cribbing that these systems are not "mobile" and have to be used in "static positions" without even acknowledging that the system is designed for quick deployment and packing and then redeployment again, which [b]ALL SAM systems with such long range sensor systems utilize, S3XX for instance.[/b]

Will the LRSAM be able to be fired on the move? Hardly. Its MFCR will have to be deployed, the SAM, C3I nets will all have to be linked together with datalinks once the onboard data position sensors accurately punch in the data. Even a few meters error in the position of the SAM systems and sensors can make a huge difference. Hence the Russians used combined missile + radar systems on one vehicle. However, guess what, its vulnerable to ARMS now.

...

Agree.

It is possible to provide continuous AD coverage with systems like Akash when it operates in a Group mode (i.e. multiple batteries under one group command (equivalent to a regiment in IA's terminology comprising of 6 Akash batteries)). While some batteries move up and set up in a forward location, the other batteries in the group can remain in position to provide SAM coverage. Then when the forward batteries are ready, the ones in rear can relocate forward and so on. When the group radars/command need to relocate, each battery can operate in an autonomous mode. An Akash group with 4 batteries can protect a huge area in itself: 62km x 62km in box formation, 98km x 44km in linear array configuration, and in trapezoidal configuration 5000 square km. LRSAMs will cover an area even larger. So the reasons for these systems to "fire-on-the-move" seem unwarranted.

Besides, how "fast" will a strike corps move especially under the Cold Start doctrine, which envisages of movement of limited depth? Doesn't the IA already have short-range systems like Tunguska and Shilka for AD of those really forward elements? Those systems could be updated or replaced with newer systems.

BharadwajV
BRFite
Posts: 116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby BharadwajV » 30 Nov 2015 09:43

Avro after an overhaul at HAL Kanpur(Nov 5, 2015):
Image
Source:http://www.airliners.net/photo/2740248/L/

Article by Col. Shukla from ~this time last year:
HAL, which had built the Avro fleet between 1960s and 1980s, points out that each Avro flies barely 350-hour a year, and the airframes have thousands of hours of service life remaining.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/defmin-questions-the-need-to-replace-avro-114121800066_1.html
Don't like the single vendor Avro replacement tender.
We should get more C130J's with an accelerated timeline, knowing that the MTA project has not really taken off and the C17 option cannot be exercised in full...

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 30 Nov 2015 10:10

from 2014 ADA annual report, it appears AMCA has been proposed with no supercruise due to limitations of powerplants available. this means the advanced versions of the GE414 and EJ200 both make the cut....the internal weapons carriage and more refined drag reduction and airframe will improve the acceleration also vs using the same engine in Tejas.

Though the recommended configuration
is in line with Top Level OR of IAF, but the
requirement of supercruise cannot be met
with the existing powerplant. This requires
design & development of a new powerplant all
together. The development of a completely new
engine involves very high risk and cost, which
would have severe implications on the aircraft
program. The risks are Technology, Cost, Time
and Program. In view of the risks mentioned
above, ADA has proposed an alternate approach
towards powerplant for the AMCA namely using
an existing 90kN thrust class engine with 15 to
20% thrust improvement capable of supersonic
cruise at M1.3 with min reheat
. This approach
would bring down the risks posed to the program.
With this upgraded 90kN thrust class engine,
except for supercruise, the compliance level with
the Top Level OR would be more or less similar
to the compliance achievable with an advanced
supercruise engine.


Currently, ADA is in discussions with IAF
regarding the powerplant and supercruise.
Discussions were held with DCAS on 8th
November 2013 & 28th Jan 2014 and with VCAS
on 18th February 2014. Effort is on to arrive at
consensus on the AMCA powerplant.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 30 Nov 2015 12:44

when it comes to SC , both the engine and the structures that needs to be taken care off , flying something supersonically as a matter of fact would put tremendous strain on the structure of the aircraft and would reduce its life span or they will have to use better materials and also use titanium at hotspots increasing weight , A lot of studies must have gone in check the effect of SC on aircraft.

A subsonic AMCA can be a good option with overall better LO

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8482
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby brar_w » 30 Nov 2015 15:48

There is quite a bit of cost involved in meeting a desired LO target in a super cruiser. It can obviously be done as has been demonstrated on the F-22, but the costs are high since tolerances are extremely low, choice of materials curtailed and in service maintenance procedures extensive to meet a specified deployable RCS target. The thickness of the RAM and how it interacts with high speeds will be a cost driver in addition to how the coatings hold up and how that matches with the availability goals. Even lockheed had to go to a PLAN-B and develop a peacetime RCS software that calculated what the acceptable RCS level should be without forcing the jet to get its RCS restored multiple times a year. I think after tinkering around with the TTP's they have managed to bring it down to 2 coatings a year with 3 or 4 measurements. Still compared to the f-35 which will have a fraction of the supersonic footprint of the F-22, thats quite a bit of added cost (both development+Procurement and O&S), complexity and logistics.

Here all out supercruise capability is less important to what the supersonic radius is likely to be which has a fairly significant impact on tactics and how much of its life an airframe spends in supersonic flight (you train with he tactics you employ etc..).

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 30 Nov 2015 19:15

the amca was initially proposed as a subsonic LO platform. not sure who added supercruise to its list of trophies. glad that a realistic assessment has been made . we are in no position to produce a F22 type plane.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby NRao » 30 Nov 2015 20:18

I had posted a request from a CAS, made around 2005, to incorporate SC IIRC in the AMCA. Do not think it was not part of the initial design.

India should concentrate on building a "5th Gen" plane that suits the country (IAF, IN, etc) and not get into building something that is used to compare it with anything else. Not worth it.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Vivek K » 30 Nov 2015 22:06

India needs to complete LCA Mark 2 development and then focus on a MK3 with fifth gen capabilities.

member_29151
BRFite
Posts: 121
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby member_29151 » 01 Dec 2015 12:17

Indian AMCA or Indian FGFA
Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4500
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JayS » 01 Dec 2015 16:56

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 14m14 minutes ago
About 50-80 more MKI orders are likely. 120 LCA MK-1,1A. They have decided to maintain a force of 700 + combat jets at the minimum.


Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 13m13 minutes ago
8-10 AEW&C platforms in the near term, rising to 20 + by the mid 2020s. They are looking at at least 18 refuellers.


Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 10m10 minutes ago
30 + VHTAC/HTAC, TAC= Transport Aircraft, Around 1500 helos for all three services, plenty of BMD & CMD aerostats, host of EW/Comm/SAR sats
.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 01 Dec 2015 17:17

36 Rafales and about 60 more MKIs would if you make the calculations,amount to around $12B,which was the estimated cost for the 126 MMRCAs some time ago.At the very beginning of the contest,which seems aeons ago,one mentioned that the most likely happening would be that the req. would be split between two fighters.The IAF denied this at that time,but the wheel has come full circle.36 Raffys at anywhere around $7-9B leaves from the original budget a meager $3B+ or so for the remainder.The latest deal for SU-35s for China has them coming in at just $2B for 24-around $83M a pop.Built in India,the 60 extra MKIs would cost at say $75M ,not more than $4-5B.Built in Russia,even cheaper!

It would've been worth evaluating getting 120 MIG-29/35s for the same price,as these aircraft would replace the MIG-27s and 21s being retd.,and along with whatever LCAs we produce,would easily not just replace but increase the inventory of the IAF,edging towards the 45 sqds. already approved. The 29/35s would replace MIG-27s 21s along with the LCA. For some reason the IAF wants twin-seat heavy fighters for the rest if this report is true.These require two pilots for each aircraft and are more expensive to operate and maintain than a single-pilot aircraft.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19152
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 01 Dec 2015 21:18

Vivek K wrote:India needs to complete LCA Mark 2 development and then focus on a MK3 with fifth gen capabilities.


Not a bad idea and might actually have a good potential even in the ww market, as long as Mk3 is a true medium class fighter with long reach. A stealth/LO single engine "lighter" fighter than the heavy PAKFAs or even the JSFs.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Vivek K » 02 Dec 2015 02:35

India needs to develop its own industry which will be vital in the future. Therefore sticking with the LCA will hold India in good stead. If there are shortcomings in the HAL assembly lines, these need to be improved maybe with pvt. sector participation. India needs to develop a second aircraft manufacturing entity. If we were to invest a little in this effort and increasing annual LCA production to maybe 25-30 per annum, that would give a tremendous boost to IAF. 25 aircraft could help train/convert pilots from 3 squadrons every year.

The Rafale is a costly mistake. Buying 2 squadrons of another type will require wasteful investment in logistics. These resources should be used in maintaining spares inventory for MKIs and improving their serviceability. A 10% improvement in MKI availabilities provide 20 additional aircraft (one more squadron) and a 20% improvement yields 40 additional aircraft.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 08 Dec 2015 21:09

Advice for the IAF,in the light of the Syrian conflict.
http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_ ... own_548229
Takeaways for India from the Su-24 shoot down
7 December 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

The multinational conflict in Syria has significant lessons for India’s military forces.

The primary takeaway for the Indian military from the shoot down of the Russian Su-24 is this: next time there’s a conflict, carry a big stick.

During the 1999 Kargil War India committed the blunder of not using overwhelming force early on. The result was that a military helicopter and a ground attack jet were brought down by shoulder fired missiles. One of the pilots who ejected was mercilessly tortured to death by his Pakistani Army captors. This is a reality of wars with Muslim nations – POWs are not likely to be given the Geneva Convention treatment.

Fast forward to 2016. The Russian Air Force has hundreds of combat assets. For the air dominance role alone, it has 359 Su-27 air superiority fighters, 291 MiG-29 multirole jets, 55 Su-30 multirole warplanes and around 48 Su-35 fighter-bombers.

And yet when they decided to strike at ISIS and other US-backed terror groups in Syria, the Russians despatched only a handful of Su-27s and Su-30s to provide top cover for their ground attacks jets. All the high-octane gear mentioned above was thousands of kilometres away from the Middle East cauldron. Incredibly, the Su-34s were not even equipped with air-to-air missiles. Clearly, the Russians underestimated NATO’s ability to “stab in the back”.

Turkey exploited this window of weakness and ambushed the Su-24 by using information – most likely provided by the Americans – about the jet’s flight paths. This was information that the Russian Air Force had provided the US Air Force in advance in order to avoid accidents.

The Turkish F-16s would not have dared to attack the Russian aircraft had there been enough Sukhois or MiGs patrolling over the battle zone. For, the F-16 Falcon cannot survive an encounter with an Su-30 Flanker or MiG-29 Fulcrum. While the F-16 has a service ceiling of 50,000 ft, both the Flanker and Fulcrum can cruise at nearly 60,000 ft, and are armed with much better air-to-air Vympel missiles. Also, the MiG-29 can climb a lot faster than an F-16, leaving the American jet panting for breath in a dogfight.

The potency of Russian fighter jets was proved during the Kargil War when Pakistan Air Force (PAF) F-16s fled the battle zone the moment Indian Air Force (IAF) MiG-29s achieved missile lock on them. In the report ‘Airpower at 18,000 feet: IAF in the Kargil War’ published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Benjamin Lambeth says that because IAF MiG-29s were airborne on combat air patrol, PAF F-16s to the west typically maintained a safe distance of 16-32 km on the Pakistani side of the border.

According to Strategy Page, “Analyses by Pakistani experts revealed that when the rubber met the road, the PAF simply refused to play any part in support of the Pakistan Army, angering the latter. While PAF fighters did fly combat air patrols during the conflict, they stayed well within Pakistani air space. On occasions, IAF MiG-29s armed with the deadly R-77 beyond visual range air-to-air missiles were able to lock on to PAF F-16s, forcing the latter to disengage.”

In an eerie similarity to Kargil 1999, the Russian pilots who ejected over Syria were shot at by pro-Turkey terrorists from the ground, leading to the death of one of them. That the surviving pilot escaped a horrible death was solely because of the Syrian Army, which led a daring rescue operation into terrorist infested territory.

If you have force, don’t hold back

Sun Tzu, the sixth century CE Chinese strategist, wrote in the Art of War that overwhelming superiority is a must before you attack the enemy. Bravery, while a desirable quality, is not something one should rely on to win battles. That would be utter foolishness. “He wins his battles by making no mistakes,” writes Sun Tzu. “Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.”

When the mighty Russian Army (Red Army) reached the outskirts of Berlin in April 1945, Germany was already defeated and the US and Russia had already decided the new map of Europe. But that didn’t mean the Russians took it easy.

Here’s what General Georgy Zhukov threw at the Germans during the final Battle of Berlin: 6,250 tanks and self-propelled guns, 7,500 aircraft and 41,600 artillery pieces. The Germans had nothing to match these numbers but Zhukov took no chances. The result was a quick victory that quickly destroyed the resolve of the Germans and prevented the entire city from falling into the hands of the Americans, which was what the German high command wanted. It’s perplexing why modern day Russian generals did not follow the time-tested strategy of deploying maximum firepower against the enemy.

Russia has since upped the quantum of forces involved in the war in Syria. More Su-27s and Su-30s have been despatched to the battlefield theatre to provide top cover to Russian ground attack jets along with strategic bombers that were built to strike at hardened NATO targets. As you can imagine, these large bombers are showing ISIS and the American-backed terror groups a glimpse of hell.

The Su-34 multirole jets have also been equipped with both short and medium-range air-to-air missiles capable of hitting targets within a 60 km range, said Russian Aerospace Forces Colonel Igor Klimov. This marks the first time the planes will carry such weaponry in the Russian anti-terror campaign in Syria.

More ominously, the S-400 Triumf missile has been despatched to the region, with the system now tracking the skies from both land and the sea (via the battle cruiser Moskva). The dreaded S-400 is a key part of Russia's anti-aircraft defence and the entire system can be set up for use in five to 10 minutes. It has a maximum range of 400 km, bringing most of southern Turkey within range of Russian fire.

The upshot of all this enhanced Russian airpower: Turkey has cancelled its military flights in Syria.

India’s options

Hopefully, India’s military is paying heed. If or when India goes to war, whether against Pakistan or any other country, it should have sufficient assets in the air so that its ground attack jets won’t be ambushed. For, what use is having the world’s fourth largest army and air force if you cannot stun the enemy with the first blow? Why wait for battle attrition and loss of lives before you decide to bring in the heavy cavalry? It’s counter-intuitive and yet India acted with reserve initially in Kargil as did Russia in Syria.

Over the next five years, India is set to spend more than $100 billion on modernising and expanding its armed forces. Some of the new weapons platforms are truly scary – nuclear attack submarines, ICBMs, IRBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles and hundreds of artillery pieces. With this kind of high-octane hardware, New Delhi should finally shed its historic reticence and attack with disproportionate force early on in any future conflict.

BharadwajV
BRFite
Posts: 116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby BharadwajV » 11 Dec 2015 12:34

our MiG-29K carrier-variant fighter jets are ready to be shipped to India in two weeks depending on the weather, and the contract is on course to be completed by next year, officials of the MiG Corporation say. Two aircraft were delivered last week and were accepted by the Navy after testing.

“This month four more will be despatched. Next year, six more will be delivered and we will fulfil the contract,” Sergey Korotkov, General Director of Russian Aircraft Corporation-MiG said in an interaction with a group of journalists from India who were in Russia on the invitation of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC). :roll:

India had contracted 45 MiG-29K carrier-based fighters from Russia in two batches — 16 fighters in 2004 along with the contact for acquiring aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya and another 29 fighters in 2010. In fact, India is the first launch customer of the carrier variant of MiG-29 even before the Russian Navy. While 16 aircraft currently fly from INS Vikramaditya, the remaining Mi9-29K are to operate from the under-construction indigenous carrier Vikrant, scheduled to enter service in 2018.

With the first batch of six Mig-29s of the Air Force upgraded in Russia, the next phase of modernisation of the remaining fighters in India has began and is progressing on schedule. There are other fighter upgrade programmes running in parallel — Mirage and Jaguar. These are important for the Air Force as new inductions are delayed and existing fleets of Mig-21s and Mig-27s are retired.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mig29k-fleet-upgraded/article7972811.ece
The title of the article by The Hindu reads "MiG-29K fleet upgraded" :lol:
Trusting the Indian media to fvck up monumentally on Defence related news, always pays up.
And the NauSena's 29K/KUB fleet strength stands at 35, now. 8)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 11 Dec 2015 13:51

That should clear up the confusion in some minds as to the status of the 29Ks in IN service. 45 will be a goodly figure for the IN. It will also be relevant in the failure of development completion and production of the NLCA based upon the reportedly abandoned MK-2 in favour of more Mk-1/1As. However,the IN should pursue the NLCA as far as poss. as its size does give it a lot of possibilities and options. Both 29Ks and NLCAs could even be land based at our island territories,from where they could join carrier forces or operate independently. The IN should shoulder a greater responsibility of sanitising and defending our maritime interests,releasing more aircraft to the IAF in defending the mainland from the Sino-Pak JV. Right now,only the USN has the capability to permanently station a CBG in the IOR and the US isn't our enemy either.China's carrier ambitions will start fructifying from 2020 onwards ,but most of its CV assets deployed against the US and its Asian allies in attempting to gain control of the ICS (Indo-China Sea) and confronting the USN in the Pacific. Therefore,our best IAF aviation assets could be stationed on the mainland to deal with the Sino-Pak threat,leaving 29Ks,NLCAs,for the maritime role.

The IAF's Jaguar maritime strike sqd. should similarly be switched in favour of an IN MIG-29K sqd. operating out of Jamnagar or Porbandar if the runway there can be lengthened.

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4069
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Lilo » 15 Dec 2015 12:32

India and Japan sign accords to support US-2i deal
Jon Grevatt, Bangkok

India and Japan have signed agreements to facilitate the long-pending export of Japan's ShinMaywa Industries US-2i amphibious search-and-rescue (SAR) aircraft to India.

During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Tokyo on 12 December, the two countries signed accords related to the "transfer of defence equipment and technology" and the "protection of classified military information".

In a statement India's ministry of external affairs (MEA) said that through the two agreements, Modi and his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, reaffirmed their commitment to "deepen the bilateral defence relationship, including through two-way collaboration and technology co-operation, co-development, and co-production".

The MEA added that the two prime ministers expressed their "intention to explore potential future projects on defence equipment and technology co-operation such as US-2 amphibian aircraft".

In addition, the MEA said Japan and India were also committed to expanding bilateral collaboration in areas that include military exchanges and formalised dialogues between military and defence officials of the two countries.

Other areas of expanded collaboration outlined during Modi's visit include infrastructure development, civil nuclear energy, solar power generation, space, biotechnology, rare earths, and advanced materials.

COMMENT
Since 2012 the Indian Navy has outlined a potential requirement to procure up to 12 ShinMaywa US-2i amphibious SAR aircraft. According to previous reports, the navy plans to acquire two US-2is off the shelf and licence-build the remaining 10 in a USD1.65 billion contract, which is expected to be signed in early 2016.

ShinMaywa is understood to be in discussions with a range of private-sector manufacturers to build the US-2i in India. These companies include Larsen & Toubro, Mahindra Aerospace, Pipavav, Reliance, Taneja Aerospace, and Tata Advanced Systems. The agreements signed by Modi and Abe are intended to facilitate the US-2i industrial partnership and resultant technology transfers, which would be channelled through India's defence offset policy.

If agreed, the sale of the 47-tonne US-2i, which is powered by four Rolls-Royce AE-2100J turboprop engines with an operational range of 4,700 km, would represent Japan's biggest defence export since lifting its self-imposed ban on such sales in April 2014.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 15 Dec 2015 12:52

Problem as mentioned before is that the US-2s do not carry any ASW armament. So CG and IN amphibs should be of diff types or the Japanese allow us to install weaponry aboard the amphibs.

Just posted details of the US's 6th-gen fighter in the US mil td. ,which will arrive in service mid '2030s.AMCA should also aim for 6th-gen specs,no point in reinventing 5th-gen with the FGFA around.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... lanes.html

member_29268
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby member_29268 » 15 Dec 2015 13:38

LCA, LCA Mk1A, LCA Mk 2, AMCA, FGFA, AURA, ... Too many programs vs the same design team. I wonder if similar situation exists anywhere else...One designer focusing on too many developmental projects at the same time is bound to slow down the progress of all of them.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 16 Dec 2015 13:05

Add the IJT,HTT-40,etc. to the list. I remember a few years ago the IJT team was also tasked with the FGFA! Russia has its own FGFA timetable,Putin is cracking the whip there,Mr. M and DM MP,need to do the same here.

Looking at the AMCA and the latest news of the US's 6th-gen concept taking shape,which looks like a smaller B-2 bomber flying wing,which will arrive in service around the mid '30s,that would be afar more achievable date for the AMCA,2030+ and to leapfrog the 5th-gen tech being developed,so that we have a truly bleedin' edge fighter in 15+ years time,giving our boffins enough time to develop whatever exotic tech they require and plan for production ,and the entire train of support,spares as well.

At this point of time,the AMCA looks like a smaller version of the FGFA and will carry a much smaller internal arsenal too. How cost-effective will it thus be? Instead the Tejas can be leveraged to accommodate 5th-gen tech in a future avatar ,which can be done in far shorter time and at much reduced developmental costs.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby NRao » 16 Dec 2015 15:16

If anything comes out of the DTTI, expect the AMCA to be ahead of the FGFA curve. My read is that the FGFA is not bad but it does not meet Indian recs from certain angles. Besides, the engine is not even ready (2018 at the earliest).

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 16 Dec 2015 19:47

IAF has only 55% fleet availability
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 206678.cms
"Between 15-20 percent of the aircraft fleet were Aircraft on Ground (AOG) due to shortage of spares," the ministry has stated. Officials say that the majority of aircraft on ground are older, Russian origin aircraft including the ageing MiG 27 and MiG 21 fleet.

The modern Su 30 MKI fleet, which will eventually reach 272 aircraft, is also suffering from an availability of just around 50 percent, with Parrikar determined to push the number up. India and Russia are also set to sign a pac ..

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst


Looks like we need more Russian aircraft. Buy 800, and 400 will be available

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Vivek K » 16 Dec 2015 20:51

Instead of wasting billions on Rafale for just 36 aircraft, India needs to invest that amount in spares for MKIs - 80% serviceability of 250 aircraft = 200 aircraft vs 110 (@55% availability) or 90 additional aircraft in place of 36.

The only way to reduce costs and keep high serviceability is local manufacture of aircraft and components. Otherwise, one will need to keep paying a king's ransom forever.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19152
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 16 Dec 2015 21:19

shiv wrote:IAF has only 55% fleet availability
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 206678.cms
"Between 15-20 percent of the aircraft fleet were Aircraft on Ground (AOG) due to shortage of spares," the ministry has stated. Officials say that the majority of aircraft on ground are older, Russian origin aircraft including the ageing MiG 27 and MiG 21 fleet.

The modern Su 30 MKI fleet, which will eventually reach 272 aircraft, is also suffering from an availability of just around 50 percent, with Parrikar determined to push the number up. India and Russia are also set to sign a pac ..

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst


Looks like we need more Russian aircraft. Buy 800, and 400 will be available


Shiv the data was from January to December 2014. One year back. So the DDM has as usual played up old news as today's news. The current availability may be higher.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cosmo_R » 16 Dec 2015 21:28

^^^"Looks like we need more Russian aircraft. Buy 800, and 400 will be available"


Yes and that is why quantity is said to have a quality of its own. :)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8063
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 17 Dec 2015 03:17

My jingo-dream: NAL finishes certifying the Saras-14. And then stretches it to a 25-30 seater using the HTFE-25.

Sometimes, I wonder if NAL/CSIR has gotten stuck into this mode of perfecting the plane on the ground! That, somehow Saras has become a "research" plane! We have to produce that plane. As long as it is safe to fly, it is fine if flies slower, climbs slower, hauls lesser. MoD should just order a few (just like the Brazilians did for Embraer). Meanwhile NAL can design the Saras-S and correct the mistakes of Saras in that version. Start building those as the replacement for the Do-228s. While those are being produced, design and develop a 25-30 seater, and so on. I look at Embraer and can't help being a little jealous. Their growth from 1985 today is phenomenal. I am pretty sure their EMB-110 and EMB-120 were not perfect!

Meanwhile, Mahindra has not proven to be the hare I had initially expected it to be. GA-10 is yet to receive certification, although Mahindra recently formed a company called Airvan 10 Pty Ltd. NM-5 certification will only be taken up once Airvan 10 has been certified. Airvan 18 looks doubtful now, but if revived, it will be after NM-5.

I don't know what came out of HAL's RFI for a 10 passenger commuter aircraft. I have some new found faith in HAL though. They are more adventurous than a few years back. HTT-40, HTFE-25 are examples of that.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4440
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 17 Dec 2015 04:11

Looking at Saras (and to some degree IJT), it is true when some say if the LCA had crashed anytime it would have been the end of it. Lot of the momentum seems to get lost after such an incident and the program gets pushed into the shadows. Fundings dry up; user loses interest; scientists/engineers have doubts and need to be even more cautious for a second crash would definitely mean the end of the program.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 17 Dec 2015 05:21

srai wrote:Looking at Saras (and to some degree IJT), it is true when some say if the LCA had crashed anytime it would have been the end of it. Lot of the momentum seems to get lost after such an incident and the program gets pushed into the shadows. Fundings dry up; user loses interest; scientists/engineers have doubts and need to be even more cautious for a second crash would definitely mean the end of the program.

This was not always the case. The Kiran has had a long service life despite accidents during development. There is a media and Indian self-flagellation problem here IMO. We have accepted the Gnat with its problems and later the MiG 27 with its propensity to crash, blamed it on the MiG 21 and strangulated Indian programs as if Indians are bums. I still believe that too many Indians in high places look critically at fellow Indians like outsiders esp westerners might look at them. The Lutyens elite disdain for the common Indian extends to disdain and suspicion of Indian capability that causes over-cautiousness in order to avoid blame. It is the same cautiousness that ensured a safe Tejas test program, but also caused delays and now some white man praises the program for its safety record and it makes the news. When others kept pointing out its safety record it did not make news. Only the delays made news. That says something about us.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 17 Dec 2015 05:26

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^"Looks like we need more Russian aircraft. Buy 800, and 400 will be available"


Yes and that is why quantity is said to have a quality of its own. :)

This is less of a joke that might seem to be the case. Manufacturing philosophy in Russia went on a different route than in the west. They relied on less expensive products that were already available from other low tech manufacturers and that is why their philosophy was to use and discard. If the GSh 23 had a user life of 10,000 rounds, replace it - it's cheap. If an engine has a MTBF of 150 hours, replace the engine. Western philosophy went in the direction of higher cost, quality and reliability - possibly because of legal systems that came down heavily on failures due to poor quality.

We bought from both systems and tried to adapt both to our needs, hobbled by our own industrial deficiencies

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 17 Dec 2015 09:33

The "Maruti" philosophy too.Sell your tincan after 3 years and buy a new tin can! Though we in India have nursed these tincans for aeons thanks to battalions of tinkers and roadside garages. Look at the MIG-21,soldiering on for 6 decades! Viraat/Hermes another % decades! This is/was the problem with Ru wares,better now,things are improving,as the want of such "tinkers" is being taken over by desi JVs started to support such systems. For Indian conditions where maintenance and perfect replacement timings are bad words,the Ru system of discard and replace is the better option.It will also mean lots of work for downstream suppliers of components,etc. Inventories can be larger which will help esp. during wartime.I remember some years ago when there was a border crisis with country X,the sole manufacturer of a critical component for a weapon system recd. an urgent call for large quantities which normally would require months of production. Fortunately the crisis abated.

This then calls for streamlining the fleet and operating fewer types where cannibalisation can take place if we are remiss on spares.War reserves must also be maintained,mothballing a % of aircraft.

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Nick_S » 17 Dec 2015 12:06

Anantha Krishnan M ✈ ‏@writetake 7m7 minutes ago
3 lady cadets short-listed by #IAF for fighter stream set to pass out from AFA Dundigal, Hyd on Dec 19, says a post on AFA on FB.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8063
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 18 Dec 2015 04:34

shiv wrote:This was not always the case. The Kiran has had a long service life despite accidents during development. There is a media and Indian self-flagellation problem here IMO. We have accepted the Gnat with its problems and later the MiG 27 with its propensity to crash, blamed it on the MiG 21 and strangulated Indian programs as if Indians are bums. I still believe that too many Indians in high places look critically at fellow Indians like outsiders esp westerners might look at them. The Lutyens elite disdain for the common Indian extends to disdain and suspicion of Indian capability that causes over-cautiousness in order to avoid blame. It is the same cautiousness that ensured a safe Tejas test program, but also caused delays and now some white man praises the program for its safety record and it makes the news. When others kept pointing out its safety record it did not make news. Only the delays made news. That says something about us.

Hakim, you got the pulse.

However, time for some choti-mooh-badi-baat. I think there is some need for restructuring and re-prioritization. Parrikar has started to get HAL, ADA and HAL together. Till now they fought like siblings with no adult supervision. At least that's how it looks from the outside. I think it is time to institutionalize this: ADA designs, HAL builds, and IAF flies, and information flows back and forth freely.

This leaves us with NAL. The people at NAL are wonderful set of people, the who's who of Indian aeronautical society, but it pains me to read pages and pages on micro air vehicles portrayed as "annual accomplishments" for years in a row for a national lab! NAL should become the national center for aerodynamic testing, avionics design and civil aircraft development. This is not possible if it stays under the languishing Ministry of Science and Technology. Based on the committee of NCAD, I think it is most prudent to the "Department of Space" to "Department of Space and Aviation" with ISRO and NAL reporting to it.

NCAD cannot say we will build a plane someday. Let me do feasibility study first. No! INDIA HAS TO BUILD A CIVILIAN plane by 2025. The work of this committee is to find out how. What can be built in India and what needs to be imported today. Brazil makes damn good planes, and they don't build everything internally. The irony is, the NCAD committee is perfectly capable of doing this! Also, you don't need IITians to design India's first plane. We have lots of smart people in India. Give them a chance to build a real plane, and honour that word. People who designed the best planes in the world did not come from the best universities in their respective countries. Even in India, like what we have done in ISRO, ship and missile development programs.

It is possible.

ManjaM
BRFite
Posts: 1217
Joined: 15 May 2010 02:52
Location: Padvaralli

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ManjaM » 18 Dec 2015 05:19

Are there any new updates coming out of NCAD? I havent seen any for over a 2 years. Dr Madhavan Nair was practically persona non grata on anything related to the Government after the S band controversy. If he is still Chairman of the board, NCAD is probably a dead duck.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3933
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby deejay » 18 Dec 2015 10:26

IJT just done low level aeros over HAL airport including an ultra low level fly past over the runway culminating in a curved approach full stop. Mindblowing!!! Great way to begin a weekend.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 18 Dec 2015 11:51

deejay wrote:IJT just done low level aeros over HAL airport including an ultra low level fly past over the runway culminating in a curved approach full stop. Mindblowing!!! Great way to begin a weekend.

Where are the like and retweet icons?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8063
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 18 Dec 2015 11:58

HAL-day preparations?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3933
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby deejay » 18 Dec 2015 16:55

^^^ Probably.

The LCA that was doing aero practice for a few days last week was probably doing it for AFA passing out parade, which I think was scheduled for today.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8063
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 18 Dec 2015 21:30

I thought it was for the potential aerial display at the Bahrain Airshow.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8063
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 18 Dec 2015 21:31

ManjaM wrote:Are there any new updates coming out of NCAD? I havent seen any for over a 2 years. Dr Madhavan Nair was practically persona non grata on anything related to the Government after the S band controversy. If he is still Chairman of the board, NCAD is probably a dead duck.

NCA is a dead duck in the water for the moment.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4440
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 19 Dec 2015 08:18

Lessons not learned ...

CAG slams Indian Air Force for sub-optimal utilisation of AWACS
NEW DELHI: The country's top auditor has slammed the Indian Air Force for sub-optimal utilisation of operational capabilities of AWACS (air borne warning and control system) aircraft purchased in 2004 for Rs 5,042 crore and has said shortage of aircrew may impact the operations of the planes during hostilities.

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India also slammed the low serviceability of the Sukhois, country's front-line combat aircraft.

Without identifying the AWACS aircraft acquired from Russia, the audit body said Defence Ministry concluded a contract (March 2004) for procurement of three 'AA' and its sub-systems at a cost of Rs 5,042 crore.

AWACS is capable of operating as an Airborne Command & Control Centre for conducting offensive and defensive air operations.

"There was sub-optimal utilisation of operational capabilities of 'AA' in terms of flying task achieved mainly due to un-serviceability of 'AA'. Besides, scope for increasing operational efficiency of 'AA' aircraft was restricted due to absence of training to aircrew on air to air refuelling (AAR) and non-acquisition of additional land for extension of runway length at AF Station 'S-3'," the CAG said in its report submitted to the Parliament.

It said there was delay in installation of Ground Exploitation Station (GES) at intended location ('S-1') due to lack of due diligence in planning of work services.

"There was shortage of aircrew which may impact the operations of the 'AA' aircraft during hostilities. No long-term arrangement existed for repair and maintenance of 'AA' which was being managed with interim maintenance services contract," it said.

The audit body said supply of defective Automatic Test Equipment for Communication System, the non-supply of 'I' level facility for Identification of Friend or Foe (IFF) system and short provisioning of stores/rotables had adversely affected the serviceability of 'AA'.

"Certain infrastructure facilities were not synchronised with the induction of 'AA' as there was delay in completion of work services for modified hangars, independent storage facility and separate training-cum-accommodation centre at AF Station 'S-3', which affected smooth functioning of 'AA'," the report said.

Talking about the Su-30 aircraft, which the CAG identified as 'C', it said shortfalls in performance of aircraft and airborne system as received were yet (August 2015) to be resolved.

"Setting up of service support centres was inordinately delayed for want of required systems/equipment. Serviceability of aircraft fleet was also low.

"Manpower for 'C' aircraft squadron was not sanctioned even after 19 years of its induction," CAG said.


A decade has gone by and we are still hearing low servicibility issues with yet another type in the force. There seems to be systematic failure in the lifecycle management of products after they are inducted.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests