Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

[Singha]

I dont think wars are fought that way unless nothing is left on the table. IAF like any modern AF will distribute its older pilots among the younger ones and make sure they have adequate exp before going in harms way.

war is not a place to read the instruction manual - peoples lives are at stake.

[shiv]

Here are some stories of rookie pilots who would have sat out wars if reality was not different from theory. Posting in part only

MY First Kill (The F 86 sabres) (Courtesy Deepa Nebb )
Wing Commander Vinod Nebb. Vir Chakra and Bar..
Junior most and the youngest pilot to have shot down a Sabre aircraft in any war.
On 2nd Sept 1965, the station Commander called a special brief in the ops room where the War Scenario was depicted, discussed, and our expected retaliatory plan was outlined. Stress was laid on counter air missions and close air support was briefed in great detail.
With the onset of the 1965 war, and not having finished my Fully Operational Syllabus, I was therefore was only qualified to do air defence missions. Due to severe lack of experience my Flt Commander did not detail me for any live missions against the enemy .I was disappointed and eager to actively participate in the war and expressed my feelings and keenness to my Flt Commander. I had learnt how our soldiers had been humiliated in the 1962 war against China and I was keen to change such perceptions. With great reluctance he conceded to my request and I was put on air defence missions.
On the morning of 5 Sept 1965 one F 104 star fighters made a high speed single pass down the runway. It was interpreted by us as a photo reccee sortie to identify our dispersal plans and positions of aircraft and our readiness status. It was evident that soon we would have an airstrike against our ground instillations and aircraft.
Flt Lt Ahuja and Flg Offr MV Singh were detailed to carry out a strike against Pakistan army‘s ground position in the Khemkaran Sector. Here Flg offr MV Singh was shot up by the enemy ack ack fire, a shell went through his cockpit and his right leg got severely injured. Since he was in terrible pain and unable to fly his aircraft back to base, he ejected and was taken POW. Incidentally it is the same area where an army vehicle driven by Kisan Baburao Hazare (Anna Hazare) survived enemy shelling, when his transport was hit and every occupant of the vehicle perished, he was the lone survivor.
On the morning of 6 Sept I was on ORP duty which commences ½ n hours before sunrise to be on standby to take on the enemy within 2 minutes. As my shift was drawing to a close at 1300 hours, Sqn Ldr Patel and Flt Lt DN Rathore were detailed to take over the afternoon shift. Since Patel had some work, he requested me to continue and stand in for him. Flt Lt Rathore as my leader carried out a breifing. At around 1700 hours my Station Commander Group Capt John was in conversation with the Air defence Commander on the tennoy. He was told to get all serviceable a/c airborne as a massive air strike was expected by the enemy. Hearing this it was clear to me that since the time was inadequate to comply with the advice I was sure that we at ORP would be asked to protect the base. I casually picked up my Flying helmet proceeded to my aircraft, strapped myself up and waited for the command. Sure enough a few minutes later Flt Lt DN Rathore who was my leader for the mission came running out to scramble. I took the cue and started my aircraft. Rathore came live on RT and told me to scramble for Combat Air Patrol over the base for which I had already been briefed. As we took position for the CAP I spotted three Aircraft coming towards our base from the north east and informed my leader “3 Bogies 0ne 0 Clock below” Since I had never seen the F 86 sabres in my life, they somewhat resembled with the Mystere a/c ,I was confused for a while but Rathore my leader was very clear about them, he established visual contact started manoeuvring his aircraft to position himself behind them for a gunshot. I like a good No 2 remained stuck with him in position. After manoeuvring I found two Sabres did not go over the airfield but had turned 270 degrees heading for the border leaving the airfield on the south. Rathore positioned behind them on the right and I was on the left. My job was to look out for more Bogies and cover his tail. I saw Rathore firing on the aircraft on the right .Seeing him fire I was now sure they were not mystere a/c but were the enemy Sabres. I then decided to take on the Sabre on the left . In my excitement I just put the aircraft nose onto the enemy aircraft and started firing, but found to my chagrin that the bullets were not hitting the enemy but running on the ground. I suddenly remembered the “Ranging and Tracking“ exercise, which means the use of Gyro Gunsight (aiming device meant to feed range and gravity drop to the aiming point ‘pipper”) I then put the Pipper on to the aircraft cockpit and fired a burst . This burst hit the tail of the enemy aircraft and some black smoke came out. I moved the Piper slightly forward and fired another burst. The enemy aircraft threw a hard left turn, which gave me a sudden plan view for a moment, and made it better for me to position the piper. I was taught during training that two Lbs of Highly Explosive charge fired into an aircraft causes it to explode but this aircraft did not explode! I continued to fire at him and kept closing on to him with utter disregard to my own safety. I was barely 100 yards from him when it suddenly exploded and I saw a moon shaped big chunk of debris flying towards me. I broke right and pulled up to find Rathore on my right and ahead of me. I

[Karan M]

Sorry, but that's not a "rookie pilot" equivalent in Hawks, if we see how IAF is today. In 1965 IAF was much smaller & had more basic tech but lets see today.

He is a pilot who has already been through 3 stages, in todays parlance (254 hours of flight, equivalent to around the same number of sorties or more) transferred to the squadron and has commenced his training.

He is not fully ops across all criteria but he is already a huge step up from a trainee pilot yet to be deputed to squadron level.

"With the onset of the 1965 war, and not having finished my Fully Operational Syllabus, I was therefore was only qualified to do air defence missions."

So, he is already AD mission qualified.

A trainee in Hawks is not even AD qualified since he is yet to join the relevant squadron and become qualified on tactics and weapons.

http://work.chron.com/indian-air-force- ... 28343.html

Beginning Training

India's fighter pilots begin their training at the Indian Air Force Academy in Dundigal. Training consists of three stages, the first of which is six months of flight-related training alongside standard joint services training. Pilots first receive technical training on a trainer aircraft, which involves theoretical learning of air combat principles and a practical demonstration of aircraft systems. Trainees who do not join the IAF through the National Defense Academy must complete a six-month preflying training program before beginning Stage I training at the IAFA.

Related Reading: Air Force Fighter Pilot Qualifications
Advanced Training

After Stage I training, pilots can opt for fighter, helicopter or transport training. Fighter trainees enter Stage II training, a 24-week program at the academy, that advances their academic learning and commences fighter jet flight training. Successful graduates of Stage II training become commissioned officers and enter Stage III training, another 24-week program that hones their knowledge of the aircraft the pilots will fly. After completing Stage III, fighter pilots are assigned to their squadrons.

Then:

The Air HQ is contemplating other changes as well. It is likely to introduce a new training schedule for cadets undergoing pilot training at the Air Force Academy (AFA), the IAF's premier training establishment, at Dundigal, 35 km from Hyderabad. Under the present schedule, trainees will have to complete two stages of flying, each comprising about 140 hours, before the batch is trifurcated and the trainees are assigned to one of the three aviation streams - fighter, transport and helicopter. According to the new schedule being contemplated for cadets who will form the first batch of 2002, they will have to complete only 65 hours of flying on the Hindustan Propeller Trainer, the HPT-32, built by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), before trifurcation.

The present schedule comprises Stage I, Stage II, Stage IIA and Stage III. (Stage IIA, which was introduced in 1996, is only for fighter pilots.) In Stage I, which is spread over 24 weeks, the AFA imparts ab-initio training in flying and non-technical subjects. Cadets from the National Defence Academy (NDA) or direct-entry pilot trainees (who initially undergo the Pre Flying Training Course at Begumpet, near Hyderabad) fly a total of 65 hours - dual flights for about 14 hours and the rest solo. Pilot trainees of the Army and the Navy initially undergo training at the Basic Flying Training School in Allahabad.

Stage II is also spread over 24 weeks. Advanced training is given at the AFA or at the Air Force Station at Bidar. Cadets fly the HAL-built HJT-16 (Kiran Mark-I) aircraft, which has a jet engine. This stage involves 80 hours of flight, 30 of them solo.

The pilot officers chosen for the fighter stream undergo Stage IIA of the training for 24 weeks at the Hakimpet Air Force Station, near Hyderabad. They could be commissioned into the IAF or the Navy. The training is on the Kiran Mark IIA (85 hours) or the Polish-built Iskara (95 hours). In Stage III, fighter pilots are trained at the IAF's MiG Operational Flying Training Unit at the Salanibari Air Base, Tezpur (Assam) or at a forward MiG squadron. They fly vintage MiG-21s for around 110 hours during a period of 48 weeks. Although they are ready for posting at a forward squadron after completing Stage III, they would be "Fully Ops" (fully operational for day-and-night flying) only after another 200 to 225 hours of flying in the squadron. It takes two to three years for a fighter pilot to become Fully Ops.

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1813/18130650.htm

After Hawks got introduced.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 289949.ece

And:

"We will begin the first course in July 2013 with the first 14 Pilatus trainers we get. Full-scale basic training of all new pilots on Pilatus will begin from January, 2014," he added. Stage-II "intermediate" training on Kiran aircraft for fighter pilots will involve 82 hours, while another 107 hours will be clocked in stage-III "advanced" training on Hawk AJTs (advanced jet trainers).

In effect, rookie pilots will then log 254 hours of actual flying, apart from simulator training. It takes Rs 11 crore to train a single fighter pilot, and around half that amount for a chopper or a transport aircraft.

Training schedules of the IAF, which inducts 240 new trainee pilots annually, went haywire after the entire fleet of the 114 ageing HPT-32 aircraft. The piston-engine aircraft, which long served as the BTA, was grounded in August , 2009, after a crash killed the pilot.

The IAF also has to get a replacement for the 80 virtually obsolete Kirans — currently used for both stage-I and stage-II training — that can be "stretched" only till 2015. By then, Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) will have to deliver on its long-delayed project to manufacture 85 IJTs (intermediate jet trainers ). The IAF will also need another 106 BTA to supplement the 75 Pilatus trainers.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... kie-pilots

After Hawk training, pilots go onto respective squadrons. Again, many more hours of

Way back in the time you reference, the training schedule would have been simpler but the aircraft and threats faced were also simpler.

In todays clime, what you are proposing is rookie pilots in Stage 3 training be sent into combat.

What that would entail is a new subdivision of combat capability at Hawk level itself. Equivalent to creating a replication of what happens at squadron level 200-300 hours of flying before fully ops at Hawk level itself - which is never going to make complete sense because the Hawk profile is actually not that of a supersonic fighter and hence a pilot will have to go to a MiG-29, LCA or Su-30 squadron to become fully AD capable or fully strike capable.

A Hawk can't teach you advanced BR tactics across the spectrum (though BAE will claim it can give you the radar simulator etc etc).

At the end of the day, a Stage 3 pilot before he goes onto the squadron is capable, but he still needs to be trained a lot more before being combat capable.

[Karan M]

Shiv, the issue is its not their decision to make, given the gravity of the issue. A rookie pilot who is not fully combat ops is a sitting duck for a more experienced PAF veteran or PLAAF veteran.

He may not meet a veteran and even if he does he may kick him and gain experience.

Is that "may" worth the risk of sending out your "future" and decimating your pilot pool though? We have a methodical and extremely rigorous training schedule for a reason. If anything the battlefield of today has become far more lethal than that of WW2 or 1950s or 1965 or even 1971.

To do strike, you need to understand and avoid SAM systems. Who trains you at this? TACDE trained instructors at Squadron level. At Hawk level, you will learn basic strikes, basic bombing, navigation and combat flying. The advanced training happens at squadron level and full ops capability is achieved in 2-3 years.

To do AD, counter air, you need to know be adept at BVR, WVR. Again, squadron level work and 2-3 years.

In Su-30, Mig-29, Mirage and Tejas squadrons, you'll need to know both.. mix of crews and experience.

The PAF and PLAAF will do something similar.

Sending out a young guy with minimal combat training & few flight hours against skilled opponents. What does that serve?

[Karan M]

I dont think wars are fought that way unless nothing is left on the table. IAF like any modern AF will distribute its older pilots among the younger ones and make sure they have adequate exp before going in harms way.

war is not a place to read the instruction manual - peoples lives are at stake.

Exactly.. we use WingCos as mission commanders and the flight training to get combat ops is very thorough and rigorous.

Otherwise the attrition issues will be significant.

Plus there is the issue of perception also to consider. Wars are often fought to gain deterrence, if you have a very high casualty profile and are seen to have "lost" or suffered body blows (due to high losses) your deterrence capability may be compromised. Israel was worried about this after its much vaunted tank crews took a beating in the recent conflict. Its draft troops proved completely unequal to the task of facing Hezb/Hamas types too causing more heartburn and the myth of Israeli invincibility took a beating.

[shiv]

Let's not change the definition of rookie where it is inconvenient

Another rookie pilot story from PC Lal's biography

[shiv]

Is that "may" worth the risk of sending out your "future" and decimating your pilot pool though?

Risk assessment is done all the time by the air force and sometimes the may is worth it. There is no rigid law. A lot depends on how hot your war is and how desperate the situation might be.

[JayS]

Whether we get 200 LCAs or 500, we will still have 100 plus Hawks. In hot war a 100 extra aircraft is not to be sniffed at. If push comes to shove and we have lost 30% of our Air Force - then those extra numbers will count for a lot. I still have not figured out why people are saying Hawk or LCA. I am saying Hawk and LCA. Hawks will be there for training anyway. Hawks are going to be around for 20 more years. An upgrade by closing off one seat and replacing with fuel and avionics will give a more combat capable Hawk with very little extra effort and let the LCA program continue.

If its only about arming/upgrading existing Hawks, then by all means, we should do it. But buying new combat hawks makes less sense vis-a-vis LCA.

[shiv]

Whether we get 200 LCAs or 500, we will still have 100 plus Hawks. In hot war a 100 extra aircraft is not to be sniffed at. If push comes to shove and we have lost 30% of our Air Force - then those extra numbers will count for a lot. I still have not figured out why people are saying Hawk or LCA. I am saying Hawk and LCA. Hawks will be there for training anyway. Hawks are going to be around for 20 more years. An upgrade by closing off one seat and replacing with fuel and avionics will give a more combat capable Hawk with very little extra effort and let the LCA program continue.

If its only about arming/upgrading existing Hawks, then by all means, we should do it. But buying new combat hawks makes less sense vis-a-vis LCA.

Why not buy both and increase numbers in parallel production lines? Why rule out one and whine that the Air Force is down in numbers? The Hawk will be good mainly for CAS and shooting down drones. LCA will be overkill in many scenarios. One constant and not very convincing argument that is conjured up is that every square meter of battle area will have SAM, Manpad and Veteran enemy pilots and even if they are absent at one time they will magically appear by the time the next sortie is flown by rookies - even if it is within minutes of the previous one. This is good for simply extending an argument but the fact is that war will present a large number of situations where Hawks and even An 32s with bombs may be used. In this mad rush to rule out the Hawk these details are being obfuscated.

[Karan M]

Let's not change the definition of rookie where it is inconvenient

Another rookie pilot story from PC Lal's biography

You are speaking of Hawk pilots being sent into combat. They are rookies since they are not ops trained & are hence inconvenient, to the argument of using Hawk pilots.

They are not ready to be released to squadron level - in fact your above quote is again of pilots deputed to squadrons and rookies within the squadron. Not Hawk pilots.

Pls see the links above.

After Hawks/MOFTU, there will be further training at the squadron level to get a pilot who is combat capable.

This is what your above examples were of - again pilots beyond Stage 3 training. "Raw" certainly, but beyond the Hawk (Stage 3) level.

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2 ... 804600.htm

Initially, for quite a few years, these greenhorn Pilot Officers used to be held back at Hakimpet, near Hyderabad, to undergo a six-month Stage-3 ("Applied Stage") training on the Vampire fighter jets before being posted to fighter squadrons. This system worked well in the 1950s and the 1960s with the kind of fighter inventory and "squadron demand" that the IAF had. But, after the 1965 India-Pakistan war, a need was felt to conduct the Stage-3 training of fighter pilots on a more advanced fighter-trainer than the Vampire, in the light of the changing inventory complexion of the IAF and the changes being made in the training pattern. Thus was born the Operational Training Unit (OTU) at Jamnagar in 1967, flying Hunter aircraft.

In short, the examples you cite are of pilots who have cleared Stage 3 which has existed for a long time.

You are stating that Hawk trainees can be used to move into combat. They are in Stage 3, not beyond Stage 3.

What happened later?

Increased intake into the expanding MiG 21 and Sukhoi Su-7 force, as well as new inductions such as the MiG 23 and the Jaguar, the Mirage 2000 and the MiG 29, called for an expansion of the Stage-3 training facility. Thus was formed the MiG 21 `Operational Conversion Unit' (OCU) - later renamed the `MiG Operational Flying Training Unit' (MOFTU) - at Tezpur, in 1986. This was in addition to the Hunter OTU, now renamed the "Hunter OCU", based at Kalaikunda. The MOFTU operated the third MiG 21 variant to enter service (after Type 74 and Type 76), the "FL" or Type 77 (the first MiG 21 variant to be bulk produced at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited [HAL], Nashik), and began imparting Stage-3 training to freshly commissioned fighter pilots on their way to frontline squadrons.

So, if anything, Stage 3 pilot training became more complex heading into the 1971 conflict and later.

These pilots are the rookies PC Lal and the other quotes cite. Rookies versus their peers but certainly a huge step ahead of the pilots flying Hawks/Hunters who are yet to get into squadron roles.

The hope was that with the Hawk, fully combat capable pilots would be easier to produce. Yet to see definitive details on this.

[Karan M]

Is that "may" worth the risk of sending out your "future" and decimating your pilot pool though?

Risk assessment is done all the time by the air force and sometimes the may is worth it. There is no rigid law. A lot depends on how hot your war is and how desperate the situation might be.

If you anticipate a desperate situation then build up your credible fighter fleet, and accelerate your pilot training.

Instead of turning your trainers into jury rigged combat aircraft which are not as effective as full fighters & sending trainees into combat even when they are not ready for it.

[shiv]

Risk assessment is done all the time by the air force and sometimes the may is worth it. There is no rigid law. A lot depends on how hot your war is and how desperate the situation might be.

If you anticipate a desperate situation then build up your credible fighter fleet, and accelerate your pilot training.

Instead of turning your trainers into jury rigged combat aircraft which are not as effective as full fighters & sending trainees into combat even when they are not ready for it.

I think we both understand that you and I have different opinions on this issue. Why close down a fully equipped line instead of increasing numbers and capacity by building new line for the LCA and retaining the old Hawk line. I think it is a self goal to close down a line when numbers are an issue. By all means make two new lines for LCA but closing down the Hawk line is a repeat of what we did to Submarines and the HF 24.

[shiv]

The hope was that with the Hawk, fully combat capable pilots would be easier to produce. Yet to see definitive details on this.

You've seen the video. Hawk pilots in action with just 1 year flying behind them.

[JayS]

Why not buy both and increase numbers in parallel production lines? Why rule out one and whine that the Air Force is down in numbers? The Hawk will be good mainly for CAS and shooting down drones. LCA will be overkill in many scenarios. One constant and not very convincing argument that is conjured up is that every square meter of battle area will have SAM, Manpad and Veteran enemy pilots and even if they are absent at one time they will magically appear by the time the next sortie is flown by rookies - even if it is within minutes of the previous one. This is good for simply extending an argument but the fact is that war will present a large number of situations where Hawks and even An 32s with bombs may be used. In this mad rush to rule out the Hawk these details are being obfuscated.

To very basic level with a baniya mentality, disregarding everything technical, if I can buy either a combat hawk or an LCA in more or less money, I would go for LCA since it gives me all that a combat hawk can and much more. We have limited money to spend and we have to rationalize it. If IAF can afford to buy 200 combat Hawks along with 200-500 LCA then its all fine. But I think buying more hawks will necessarily eat up some money that could have gone for LCA.

The point you make about trainee pilots being able to participate is acceptable. But correct me if I am wrong, IAF will deploy trainees in combat only when they will be pushed hard for that, such as a large scale two-front war. Otherwise I do not think IAF will deploy them in the wars we have seen so far. Still its good to prepare for eventuality and shore up as much resources as you can. But my only concern is LCA, which will bring much more on table for similar cost, should not be compromised upon. In any case carrying a little bigger stick won't harm us, would it??

As far as I can see only real down point for LCA is that it will need fully qualified pilots to fly it. Can the IAF not plan properly and have enough pool of combat qualified pilots in coming few years, so that the extra number of LCA that could be procured will not have short of pilots and IAF will not need to send rookies into combat. And then only upgrade existing hawks which can then be used in supporting role flown by rookie pilots in large scale war, if it ever comes. Anyway how many such rookie pilots are there in IAF at any given time which can be sent to war with short notice?? Do existing hawks are enough for all those pilots or we need more Hawks??

[Karan M]

Why not buy both and increase numbers in parallel production lines? Why rule out one and whine that the Air Force is down in numbers? The Hawk will be good mainly for CAS and shooting down drones.

Question is how will it be any better at CAS than the LCA? Why run 2 parallel lines than one for the LCA - its diverting scarce resources to keep two lines versus focusing on one program and ensuring HAL indigenizes it.

LCA will be overkill in many scenarios. One constant and not very convincing argument that is conjured up is that every square meter of battle area will have SAM, Manpad and Veteran enemy pilots and even if they are absent at one time they will magically appear by the time the next sortie is flown by rookies - even if it is within minutes of the previous one.

If LCA was overkill then why did IAF insist on SPJ, IMHO it was because they are very concerned about every platform.

Besides, PLAAF has become very powerful.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-IADS-SAMs.html

This is good for simply extending an argument but the fact is that war will present a large number of situations where Hawks and even An 32s with bombs may be used. In this mad rush to rule out the Hawk these details are being obfuscated.

Challenge is everything is "useful" only if the opponent is limited enough to allow you to get away with it, thats the fundamental problem, IMHO PAF/PLAAF combo is far more sophisticated than in years past.

[Karan M]

I think we both understand that you and I have different opinions on this issue. Why close down a fully equipped line instead of increasing numbers and capacity by building new line for the LCA and retaining the old Hawk line. I think it is a self goal to close down a line when numbers are an issue. By all means make two new lines for LCA but closing down the Hawk line is a repeat of what we did to Submarines and the HF 24.

Shiv - if we go look at the HAL Annual Report, tell me how does it make sense to have HAL fritter away its resources on the Hawk program and keep 2 lines running without even firm orders when the LCA program is the biggest need of the hour. I am constrained in terms of stating my opinion on HAL's internal issues which is making it take these decisions. But we do know what AURDC does & what happens once Darin-3 is done (and Mirage 2000 is basically Thales/Dassault & LCA is ADA). We need to push really push HAL to get its act together and focus on the LCA. My concern is that it always takes the easy way out, and license production trumps local efforts.

[Karan M]

The hope was that with the Hawk, fully combat capable pilots would be easier to produce. Yet to see definitive details on this.

You've seen the video. Hawk pilots in action with just 1 year flying behind them.

Sorry which one? I know you've done an awesome effort tracking down these vids and posting them online.. is it cysu on YT? I can check. Or wait, are you referring to any exercise where we did really well?

[Karan M]

BTW, this was also mentioned. It would be a great idea to order more of these versus Combat capable 2 seat Hawks.
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 084_1.html

IMO, the only key advantage of Hawks after seeing Shiv's persistent support of the idea and to think of possibilities, is endurance.

Perhaps we can use Hawks for long range loiter/ISR type missions.

Here is an interesting account from a RAF pilot (8000 hours) on the Hawk.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0Ym ... 20&f=false

Note the pilot though says the Hunter was ahead of the Hawk in terms of being a fighter (positively a trainer than a fighter).

Also:
http://www.linkairexpress.com/analysis- ... s-hawk-t2/

I wonder if we are approaching the issue the wrong way? Perhaps IAFs interest in Combat Hawk is not for combat but for better training its pilots before they move onto supersonic fighters with advanced avionics.

They would still require advanced training but the avionics and some tactics could be taught at Hawk itself.

[srin]

It makes more sense for Army to have CAS jet than Air Force. If it is getting LCHs and Apaches, why not a Hawk ? What's so sacrosanct about a fixed wing aircraft that only Airforce or Navy can operate ? Why should we ape US's Key West agreement ?

Secondly, I find it interesting that the HAL is involved in three CAS aircraft projects: LCH, armed HTT-40 and now the Combat Hawk.

Third, curious: does the same team in HAL which is setting up the production line of Tejas also be involved in the design of the combat Hawk and hence maybe distracted ? My understanding has been that the design and production teams are different.

[Sid]

I don't think IAF has shown any intent on buying any additional Hawks. Its just a sales pich by BAe/HAL. In few months Embraer will be piching its Super Tucanos during Goa defense expo.

Why everyone is getting worked up on a worthless sales pitch? IAF will buy nothing short of a Rafale, hence discussion on Hawks is moot.

Brits think they can still sell another Gnat to India, I feel sorry for them..

[fanne]

The reality is that number are low 32 Sq. LCA is still not FOC and who knows when it will be, as HAL time line does not match the timeline that other mortals have. It is all good that we will have 8 sq in 8 years, most likely we will get 8 in 8 + x years. the best bet is to order more MKIs, even if directly from Russia to increase number. I bet that when all said and done, we will be flying upwards of 400 SU30MKI at some point in the future, but the need is now, lets order and get to 400 numbers. LCA will then chug along and in 2025 we would still be debating should we buy Rafale or not.

[Vivek K]

Hawks represent desperation and cannot make frontline IAF fleet. 1st squadron of LCA should use 8 LSP plus 8 SP aircraft. 2nd squadron can come from the 40 LCA MK1s.

[Viv S]

Hawks represent desperation and cannot make frontline IAF fleet. 1st squadron of LCA should use 8 LSP plus 8 SP aircraft. 2nd squadron can come from the 40 LCA MK1s.

LSPs will be required for testing all the way upto 2030 (possibly beyond). Each aircraft type retains a set of developmental aircraft (the Eurofighter for example has got 7 IPVs, the F-35 has 18 aircraft) on which all future software and hardware upgrades will be integrated, tested and refined.

[Vivek K]

Well, they could use the PVs for that purpose and use the LSPs for squadron formation.

[Viv S]

The PVs were primarily experimental machines. Fleetwide release of an update/upgrade requires testing on an aircraft that's adequately representative of in-service aircraft, which can only really be done on the units LSP-3 onwards (with the LSP-7 & LSP-8 constantly maintained in an upto date 'current' form).

[Indranil]

Okay, so I dug a little deeper.

1. The acquisition costs of a combat Hawk and LCA will be similar. LCA likely to be more expensive by 25-35%.
2. The operating cost per hour: 100 Series Hawk (very similar to what HAL is offering): $1,060 (in 2012). Gripen(in 2012): $4,700. LCA's should be very similar.
3. Fatigue life: Hawk: 24,000 hrs. LCA: 6,000-8,000 hrs
4. Availability: Hawk: ~350 hrs/per year (record 653 hours/year). LCA: ~250 hrs/year.

So yeah, Hawks can be kept in the air more cheaply and easily than the LCA (no surprises there).
Nilesh, I don't think it is so easy to surmise that acquiring combat Hawks undermines the acquisition of LCAs. Afterall, one does not pay for all the LCAs upfront. It will be paid in a rolling fashion. If operating costs of future years is contracted, it frees up funds for more acquisition in those years.

HAL says they want to go beyond the rockets, guns and dumb bombs. A lesser-Jaguar then? 250 kg guided bombs? Air to surface missiles? It is reported that IAF has evinced interest in this plane. Will wait and see.

[Karan M]

Indranil, if they want a lesser jaguar then where is the time to do training?

IMHO, that would mean more airframes - but report states existing ones.

That indicates purpose is still training and secondary, role in war.

Eg T2 LIFT

ANALYSIS: Flying the RAF's Hawk T2

20 July, 2015 BY: Craig Hoyle

My sortie with the Royal Air Force’s 4 Sqn was conducted from its Valley training base on the Isle of Anglesey, north Wales on 1 July, with BAE Systems Hawk T2 ZK010 flying as “Victor 95”.

The aircraft was available in the configuration used during the advanced weapons unit course, with a centreline fuel tank installed for extended endurance and wing-tip-mounted seekers from the Raytheon AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air missile to support emulated weapons use.

Twenty of the RAF’s 28 Hawk T2s were on the flightline, with three in depth maintenance and the others having faults rectified – including one that had suffered a birdstrike to its nose the previous day.

Following our take-off using runway 13, we routed towards Liverpool to perform a practice diversion to John Lennon International airport. This enabled me to familiarise myself with the Hawk’s new-generation cockpit, which in the back seat (which is ordinarily occupied by an instructor) includes a head-up display repeater on its middle (upper) of three multi-function displays. The others showed traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) data and a moving map.

Asset Image

Rear cockpit display functionality is akin to a fighter platform

Craig Hoyle/Flightglobal

As a single-ship flight there was no opportunity to demonstrate the T2’s Hawk-to-Hawk datalink in operation so, after transiting back through Wales my pilot, Flt Lt Alasdair Spence – who had combat experience flying the Panavia Tornado GR4 – made two runs through the “Mach Loop”, a favoured spot for low-level training. Spence says that the area's challenges for 4 Sqn’s students can be enhanced greatly by the introduction of electronic warfare threats such as emulated surface-to-air missile systems, but the high-g turns were arduous enough for a novice passenger.

Following a brief spell of general handling conducted at medium altitude, we returned to Valley, joining the circuit and performing a touch and go landing before completing a flight lasting 1h 5min.

My impression of the aircraft was that the range of advanced capabilities introduced with the current fleet-wide OC2 operating standard will heighten the situational awareness of student pilots compared with the legacy Hawk T1’s analogue instrumentation. The introduction of TCAS, a ground proximity warning system, and full authority digital engine control software, has also moved the T2 a generation ahead in terms of its operating safety.

While the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon is often described as flying “like a big Hawk”, the T2’s embedded training equipment means that the type can now truly operate like a “little Typhoon”, and effectively prepare new pilots for the frontline.

[Kartik]

Nitpicking. M0.94 figure for B747 should be its ultimate speed after which structural integrity cannot be guaranteed. In fact it may not be able to reach that speed at all unless its in a dive. Its Cruise speed must be M0.85. Likewise for A380.

Having spoken to flight test engineers on the 747-400, it has actually gone supersonic in a dive. No structural issues were reported.

[Indranil]

Indranil, if they want a lesser jaguar then where is the time to do training?

IMHO, that would mean more airframes - but report states existing ones.

That indicates purpose is still training and secondary, role in war.

I don't know, the reports are confusing. Some say 'modify existing ones'. Others future builds and exports. So, I will wait till AI-17 for more clarity. Most of the 100 series Hawks can be interchangeably used as trainers and light attack aircraft. But HAL can easily remove the second pilot seat (a NP-1 to NP-2 type conversion) and add more avionics and fuel instead. I am still debating in my mind if 4-5 squadrons of such planes are worth it.

One aspect in favour of such squadrons is that if we do have these planes in size-able numbers, our enemies also have to allot resources to combat them. For example, China/Pakistan can't send a column of tanks without suitable air cover, or set up military installations near the border. Imagine Pakistan's plight. If they choose to engage the Hawks, the Su-30s/Mig-29s/LCAs/Mirages get through. If they choose the Su-30s/Mig-29s/LCAs/Mirages, everybody gets through. There is strength in numbers.

But, I don't know why HAL is proposing an all new cockpit with 2 MFDs except the current 3 etc. Unnecessary work to "claim indigenous development"? Just slap things together fast and go to market as a Textron-Scorpion-competitor.

[Indranil]

By the way, if combat Hawks do get commissioned, I would love to see Helinas arranged in quad-racks hanging from hardpoints of the aircraft.

[Karan M]

I just hope IAF buys more LCAs and AARs to support them.

[Avarachan]

Regarding the Combat Hawks, I hope people remember this news from September 2015.

http://thumkar.blogspot.com/2015/09/ijt ... llows.html

Spin clearance will mean HAL can start planning series production “and we are confident of it (success),” Raju said.

Series production of the Sitara would be a huge Make-in-India landmark and dramatically change HAL's image of a poorly performing state funded aerospace giant.

Rookie IAF pilots are trained to safely recover their aircraft from a stall or a spin, both low speed flight conditions under which the aircraft's response to control inputs is not instinctive. Stall and spin recovery training can only be imparted if the trainer aircraft's flight characteristics during stall and spin are easily recognizable by the trainee pilot, and the recovery from both the conditions is safe and sure.

Sitara's development had come to a halt because it would stall too early and its pre-stall flight characteristics were confusing and unsafe.

HAL engaged BAE as consultants to tweak the aircraft's design to make its stall characteristics acceptable. BAE reportedly recommended redesign of the Sitara's tail. HAL validated the BAE suggested redesign many times with mathematical modelling and wind tunnel tests before incorporating the recommended changes.

My guess is that the Combat Hawks are a quid-pro-quo for BAE's help with the IJT Sitara.

[shiv]

Question is how will it be any better at CAS than the LCA? Why run 2 parallel lines than one for the LCA - its diverting scarce resources to keep two lines versus focusing on one program and ensuring HAL indigenizes it.

What I find really ironic is that right here on this forum we have spent years admiring the Chinese saying how wise they were to make large numbers of obsolescent aircraft like F-7/MiG 21 clones and A-5/modified MiG 19s and how they even managed to export these "rust buckets". And anyone who pointed out that Indian MiG 29s and Mirage 2000s would make short work of these rust buckets was assured that "Numbers have their own quality"

Now here we have a great opportunity of keeping a Hawk line going and increasing numbers while setting up two wholly new lines for LCA. Other than the actual sheds/hangars, all the jigs, presses and machinery for the Hawk will have to be discarded for an entirely new set for the LCA. That entirely new set can be put in a new shed while keeping the Hawk line going with sensible upgrades to gives us the security of numbers for some CAS roles freeing up LCAs for the roles they will excel at.

And still we want to shut down one line, throw away most of the machinery and jigs and retrain the personnel to make LCAs. And in the time lag between the loss of Hawk line and setting up of an LCA line our numbers will dwindle even more which I guess can be filled with 36 Rafale which we can claim as superior to any Hawk.

I think this is a disastrous plan. But I am only repeating myself. No wonder our numbers keep going down. We want to discard what we have in hand and aim for something else rather than ramping up everything we have

[shiv]

Hawks represent desperation and cannot make frontline IAF fleet. 1st squadron of LCA should use 8 LSP plus 8 SP aircraft. 2nd squadron can come from the 40 LCA MK1s.

If 32 squadrons with no hope of seeing more than a couple of squadrons of LCA in the next 4 years, and the Rafale deal not coming through I would be worried if we were not getting desperate.

Desperation shows on BRF in asking for 200 and 500 LCAs which - given our slow progress we can get only in 10-15 years. What do we do for the next 10 years? We have a running production line of Hawks. I say continue with that and hurry up and set up an entirely new extra line for LCA. Why close it down?

It is pure chicanery to waste time admiring the Chinese for doing things we did not do, but baulk at doing something similar ourselves.

[fanne]

SU30MKI

[Karan M]

What I find really ironic is that right here on this forum we have spent years admiring the Chinese saying how wise they were to make large numbers of obsolescent aircraft like F-7/MiG 21 clones and A-5/modified MiG 19s and how they even managed to export these "rust buckets". And anyone who pointed out that Indian MiG 29s and Mirage 2000s would make short work of these rust buckets was assured that "Numbers have their own quality"

Not me.. I have always been against Prodyut Das type swarm the enemy type arguments.. they ignore the impact of attrition. IMO keeping MiG-21 went ok for PRC In terms of understanding how to create variants but for their next gen they needed the Lavi.. err the J10.

Now here we have a great opportunity of keeping a Hawk line going and increasing numbers while setting up two wholly new lines for LCA. Other than the actual sheds/hangars, all the jigs, presses and machinery for the Hawk will have to be discarded for an entirely new set for the LCA. That entirely new set can be put in a new shed while keeping the Hawk line going with sensible upgrades to gives us the security of numbers for some CAS roles freeing up LCAs for the roles they will excel at.

but one comes at the expense of the other.. you are speaking of cost amortization of the Hawk line but issue is it will require more investment for C-Hawk which could go to the LCA line.

if you have enough LCAs then you dont need to free up LCAs.

the hawk equipment won't go waste, you can use it for MRO.

[shiv]

but one comes at the expense of the other.. you are speaking of cost amortization of the Hawk line but issue is it will require more investment for C-Hawk which could go to the LCA line.

We can spend more. After all we are saving two production lines worth of money by buying fewer or no Rafales. In any case I think we need to put more money and effort into getting more production lines going.

[Karan M]

but one comes at the expense of the other.. you are speaking of cost amortization of the Hawk line but issue is it will require more investment for C-Hawk which could go to the LCA line.

We can spend more. After all we are saving two production lines worth of money by buying fewer or no Rafales. In any case I think we need to put more money and effort into getting more production lines going.

how will that happen shiv. it took DM intervention to even get HAL and IAF to sit down for 100 Mk1A.

IMO, OROP, MSC, all the pending purchases and most of all this bleddy rafale deal (as deejay put it) will soak up our budget.

i'd rather use the money for su30 spares, LCA, and PGM programs + soldier aids

[shiv]

SU30MKI

pilots
fuel cost
unsuitability for short range CAS
Overdependence on one type that may be grounded if an unusual problem is discovered

[Karan M]

Can Hawk be modified into Su-25 proper CAS bird? More powerful engine or Adour with reheat to make up for extra armor.

This ex-Jag pilot (caveat, no fan of HAL, and not always 100% accurate) states it has limitations in CAS.

http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2016/02/why- ... -with.html

Considering that the Hawk is a single engine aircraft with a low thrust to weight ratio (0.65) the Combat Hawk would at best be a counter insurgency (CI) aircraft.

The problem is, the IAF has no need for a CI aircraft! The IAF is not tasked for CI ops and has shied away from the role in past and ongoing insurgencies, with good reason.

What the IAF needs is a dedicated Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft capable of operating in the mountains along the LoC and LAC. A dedicated CAS aircraft needs the safety of two engines, a design optimized for absorbing punishing ground fire, a titanium bathtub to ensure crew safety, a high T/W ratio to ensure good maneuverability in narrow valleys at high altitudes, and adequate Suppression of Enemy Defense (SEAD) capability. The Combat Hawk will have none of these features.

Yes, the IAF has no need for the Combat Hawk. As to export...really?

Clearly, the Combat Hawk is being pushed by HAL for self serving reasons. HAL has stabilized local assembly of the Hawk after a lot of struggle. Additional IAF Hawk orders would ensure easy profits for the very inefficient public sector behemoth for many years running. Despite having struggled with just the local assembly of Hawk Mk132, HAL is disingenuously projecting Combat Hawk as the next big Make-in-India success story.

Mislead by the HAL, the government may well go along with the Combat Hawk project, since it would also keep the UK happy. If that happens, it would be a case of diplomacy dictating defense capability, not the other way around, as it should be!

I suspect there is no fighter which meets his requirements.

Hawk w/Adour+reheat+ armor is simpler than twin engined Hawk with all that.

Only one which comes near is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25

But T/W ratio is not strong.