Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 07:27

Karan M wrote: 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

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,

Every story has two sides. I do not always agree with the author and here he shows how the LCA will be almost as useless as Hawk for this role. By this man's standards only A10 and Su 25 will come anywhere near being usable for CAS. As "ambition" for IAF this is a great thing. In practice we have to rely on what we have. If use an "If my aunt had a dik.." argument I could say that the HF 24 was great for the role and we blew our chances. On the other hand we have used Hunters, Mysters and MiG 21s for CAS, successfully in areas with heavy anti-aircraft defences. maybe there was no one to advise the IAF back then?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 07:35

All ex-IAF writers are not created equal, and I would rate Jasjit Singh as a great visionary who scores over the narrow vision of the ex IAF author of the blog quoted above

Jasjit Singh points out in various works that it is necessary to achieve air dominance first by knocking out airfields, radars, SAM defences and C&C centers. If air dominance/local air superiority is achieved CAS can be provided by aircraft that keep a safe distance away from Manpads and AA fire. In this day and age of targeting pods even helos and trainer aircraft can do that., But it is up to the heavy duty aircraft like the Jaguar/MiG 27 and Sukhois to go in and do damage to the enemy to gain that absolute air superiority

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 08:05

The picture of air war that I get from reading Jasjit Singh and various histories of Indian subcontinent conflicts tells me that the Air Force has actually done well and they have their heads screwed on the right way, though hobbled by both technology and numbers. But their performance and war plans have always taken into account existing tech and numbers rather than avoiding playing a role because they have not achieved some ideal number or tech level.

The next war in which the Air Force will play a role along with its sister services will aim to knock out the enemy ability lo launch air attacks while retaining our ability to do that. That means intense attacks on enemy assets within his territory. On a local battlefield level there will be concomitant efforts to keep the air zone around a battle area sterilized and free from hostile aircraft so that Close Air Support can be given with reduced or no fear of anti-aircraft defences. If local air superiority is achieved a CAS aircraft need not carry any self defence missiles and concentrate on hitting enemy targets on the ground while keeping out of Manpad and gun range.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 08:18

How heavily defended targets were attacked in 1965. Agreed, there were no anti-aircraft missiles, but single engined Indian aircraft at the limit of their endurance, with no escort air cover and dumb bombs and guns, facing a PAF that had radar cover and Supersonic fighters - one of which (an F-104) was shot down by Devayya in a Mystere - the same Devayya whose life Fekullah Alam claimed supported by LickPakiAss Fricker. We read Army stories of courage and adversity. This is an Air Force story of same. Written by my friend Raj.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... godha.html

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Feb 2016 08:20

shiv wrote:Every story has two sides. I do not always agree with the author and here he shows how the LCA will be almost as useless as Hawk for this role. By this man's standards only A10 and Su 25 will come anywhere near being usable for CAS. As "ambition" for IAF this is a great thing. In practice we have to rely on what we have. If use an "If my aunt had a dik.." argument I could say that the HF 24 was great for the role and we blew our chances. On the other hand we have used Hunters, Mysters and MiG 21s for CAS, successfully in areas with heavy anti-aircraft defences. maybe there was no one to advise the IAF back then?

If the aim is to go low and slow, then only the A-10 and Su-25 as you say, will work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtAThLpxmxw

If we use PGMs then LCA etc can be used (and the Hawk) though my preference would be for the all up fighter (can self escort).

Which brings us back to the biggest question, amongst all this Hawk stuff where is the focus on PGMs and mass manufacture locally. For the price of 10 Rafales we could bring in a huge number of PGMs..

The low TW ratio with a heavy payload may be an issue for valleys though. There are higher power Adour variants.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Feb 2016 08:22

shiv wrote:How heavily defended targets were attacked in 1965. Agreed, there were no anti-aircraft missiles, but single engined Indian aircraft at the limit of their endurance, with no escort air cover and dumb bombs and guns, facing a PAF that had radar cover and Supersonic fighters - one of which (an F-104) was shot down by Devayya in a Mystere - the same Devayya whose life Fekullah Alam claimed supported by LickPakiAss Fricker. We read Army stories of courage and adversity. This is an Air Force story of same. Written by my friend Raj.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... godha.html

Guts and glory. I think most people forget how aggressive IAF was/is, fighting deep into TSP which is why strike matters so much.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Feb 2016 08:24

shiv wrote:On a local battlefield level there will be concomitant efforts to keep the air zone around a battle area sterilized and free from hostile aircraft so that Close Air Support can be given with reduced or no fear of anti-aircraft defences. If local air superiority is achieved a CAS aircraft need not carry any self defence missiles and concentrate on hitting enemy targets on the ground while keeping out of Manpad and gun range.

Problem is that "if" is a very big If, especially against PLAAF, larger numbers of 4th gen airframes. Against PAF too, they may well manage to contest local dominance in a sneaky fashion.
IMHO, if we see IAF thinking it reflects this:
Hence Jaguar DARIN-3s are getting AESA radars & ASRAAM!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 08:26

Karan M wrote: For the price of 10 Rafales we could bring in a huge number of PGMs..

Right now Russian PGMs (KAB 500?), off the shelf Paveway kits. What was that news about Israeli Spike or something?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 08:34

Karan M wrote: Hence Jaguar DARIN-3s are getting AESA radars & ASRAAM!

The US did this by sending in F-117s for the initial SEAD. We don't have that luxury. Jags will go in very low, very fast. The self defence requirement is a necessary weight burden. They should have su-30 escorts if possible, but the missiles are more for getaway than any meaningful air combat. Don't know the ECM capability of Jags

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Feb 2016 08:39

One has to agree with V Thakur on the combat-hawk being HAL's self-serving product first, and being a IAF-serving aircraft next. But that's still better than having no aircraft in first place.

I also agree with another aspect. It should have a more powerful engine. To take the path of least resistance, at least the Mk951 engines should be tried.

However, I don't agree that single engine or twin engines offer lower/higher safety. The Hawks have a better safety record than many twin engine birds.

Meanwhile, I had forgotten this article. Probably, describes the envisioned role best.

Hawk aircraft proposals to feature in Modi's talks

...
Dream Hawk

The most ambitious part of the BAE-HAL agreement involves building an advanced version of the Hawk, which could be used beyond combat training as a light, manoeuvrable fighter that could operate in the narrow valleys of India's Himalayan frontier, where high-performance fighters cannot turn.

"We have done extensive modeling of the performance of this type of aircraft in the northern Himalayan theatre. It can do close air support in the valleys of the northern Himalayas. We see excellent air-to-ground performance; we are not pitching this as an air-to-air fighter", says Corfield.

Raju says this aircraft, which is currently unnamed, but is referred to as the Dream Hawk, or the Advanced Combat Hawk, would be built in Bengaluru, using the same assembly line as the IAF Hawks, and exported from here. The IAF has not expressed interest yet, but the export market - including countries like Afghanistan that cannot afford high-performance fighters - offers prospects.

"HAL and BAE Systems have done an analysis of potential customers around the globe… We see a demand in the accessible market for about 300 airplanes", says Corfield.

HAL plans to build the Dream Hawk's mission computer - the heart of its avionics package. Meanwhile BAE Systems has already designed a high-lift wing(it already exists in various configs), which will allow the aircraft to operate from shorter airfields. (I think this will continue to be a 2-seater, trainer-cum-attack).

BAE Systems and HAL plan to display a demonstrator prototype of the Dream Hawk at Aero India 2017 and, immediately after that, the aircraft will start its flight-test programme. The project cost will be shared fifty-fifty between BAE Systems and HAL.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 09:03

indranilroy wrote: a light, manoeuvrable fighter that could operate in the narrow valleys of India's Himalayan frontier, where high-performance fighters cannot turn

Who is the person who commented that Air Cmde Tikoo Sen's vision was old hat?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Feb 2016 09:03

shiv wrote:
Karan M wrote: For the price of 10 Rafales we could bring in a huge number of PGMs..
Right now Russian PGMs (KAB 500?), off the shelf Paveway kits. What was that news about Israeli Spike or something?

All imports though. I wish we put in that level of funding for local firms and PGMs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Feb 2016 09:10

indranilroy wrote:One has to agree with V Thakur on the combat-hawk being HAL's self-serving product first, and being a IAF-serving aircraft next. But that's still better than having no aircraft in first place.

I also agree with another aspect. It should have a more powerful engine. To take the path of least resistance, at least the Mk951 engines should be tried.

However, I don't agree that single engine or twin engines offer lower/higher safety. The Hawks have a better safety record than many twin engine birds.

The twin engine aspect comes from protection against SAMS. They do offer higher safety in that flight profile (lower and slower than F-16s)

Su-25 struck by MANPADS - its a dedicated CAS bird and surviving. (No PGM use but rockets IIRC when this occurred)

A Hawk will have to be PGM oriented.

HAL plans to build the Dream Hawk's mission computer - the heart of its avionics package. Meanwhile BAE Systems has already designed a high-lift wing(it already exists in various configs), which will allow the aircraft to operate from shorter airfields. (I think this will continue to be a 2-seater, trainer-cum-attack).

BAE Systems and HAL plan to display a demonstrator prototype of the Dream Hawk at Aero India 2017 and, immediately after that, the aircraft will start its flight-test programme. The project cost will be shared fifty-fifty between BAE Systems and HAL.

[/quote]

The MC is barely one of many avionics items - I wonder what HALs plans are for basics like HUDs, HOTAS and Self protection gear. They have a tendency to import away to speed things up.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Feb 2016 09:12

shiv wrote:
Karan M wrote: Hence Jaguar DARIN-3s are getting AESA radars & ASRAAM!
The US did this by sending in F-117s for the initial SEAD. We don't have that luxury. Jags will go in very low, very fast. The self defence requirement is a necessary weight burden. They should have su-30 escorts if possible, but the missiles are more for getaway than any meaningful air combat. Don't know the ECM capability of Jags

Yes the missiles are likely for getaway but knowing how fancy the ASRAAM is, hope they do score a few surprises.

ECM plan for Jag is a new radar warning jamming suite like the one on MiG-29.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Feb 2016 09:40

I saw a IAF study I think we had on BR monitor where they mentioned a twin engine aircraft offers 3x times more survivability compared to single engine even during peace time and war when you considering things like bird hits or engine failure for xyz reason

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 27 Feb 2016 09:44

This may be simplistic thinking but I fail to see how will a 2 seater non armoured single engine hawk will measure up in a role fulfilled by single seater armoured, double engined su-25 and a-10.
This combat hawk business seems like a brochure-giri by HAL who likes to dip its fingers in all possible aviation business.HAL might have dangled the 'Make in India' gaajar(carrot in hindi) in front of powers that be with slick ppt and computer simulation videos on how 10 chinese sliding down himalayan slopes are blasted by rockets fired by hawk.
If Bae sees a potential for combat hawk, why doesnt it manufacture it with its own money, test it and pitch it for sale as a ready to fly aircraft. This partnership will only divert resources away from LCA project.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 27 Feb 2016 10:41

@ KaranM
The point you mentioned about IAF thinking of having an ability to give advanced combat training on Hawk itself by having C-Hawk (or D-Hawk whatever it is) touched my mind as well previously. And it seems logical as well. Since we do not have any specific statement from IAF about C-Hawk we wouldn't know why they want it if they want it at all. So if IAF wants it to have advanced training ability on Hawk itself or if they want to have additional birds for lesser work in the hour of need then C-Hawk makes sense. But apart from upgrading existing hawk, only a limited number like 50 perhaps, of new purchase makes sense to me from that pov. Also HAL be told in stern words that it can pursue its own dreams all it want but no resource diversion be done from LCA project. I guess no one will have any problems with this arrangement.

@IR
Cost wise the gap will be less than what the numbers you have put in one of your posts imply. For example, in all probability the fatigue life for C-Hawk will be significantly less than that for that Hawk due to the combat mission vs training mission difference. Its difficult to say how much less but lifing numbers can drop dramatically if the existing structure does not have much margin already available. This means more MRO cost. The acquiring cost of C-Hawk will be also higher than Hawk. Also IAF will have to create support system for additional jet type iat forward bases increasing overall operating cost further.

Also, I agree to the point you made that money saved in operating cost in future can be used for other acquisitions. But we need to see how much money will be saved vis-a-vis the opportunity cost for having additional LCAs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 13:46

May I point out what I believe is a completely erroneous assumption that is coming up in repeated posts on BRF? That is the assumption in order to perform the role of CAS an aicraft absolutely must have armour plating and twin engines.

If this was true then the only countries with CAS capability are USA, Russia and a few others including Iraq or Libya who may have received Su 25s

But then how did India do CAS? How did the US do CAS before the A-10?

Fact is CAS can be done without armour plating and twin engines. Unlike another commonly stated assumption this does not guarantee that the plane will get shot down just because it does not have armour plating and two engines.

The presence of armour plating and two engines allows the plane to hang about for longer and take more risks and expose itself to hostile fire. Also recall that even the armour plating is limited though it helps a lot but an aircraft is no tank. The US and the FSU had a long history of copying each other or echoing each other's tech development. Su 25 was the "answer" to the A-10

So let us stop saying things like CAS is not possible without armour plating and two engines. That is not true. it is more risky but it is not 100% fatal. Neither is a dedicated armoured CAS aircraft 100% safe. If there are hostile fighters about CAS aircraft armoured or not are toast.

More vulnerable "non dedicated" aircraft will have to perform their CAS in a different way - using speed, surprise and stealth. And let's not forget that the US wants to replace the A-10 with F-35 for CAS. Single engine. No armour. Plenty of composites which someone alleged is useless). But they will use it intelligently keeping it out of harms way. Moral of story: It is possible to use non dedicated CAS aircraft intelligently. Even by SDREs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Feb 2016 14:14

[quote=Shiv"]But then how did India do CAS? How did the US do CAS before the A-10?[/quote]

US has only done CAS against 3'rd tier air arms apart from VN...
India's experiences have been limited to pre MANPADS/SAM era and once SAMs came in, IAF put in a height ceiling. Mangat Su-7 i think a testament to one type that could still fly

So, the context, if you go low and slow - twin engines and armor help.
If you go fast and high, PGMs are available, you can manage without the above.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Feb 2016 14:15

nileshjr wrote:@ KaranM
The point you mentioned about IAF thinking of having an ability to give advanced combat training on Hawk itself by having C-Hawk (or D-Hawk whatever it is) touched my mind as well previously. And it seems logical as well. Since we do not have any specific statement from IAF about C-Hawk we wouldn't know why they want it if they want it at all. So if IAF wants it to have advanced training ability on Hawk itself or if they want to have additional birds for lesser work in the hour of need then C-Hawk makes sense. But apart from upgrading existing hawk, only a limited number like 50 perhaps, of new purchase makes sense to me from that pov. Also HAL be told in stern words that it can pursue its own dreams all it want but no resource diversion be done from LCA project. I guess no one will have any problems with this arrangement.

Regarding extra order
I'd still put in more LCAs. To my mind, the C-Hawk appears a solution looking for a problem when the answer is already there. The LCA

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 14:58

Karan M wrote: India's experiences have been limited to pre MANPADS/SAM era and once SAMs came in, IAF put in a height ceiling. .

I don't think the story has been told yet. I suspect that in a future conflict the IAF is not going to go in with height limitations and all and we will see some good and some tragic outcomes from that and new lessons will be learned and new stories told. There will be new scapegoats and new heroes. Nothing is carved out in stone.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 27 Feb 2016 15:03

LCA MK 0.5 ie LCA with Kaveri Engine and Indian Limited MMR radar will be better than Combat Hak with similar cost.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 15:04

The LCA may well turn out to be an aircraft that manoeuvres well in the Himalayan mountains. There is plenty of information that says that some huge high flying "lumbering" bombers were more manoeuvrable at high altitude than needle nosed supersonic fighters of the 60s. The LCA has the wing area and wing loading that will probably enable it to "catch" plenty of air at high altitude. Just guessin. Need to wait and see, If that is the case then it would pour cold Gangajal on combat Hawk.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 27 Feb 2016 17:17

Gyan that is a fantastic idea. DRDO needs to take some risk and take the Kaveri to first a Mig-29 test bed.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 27 Feb 2016 18:39

Vivek K wrote:Gyan that is a fantastic idea. DRDO needs to take some risk and take the Kaveri to first a Mig-29 test bed.

Absolutely. All HAL profits from HAL LCA lines should be taken by the govt and invested in Kaveri.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 Feb 2016 19:33

Do not do anything to Hawk, have AA pylons and fail safe link to SU30MKI. SU30MKI locks on target, cues Hawk AA missile and fire at the intruding plane. That will increase the number of combat aircrafts.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 27 Feb 2016 19:49

May work for the Afghan theater with combat hawks mostly flown by Afghan pilots while the far fewer MKI does the mini AWACS role

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 Feb 2016 20:24

Quite a fascinating discussion, for a change!

Before I share my two cents on this CAS aspect, here is a definition of CAS (from Wikipedia) which I think needs to be understood to better understand what is required from the a/c:

In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets, that are in close proximity to friendly forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.[1]

The requirement for detailed integration because of proximity, fires or movement is the determining factor. CAS may need to be conducted during shaping operations with SOF forces, if the mission requires detailed integration with the fire and movement of these forces. A closely related subset of air interdiction, battlefield air interdiction (AI) denotes interdiction against units with near-term effects on friendly units, but which does not require integration with friendly troop movements.

1. I think a lot of discussion which has happened so far is trying to interchangeably address the above two requirement. IMO, there is a difference in how the above two different aspects will be addressed by any air force in terms of weapons required and aircraft type.

2. An aircraft like A-10 was the USAF version of 911 for ground troops in contact with the enemy. The requirement for A-10 arose because Americans lost many a fighter aircraft while trying to give CAS to ground troops in Vietnam. And remember, the attack helicopter had not matured in that time period and lacked the required firepower. To this requirement was added the ability to meet the threat posed by Red Army's massive armoured and mechanized formations. US Army and NATO could not match the Red Army in numbers and into this mix came the A-10. It was the air element of NATO's armoured forces and was meant to engage with Red Army as it smashed against the NATO forces.

The Red Army Corps were supported very heavily by organic anti-aircraft elements with a density which remains unmatched. You had a mix of tracked AD guns like the fearsome ZSU-23-4 and MANPADS. Not to mention mobile missile based AD cover from SA-3, SA-6 to SA-10.

3. It was this desire to address Soviet armoured threat that A-10 was practically built around that massive 30 mm cannon. And notwithstanding the recent upgrades, A-10 is a fairly simple aircraft where the emphasis was to survive (against the formidable Soviet mobile AD assets). The weapon of choice was the 30 mm canon. Other major weapon was the Hydra rockets! AGM-65X Maverick had started coming in 70s but the definite version with IIR came only in early 80s.

4. Same is the case with Su-25. Both A-10 and Su-25 are truly the 'FLYING ARTILLERY' component which most air forces don't want to become or address.

5. Low speed, manoeuvrability and survivability seem to be main criterion when it comes to an aircraft meant to work as ‘Flying Artillery’ and which is employed when own forces are either in proximity or close contact with enemy. In today’s battlefield, Attack helicopters will shoulder major part of this responsibility. And when one looks at what an Army wants as CAS from AF, one can understand why it emphasises on attack helicopters being integral to army.

6. Weapon package for such aircraft seems fairly conventional. A powerful canon seems to be the central requirement. Slow speed and manoeuvrability are meant to allow such an a/c to point this canon in the right direction. Add to it rockets and modern A2G missiles & bombs for precision attack.

7. As against this requirement, the Battlefield Air Interdiction is something most AF already address using their fighter assets. Mig-21, Mi-27 and LCA will do this in our case. Such targets will allow a fighter a/c to leverage its speed and height aspect and employ modern stand-off weapons.

8. The question is, can these same aircraft provide true CAS? And more importantly, do we require this kind of specialized CAS aircraft?

9. Or, are we going to see a mix of attack helicopters and fighter a/c provide CAS to the army? I think, LCA/Mig-21/Mig-27 will improvise and do their best to provide CAS support. My guess is that true-blue CAS requirement from IA will arise when IA is facing pressure on a particular front while most of planning will be towards Battlefield Air Interdiction (BAI) to degrade the war-fighting potential of the enemy before or after it has made contact with self-forces.

10. IMO, IAF would be not be interested to have a dedicated a/c type for flying artillery role and rather have more LCA Mk1A which have flexibility of employment across different operations. And IA rather have more attack helicopters to address its immediate requirement through an asset it directly controls.

11. But that does not mean such an aircraft is not relevant. And I think more so in eastern theatre than the western one. The mountainous terrain places challenges in terms of moving ground firepower like artillery assets from one place to another. Attack helicopters, and especially, LCH is one answer. But a dedicated CAS aircraft offers tremendous flexibility of employment.

12. But I don’t buy the point of such a/c required to fly within the valleys. For one, the valleys are very narrow. A sample I checked on GE showed me that they are under 2 km from ridge to ridge. I think the a/c will require to be sufficiently powered to flying higher than the ridgelines and target enemy troops within the valley, on the slopes and along the ridges.

13. While PLA has formidable AD assets, the mountainous terrain means that MANPADs will be the greatest threat. Some VA/VP close to border will be covered by short-range SAM but this coverage bubble will be limited.

14. So, you’ll need something with powerful enough engine to fly above the ridge-line, decent range to take off from a base in Brahmaputra Valley, loiter for some time and return. Tezpur to Indo-Tiber border in Tawang sector is ~150 km.

15. IMO, in a shooting match between China and India, eastern theater can easily absorb between 4-6 such dedicated CAS types.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 27 Feb 2016 20:34

And IAF doctrine (and many interviews) has clearly stated, it is not interested in these kinds of support, it does not want an extension of artillery. As an armchair warrior I disagree. While artillery, Combat Helis fulfill that role, nothing beat a true blue blooded CAS plane. The last CAS plane that IAF has/was is Mig27. They are as recent as Jags and 1.5 the number of Jags. They are all being retired with no new plane being sought for them. LCA and other planes are ill fit for these roles, that require planes to go low and slow, with little use of precision weapon (as at contact point their may not be an option to pin point the enemy before), eyeball the enemy and then fire at it. You need a flying fortress.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 20:41

rohitvats wrote: 12. But I don’t buy the point of such a/c required to fly within the valleys. For one, the valleys are very narrow. A sample I checked on GE showed me that they are under 2 km from ridge to ridge. I think the a/c will require to be sufficiently powered to flying higher than the ridgelines and target enemy troops within the valley, on the slopes and along the ridges.

13. While PLA has formidable AD assets, the mountainous terrain means that MANPADs will be the greatest threat. Some VA/VP close to border will be covered by short-range SAM but this coverage bubble will be limited.

14. So, you’ll need something with powerful enough engine to fly above the ridge-line, decent range to take off from a base in Brahmaputra Valley, loiter for some time and return. Tezpur to Indo-Tiber border in Tawang sector is ~150 km.

No Rohit - the problem is slightly different. In order to spot enemy positions and for attacks aircraft will have to dive between ridgelines. That apart while flying along valleys a plane cruising along near the top of the ridgelines may have to turn to follow the curve of the valley and find a higher ridgeline up in front requiring the plane to climb. Finally clouds and fog may obscure ridgelines.

Therein lies the problem. In the rarefied atmosphere of the Himalayas - where planes are flying "close to the ground" as it were, even though they are 5000 meters above MSL they are unable to climb up as quickly as they can at lower altitudes - so the risk of hitting a ridgeline is very high. That aside a plane at 5000 meters above MSL necessarily has to fly faster than a plane at sea level to generate the same amount of lift (assuming weight and wing configuration is the same). Turning radius and climbing distances are increased under such conditions. Staying above the ridgelines cannot be a continuous option because bunkers can be camouflaged and hidden under outcrops to hide from air attack. But coming down into the valley requires aircraft that can climb out again in a short distance. That demands high lift wings - usually a large wing area and low wing loading (weight of ac/wing area) and powerful engines.

For example the Jaguar has a high wing loading ie. small wings relative to total weight - to allow very fast and very low flight near sea level. You recall that it was not effective in Kargil. In one incident a Jag pilot did a low pass over his friends at the Staff College in Conoor, Tamil Nadu and he could not pull out of the low pass and smashed himself and his plane into the hillside and this was jst the Nilgiris - @ about 8000 feet. Not 15,000 foot Himalayas.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2016 20:49

fanne wrote:And IAF doctrine (and many interviews) has clearly stated, it is not interested in these kinds of support, it does not want an extension of artillery.

Completely false representation of air force doctrine. The Air Force has always deputed officers embedded with the army for CAS. But their problem is that with limited numbers of aircraft they feel it is better to hit supply lines etc (interdiction). If planes are diverted for interdiction of supplies - the battle will be shortened and perhaps won, but the soldier on the ground does not see it that way. He wants that mortar position that is targeting him taken out right away. That is a "flying artillery" job and the Air Force must decide where it will be more effective to affect the longer term battle outcome.

Typically you have a battle zone that is several km broad and soldiers are battling it out desperately in 10 or 12 different little battles. Each of these groups will want some air support. But the Air Force recce can see that the enemy supply routes can be cut off 20 km behind this zone. They can do that easily with the 4 aircraft they have to spare and that will choke the enemy within a day or two as they run out of supplies. If they use those 4 aircraft to try and satisfy all the 10 to 12 demands for CAS the supplies will keep coming in for the enemy and the battle will go on longer.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Feb 2016 02:36

Hakim,

I don't think people will disagree Abhibhushanji on what he wants. The question is whether combat/dream hawk can provide that. I have my doubts. I completely agree with Karan that it is a solution looking for a problem.

For me, striking targets on the high Himalayan ridges can be done by an LCA. The Mirages demonstrated that in Kargil. The question is can it be done more economically and more precisely. Obviously, the answer is yes, if we develop a dedicated platform. No radar, no multirole capability, nothing else. These planes would be given air cover when needed. For me, such a platform should have:

1. Low wingloading and a straight(ish) wing. I would like the wing to have slats and flaperons to allow excellent slow-speed handling. This will also help with taking off and landing in hot and high airfields near the theater rather than returning to the plains after every sortie.
2. High TWR. If it has to be a turbofan, I would prefer it to be a high-bypass placed in pod(s) above the fuselage. This would provide fuel economy, long loiter times and easy maintenance required for operations from ALGs. But, there is nothing sacred about turbofans. After what operated from Daulat Beg Oldi are An-32s and C-130s. Those props can bite much more air. Also, if you suddenly have to clear a ridge, guess what helps: throttling up the engine which rushes air over the wings.
3. Instead of a titanium bucket, I would prefer it to have state-of-the-art counter measures.
4. Curb the entusiasm of going ab-initio. Buy a design For example, the by the rights to the Su-25 airframe. The engines are podded, change them to the non-afterburning F404 turbofans. Add modern avionics, weapons package and cockpit. Such a plane would do a great job.

But, this will require money, work and time which we don't have. Combat/Dream Hawk doesn't, and can role off a well-performing assembly line. And that, according to me, is its only saving grace. Not whether it is ideal for the job.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Feb 2016 02:38

indranilroy wrote: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.

You also need to factor in the manpower & fixed costs associated with a fresh Hawk purchase. One squadron of Hawks is going to require 27-30 pilots. For 4-5 squadrons, that means dedicating 100-150 trained fighter pilots exclusively to Hawk ops. With a fighter pilot costing Rs 11 crore to train (?), that's an investment in flight crews alone equivalent to about Rs 1,500 crores, not counting the costs involved in training and deploying the requisite complement of ground staff and support infrastructure.

Of course you could say that these squadrons could be manned by personnel coming off the retiring MiG-21 & MiG-27 and you'd be right. But keep in mind that with new Combat Hawks delivered 2020 onwards, they'd be expected to serve past 2035 (long after the ex-MiG-27 folk have retired). That too in a purely ground strike role, since the training tasks can be handled by our existing trainers. So the allocation in personnel is permanent.

A similar assessment would have to be made vis a vis the HAL (already a grossly over-manned organisation) and the resources being soaked up by the continuing Hawk production. Resources which could be invested in the Tejas (or LCH) production instead.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Feb 2016 03:26

No matter which aircraft is chosen for this role, pilots have to be trained. Training pilots for Hawks is arguably much cheaper than training them for LCAs.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Feb 2016 03:34

The whole Combat Hawk as CAS discussion is a moot point when it comes to the IAF IMO. The future of CAS in the Indian context will be provided by attack helicopters--LCH (60 IAF + 114 IA) and Apache (22 IAF). This is in sharp contrast to just 22 Mi-25/35 Hind attack helos available today (for plains only). The other point is the LCH has been designed from ground up for mountain warfare to operate in Himalayan high altitudes.

Anything else required for CAS support can be provided by fast jets like the LCA. Combat Hawk makes sense primarily for export to countries, like Afghanistan or African nations, where need for such aircraft exist. For the IAF/IN, Combat Hawk capability should be done more as a capability enhancement of its existing Hawk training fleet; that would offer more advanced training opportunities as well as provide secondary reserve force in times of major crisis.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Feb 2016 03:51

>>Anything else required for CAS support can be provided by fast jets like the LCA. Combat Hawk makes sense primarily for export to countries, like Afghanistan >>or African nations, where need for such aircraft exist. For the IAF/IN, Combat Hawk capability should be done more as a capability enhancement of its existing >>Hawk training fleet; that would offer more advanced training opportunities as well as provide secondary reserve force in times of major crisis.

completely agree. build up the trainer fleet for a slight buffer, upgrade them. no further CAS specific purchases of combat hawk.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 28 Feb 2016 06:23

Dumb question:

Can the Combat Hawk replace the Mig-27 in the role it fills in the IAF today? If so, the Combat Hawk could be a good, parallel replacement of the Mig-27s that are being retired, while the LCAs are built to replace the Mig-21s that are being retired.

The LCA production lines, 1, 2, or 3 will have to be built new regardless of whether the Combat Hawk is built or not. Then why not use the existing Hawk line to build the Combat Hawk instead of shutting it down? We need as many aircraft production lines as we can have, and as many aircraft as we can poduce.

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Feb 2016 06:45

Kakkaji wrote:Dumb question:

Can the Combat Hawk replace the Mig-27 in the role it fills in the IAF today? If so, the Combat Hawk could be a good, parallel replacement of the Mig-27s that are being retired, while the LCAs are built to replace the Mig-21s that are being retired.

The LCA production lines, 1, 2, or 3 will have to be built new regardless of whether the Combat Hawk is built or not. Then why not use the existing Hawk line to build the Combat Hawk instead of shutting it down? We need as many aircraft production lines as we can have, and as many aircraft as we can poduce.

JMT

I think the LCA can more than fulfil the role of the MiG 27 which had no serious air combat capability, while LCA has both MiG 27 like ground attack and air combat capability. The Combat Hawk will only be a niche role if any and will not be able to fulfil all the roles that the MiG 27 could perform. The MiG 27 IIRC was also used as a high speed photo recce platform. The combat Hawk is not likely to fill this role. recce is vital before and after attacks to assess target damage and satellites simply won't do.

In my view its only purpose at this point in time would be to help keep up numbers and retain some combat capability while LCA production gets serious and in case AMCA/PAKFA etc see serious delays. I see no hope of getting anywhere near the IAF desired squadron strength in the next decade and all of us will be 10 years older on BRF by 2026. After 10 years a lot depends on how the LCA, AMCA and PAKFA progress and if India really does start a pvt sector manufacturing line for some aircraft imported from abroad

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 28 Feb 2016 07:29

Curb the entusiasm of going ab-initio. Buy a design For example, the by the rights to the Su-25 airframe. The engines are podded, change them to the non-afterburning F404 turbofans. Add modern avionics, weapons package and cockpit. Such a plane would do a great job.

Good idea Indranil. Another thing that crossed my mind is can the su-25 air-frame also be used as a trainer. Extend it a bit for the second pilot, put al-cheapo metal air-frame , put a certified kaveri in its present form. I am assuming thrust would be definetly better than R195 (44kn) on su-25. Idea is to create a yak-130 like trainer used by russian air force.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 28 Feb 2016 08:00

Its a completely technology naive approach to buy a specialist CAS support aircraft in this day and age. Laser/GPS Guided Artillery projectiles in calibers from 155mm down to 81mm is the way to go. Every battalion has an integral 81mm mortar platoon. It has a range of around 10km. The tube itself is dirt cheap. The PGMs are expensive, but only because they are being produced in tiny quantities.

The only utility that an aircraft delivered munition has vs a tub delivered munition is that the aircraft can go much farther, to prevent unexpected enemy advances from breaking through. If an own unit is tangled with the enemy, a set of tubes integral to the unit (or the next higher unit) can pour down munitions far quicker, with far less coordination and far more persistence than even purpose built CAS aircraft such as the A10.

Its a travesty to think that scarce squadrons could be wasted on CAS when they will be busy trying to establish air dominance. Hawk/Super Hawk is a bad bad bad idea.