Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Mar 2016 04:05

I have always thought that we should have both fixed wing and rotary wings for CAS roles. They have their own strengths. Fixed wings provide cheaper and faster response. Rotary wings allow more flexibility. HTT-40 can manage this on the plains. For the higher altitudes, a jet may be more useful. However, it will also be much more expensive than a HTT-40 (by a factor of 10). But can the Dream Hawk achieve this? Can it do what Mirage2000 did in Kargil at say half the cost? If yes, why? If not, why?

Or should we relegate this job to the armed MALE/HALE UAVs?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Mar 2016 04:31

indranilroy wrote:I have always thought that we should have both fixed wing and rotary wings for CAS roles. They have their own strengths. Fixed wings provide cheaper and faster response. Rotary wings allow more flexibility. HTT-40 can manage this on the plains. For the higher altitudes, a jet may be more useful. However, it will also be much more expensive than a HTT-40 (by a factor of 10). But can the Dream Hawk achieve this? Can it do what Mirage2000 did in Kargil at say half the cost? If yes, why? If not, why?

If we define what the Mirage 2000 did in Kargil as drop laser guided bombs on the supply camps, then yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Safed_Sagar

On 30 May, the Indian Air Force called into operation the Mirage 2000 which was deemed the best aircraft capable of optimum performance under the conditions of high-altitude seen in the zone of conflict. Armed initially with 250 kg "dumb" bombs, No. 7 Squadron led by Wg Cdr Sandeep Chabra over three days, struck infiltrator positions in Muntho Dhalo, Tiger Hill and Point 4388 in the Drass Sector. The strikes on Muntho Dhalo on 17 June also destroyed logistics and re-supply capabilities of the infiltrators in the Batalik Sector.[3] Through the last weeks of June, the Mirages, armed with LGBs as well as with "dumbs", repeatedly struck the heavily defended Tiger Hill. The first of these missions were observed by the (then) Chief of Air Staff, ACM AY Tipnis[3]

....

The aircraft operated at 10,000 meters AGL (33,000 feet above sea level), well out of MANPADs range, leading to a drop in the accuracy rate of the bombs.

The key is the Dream/Combat Hawk comes with laser designation pods and can carry 250 kg bombs which can be guided by the pod. As for costs we know the D/C Hawk is much cheaper than a M 2000.

Only thing I don't know is the ceiling of the D/C Hawk vs M 2000 which can be looked up.

-----

per wiki page its 13,300 meters

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Mar 2016 04:36

indranilroy wrote:I have always thought that we should have both fixed wing and rotary wings for CAS roles. They have their own strengths. Fixed wings provide cheaper and faster response. Rotary wings allow more flexibility. HTT-40 can manage this on the plains. For the higher altitudes, a jet may be more useful. However, it will also be much more expensive than a HTT-40 (by a factor of 10). But can the Dream Hawk achieve this? Can it do what Mirage2000 did in Kargil at say half the cost? If yes, why? If not, why?

LCA could do it for a lot cheaper than Mirage-2000

If we look at the fly-away costs (e.g. Mirage-2000 MLU was costlier than a brand new LCA Mk.1) and lifecycle costs (LCC), LCA would be cheaper in comparison. Can't say it would be half the cost but definitely cheaper.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Mar 2016 04:44

I am quite sure that the cost per flight hour of C/D Hawk is at least half that of LCA. I have absolutely no doubt in that.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Mar 2016 05:10

You are right that operating an AJT will always be cheaper than a fighter jet.

To answer your question, IMO, there are additional factors to think about:

Upgrade cost of Combat Hawk -> New unit price and operating costs (possibly requires an up-rated engine for high altitudes?)
New cost comparison with LCA Mk.1 -> Unit price comparable; operating costs still lower for Hawk
Fleet Capability Enhancement -> 40 dedicated CAS Hawk or 40 multi-role LCA?
Frequency of Use -> How often will India use CAS Hawk for its everyday purposes vs a multi-role LCA? CAS duty is not on the cards for internal strife while flying a CAP is a more regular occurrence. As for future wars being of short duration, does it really matter if the operating costs are a bit lower for CAS Hawk vs LCA that provides more options? (Wars being wars costs are generally thrown out the window.)

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 01 Mar 2016 05:19

Why don't we check the Capabilities of Combat Basic Trainer e.g Super Tucano into this comparison as well ?
I guess its service ceiling would be enough for Kargil type heights.
At about 14 million dollar unit cost and 500$ per hour (source : wikipedia), it would be the cheapest yet potent option.
If all this fits elegantly, then in the long run HTT-40 should follow the Super Tucano way.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Mar 2016 06:10

Akshay Kapoor wrote: Also remember the army has no experience of using attack helicopters as of now.

The army has no experience of using Air Power in a holistic fashion. Period. I hate the word holistic because it is not powerful enough to express the breadth and scale of air operations possible. The Air Force gets information from deep inside enemy territory and can conduct operations deep inside. Air power as exerted by the air force can affect a battle in many ways. Neutralizing air bases, refineries and C&C centers will disrupt the air cover and the chain of command of the enemy. Destruction of fuel dumps, water supplies to the front, army camps and ammunition dumps, bridges and railway lines will starve the frontline within days. On top of this there is CAS right over the frontline giving direct support to frontline troops - taking out tanks, armoured vehicles and bunkers. Add recce to this daily or more often to see more threats or counter attacks early and neutralize them. The Air Force can take a call on which of these actions might be given priority at any given time when faced with a numbers crunch. The air force is still available for para drops, insertion of special forces as well as their evacuation. Also transport of heavy equipment and supplies to besieged areas

The army has no such experience. And with just attack helos it will not even have the wherewithal to do all this. The role that the army has arrogated for itself is small and can only be effective in close cooperation with the Air Force

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Mar 2016 06:23

ramana wrote:
per wiki page its 13,300 meters

Absolute ceiling is not the issue. The question is one of manoeuvrability at high altitude to weave in and out of mountain ranges. Kargil was a "special case" where enemy camps were set up without being detected and we got surprise after surprise. the first was the fact that the enemy had occupied the heights in strength. Then the fact that they had Manpads. The Air Force was faced with a unique situation of having to consider CAS at 15,000 plus feet altitudes - which was never planned in the past. They had to do jugaad - try this and try that and finally arrived at a solution. The Kargil ops may not be the final solution. They were a lesson from which the IAF will learn because no other air force has fought such a war before.

One lesson that both the army and air force may have picked up is continuous surveillance so they don't get surprised next time. That means Recce, satellite and drones (Don't know hi alt drone capability) HALE anyone?

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Mar 2016 06:35

^^^

Ramana, that should be in feet not meters ... otherwise those heights would be 5000m taller than Mt Everest

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Mar 2016 06:48

srai wrote:^^^

Ramana, that should be in feet not meters ... otherwise those heights would be 5000m taller than Mt Everest

Airliners regularly fly at 13000 meters and a 13,500 meter ceiling is not unusual. A plane with a 13,500 foot ceiling would be useless for India - at least in a military role

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Mar 2016 07:03

srai wrote:^^^

Ramana, that should be in feet not meters ... otherwise those heights would be 5000m taller than Mt Everest

per wiki
:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Hawk

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 0.84 (1,028 km/h, 638 mph) at altitude
Range: 2,520 km (1,360 nmi, 1,565 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,565 m (44,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 47 m/s (9,300 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.65

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Mar 2016 07:18

Avinandan wrote:Why don't we check the Capabilities of Combat Basic Trainer e.g Super Tucano into this comparison as well ?
I guess its service ceiling would be enough for Kargil type heights.
At about 14 million dollar unit cost and 500$ per hour (source : wikipedia), it would be the cheapest yet potent option.
If all this fits elegantly, then in the long run HTT-40 should follow the Super Tucano way.

On the plains, it is fine and is being proposed by HAL to IA. At Kargil heights, no.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Mar 2016 07:34

And who escorts the IA C-Hawks then when the PAF bounces them? That would mean we need IA Su-30s and Tejas (

) too. The USAF was originally the USAAF after all.

What we are talking of in the above is more like the USMCs integral air arm.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Mar 2016 07:49

ramana wrote:
srai wrote:^^^

Ramana, that should be in feet not meters ... otherwise those heights would be 5000m taller than Mt Everest

per wiki
:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Hawk

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 0.84 (1,028 km/h, 638 mph) at altitude
Range: 2,520 km (1,360 nmi, 1,565 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,565 m (44,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 47 m/s (9,300 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.65

Ah got the wrong context from a snippet of yours that Shiv quoted. I thought you were talking about Kargil area heights

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Mar 2016 08:42

Karan M wrote:And who escorts the IA C-Hawks then when the PAF bounces them? That would mean we need IA Su-30s and Tejas ( ) too. The USAF was originally the USAAF after all.
What we are talking of in the above is more like the USMCs integral air arm.

There is merit to this point. World over, developers and users have moved to multi-role aircraft because a lot of evaluations have found that having lesser number of high-quality multi-role aircrafts is actually cheaper.

On the other hand, people have not done away with bombers. They are escorted. It is deemed as an acceptable risk for better strike capability. Closer home, Jaguars take the same risk to a lesser extent. Imagine an LCA undertaking the strike role in Kargil. Its payload: 2 fuel tanks + Litening + 2 LGBs. All, that it can carry in the name of A2A are 2 CCMs. On the other side, PAF will send an aircraft with only A2A missiles. To ensure safety of these LCAs, one will have to send escorts as well. Its not hypothetical. Afterall, the Mirages were escorted in Kargil.

The question remains: can C-Hawk do the job of a strike platform at those heights. We have to build scenarios, and do an in-depth study. Where are these planes going to be stationed? What are the possible targets? Routes to target. What is the fuel required to undertake such a mission? How much payload can the C-HAwk take off with given this fuel.

I am waiting patiently for somebody to spoon-feed me these details.

Or, for IAF to agree with HAL/BAEs "simulations".

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 01 Mar 2016 09:20

One of the two, you need. Lumbering B52s+escorts or Hawk types in numbers as little mosquitos. There is no bomber on the horizon. Just like new vikrant dry dock that is now empty, learn from the old HDW fiasco or the arjun mess. If somehow after all the hurdles the acquisitions go through, an assembly line has materialised then keep building them instead of idling it. If nothing else, it keeps hands dirty.

Even the old ambassador had value in numbers. Its not like its build A or B. Its build A or nothing. Where A is carrier, tank, hawk, ijt, lca, whatever.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Mar 2016 12:56

for a dedicated high altitude cas a/c we would need to rethink the whole wing and engine set up...
maybe drones are the way to go

nits · Post by **nits** » 01 Mar 2016 13:55

Guys - a Noob question... we always say we need X Squadron of aircraft for two front war or for offensive against Pak + defense against China...

When we do this calculation do we also consider the aircraft Navy operates... if No why as this aircraft will also be used in War and considering we will operate 3 AC in future the # of aircraft we will have for this 3 AC will also be high.

Gurus - Can you please throw some light on this

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 01 Mar 2016 15:48

No, the 45-50 sqaudrons needed for a two front war only take into account over land air operations against China and Pakistan. In case of a Pak only war the 2 squadron MIG 29K with the Navy will certainly come in useful if the fleet is not deployed to prevent China from entering the war. Still too few.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Mar 2016 23:04

Cross-posting from India-US thread.

An interesting development in light of our evaluation of the Avenger, JSTARS, Global Hawk and SH/F-35. Will impact the IAF more than the other services, if it goes through.

India, U.S. closer to pact to share military logistics: officials

NEW DELHI/WASHINGTON | BY SANJEEV MIGLANI AND DAVID BRUNNSTROM

Sunday, February 28, 2016
An officer (R) of Indian Air Force (IAF) Special Forces "Garuds" talks with a U.S. Air force "Special Operation Forces" officer during 'Cope-India-09', a joint exercise between the IAF and the U.S. Air Force in the northern city of Agra, India, in this October 19, 2009 file photo. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

India and the United States are closing in on an agreement to share military logistics after 12 years of talks, officials said, a sign of strengthening defense ties between the countries as China becomes increasingly assertive.

The United States has emerged as India's top arms source after years of dominance by Russia, and holds more joint exercises with it than any other country.

It is in talks with New Delhi to help build its largest aircraft carrier in the biggest military collaboration to date, a move that will bolster the Indian navy's strength as China expands its reach in the Indian Ocean.

After years of foot-dragging by previous governments over fears that the logistics agreement would draw India into a binding commitment to support the United States in war, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration has signaled a desire to move ahead with the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA).

That would allow the two militaries to use each other's land, air and naval bases for resupplies, repair and rest, officials said.

Admiral Harry Harris, head of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command, said the two sides were working on the LSA, another agreement called the CISMOA for secure communications when the militaries operate together, and a third on exchange of topographical, nautical, and aeronautical data.

"We have not gotten to the point of signing them with India, but I think we're close," Harris, due in India this week, told the U.S. House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.

The progress comes as the countries consider joint maritime patrols that a U.S. official said could include the South China Sea, where China is locked in a territorial dispute with Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan among others.

Both sides, though, said there were no immediate plans for such patrols, which drew strong condemnation from Beijing.

MAIN HURDLE CLEARED

An Indian government official said the main impediment to signing the LSA had been cleared, after Washington gave an assurance that New Delhi was not bound by it if the U.S. went to war with a friendly country or undertook any other unilateral action that New Delhi did not support.

"It has been clarified that it will be done on a case-to-case basis; it's not automatic that either side will get access to facilities in the case of war," the official familiar with the negotiations said.

Asked whether China was concerned such cooperation was actually aimed at Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said: "We hope the relevant cooperation is beneficial to regional peace and cooperation and should not be aimed at the interests of third parties."

India's previous center-left government was worried the agreements would undermine India's strategic autonomy and that it would draw it into an undeclared military alliance with the United States.

Concerns linger over the proposed communications agreement, with some branches of the military including the air force fearing it would allow the United States to access their communications network.

U.S. officials said they hoped that once the logistics agreement was signed, the others would follow.

A U.S. defense industry source engaged in business in India said there were expectations the LSA could be sealed by the time U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter visited New Delhi in April.

The source said Modi's office was directly involved in the matter and actively considering the agreements as a key for enhanced cooperation.

India has been alarmed by Chinese naval forays into the Indian Ocean and its involvement in maritime infrastructure on island nations that it traditionally considered its back yard.

It has moved to shore up naval forces and build defense ties with Japan and Vietnam, besides the United States.

"There is growing convergence between Obama's Asia pivot and Modi's Act East policy," said Saroj Bishoyi, an expert on the proposed India-U.S. collaboration at the government-funded Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses in New Delhi.

"The LSA currently appears to be a doable agreement."

(Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Writing by Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 02 Mar 2016 00:00

Do we get paid $$$ for allowing use of our facilities?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Mar 2016 01:03

Aditya G wrote:Do we get paid $$$ for allowing use of our facilities?

We do. This'll just switch the arrangement from a case-by-case payment to a reciprocal basis. We spend $100 using their facilities (in exercises and so on), they spend $120 using ours, only $20 changes hands at the end of the year (as opposed to the $220 that would today). Cuts down the amount of bureaucracy involved, so it has a natural appeal for the Modi govt.

See here - Comprehensive analysis of the LSA by IDSA's Saroj Bishoyi

(Interestingly a similar US-Pak agreement lapsed in 2012, with the Pakistanis reluctant to renew it. Ironic.)

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 02 Mar 2016 03:27

There's nothing in this LSA for India. The armed forces certainly would see no value in it, just a risk of the US snooping around our facilities.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Mar 2016 04:09

Viv S wrote:
Aditya G wrote:Do we get paid $$$ for allowing use of our facilities?
We do. This'll just switch the arrangement from a case-by-case payment to a reciprocal basis. We spend $100 using their facilities (in exercises and so on), they spend $120 using ours, only $20 changes hands at the end of the year (as opposed to the $220 that would today). Cuts down the amount of bureaucracy involved, so it has a natural appeal for the Modi govt.

See here - Comprehensive analysis of the LSA by IDSA's Saroj Bishoyi

(Interestingly a similar US-Pak agreement lapsed in 2012, with the Pakistanis reluctant to renew it. Ironic.)

...
Methods of Payment for LSSS

A logistics support agreement enables the exchange of LSSS through three types of transactions—cash, replacement in kind (RIK), or equal value exchange (EVE). At present, for logistical supports including food, fuel and stores, both the Indian and the US governments pay in cash only.

However, it should be noted that the agreement does not aim at making or receiving donations. What has been obtained should be paid for within a reasonable time period according to the agreed terms. It also does not aim at making additional profits. The agreement requires the participants to charge each other what they charge themselves. This gives both parties a substantial cost benefit by reducing overheads. In other words, the lowest rates applied to the Defence Ministry will be charged from the recipient (US), not the usual higher rates applied for foreign military sales (FMS). The three types of transactions are explained below.

(i) Cash:
The first mode of payment for LSSS is through standard cash transactions. For instance, if the US provides $2 million worth of food, water, oil, medical services to the Indian armed forces engaged in a joint military exercise, India can settle the amount by paying the same to the US in cash.

(ii) RIK:
In this case, the receiving party replaces logistics support, supplies, and services that it receives with logistics support,
supplies, and services of an identical, or substantially identical, nature. For instance, if the US armed forces in a peacekeeping or disaster relief operation get $2 million worth of food and oil for its armed forces from India, the US government can settle that amount by providing food and oil worth the same amount to the Indian armed forces going to US harbour.

(iii) EVE:
In a transaction conducted under this agreement, payment by the receiving nation of LSSS is made by exchanging LSSS
of an equal value to those received. This process allows the participants to exchange different goods and services of equal
worth. For instance, if the US provides $2 million worth of food and water to the Indian armed forces, India may provide clothing and medical services of equal worth to the United States armed forces and settle the amount.
...

RIK method for joint military exercise would come out cheaper for India as the logistics support would be cheaper in India but would be worth "services of an identical, or substantially identical, nature".

Here's a gist of what is covered under LSSS:

...
Operationalization of the Agreement

Once the proposed agreement comes into force, either India or the US can indicate its requirement in a prescribed form to the other. The requirements permitted to be fulfilled under the agreement entail LSSS items only. In other words, the agreement allows the participants to exchange food, water, clothing, medical services, billeting (accommodation), transportation including airlift, petroleum, oils, lubricants, storage services, communication services, base operations support (and construction incident to base operations support), use of facilities, training services, spare parts and components, repair and maintenance services, and air and sea port services. General purpose vehicles and other items of non-lethal military equipment not designated as Significant Military Equipment on the United States Munitions List (USML) may be leased or loaned for temporary use.

But the agreement prohibits the exchange of major-end items: fighter aircrafts, missiles, bombs, gunship, etc.; weapon systems such as guidance systems for missiles, torpedoes, aerial bombs and naval guns; deterrent systems such as chaffs and chaff dispensers; ammunition as covered in the USML; and nuclear and chemical ammunition.

Items not eligible for transfer under this agreement also include ‘those items which are barred for transfer under the national laws of the two countries’.

On the receipt of the request, the recipient may review the request and should decide whether or not it can fulfil the requested requirement. The order for LSSS should be mutually agreeable and consistent with each party’s priorities. Moreover, it does not place any obligations on the number or value of transaction to be provided by either party. Any transaction may be declined by the potential provider as deemed necessary.

If the request is accepted, the order is counter-signed; the logistics support, supplies and services are delivered or provided; and the participants have a specified period of time from billing date to settling date.
...

arun · Post by **arun** » 05 Mar 2016 09:52

X Posted from the “IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015” thread.

I am a tough negotiator, want best price for Rafale jets: Parrikar : HT

Meanwhile;

Defence spending slips when NDA is in power, Rs 11,595 crore unspent : ET

Indian Air Force Has Only 32 Squadrons - Lowest In A Decade : NDTV

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 05 Mar 2016 13:09

The cost of services and materials, aside maybe for POL will be higher in the US compared to India. Unless USN and USAF use our bases regularly I don't see how we can benefit from this. Though not for profit, payment for use of facilities will be considered as revenue.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 05 Mar 2016 13:52

Why do we need profit from military facilities those for for the nation. I have not read the full agreement, but as per the public info US will have unresticted access to milltry installations, air force bases or INS bases. We must not trust anyone and like now it should be case to case basis. It is better not to depend upon anyone for operations and USA is known for selling others when price is right.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 05 Mar 2016 14:27

The only thing reasonable, and at the most, to sign up on could be, only a part of Look East policy -cost, logistics, everything, and nothing more. Even military installations must be the ones that USA has - and USA has enough already at Diego Garcia and Singapore with full access to the Arabian Ocean and Bay of Bengal already- under multinational cooperation that USA talks about. Wonder why we need to let anything out of Look East policy, without any checks, which is exactly logical and encompasses the policy too, than arbitrary alphabet soup treaties that would be applied arbitrarily.

Plus, we need to monthly certify even for this arrangement whether the collaborating nations are totally secular and legit, or as usual everything will be hushed up under carpet while complaining about anything.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Mar 2016 15:41

Aditya G wrote:The cost of services and materials, aside maybe for POL will be higher in the US compared to India. Unless USN and USAF use our bases regularly I don't see how we can benefit from this. Though not for profit, payment for use of facilities will be considered as revenue.

RKumar wrote:Why do we need profit from military facilities those for for the nation. I have not read the full agreement, but as per the public info US will have unresticted access to milltry installations, air force bases or INS bases. We must not trust anyone and like now it should be case to case basis. It is better not to depend upon anyone for operations and USA is known for selling others when price is right.

Created (and replied on) the General Military Discussions thread. (Since this is not really specific to Military Aviation.)

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Mar 2016 21:43

RKumar wrote:Why do we need profit from military facilities those for for the nation. I have not read the full agreement, but as per the public info US will have unresticted access to milltry installations, air force bases or INS bases. We must not trust anyone and like now it should be case to case basis. It is better not to depend upon anyone for operations and USA is known for selling others when price is right.

"I have not read the full agreement"

Earlier version:

http://www.ipcs.org/article/military/ex ... -2500.html

Newer version makes it explicit that India need not provide logistics to be used to support US wars against any countries friendly to India (read Iran). The "access to fighter jets etc." refers to Red Flag where India had to fork out major moolah in excess of what it would have if the LSA was in place. In other instances, it would involve India providing fuel and food to US ships.

In short, it's a netting system that gets around such things as VAT. I believe there is a periodic settlement in cash if necessary.

It's not as intrusive as EUMA (which I think India has signed) that is a precondition to purchase of US a/c and equipment.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 05 Mar 2016 22:49

Cosmo_R wrote:In short, it's a netting system that gets around such things as VAT. I believe there is a periodic settlement in cash if necessary.

It's not as intrusive as EUMA (which I think India has signed) that is a precondition to purchase of US a/c and equipment.

How this thing work out, I mean is it barter type? say, we provide x-amount of fuel to x-amount of fuel or billed in respective currency? If billed in currency means, we may bleed, because US maal (fuel, food, other items, services) are relatively expensive than Indian counterparts.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Mar 2016 13:52

The nod for 2 extra Phalcons on IL-76/476 platforms announced a few days ago,is v.good news.It will make a total of 5,plus the smaller AEW aircraft on Emb. platforms are essential for us to monitor threats from both Pak and China. We need more AEW aircraft which can give us a 360 deg. cover .More aerostats from Israel also v.welcome,but here is an item which should be well within our R&D efforts. One has seen at def-expos,OFB(?) aerostats in pics. What ails further dev. and prod. of this airborne AEW system?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Mar 2016 20:24

these 3 women graduating in june could be our first three fighter pilots

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2016 20:32

^^
Where's the "like" button?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 08 Mar 2016 21:00

^^^ Dont get too excited, and arent you too old for pressing "like" buttons?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Mar 2016 21:05

kmkraoind wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:In short, it's a netting system that gets around such things as VAT. I believe there is a periodic settlement in cash if necessary.

It's not as intrusive as EUMA (which I think India has signed) that is a precondition to purchase of US a/c and equipment.
How this thing work out, I mean is it barter type? say, we provide x-amount of fuel to x-amount of fuel or billed in respective currency? If billed in currency means, we may bleed, because US maal (fuel, food, other items, services) are relatively expensive than Indian counterparts.

I am not an expert on LSA but logic would have it that prices are a function of location. For example, if we buy 'fuel' at Nellis for Red Flag, it will be at US prices to USAF. It would not make sense for us to cart all the stuff to Nellis. Let's assume that the fuel expense incurred is $100 and the IAF signs an IOU.

Following month, USN loads up on fuel at Visakhapatnam. All the IN guy has to do is look up the Nellis cost per gallon and apply that to the amount supplied to the USN. That part is easy.

The unknown is where the USAF/USN use our facilities far more than we do theirs and we wind up with IOUs. For this, I suspect there is a periodic settlement mechanism.

LSA seems to be designed to avoid having Amex Centurion cards being carried by US military.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2016 21:20

Shreeman wrote:^^^ Dont get too excited, and arent you too old for pressing "like" buttons?

You mean I have other options at my age?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 09 Mar 2016 04:21

shiv wrote:
Shreeman wrote:^^^ Dont get too excited, and arent you too old for pressing "like" buttons?
You mean I have other options at my age?

^^^ Yes, cooking is a good hobby. You dont have to use pressure cookers just for aviation experiments.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Mar 2016 09:43

you don't have to be young to like young women pilots.

shivji, let us make it even better with this pic

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Mar 2016 14:11

Snehesh Alex Philip ‏@sneheshphilip 3 hours ago

India does not have adequate numbers to fully execute an air campaign in two front scenario, admits IAF

#IAF says it is concerned with the low service ratio of #Sukhoi fighter aircraft

#IAF says it needs much more MMRCA type aircraft than the 36 #Rafale fighter jets