Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 06 Apr 2016 23:07

vaibhav.n wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Answering my own question.

In Vayu Shakti 2010, they used the PTA-M which is quite state-of-the-art. There is also the PTR-M, which is also conical but used for drops from higher altitudes.

However, the parachutes shown in Iron Fist 2016 are quiet interesting. There are no perforations or holes. Those parachutes should be prone to pendulum effect, and be extremely difficult to steer. Any details on these parachutes will be greatly appreciated.


Indranil,

PTR type is old primarily used for the initial training jumps, PTA is the standard now. There is a newer Mk2 in development.

In our system the IAF uses its own riggers for paratroopers drop while the IA runs the heavier logistic drops.

Thank you. I read about the new one in development. Seems state-of-art. PTA itself was quite good. Could you identify the parachutes in [youtube]IPNbzqfmpE8?t=2h20s[/youtube].

P.S. if the video is not opening here correctly, then just open it in youtube and go to the 2:00:20 mark.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vaibhav.n » 07 Apr 2016 13:06

Sorry no idea, could be an IAF specific variant.

You are right these parachutes look larger and with no holes results in very strong canopy oscillations.

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby VishalJ » 08 Apr 2016 21:13

rvishwak wrote:Lots of IAF jets...guess Sukhois taking off from Mumbai today.

Anything special?

Two of them are taking off one after another...first one at 10 AM, next at 2 Pm and just now at 8:20 Pm

https://twitter.com/MumbaiAirport/statu ... 4576578560

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2016 02:58

With eye on China and Pakistan, India in talks to buy US Predator drones

Reuters | Apr 8, 2016

W DELHI: India is in talks with the United States to purchase 40 Predator surveillance drones, officials said, a possible first step towards acquiring the armed version of the aircraft and a development likely to annoy Pakistan.

India is trying to equip the military with more unmanned technologies to gather intelligence as well as boost its firepower along the vast land borders with Pakistan and China. It also wants a closer eye on the Indian Ocean.

New Delhi has already acquired surveillance drones from Israel to monitor the mountains of Kashmir.

As defence ties deepen with the United States, which sees India as a counterweight to China in the region, New Delhi has asked Washington for the Predator series of unmanned planes built by privately-held General Atomics, military officials said.

"We are aware of Predator interest from the Indian Navy. However, it is a government-to-government discussion," Vivek Lall, chief executive of US and International Strategic Development at San Diego-based General Atomics, told Reuters.

The US government late last year cleared General Atomics' proposal to market the unarmed Predator XP in India. It was not clear when the delivery of the drones would take place.

The navy wants them for surveillance in the Indian Ocean, where the pilotless aircraft can remain airborne for 35 hours at a stretch, at a time when the Chinese navy is expanding ship and submarine patrols in the region.

Moves by India to enhance its defence capabilities have in the past provoked sharp reactions from Islamabad, where the government and military are worried about falling further behind their bigger rival in the arms race.

Pakistan's foreign ministry could not be reached for comment on Friday, the start of the weekend there, while the military had no immediate comment.


Carter visit

Indian Air Force has also asked Washington about acquiring around 100 armed Predator C Avenger aircraft, which the United States has used to carry out strikes against Islamist militants in Pakistan's northwest and neighbouring Afghanistan.

But it would need clearance from the Missile Technology Control Regime group of 34 nations as well as approval from US Congress before any transfer of lethal Predators could happen, officials said.

The push for the drones comes as US defense secretary Ash Carter heads to India this weekend for talks to cement military collaboration in the final months of the Obama administration.

Indian military officials said they expected the request for the armed aircraft to figure in Carter's talks with his Indian counterpart, Manohar Parrikar.

Washington wants India to sign a set of agreements including on the use of each other's military bases that would help them operate together.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has signalled its willingness to move forward with the proposed pacts after the previous administration did not act for more than a decade.

Retired air vice marshal Manmohan Bahadur said the proposed acquisition of armed Predators would give the military the ability to carry out cross-border strikes, or even attack targets lying deeper inside a neighbouring country.

"But at the end of the day, it's a political decision. It's one thing to lob artillery shells, its another to use air power, that's an escalation," he said.

India has not moved against Pakistan militarily despite blaming militant groups based there for orchestrating attacks on its soil including one on Mumbai in 2008, in part out of fear it would spiral into a broader conflict.

Image

Ejaz Haider, a Pakistani security analyst, said Islamabad would object to the transfer of such drones in the region.

But he questioned their effectiveness if they entered Pakistani air space, since it would probably try to shoot them down, something it did not do with US drones.

"There is obviously going to be push-back from Pakistan, because if it (the drone) does get through in some way or other it enhances Indian capability," he said.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby vasu raya » 09 Apr 2016 05:59

IAF: Tale of deficiencies & mismanagement

A bizarre example of bad planning and carelessness pertains to the highly sophisticated and expensive airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft bought at a cost of Rs 5,042 crore and inducted between September 2009 and February 2012. Shockingly, for two years these aircraft were parked in the open despite the risk of degradation of radar performance and an adverse impact on the radome’s surface smoothness. Reason: the hangars had not been built in time despite the contract being signed almost six years earlier in March 2004. And so, in May 2010 disaster struck with all four engines of one of the AWACS getting damaged in a gale storm rendering it unserviceable for almost four months (May 7 to August 25, 2010). Miraculously, the sophisticated Israeli radome did not get damaged.

The AWACS, which functions as an “eye in the sky”, is a major force multiplier and strategic asset. Seven years since its induction, the AWACS continue to have a record of low serviceability and under-utilisation due to restrictions on take-off weight due to limited runway length, unavailability of fighter aircraft to accompany it, periodic unserviceability of sub systems and a 50 per cent pilot shortage who in turn are untrained for air-to-air refuelling (AAR) despite specially fitted AAR pods costing Rs 654 crore to enhance the aircraft’s range and flying endurance.


if anything these big planes would need the 'loyal wingmans'

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shaun » 09 Apr 2016 06:48

If IAF can't handle the MOD babudom ....they should go public. Before the sukhoi's were sun baked, now these awacs.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 09 Apr 2016 08:09

this was in 2009. looks like more were needed

Image

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 09 Apr 2016 08:12

those red plastic covers for the engines are standard for all AF and are supposed to protect from such incidents.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Singha » 09 Apr 2016 08:17

there are 6 hangers at present so all 6 awacs can be accomodated for now,

https://www.google.co.in/maps/@27.15430 ... !1e3?hl=en

I dont see why the runway cannot be extended in SW direction to give the desired takeoff run. agra is very hot in summer 40+ is sure.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 09 Apr 2016 16:59

^^^

There are only 3 AWACS hangers that I can see. Others are smaller.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Gyan » 09 Apr 2016 17:22

IAF: Tale of deficiencies & mismanagement

A bizarre example of bad planning and carelessness pertains to the highly sophisticated and expensive airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft bought at a cost of Rs 5,042 crore and inducted between September 2009 and February 2012. Shockingly, for two years these aircraft were parked in the open despite the risk of degradation of radar performance and an adverse impact on the radome’s surface smoothness. Reason: the hangars had not been built in time despite the contract being signed almost six years earlier in March 2004. And so, in May 2010 disaster struck with all four engines of one of the AWACS getting damaged in a gale storm rendering it unserviceable for almost four months (May 7 to August 25, 2010). Miraculously, the sophisticated Israeli radome did not get damaged.

The AWACS, which functions as an “eye in the sky”, is a major force multiplier and strategic asset. Seven years since its induction, the AWACS continue to have a record of low serviceability and under-utilisation due to restrictions on take-off weight due to limited runway length, unavailability of fighter aircraft to accompany it, periodic unserviceability of sub systems and a 50 per cent pilot shortage who in turn are untrained for air-to-air refuelling (AAR) despite specially fitted AAR pods costing Rs 654 crore to enhance the aircraft’s range and flying endurance.


Perhaps Hangers built by Indians are three legged huts and IAF requires 4 legged sophisticated hangers from Switzerland. But this has not prevented IAF from ordering two more gold plated AWACS from Israel on IL-76 platform for USD 1500 million. But can one order Hangers for USD 15 million? Off course not! The small issues regarding Hangers, spare parts, simulators, base security etc are in-consequential till we can order fancy new aircraft for USD 500 million each (Rafale). In fact to my naked layman eyes costly aircraft like Tu-142, IL-38, Ka-31 are all parked out in open in Goa Air Base also.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 10 Apr 2016 05:54

Meanwhile low speed trails of HTT-40 have been satisfactory.

Image

This is from the Pakistani defense forum. What is the original source? Looks like a HAL publication.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 10 Apr 2016 08:55

^^^

So far good year (or two) for HAL:
  • IJT -> initial spin trials successful; entering production soon
  • LCA -> SP-2 completion/flight; 6 Jigs full (SP-3 - SP-8)
  • LCH -> completion of flight testing; ongoing weapons trials; entering production soon
  • HTT-40 -> first flight soon
  • LUH -> first flight soon

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 14 Apr 2016 00:27

This will have implication on the HTT-40 project. As hakim says, because USAF is looking at turboprops to replace the A-10s, ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/a-10-warthog-replacement/index.html

P.S.
1. Between LCH, Kiran, IJT, Combat-Hawk; they have all the parts.
2. I was checking the differences between the Super Tucano and the AT-6. The HTT-40 boys seem to have taken care of a few things from the get go. They have kept the landing gears as spaced as possible. The oil cooling vents are by the side. Big tyres, high ground clearance, large control surfaces, tall rudder.

KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby KBDagha » 14 Apr 2016 10:09

Aerospace Testing Facilities in India:

http://atfi.dlis.du.ac.in/aeroat.php

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 275
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Bhaskar_T » 14 Apr 2016 11:28

When SU30MKI flies in Red Flag, USA must have collected the fighter footprint (RCS?) in air. Isn't this true?

Does MKI tries to collect similar info about other fighters?

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby shiv » 14 Apr 2016 18:38

Bhaskar_T wrote:When SU30MKI flies in Red Flag, USA must have collected the fighter footprint (RCS?) in air. Isn't this true?

Does MKI tries to collect similar info about other fighters?

Simply catching radar reflections is no big deal. The Su 30s may not even switch on their own radars, or may use them in a restricted mode to avoid radar emission details being picked up. I bet some equipment must have been removed before sending to the US.

That apart, the US is leader in AESA/"LPI" radar so planes that are being painted may not even know that they are being watched. But simply being seen does not let out huge secrets

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Shreeman » 14 Apr 2016 20:15

The DRFM digital.signature management suit is restricted by MTCR, CISMOA, QRLA, VBNC, and a host of other legal restriction to only NATO allies and non-NATO allies. It is a sixth generation technology not available to eastern countries. The russians are still restricted to the bifocal EBMK2 with further ambiguious IFF suit CyekaBlat which is unreliable and requires extensive management with very high lifecycle costs. Also the russians charge by each midlife upgradethat introduces new vocabulary on an cryllic upgrade tick produce only by kamaz in a soviet era plant. Long story short -- they are showing all the secrets to NATO. No wonder russia is displeased. One should keep a few things under wraps even from friends, like your wife. They should have sent a western plane like the M2000 instead of exposing the majoroty of the platforms to the next update in the F16 DRFM library.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Indranil » 15 Apr 2016 00:07

I don't know if NCAD has come this, but HAL is seeking to license produce a 50-80 seater.

Request For Information(RFI) for Selection of a partner to Manufacture 50-80 seater Regional Aircraft in India

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby ramana » 15 Apr 2016 01:31

Any update on the Griffin and Paveway near misses at Ironfist 2016?

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby jayasimha » 22 Apr 2016 16:10

Indian Air Force prepares 10-year modernisation plan


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

EW DELHI: The Indian Air Force has prepared a 10-year modernisation plan that identifies technologies and services that it requires and is set to share it with the private sector. But just 10-15% of the over Rs 2.5 lakh crore projected acquisitions are expected to be from domestic manufacturers.

The plan is to share details of its requirements — from aircraft tyres to rotor blades and 3D printing technology, with specific quantities needed over 10 years — to enable private sector players to set up manufacturing facilities and replace imports.

The Indigenisation Roadmap (2016-2025), which is set to be released at a CII event on Tuesday, also lists out 174 parts — from subsystems for Jaguar fighter aircraft to parts and spares for the An 32 transport fleet — that are in dire ne ..

The roadmap, a copy of which has been accessed by ET, says the concept of indigenisation is being transformed from being dependent on public sector units to "participative collaboration with Indian industry".

On the anvil are acquisition projects worth more than Rs 2.5 lakh crore, it says. "Unfortunately, only 10-15% of these are expected to be from indigenous sources as the technologies needed are not available indigenously." The report lists maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) as a ..

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Austin » 23 Apr 2016 12:35

Good Read

the iaf stares at amassive crisis as its aircraft age and replacements are delayed

In a death spiral

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 42492.html

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Vivek K » 24 Apr 2016 03:43

^^^^ What a terrible read and poorly written article.
Firstly - IAF selected the wrong MMRCA. IAF should have known from the M2K negotiations that the French are difficult when it comes to price negotiations.
Second - IAF should have invested in working closer with HAL/MOD and establishing production lines earlier. IOC-1 standard aircraft should have been cleared for induction. Since IAF barely has refuellers, the lack of an IFR should not have stopped LCAs from induction. The LCA has been ready and weaponized for a while. Additional weapon integrations could have been done while in squadron service.

Poor IAF vision about its fleet and its composition, stubborn insistence on imports, wanting to get the next shiny toy when they could have built up M2K and Mig 29 numbers is the cause of this disaster. Not working closely with HAL and taking ownership of the LCA or the Kaveri programs shows that the IAF was never serious about these programs.

The problem can still be corrected with adding another line under maybe a private player to produce maybe another 16-25 LCAs a year. If this starts up in 2 years, the situation can be corrected. One thing is for sure, pimps of all foreign vendors are running around beating their chests!

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Surya » 24 Apr 2016 04:16

why would you even venture to waste a few minutes of your life reading that

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 24 Apr 2016 04:29

^^ :lol: seems the usual folks contacted sandeep unnithan to put pressure on GOI.. same old same old.

not an iota of introspection from kak on what the IAF didn't do with tejas either.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3475
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Aditya G » 24 Apr 2016 13:03

Did not want the next shiny toy, or import etc. The IAF only specified an MMRCA requirement to GOI/MOD. Who in turn arranged a procurement process which had the world's best competing for it. IAF then selected the best of this lot based solely on technical parameters.

Did anyone in MOD offer IAF to build up MiG-29 and Mirage-2000 numbers as you suggest? Did we ever go to OEM demanding that? In fact it was IAF who had initially suggested additional procurement of Mirage-2000 as they were satisfied with it. Why did that proposal transform into MMRCA tender?

Blaming IAF for wanting x not wanting y is only rhetoric with no basis.

Vivek K wrote:...
Firstly - IAF selected the wrong MMRCA. IAF should have known from the M2K negotiations that the French are difficult when it comes to price negotiations.

...

Poor IAF vision about its fleet and its composition, stubborn insistence on imports, wanting to get the next shiny toy when they could have built up M2K and Mig 29 numbers is the cause of this disaster. Not working closely with HAL and taking ownership of the LCA or the Kaveri programs shows that the IAF was never serious about these programs.

....

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2780
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby JTull » 24 Apr 2016 16:36

Aditya G wrote:
Blaming IAF for wanting x not wanting y is only rhetoric with no basis.


I disagree. Always wanting gold-plated stuff is a cause of this mess. It's like me blaming my employer for not paying me enough to buy the biggest curved screen TV.

IAF has no plans and the latest 10 year outlook shows it only has dreams. They must determine what they need rather than what they want. Only then they'll realise how they've messed up LCA timeline. A plan based on needs would have meant early commitment.

Don't get me wrong here. I know IAF does a great service to the nation. But they're not blameless.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Vivek K » 24 Apr 2016 18:14

Aditya your argument is flawed. IAF cannot escape blame for this mess. The MMRCA requirement never existed. After Kargil, IAF wanted to build up M2K numbers. The French tricked the IAF into going for the shiny new Rafales instead. That started the nautanki of the MMRCA which has now played out for a decade without a SINGLE aircraft purchased in this period. Is it the LCAs fault that the IAF couldn't decide earlier or that they failed to purchase a single aircraft for a decade? What was purchased was - DARIN II standard HAL built Jaguars and HAL built MKIs.

To make matters worse, IAF deliberately delayed accepting the LCA to force the government's hand due to depleting fleet strength.

If IAF had accepted IOC-1 LCA and built up M2k and Mig-29 numbers, the position would have been better. We cannot be apologists for the IAF or the IA.
Last edited by Vivek K on 24 Apr 2016 21:40, edited 1 time in total.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9863
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Yagnasri » 24 Apr 2016 19:57

Most of the aircraft retired/retiring are Mig21,27 etc. which can easily be replaced by LCA. There is anything better in the Paki Airforce except F16s. So LCA may be a logical choice for large induction.

But I think MOD and the policial leadership also share a tremendous responsibility. If MP can make 120 units order, then we can assume his predecessors also could have. But no one tried seriously.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Vivek K » 24 Apr 2016 21:42

Would you have ordered even 1 LCA with the IAF stating it did not want it? No RM could have purchased the LCA with the IAF stalling for Rafales.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Surya » 25 Apr 2016 02:13

Viveks interpretation is interesting

because while the IAF was trying to scrounge some more M2Ks a Rafale visited and spent some time at Gwalior

and had all our flyboys ooohing and aaaahing

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Cosmo_R » 25 Apr 2016 02:26

Vivek K wrote:.. IAF cannot escape blame for this mess. The MMRCA requirement never existed. After Kargil, IAF wanted to build up M2K numbers. The French tricked the IAF into going for the shiny new Rafales instead. ..


Actually (Google hard you'll find it), it was two joint secretaries who in their infinite achar-eating moment of acid reflux who caused this mess. Everything was go for the M2Ks on a follow-on order (no open bid) and then these two worthies decided that the M2K model on offer (M2K-5) was a NEW a/c and not the same as the M2K-H and there there had to be an open tender. Of course, by the time everything was ready, Dassault had closed the M2K line.

The rest is history and continues to be.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 25 Apr 2016 03:18

OTOH, we would have to definitely UPG those M2K-5s for them to remain current.. in ~2020-30, what use would they be against J-2X fielded by PRC. MSA with range issues against LO targets. No IRST. Rafale isn't perfect either but has a fighting chance (sensor fusion/AESA with more range than MSA/OSF)

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Vivek K » 25 Apr 2016 03:25

Karan M should we continue to upgrade the M2Ks or let them fade away into history? Even the current upgrade per aircraft costs more than two LCAs (new build approx.). IAF should look to replacing the M2K with newer frames, better propulsion, radars and weapons.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Karan M » 25 Apr 2016 03:39

In an ideal world yes, but they have more range than LCA and are fairly credible with upgrades (see here:http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=253&Itemid=62) against bulk of targets (except advanced LO ones for which they might require offboard cueing from AWACS)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby srai » 25 Apr 2016 05:41

Even the Mirage-2000 line in India would have been a pretty expensive deal. Whether India would have signed the dotted line after protracted negotiations is open to debate. It is very likely Mirage-2000 line would have shuttered by the time India finished negotiations and came to an agreement. That would have added to the costs.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21050
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby Philip » 25 Apr 2016 12:36

Posting this here as it echoes the same manner in which some mil deals/aircraft acquisitions appear to have been been made with scant regard for after sales support. So where does the culpability lie? Surely with the negotiating teams of the Civil Av ministry and the MOD specifically. Why is there no ranting and raving against Boeing for their shoddy airliner,which is experiencing woes worldwide? Does any sane person in a multi-billion order forget about culpability and responsibility for technical defects? Even a Maruti Alto ot Tata Nano comes with some guarantees.:rotfl: The Dreamliner defects and 777 missing cancellation clauses should be the subject of a CBI enquiry. These contracts appear to have been deliberately flawed to favour the firang OEM in the case of any problems and ensure high cost of spares.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 517523.ece
Air India grappling with Dreamliner woes
GROUNDED:Glitches have forced the national carrier to ground Boeing 787-800 planes on multiple occasions —FILE PHOTO
Facing frequent technical problems in its Dreamliner fleet, Air India has found itself in a spot as absence of contractual provisions is hindering the national carrier’s efforts to get financial compensation from aircraft maker Boeing.

Air India, which is working on efforts to turnaround its fortunes, has been grappling with technical glitches and other malfunction with the “game changer” Dreamliner aircraft since their induction in the fleet over three years ago.

The every now and then glitches have forced the national carrier to ground Boeing 787-800 planes on multiple occasions, which has resulted in long flight delays and significant loss of revenue.

Last month alone, at least two Dreamliners were grounded by the airline, one in Paris and another in Kolkata, in the wake of technical problems.

A senior Air India official said many rounds of discussions have taken place with respect to seeking compensation from Boeing but efforts have not been successful so far.

“There is no provision for (financial) compensation with respect to technical problems in Dreamliner under the agreement signed with Boeing,” the official said.
:rotfl:

The absence of such a provision in the contract is hindering the possibility of getting compensated for the technical glitches but still efforts are being made in this regard, he noted.

Air India has already inducted 21 Dreamliners in its fleet and six more are to be delivered to it by August 2018.

Though the airline management had also considered options such as replacing the remaining six planes with five latest version (B 787—900) aircraft, the proposal did not find favour with its board.(Why?)

Significantly, the state-run airline has also been forced to take the delivery of three B 777—300ER planes, which it wanted to cancel earlier due to the absence of “cancellation” clause in the purchase agreement with the U.S. aircraft maker. :rotfl:

After initially deferring the delivery of these planes, Air India now plans to induct them in the fleet next year.

Minister of State for Civil Aviation Mahesh Sharma had last year said that the Technical Dispatch Reliability (TDR) of Air India’s Dreamliner fleet was lower than the average TDR due to frequent glitches in the aircraft while admitting that there have been technical delays on account of snags in these planes.

TDR is the ratio of the number of flights delayed due to technical faults to the total number of flights, expressed as a percentage.

These snags were related to software glitches and a few others such as windshield cracks, valve failure, oil loss and TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) failure, Sharma said earlier.

Interestingly, the national carrier’s engineering union has been vocal on the issue and last year had urged the management to defer deliveries of the remaining aircraft till Boeing addresses the technical issues. — PTI


GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby GeorgeWelch » 25 Apr 2016 12:58

Philip wrote:Why is there no ranting and raving against Boeing for their shoddy airliner,which is experiencing woes worldwide?


Because it's not worldwide, it is an Air India problem.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby rohitvats » 25 Apr 2016 14:57

Vivek K wrote:^^^^ What a terrible read and poorly written article.
Firstly - IAF selected the wrong MMRCA. IAF should have known from the M2K negotiations that the French are difficult when it comes to price negotiations.


IAF selected whatever fitted the bill as per the laid down criterion. Unless you can prove here that the criteria used to select the MMRCA were incorrect, your statement is nothing but another in the long line of rants.

As for French being difficult in negotiations, everybody conducts the business the way they deem fit. If India MOD in the past screwed up on negotiations by not putting in water-tight clauses, its our fault. But all indications so far point to Indians being the tough negotiators because apparently, simply greasing some palms as %age of the deal does not make a deal anymore.

BTW, no one told the IAF that they should select a fighter whose manufacturer is the easiest one to negotiate with!

Second - IAF should have invested in working closer with HAL/MOD and establishing production lines earlier.


Please tell me how IAF could've have got the production line going by HAL?

IOC-1 standard aircraft should have been cleared for induction.


IOC-1 was a dog-and-pony show meant to assuage egos because the project was missing another deadline. And LCA at IOC-1 was no where near to induction as a platform into line squadrons. This LCA ready at IOC-1 is a urban myth which gets repeated on BRF by people like you who think its OK to abuse IAF just because you're rooting for an indigenous weapon system.

Here is a the link to PIB Report on IOC-2 of LCA: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=102056


The Initial Operational Clearance-1 (IOC-I) for ‘Tejas’ was achieved on 10 Jan 2011. In IOC-I, the Aircraft had a few limitations in terms of Combat performance, turn around time and its weaponisation which had to be refined and improved through Research & Development process. In addition to this, Wake penetration trials, all weather clearances were planned beyond IOC-1.


The salient features which have been achieved in IOC-2 include Safe flying up to High angle of Attack as mandated by the users. This has considerably enhanced the combat performance of the aircraft. The Flight control system evaluation has also been completed. The time for initial built-in test has been reduced considerably which enables faster turn around and enhanced operational readiness of aircraft. The Brake system has been improved significantly in terms of energy absorption capability during landing, thus ensuring prompt turn-around of the aircraft. Significant improvement in Cockpit ergonomic and lighting system has been accomplished for improved night flying. In-flight re-light capability was demonstrated to ensure enhanced safety and reliability of the aircraft. This is a major achievement. Avionics and Weapon system of the aircraft have been revamped for effective mission superiority. Helmet Mounted Display Sight (HMDS) has been fully integrated in Tejas and R73E missile firing has been successfully demonstrated using HMDS.


LCA reached limited induction stage in IOC-2 and 20 aircraft have been ordered in this configuration.

Next time you feel the urge to shout abuses at IAF, don't forget to read the link.

Since IAF barely has refuellers, the lack of an IFR should not have stopped LCAs from induction. The LCA has been ready and weaponized for a while. Additional weapon integrations could have been done while in squadron service.


And who told you that LCA has been stuck because of IFR probe related issue? And only in the wild imaginations of uber-patriots has the LCA been ready for a while! Fact of the matter is that IAF placed order for yet-to-be-ready IOC-2 level LCA which HAL is taking its own sweet time to produce.

Thank God we've the CAG Report on LCA program! The uber-patriots on BRF otherwise had a field time blaming IAF for everything that was wrong with LCA. We now for a fact that the biggest culprit was the over ambitious targets and bad project management.

Poor IAF vision about its fleet and its composition, stubborn insistence on imports, wanting to get the next shiny toy when they could have built up M2K and Mig 29 numbers is the cause of this disaster. Not working closely with HAL and taking ownership of the LCA or the Kaveri programs shows that the IAF was never serious about these programs.


Can you elaborate on the 'poor IAF vision'? Or is this simply another of your stupid and ignorant rant because you know jack-sh1t about the subject and are neither interested in trying to find out the answer?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Postby rohitvats » 25 Apr 2016 15:13

Vivek K wrote:<SNIP>IAF cannot escape blame for this mess. The MMRCA requirement never existed. After Kargil, IAF wanted to build up M2K numbers. The French tricked the IAF into going for the shiny new Rafales instead. That started the nautanki of the MMRCA which has now played out for a decade without a SINGLE aircraft purchased in this period.


French tricked the IAF or Indian MOD screwed the country by not ordering the M2K as 'follow-on' order and leading to MMRCA competition? And how were French so sure that their product will make it to short-list amongst all the fighters?

Is it the LCAs fault that the IAF couldn't decide earlier or that they failed to purchase a single aircraft for a decade? What was purchased was - DARIN II standard HAL built Jaguars and HAL built MKIs.


Please show me a single evidence that IAF delayed purchasing an aircraft. On the contrary, they got whatever they could to ensure they can maintain their fighting force level. They even got the Mig-21 updated because they knew that the fancy timeline for production and induction of Tejas given by the R&D establishment.

To make matters worse, IAF deliberately delayed accepting the LCA to force the government's hand due to depleting fleet strength. If IAF had accepted IOC-1 LCA and built up M2k and Mig-29 numbers, the position would have been better. We cannot be apologists for the IAF or the IA.


Deliberately delayed induction of LCA?

The LCA will enter service in numbers as Mk1A with major foreign components like radar; radar which we tried to develop ourselves and which took the longest time amongst the major sub-system in LCA to develop. May be, if we had NOT tried to do everything in-house and adopted a similar route like now, LCA could've entered production much earlier.

But all the above will be lost on geniuses like you who think LCA was ready for induction at IOC-1

And last thing which IAF needs is for people like you to speak for them...lack of information on such projects gives opportunity to people like you to abuse the Services; thinking all the while that since you're batting for indigenous product, you're doing the right thing.

But you see, while ADA can reply to CAG that it cannot be held accountable for R&D and production delays by various PSU working on sub-systems of LCA Program as they don't control them, and there is no skin off anyone's back, IAF cannot afford these easy statements.

Because irrespective of what you and other 'uber-patriots' think about IAF, they've a bloody job to do. And they do it pretty well.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests