Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 07 May 2016 08:56

The US will push for its interests, which are for India to buy tonnes of F-teens. India should push for her own interest.

Tejas is going to be a superlative platform and will do wonders for our desi high tech manufacturing and design. Regardless of whether we end up buying something, tejas is needed in several squadrons.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 May 2016 09:53

A cat amongst the pigeons – an Indian concept of an universal light fighter - Prof. Prodyut Das

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 07 May 2016 14:20

I think along with LCA MK-1A, we need 200 "LCA lite" for AJT and CAS role. It can use Kavery engine, and Indian Radar.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 May 2016 14:29

The article by Das shows how completely out of touch he is with air warfare realities. Proposing a Gnat with a light radar or laser ranger in a field where the base radar ranges are reaching 70km plus and J10 class fighters are proliferating. Lateral thinking!! Where the attrition figures will be vertical, not lateral.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 May 2016 15:57

Austin wrote:A cat amongst the pigeons – an Indian concept of an universal light fighter - Prof. Prodyut Das

Thanks for posting. An entertaining read - and informative as usual. The man excels in saying what others don't dare say because he has knowledge to support his view rather than emptiness behind viewpoints

I enjoyed his opinion of the ADA as design bureau

The then Government’s decision to anoint an yet to exist organization with no production facilities to develop a state of the art warplane defies logic even “Saturday night at the bar” type of logic. The psychological impact of such ill decisions must not be allowed to cloud our vision of the potential of the Indian Industry in supplying original combat equipment to the world

And here is what I call lateral thinking in his usual tongue in cheek style..

The market for this type of aircraft is said to be around 12,000 airframes. Currently this sector is served by watered down versions of 4th generation aircraft and Advanced Trainers. It is tempting to think of the IAF as a launch customer but it may actually be fatal for any Private venture (PV) to even think of it because the “decision cycle” time of the IAF is financially unsustainable for any PV. It would be much better to keep the IAF in the loop, give it the full ego massage befitting a prospective customer but the main customer will be the Asian, American and African air Arms making do with over sophisticated equipment or with combat equipment whose spare parts have to be sourced from museums. The concept will be laughed to scorn but astute companies like Textron are investing. Cap in hand and shuffling my feet I would say that Textron got the balance wrong by being too much Cessna based. The Scorpion is a 1st Generation airframe with fourth gen systems but the idea is right and it is awaiting the winners!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 May 2016 16:36

It can find a market in Pakistan to bomb militias and rebellious citizens or similar deeds in africa, middle east and south america but no india unless we have local sdb and sfw in huge numbers for standoff delivery such that shooter no longer matter and platinum grade air cover.

It will prove his point but what cost in lives

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 May 2016 17:45

Singha, exactly..

but no india unless we have local sdb and sfw in huge numbers for standoff delivery such that shooter no longer matter and platinum grade air cover.

It will prove his point but what cost in lives

it is beyond stupid of Das to think a Gnat equivalent will match Indian needs as met by LCA, when the primary market the IAF is actually cribbing that it expects the LCA to do more and more.. and hence the aircraft has evolved into a true multi-role aircraft.

How will his Gnat with a laser ranger deal with PRC LO/VLO or even medium let alone high end platforms? J-10 with 100km + radar, SPJ, 8+ pylons, supersonic capability.

How will it detect and evade SAMs with a basic suit and low speed?

How will it remain future proof with such low overall performance.

Of course, none of this matters to our brofessor. He isn't flying into combat and can talk of such whimsical ideas with full gusto.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 May 2016 22:17

Seems to me India has found her Pierre Sprey.

Market Research to design fighters. I thought that is what the air force's job was. As a result they produced the QSR. No?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 07 May 2016 22:52

Now it makes sense about market reasearch to produce a fighter. Once I was in desh, a marketing company had called me and asked how fast I wanted my plane to be Mach 1 or two, legroom, how much the range should be, should fly directly to target ( or was it destination) or few stops to refuel etc is ok. Silly me I thought it was survey of my recent travel, little I knew it was market research for Shri das fighter.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 May 2016 03:26

Sample...

Should IR decoy flares be fitted? Maybe! This needs customer discussions because given the small size of the aircraft there will be situations when the IR flares may actually help locate the aircraft to the defenders!

Forget 5G missiles, way back in 1957, missiles were being tested against drones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sid ... _1957.jpeg
And now, UAVs have been shot down by IIR missiles.

Gent has no clue of the threat perception we live in, hence these Boffin Mc Codgin science projects.

Another sample.

The ideal (LCA) would have been a Gnat enlarged sufficiently to pack the MiG-21 Bison’s systems and weaponry in a new airframe which would conform closely to the Gnat’s aerodynamics and structural philosophy. The power plant would be again a ‘secured’ R.25 or RD.33 but without the afterburner as supersonic performance is known to be of little use and the Gnat concept is fine tuned for excellent transonic or ‘real’ combat conditions.

MiG-21 Bisons systems and weaponry. I see. The Kopyo whose A2G modes don't work. Whose RVV-AEs are dodgy.
And we need RD-33s which have such amazing track record of maintenance with excellent fuel consumption.
And hey, who cares about supersonic performance (never mind dash speed to engage or egress).

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 May 2016 10:49

^^^

Sounds like a fighter designed for 1970s.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 May 2016 12:04

^^ Initial MiG-29 orders were 29, for one combat and one training squadron, and similar to Sea Harrier order of 27 and Sea Hawk order of 24.

There was a repeat order of 16 MiG-29K to compensate for the development time of LCA Navy for INAS 300.

IN Projections for LCA Navy was 60, that accounts for two combat and one training squadron

Naval squadrons have higher attrition, so more aircraft per squadron. INAS 322 will have 8+16 Dhruv minus 2 to Maldives

They also have faster wear & tear. Sea Hawk was inducted after Hunter and retired before it. Sea Harrier was inducted after IAF Mirage 2000 & MiG-29 9.12 but had MLU and retirement much before Mirage 2000 & MiG-29

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 08 May 2016 13:12

^ ADA should spec out a Lead in Fighter Trainer (LIFT) based on the existing LCA-NPs. This LIFT will have the ability to take off and land on carriers and SBTF with full spec cockpit. Armament may be only R-73, iron bombs and litening pod.

Let the naval aviators beat this aircraft during training instead of consuming precious MiG hours. The super sized landing gear will probably take a lot more punishment as well.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 08 May 2016 13:26

It is perhaps good that we have persons like Prof Das suggesting alternative "indigenous" solutions to our defence needs rather than normal chorus of import, import, import.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2016 17:24

^^^^^

True.

But the suggestions should be in the right direction (at least).

I am very glad he did not teach Market Research. Every project would have fallen out of the sky.

In this case he claims to have done some research (and thus proposed the Gnats - actually my fav).

But what about Market Research on the opposing forces? His analysis leads one to believe that once his ideas are implemented that both China and Pakistan would cease to support their respective air force's. In fact, Market Research should have started with the opposing forces.

But he is a Prof, I am not. He was in I IT, I never set foot on one. He wins.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 08 May 2016 19:26

Prof Das comes across as a sophisticated version of PLA MKII of keypubs .. That guy too had such whack job ideas.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 May 2016 19:30

http://www.scorpionjet.com/wp-content/u ... Media4.jpg

Image shows a first generation wing design with 4th gen weapons and systems.

Das suggests 2nd Gen aircraft with 4 gen systems for CAS

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2016 19:35

Is the data he talks of on-line?

BTW, do wings have a "generation" component? Could not find any refs.

If so what would a swing wing be?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2016 19:38

The scorpion is a hybrid ISR+ Low-Intensity strike + Low Intensity CAS platform. Its designed for mission needs where there is air superiority, no real medium altitude SAM threat, and an established, protected network for remote targeting. It attempts to fit into the Predator/Reaper and the F-16 and may appeal to those that have no UAV/UCAV coverage either for ISR or to launch Hellfires. It provides its operators opportunities for those missions, to drop the same PGM at a much lower cost both from a sortie (a fraction of the CPFH) point of view, training pov and of course from the long term cost of replenishing combat aircraft that have performed ops doing low intensity stuff that could have been handed over to cheaper frames (provided of course there is the long sustained COIN demand to justify the initial investment).

Does the IAF have such a need? If so, then Das's idea may make sense. If the IAF doesn't really see a long term need of sustained low intensity COIN then its really hard to justify a highly specialized platform. The Scorpion also trades low altitude survivability for affordability and the long loiter ISR mission needs. Its not easy to obtain both low-altitude survivability (where even the A-10 is questionable when it comes to modern MANPADS) and affordability in one platform (hence the direct A-X has never really advanced beyond the 'talk' stage). The SAM and the MANPAD threat the IAF is likely to face would most certainly be many orders of magnitude more complex and challenging than what ISIS can field. Any dedicated CAS platform, has to factor that in and has to be survivable to a point where it actually justifies doing the mission using it from the air.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2016 19:45

There us an article out there about a A-10 pilot who wanted to take a last wack at some Iraqi Yahoos, lost contact with his buddies, got into the env of a SAM, he got sacked bad and limped home on "a wing and a prayer". His planes engine, designed to throw any ingested crud out and restart, saved this sortie.

Prof. Das's bad data will lead you to bad posts.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2016 19:57

The thing with CAS is you want reliable close air support as needed (as in the type of effect that could range from large weapons to small precise weapons to actually using the gun) and generally they tend to be time-sensitive missions. When framing requirements, or when sitting down with the land forces (that require CAS) you develop a system through which you can provide this reliable and much needed support. If the platform, tactics or weapons result in unreliable availability of CAS you will obviously struggle to fund the support needs of your armed forces on the ground. In that case, do you still continue to fund, an aircraft with questionable survivability and just hope it continuous to dodge SAM', MANPADSs, AAA, and survive hits on a 'wing and a prayer'? or do you look at more reliable ways to provide the same support?

There is no right answer to this since it all depends on the mission and what sort of threat you are going up against. Sustainability also counts when planning for the future. If you expect a very high %age of your CAS force to not survive first or recurring contacts with the AD's you have to either build up a very high inventory or force the CAS provider, and the CAS receivers to sit together and hash out a better way of doing things that is both survivable from the delivery stand point, and reliable (AVAILABLE) from the receiver stand point.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 May 2016 20:03

The scorpion is a hybrid ISR+ Low-Intensity CAS platform. Its designed for mission needs where there is air superiority, no real medium altitude SAM threat, and an established, protected network for remote targeting.

Exactly. OTOH IAF is asking for fighters which can fight their way and fight their way out against superior numbers. Even the LCA Mk1A was cleared because it was getting AESA. And here Das is proposing a Gnat with limited range (another huge no for the IAF), limited payload (another issue given the failure rates of even advanced munitions) and limited sensors and self defense kit (making it vulnerable).

He's barking up the wrong tree, to put it mildly.

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

NRao wrote:Is the data he talks of on-line?

BTW, do wings have a "generation" component? Could not find any refs.

If so what would a swing wing be?

I can see why he calls the article "A Cat among the Pigeons" because I can see pigeons flapping about in reaction to the article which was linked earlier. The man provokes reactions

Austin wrote:A cat amongst the pigeons – an Indian concept of an universal light fighter - Prof. Prodyut Das

"Data"

The air arms of India and Pakistan flew around 11,000 fighter sorties in the wars of 1965 and 1971. This involved mainly 2nd and 3rd generation Fighters and is extremely valuable a resource base because we own every bit of it. The Israeli Air Force flew about 14,000 fighter sorties in the 1967 and 1973 wars. The Arab Air Forces flew at least as many. If we now add the Sinai Clashes of 1967-1973, the Iran Iraq wars, the Vietnam wars and the various Gulf Wars we are looking at a data base of around 100,000 sorties. Much of the above, except the Syrian AF’s very interesting experience is known and much can be gleaned.
These were sorties flown by 2nd and 3rd generation fighters operated by Air Forces with wide variety of training, operational doctrines and traditions. The combatants thus varied from well matched to so mismatched as to be almost asymmetric warfare. Operating conditions varied from clear infinite visibility over Sinai to sub continental haze to Vietnam monsoon and clouds. There is obviously a good comprehensive statistical data base on which to formulate what should be an ideal requirement. The West is not interested in such a study. They are at a disadvantage in producing to low cost. An Indian initiative in the direction of a “zero base” fighter may set the proverbial (lightweight) cat amongst the pigeons.
What are the real requirements?
The actual requirements that emerge will go against brochure wisdom.
The dogfight is not dead. Fighter aircraft will be designed to win the air to air. However these constitute only perhaps ten per cent of all sorties (and combat losses) flown.
The main task of combat aircraft is close support and strike duties in VFR conditions. This task also sees the biggest losses- about 60-70% to low cost defences - but scant provisions are paid at the design stage to surviving this task or minimize losses.
There were perhaps a total of 10 cases, if that, in 100,000 sorties when a single seat radar equipped fighter located engaged and destroyed a hostile aircraft at night using its own radar. Work out the implications.
Even when opposing aircraft were capable of all-weather/Mach2/20,000mts altitude performance thousands of clashes occurred where the starting parameters were 450kts/3000mts/ VFR conditions which then wound down to WW2 parameters until one had to break out and run. Tongue in cheek, one would say that internal fuel capacity is more of an “outcome decider” than the max. AOA and other such performance consuming abilities.
BVRs/CCMs/Cannon
BVRs are not new. In Vietnam they showed a strict impartiality in what they knocked down so much so that soon the SOP was one flight went ahead to “visually identify so that the other flight could launch. This compromised the “surprise” element which is a BVR feature. The impartiality of BVRs about the “enemy” continues till this day.
BVR advantages are accepted but it is also important to know also the following.
1. What were the numbers of BVRs that were launched and missed and under what parameters?
2. Numbers that did a “blue on blue”?
3. BVRs are heavy and “draggy”. How many had to be jettisoned at the beginning of a combat to “clean up” the aircraft?
Though CCMs are combat proven and definitely useful nobody is making the ‘sixties mistake of deleting the gun.
Sauce for the Gander?
If we transpose the above findings to a map of the performance envelope of the various generations we get Fig 1 which plots design speed and altitude capabilities of the various generations of fighters and matches it with what has been used in combat. The BVR effective ranges with altitudes is also marked. It will immediately be noted that some of the 2nd generation Fighters were in every way nearer and better placed in terms of performance, size and handling for where the fight will take place rather than the 3rd, 4th and 5th generation fighters. Combat experience vouches for this.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 May 2016 21:12

How many people remember that in mid 70s, South Vietnam VNAF was the world's 6th largest Air Force with 2000 plus aircraft completely comprising of CAS aircraft like A-37 & A-1 and was rendered ineffective by Strela SA-7 and could not oppose the North Vietnamese 1975 offensive.

Light/Cheap fighter sounds appealing but does not deliver outcomes required in combat

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 09 May 2016 01:41

The "idea" is adding power steering,brakes and windows on a Maruti800 and expecting it to take on top variant Honda City.

The cat in this "idea" is the pimped gnat and the pigeons are the airforce itself !

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2016 02:07

He should have called the article, King Louie informs the jungle about his greatness. And his tribe, always ready to support King Louie. Since the rest of the jungle is way behind that.

For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ofzko2WILk

King Louie wrote:BVRs are not new. In Vietnam they showed a strict impartiality in what they knocked down so much so that soon the SOP was one flight went ahead to “visually identify so that the other flight could launch. This compromised the “surprise” element which is a BVR feature. The impartiality of BVRs about the “enemy” continues till this day.
BVR advantages are accepted but it is also important to know also the following.
1. What were the numbers of BVRs that were launched and missed and under what parameters?
2. Numbers that did a “blue on blue”?
3. BVRs are heavy and “draggy”. How many had to be jettisoned at the beginning of a combat to “clean up” the aircraft?

The King forgets Vietnam occurred with early gen SARH BVR missiles. The King forgets that modern day radars have IFF. That the purpose of AWACs is to deconflict the airspace as is the capability baked into platforms with long range radars like Su-30, Mirage etc with two seaters enabling the possibility of the back seater acting like mission commander.
King Louie also forgets that there are missiles out there, like the Mica-IR which has both BVR capability and a dual color IR seeker (hard to jam) which when released with a Mica-RF can really complicate things.

But never mind.

Actual USAF pilot on IAF tactics wrote: As for flying hours, one of the Flanker pilots told me openly that he gets about 200 hours a year in the front seat...Their higher ranking dudes fly in the back seat and act as Mission Commanders.

USAF 3rd Wing on Cope India in 2004 wrote:Mica-armed Dassault Mirages 2000s are also stationed there. Brought in for the exercise were Sukhoi Su-30s (but not the newest Su-30 MKIs) carrying simulated AA-11s and AA-12 Adders. There also were five MiG-29 Flankers involved in a peripheral role and an Antonov An-32 Cline as a simulated AWACS.

"They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn't working they would call an audible and change [tactics in flight]," he says. "They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. [Using all their assets,] they built a very good [radar] picture of what we were doing and were able to make good decisions about when to roll [their aircraft] in and out."

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2016 02:18

tsarkar wrote:How many people remember that in mid 70s, South Vietnam VNAF was the world's 6th largest Air Force with 2000 plus aircraft completely comprising of CAS aircraft like A-37 & A-1 and was rendered ineffective by Strela SA-7 and could not oppose the North Vietnamese 1975 offensive.

Light/Cheap fighter sounds appealing but does not deliver outcomes required in combat

Yes, exactly.

It sounds very very appealing if one ignores the human cost that will accrue thereafter as losses add up or even the impact on the war effort as the limited pool of pilots starts dipping. Never mind the propaganda win for the other side & the limited gains after all this effort.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 May 2016 03:53

I deleted my previous post because I had typed the content from my cell and had not completed some research I was doing on the topic.

So here goes.

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:Is the data he talks of on-line?

BTW, do wings have a "generation" component? Could not find any refs.

If so what would a swing wing be?
I can see why he calls the article "A Cat among the Pigeons" because I can see pigeons flapping about in reaction to the article which was linked earlier. The man provokes reactions
Austin wrote:A cat amongst the pigeons – an Indian concept of an universal light fighter - Prof. Prodyut Das

Well, you too are making the same mistake he has made - incomplete, unsubstantiated statement/s.

"provocation" can be either positive or negative. I would think most, if not all, authors who publish anything would like to contribute to a topic/discussion - generate a positive "provocation". If you read through the reaction here it has been mostly (since I have not read all the posts) negative.

Not good.

"Data"
The air arms of India and Pakistan flew around 11,000 fighter sorties in the wars of 1965 and 1971. This involved mainly 2nd and 3rd generation Fighters and is extremely valuable a resource base because we own every bit of it. ..............................

.

That is not "data". That is his understanding of the "data" - those 100,000 entries that he claims exist. I am looking for those 100,000 data points. Not what PD's understanding. He makes some very fundamental mistakes and therefore cannot be really taken seriously on his numbers - they need some basic verification.

Then he has made some fundamental mistakes.

He has not explained (in this paper) why he is not accepting the works from various Air Forces. They all conduct "Market Research" the result, as I understand it, is an ASR. ?????? What gives? I assume that he would advise the AFs interested in the LCA to buy a Gnat and redesign. ????? Or would he recommend that the ADA/HAL/DRDO do that and sell the new enlarged Gnat?

Furthermore, he needs to explain all the "Market Research" that has gone into a platform like the 5th Gen planes. That is not trivial - *that* too is "Market Research". As an engineer he should have a decent grasp of the situation and be able to put his thoughts in a para or so.

IF he has done either/both please provide a URL, it would help.

He then needs to explain why the numbers he has selected. Why not a number higher or lower than that.

He has not explained why a 10/100000 (night fighters?)is bad. It could be that 3 of them contributed critically. Changed teh flow of teh battle. He seems to be putting *every* 100,000 "sorties" into one bucket. IS that right? I very much doubt that.

Finally, he needs to explain why he has not done any "Market Research" of the opponent - threat perception. Especially one on a continuum. What factors does he see change in such threats and how would those impact his design.

On the platform side, I find it humorous that he feel that it is a hop-step-n-a-jump to a larger Gnat. That is exactly what the LCA team, that he is so critical of, thought when they said "MK-II" (no problem, ek ya do sall). Really? That easy?

Last time I checked his blog had two response, one asked why he had not included Fig 1 that he mentioned in his blog.

BTW, found some "data" on the 'Nam war. The funny thing there is that the US parked a few carriers and had them blast away. Wonder if PD thought of that - a naval E(nlarged)-Gnat. Oh, never mind, that would be too much work to think about, although it makes more sense to design a naval version first. It must be a lot more work to look into those 100,000 data points. So, let us just assume all data points are non-naval air crafts and design based on that assumption - yahai tak tho pahunch gaye tho agge dehka jayaga.

Wait a minute. How many sorties did the USN have in the Iraqi conflicts? How about the Cosovo conflict?

Never mind.

I think PD should recommend that his new plane be ingested with hormones to grow some horns too - just incase. A single seater, one horn, a double seater, two horns, but one pilot.

JK folks. Just having some fun.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 09 May 2016 04:17

"I think PD should recommend that his new plane be ingested with hormones to grow some horns too - just incase. A single seater, one horn, a double seater, two horns, but one pilot."

Just to be clear: are we talking beep beep horns (Horn Please) or the prongie thingies?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 May 2016 06:14

I guess he has more coming:

I follow the practise of posting partially till the full thing is published- in this case in the next issue of Vayu.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 May 2016 06:24

tsarkar wrote:How many people remember that in mid 70s, South Vietnam VNAF was the world's 6th largest Air Force with 2000 plus aircraft completely comprising of CAS aircraft like A-37 & A-1 and was rendered ineffective by Strela SA-7 and could not oppose the North Vietnamese 1975 offensive.

Light/Cheap fighter sounds appealing but does not deliver outcomes required in combat

This is Prodyut Das's contention, but the actual diagrams will appear only in the next issue of Vayu. I am a subscriber and will scan if relevant

If we transpose the above findings to a map of the performance envelope of the various generations we get Fig 1 which plots design speed and altitude capabilities of the various generations of fighters and matches it with what has been used in combat. The BVR effective ranges with altitudes is also marked. It will immediately be noted that some of the 2nd generation Fighters were in every way nearer and better placed in terms of performance, size and handling for where the fight will take place rather than the 3rd, 4th and 5th generation fighters. Combat experience vouches for this. More comprehensive equipment adds ‘global” versatility which is irrelevant to the Afro Asian Latin customer we are focussing on. Starting from this we then have the conjecture what would happen if some of the 4th and 5th generation technologies were selectively read across to redesigned 2nd generation airframes.It will be seen that a redesigned 2nd gen airframe with later systems both has a Market exciting products can be developed at low cost. Having handled several system upgrades programmes a n approach of airframe plus systems upgraded is the logical next step.

Das argues that the fighters that are most likely to sell (in his opinion, and not necessarily for the IAF) are 2nd gen airframes with 4th gen tech. Right or wrong is for the flapping pigeons to settle.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 09 May 2016 10:15

Superb design powered by hot vayu. It is a wonderful exercise in broadening of the horizon while ensuring no gas remains trapped after a nice hot tandoori meal.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 09 May 2016 11:05

http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... es/250879/

Customs Act change may delay modernisation of Mirage, Jaguar, other fighter planes

The Indian Air Force has asked the Defence Ministry to find a way out in the wake of a recent amendment in the Customs Act removing blanket duty exemption for defence goods, a move that may delay modernisation and maintenance programmes of fighter planes like Mirage and Jaguar.

Under the new rules, which came into effect from April 1, customs duty exemption has been given to specific projects, all of which are in production in the country.

However, components and spare parts for Mirage, Jaguar and MiGs combat aircraft have been left out of the list of exempted goods.

IAF came to know about the new changes only in the first week of April, defence sources said, adding that various imported spare parts and components, worth several millions of euros, are now lying at various ports.

. . .

Defence experts say that if the matter is not resolved soon, at least 20 per cent of the Mirage fleet, which is being modernised under a multi-million euro deal with France, will be grounded.

Sources said the “thinking” behind the move to give duty exemption in project-specific cases was to ensure that the domestic industry thrives.

. . .

I would be very surprised if this rule stuck, but if it does, does it only apply to parts that come in via ports or traditional importation routes? If the IAF brought in equipment directly to their bases, would customs inspectors have any authority over that?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2016 12:38

DexterM wrote:Superb design powered by hot vayu. It is a wonderful exercise in broadening of the horizon while ensuring no gas remains trapped after a nice hot tandoori meal.

And the poor chaps who are at the receiving end have no choice but to pronounce the flavors sublime.

Meanwhile BR: http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/68/681b6118 ... e589b0.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2016 13:11

problem is not usually the airframe but the engine. his 2nd gen airframe will still need a 4th gen engine to power his 4-5 gen avionics and EW gear. imagine a Mystere or hawker hunter airframe armed with a AL31 engine and all the su30 avionics...

other than being slower, draggier and less agile, and perhaps a little simple to repair by bashing with a wooden mallet like a premier padmini taxi I fail to see the lateral thinking. in modern era the two austere fighters that have worked in specific contexts has been the Frogfoot and A10. rest have all moved to complexity to survive.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 May 2016 13:43

the cheap 2nd gen fighter if turned into a drone for recon/attack/soosai is more feasible
no point in wasting precious pilots on it

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 09 May 2016 13:54

Precisely! If PD had actually focused on autonomous flight and mission management, it would have made far more sense! Why not look at reducing the visual profile and improve VLO capabilities instead of getting into this "back in my time, we had this awesome machine called the ....". Why not focus on building a more capable mission-focused machine that can be built using whatever tech we have on hand (plus some more stretch targets so that we can use those labs to innovate in specific areas as they are doing now!). If the future is about light, mean machines, then by all means focus on making the LCA your go-to stealth machine.

Plan a scaled down version based on the actually achieved engines on hand (honeywell?) and focus on what capabilities we can achieve with this machine. This "I can build Frankengnat and add two hot gas chambers" approach is a distraction and an exercise to self-worship.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2016 13:55

Singha wrote:problem is not usually the airframe but the engine. his 2nd gen airframe will still need a 4th gen engine to power his 4-5 gen avionics and EW gear. imagine a Mystere or hawker hunter airframe armed with a AL31 engine and all the su30 avionics...

other than being slower, draggier and less agile, and perhaps a little simple to repair by bashing with a wooden mallet like a premier padmini taxi I fail to see the lateral thinking. in modern era the two austere fighters that have worked in specific contexts has been the Frogfoot and A10. rest have all moved to complexity to survive.

even his cramped airframe - he wants a gnat copy

will be suspect.
what kind of range and payload do we expect here?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 834d1f.jpg

at this rate, supermarine spitfires or gloster gladiators with 5th generation radars and sensors will be equally good.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2016 13:59

DexterM wrote:Precisely! If PD had actually focused on autonomous flight and mission management, it would have made far more sense! Why not look at reducing the visual profile and improve VLO capabilities instead of getting into this "back in my time, we had this awesome machine called the ....". Why not focus on building a more capable mission-focused machine that can be built using whatever tech we have on hand (plus some more stretch targets so that we can use those labs to innovate in specific areas as they are doing now!). If the future is about light, mean machines, then by all means focus on making the LCA your go-to stealth machine.

Problem is LCA is from ADA. PD identifies himself w/HAL. So no LCA.

But what you say makes sense. Make LCA derivatives not frankenplanes from decades past, completely unsuited for the modern day battlefield.

Plan a scaled down version based on the actually achieved engines on hand (honeywell?) and focus on what capabilities we can achieve with this machine. This "I can build Frankengnat and add two hot gas chambers" approach is a distraction and an exercise to self-worship.

Oh you Pigeon. How dare you not agree the pindi chana from ze lateral thinker is sublime.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 May 2016 14:17

Whatever the debate about the good Prof's viewpoints,Das has unwittingly opened eyes to the fact that the Viets had large numbers to take on US fighters and did so successfully.Numbers do matter,esp in the Indian subcontinent,where for the first time we are seriously contemplating the increasing probability of a two-front war.36 Rafales or any other MMRCA will not be able to defend our skies from Ar.Pradesh to Kutch.Such "omni-role" birds will be unable to be in two places at the same time,unless a PC Sorcar illusion will dispel our adversaries! The hundreds of MIG-21/27s retiring have to be replaced by an equal number of aircraft. Even the enemy replaces his retiring bird with a better one. The GOI should seriously look at a future strength of 50 sqds,not in the low 40s. Of these 50 sqds,at least 15-20 sqds should be multi-role light fighters with air defence as priority and a secondary role for GA/close support. The problem in recent times has been that air forces around the world,not only the IAF but also the USAF,overstuffed first the F-16 and the LCA with too much of tasks and the requisite eqpt. The oft repeated mantra that "quantity has a quality of its own" remains true yesterday,today and will tomorrow as well.

What types of light fighters we can acquire at reasonable cost is another Q. Given the current ststaus and track record of HAL,the "L" in the LCA will spell "Late" and local production will never be enough to meet IAF demand. Let's see in which year HAL will breach the HF-24's production number!The search has to start for another complementary fighter type.