Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2016 04:56

Of course the Soviets were useless, and the Russians not much better. The Chinese with their rust buckets were the pits. This is the past, but the past does illustrate how nations or entities react to technological supremacy. Getting back to rhetoric mode, which can be used for both sides of an argument, wars are not going to end, and warfighters will use whatever they have. I think people misunderstand the latter statement and will be tempted to use rhetoric that "machines are cheap. Human life is not". Fact is people are ready to give their lives in war.Forget Indians. We may protect our own and maintain peace, but others are willing to use themselves as last resort weapons. That is how humans in large numbers armed with rudimentary weapons can overwhelm a better equipped force, or make it too costly to win. If electronic wizardry and CCM knocks out all missiles, guns will be used

This is happening all the time. The Japanese did it. This was the old Soviet and Chinese policy. The Soviets used in in WW2 and the Chinese in Korea. Vietnam did it. The Taliban did it. Islamist "warriors" are now using knives - in China, in Israel and in Europe. And by saying this I am laying myself open to a beautiful rhetorical argument that I want the Indian armed forces to fight with knives. Before anyone accuses me of this I would like to point out that I believe in peace. There must be no war because all human life is precious. Disband the armed forces. (There is a fantastic rhetorical counter to this argument - but I am sure some master rhetorician of BRF can come up with it)

Sorry for the digression - please continue with rhetoric and forget facts, forget the past, forget the lessons of the past and "plan your future wars" with no bearing on the past. And don't fail to point out that those living in the past are unable to look at the future because that is such a temptingly smart rhetorical counter.

Rhetoric is the meat of forum experience - and this is a great legacy we have inherited from Greek philosophers like Socrates. Never stop. Do not let history, facts, statistics and experience trip up your rhetoric and show your supremacy in war strategy, weapon design and much much more. After all even if you are wrong - you understand that a broken clock is right twice a day so you are a winner no matter what you say. Rhetorically anyways. I love that Americanism "anyways"

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 11 May 2016 05:21

Sorry to step in when the Gurus are arguing, but doesn't the Combat Hawk, that is being proposed by HAL-BAe to the IAF, follow the design philosophy that Prof Das is advocating?

And if so, the IAF's acceptance or rejection of this proposal will soon tell us if the IAF has bought into Prof Das' philosophy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2016 05:48

Mihir wrote: Anti-air operations may constitute only 10% of all sorties, but they're becoming increasingly critical to victory on the ground.

Mihir - is this statement factually correct? What are the actual statistics for anti-air versus CAS/strike sorties in Afghanistan, Gulf war 2, Libya and Syria?

And what constituted victory in these theatres?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2016 05:58

Kakkaji wrote:Sorry to step in when the Gurus are arguing, but doesn't the Combat Hawk, that is being proposed by HAL-BAe to the IAF, follow the design philosophy that Prof Das is advocating?

And if so, the IAF's acceptance or rejection of this proposal will soon tell us if the IAF has bought into Prof Das' philosophy.

Kakkaji here is just part of what Das wrote. I am yet to see a point by point counter to stuff - possibly because few can understand the real implications of what he writes. I can argue against anything, but arguing with knowledge is a different ball game

My ideal Light Fighter would be a twin engine having the F 86 Sabre’s pilot’s visibility with the MiG 17 wing (AR 4!) modified to have the MiG 19’s wing structural stiffness , may be the Su 7s wing section with its rounded L.E. which gave it superb low level manoeuvrability, the Gnat’s forward fuselage married to a twin engine rear fuselage from the MiG 19 and a “flak vierling” gun layout a la HF 24 all somehow blended with something of the Hunter’s grace and immense strength. Of such stuff as dreams are made on and it won’t cost the earth! Sponsor for studies anyone?

Homework:

What is an AR4 wing and what is remarkable about it?
What made the MiG 19's wing more structurally stiff than the MiG 17 ?
How does the rounded LE aid low level manoeuvrability in the Su-7s high swept back wing?
What is a flak vierling gun layout?
What was it in the Hunter's design that made it strong?
If Das is bluffing what is he bluffing about?

When rhetorical arguments are posed we can fill up a thousand forum pages, but no one is actually going to learn anything. Naturally. When we already know everything, what is there to learn?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2016 07:24

A few questions:

Drones are small, and stealthy because of size and the use of composites. Small engines make their IR and sound signature low. They are also primarily low speed and most fighter aircraft cannot fly slow enough for a visual inspection, let alone intercept. Forget drone - this is what the Soviet pilot said about KAL 007 - a 747 no less that he shot down:

They [KAL 007] quickly lowered their speed. They were flying at 400 km/h (249 mph). My speed was more than 400. I was simply unable to fly slower. In my opinion, the intruder's intentions were plain. If I did not want to go into a stall, I would be forced to overshoot them. That's exactly what happened. We had already flown over the island [Sakhalin]. It is narrow at that point, the target was about to get away... Then the ground [controller] gave the command: "Destroy the target...!" That was easy to say. But how? With shells? I had already expended 243 rounds. Ram it? I had always thought of that as poor taste. Ramming is the last resort. Just in case, I had already completed my turn and was coming down on top of him. Then, I had an idea. I dropped below him about 2,000 meters... afterburners. Switched on the missiles and brought the nose up sharply. Success! I have a lock on

And drones are being increasingly used by armed forces across the world. Looking at Google I find "solutions" like nets and trained birds - but the IAF will be using slow flying aircraft (helicopters - possibly Mi 17/LCH/armed Dhruv) to chase drones. Of course reaching the area where a drone is suspected will require more speed and the Hawk may be a better solution.

What is the average speed of a mid-size drone?
What is the stall speed of MiG 21, Su-30, Mirage 2000, LCA, Hawk?

What weapon do people believe will be best for bringing down drones? How cost effective would AAMs be - a gazillion dollar AAM vs inexpensive drone? Can we operate aircraft without guns?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2016 07:53

Kakkaji wrote:Sorry to step in when the Gurus are arguing, but doesn't the Combat Hawk, that is being proposed by HAL-BAe to the IAF, follow the design philosophy that Prof Das is advocating?

And if so, the IAF's acceptance or rejection of this proposal will soon tell us if the IAF has bought into Prof Das' philosophy.

I assume you mean an expert. There might be one or two, who have not responded to this topic.

But, you are right, there are umpteen planes designed by experts that have conducted Market Research (of both user and opponent) and proposed viable solutions that have been accepted, perhaps not all for idealistic reasons, by various air forces. But they are practical reasons for accepting them - including political and "PSU".

Secondly since his proposal is unsolicited, there is no question of "IAF" or for that matter any other air force. I have no idea where he gets his market numbers from - I have to assume they are his "ideal" numbers.

However, more pertinent to this thread is what someone else posted. Based on:

My ideal Light Fighter would be a

this entire "discussion" should have been posted in the other threads: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1942597

Apologies on my part.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 May 2016 08:00

Fund crunch delays IAF’s purchase plan

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 34521.html

Vijay Mohan

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 9
While contacts for two additional airborne warning and control systems (AWACS) and a replacement of the C-130 that crashed are expected to be signed this fiscal, some key IAF procurements such as fighter aircraft, aerial refullers, and helicopters, and upgrade projects are likely to roll over to the next year due to paucity of funds.

Parliament’s Standing Committee of Defence, in its latest report, has listed out 10 contracts worth over Rs 6,728 crore that are unlikely to be signed this year. This includes procurement of 56 new aircraft to replace the ageing Avro transporter, 48 medium-lift helicopters, six mid-air refuelling tankers, 20 Hawk advance jet trainers and 38 Pilatus basic trainers.

The Indian Air Force’s wait for the much-needed KA-226 reconnaissance and surveillance helicopters, long-range surface-to-air missiles, engines for the Jaguar fighter, electronic warfare suite for the MiG 29 and avionics upgrade for IL-76/78 has also lengthened.

For the Rafale fighter jets, the procurement of which has been hanging for about a decade, a separate proposal will be moved for additional funds in 2016-17 to procure the 36 aircraft after details regarding cost and delivery timelines are finalised, the committee observed.

Among the eight contracts, valued at Rs 2,039 crore, that would hopefully be signed this year are AWACS, a C-130 special missions aircraft, 14 Akash anti-aircraft missile units, upgrade for medium helicopters, precision-guided munitions, recce pods for Su-30, armament suite for Dhruvs and radio sets.

This fiscal, the IAF is facing a shortfall of Rs 7,748 crore in its capital budget and of Rs 2,769 crore in revenue budget. The shortfall in capital allocations will slow down modernisation, delay induction of important capabilities, erode IAF’s superiority and result in asymmetry in capability with respect to envisaged threat perception and flight safety

The lower revenue allocation will impact procurement of spares and fuel, affect serviceability, and lead to shortfall in training, resulting in compromise of operational preparedness and expenditure for disaster relief operations.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2016 10:50

This is the A-10's survival rate after SAM-hits in 1991.

Plus one more loss for one hit in 2003.

And this 70% loss rate is for the A-10 aka the 'flying tank'. The idea that you can take a normal $25 mil jet fighter, pad it with a few armour panels, send it into the grinder and expect it to come out in one piece, is just exasperating. Just because it worked 30 years ago, doesn't mean it'll work fine today.

Purpose built jets for ground attack - Scorpion, A-10, , A-29, A-37 are all really only suitable for COIN environments with non-contested airspace.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 11 May 2016 11:04

Ground attack? What about an unmanned autonomous version of the LCA or the Jag itself? Is that doable or sensible?
Or a Harpy equivalent to help take out radar sites so that the concern related to network and sitawareness is addressed first?

What about a UAV that is built specifically for 3 hour endurance and 4 lgbs (max 4k lbs) and 2 ccms. How large would this bird be? (Larger than a gnat in my uneducated or unread opinion). Will an Aura adequately address the angle of loss of personnel and provide enough capabilities to say intercept a larger bird? Innate stealth and high sub-sonic speeds using 25kn nonAB versions should suffice in this case, no? Or can a scaled down version of the LCA work specifically for intercept? Assuming a 45 min loiter and just that much so that we do not stretch the analogy of a Predator to our on-hand capabilities. If wing design and validation takes 4-5 years on average, wouldn't we gain from having as many version as possible of a design that we believe is proven/validated?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2016 11:06

shiv wrote:What weapon do people believe will be best for bringing down drones? How cost effective would AAMs be - a gazillion dollar AAM vs inexpensive drone? Can we operate aircraft without guns?

The Nishant costs $4.5 mil each compared to a likely $1.5-2 mil for the Astra AAM or a <$1 mil Akash. The Israeli Searcher MkIIs were $7.5 mil each, and that was years ago. The Reaper and Herons are pricier still.

The cost ratio between a Chinese CH-3 and an Astra is again likely to be in the Astra's favour. Anything smaller than the CH-3 will not have the legs for substantial cross-border operations. They can be handled by local AAD units and LCHs, forward based to reduce time-to-target.

Developing, purchasing and operating a class of fighter jets only fit for hunting light drones is still a waste of resources.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 May 2016 13:27

shiv wrote:And drones are being increasingly used by armed forces across the world. Looking at Google I find "solutions" like nets and trained birds - but the IAF will be using slow flying aircraft (helicopters - possibly Mi 17/LCH/armed Dhruv) to chase drones. What weapon do people believe will be best for bringing down drones? How cost effective would AAMs be - a gazillion dollar AAM vs inexpensive drone? Can we operate aircraft without guns?

Ever wonder why IAF & IA are buying A2A Stingers & Mistrals to equip their Apache, LCH & Rudra?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 May 2016 14:10

Also, there isn't really a need to shoot down drones at BVR ranges. Stingers and other IR weapons are equally as effective especially if there is a requirement of visual confirmation. You will be on the right side of the cost equation if you follow that strategy. For drones, that are cheaper still, you can try to get mission kills via non kinetic effects such as jamming, spoofing and signal/dl denial or look for cheaper, more simpler interceptors that don't need the electronic protection in seeker tech., or high maneuverability that tend to drive costs upwards.

And drones are being increasingly used by armed forces across the world. Looking at Google I find "solutions" like nets and trained birds - but the IAF will be using slow flying aircraft (helicopters - possibly Mi 17/LCH/armed Dhruv) to chase drones. Of course reaching the area where a drone is suspected will require more speed and the Hawk may be a better solution.

There are different solutions for different situations and for defending the various potential areas where drones may operate. These drones amy be combat drones, or recreational drones operating in airspace where they aren't supposed to. Shooting down combat drones obviously opens up the entire spectrum of combat capability but you can't really use that hunt down commercial or recreational drones that perhaps may be used by terrorists. Hence the more passive and non-traditional capabilities.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2016 15:47

The speeds at which drones fly and their small size will often require visual identification so that a flock of birds is not shot at from BVR. That means an aircraft that can fly at drone speeds without stalling. This means helicopters for India, maybe Hawk on the outside. It's won't be MMRCA/Mirage/LCA/Sukhoi

Does anyone know how good a Stinger or a Mistral is at picking up IR signals from a motorcycle engine size heat source? Especially in the height of summer in India where the ground is also radiating heat?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 May 2016 16:55

if you mean the drones with multiple helicopter style rotors in a starfish shape, their heat emission and noise will be negligible. periodically they buzz palam technical area for lord knows who. also impossible to spot at night and hard in the day with the sky colour paint. most of their parts would be plastic.

some kind of "shotgun" that flies up like a mortar round and bursts a bunch of air gun pellets perhaps?

another option is disrupt their control link and soft kill them to crashland. but this might interfere with other communication channels.

saa, nusra and ISIS have been using small drones in syria.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 May 2016 17:01

The Block I E variant Stinger shoot down Drones quite routinely in live training and they would have obviously cleared the envelope across a range of operational conditions given the theater the US troops deploy in. The block 2 with AN AIM-9 sidewinder seeker is being revived for longer range anti cruise missile mission so that is always an option. Additionally, the Apache can carry the sidewinder if more higher end capability is required especially if the AI3 type refurbishment path is pursued for a low cost interceptor since the 9x capability is not required for such a mission

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 May 2016 17:06

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2016 17:08

Singha wrote:if you mean the drones with multiple helicopter style rotors in a starfish shape, their heat emission and noise will be negligible. periodically they buzz palam technical area for lord knows who. also impossible to spot at night and hard in the day with the sky colour paint. most of their parts would be plastic.

some kind of "shotgun" that flies up like a mortar round and bursts a bunch of air gun pellets perhaps?

another option is disrupt their control link and soft kill them to crashland. but this might interfere with other communication channels.

nusra and ISIS have been using them in syria.

True. But I was thinking of Nishant sized drones with say twin cylinder engines. I mean Infra Red is also EM radiation and follows the inverse square law - so if you get close enough a motorcycle engine should be detectable. I suspect (without actual knowledge) that a motorcycle engine/exhaust will radiate heat at about 200-250 deg C - which is cooler than a candle flame and contrast with background will not be great in hot weather.

How close must a helicopter get to lock on to a low heat source?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2016 17:12

brar_w wrote:The Block I E variant Stinger shoot down Drones quite routinely in live training and they would have obviously cleared the envelope across a range of operational conditions given the theater the US troops deploy in. The block 2 with AN AIM-9 sidewinder seeker is being revived for longer range anti cruise missile mission so that is always an option. Additionally, the Apache can carry the sidewinder if more higher end capability is required especially if the AI3 type refurbishment path is pursued for a low cost interceptor since the 9x capability is not required for such a mission

In India I don't see Apaches doing this duty. I think deejay had put up an amusing story of how he searched for a drone and found (or did not find) a flock of birds. I guess drone chasing duties will fall upon Armed ALH and Mi-17.

That aside I doubt if there are any Indian aircraft that can seriously float next to a drone - OK Su-30 with TV could probably achieve a temporary crazy-Hi AoA flight to formate with a drone, but then shooting it down would be a different matter

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 May 2016 17:17

the LUH/KA226 would be a cheaper soln than Dhruv. even then pretty costly / flying hour vs the rock bottom nishant / searcher flying costs.

we need drone to fight drone, a hunter killer suicide drone thats even cheaper than the opposition or like in the video shoot a net at the enemy and make it crash.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2016 17:22

Invest in sensors.

You got to first detect an intruder.

They would be handy in many other situations. And could be mounted on multiple platforms.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 May 2016 17:31

saar sensors are the expensive part - esp night capable and low heat detectors.

perhaps the BFSR-SR tech can somehow be adapted to detecting these cats at low ranges .... BFSR is capable of detecting crawling people at 500m..will work in dust, snow and rain also which the optical ones will not.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 11 May 2016 17:55

shiv wrote:The speeds at which drones fly and their small size will often require visual identification so that a flock of birds is not shot at from BVR. That means an aircraft that can fly at drone speeds without stalling. This means helicopters for India, maybe Hawk on the outside. It's won't be MMRCA/Mirage/LCA/Sukhoi

Does anyone know how good a Stinger or a Mistral is at picking up IR signals from a motorcycle engine size heat source? Especially in the height of summer in India where the ground is also radiating heat?

I thought mki was able to manage slower speeds quite well..what with tvc and canard. 45kmph! Those russki planes including fulcrum were able to perform low speed maneuvers without tvc iirc. Won't this help in shooting down drones?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 May 2016 18:07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BypnhFI7HGY

Whats the issue with fighters shooting down drones again?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2016 18:18

Singha wrote:saar sensors are the expensive part - esp night capable and low heat detectors.

perhaps the BFSR-SR tech can somehow be adapted to detecting these cats at low ranges .... BFSR is capable of detecting crawling people at 500m..will work in dust, snow and rain also which the optical ones will not.

Expensive is relative to a risk.

If you need to send a helo to investigate an intrusion and this happens often enough, then investing in sensors makes sense (hm, that sounds odd).

Check out Israel and then the US response to IED. Or in India Kargil.

In the longer run sensors will be crucial.

How long are you going to duck the problem and find jugaad solutions?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 11 May 2016 18:25

Karan M wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BypnhFI7HGY

Whats the issue with fighters shooting down drones again?

That got me thinking......don't they test aams on drones?

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 May 2016 19:16

shiv wrote:A few questions:

Drones are small, and stealthy because of size and the use of composites. Small engines make their IR and sound signature low. They are also primarily low speed and most fighter aircraft cannot fly slow enough for a visual inspection, let alone intercept. Forget drone - this is what the Soviet pilot said about KAL 007 - a 747 no less that he shot down:
They [KAL 007] quickly lowered their speed. They were flying at 400 km/h (249 mph). My speed was more than 400. I was simply unable to fly slower. In my opinion, the intruder's intentions were plain. If I did not want to go into a stall, I would be forced to overshoot them. That's exactly what happened. We had already flown over the island [Sakhalin]. It is narrow at that point, the target was about to get away... Then the ground [controller] gave the command: "Destroy the target...!" That was easy to say. But how? With shells? I had already expended 243 rounds. Ram it? I had always thought of that as poor taste. Ramming is the last resort. Just in case, I had already completed my turn and was coming down on top of him. Then, I had an idea. I dropped below him about 2,000 meters... afterburners. Switched on the missiles and brought the nose up sharply. Success! I have a lock on
...

The video below shows the MiG-29 doing exactly like what that MiG-23 pilot did ... bolded part above.

Karan M wrote:

...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2016 19:35

I think there are two issues with UAVs. One is identification, and the other is shoot down. Visual identification is not going to be easy if the drone is flying at say 150 kmph and the stall speed of a fighter is 300 kmph. The fighter can only whiz by.

For shooting down the same issues exist, and perhaps can be mitigated by manoeuvres to get a lock on from below like the video. What is the kill rate of missiles against UAVs? Does anyone have information rather than guesswork? I mean we have seen missiles missing brightly burning flares designed to attract IR seekers in demonstrations. Same R-73 as in the video I think

Most videos we see of precision guided munitions are videos of successful hits - or else they are not worth publicizing so a single success video only proves that it is not impossible to shoot down a drone with a supersonic fighter. But that is what is expected of such fighters - the question is are they the appropriate choice given the flight conditions of very slow drone with a very fast and powerful fighter.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 11 May 2016 20:13

shiv wrote:
Y. Kanan wrote: People need to stop living in the past. It's 2016 and there hasn't been an air-to-air gun kill since 1965,
Really?

Shiv, the last A2A kill reportedly happened in 1998, when an Ethiopian Su-27 shot down an Eritrean MiG-29. There were a handful of kills before that (An USAF A-10 shot down an Iraqi helicopter in the Gulf War, an Iranian F-4 shot down an Iraqi Su-22, a Royal Navy Harrier shot down an Argentine C-130 in the Falklands, etc.)

The point is, such engagements were very rare. A gun is a last-ditch weapon, much like a bayonet. Nine times out of ten, you could manage without it. The user will usually insist on one for the rare occasion when it's needed, but then, you don't design the aircraft around it.

In air-to-ground operations, a gun is more useful, but it's losing out to other weapons. In Kargil, for example, I don't remember the IAF undertaking any gun runs on Pakistani positions (I may be wrong, and would be happy to be corrected). Rockets and bombs were the preferred option for their greater firepower against fortified targets.

shiv wrote:
Mihir wrote: Anti-air operations may constitute only 10% of all sorties, but they're becoming increasingly critical to victory on the ground.
Mihir - is this statement factually correct? What are the actual statistics for anti-air versus CAS/strike sorties in Afghanistan, Gulf war 2, Libya and Syria?

And what constituted victory in these theatres?

I don't know whether the 10% figure is accurate or not. It was quoted by Prof. Das.

The point is, with both of India's adverseries possessing medium-range air defences and BVR armed fighters, any aircraft glying interdiction/CAS missions will do so at great risk if the airspace hasn't been cleared of fighter and SAM threats. To do so, you need sophisticated A2A fighters and strike aircraft packed to the gills with EW equipment and stand-off missiles. IMHO, the latter is why the Rafale is important, and its relatively limited air-to-air capabilities aren't that much of a concern . . . but I digress. Neither of this can be done with a Super Gnat armed with four guns.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 11 May 2016 20:38

shiv wrote:but the IAF will be using slow flying aircraft (helicopters - possibly Mi 17/LCH/armed Dhruv) to chase drones

Yup. People love to discuss at length the anti-tank capabilities of the LCH, but fail to notice that every time HAL puts up an LCH poster for display, the first mission listed is air defence against UAVs and slow-flying aircraft. Example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... a_2013.JPG

shiv wrote:How cost effective would AAMs be - a gazillion dollar AAM vs inexpensive drone? Can we operate aircraft without guns?

I feel that's the wrong question to ask.

You don't compare the cost of an AAM with that of a drone; you compare it against the cost of whatever damage that drone inflicts on your forces. For example, would you expend 2.7 million dollar AAM on a cheap artillery fire direction drone that could cause an infantry company to be wiped out if not shot down immediately?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2016 21:09

shiv wrote:In India I don't see Apaches doing this duty. I think deejay had put up an amusing story of how he searched for a drone and found (or did not find) a flock of birds. I guess drone chasing duties will fall upon Armed ALH and Mi-17.

245 Stingers ordered for 22 Apaches. That's well in excess of what they'd require for basic self defence. With the radar capable of tracking upto 128 targets at 8 km x 360 deg, its the IAF's best drone-killing tool. And given that the high-selling CH-4B type UAV packs upto 8 ATGMs (14 ATGMs for the MQ-9), hunting them down is a role every bit as important as the anti-tank one.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2016 01:51

As a FYI, something that will provide some insight into his thinking, here is Prof as in 2014:

The ADA LCA: Beloved Aircraft or a Lemon

First the bad news:
1. We have a fairly mediocre fighter somewhere between the Gnat F1 and the MiG 21 on our hands. Hence the IAF’s present reluctance with the Mk.1.
2. Both the F-16 and the FC-17 will give the LCA Mk.1 a hard time. The F-16 A will be particularly dangerous. Even against the FC-17 it would be a Mysteres vs Sabres kind of a situation. I don’t have much faith in the “great equalizer” capabilities of BVRs as of now. BVRs is not the weapon for a little LCA. Hence the FC-17 will also be a very dangerous opponent no matter how much we snigger about the Chinese aircraft.
3. As a MiG-21 bis replacement the LCA is a failure because the general rule of thumb is a 15 % increase in performance and capability. The LCA Mk1 does not measure up. The landing speed and the cockpit displays will be better than the early MiGs which will help reduce accidents but let us not fool ourselves of having developed a MiG-21 replacement particularly as an interceptor. So what do we do?

No idea what he means by "not a weapon for a little LCA".

Aside: He declared the LCA as a failure as a replacement for the -21 bis!!! What is consensus in 2016?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 02:11

indranilroy wrote:Karan,
As I said before, I am not sure whether if it is feasible to fit all the required "goodies" into a GNAT. I will wait for the VAYU article to see how does the extended version having 980 more litres look like, possible breakdown of its weight, and the fuel it can carry. The prof downplays limited endurance. From what I have read elsewhere that is not true. It is a very critical feature.

Exactly! And the Gnat was also not low maintenance - none of the aircraft of the era really were. Granted modern tech may improve reliability but if you have to increase the size and start replacing aggregates with larger ones, where is the Gnat left in the whole mess.

However, the question is: Should I spend $10,000 per flight hour on every plane in my arsenal? Surely, the plane makers will say yes, but do I? The LCA and Jaguar++ are all wonderful planes. They are cheaper to maintain and fly with respect to their contemporaries. But, is even a 90kN/1.8M/BVR capable aircraft required when the mission load is 2 LGBs and 2 CCM missiles?

Where do we see these kind of mission profiles. He says "hey lets call this the Indian light fighter." we have an Indian light fighter, its the LCA. Until and unless we start bombing the Maoists or NE dudes, IAF will be very unlikely to use this sort of new airframe.

All our missions will be in contested airspace. Things are getting so heavy now, IAF is putting EL/M-2032 on Jaguars, ASRAAM (not some cheap Aim-9L).. and so forth.

And if they must have a low cost bomb truck with low payload, why not a C-Hawk?

And mind you, Prof Das is right that these kind of missions constitute the majority of the workload of most airforces. If today's multirole aircraft can constitute one end of the spectrum of airplane that can take care of this mission, what are the airplanes that lie at the other end? Many people say it is a single-engined turboprop. If so, then a combat Hawk/F125IN GNAT lie smack in the middle of that spectrum. It is not far fetched or laughable.

Indranil, he is talking of creating a new design, with severe limitations when the proven Hawk, L-159, F/A-50 all already exist. The customers can pick from any of these. Why would they pick an ultra low cost, incapable light fighter whose designer is not sure he wants to even includes flares.

If you want a capable light fighter, which is not in the LCA class, you have this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_A ... e_Hawk_200

If you want something cheaper?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion

You think even a jet isnt necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHRLAC_Holdings_Ahrlac

But more performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E ... per_Tucano

Ok, so you do want a fighter, trainer, sort of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

But hey, now you want a fighter - LCA & JF-17.

However, if you are European, you have the Gripen C/D - many of which seem to be always available from the Swedes or even newbuilds.
The Chinese will start with the J-10 as well.

The list is vast. IMHO, Das is beyond whimsical, he just doesn't understand the plethora of options available, and how crowded the market is.

P.S. I do agree with you that the prof has a bone with LCA. I don't agree with him on that. The time of debate on what the LCA should have been is behind us now.

That's the whole issue. The man keeps bringing in the LCA and then talks of "better solutions" which are anything but.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 02:18

shiv wrote:
nirav wrote:
All hare brained 'cheap light fighter in numbers' ideas automatically go with the assumption that pilots are expendable. They are NOT.
In fact the truth of the statement above can be extended to all soldiers (not just pilots)and all war. Then we realize that war is bad. Peace must prevail. A profession that requires people to fight is simply unnecessary in this day and age. We must not look at the past, we need to plan the future. Gandhiji was great because he realized this.

That is what I love about rhetorical arguments. The scope becomes unlimited.

Hardly a rhetorical argument.
The Indian Army has 1.1 Million+ soldiers out of whom many, lets say even half are frontline troops translates to around 500K. A huge number of brigades. regiments, battalions, units.
How many pilots does the IAF have? How many aircraft do we have?

Its not merely about the value of life (every soldier is equal there), but the fact that the pilot pool is a much much more limited resource.
IAF has around 3500 pilots and in 2014, they were short by 600.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns ... 114620.ece

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 02:22

Singha wrote:in that why not a new line of Mig27 - it can escape after the strike at high speed due to powerful engine and swing wings, has a beast of a cannon and can drop off any munitions , has some armour protection and can have more ...... even if a 2nd gen airframe ... by using modern machinery and tolerances it can be made as fine and reliable as a new gen a/c.

the Iraqi AF are making good use of the Frogfoots against Daesh.

The MiG-27 was a PITA to fly and an even bigger PITA to maintain and service.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/07/ ... ig-27.html

The MiG-27 continues, however, to be a highly controversial aircraft in Indian service, recently seeing a long spell of grounding. Former IAF flight safety chief Air Marshal PS Ahluwalia has long argued that the MiG-27 engine has fundamental flaws that make it a dangerous machine to fly, and should be phased out forthwith.

And not just the engine.
When the FSU wound down, they let their MiGs go lickety split.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 02:24

Y. Kanan wrote:
Mihir wrote:And yet, the Sparrow accounted for the maximum number of kills in Vietnam. Throughout the 80s and 90s, BVR missiles killed an increasing proportion of enemy aircraft. They may have their flaws, but many of those have been rectified through the massive proliferation of datalinks, improved IFF, and all that fun stuff. Better materials and high energy fuels have led to a reduction in size and weight too. And on a large aircraft, how much drag do a handful of tiny missiles account for anyway? The effect would be negligible.

...Deleting the gun was not a mistake.
Agreed. We've been hearing this nonsense for decades. When was the last time a fighter jet scored a gun kill in combat?

People need to stop living in the past. It's 2016 and there hasn't been an air-to-air gun kill since 1965, unless you count that Iraqi copter shot down by an A-10 Warthog back in 1991.

You might have guns make their way back as 5G platforms with low RCS proliferate and end up detecting each other at a few tens of km. However, even there CCMs with IIR seekers are likely going to be the weapons of choice.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 May 2016 06:22

I thinks guns will always be a back up weapon/primary weapon to take out UAVs. Guns have been retained on all combat helicopters. And most aircraft still have guns and I see no major thrust towards removing them altogether despite major advances in BVR shoot downs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 May 2016 07:01

The frogfoots have all been withdrawn now from syria due to manpad threat and no defensive systems.

Platypus, flanker, fencer, hind, alligatr and havoc carry the work now.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 May 2016 07:02

But they continue serving well in iraqi af

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2016 07:07

A gun nn a helo is a major weapon of choice. It is slaved to the helmet sight of either of the pilots.

I do not see the gun in an aircraft being deleted. But it is not as high on the pecking order among weapons on that platform.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 07:28

NRao wrote:As a FYI, something that will provide some insight into his thinking, here is Prof as in 2014:

The ADA LCA: Beloved Aircraft or a Lemon

First the bad news:
1. We have a fairly mediocre fighter somewhere between the Gnat F1 and the MiG 21 on our hands. Hence the IAF’s present reluctance with the Mk.1.
2. Both the F-16 and the FC-17 will give the LCA Mk.1 a hard time. The F-16 A will be particularly dangerous. Even against the FC-17 it would be a Mysteres vs Sabres kind of a situation. I don’t have much faith in the “great equalizer” capabilities of BVRs as of now. BVRs is not the weapon for a little LCA. Hence the FC-17 will also be a very dangerous opponent no matter how much we snigger about the Chinese aircraft.
3. As a MiG-21 bis replacement the LCA is a failure because the general rule of thumb is a 15 % increase in performance and capability. The LCA Mk1 does not measure up. The landing speed and the cockpit displays will be better than the early MiGs which will help reduce accidents but let us not fool ourselves of having developed a MiG-21 replacement particularly as an interceptor. So what do we do?

How clueless this man is, and how bizarre his claims are can be judged by what actual test pilots who flew the LCA and the MiG-21 say, as versus airy fairy made up claims.

Air Commodore Harish Nayani wrote:There is absolutely no doubt that the Mk 1, even if limited to 20 alpha would be many magnitudes better than the venerable Bison on all fronts. Notably, handling, safety, pilot comfort, and performance in the subsonic and trans-sonic regimes"

LCA is now at much higher AoA, 24 and counting as I recall.

Landing speed and cockpit displays - of course no mention of FBW and handling which he is completely clueless about.

Next, about the F-16A? Here is what IAF test pilots think about that.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/12/t ... n-war.html

The Tejas’ capability is best known to the air force and navy test pilots in the National Flight Test Centre, who have tested it in 2,400 flights. They claim it may be more versatile than the MiG-29 (primarily built for air-to-air combat); the MiG-27 and the Jaguar (both oriented to ground strike); and all variants of the MiG-21, including the multi-role BISON.

The Tejas’ likely adversary, the Pakistan Air Force’s F-16 fighter, has a slightly larger flight envelope, but the Tejas’ superior avionics give it a combat edge over the PAF’s older F-16A/Bs (currently being upgraded in Turkey); and superior to their new JF-17 Thunder light fighter, co-developed with China. Only the PAF’s 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, flying since 2010-11 from Jacobabad, may be a match for the Tejas.

Said an NFTC test pilot during the IOC ceremony on December 20: “As a multi-role fighter, the Tejas is at least the equal of the IAF’s upgraded Mirage-2000. It can more than hold its own in our operational scenario.”

No idea what he means by "not a weapon for a little LCA".

Aside: He declared the LCA as a failure as a replacement for the -21 bis!!! What is consensus in 2016?

Oh, the little LCA.

The Tejas has been designed as a multi-role fighter. It can engage enemy aircraft with the R-73 short-range air-to-air missile (SRAAM); by FOC next year, more potent air-to-air missiles, probably the Israeli Derby and Python, would be integrated. Against ground targets, the Tejas carries conventional and laser-guided bombs. Next year, it will have an integral 23 millimetre Gasha cannon.

The Tejas’ avionics --- radar, laser and inertial navigation system --- enhances the accuracy of these weapons. Its highly rated Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar provides multi-role capability, allowing the pilot to fire air-to-air missiles at enemy aircraft; and also bomb ground targets with a highly accurate navigation-attack system. The pilot operates his weapons through a head-up display (HUD), or through a helmet-mounted sighting system (HMSS) by merely looking at a target. Experienced fighter pilots say the Tejas is the IAF’s most “pilot friendly” fighter.

Although it is one of the world’s lightest fighters, the Tejas’ weapons load of 3,500 kg compares well with most IAF fighters, including the Mirage-2000, Jaguar, upgraded MiG-27 and the MiG-21. Depending on the mission --- strike, photoreconnaissance, or air defence --- its eight hard points can carry missiles, bombs, fuel drop tanks or a targeting pod. It can bomb targets and fire missiles as accurately as the Sukhoi-30MKI. The latter scores mainly in its longer range and bigger weapons load, both stemming from its much larger size.

In short, Das has no idea of the LCA, or air warfare for that matter.

He makes simplistic, grandiose sounding pronouncements to impress the unwary. The more bombastic his statements are, the more the unwary get impressed. He is the twin brother of Prasun Sengupta who demonstrates such incredible perspicacity on everything from UFOs to tanks to fighters as well.