Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

[shiv]

From various sources,Hawk-I appears to be good low-cost ground attack/COIN bird that could fulfill the req, of a fighter to support the ground offensive for the IA.Being slower,it would enable pilots to be able to assess the ground situ better than faster jets.It would also be able to deliver PGMs outside SAM range.Examples of other similar fighters being examined for the same role incl. Super Tucanos by the US. Though we were perhaps the last country to acquire the Hawk (after two decades of evaluation and selection by the AM La Fontaine committee!),it appears that it has been a success both in its role as an AJT plus being built in India by HAL.More Hawk trainer orders have been placed for the IAF and IN.Acquiring a few sqds. of the armed Hawk-I would resolve the problem that often crops up ,raised by the IA about timely air support for its ground ops.The other aircraft that can also assist is the Jag.

Heh heh. Been saying this for a year....

[tsarkar]

From various sources,Hawk-I appears to be good low-cost ground attack/COIN bird that could fulfill the req, of a fighter to support the ground offensive for the IA.Being slower,it would enable pilots to be able to assess the ground situ better than faster jets.It would also be able to deliver PGMs outside SAM range.Examples of other similar fighters being examined for the same role incl. Super Tucanos by the US. Though we were perhaps the last country to acquire the Hawk (after two decades of evaluation and selection by the AM La Fontaine committee!),it appears that it has been a success both in its role as an AJT plus being built in India by HAL.More Hawk trainer orders have been placed for the IAF and IN.Acquiring a few sqds. of the armed Hawk-I would resolve the problem that often crops up ,raised by the IA about timely air support for its ground ops.The other aircraft that can also assist is the Jag.

Heh heh. Been saying this for a year....

This requirement can be filled by Predators and Eitan TP / Avengers being acquired by India. Cheaper to own (no ejection seats, life support systems, radios or cockpit displays required) & operate (weight & space of man can be used for more fuel or weapons). Training of drone operators cheaper and faster than training pilots.

[srai]

We have integrated R73 on Tejas without Russian help. It bears thinking we can do likewise with most other Russian weapons, which are either obsolete or oftem don't work.
Kh-31s, replaced by NGARM
AA-12- replaced by Astra, in the meantime IAF has stocked up on AA-10 variants.
LGBs - IAF prefers Griffin and Paveway and soon, our own designs
Long range missiles - Kh-59, likely limited stocks, Brahmos, we are indigenizing the seeker and doing the integration work ourselves
Kh-25 series are the only ones left.
Rest, Spice, SAAW, etc are all locally integrated.
R-73E, will also likely be replaced soon by a newer missile provided IAF gets a good one.
Sensor pods - Litening G4, Elta EL/M-2060. Again, nothing Russian.
With a 1553 databus, indian developed pylon interfaces, and a mission computer running indian software, all that is required from the radar is targeting information. The rest of the stuff is via MC only and even displays are indigenized.

This is where standardization on aircraft goes a long way. Instead of hodgepodge of aircraft types being pursued (aka Su-30MKI, Rafale, SE MII, FGFA, LCA plus existing legacy types Mirage-2000, Jaguar and MiG-29), it makes sense to shore up numbers of select types, like on Su-30MKI and LCA, that India has the know-hows to do customizations. Can you imagine how long it would take to integrate and customize all different types? For the most of them, the IAF will have to run to the foreign OEM to beg to get its weapons integrated. Else it would need to keep paying for limited quantities of diverse arsenal--that are only for one type of aircraft. Expensive way to get to 42 squadrons.

[shiv]

Heh heh. Been saying this for a year....

This requirement can be filled by Predators and Eitan TP / Avengers being acquired by India. Cheaper to own (no ejection seats, life support systems, radios or cockpit displays required) & operate (weight & space of man can be used for more fuel or weapons). Training of drone operators cheaper and faster than training pilots.

Of course we can import lots of things but no UCAV can come close to a manned aircraft for loitering around and hitting targets of opportunity with visual identification for close air support. Manned vehicle is still smarter and more flexible.

I have my doubts about a Predator and its overall support system being cheaper than a Hawk in the long term and munitions wise - the Predator is hardly going to go up with rocket pods, probably only Hellfires- so cost will spiral. That apart the Hawks are already here and the infra is already here.

[Manish_P]

This requirement can be filled by Predators and Eitan TP / Avengers being acquired by India. Cheaper to own (no ejection seats, life support systems, radios or cockpit displays required) & operate (weight & space of man can be used for more fuel or weapons). Training of drone operators cheaper and faster than training pilots.

+1 Sir. Also no pain (human loss) if they are shot down. And there will be a good amount of young generation willing & lining up to be Drone operators

[shiv]

Those who bother to read history of the Indian air force in wars would be acutely aware that the real pain of death is for the man on the ground. All pilots point that out. That is why we have pilots ready to do what is needed to be available to help the man on the ground.

BRF is rife with talk of "risk of being shot down". That is IMO a slightly ignorant view. Flying fighters is inherently risky, war or no war. Looks like no one actually reads fighter pilot accounts. With the sort of rhetoric I read here - we should not have a manned air force at all. I find the idea of people lining up to be unmanned console operators amusing. I know several generations of men who have lined up to be fighter pilots - and many of them got there. And many of the "younger generation" are still signing up for flying rather than trackball pushing..just saying

[Manish_P]

Of course we can import lots of things but no UCAV can come close to a manned aircraft for loitering around and hitting targets of opportunity with visual identification for close air support.

Aren't UCAVs loitering with increasing long endurances (12 hrs +). Visual identification will still be there, with aid of good optics aided by other sensors. Only thing is that identification will be done at the Control center (perhaps with multiple sets of eyes).

Manned vehicle is still smarter and more flexible. I have my doubts about a Predator and its overall support system being cheaper than a Hawk in the long term and munitions wise - the Predator is hardly going to go up with rocket pods, probably only Hellfires- so cost will spiral.

You could be right here. And the current range of UCAVs are optimised for high altitude Bomb/Missile drops. Not low level, turning strafing runs with guns and rockets. But who knows in the near future we might have those as well. Need to have a good UCAV programme and it's MIC running now rather than having to import at that point in time.

That apart the Hawks are already here and the infra is already here.

Strongly agree sir.

[shiv]

No country has won a war yet with long range missiles or unmanned weaponry. The damage those systems do is advertised a great deal - especially in this era of cameras wireless transmission of videos.

If you look at the way air forces operate - they have a man on the ground with the troops to guide the aircraft - so that requirement would still be there even if there were remote drone operators. With drones - a GPS coordinate would be required for targeting. For a manned aircraft - a signal flare or location instructions like 'East of that clump of trees" can be used.

Even in the last 2 months, I have read, right here on BRF, the account of pilots who were sent on ground recce missions up the mountains near Kargil to see where their targets would be and illuminate them I would really like to bust this romantic myth about "Unmanned aircraft and no lives lost".

Once again I will try and locate a kick ass article I had posted in the US arms thread by a guy who lamented that the US armed forces are being converted into a bunch of lily livered cissies with feminism and other isms trying to make it seem like wars are video games that can be fought and won at a distance by remote control

[shiv]

Here it is. Read the whole thing from the link. I cross post my views and a quote
http://usdefensewatch.com/2017/04/how-d ... -military/

This "kool aid" of bad guys dying at standoff ranges has become general knowledge on BRF where people are saying "Don't risk men. Don't risk aircraft" as a strong but possibly erroneous American wind blows across the biggest sources of information of English speaking Indians. Read the quote below to see what I mean..

How Desert Storm Destroyed the US Military

The day Desert Storm ended, the death of the US military commenced.

The Pentagon, basking in glory and bowing to pressure from the public and crackpot feminists like Patricia Schroeder, started drinking the Kool Aid and they’ve never stopped. The war was a video game, a clean, quick rout. Modern war was now sanitized, where the bad guys would die at stand-off ranges of a mile or two and explode in little black and white pixels on Pentagon TV screens. In fact, war was now so quick and so easy that women should be allowed to serve in the combat arms and Special Forces.

Our victory in Desert Storm became the catalyst for every left wing wacko to hack at the military with a meat cleaver.

Since, 1991, the US military has been slowly coming apart at the seams. Stress cards, open homosexuality, transgenders on active duty, sensitivity training, pregnancy simulators for male troopers, lactation stations in the field, babies born on US ships of war, female graduates of Ranger School, including a 37 year old mother (it’s funny how the women looked so well fed), women in the SEALs, women in Marine infantry units and females in the field artillery (even though most cannot carry a 155mm round) are just some of the insanity that has taken place in the last 26 years, but which snowballed into hell under the Obama administration.

A social revolution engulfed the military, starting with Tailhook and continuing to this day. Warriors were forced out and feather merchants and PC flag bearers were promoted. Girl power was in and masculinity was out. The warrior culture was buried and a new culture was reborn that resembles corporate America, not the US military of yesteryear.

[brar_w]

No country has won a war yet with long range missiles or unmanned weaponry. The damage those systems do is advertised a great deal - especially in this era of cameras wireless transmission of videos

Right. Drones, much like anything else are a tool and a means to an end. "Winning a war" requires a well trained and motivated military backed by a good strategy among other things. Drones, are just a tactical weapon like dozens of others.

With drones - a GPS coordinate would be required for targeting

Not necessarily.

For a manned aircraft - a signal flare or location instructions like 'East of that clump of trees" can be used.

Drone operators can communicate with troops on the frontline much the same way a pilot sitting in an aircraft can.

[Manish_P]

Those who bother to read history of the Indian air force in wars would be acutely aware that the real pain of death is for the man on the ground. All pilots point that out. That is why we have pilots ready to do what is needed to be available to help the man on the ground.

BRF is rife with talk of "risk of being shot down". That is IMO a slightly ignorant view. Flying fighters is inherently risky, war or no war. Looks like no one actually reads fighter pilot accounts. With the sort of rhetoric I read here - we should not have a manned air force at all. I find the idea of people lining up to be unmanned console operators amusing. I know several generations of men who have lined up to be fighter pilots - and many of them got there.

You misunderstood me Shiv ji. I have read your posts on this point earlier as well. I am not saying drones will eliminate death (so just have an all drone military). Far from it.

Khan has a huge inventory of UCAVs. That hasn't stopped them making a huge inventory of manned aircraft, since most mission profiles demand it.

But if they help reduce the risk of it by being more efficient for certain mission profiles, then we should go for it, judiciously. Any technology which helps our soldiers destroy the opponents and their infrastructure efficiently (accurately, consistently, cost-effectively) would be handy. If they keep our guys a little more distant from counter-fire, then so much the better.

And many of the "younger generation" are still signing up for flying rather than trackball pushing..just saying

I agree. I know 1 who has..

And i know it's no computer game (else there would be an out of shape middle aged guy who would have tried to signup )

Real life UCAV/UAV operations would be nearly as rigourous as actual flying with the added monotony of not actually being in flight. And the pilots operators would be very well trained well qualified young professionals or experienced pilots.

[JayS]

Heh heh. Been saying this for a year....

This requirement can be filled by Predators and Eitan TP / Avengers being acquired by India. Cheaper to own (no ejection seats, life support systems, radios or cockpit displays required) & operate (weight & space of man can be used for more fuel or weapons). Training of drone operators cheaper and faster than training pilots.

Saar, in your opinion, can India field enough of these drones to cover all our requirements..? To me the drones look gold plated and ultra costly. How many of them can we really afford..? Our requirements are vast and stretched afar in geographical sense, in case of two-front war. Can these drones provide the required sortie rate for CAS..? I feel these drones cannot fully supplant a good ol' Ground attack bird.

Also I am wondering on one more factor. Brar can fill in some details perhaps - What is the loss rate of these new generation of drones..? I think I read somewhere that US drones had very high rate of loss, perhaps for the earlier generation, don't remember details now.

[shiv]

Drone operators can communicate with troops on the frontline much the same way a pilot sitting in an aircraft can.

No doubt but the drone is never going to notice something from the corner of its eye and divert to investigate..just sayin

[shiv]

Khan has a huge inventory of UCAVs. That hasn't stopped them making a huge inventory of manned aircraft, since most mission profiles demand it.

Not only that - Khan is now looking a 2-3 options for a slow close air support aircraft (eg Scorpion) to be used in situations where the risk is not super-high - which is exactly the role that a Hawk-I would fulfil. People on BRF was arguing about great risks to pilots whenever I spoke of a Hawk type CAS aircraft and now that Khan is doing it I am sure everything will suddenly become safe and rosy for CAS aircraft. Predator class drones and CAS aircraft surely have some common roles but each has unique advantages.

In our low to medium tech scenario technology has been used innovatively. In 1971 a high flying MiG 21 was used as a communication "middleman".
The CAS aircraft can get information from ground troops in innovative ways if the troops can communicate with their rear areas but not the aircraft. Having a pilot pick up signals could make a life or death difference rather than a drone droning at height and panning and zooming.

[brar_w]

Drone operators can communicate with troops on the frontline much the same way a pilot sitting in an aircraft can.

No doubt but the drone is never going to notice something from the corner of its eye and divert to investigate..just sayin

There will always be things that drones do worst than manned aircraft/pilots, and vice versa. As far as what the drone operator sees..there are relatively cheap ways to provide and to significantly enhance what a drone operator can see. Plus you can pipe that data to multiple operators and have more eyes looking at what's going on over the battle space. But yeah, unless someone builds a purpose build drone you aren't going to go below the clouds and do a really low pass to pick something up. But then aircraft that can do that can't do some of the other things current drones do really well so it's always a trade, and that is why you have both. ISR much like Close Air Support is a mission and not a platform, and the best way to conduct the mission is to leverage strengths of each of the elements available to you.

[Lisa]

Wrong thread!

[Manish_P]

Not only that - Khan is now looking a 2-3 options for a slow close air support aircraft (eg Scorpion) to be used in situations where the risk is not super-high - which is exactly the role that a Hawk-I would fulfil. People on BRF was arguing about great risks to pilots whenever I spoke of a Hawk type CAS aircraft and now that Khan is doing it I am sure everything will suddenly become safe and rosy for CAS aircraft. Predator class drones and CAS aircraft surely have some common roles but each has unique advantages.

<OT> In quite a few US forums this seems to be a common refrain from US marine/army ground units 'For CAS (especially in Urban areas): Jets are ok, dedicated CAS aircraft like A10 are good, Turboprops are great, Attack helicopters are the best'. If you are so inclined, please check this thread on an external forum out, specifically comments by 'Broncazonk' (he even mentions how ground based FAC and pilots use different co-ordinates systems and how a third unit has to co-ordinate between the two ) </OT>

[Philip]

SGs cone at high cost too.As much as a Hawk. The proposal is $2B for just 22 SGs.That's around $100B a pop.Reapers in 2013 cost around $17M.UCAVs like this are meant for long loiter,precision attacks,with as little collateral damage as poss. Hawks come in at around the same price but is far more versatile with a pilot in command,human risk notwithstanding. What will be the gamechanger on the battlefield will be the advent of the LCH in large numbers. Pak is to get around 15+ Viper attack helos from the west,the first few been delivered .Apaches are horrendously expensive.22 Apches are costing us ...$2.%B! With $2.%B we could've got between 80-100 LCAs or 50-60+ MIG-35s.

[Manish_P]

22 Apches are costing us ...$2.%B! With $2.%B we could've got between 80-100 LCAs or 50-60+ MIG-35s.

Apples and oranges. Better to compare Apaches with LCH/Mi 35s

[brar_w]

SGs cone at high cost too.As much as a Hawk. The proposal is $2B for just 22 SGs.That's around $100B a pop.Reapers in 2013 cost around $17M.UCAVs like this are meant for long loiter,precision attacks,with as little collateral damage as poss. Hawks come in at around the same price but is far more versatile with a pilot in command,human risk notwithstanding.

It is quite absurd to compare a light attack trainer to an armed or maritime drone since the mission overlap is minimal at best. How many Hawk's would you need to maintain a constant orbit over a potential area of interest while performing day/night ISR and/or light strike duties ? (As a baseline, GA-ASI on the UK Protector have a target for endurance that is > 40 hours) How many km's from base can a Hawk fly and maintain a 2-hr. ISR TOS, let alone one that goes past a dozen or more hours? These things are pretty self-explanatory. [Not to say that the Armed Hawk is not a worthy investment if a need has been established, but to highlight that there is very little overlap just going on some of the strengths of each platform and what value they bring to the table.]

Not only that - Khan is now looking a 2-3 options for a slow close air support aircraft (eg Scorpion) to be used in situations where the risk is not super-high - which is exactly the role that a Hawk-I would fulfil.

Actually, as per my conversation with a Scorpion test pilot and company reps., the actual CAS/Light Strike demonstration that recently concluded only gave an outside shot to the Scorpion. It was really meant for a turboprop aircraft which Textron also fielded for the demonstration. The Scorpion was allowed as a last minute entry into the demo. Textron doesn't expect the Scorpion to come out as a most favored candidate if this advances into an acquisition program. There is however a phase-2 of the demonstration currently planned that focuses on a broader mission set, that of manned ISR, and light strike and this is something they feel that is the requirement that favors the Scorpion and is essentially a mission-set the company decided to design and build the Scorpion on. The Scorpion with its mission payload bay, and sensor suite is over-designed for the purely light strike mission, its designers gambling that over the longer arc of time, mission flexibility will help them win customers over (plus they offer the AT-6 for the no-nonsense turboprop/light attack role).

[tsarkar]

Drone operators can communicate with troops on the frontline much the same way a pilot sitting in an aircraft can.

No doubt but the drone is never going to notice something from the corner of its eye and divert to investigate..just sayin

I cringed when I read this. The last time someone looked out of the cockpit of his aircraft from the corner of his eye was my late friend Ajay Ahuja looking out for the bailed out Nachiketa.

Since then everyone has been looking through their Litening pods at much higher altitude. The Rudra, LCH & Mi-35 EO sights are the same as Litening, as are the Heron and Searcher sights. And these EO sights have much wider FoV as well as gimbals that rotate significantly more than human eyes & neck.

A pilot seeing Litening images on cockpit MFD is the same as drone operators seeing the same images on their computer screens.

The slaughter of CAS aircraft started with Soviet Strela SA-7 that decimated South Vietnam VNAF - that was the 4th largest air force in its time and completely CAS with Douglas A-1 Skyraider, Cessna A-37 Dragonfly, Douglas AC-47 Spooky, Fairchild AC-119G Shadow, Fairchild AC-119K Stinger, Grumman F8F Bearcat, Northrop F-5A/B/C Freedom Fighter, Northrop F-5E Tiger II

The story repeated in Afghanistan with Stingers decimating Soviet CAS aircraft & helicopters.

The Honeywell TFE engine of the Reaper (also used on Dornier 228) is cheaper to buy & operate than the Adour engine on the Hawk. UAV's like Avenger use Bizjet engines that are much more economical than military engines.

I agree technology denial is a challenges for countries like India.

In my opinion, for quick reaction, we'll see JSF with SDB and Tejas with SAAW while for persistent support, we'll see more & more UAV like Eitan TP & Avengers. Predators and Reapers fly higher than Stinger range.

Pardon the short response, will draft a comprehensive pros vs cons over the weekend.

[shiv]

No doubt but the drone is never going to notice something from the corner of its eye and divert to investigate..just sayin

I cringed when I read this. The last time someone looked out of the cockpit of his aircraft from the corner of his eye was my late friend Ajay Ahuja looking out for the bailed out Nachiketa.

From the statistical accuracy viewpoint one needs to count the number of times pilots have spotted things from the corner of their eyes and not been shot down compared with such tragic events. Sad about Ajay Ahuja, but in the same conflict, same year a Jaguar pilot saw something, turned around to photograph it and analysis showed it to be the Muntho Dalo camp that was later blasted to change the course of the war. I too heard this from a friend.

A pilot watching the image from a Litening pod also looks out of the cockpit and sees a lot more than the drone operator. He can also respond faster to fleeting glimpses of something suspicious. Drones are never going to replace live pilots in CAS missions. Of course risks will be balanced against benefits - as always but the airforce is hardly going to chicken out of risky missions because they are risky or have lead to attrition.

[fanne]

Drones can surely be useful, very useful in the war that Inida fights (not an outright hot war). Against both TSP and China, say from 2000 to 2017 (this year), where there has been no war and we enjoy complete air superiority on our side of border (meaning we can operate UAV and hopefully UCAV) all day we want. This helps in recognizing any intrusion or road building (China). Intrusion detection will need almost 24 hrs coverage. A fighter can at most fly for an hour and make maybe 2 sortie (in peacetime) a day. You will need a squadron worth of fighters to cover one section. If there are 4-5 sections (in JK) you need 5 sq worth of fighters for surveillance. They are costly to fly and too fast to detect an intrusion. Also the fighter have to be touchdown and film analyzed (by that time intruder may move out of that general area).
A drone (many times cheaper than a fighter), can fly for many hours (what we have can do for 12-18 hrs at a stretch), you need maybe a sq worth to cover what 5 sq of fighter is needed. It can 'hover' around the general area and track the intrusion for hours). AN UCAV can also 'neutralize' that intrusion. I guess a UAV/UCAV does come 1/100th of the cost of similar fighter commitment. Could UAV/UCAV miss something that a pilot will not, yes, but at 100th of the cost, this is still a better strategy.

[shiv]

Drones can surely be useful, very useful in the war that Inida fights (not an outright hot war). Against both TSP and China, say from 2000 to 2017 (this year), where there has been no war and we enjoy complete air superiority on our side of border (meaning we can operate UAV and hopefully UCAV) all day we want. This helps in recognizing any intrusion or road building (China). Intrusion detection will need almost 24 hrs coverage. A fighter can at most fly for an hour and make maybe 2 sortie (in peacetime) a day. You will need a squadron worth of fighters to cover one section. If there are 4-5 sections (in JK) you need 5 sq worth of fighters for surveillance. They are costly to fly and too fast to detect an intrusion. Also the fighter have to be touchdown and film analyzed (by that time intruder may move out of that general area).
A drone (many times cheaper than a fighter), can fly for many hours (what we have can do for 12-18 hrs at a stretch), you need maybe a sq worth to cover what 5 sq of fighter is needed. It can 'hover' around the general area and track the intrusion for hours). AN UCAV can also 'neutralize' that intrusion. I guess a UAV/UCAV does come 1/100th of the cost of similar fighter commitment. Could UAV/UCAV miss something that a pilot will not, yes, but at 100th of the cost, this is still a better strategy.

I am talking about close air support at a time of conflict, drones versus manned CAS aircraft.

No one said that drones are not useful for surveillance. But drones like aircraft,fly in straight lines - so they face the same problem that maritime surveillance aircraft face in detecting targets. They get long narrow images. Maybe 100 meters to 10 km wide depending on zoom and 100, 200 or 300 km or whatever km long - so zigzag lines are flown to cover areas "Intrusion detection" is one small subset of all the Intel information required and is best done by a combination of side looking aircraft radar/imagery, satellites, sigint and humint , border radar and manual observation posts depending on weather and terrain. Weather and terrain is as much of an issue for drones as for aircraft. No competent armed force will fail to try and hide its movement/intrusion from prying eyes - knowing the enemy's assets. But that is not the issue

[Manish_P]

From the statistical accuracy viewpoint one needs to count the number of times pilots have spotted things from the corner of their eyes and not been shot down compared with such tragic events. Sad about Ajay Ahuja, but in the same conflict, same year a Jaguar pilot saw something, turned around to photograph it and analysis showed it to be the Muntho Dalo camp that was later blasted to change the course of the war. I too heard this from a friend.

Agree with your point on statistical comparison. IMVHO it should also take into account number of times pilot/operators of UCAV/UAV have spotted things as compared to pilots of fast flying jets. However it is very unlikely that such numbers will be available (in public) for any military. The sheer persistence/endurance of a relatively silent and slow flying UAV over a comparatively noiser, fast flying jet would have made for interesting study. And like brar_w mentioned there are likely to be multiple human eyes at the UAV control centre. While the pilot of the jet has to focus on flying the aircraft as well as seeing his instruments and outside.

A pilot watching the image from a Litening pod also looks out of the cockpit and sees a lot more than the drone operator.

A litening pod integration is also being done on the Reaper. But yes, the drone operator will not be looking out of the cockpit . However there are no easy answers since we cannot ignore parameters like speed of the platform, height, climate conditions (snow/rain/fog/smog), time of the day, terrain etc

He can also respond faster to fleeting glimpses of something suspicious.

Agree that manned aircraft offer more mission flexibility at this point in time (perhaps this refers to the loadout). Request you (or other knowledgeable posters) to please elaborate more on what all specific responses would the pilot be able to offer, other than to go in for a closer look/take pictures. Genuine question.

Drones are never going to replace live pilots in CAS missions. Of course risks will be balanced against benefits - as always but the airforce is hardly going to chicken out of risky missions because they are risky or have lead to attrition.

Agree completely. Like i said earlier, UAVs/UCAVs are not there to replace manned aircraft providing CAS, not for a long time anyway. But they can be useful and need to be considered as additional tools or force multipliers for aiding such operations.

(Lastly if this is being OT for this thread, request you to please suggest the appropriate thread, if this can be discussed further. I will move this post accordingly)

[Manish_P]

I am talking about close air support at a time of conflict, drones versus manned CAS aircraft.

No one said that drones are not useful for surveillance. But drones like aircraft,fly in straight lines - so they face the same problem that maritime surveillance aircraft face in detecting targets. They get long narrow images. Maybe 100 meters to 10 km wide depending on zoom and 100, 200 or 300 km or whatever km long - so zigzag lines are flown to cover areas "Intrusion detection" is one small subset of all the Intel information required and is best done by a combination of side looking aircraft radar/imagery, satellites, sigint and humint , border radar and manual observation posts depending on weather and terrain. Weather and terrain is as much of an issue for drones as for aircraft. No competent armed force will fail to try and hide its movement/intrusion from prying eyes - knowing the enemy's assets. But that is not the issue

Shiv Ji, i saw this post after i typed out my last post. I am in wide agreement of the points mentioned by you in the above post as well as your previous post since you are clearly stating that you are talking specifically about CAS during a conflict and then addressing the point 'either drone or manned aircraft for CAS'. We were at cross-purposes. My fault.

[Guddu]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... crash.html

Video of Indian HELI crash near Tawang

[shiv]

Shiv Ji, i saw this post after i typed out my last post. I am in wide agreement of the points mentioned by you in the above post as well as your previous post since you are clearly stating that you are talking specifically about CAS during a conflict and then addressing the point 'either drone or manned aircraft for CAS'. We were at cross-purposes. My fault.

I think the IA and IAF do need a lot more unmanned aerial vehicles for the roles they do play well, and while the news is full of reports of acquisitions and potential acquisition - India's own progress is abysmally slow with the same blue painted funny looking Rustom - now yellow I think and renamed something appearing biennially at aero India.

But on the other hand all the videos I see of Iraqi or Syrian China import UCAVs are flying in a low threat environment. If such overgrown aero modeller's babies face the Indian armed forces the source from which they take off will be converted to rubble at short notice.

I wonder if Indranil, JayS or Karan can come in and opine on what is the really really big(gest) deal in getting a reliable UAV such as Rustom (or whatever) up and flying

It can't be engine or airframe
Is it secure comm? Is it the ability to be autonomous? AI needed? Or simply goorment sloth?

[Singha]

problem is we are unable to get even a unarmed large camera drone up in the air logging hours and in service, let alone exporting to clients.

thats the walking step before one dreams of high fliers and armed drones.

we have fallen decades behind in military drones no escaping that harsh fact. hence the desperate imports of herons here, avengers there and dreams of MQ4C and Ghawk

almost everyone who has got into drones has a better track record than us.

[shiv]

problem is we are unable to get even a unarmed large camera drone up in the air logging hours and in service, let alone exporting to clients.

thats the walking step before one dreams of high fliers and armed drones.

we have fallen decades behind in military drones no escaping that harsh fact. hence the desperate imports of herons here, avengers there and dreams of MQ4C and Ghawk

almost everyone who has got into drones has a better track record than us.

This is simply a restatement of well known facts at least on BRF.

Question is why?

[Indranil]

None of the above, Hakeem. I can't type much (just had a son).

The number of teams that can do a complete and complex interdisciplinary system design is very limited. Rustom till recently did not have such a team. Developing a high altitude, high endurance airframe is not the challenge. In fact Rustom -2 is over optimized from aero design POV only. And that's a hindrance to the other requirements. Please watch AeroIndia 2017 talk by the project director.

The truth is that it is for the first time that rubber has hit the road. You have to build a full system to learn what is the difference between your plans and the reality. That is what has finally happened with Rustom-2. Until ten years back we thought we could build a world class MALE in 5 years and in our first attempt. Finally, we have tried to build the thing and learnt our lesson. Thankfully, they are finally close to getting the components and configuration right. One can follow their tender docs for more details.

I really like the current project director. He has the quality of standing in front of a packed crowd and saying that his team did not get it right: Where and why. He also has the gumption of telling IAF to get its demands correct. One has to literally change the laws of physics to meet IAF's SQRs using one drone. I am sure IAF have officers who are technically adept at coming up meaningful ASRs. I am sure those officers are not writing the ASRs, for whatever reasons.

[shiv]

None of the above, Hakeem. I can't type much Hakeem. I just had a son.

Congratulations! Nappy er happy fatherhood

[Manish_P]

None of the above, Hakeem. I can't type much (just had a son).

Congratulations and best wishes, Indranil ji

[Yagnasri]

Best wishes sirji.

[JayS]

None of the above, Hakeem. I can't type much (just had a son).

The number of teams that can do a complete and complex interdisciplinary system design is very limited. Rustom till recently did not have such a team. Developing a high altitude, high endurance airframe is not the challenge. In fact Rustom -2 is over optimized from aero design POV only. And that's a hindrance to the other requirements. Please watch AeroIndia 2017 talk by the project director.

The truth is that it is for the first time that rubber has hit the road. You have to build a full system to learn what is the difference between your plans and the reality. That is what has finally happened with Rustom-2. Until ten years back we thought we could build a world class MALE in 5 years and in our first attempt. Finally, we have tried to build the thing and learnt our lesson. Thankfully, they are finally close to getting the components and configuration right. One can follow their tender docs for more details.

I really like the current project director. He has the quality of standing in front of a packed crowd and saying that his team did not get it right: Where and why. He also has the gumption of telling IAF to get its demands correct. One has to literally change the laws of physics to meet IAF's SQRs using one drone. I am sure IAF have officers who are technically adept at coming up meaningful ASRs. I am sure those officers are not writing the ASRs, for whatever reasons.

Mithai time. Hajar mubarak Indranil. Now BRF will take second preference.

Anyways, I agree with you. There is no real technological hurdle in getting to a certain maturity level for platforms in a whole sort of UAVs which can serve our AFs well enough for time being. The glass ceiling where we will have to work really hard to push the boundaries is way above for us yet. Main issue is lack of focus and intent. IMO GOI should proliferate areas like UAV and robots for private companies, especially young startups and college students. I don't understand why NAL/DRDO/HAL keeps working on all sorts of small and tiny UAVs and robots which are used in tactical situations mostly and do not need very hi-fi technology. They should focus only on bigger platforms in MALE/HALE, armed drones. Many companies have in fact tried to come up in this area. But the apathy of the system kills even the most motivated groups.

[srai]

^^^

1. Funding -> large pool to compete for and continuous flow
2. Time bound -> R&D, Qualification, Production and Induction; Factor in lead times and buffer on estimated timelines
3. ROI -> Sufficient quatitites for viable profits; multiple customers
4. Low Risk -> guarantee no financial ruin; encourage risk-taking while maximizing profits
5. Remove Red-Tape -> free to partner with any enterprise, or free to source materials from any, etc

BTW, congrats Indranil!

[Rakesh]

None of the above, Hakeem. I can't type much (just had a son).

Congratulations Indranil!

[Indranil]

Thank you all.

[Kartik]

Congratulations Indranil!

[ramana]

Indranil,

Congratulations to you and you wife!!!
Let us know more about the baby!!!