Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Nov 2017 12:01

Seems my bad, there is Phalodi airstrip and Phalodi airbase further out

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 08 Nov 2017 00:49

I just see one airstrip, although the designation has certainly changed to an air base.
But there is no supporting infrastructure.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 08 Nov 2017 09:33

Removing coordinates as per request, though I am not sure what good it will do. For the interested, the airbase is north west of phalodi town itself. While it still looks a bit underdeveloped with no blast pens etc., it looks fully functional with a large apron area and some hangar type structures.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 08 Nov 2017 10:01

[quote="sudeepj"][/quote]

I suggest please delete the Digital coordinates, while someone can easily get it in google earth, we dont want to leave something on the web where someone can just copy and paste the digital coordinates. For Paki and Cheeni locations please leave the digital coordinates. Better to put the degree coordinates for Indian sites

I have learnt this from my deliverable s, every additional step required is a hurdle, something online which is easy to cut and paste is very useful in critical situations. Requiring conversions from Degrees or having access to google maps may not be available at a crucial juncture. And the stuff you put online today will be available in a search engine 10-15 years.

For Indian sites use degrees for Paki and Cheeni sites Digital coordinates which are probably how entries are made in GPS systems are ok.

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 08 Nov 2017 11:27

sudeepj wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:On a related note North of Jaisalmer/jodhpur and South of Punjab do we have any airbases in Rajastan? I think it is this gap which was exploited by the PAF in 65 and 71 wars to Attack Agra Airbase with B-57 night raids, Now even are Phalcons have some cover in Agra, not sure if the shelters are bomb proof, only the IAF IL 78's and An-32's expose themselves at AGRA.
Phalodi north of Jaisalmer and Nal farther north near Bikaner.

Suratgarh

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 08 Nov 2017 12:05

very good know, so Now the Paf does not have that huge Gap which was present in 65 and 71 wars.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Nov 2017 13:29

The GOI/IAF should ensure a min. of a 2:1 numerical superiority against Pak and use the most cost-effective means fo doing so instead of lusting after luxury unaffordable "sports cars".Pak is rapidly closing the gap with its modest but effective JF-17 of which there are about 5 sqds. in service and a healthy prod. rate.Some analysts like the good Prof. Das say that their bird is superior in combat to our LCA MK-1,and the equiv. of early model F-16s.
Whatever the truth of that and one will know only if the two meet in combat,the fact remains that our declining numbers require immediate additions.The fastest way is to acquire more bird/build more,of aircraft already in service which will require no new evaluation,negotiations,etc., taking years by the track record of the Indian babus in the MOD.Fin. Min. This is why the IAF want more Rafales,already in the pipeline,already chosen and some moolah paid for.However,this french filly comes in at abominable pricing,where 3-4 equally good rivals can be bought for just one Rafale,or even 6-8 LCAs for the same price! It would be a most profligate act to acquire more Rafales at the outrageous price that comes with it,even if there is a 30% discount on batch-2,which would still work out to around $150M a pop.There are better alternative solutions to "bridging the gap",but the IAF and interested parties have only one plan in mind,"Rafale or bust" (that is conjunct with their desire for a second firang filly,the Gripen of F-16!).Two new firang fillys for the IAF to toy with. When "white meat" is around on the menu and the GOI paying the bill,who in the IAF wants,roti and subji ,idli and sambar when foie gras, caviar,champagne ,cognac,vodka and smorgasbord are available!

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 08 Nov 2017 15:40

Philip wrote:Some analysts like the good Prof. Das say that their bird is superior in combat to our LCA MK-1,and the equiv. of early model F-16s.
Whatever the truth of that and one will know only if the two meet in combat,the fact remains that our declining numbers require immediate

Do You believe in it Philip ji, if no, then why you post this everyday in every other thread ? Is your vitriol against anything domestic so strong ? The advertised specs of Jf-17 radar alone are not in the league of baseline El/M-2032, let alone the real world performance of the MMR. Same goes with EW suite, fuel capacity, avionics, hell, Jf-17 doesn't even have the cost advantage. With all the industrial might of PRC, how many countries have purchased it ? exactly one. Every year Pakistani media generates a fake story of xx units sold to some African or Asian country and none materialise. Iran is limping with ancient airframes and even they don't consider Jf-17 worthwhile to spend their money on. It has been in production since 2007 with 80 something units delivered so far. The magnificent delivery rate of...gasp...8 bleddy planes per year. Damn, a rate of production so high, that Tejas line is going to exceed it in a next financial year. Better than Tejas, my arse.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 08 Nov 2017 17:38

^changing someone's belief is more difficult than teaching a new one.

It is next to impossible to win over some folks, they have enough points to pick or invent new negative points.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 08 Nov 2017 17:50

This JF-17 keeps coming up, it has its short comings but the PAF has no choice with Mirages and F-7's having flogged well above thier life and even 2002 F-7P of which 15 have crashed have a very limited range Grifo 7 radar.

So if they dont induct JF-17 they are left with serviceable f-16's out of a fleet of 75, given the cost of uncle's parts it will be between availability of putting 28-50 F-16's in the air. The Mirages have been flogged way beyond their lifetime and the last spare parts where probably produced int he late 90's.

So PAF has a choice between JF-17 in air vs no aircraft in the air.

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 08 Nov 2017 19:59

India on verge of losing last available C-17 Globemaster over red tape
MANU PUBBY

https://theprint.in/2017/11/08/india-ve ... -tape/amp/

Unbelievable

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Nov 2017 21:06

chiru wrote:India on verge of losing last available C-17 Globemaster over red tape
MANU PUBBY

https://theprint.in/2017/11/08/india-ve ... -tape/amp/

Unbelievable

The original order itself should have been for 13-16 C-17s. That should be the lesson (time-and-time again). The whole 10 (+options) doesn't quite work in the Indian context due to "red tape". Just get what you need the first time around.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Nov 2017 00:47

Philip, It will be settled in combat.

I am willing to bet the Tejas will out fly, out maneuver, and out shoot any Bandar, any day.
I am talking as an engineer.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Nov 2017 08:09

^^^ And that too as the Mk1 variant

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 09 Nov 2017 09:04

ramana wrote:Philip, It will be settled in combat.

I am willing to bet the Tejas will out fly, out maneuver, and out shoot any Bandar, any day.
I am talking as an engineer.

+1

(Not an engineer)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Nov 2017 09:24

Exactly what I've said.Issue settled in battle.However some knowledgeable people with a sound aero-eng. background differ and VAYU our most respected aviation journal has published the piece.I am merely the postman. However,even the IAF was force-fed into accepting 40+ LCA MK-1s.The point I was stressing is depleting lack of numbers to maintain our superiority which is why both in '65 and'71 apart from superior trg. and tactics
we prevailed over the PAF particularly in '71.

Pak is steadily closing the gap with increased JF-17 production.5 ads. already in service more to come.Compare it with our LCA prod.rate.By 2020 the PAF may have 4-5 times as many JF-17 sqds than LCAs.Also remember that with this modest bird,a JV, they have the full logistics and technical support of the PRC, nothing to go sneered at.The cardinal sin that we can make is to underestimate our adversaries.Pak did against us 4 times and lost.The next time round it may well be a 2-front war.Lacking sufficient numbers the IAF will be v.hard pressed to maintain its air superiority and dominance.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 09 Nov 2017 12:22

^^^Philipji mere addition of a single platform in numbers does not give an edge, please do not compare they are getting more jf17 in numbers vs our lca's by 2020 means they have an edge. They will not be having any rafale's just as one pointer, there are many that differentiates the edge IAF have.

Air superiority and dominance means different things and increasing number of jf-17 does not make PAF close the edge gap wrt IAF

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 09 Nov 2017 15:26

K_K...phillip is correcct to say that PAF is closing the gap..as they say quantity has a quality of its own. every addition to PAF is closing the gap..we are ofc trying to widen the gap but Phillip is right in his assertion.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Nov 2017 17:09

Am trying to figure how to fight a 2 front war in the mid 2030 to mid 2040 period and while I believe that smart tactics will win. But have huge difficulties in coming up with suitable number's.

But preliminary numbers have to be greater than 1800 combat aircrafts supported by 1000s of missiles and hundreds of SAM and anti aircraft artillery. As defenses against enemy cruise missiles

I am not even going into the number of tankers and AEW aircrafts required in order to support and sustain this force over Tibet and deeper into China.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Nov 2017 17:20

Pratyush wrote:Am trying to figure how to fight a 2 front war in the mid 2030 to mid 2040 period and while I believe that smart tactics will win. But have huge difficulties in coming up with suitable number's.

But preliminary numbers have to be greater than 1800 combat aircrafts supported by 1000s of missiles and hundreds of SAM and anti aircraft artillery. As defenses against enemy cruise missiles

I am not even going into the number of tankers and AEW aircrafts required in order to support and sustain this force over Tibet and deeper into China.

With respect Pratyush I think you are planning an Iraq style war against a continent sized nation. The Americans have lost wars against smaller nations because "Iraq style wars" are simply WW2 style wars jazzed up with technology. See how Vietnam. Iraq, Syria and even the Taliban responded. And remember what an almighty fight Japan and Germany put up.

There is no point developing force levels for unwinnable wars. Develop what is needed to win practicable wars and if it goes beyind that use nukes.

Just my thoughts

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Nov 2017 17:24

If the type of war that Pakistan and China impose on us uses a certain class of weapons, our plans will have to be to reduce the impact of those weapons - not copy them and try and develop the same weapons and fight their war. JF-17 squadrons are not going to be met with LCA but by taking out radar and airfields

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Nov 2017 17:35

Shiv, my thought process is that in order to deter war you need to develop sufficient capabilities to deter your adversaries. While I agree that the numbers I am thinking off are not sufficient to beat the PRC and do Iraq on it. My intention is to develop sufficient capabilities to make sure that any movement by the combined TSP and PRC forces will be defeated in conventional sence. While at the same time take away the temptation to use nukes. In that respect the ability to fight the combined forces to a standstill while having the ability to inflict a defeat in the localised conflict is very important.

That is where I am coming from. Because it is inevitable that PRC will build strong logistical capabilities to support it's airforce. While retaining its fighter fleet numbers. That being the case it will have the ability to overwhelm the IAF in both tactical as well as strategic context. A capability that PLAF lacks currently.

The only way to prevent the PRC from doing it is to develop the IAF strength in fighter and logistics department. I am still trying to figure the exact numbers. But basically IAF will need more than 1800 fightrs along with logistics capabilities to support them and more importantly pilots to fly the jets.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Nov 2017 17:40

shiv wrote:If the type of war that Pakistan and China impose on us uses a certain class of weapons, our plans will have to be to reduce the impact of those weapons - not copy them and try and develop the same weapons and fight their war. JF-17 squadrons are not going to be met with LCA but by taking out radar and airfields

I will say that better C2 and recon can help defeat the enemy when all things are equal. But we need to have the strength both material and in terms of force multipliers to deal with the enemy on a symmetrical battlefield.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Nov 2017 19:00

Funnily the PAF today is learning the lessons that we had to decades ago.Not too much money,make do with modest aircraft and concentrate upon training and tactics while building up a strong support chain. The IAF today wants the bestest at the most expensive prices ,partly becos they know after exercising with the world's best that the 300 or so MKIs they have are the best in the biz moreover now built at home at reasonable cost! What the OAF is trying to do is to armtwtist the GOI into paying for a 5* buffet when it has to borrow money to pay for the bill!

If I was the PM/DM I would give the IAF an ultimatum and timeframe for the same.This is what India can afford.Cut your coat according to your cloth or else we'll buy an off-the-rack coat for you.

I would also put pressure upon it by giving the IN a greater role in protecting the maritime airspace with both land and carrier based aircraft increasing numbers of less expensive naval aircraft which when equipped with LRCMs and other anti-ship missiles can do the biz.The IAF can then concentrate upon defending the northern,eastern and western airspace leabing the southern airspace mostly maritime,to the IN.The IAF won't like it but it will cost the nation a lot less.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Nov 2017 21:04

Philip, Odd that you don't have the same prescription for Indian Armored Corps vis a vis the Arjun Mk2!!!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 09 Nov 2017 22:42

shiv wrote:...
There is no point developing force levels for unwinnable wars. Develop what is needed to win practicable wars and if it goes beyind that use nukes.

Just my thoughts

Agree. We 'win' by deterring China and Pak from attacking. Any war they launch against us has to be 'unwinnable' for them because of the costs they will incur.

Beyond a certain stage, the nukes kick in. What we have to aggressively counter punch is in the Doklam 'death by a thousand nibbles' scenarios.

No WWII tank battles on the Tibetan Plateau

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 10 Nov 2017 00:56

sudeepj wrote:Removing coordinates as per request, though I am not sure what good it will do. For the interested, the airbase is north west of phalodi town itself. While it still looks a bit underdeveloped with no blast pens etc., it looks fully functional with a large apron area and some hangar type structures.

I see it now. Thanks.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Nov 2017 01:13

Cosmo_R wrote:
.....

Agree. We 'win' by deterring China and Pak from attacking. Any war they launch against us has to be 'unwinnable' for them because of the costs they will incur.

Beyond a certain stage, the nukes kick in. What we have to aggressively counter punch is in the Doklam 'death by a thousand nibbles' scenarios.

No WWII tank battles on the Tibetan Plateau

Pak in 1971 and 1999 had no chance but above logic did not work as they hoped that it will bring US intervention.

Indian forces should be to ensure a quick defeat of Pak forces to make US intervention redundant.
This requires Offensive-Defense posture.
Wrt to Kashmir, India has to have fortress or bastion defense that ensures there are large number of troops to preclude any efforts to detach the Valley. Essentially that is what we have.
Its not to suppress the terrorist movement but to prevent Pak chicanery.

WRT China, India has to have defensive-offence posture to ensure Chinese forces cannot overwhelm Indian defenses. That is itself a defeat for China. This was done during Dokhlam incident.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Nov 2017 17:30

Ramana,as far as our MBTs go, the fight if there ever was one is over.We have already in service 95% or thereabouts of T-series MBTs with its established logistical support system backing it up.Arjun MK- 1 suffers from poor support becos , says the IA,supply of spares,etc. for it's heavy foreign content is "drying up".

Secondly cost wise T-90s are cheaper.A-2s will cost even more than A-1s which are $1.7M more than a T-90. The design philosophy of the A series is the antithesis of the T series.Had the Arjun been a Desi replacement for a T series MBT of approx. the same size and crew , it would have been a real steal. If we don't " taste the vodka" with the arrival of the revolutionary Armata concept, with our next FMBT programme, history will repeat itself.

Lastly, MBTs are not the top priority as of now though the light tank reg. has surfaced.There is no crisis except poor prod. performance by Avadi.The needs of the Mountain Corps vs China is consuming a lot of the budget esp. The infrastructure, where a clever concept of building tunnels through mountains intead of laboriously climbing around them will shorten distance and save heaps of time in transportation of men and material.

Similarly the IAF as mentioned is also expanding and improving facilities and infra all along the border. It needs more heavy helos like MI-26Ts-the new upgraded machines,Chinooks ,MI-17Vs, C-130s,etc.Amazing how babudom can eff up a simple task of acquiring just one extra C-17 ,aircraft already in service.Those responsible should be charge-sheeted for dereliction of duty. I don't t know what the op. max alt. of the VTOL Osprey is , whether it can operate at high alt . in the Himalayas, as it is mainly used by the USMC/ USN , but worth looking at from the logistics angle and small airstrips to operate from.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Nov 2017 05:09

I really love The Tribune from Chandigarh. They give some really goood tidbits of info.

With 278 missions, 35-yr-old Sqn looks forward to President’s Standard
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/jaland ... 96430.html

Group Captain Prabhat Malik at the Adampur Air Force Station.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 12 Nov 2017 13:59

Rakesh wrote:I really love The Tribune from Chandigarh. They give some really goood tidbits of info.

With 278 missions, 35-yr-old Sqn looks forward to President’s Standard
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/jaland ... 96430.html

Group Captain Prabhat Malik at the Adampur Air Force Station.

Yeah agreed.
My dad studied in Chandigarh so it was his staple.
He would subscribe to it and have it delivered everywhere and then he would force me the read half of it and then give him my synopsis or my view point on an article in it.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 12 Nov 2017 20:52

Propelled by HAL’s young blood, HTT-40 ready for critical stall & spin tests -
http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... -1.2381400

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 12 Nov 2017 21:17

So Hjt-36 can be assumed dead now ? Haven't heard anything about it for a while.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Nov 2017 22:15

It could be on slow burn. Nothing gets topped in India.
Is the engine ready?

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Nov 2017 04:43

shiv wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Am trying to figure how to fight a 2 front war in the mid 2030 to mid 2040 period and while I believe that smart tactics will win. But have huge difficulties in coming up with suitable number's.

But preliminary numbers have to be greater than 1800 combat aircrafts supported by 1000s of missiles and hundreds of SAM and anti aircraft artillery. As defenses against enemy cruise missiles

I am not even going into the number of tankers and AEW aircrafts required in order to support and sustain this force over Tibet and deeper into China.
With respect Pratyush I think you are planning an Iraq style war against a continent sized nation. The Americans have lost wars against smaller nations because "Iraq style wars" are simply WW2 style wars jazzed up with technology. See how Vietnam. Iraq, Syria and even the Taliban responded. And remember what an almighty fight Japan and Germany put up.

There is no point developing force levels for unwinnable wars. Develop what is needed to win practicable wars and if it goes beyind that use nukes.

Just my thoughts

Quite true , the Russians started the new trend with asymmetrical warfare , the age of conventional wars against large nations are over ( Just witness America vs NK ! )

Honestly warfare is never going to be the same again .. for all the tanks and stealth planes , the world has changed . I love to see the day China starts a war with even one of its smaller neighbours .. that day would literally be the changing pivotal point in geopolitics , the passing of "power" from the US to China. This is waiting to happen and scares the western powers . OT anyway

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Nov 2017 23:01

Thakur_B wrote:So Hjt-36 can be assumed dead now ? Haven't heard anything about it for a while.

I asked AnanthaKrishnan on Twitter. lets see what he comes up with.

My question on this 42 squadron thing:

So what is stopping IAF from ordering more Su-30s to make up the 42 squadron requirement?
Plane is proven , already in IAF service and HAL and supply chain is already past the learning curve.

What is HAL rate of production of Su-30MKIs?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Nov 2017 05:12

Ka-226 in rural use in Roos. Nifty little bird this

https://youtu.be/bGVdyMXfwTM

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 15 Nov 2017 06:39

ramana wrote:
What is HAL rate of production of Su-30MKIs?

12 per year.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Nov 2017 07:50

Gagan wrote:Ka-226 in rural use in Roos. Nifty little bird this

https://youtu.be/bGVdyMXfwTM

Man that is one incredible video...

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Nov 2017 08:16

Crazy Russian pilot

If his blades ever touch each other ... He's doing this because there is no wind