Indian Military Aviation

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 15 Nov 2008 00:16

soutikghosh wrote:Although a bit heavier, why can't ALH Dhruv fullfill the role of Light Utility Helicopter after all it is fully qualified for hot and high operations of Siachen.

ALH Dhruv is cleared for operations at higher altitudes as well, but that's just what it means: flying at those altitudes. In Siachen, you need to hover and land and offload supplies. And these are at altitudes above 22,000 feet. The ALH Dhruv even with the Shakti engine cannot lift more than a few dozen kilos at that altitude in Hover OGE (Out of Ground Effect. Note: helipads in the Siachen often are nothing more that table top pads. In this case the helicopter needs to be able to hover OGE entirely without expected IGE assistance). This is because of its heavier design weight.

By comparison, the Cheetah lefts up to around seventy odd kilos after adding all other weights at the same altitude for much lesser operational cost. Now the LOH is required to lift at least around 200 Kg of payload at the same altitude if it is to provide any additional improvement in lifting capacity over the Cheetah. This payload requirement number is from the BR pages itself, though I don't have the link right now. Nevertheless, the only way the helicopter in the LOH category can lift such a load is if its power remained the same but the weights was reduced. In that case the HAL designed LOH with the same powerplant design but much smaller fuselage is the logical choice, but the Dhruv in itself is not.

-Vivek

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 15 Nov 2008 00:34

From the above link on the LCH:

The twin-engine LCH will be armed with a 20mm turret twin-barrel gun, cluster bombs, rocket pods as well as air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles. Designed for anti-tank and anti-infantry roles with a maximum speed of 275 kmph, it will also be capable of high-altitude warfare since its operational ceiling will be 16,000 to 18,000 feet.

That underlined phrase is extremely important. As I had mentioned many pages ago, the LCH can fly at much higher altitudes in forward flight. Same with the Dhruv for that matter. But Operational ceilings is the Combat ROC hovering capability with payload. This is the altitude range in which the LCH can hover with weapons. No other helicopter can match its capabilities at those altitudes.

BTW, that 18,000 feet number seems pretty close to the 19,000 feet number I had predicted further back in this thread. Not bad, huh?

Can't wait for this baby to hit the skies!

-Vivek

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 15 Nov 2008 00:47

If I remeber correct that Requirement is now around 300 + Light Util/LOH Helos altogethr for IA and IAF.

Out of these 197 nos will be purchased from other countries and rest will be designed and build by HAL..may be a scalled down version of Dhruv with single engine.

Vivek
>But Operational ceilings is the Combat ROC hovering capability with payload. This is the altitude range in which the LCH can hover with weapons. No other helicopter can match its capabilities at those altitudes.

Are you sure that LCH will be able carry normal payload to the 18000 feet ..I guess only two ATMs OR Two rocket pods will be the maximum payload apart from the main gun..it should be able to carry on to those heights...what do you say ?

Regards,

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 15 Nov 2008 01:03

Sontu wrote:
Vivek
>But Operational ceilings is the Combat ROC hovering capability with payload. This is the altitude range in which the LCH can hover with weapons. No other helicopter can match its capabilities at those altitudes.
Are you sure that LCH will be able carry normal payload to the 18000 feet ..I guess only two ATMs OR Two rocket pods will be the maximum payload apart from the main gun..it should be able to carry on to those heights...what do you say ?

Well, I didn't say normal payload. Basically speaking, at 18000 feet, for the LCH you are looking at around a few hundred kilos (~400 Kg per my calculations) in weapons. Note that you need to set the payload capability to the maximum required but without compromising on the ROC (Rate of Climb) during hover because that can prove deadly. You do not want to be in overloaded helicopter in rarified air when everybody is shooting at you.

However, to put that payload number in perspective, the Nag ATGM weighs around 45 kg. So while the LCH may not be able to carry heavy bombs like the Hind can (although that is the suicidal approach these days), the LCH can hover with a deadly cargo of at least four ATGMs plus cannon ammo and still have decent ROC capability at the said altitudes. In other words, its not going to need to overfly the target area like other choppers would be forced to. It can conduct standoff attacks at altitudes where other helicopters cannot even dream of.

-Vivek

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 15 Nov 2008 01:08

Thanks Vivek, for your comments and inputs.

Regards,

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Nov 2008 14:15

http://space.skyrocket.de/ -> chronology -> 2008

by 2009 end, the glonass-M constellation of 24 will be back at full population imo. page above talks of 10-20m accuracy @ mil grade signal.

page also mentions a more advanced glonass-K line of sats is on the
anvil after 2009.

so any of our a/c and missiles now have option of switching over to glonass or using it as a second source.

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 15 Nov 2008 18:05

I think IAF's many a/c s have dual GPS/GLONASS receiver Su 30 MKi and mostly Mig-29 too..

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Nov 2008 01:47

Engine switch-off renders HAL trainer risky

Engine switch-off renders HAL trainer risky

Ravi Sharma

IAF seeks urgent remedial action for engine cuts

Technical problems have dogged HPT-32 since 1984

Now, cadets have to follow unnecessary procedures

BANGALORE: The Indian Air Force is seeking urgent remedial action from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited on technical problems in the single-engine, piston aircraft used for initial pilot training, HPT-32.

Though technical problems in the HAL-manufactured HPT-32 have occurred almost since its induction in 1984, the IAF’s concern now stems from engine cuts suffered by two HPT-32s at the Bidar Air Force Station recently.

Senior officials told The Hindu that the two engine cuts — a situation where the aircraft engine suddenly switches off — one on the ground and the other while the aircraft was airborne caused serious concern among the young and inexperienced cadets.

“Though the aircraft has been with the IAF since 1984, HAL has not been able to completely rectify the problem primarily with the engine and caused possibly by a design mismatch between the HAL-manufactured airframe and the Lycoming AEO piston engine.”

The cadets must now go through elaborate and normally unnecessary procedures while taxiing. While airborne, they will have to remember procedures which will ensure that the engine does not switch off. “The cadets are naturally not at ease with flying.”
Accidents

A few years ago, after a series of accidents, the IAF almost declared the HPT-32 “too dangerous to fly solo.” Then, the engine cuts in mid-air were traced to the entry of vapour from the fuel lines. HAL engineers have initiated a number of changes including the ‘1116 modification’, by creating an air separator tank that gathers vapour and feeds it back to the fuel tanks. But engine cuts have continued.

In May, a 21-year-old cadet Deepika Sharma was killed when the HPT-32 she was flying solo plunged to the ground just after takeoff. Sources said preliminary findings showed that the engine had suffered a leak, spluttering oil on the windshield.
Replacement

The IAF hopes that HAL will come out with a replacement for the HPT-32 by 2013-14 and has finalised its qualitative requirements —a trainer that has a reliable turboprop engine, an ejection seat, a glass cockpit and a benign aircraft with good spin characteristics.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 16 Nov 2008 17:17

IAF's first Sukhoi squadron in Punjab by 2011

16 Nov 2008, 1609 hrs IST, PTI

NEW DELHI: In a move to provide teeth to its Air Force fleet along the Indo-Pak border, India will deploy two of its air superiority Sukhoi fighter
squadrons in Halwara air base in Punjab by 2011.

The Indian Air Force's (IAF) sword-arm Western Air Command (WAC) has drawn up a two-year plan and is preparing to host the Sukhoi squadrons at the Halwara fighter base near Ludhiana.

"We will get the first of the Su-30 squadrons to be based under the WAC by 2011 at the Halwara air base," WAC chief Air Marshal Pranab Kumar Barbora said.

The IAF has already started the work to develop the infrastructure for deploying the squadrons with the most potent fighter aircraft in its fleet at the air base, which currently hosts the MiG-23 BN squadrons.

"We have started developing infrastructure for the Su-30 MKIs' deployment there. Work on the runway and other facilities has started and its going to be fully prepared for the aircraft in the next two years," Barbora said here.

The two Su-30 MKI squadrons would be deployed at Halwara simultaneously once the MiG-23s are phased out early next year.

These would be the first Su-30 MKI squadrons under the WAC, the largest of IAF's five operational commands in terms of area.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/IAFs ... latestnews

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Nov 2008 21:48

Engine switch-off renders HAL trainer risky
.........................

what happened to the HTT-35(?) programme ? is HAL currently involved in any such ?

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 17 Nov 2008 01:42

IAF set to take delivery of first AWACS, may opt for another four: report news

11 November 2008

Tel Aviv: Reports now emanating from Israel say the first of the three IAI-manufactured Phalcon AWACS aircraft systems, contracted for by the Indian Air Force, may be delivered sometime over the next few weeks. An Indian defence delegation currently in Israel may also be negotiating a $1.5 billion purchase of four similar early warning systems, Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported Monday.

Negotiations over the new deal is said to have begun a few months ago.

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... awacs.html

This is indeed good news if its true. I thought the deliveries were delayed until some time middle of next year!

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 17 Nov 2008 01:44

Rahul M wrote:what happened to the HTT-35(?) programme ? is HAL currently involved in any such ?

Surely you mean the HTT-34?

In any case, here's a BR excerpt:

The only development of the HPT-32 Deepak, was the turboprop powered HTT-34 which was developed as a private venture by HAL. The 313kW (420shp) Allison 250-B17D powered HTT-34 flew for the first time, in a converted HTP-32 prototype form, on 17 June 1984. A second pre-production prototype was also unveiled in 1989, other changes included a stretch of 35 cm and a smaller tail. The new engine significantly boasted performance on the basic aircraft, but was cancelled as official interest was not forthcoming

Don't you just love the far sightedness of the Indian defense planners?

-Vivek

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 17 Nov 2008 01:53

HPT-32 replacement should be fairly easy. They just need to make sure that the engine deal is signed and sealed in advance.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 17 Nov 2008 02:07

vavinash wrote:HPT-32 replacement should be fairly easy. They just need to make sure that the engine deal is signed and sealed in advance.

From a technical standpoint it is indeed relatively simple, but the thing is, you need focus. When HAL had designed the replacement for the HPT-32 back in the later 80s, the IAF/government shot it down. Now twenty years later they suddenly wake up and say: "Hey, we don't have a replacement and the current aircraft is risky to fly." Well of course its risky to fly. It has been suffering problems since its induction twenty years ago. That was why the HTT-34 was designed. The HTT-34 was a turboprop aircraft that would have been ideal as a follow on. Now, twnety years later, the IAF says the following:

The IAF hopes that HAL will come out with a replacement for the HPT-32 by 2013-14 and has finalised its qualitative requirements —a trainer that has a reliable turboprop engine, an ejection seat, a glass cockpit and a benign aircraft with good spin characteristics.

We have been flying the HPT-32 for decades now with no official interest in a follow on for the same. In this case you don't blame the HAL for the problems in the HPT-32. They came with a solution, you shot it down. Deal with it.

But all said and done, these kind of things should not be allowed to happen.

JMT and all that.

-Vivek

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 17 Nov 2008 03:37

We tend to simplify issues and not trying to get the real picture of the aircraft. The following is what I had collected over the years regarding the Deepak aircraft in various conversations with pilots.

First the HPT-32 is a three/four seater design (believe it!) and with a fixed undercarraige and no ejection seats. The HTT-34 was a direct development with just the piston engine replaced with the turo prop. The IAF evaluated it and it showed no interest - because the HTT-34 was the wrong solution at that time and it is so even now.

The HTT was the only single engined turbo prop trainer aircrft in the world with a fixed undercarraige ! I checked and at that time it was true. that feature itself would have resulted in interesting performance characteristics. When the HTT-34 was introduced, what position was it supposed to fill? a basic trainer? The HPT would have done it at a lower cost. Could it do an Intermediate trainer role? no way. It was an oddity - perhaps a proof of concept.

Not to mention that the parent aircraft HPT itself had its share of design problems. One was the fuel line problem mentioned in the article. HAL kanpur manufactured some examples with the wrong wing contours - this resulted in a bad batch of aircraft that would drop a wing sharply in a stall - not exactly a comforting plane for the student cadet pilots. The reason for the bad batch of aircraft is an intersting story altogether.

Handling - some say that aircraft spins faster than normal - and its glide charecterisics are worse than the Kiran. Infact the Kiran glides pretty well, but the HPT-32 has a glide ratio half of the Kiran. now hang a Turbo prop in front, and the glide ratio goes down even worse. Add to the fact that there are NO ejection seats in the HPT. Doesnt sound comforting at all.

With the parent aircraft having these issues, and there being no real requirement for a turboprop, there was no need for a HTT - then.

Time flies - when the Deepak was being made and inducted , there were other piston engined aircraft in the IAF's inventory - Devons, Otters, HT-2s, maybe even caribous. Today it is the only piston engined aircraft in the IAF's inventory. It is the only ac that requires a seperate fuel supply chain (Avgas instead of Jet fuel). switching to a turbo prop makes sense now. but was not really a no-brainer twenty years ago. Now being the only piston engined ac it has its share of issues - stocking up of fuel, simple SOPs for Piston engines that tend to get forgotten.

A Turbo engine would ensure that there would be some commonolity in the logistics portion of it. Though the recent induction of ultralights and motorised gliders may have changed that fact a bit.

The current Turbo prop requirement will most probably be for a Tandem seat trainer - in the style of the tucano or a Pilatus. And ejection seats to boot . Now there could be some arguement whether such an aircraft can be a 'basic' trainer or an Intermediate one - but I guess the goal is to design an ac that fills both roles. But certainly - a HTT-34 would be rejected today unless it undergoes a major redesign - but then - it would mean its a completely new aircraft.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 17 Nov 2008 03:43

Another interesting fact was that when the HPT deliveries were delayed - the IAF introduced the all jet thru flying courses - where student pilots trained on the Kiran for Basic and intermediate flying. I believe there were three to four such courses - the result - there are some fighter pilots in the IAF who have never flown a piston engined or a prop aircraft. (though you may think its impossible).

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 17 Nov 2008 04:03

Jagan,

Based on what I understand, the HTT-34 was never truly evolved as an aircraft. HAL designed it as a kind of a pet project. The thing is, aircraft design evolves and improves over the years and this process would have ironed out these issues if there had been any official future planning for it. If the IAF was having issues with the HPT-32 since the induction period with regard to the engines, then I wonder why a replacement for the HPT-32 was not sought sooner? Or is it that the engine issues are being overblown in these reports?

The current requirements for glass cockpits and ejection seats etc are things that could have been introduced as Mk-1 and Mk-2 designs etc over the years. I agree with your assessment that the presence of other piston engined aircraft in the IAF inventory would have been a factor weighing against the HTT-34, but then again, the aircraft should have been looked at as something to build ten years from then, until which time the HPT-32 could have forged on. Now I wonder how an aircraft can suddenly be conceptualized from scratch, tested, evolved and inducted within a five year period.

Essentially what I am complaining against is that these are like knee-jerk reactions in aircraft design in which an existing design is not built up on and then twenty years down the line the requirement suddenly jumps up. Surely there are smoother transitions possible. That ensure the aerospace industry within the country evolves as an industry rather than magic solutions as and when the problems begin to overflow out of the vessel.

-Vivek

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 17 Nov 2008 04:24

My bone of contention is that we are blaming the IAF for not showing interest in the HTT-34 twenty five years ago - When it was neither the right aircraft nor the right requirement. If this had happened five years ago then I would understand. But even five years ago or even today , the older HTT is not the right aircraft for today's basic trainer requirement.

Also the HPT is not an outdated aircraft for the requirement of basic flying even today. If the engine is reliable, you really dont need ejection seats. Nor do you need the power to glide. The aircraft has a good ten to fifteen years of life ahead in IAF service. And there are enough examples in the inventory to last that long (My estimates - about 130 built, some 15-18 lost in accidents and another 10-15 bent or broken in - still leaves about 90+)

Today, according to the report the IAF expects a replacement trainer to be built by HAL by 2013-14. This is not an unrealistic demand when you consider that HAL built the more complicated IJT in just three years - end to end (or maybe sooner). So why are we saying that the IAF does not have foresight on this account?

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 17 Nov 2008 04:42

Jagan,

I realize what you are saying, but remember that I am not ruing for the HTT-34 per se, but rather the evolution of design over the years that was abandoned after the induction of the HPT-32 in the intermediate years. I would have understood if the news report had stated that the IAF is looking for a new design and that's it. But when quotes from IAF officers about fundamental design flaws that might have been the reason for the loss of lives suddenly appear as being the primary reason for the new aircraft requirement, then the obvious question in my mind is that if the engine problem was present all along, was not resolvable and has resulted in the loss of lives, why are we hearing of the replacement issue now and not sooner? Also, other issues with the HPT-32 have been around for some time based on your post, then why hasn't a replacement design been pursued since, say ten years ago? Is this a recent phenomenon due to the age of the aircraft?

Overall, though, I am not trying to be dense. Its just frustrating to read about the loss of lives due to reasons that could have had solutions.

-Vivek

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Nov 2008 04:49

jagan, the deepak may have had issues but has it been really an accident prone a/c ?
more than its share of crashes I mean ?

vivek, thanks for the correction 35 to 34. which is why I had a question mark there !
btw, is this the same a/c whose model was displayed in aero 96 ? (I think I got the date right

)

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 17 Nov 2008 06:20

Vivek, let me get back to your questions shortly.

Rahul - I dont think the attrition rate of the Deepak is too much. Only 15 aircraft were lost in the last 23 years of ops. It appears that the total orders for this type were 160 from the AF. I dont know if the Navy numbers are counted as part of this.

Also the new concept of the HTT presented is more like the tucano. someone posted the info on one of these threads just a few weeks ago. have to dig that up.

-Jagan

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 17 Nov 2008 23:53

Time to pull out the HTT-35 design from the storeroom...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2008 00:05

vivek, I was right after all ! it is the htt-35 I'm talking about.

I only got the year wrong !

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 893#p17893

Harry wrote:Important question - Has anyone been to or have pictures of Aero India / Bangalore AirShow in 1993?

The fact is that there was a full scale mockup of the HAL HTT-35 (tucano clone) painted in red, not to mention a fully explorable ALH mockup and a fo'd fuselage+cockpit mockup of a MiG-21, probably the upgrade.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 18 Nov 2008 00:14

Rahul,

Thanks a lot for digging that out! It became clear that there were two versions of the HTT when Jagan mentioned a Tucano lookalike, but I didn't know that there was a designation difference. Would be neat to get hold of some photo of the HTT-35 though.

Also, based on Harry's comments, the Tucano lookalike was present (at least as a design) way back in 1993. Kind of rekindles yesterday's heated debate...

-Vivek

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2008 00:31

a pic of the mock-up was there in frontline's coverage of the '93 affair.
if anybody has those scanned and archived, plz co-operate.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 18 Nov 2008 01:53

I remember seeing atleast a line drawing of that concept - most probably in vayu.

vivek coming back to one of your questions

Also, other issues with the HPT-32 have been around for some time based on your post, then why hasn't a replacement design been pursued since, say ten years ago?

Apparently an ASR was drafted by the IAF three years ago (end 2005) for the replacement of the HPT-32. If it was indeed submitted to HAL , it should have given some lead time to HAL in the design of the new generation HTT. Is any work going on on this? lets wait for the next round of 'scoops' by the press

AshokS · Post by **AshokS** » 18 Nov 2008 02:22

Janes All the World's Aircraft has it in either in the 1993, and 1994 editions under the India section. Any decent college library should have it in the US.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2008 08:50

Mig27 trainer crash at Hashimara yesterday. both pilot and trainee ejected safely.

sum · Post by **sum** » 18 Nov 2008 09:08

Singha wrote:Mig27 trainer crash at Hashimara yesterday. both pilot and trainee ejected safely.

Are there some maintenance issues at Hashimara?
Two MiG crashes in 5 days at the AFB!!!!

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 18 Nov 2008 09:10

earlier one was a MiG-21U from Chabua. Yesterdays is a MiG-23UM from Hasi. both different airbases.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 18 Nov 2008 11:58

Over the years, i have read a lot on BR about SU30, Hawks, Tejas, Rafaels, MiG21...etc etc
But i never read anything being mentioned about MiG29.
We take our jaguars, 21's, MKIs for joint exercises, but not the 29's.

Anyone knows why MiG29 maintains a low profile on BR & joint exercises? Or is it just that i might be mistaken?

Jason_B · Post by **Jason_B** » 18 Nov 2008 12:04

IAF - PLA AF to excercise...

NAGPUR: Keen to increase co-operation with its Chinese counterpart, the Indian Air Force (IAF) plans to hold joint exercises with the PeoplesLiberation Army (PLA) Air Force. The chief of the air staff Air Chief Marshal Fali Major had visited China early this month and held talks with Chinese Air Force officials on various bilateral issues.

Though planned to be held over next couple of years, if the move materialises, this would be the first ever joint manoeuvre by the IAF and the PLA Air Force, Major told reporters at a press conference at the start of a commanders' conference being held at Head Quarters Maintenance Command (HQMC) in Nagpur.

The Indian army had conducted its first joint exercise with PLA in December last year, while the Navy continues to hold basic level joint exercises with China.

"My visit to China was quite successful. I met the chief of the PLA AF and also called on the Chinese defence minister, with whom I had fairly long discussions," he said. There were talks about exchanges between the IAF and the PLA AF. We also explored the plans to hold joint exercises with China, Major added. During his visit to the air show in Zuhi, China, at which the IAF's Surya Kiran aerobatics team performed, the air chief also got an opportunity to study the Chinese technology.

Major said he was highly impressed by the discipline and Chinese way of systematically managing their affairs which, he felt, could be emulated by India. About Chinese military co-operation with Pakistan, he said it did not appear to be a matter of concern for the IAF.

On recent comments of CAG on India having a weak air surveillance system, he admitted that there were gaps indeed and it would take around five years for the IAF to induct an entirely fool-proof system.

The IAF was in the process of buying new radars and other sensing equipment and the ministry of defence was facilitating speedy execution of this project. The air force was set to receive 30 radars from the Bharat Electronics Limited and procurement of much more equipment was in the pipeline. It would still take around 4-5 years for the IAF to have a foolproof air surveillance system, he stressed.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Nov 2008 12:04

I think the Mig-29 was very much a part of the Cope India 05 and Cope India 06 Excercises with the USAF in India. But it is outdated avionics and inability to fire the R-77 ( atleast the Mig-29A versions which are the most numerous) means that these are not the IAF frontline air defence fighters until thier upgrade is completed. Moreover, the USAF aldready knows what it needs to know on the MIG 29 A,B,C versions which meant that the MIG-29's did not really pull any suprises during the trainings.

Besides the MIG-29 will always be a less capable aircraft than the SU-30's making them a less of a hot topic on BR.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Nov 2008 14:45

Jagan,fed up with the inordinate delays in procuring desi/hybrid weapon systems/aircraft,as the DRDO/ADE,etc. cannot deliver requirements on time,if the IAF has a complete plan perspective for the coming decades with its key requirements,why can't it just go out and buy a few non-billion $ ticket critical items like the best basic trainers (Pilatus or whatever),which are going to be the foundation of training for our future pilots? I know it took three decades to buy the Hawk,but why do we have to re-invent the wheel eveytime at home,when we do not have the perfect technological or design base/rsources for doing so? We should list out our priorities and be realistic about what we can do at home ,with JVs and what can be bought outright.Look at how the Chinese have set up a huge plant to build A-320s under licence in China.They've not bothered to re-invent the wheel,but are acquiring local production techniques for their future narrow body aircraft programmes,wheer they're being accused of copying elements of the ATR in their regional turbo-prop aircraft project.Instead of designing another regional jet ourselves,we should join one of the regional jet programmes like the Sukhoi Superjet,which will have western engines (RR) also designed to western certification standards.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 18 Nov 2008 16:41

IAF to launch its satellite: Air Chief

The first Indian Air Force (IAF) controlled satellite that will be used to gather navigational information will be put in space in July 2009.

Air Chief Marshal F.H. Major who, described the proposed satellite as the IAF eye in the skies, said today that it would basically be used to gather navigational information which would help IAF positioning.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Nov 2008 18:53

Aditya_V wrote:I think the Mig-29 was very much a part of the Cope India 05 and Cope India 06 Excercises with the USAF in India. But it is outdated avionics and inability to fire the R-77 ( atleast the Mig-29A versions which are the most numerous) means that these are not the IAF frontline air defence fighters until thier upgrade is completed. Moreover, the USAF aldready knows what it needs to know on the MIG 29 A,B,C versions which meant that the MIG-29's did not really pull any suprises during the trainings.

Besides the MIG-29 will always be a less capable aircraft than the SU-30's making them a less of a hot topic on BR.

mmmm - not so sure that one can be so dogmatic about the MiG 29. I can't recall where I read/saw it but I think the MiG 29 is currently the primary air defence fighter of the IAF - its just that it is not shown off any more.

Need to dig up some old videos - I may find clues there. Watch this space.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Nov 2008 20:27

MiG 29 in the IAF

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 18 Nov 2008 22:29

Old variants of Mig-21 to be phased out in the next year and half.

The old variants of MIG-21 fighter plane - also called “flying coffin” after many of them crashed and killed their pilots - will be phased out of the Indian Air Force (IAF) over the next year and a half.

“Another year and a half, and the old variants of MIG-21 won’t be with us, except for Byson, which is an upgraded version of MIG-21, and MIG-29, which is being upgraded,” chief of the air staff, Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major, said on Monday. “The MIG-23s, too, are being phased out of service.”

In Nagpur to attend the annual commanders’ conference at the IAF Maintenance Command headquarters, Major told a press conference that the IAF would be a very different force after its modernisation is completed in 7-8 years. New aircraft will be inducted, and new radars and air defence and missile systems will be installed.

The conference is to discuss induction of new aircraft, human resources and training, cyber security and ways to overcome hurdles to the indigenisation and reverse-engineering processes.

The Air Force has faced problems in procuring some spares from the original equipment manufacturers in Russia, but the offset clause in the defence procurement policy of 2008 will help it overcome the difficulty very soon. The Maintenance Command has brought out its new maintenance manual that’ll help private vendors understand the needs of the IAF, Major said.

Over the past 10 years, the command, with its vendor support base, has ensured that the IAF got mandatory spares from within the country. However, the force is still dependent on global players for some high-end sophisticated spares, Major said.

He said the technical evaluation of the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) has been done. The IAF hoped to start its flight evaluation by February 2009. India plans to acquire 126 MMRCAs and three to four global players were competing for the contract, he said. (Already down from 6 Vendors to 3-4 now? I sincerely hope this is not DDM reporting and that we have kicked out the Russians)

Major, who visited China recently, said IAF is “exploring possibilities” of joint exercises with the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (the Chinese air force) in two years.

The IAF carried out a joint air-space management experiment with the civil aviation department for 10 days in the southern region, he said. “It has given us impetus to try it out at other places,” he said. The IAF had submitted to the Centre a paper on joint air space management mechanism a few years ago.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Nov 2008 08:59

what is this IAF navigational satellite? one sat sure wont generate gps data, so is it a Cartosat2 kind of 3d terrain mapper but more advanced ?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 19 Nov 2008 09:51

Please excuse me if i'm being ridiculous, but this is just a passing thought. Can we have a satellite do a an AWACS' job. Say if we have a satellite dedicated to particular zones, then can we visually confirm the presence of a particular aircraft, base and relay the coordinates?