The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
anirban_aim wrote:I have a very basic question. Accding to the information available on the net and what I gathered from Discovery Channel. the AK - 47 and its variants are the basically the best assault rifles in the world. Even edgeing out M 16s. Especially because of their low maintenance requirements, ease of handling, low cost and reliability. In the light of this information, I would like to understand why is the IA, BSF and the other CPMFs opting for INSAS and phasing out AK series guns
AK 47 is a very good rifle.
It does excellently well for what it is designed.
It is robust, soldier proof and practically maintenance free.
We have INSAS because we designed it and it is in production and this is also a very fine rifle.
Vietnam war veteran David H. Hackworth recalled,
“ One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK-47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. "Watch this, guys," I said, "and I'll show you how a real infantry weapon works." I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds — the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M16.
RayC wrote:Vietnam war veteran David H. Hackworth recalled,
“ One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK-47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. "Watch this, guys," I said, "and I'll show you how a real infantry weapon works." I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds — the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M16.
David Haskell Hackworth (November 11, 1930 – May 4, 2005) known also as "Hack", was a highly decorated United States Army colonel and prominent military journalist.
Hackworth is also known for his role in the creation and command of Tiger Force, a military unit formed during the Vietnam War to apply guerilla warfare tactics to the fight against Vietnamese guerrillas. The unit allegedly committed a series of very serious war crimes and atrocities after Hackworth was no longer associated with it.
Bob V wrote:Why does the canopy of the JAS-39 Gripen ,open towards left (when viewed from back) ? I find it as an odd case considering that most a/c ,having canopies opening to sides, open towards right (when viewed from back).
Because pilots and support crews with their equipment shouldnd't be exposed to stand out on the roads. Fueling and the external system panel is also on that side.
ok..so you are saying that, its because of the traffic rules in place ( considering that Gripen can be operated on roads)....but what happens if Gripen is to be used in a country like ours where the trafic moves up along the left ?
if thats the case , then the canopy hatch has to be shifted to the other side ( which also means the cockpit layout has to be redesigned accordingly)...and not to mention shifting of external access panels,filler caps (which means redesigning the fuel flow system)..etc.
shameekg wrote:^^ I think what he means is you turn the plane around instead of re-designing it.
but its not all about turning.
dorai wrote:Because pilots and support crews with their equipment shouldn't be exposed to stand out on the roads . Fueling and the external system panel is also on that side.
we are discussing the case of operating the Gripen from a motorable road.
^^ Exactly why we should turn the plane around. That way the people will not be in the way of traffic. (I hope you mean other planes taking off) I dont fancy a bloke in his Maruti driving along while a Gripen takes off!
1. {Edited}
2. Do we have ability to pump anaesthetic gases into rooms for any hostage taking situations (like Moscow theatre siege)?
I guess such answers won't be available in open forum but guru logs, any comments.
Mod comment: Please don't make absurd implications of GoI trying to resort to biological warfare. Just because this is a newbie corner doesn't mean one can score such self goals.
Last edited by Suraj on 29 Jul 2009 00:18, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Removed controversial suggestions on biowarfare
It's mosty about the support equipment and support vehicles why the Gripen has all the access (to cockpit, system panel, fuel) on the right side.
The roadbase is a better prepared strip of 800m that is part of the normal road. The jets take off from support pockets facing this strip and as you can see... this means coming out of a right-hand side pocket. The support vehicles like all other cars drive on the right-side and into the pocket. After they land, they do a pivot turn into a pocket and again face towards the strip.
The older Saab jets opened the canopy straight up like Eurofighter and the ladder was put to the side they had to use. (Those jets were designed before sweden finally switched to right-hand side traffic.)
^^ well, thanks a lot for taking the effort to make such an elaborate explanation.
shameekg wrote:^^ Exactly why we should turn the plane around. That way the people will not be in the way of traffic. (I hope you mean other planes taking off) I dont fancy a bloke in his Maruti driving along while a Gripen takes off!
but, simply turning the planes is not the remedy .. because when you do that the canopy will be opening towards the traffic ( of course I'm talking about the case of chaps driving marutis,ambassadors on the other side ) as also the panels and the fuel caps.
See the pic of the Gripen above. We could use it in exactly the same way. Our traffic flow would be in the opposite direction. But the canopy would still open away from the traffic.
shameekg wrote:We could use it in exactly the same way. Our traffic flow would be in the opposite direction.
IFF our traffic rules were to change at the drop of a hat.
pandyan wrote:so, gripen has failed the mrca canopy test...also, note the oil leak on the ground.....looks like it will cost a lot of money to maintain (including oil expenses, cleaning expenses and goodwill/bad-will damages for environment).
Gurus,
With regard to a multi-role fighter, especially one meant mainly for a strike/ground attack role, what characteristics would you favour:
1) High speed (even at low altitudes), possibly even supercruise, for quick in-out missions and anti-shipping roles
2) Low speed and high range, with good loiter time
This is assuming the same/ similar weapons load.
Second, apart from very low wing loading, what other characteristics would you need for an STOL aircraft? Do you need more powerful engines as well?
We have INSAS because we designed it and it is in production and this is also a very fine rifle.
Another often neglected advantage is that as pointed above by RayC the INSAS is produced completely by us. So its not available on the open market. So the Indian Army has moved to using weapons that are specifically built for it. This way we can take a path where in we can eventually design+manufacture a rifle that can/will a;ways surpass what the enemy has, knowing the enemy cant get its hands on it.
vardhank wrote:
With regard to a multi-role fighter, especially one meant mainly for a strike/ground attack role, what characteristics would you favour:
1) High speed (even at low altitudes), possibly even supercruise, for quick in-out missions and anti-shipping roles
2) Low speed and high range, with good loiter time
This is assuming the same/ similar weapons load.
Second, apart from very low wing loading, what other characteristics would you need for an STOL aircraft? Do you need more powerful engines as well?
As the name says a true multi-role a/c has to perform multiple roles...this includes both the strike and ground attack roles and also air-superiority, close air support...etc...so the a/c should have a mix of the characteristcs of a/c dedicated for the above purposes along with newer tech.....speed is limited by the weapons payload (internal bays are an exception) because of the drag caused...supercruise is useful only with adequate weapons load...range depends on endurance of the a/c and can be extended by AAR.
For an STOL a/c you need a strengthened fuselage and landing gear , high-lift devices (boundary layer suction devices,slots & slats,modified flaps), effective braking devices (split flaps,spoilers,thrust reversers) along with a high power to weight ratio
I'd like to recommend this movie to all who are interested in exploring the complexities and the increased responsibilities that are involved in operating a Nuclear Submarine.
(Mods- Please remove this link if I am breaking any rules here)
After watching this movie, which covers in depth details of operation of a nuclear submarine of the Russians (which seems to be very similar to the Indians in regards to customs and common protocols), I personally felt very proud that our country has reached such a technological marvel.
The K 19 was cursed (or so the Russians believed), but I hope our engineers followed better safety standards and INS ARIHANT would one day make us all very proud! The movie shows how easy it is to hide below the ice caps and fire a ballistic missile on to the enemy territory and the depths it can reach!
^^ Das Boot is the truest sub movie ever made... nothing comes close. K-19 is a distant second. Everything after that is a glorified B-movie.
The actors in Das boot actually spent fortnights indoors to get a pale face and beards. Given that it was shot over 2 years, no wonder it became the masterpiece that it was.
There hasn't been a decent sub-movie made based on relatively modern subs (K-19 is ok, but not exactly realistic).
The Ministry of Defence's London headquarters on Thursday 30 July 2009, hosted an exhibition of the latest Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) giving military and civilian staff a chance to gather their own intelligence on the future of military aviation. Report by Shell Daruwala.
Last week marked the centenary of aviation pioneer Louis Bleriot's 1909 first powered flight across the English Channel. Today, the Ministry of Defence has signed a contract for the third phase of Typhoon - an aircraft so advanced that it takes a hugely complex suite of on-board computers just to keep it in the sky.
Simultaneously, in the skies over Afghanistan, battlefield commanders' need for high quality round-the-clock real-time aerial intelligence is driving forward the development of a new breed of aircraft - the Unmanned Air Systems; autonomous robot planes which many believe could replace manned combat aircraft altogether within a generation.
How about U-571, its a good movie, every other day its playing in some channel. I heard that British complained on its release coz it twisted historical facts. But still a nice action packed movie
^^ While it may be a good movie, it would make any sub-afficionade cringe, especially since we don't look at the sweat on the L1's face, but at the brand of the depth meter and scream out "That wasn't there at the time"...
How close did the USS Enterprise get to Indian territorial waters in 1971 to be construed as a threat?
This comment on the abc article says
For clarification: Territorial waters are 12 nautical miles. Any closer than that and the Russian ship would be cosidered in US waters. The Economic Zone is 200 nautical miles.
anirban_aim wrote:I have a very basic question. Accding to the information available on the net and what I gathered from Discovery Channel. the AK - 47 and its variants are the basically the best assault rifles in the world. Even edgeing out M 16s. Especially because of their low maintenance requirements, ease of handling, low cost and reliability. In the light of this information, I would like to understand why is the IA, BSF and the other CPMFs opting for INSAS and phasing out AK series guns
AK 47 is a very good rifle.
It does excellently well for what it is designed.
It is robust, soldier proof and practically maintenance free.
We have INSAS because we designed it and it is in production and this is also a very fine rifle.
Thanks a lot sir. In the mean while I've reading posts related to this topic on the small arms thread (many posts by you too) and some by Rahul M, also did some googling and talking to some people in the field.
Seems the COIN centric forces (mainly RR & AR) are still on AK series, while the main IA body is being moved to INSAS as their job is war fighting (where for reasons explained by you earlier in the small arms thread, having a smaller calibre but more accurate gun might be useful).
Bu that still leaves the doubt in my mind why would CPMFs like the CRPF & CISF(especially them) would want to move to INSAS, when using an AK would have been cheaper and easier to handle for the comparatively lesser trained personnel (IMHO). ALso a force like CISF is more likely to see a Fidayeen type attack, where the attckers can't be expected to carry their fallen comrades back. I thought in a terrorist attck on an institution (airport/parliament/offices) etc, the aim of the security personnel should be to kill and not to injure.
m mittal wrote:I live in US, I would NEVER serve Barak Obama.........
There is no honor in posting such pics...
If you were a US citizen, I would expect you to serve the US constitution (not Mr Obama) whether you were of Indian origin or not. It would be perfectly honourable to do so by being a member of the US military if you so chose.
China has their 'String of Pearls'. Does India have any foreign Naval/Air-bases? I think I heard of one in Tajikistan but other than that I have heard nothing.
) as also the panels and the fuel caps.
