Indian Military Aviation

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 22 Oct 2009 23:36

No one's denying technological advantage. The point is that they may be exaggerated and air forces may not need them or may not be able to fully exploit them. The cost is high for technology and same objectives may be achieved by a simpler, cheaper and robust aircraft in large numbers.

Although a smaller technologically advance force would enjoy a decisive advantage over a larger obsolete force any day. The question is what is the degree of "technological advance" and what is the "degree of obsolete" that is required to achieve that decisive advantage in that specific theater and that specific war scenario.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 23 Oct 2009 00:07

LIVEFIST: Pics of Dhruv operating at Siachen

Should put the frigging CAG type hullabaloo about insufficient thrust to rest.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 23 Oct 2009 00:13

Dmurphy wrote:LIVEFIST: Pics of Dhruv operating at Siachen

Should put the frigging CAG type hullabaloo about insufficient thrust to rest.

Sweet!! So it can take around 200kgs up to the glacier and can bring down around 619kgs. Hope HAL ramps up production quickly and the forces order hundreds more!!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Oct 2009 00:25

Is that a Satellite photo on that chart?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Oct 2009 00:37

How does Shiv's point make sense ? The RCS of an aircraft is independent of the "volume" it occupies in space. Case and point is the B-2 bomber! It is a LARGE aircraft yet its RCS is much much lower than say the Mig-21, CFT or not.

"Shiv's" (actually it is not shiv's) point is that it is ONLY more difficult and expensive to cloak a large plane than a smaller one.
In this case the larger is larger only because the missiles, etc have to be placed inside the belly of the plane. Hanging them outside could be a simpler, cheaper, easier to beat solution.

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 23 Oct 2009 01:46

Gagan wrote:Is that a Satellite photo on that chart?

Also the lady with blond hair with Indian flag on her arm?

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 23 Oct 2009 07:35

Taiwan considering proposal to mothball Mirage 2000-5 fighters

the Air Force will work with the French manufacturer in an effort to fix the problems with the turbine blades of the jet engines so as to upgrade the aircraft’s performance,

the maintenance costs of the F-16 fighters and the Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF) are NT$160,000 and NT$250,000 per flight hour, respectively, it costs NT$800,000 per flight hour to maintain the Mirage jets,

Did iaf had any issues with turbine blades of mirage ?? is it the same reason why Qatar is selling their mirage ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2009 07:47

Brando wrote: How does Shiv's point make sense ? .

er Brando - Kartik admitted to not having seen the original article that I reviewed out of memory. It appears that you have not even read my post in its entirety. I hope you have actually read the original article?

If not - could you please state that and correct the error in your post?

None of these are "my points". I am getting credit where none is due. I admit that this is a time pass forum, but information tends to get mangled when time pass post making exceeds reading effort by a huge margin

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2009 07:50

karan_mc wrote: Did iaf had any issues with turbine blades of mirage ?? is it the same reason why Qatar is selling their mirage ?

Karan I don't have a direct answer to your question - but I was told recently that the dry, dust laden air in India does things to turbine blades that are not seen in the comparatively dust free air over Europe.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Oct 2009 08:28

but taiwan has a moist fujianish climate - it should not have dust problems unless they go and deploy in the gobi desert in support of mongolian splittists!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Oct 2009 10:15

its now becoming clearer that Dassault is really ruining its reputation thoroughly as a reliable supplier. they've shafted Taiwan earlier as well, not providing spares under Chinese pressure, and there were earlier reports as well that indicated that Taiwan had issues with the cost of supporting the Mirage fleet, which was considered to be twice that of the F-16. this new report shows it to be more than 6 times the cost of the F-16 ! the fact that there are nearly 600 Mirage-2000s in service worldwide would make you think that building spares for this worldwide fleet shouldn't be so damn expensive, even if the numbers pale against those of the F-16, which number in the thousands.

I wonder how expensive it would be to maintain and keep operational for 30 years, the even more complex and expensive Rafale, especially considering that the numbers of Rafale may not even approach those of the Mirage-2000..suddenly the French option doesn't quite look the best.

nithish · Post by **nithish** » 23 Oct 2009 19:30

Boeing submits bids for $2 bn India defence projects

Boeing Co has submitted two proposals to the Indian Air Force, offering the AH-64D Apache and the CH-47F Chinook in a deal potentially worth $2 billion, Boeing's country head and Indian officials said on Friday.

India invited bids in May for 22 attack helicopters and at least 15 heavy-lift helicopters as it plans to replace its ageing Soviet-era fleet with modern weapon systems.

"The Apache will be a capable and lethal defender of India's troops and assets, while the Chinook will answer many of the country's military and humanitarian needs," Vivek Lall, vice president and India country head for Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, said on Friday.

"We have no idea of the timeline and how long will it take as we have just submitted our proposals," Lall told Reuters.

The company has already signed a $2.1 billion contract for supplying eight P-8I warfare planes to the Indian Navy.

The government says it will prioritise defence and push forward pending projects to modernise its armed forces especially after the Mumbai attacks in November revealed security loopholes.

It is looking to spend more than $30 billion over the next five years to modernise its defence systems.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 23 Oct 2009 20:39

MIG-27 Crashes in West Bengal; Pilot Ejects to Safety

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Oct 2009 22:15

Boeing submits proposals to India for Apache and Chinook helicopters

Boeing Rotorcraft submitted two proposals to the Indian Air Force this week, offering the combat-proven AH-64D Apache and the multi-mission CH-47F Chinook for India’s attack and heavy-lift helicopter competitions.

"Boeing believes the Apache and Chinook helicopters are the most capable and cost-effective rotorcraft to meet India’s defense and transport requirements," said Vivek Lall, vice president and India country head for Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. "The Apache will be a capable and lethal defender of India’s troops and assets, while the Chinook will answer many of the country’s military and humanitarian needs."

India is seeking 22 attack helicopters and 15 transport helicopters and has not set a date to announce the winning proposals.

If selected, Boeing will build the Apache helicopters at its rotorcraft facility in Mesa, Ariz., and the Chinook helicopters at its rotorcraft center in Ridley Park, Pa. Suggested production rates and delivery schedules have not been announced.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Oct 2009 22:54

why do we need chinhooks? i'd prefer ospreys rather... good addition, long term with the longbows.. we could look at naval aviatons, at a later stage as well.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Oct 2009 22:57

SaiK wrote:why do we need chinhooks?

To replace the Mi-26s, which have low availability. Only 4-6 are believed to be operational.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Oct 2009 23:11

Kartik wrote:
SaiK wrote:why do we need chinhooks?
To replace the Mi-26s, which have low availability. Only 4-6 are believed to be operational.

its better to buy more mi26

by the way chinook cost 75 million dollars each just for aircraft and other associated cost is extra

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Oct 2009 23:51

Baldev wrote:by the way chinook cost 75 million dollars each just for aircraft and other associated cost is extra

I'll leave that to the operators, the IAF, to decide based on their experience with the Mi-26. While without a doubt there is no other rotary machine that comes near the payload of the Mi-26, it’s a lot less flexible than a Chinook. If you look at how widespread the use of the Chinook is in Afghanistan, its basically showing itself to be able to handle hot and high conditions very well. The CH-47F Chinook has a MTOW of 50000 lb and is equipped with high power engines giving it excellent ‘hot and high’ capability and is suitable for operations during day/night, visual and instrument meteorological conditions. The primary tactical mission of the CH-47F is to provide air transportation for cargo, troops and weapons within the combat area. They have good payload capacity, long range and high cruise speed. In addition, the helicopter is suitable for special support functions, disaster relief and fire fighting, where it will supplement the Mi-17IV. But yes, its damn expensive, but considering the Indian Armed Forces' new love affair with US products, this deal will surely go through, as will the Apache. The one advantage as I see it is tha the FMS program ensures there is no kickback, and no delay as compared to other deals.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Oct 2009 23:55

Kartik wrote:
Baldev wrote:by the way chinook cost 75 million dollars each just for aircraft and other associated cost is extra
The one advantage as I see it is tha the FMS program ensures there is no kickback, and no delay as compared to other deals.

What do you mean saar?

Where there is a military dollar, there is always an Indian way!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2009 00:03

Any reason why only 22 attack helicopters?

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 24 Oct 2009 00:27

Brando wrote:How does Shiv's point make sense ? The RCS of an aircraft is independent of the "volume" it occupies in space. Case and point is the B-2 bomber! It is a LARGE aircraft yet its RCS is much much lower than say the Mig-21, CFT or not.

The RCS of B-2 is lower than that of Mig 21 because of factors such as its structure, material used in the Airframe etc.

Keeping all the external factors constant, the RCS of an aircraft is very much dependent on its volume/area. The larger is the aircraft, the more would be its RCS.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 24 Oct 2009 00:42

Asit P wrote:Keeping all the external factors constant, the RCS of an aircraft is very much dependent on its volume/area. The larger is the aircraft, the more would be its RCS.

That is absolutely wrong. That is precisely the reason Pyotr Ufimtsev is famous.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 24 Oct 2009 00:49

Asit P wrote: Keeping all the external factors constant, the RCS of an aircraft is very much dependent on its volume/area. The larger is the aircraft, the more would be its RCS.

That statement makes no sense. One one hand you say keep external factors constant and then you say RCS would increase with an increase in volume.(I never said Area! ) To increase the volume you need to increase the "external factors" .

The Volume is independent of RCS however, physical geometry is very much dependent on RCS. That is the whole point. Macro-geometry factors are directly related to RCS. Just as material used and wavelength of the antenna.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Oct 2009 01:07

may be the constant external factors include stealth materials being added in, the type of radar/strength, distance from which it is measured, etc. ?

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 24 Oct 2009 01:09

Anujan wrote:That is absolutely wrong. That is precisely the reason Pyotr Ufimtsev is famous.

To the best of my knowledge, Pyotr Ufimtsev's research comprised of lowering the RCS of an aircraft on the basis of its structure. The question is - assuming that the structure of 2 aircraft is exactly the same (and assuming that all the other aspects of the aircrafts are exactly the same) - won't the one having a larger area have a larger RCS too?

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 24 Oct 2009 01:10

Saikjee, you got exactly what I meant

.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 24 Oct 2009 01:19

Brando wrote:That statement makes no sense. One one hand you say keep external factors constant and then you say RCS would increase with an increase in volume.(I never said Area! ) To increase the volume you need to increase the "external factors" .

First and foremost, surface area is directly proportional to the volume of an object. Secondly, when I say :

'Keeping all the external factors constant, the RCS of an aircraft is very much dependent on its volume/area. The larger is the aircraft, the more would be its RCS..

I mean - if two aircrafts are exactly a carbon copy of each other. Then the one having a larger area will have a larger RCS.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 24 Oct 2009 01:50

Asit P wrote: First and foremost, surface area is directly proportional to the volume of an object. Secondly, when I say :

This is only true if the geometry of the object is constant.

Asit P wrote: 'Keeping all the external factors constant, the RCS of an aircraft is very much dependent on its volume/area. The larger is the aircraft, the more would be its RCS..

I mean - if two aircrafts are exactly a carbon copy of each other. Then the one having a larger area will have a larger RCS.

I understand what you are trying to say however the relation ship is not linear as you allude.

Besides, the whole point is with internal weapons storage vs pylons -- a change in the geometry of the aircraft. So your point cannot be applied to that case.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 24 Oct 2009 02:28

Brando wrote: Besides, the whole point is with internal weapons storage vs pylons -- a change in the geometry of the aircraft. So your point cannot be applied to that case.

Well if this is your point then I agree completely. My post was in context to the following statement of yours :-

"The RCS of an aircraft is independent of the "volume" it occupies in space"

I felt that you are ignoring the size of the aircraft in terms of determining its RCS. Anyways, cheers

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Oct 2009 03:43

Asit P wrote:
Anujan wrote:That is absolutely wrong. That is precisely the reason Pyotr Ufimtsev is famous.
To the best of my knowledge, Pyotr Ufimtsev's research comprised of lowering the RCS of an aircraft on the basis of its structure. The question is - assuming that the structure of 2 aircraft is exactly the same (and assuming that all the other aspects of the aircrafts are exactly the same) - won't the one having a larger area have a larger RCS too?

RCS will depend on what is the surface area of the structure that is reflecting the radar waves back to the emitter as well as its own reflectivity based on the material, coating, etc.. If one is a smaller plate surface comprised of say x material and the other is a larger plate surface also of x material, the RCS will depend on which direction the radar waves are coming towards these surfaces.

assume that the smaller plate surface is perpendicular to the head-on aspect (for e.g. an air brake) and the larger surface is perpendicular to the side-on aspect (for e.g. vertical fin)- it may so happen that when radar waves hit the aircraft head-on, the larger surface will have a smaller area perpendicular (the vertical fin) to the radar waves impinging on them, and hence may reflect less back as compared to the smaller surface (the air-brake when engaged). canted vertical fins are precisely for this purpose (like on the F-15SE Silent Eagle) when you consider stealth- they reduce the area reflecting radar waves back to their source and scatter a fair bit in a different direction. even so, the Silent Eagle's side-on RCS was considered unacceptable by the Japanese when Boeing briefed them on its capabilities, whereas they thought its head-on RCS was quite low.

and if the structure of 2 aircraft is an exact replica except for scale, including materials, then yes, their RCS would likely also be a linear relationship.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Oct 2009 03:46

Brando wrote:
I understand what you are trying to say however the relation ship is not linear as you allude.

Besides, the whole point is with internal weapons storage vs pylons -- a change in the geometry of the aircraft. So your point cannot be applied to that case.

Brando, why is the relationship not linear ? I'm not sure of the formulae that are used to calculate RCS, so could you elaborate ?

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Oct 2009 07:59

nithish wrote:Boeing submits bids for $2 bn India defence projects

Boeing Co has submitted two proposals to the Indian Air Force, offering the AH-64D Apache and the CH-47F Chinook in a deal potentially worth $2 billion, Boeing's country head and Indian officials said on Friday.

India invited bids in May for 22 attack helicopters and at least 15 heavy-lift helicopters as it plans to replace its ageing Soviet-era fleet with modern weapon systems.

don't think so that our country will pay this much for this less

Kartik wrote: But yes, its damn expensive, but considering the Indian Armed Forces' new love affair with US products, this deal will surely go through, as will the Apache.

yes its damn expensive , italy bought 16 of them for 1.2 billion just for helicopters and they already have infrastructure

in 2 billion dollars india/russia can develop 5-6 new helicopters and thats why russia/ india going to develop heavy lift helicopter instead of throwing money on boeing's stuff

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 24 Oct 2009 20:34

Eurocopter Opts out of Race to Supply Attack Helicopters
Deccan Herald

Eurocopter Opts out of Race to Supply Attack Helicopters
New Delhi, Oct 23 (PTI) :

European aviation major Eurocopter has opted out of the race for supplying 22 attack helicopters to the Indian Air Force, leaving contenders from the United States, Russia and Italy in the fray.

Eurocopter has conveyed to the Defence Ministry that its Tiger attack helicopters are undergoing upgrades and would not be able to participate in the field trials, which the IAF is planning to hold in mid-2010, sources told PTI here.

The company apprised the Ministry of its decision on October 20 -- the last date for submitting the response to the global tender released in May this year, they added.

With the exit of Eurocopter, only Boeing with its AH-64D Apache, Agusta Westland with its AW-149 and Russian helicopter manufacturer Mil are left behind in the race, sources said.

IAF's plans to acquire the combat choppers for replacing and augmenting its fleet of Russian-built attack helicopters have been marred by exits and the tender has already been issued twice.

In the first tender issued in June last year, American companies Bell and Boeing had backed out of the race. Boeing was reportedly not comfortable with the 50 per cent offsets commitments required in the tender and Bell did not participate as its choppers were available only through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route.

The tender demanded the choppers to be sold through the Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) route by participating American companies and not through the US government.

After the cancellation of the first tender, a fresh Request for Proposal was re-issued in May this year with reduced offset requirements and option of selling the chopper through both FMS and DCS routes, Bell again backed out as its chopper was still under evaluation by the US Marine Corps in July.

Meanwhile, Boeing and Russian Mil have submitted their responses for the 15 heavy-lift chopper tender of the IAF, officials said. Boeing is offering its Chinook tandem-rotor choppers and the Russians are in fray with their world's largest helicopter Mi-26.
"Boeing believes the Chinook helicopters are the most capable and cost-effective rotorcraft to meet India's transport requirements," Boeing Integrated Defense Systems Vice President and India-head Vivek Lall said after submitting the company's response to RFP.

India had procured a fleet of six Mi-26 choppers in the 80s but only four of them are left now. The IAF plans to use these choppers for ferrying troops and cargo to places where aircraft can not land and for carrying out relief and rescue operations in the case of any emergency.

What the hell happened to the 2 Mi-26 choppers out of the Initial total 6

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2009 21:22

Mi28N + indo-israeli glass cockpit & sensors would perhaps be cheaper than AH64D at the cost of more time to mkize it and be more powerful than the augusta platform.

as for heavy lift - Ahuja saar's studies indicates it far exceeds the Sinook at the rough end of the
stick.

HAL LCH is probably around 7 yrs away from IOC, assuming the first flight is early next year.

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 Oct 2009 21:51

IAF's plans to acquire the combat choppers for replacing and augmenting its fleet of Russian-built attack helicopters have been marred by exits and the tender has already been issued twice.

Is there any tender in recent times which has not gone this route?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Oct 2009 22:00

yes - for american eqpt antpq37, P8I, C130J - all single sourced and non-tender basis onlee

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 24 Oct 2009 22:04

I think one thing that goes against Mi26 is that it is way too big. Most missions actually do not require the size of Mi26. Although it comes handy when you need that additional musscle and capacity to lift heavy stuff in one go.

Tricky choice but IAF would know what would be best for them. Operating cost and maintanance would take precedent over everything else since these would be low volume workelephants of IAF.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Oct 2009 23:06

Juggi G wrote:What the hell happened to the 2 Mi-26 choppers out of the Initial total 6

not just 2. the article is not accurate. As per Air International, the IAF acquired around 20 Mi-26s in the 1980s. and only 4 of them are believed to be operational due to poor serviceability.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 24 Oct 2009 23:27

Kartik wrote:
Juggi G wrote:What the hell happened to the 2 Mi-26 choppers out of the Initial total 6
not just 2. the article is not accurate. As per Air International, the IAF acquired around 20 Mi-26s in the 1980s. and only 4 of them are believed to be operational due to poor serviceability.

Kartik, Air International seemed to have pulled a fast one on its readers like you. There were never more than four.

Some coincidence that this came up as I just updated this page yesterday http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircr ... Mi-26.html

Added later: Saw Juggi S post- same goes for Deccan Herald!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Oct 2009 03:59

some posts moved to the correct thread.

I was surprised, nay shocked by that 20 number too !