Indian Military Aviation

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 28 Oct 2009 04:40

George J wrote:
Jagan wrote:Ok for now I will stick to "While there is a rumoured capability(link to ACIG) to carry the RVV-AEE (R-77), There has not been a public confirmation of the same " . (Till we find a picture or that article)

I can discard that 350 RD33 story without any second thoughts I would guess.
No since the source of the confusion is June 2001 AWST we need to track it down. If it does have a Pushpinder Singh Chopra article in it then we simply refer back to it (in PDF) and say that we were in error about what we said and this is what the actual article says. I am not sure if we can track a 2001 article from our local library I can try.

If Pushpinder is right...then too we have the source.

OEM Trumps any other source

http://www.hal-india.com/EngineKoraput/Products.asp RD33 only has an O/H against it. No Mfg. I would go with Adityas assessement. Somewhere overhaul .rebuild got mistranslated into manufacuring.

Also what are these upgrades that HAL is supposed to have done on the MiG-29 other than the RD33 Overhaul?. What , where and when? by the account of A Vinod Kumar / 11 BRD / Vayu Article, it was 11BRD who did all the work with the airframe turning them inside out. So when and where did HAL get into the picture?

Time to dig into your old Vayu issues....

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 28 Oct 2009 04:53

A military helicopter is seen few seconds before crashing during an exhibition at the Ecuadorian Air Force base in Quito on October 27, 2009. The exhibition was taking place to mark the 89th anniversary of the foundation of the Ecuadorian Air Force.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 28 Oct 2009 04:56

Shreeman wrote:[ http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/ ... 10x-33.jpg[/
A military helicopter is seen few seconds before crashing during an exhibition at the Ecuadorian Air Force base in Quito on October 27, 2009. The exhibition was taking place to mark the 89th anniversary of the foundation of the Ecuadorian Air Force.

yikes - a dhruv!

Helicopter crashes during Air Force celebrations in Ecuador
Posted : Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:10:41 GMT
By : dpa Quito- An Ecuadorian Air Force helicopter crashed Tuesday as it flew near Quito air base during celebrations to mark the 89th anniversary of the service, Ecuadorian media reported. Two Air Force officers were on board, but they reportedly managed to leave the aircraft by themselves after the crash before being taken to Quito's Military Hospital.

The helicopter, an Indian-made Dhruv, had been bought this year.

According to media reports, three helicopters were flying around the base at the time of the accident.

The troubled aircraft apparently swung 90 degrees and was unable to regain its position. That reportedly caused the crash onto the runway.

Ecuadorian Vice President Lenin Moreno, among other personalities, was attending the show.

The authorities launched a probe into the causes of the crash.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 28 Oct 2009 05:02

Jagan wrote:
A military helicopter is seen few seconds before crashing during an exhibition at the Ecuadorian Air Force base in Quito on October 27, 2009. The exhibition was taking place to mark the 89th anniversary of the foundation of the Ecuadorian Air Force.
yikes - a dhruv!

Helicopter crashes during Air Force celebrations in Ecuador
Posted : Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:10:41 GMT
By : dpa Ecuadorian Vice President Lenin Moreno, among other personalities, was attending the show.

The authorities launched a probe into the causes of the crash.

More at: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... 671&page=3

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2009 05:40

Well, IF there is some "good news" is that the two officers walked out and that too by themselves.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2009 05:59

Jagan wrote: yikes - a dhruv!

Well I think the short to medium term record of the Dhruv is excellent - so let's see.

George J · Post by **George J** » 28 Oct 2009 06:43

On the Mig-29 issue:
They said REbuilt not built. So it would extensive overhaul. Anyway since you guys are too lazy to find the AWST June 2001 issue I guess I have to do it.

On the Dhruv:
According to the Milphotos Forum this happened at 13,000 ft so it could be as much the men in the loop as the machine. Either way HAL must handle this deftly. If the true cause is the pilots then too they need present it delicately. Given how important this deal is for HAL it would be hard to believe that they goofed up mfg. or maintainance.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 28 Oct 2009 06:56

George J wrote:On the Mig-29 issue:
They said REbuilt not built. So it would extensive overhaul. Anyway since you guys are too lazy to find the AWST June 2001 issue I guess I have to do it. .

The word Rebuilt was used wrt the MiG-29 airframe - NOT the RD-33 . which was said to be "produced".. (certainly not reproduced

)

PS:Quito seems to be at 8000feet above sea level. quite high - but not as high as 13000

George J · Post by **George J** » 28 Oct 2009 07:18

Quito, Mariscal Sucre Airport is at 9224 ft (depending on who you refer)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Oct 2009 08:43

some claim F16-block40 (bigmouth version) is the best dogfighter of that family. things went flabby tabby after that resulting in the madam bianca castafiore block60 finally.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2009 08:46

George J wrote:Quito, Mariscal Sucre Airport is at 9224 ft (depending on who you refer)

The only aircase "North of Quito" is Mariscal Sucre

Mariscal Sucre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariscal_S ... al_Airport

The airport, one of the highest in the world (at 2800 meters AMSL) is located in the northern part of the city, in the Chaupicruz parish, within 5 minutes of Quito's financial center; the terminals are located at the intersection of Amazonas and La Prensa avenues.
Due to its location (in the middle of a city surrounded by mountains), the current airport cannot be expanded to accommodate any larger aircraft or an increase in air traffic. Its operation poses higher risks, too; six serious accidents and several incidents have taken place in recent years.[

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 28 Oct 2009 12:10

Ecuador bans Indian chopper Dhruv after crash
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct ... crash.html

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 28 Oct 2009 12:29

Eyewitnesses said the aircraft was flying in military formation when a fire began in the back portion of the helicopter and it started to spiral toward the ground. Firemen arrived at the scene immediately and extinguished the flames.

Can anybody ID any sign of a fire or something burning here??? If any thing was burning i assume we'd find a flame flicker or smoke trail or something.. can't see anything in these photos or for that matter even those posted in military photos forum...

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 28 Oct 2009 12:44

SanjibGhosh wrote:Ecuador bans Indian chopper Dhruv after crash
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct ... crash.html

'Bans' sounds too harsh a word and misrepresents the situation. Its use has been suspended till investigations reveal the exact cause of accident.

We never banned Sukhois after the crash, did we?

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 28 Oct 2009 13:50

Exactly its a temporary suspension.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 28 Oct 2009 15:14

Will the IAF also be grounding its Dhruvs?
Is it not a practice that when an aircraft crashes for unknown reasons, the fleet is grounded pending investigations?
When a Mig crashed in Russia, did we not ground our fleet here?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 28 Oct 2009 15:18

Don't think so cause the IAF has so far not grounded the dhruv fleet as i just saw Dhruv in froSarang colous flying to and from the direction of HAL airport... Just about a couple of minutes earlier..

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 28 Oct 2009 17:49

Kartik wrote:licence building of an aircraft doesn't mean that the licence builder builds spares as well.

who else wants to believe this or i probably don't get meaning of this properly

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2009 18:06

Baldev wrote:
Kartik wrote:licence building of an aircraft doesn't mean that the licence builder builds spares as well.
who else wants to believe this or i probably don't get meaning of this properly

You haven't got the meaning. Every plane comes with hundreds of small components of special dimensions and composition (like O-rings, washers and valves) that are usually readily available in the country of origin but would require the setting up of a whole new factory or manufacturing line in India. Such components are always imported despite "manufacture" of the aircraft "under licence" in India.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 28 Oct 2009 18:28

India wants homegrown air sector

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 28 Oct 2009 18:38

shiv wrote:You haven't got the meaning. Every plane comes with hundreds of small components of special dimensions and composition (like O-rings, washers and valves) that are usually readily available in the country of origin but would require the setting up of a whole new factory or manufacturing line in India. Such components are always imported despite "manufacture" of the aircraft "under licence" in India.

thx
but if not all but still most spares are built in india like for mig21/27,su30,jaguar

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Oct 2009 18:40

While the terms of the TOT are agreed upon during the time of the deal itself , it actually takes quite some time before the buyer can actually start building the various modules which comprise the AC ; remember the time it took for Koraput to roll out its first RD-33 and again we don't know if it was manufactured from raw materials mined,processed and cast in India ; it might be that the metal blocks to be machined and cured came from RU .

MKI came with the TOT we all know that but didn't we hear about the reports of scarcity of the tires ? common sense says that such basic an entity must have been included under the TOT but it seems just like any other programme in India such things take time to take air .

Also coming to the spares unless the country or organization in question has long term plans to produce the AC in bulk or serve as a global/regional supplier of spares for the particular aircraft it makes little sense to install facilities for manufacturing spares for a specific AC.

--edited typos

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Oct 2009 18:43

Awesome stuff in Thumrait.
Indian Ambassador, Air Force Observer visit Oman's Thumrait airbase

Indian Ambassador to Oman, Anil Wadhwa, and Senior Indian Air Force Observer, Air Vice Marshal Ramesh Rai, visited the Thumrait airbase of Royal Air Force of Oman (RAFO) on Tuesday.

Earlier, Commander RAFO, Air Vice Marshal Yahya bin Rasheed Al-Juma, visited and interacted with the IAF team here.

The high-profile visits reinforce the commitment by both countries towards fostering defence cooperation during the ngoing joint air exercise 'Eastern Bridge', between the two air forces at Oman from October 22-29.

On the penultimate day, Exercise Eastern Bridge peaked with IAF and RAFO Jaguars mounting several low-level, two and four-aircraft strike missions, culminating with pounding of the nearby 'Aqzail' air-to-ground range with accurate intensity of practice bombs.

The marksmanship is brilliant with pilots on both sides scoring near-hundred percent direct hits on multiple targets in every mission.

With F-16s having joined-up for integrated missions, both in offensive and defensive roles, missions in Exercise Eastern Bridge are at par with any of the complex scenarios that air forces world over simulate.

Ex- Eastern Bridge - between IAF and RAFO is the first air exercise between the two air forces. (ANI)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2009 18:44

Baldev wrote: but if not all but still most spares are built in india like for mig21/27,su30,jaguar

Many are "import substitutions" made out of necessity and not necessarily choice. And they are often manufactured by the Air Force's BRD (Base repair Depots) themselves. What the IAF BRDs make is an interesting sight if you visit the BRD stall in Aero India.

One classic (but old example) are the ceramic brake pads for the MiG 21 that were manufactured in India after the USSR/Russia suddenly stooped supplying them - grounding the entire MiG 21 fleet.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 28 Oct 2009 19:12

Kartik wrote: that would depend on how good the radar was in differentiating the target against ground clutter in look-down mode. Its not as simple as a one-to-one relation of both being armed with semi-active missiles and hence being as good as one another. while the RDM isn't very modern by today's standards, it was a good set in the 1980s and 1990s, and the later 10 Mirages that the IAF ordered had a better RDM 7 radar.

here is some info just for reading nothing to prove or disprove

R23
http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ ... velope.jpg
Chart showing the envelope Russian Apex compared with the AIM-7F Sparrow.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... Uu-IijTVhg

530d
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... cmtUovw6cg

can see the combat record of both missiles

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 28 Oct 2009 19:42

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Eyewitnesses said the aircraft was flying in military formation when a fire began in the back portion of the helicopter and it started to spiral toward the ground. Firemen arrived at the scene immediately and extinguished the flames.
Can anybody ID any sign of a fire or something burning here??? If any thing was burning i assume we'd find a flame flicker or smoke trail or something.. can't see anything in these photos or for that matter even those posted in military photos forum...

Check this video out http://www.confirmado.net/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=28

At 3:48 flames can be seen coming from the two engines due to FOD. In all probability the "EYEWITNESSES" are reffering to this as fire in the back portion.

From the video, it seems, the chopper lost altitude rapidly when it was in a banked turn. The pilot tried to reduce the descent rate by pitching up the chopper but still it kept on loosing altitude. At the last moment just before the crash, the pilot yawed the chopper 180 degrees to prevent ploughing through the commercial aircraft and parading soldiers in front of it.

Another video:

Cheers....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Oct 2009 19:43

unbelievable pic.

---------------------

guys, can we concentrate the dhruv incident in the flight safety thread ?
that way all the info will be at same place.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2009 20:06

SanjibGhosh wrote:Ecuador bans Indian chopper Dhruv after crash
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct ... crash.html

You do NEED to cut-paste the headline:

"Ecuador grounds Indian chopper Dhruv after crash"

There is BIG difference between "bans" and "grounds".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2009 20:20

kmkraoind wrote:India wants homegrown air sector

This article is an InfoMine:

Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, the chief of staff of the Indian air force, said India had the intellectual prowess and industrial expertise to grow its own aircraft manufacturing sector. But he acknowledged that it would be a "Herculean task" to wean the country's military establishment off a heavy reliance on foreign expertise in some of its core competencies.

In the coming years, Chief Marshal Naik expected {core competency expectations from IAF}Indian metallurgy, turbine blades, communications, encryption technology and microchips to form a domestic industry that could supply the design, building and service of -aircraft.

Anticipated time line:

Air Commodore Jasjit Singh, the director of the Centre for Air Power Studies, told the Financial Times that he foresaw Indian participation in the upgrading of existing aircraft rising rapidly over the next 15 years to between 50 per cent to 70 per cent, with greater Indian design and joint research and development.

In 40 years, with the introduction of a new generation of aircraft, he said that could rise to 80 per cent.

So, there you have it. Even in 40+ years India should be behind the curve in many respects (at that point in time).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Oct 2009 21:21

but, at that point in time, we should be only 20% dependent. think about that.. and in the next century, this will thought in history school.. perhaps, BR gets mentioned in the futre as well. /

[if it remains]

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2009 21:43

True, BUT it means that India is - for sure - less than 50% today. Which means a lot of threads are a waste - Kaveri being the prime one.

And, even after 50 years India is presumed to do nothing too much to bridge that 20% gap. H1 visas will still exist, etc.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Oct 2009 21:55

we needed those gandhians who think from "grass-roots", and hey and woh banana chayie budgeting govs. yes, its sad that we are not pumping enough money for restructing Kaveri people.

K is a good engine.. its only that its engineering was driven outta bad management and not taking IAF into confidence with regards to "future specs". I hope, its getting revved up with Snecam collobration, just because we failed to deliver in time.

Our culture largely speaks where we put our money.. if we can change a little bit, we can be refined and reformed. I am still hoping the K will strike back in the future. Perhaps, all future upgrades of russian, french and mrcas will be powered by different versions of K.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 28 Oct 2009 22:13

NRao wrote:
SanjibGhosh wrote:Ecuador bans Indian chopper Dhruv after crash
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct ... crash.html
You do NEED to cut-paste the headline:

"Ecuador grounds Indian chopper Dhruv after crash"

There is BIG difference between "bans" and "grounds".

No pun intended. But NRao is correct that there is a major difference between being Banned and Grounded. However in MR. Ghosh's defence I'd like to point out as usual our DDM has the heading of "ecuador BANS Indian chopper Druv after Crash" ~ indiatoday.intoday.in/.../Ecuador+[b]ba ... crash.html

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 28 Oct 2009 22:42

I just read translation of some Spanish language news reports in Ecuador. They quote the commander of the Ecuadorean air force who has blamed the pilot for the accident. Here is the Bablefish translation of the text:

Before the noon he was solved to conform the Fact-finding Board of Accidents to determine the causes of the mishap. The group is directed by the major Mauritius Goetchel and other specialists. Bohórquez said hastily that it was a human fault. In his head it did not conceive that it could have been an error of the airship. During a press conference, it advanced his criterion and it showed that “it is lamentable that my pilots are touched so much in the maneuvers that get to lose the control”.

Since the FAE commander said this in a press conference, it means he may have talked to the pilot to get first hand information of what happened.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2009 22:44

Craig Alpert wrote: No pun intended. But NRao is correct that there is a major difference between being Banned and Grounded. However in MR. Ghosh's defence I'd like to point out as usual our DDM has the heading of "ecuador BANS Indian chopper Druv after Crash" ~ indiatoday.intoday.in/.../Ecuador+[b]ba ... crash.html

Cut-and-paste headline? The headline did not have "ban".

Anyways.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 28 Oct 2009 22:59

NRao wrote:
Craig Alpert wrote: No pun intended. But NRao is correct that there is a major difference between being Banned and Grounded. However in MR. Ghosh's defence I'd like to point out as usual our DDM has the heading of "ecuador BANS Indian chopper Druv after Crash" ~ indiatoday.intoday.in/.../Ecuador+[b]ba ... crash.html
Cut-and-paste headline? The headline did not have "ban".

Anyways.

Shabji - it seems like when they first broke the story they had banned, however when they updated it, they changed it to being suspended. A google search throws up both the headings Suspended under the first, and a sub-heading of being banned underneath that one. http://www.google.com/search?source=ig& ... fter+crash
But as you pointed out anyways, before this gets OT.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Oct 2009 23:32

Baldev wrote:
Kartik wrote:licence building of an aircraft doesn't mean that the licence builder builds spares as well.
who else wants to believe this or i probably don't get meaning of this properly

You don't have to believe me. But you can't dispute what is said in this article on BR about No. 11 BRD and the indigenisation of spares, which HAD to be done, and was not part of the licence building of the MiG-23.

However, it was sheer global political circumstances that changed 11 BRD's fortunes. With collapse of the Soviet Union, MiG spares were not easily forthcoming, forcing the BRDs to work on indigenising rotables and aggregates of avionics and airframes. Added to that, discrepancies arose in the Russian deliveries of spares and outsourced jigs and fixtures.

and

What started as a operation for life cycle enhancement soon metamorphosed into a movement for self reliance. There was not a single part of the aircraft that missed an attempt to indigenise. Other than the engine, everything from rotables, mandatory spares, radars to alloys and metals, BRD's intrepid men "Indianised" anything in the MiG-23 on which they laid their hands!

why would they need to indigenise these if these parts were being licence built within India itself ? its obvious that they weren't and that the supply from the Russian side became unreliable and there was price gouging galore going on. and that’s what led No. 11 BRD to start a program to indigenise parts on the MiG-23.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2009 00:25

^^^ good points for MMRCA thread.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Oct 2009 04:05

Upon seeing the excellent Jaguar pics from the recent exercise with Oman, Exercise Eastern Bridge, the latest series of pics on Shiv Aroor's blog reveal that the DARIN-I Jags have also been RAM treated. if you compare the side by side picture of the Omani Jaguar and the Indian Jaguar, the Indian one has black coating along every leading edge, including wings, fins, stabilizers, intakes and even dorsal fins, which appears to be done to reduce the head-on RCS. while Harry did mention long ago on ACIG that DARIN-II Jags had RAM treatment applied, I wasn't aware that DARIN-I Jags also had this done to them.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 30 Oct 2009 10:19

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/10/dh ... d-out.html

According to the latest information coming in from my sources in Ecuador, there was absolutely no fire that broke out in the tail of the ALH Dhruv that crashed in the country on Tuesday. A careful study by experts, involving both visual analysis of footage as well as prima facie analysis of the wreckage, has unequivocally ruled out that there was any fire as suggested by certain eye-witness accounts. As a matter of fact, there was no post-crash fire either.

LiveFist has learnt from sources concerned with the investigation that on impact, the Dhruv's engines surged, and hence the visible flame emerging from the exhaust (see the part between the 3rd and 4th second in this video). Soon thereafter, the engines shut down due to fuel starvation. Indeed, according to experts, the fact that there was no fire post-impact once again demonstrates and establishes the crashworthiness of the Dhruv platform, where the fuel tanks have maintained their integrity and the fuel has been shut off automatically.